Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

2013-06-13 Thread Thomas Narten
Total of 158 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 14 00:53:03 EDT 2013 Messages | Bytes| Who +--++--+ 10.13% | 16 | 9.82% | 124800 | ted.le...@nominum.com 5.06% |8 | 6.98% |88757 | d...@cridla

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-03

2013-06-13 Thread Jari Arkko
> I'm concerned about readers who aren't as > cognizant of and comfortable/familiar with the relationships among > OUIs and the identifiers based on them as people like you and me. Thanks your review, David. The Gen-ART reviews are important for me in helping decide if the documents may have issu

Re: Renaming RFC

2013-06-13 Thread Russ Housley
I think this suggestion should be discussed on rfc-interest, not this mail list. Russ On Jun 12, 2013, at 5:55 PM, wrote: > > RFC should be renamed to Resulted From Comments. It's now the endpoint of the > process; Request For Comments dated from when it was the start. > > (Though RFCs thr

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-06-13 Thread Randy Bush
> I am told that draft has been revved again in response to discussion on > the list. > > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-05 > > Please direct your attention to the security considerations section. If > it turns out that informational documentation of th

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-06-13 Thread joel jaeggli
I am told that draft has been revved again in response to discussion on the list. http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-05 Please direct your attention to the security considerations section. If it turns out that informational documentation of the two RR-Type

Re: Content-free Last Call comments

2013-06-13 Thread Barry Leiba
Without agreeing with or disagreeing with Pete, I'll point out that Pete was talking about IETF last call. It's perfectly reasonable for a WG participant who has been actively involved to say, "This one is ready. Ship it," and Pete isn't saying otherwise. In that case there is context that helps

Re: Renaming RFC

2013-06-13 Thread Richard Barnes
Cf. On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:30 AM, t.p. wrote: > - Original Message - > From: > To: > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:55 PM > Subject: Renaming RFC > > > > RFC should be renamed to Resulted From Comments. It's now the endpoint > of the process;

ipv6hackers meeting in Berlin (July 28th, 2013)

2013-06-13 Thread Fernando Gont
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Folks, - From a couple of years now, we have had a mailing-list devoted to IPv6 hacking (i.e., testing, tools, low-level stuff, etc.). The mailing-list ("charter", subscription options, etc.) is available at:

Re: Renaming RFC

2013-06-13 Thread t . p .
- Original Message - From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:55 PM Subject: Renaming RFC RFC should be renamed to Resulted From Comments. It's now the endpoint of the process; Request For Comments dated from when it was the start. Fundamentally disagree. Some SDOs produce stand

Re: Content-free Last Call comments

2013-06-13 Thread joel jaeggli
On 6/12/13 9:42 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: I think these messages are useless, not harmful. But perhaps I have more confidence in the inherent skepticism of your average IETF participant than Pete does... FWIW, until I read Pete's document on con