Good point, timeouts are important and we know in practice, they vary
for many reasons, and in many cases, there are different functional
needs depending on human versus automated interfaces/handlers.
Nonetheless, I always prefer being specific when all possible. I still
believe this is unive
Thanks for the response! Comments inline:
Thanks!
Ben.
On Jun 21, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Michael Thornburgh wrote:
> hi Ben. thanks for your review. comments/replies inline.
>
>> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 4:07 PM
>>
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART
On 26/06/2013 05:58, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
>
>> Scott Brim wrote:
>>
>>> 2119 overrides anything you might think you know about what words
>>> mean.
>
> No, 2119 PURPORTs to do that. It can try but it probably isn't going to
> succeed.
Those sentences are here without the context given in RFC 4478. But that RFC is
entirely about AUTH_LIFETIME, so if you're not sending it, you're just not
implementing the RFC.
Those sentences are about the timing of sending the message. Upon receipt of
the message, the client software prompts
Tom,
On 25/06/2013 22:48, t.p. wrote:
...
> The main impression that this page has on me is that this is a part of
> the IETF,
Yes. It is a committee set up by the IETF (with help from ISOC).
...
> The very brief description - "the fiscal and administrative support" -
> makes me think of taxes
hi Ben, all.
i have uploaded a new revision -08 of this draft that addresses comments raised
during the IETF Last Call, which has now concluded.
Ben: i believe the "second-person" voice in this memo is used exclusively for
detailing algorithms that are to be performed. i believe the imperative
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
> To me, it only matters in terms of implementation - should we waste time and
> money on implementing a SHOULD/RECOMMENDED feature? Is it required to be
> coded? Can it be delayed, for version 2.0? Is it really needed,
Every vendor goes th
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Scott Brim wrote:
>
> > 2119 overrides anything you might think you know about what words
> > mean.
>
No, 2119 PURPORTs to do that. It can try but it probably isn't going to
succeed.
The purpose of RFCs is to communicate ideas. In ordinary
Sounds like an never ending loop. 2119 is an RFC too and thus written in
"RFCish" as well.
To me, it only matters in terms of implementation - should we waste time
and money on implementing a SHOULD/RECOMMENDED feature? Is it required
to be coded? Can it be delayed, for version 2.0? Is it r
I want to know more what it translates to as a technical specification
for CODING. To me, it means this:
o Authorization Lift Time
[X] Send Notification
Time to send: __4__ mins (default)
The problem as I experienced thus far is whether one MUST IMPLEMENT this
protocol feat
But they have different ages, IQs, and shoe sizes.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Randy Bush
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 10:54 PM
> To: Fred Baker (fred)
> Cc: ietf list; Nevil Brownlee; Bob Hi
> Congratulations, gentlemen.
and they are all male
Scott Brim wrote:
> 2119 overrides anything you might think you know about what words
> mean.
and Dave Cridland wrote:
> If a document explicitly states that the term "RECOMMENDED" is to
> be interpreted as in RFC 2119, then that really is the only
> interpretation, and RFC 2119 does then beco
Hola Russ,
At 06:46 25-06-2013, Russ Housley wrote:
The original call for nominations did this in two ways. First, it
pointed to RFC 6635, which defines the role of the RSOC. Second, it
included a list of the top four items that the RSOC is focusing on right now.
What Mr Servin is trying to
--On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 07:25 + "Eggert, Lars"
wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2013, at 7:53, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> Congratulations, gentlemen.
>>
>> and they are all male
>
> Well, all the volunteers were male, so no real surprise here.
>
> (And yes, I wish the volunteer pool had been more div
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I DO NOT agree that 2119 is the only source of consequence here.
If a document explicitly states that the term "RECOMMENDED" is to be
interpreted as in RFC 2119, then that really is the only
interpretation, and RFC 2119 does then become the only source of
consequence.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> I DO NOT agree that 2119 is the only source of consequence here.
Sorry. RFCs are not written in English, they are written in RFCish, a
language based in English but with modifications (specified in RFCs).
2119 overrides anything you
Russ,
Thanks.
I see it now.
Nevertheless for the untrained eye as mine (and that only scans the
important parts of some emails), it would be good to add something like:
"Requirements for the position are stated in RFC 6635".
And probably it won't hurt to add at least a summary
Arturo:
The original call for nominations did this in two ways. First, it pointed to
RFC 6635, which defines the role of the RSOC. Second, it included a list of
the top four items that the RSOC is focusing on right now.
> The current focus of the RSOC is on:
>
> 1) Overseeing and assisting t
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like an
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
> Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> >
> > RECOMMENDED is a strong suggestion that the implementation may override
> at
> > the discretion of the implementer. SHOULD is normative.
> >
> > So the first tells me that I can make up my own mind, the secon
I DO NOT agree that 2119 is the only source of consequence here.
Perhaps if I showed Dave Cridland an article on netiquete he could try to
be less patronizing. Unlike some here I do not regard the RFC series as
having divine inspiration.
Many other standards organizations use normative language.
On 6/25/13 5:10 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> I checked the call for nommitantios (Sent on april 24th 2013 on the
> ietf-announce) and it does not describe what should be the
> qualifications of the candidates. I think that this enough to alienate
> new people (as they may think that they are n
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> RECOMMENDED is a strong suggestion that the implementation may override at
> the discretion of the implementer. SHOULD is normative.
>
> So the first tells me that I can make up my own mind, the second says that
> I should give a reason if I don't comply.
This is o
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> RECOMMENDED is a strong suggestion that the implementation may override at
> the discretion of the implementer. SHOULD is normative.
>
>
Of course, they both mean the same, because the author has (one assumes)
explicitly said that it
I checked the call for nommitantios (Sent on april 24th 2013 on the
ietf-announce) and it does not describe what should be the
qualifications of the candidates. I think that this enough to alienate
new people (as they may think that they are not good candidates for the
position because of lack
Thank you, Fred.
Tony
On 6/25/2013 1:20 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> Congratulations, gentlemen.
>
> On Jun 24, 2013, at 5:35 PM, IAB Chair wrote:
>
>> Nevil Brownlee,
>> Tony Hansen,
>> Joe Hildebrandt,
>> Bob Hinden,
>> Alexey Melnikov,
>> Bernard Aboba (an
- Original Message -
From: "IETF Administrative Director"
To: "IETF Announcement List"
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:59 PM
One of the IAOC goals for 2013 was to update the IAOC website to improve
consistency, organization, linkage, and ease of use.
I am pleased to announce that the IA
Roni, Simo - thank you for the review and for addressing the issue. I plan to
ballot a No-Objection for this draft.
Jari
On Jun 25, 2013, at 7:53, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Congratulations, gentlemen.
>
> and they are all male
Well, all the volunteers were male, so no real surprise here.
(And yes, I wish the volunteer pool had been more diverse. But it wasn't.)
Lars
On Jun 25, 2013, at 7:53, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Congratulations, gentlemen.
>
> and they are all male
Well, all the volunteers were male, so no real surprise here.
(And yes, I wish the volunteer pool had been more diverse. But it wasn't.)
Lars
31 matches
Mail list logo
