On Jul 29, 2013, at 4:54 AM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
Hi.
Yes I'm making a last call comment on a document I edit:-)
During discussion of another document
)(draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table), a routing directorate review
brought up the concern that we don't talk about
Danny sent me private text that he believes is better than what I
proposed.
I like your text below except that signing is the wrong word.
How about generation of integrity-protected messages?
These messages are almost never digitally signed.
Proposed text:
Routers need to
have tight
On 7/29/13 4:54 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The question I want an answer to is whether this is going to be the only
standard for a binary version of JSON allowed.
That is certainly not what I heard during the APPSAWG session this
morning: the intent is that this be one format among many.
At 22:25 28-07-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
I've been finding discussion and actions about newcomers far more
interesting this year, than most previous ones. So I think it's
worth pressing on several fronts, to see how we can both accommodate
such folk better, as well as be clear about when and
Jari -
Thanks for the excellent writeup of the situation; the hypothesis
regarding the problem and the experiment to address look to be a
an appropriate response.
Thanks!
/John
On Jul 29, 2013, at 5:07 AM, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote:
I would like to report an experiment that the
On Jul 22, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Stefan Winter stefan.win...@restena.lu wrote:
Hello,
I didn't follow TEAP's creation process in enough detail, so may have
missed some information. Apologies if what I write below is noise.
I have two questions about TEAP Version 1 which I don't find
Clarifications on Lunch Options at the InterContinental:
Grab-N-Go is only available at the Marlene Bar. A limited variety of salads
and
currywurst will be available.
And it was tasty.
But turned out to be grab and wait for it to be prepared by a caring and
meticulous chef
Adrian
I will see what I can do and will share back the results. It may not be
something that would be useful to all working groups, but I think it could help
mine and some others.
Thanks,
Kathleen
From: John Levine [jo...@taugh.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 27,
Dear all,
in view of today's plenary, we set up a short tutorial page on the WebRTC
interface you can use to interact with the room if you are remote. You can find
this stuff at the following URL:
http://ietf87.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/WebRTC_Interface
Hope this helps,
Simon
We did a lunchtime tutorial for the CLUE WG in Vancouver. We had the
Meetecho guys record it:
http://ietf84.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Recorded_Sessions#IETF84_CLUE_TUTORIAL
It worked quite well I think. I believe these sorts of tutorials would be
extremely helpful for a number of WGs. Having
Hi.
While I don't mind clarifying the server ID discussion, I don't see that
server ID has any relation to how the peer validates the name in the
server certificate.
Quoting section 7.6:
7.6. Server Certificate Validation
As part of the TLS negotiation, the server presents a certificate to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/29/13 11:37 AM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Web Security WG (websec)
to consider the following document: - 'HTTP Header Field
X-Frame-Options' draft-ietf-websec-x-frame-options-07.txt as
Informational RFC
Dave
I think the points you make below are good, once the newcomer to the
IETF has found their working group. This is not always easy. Fine if
your interest is in OSPF, ISIS, TLS, TCPMaintenance but in other
spheres, the IETF approach of choosing a 'witty' name seems to me less
than welcoming.
On Jul 29, 2013, at 3:59 PM, t.p. wrote:
I think the points you make below are good, once the newcomer to the
IETF has found their working group. This is not always easy. Fine if
your interest is in OSPF, ISIS, TLS, TCPMaintenance but in other
spheres, the IETF approach of choosing a
On Jul 29, 2013, at 5:35 AM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
I like your text below except that signing is the wrong word.
How about generation of integrity-protected messages?
Yeah, that's what I meant.. New text WFM, thanks [again] Sam for addressing
these concerns!
-danny
--On Monday, July 29, 2013 01:37 -0400 Brian Haberman
br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
...
One of the things that I ask the Internet Area chairs to do is
send in a summary of their WG after each IETF meeting. Those
summaries generally give folks a good idea of the current
state of each WG.
The -06 version of this draft resolves all of the concerns raised by the Gen-ART
review of the -05 version - the -06 version is ready for publication as an
Informational RFC.
Thanks,
--David
-Original Message-
From: Black, David
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 7:54 PM
To:
On 30/07/2013 06:18, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, July 29, 2013 01:37 -0400 Brian Haberman
br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
...
One of the things that I ask the Internet Area chairs to do is
send in a summary of their WG after each IETF meeting. Those
summaries generally give folks
I would like to report an experiment that the IESG is starting. (There's also
an associated blog article about this at
http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/07/the-role-of-working-groups/)
Internet Drafts sent for approval as RFCs are reviewed by individuals during
the IETF Last Call, the Area
The IESG has received a request from the Web Security WG (websec) to
consider the following document:
- 'HTTP Header Field X-Frame-Options'
draft-ietf-websec-x-frame-options-07.txt as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
BCP 6
RFC 6996
Title: Autonomous System (AS) Reservation for
Private Use
Author: J. Mitchell
Status: Best Current Practice
Stream:
21 matches
Mail list logo
