Re: Mail lost yesterday

SM: I certainly agree that in incidents like this, a timely notification is in order. (Of course to the extent that the outage itself allows us to do that. Sometimes the outage or the queue that has built up during the outage delays sending a notification.) And we normally do send notification

Re: Mail lost yesterday

I will also add that when I requested it Steve sent me a list that indicated who sent what messages to the mailing lists that I moderate. That was really helpful as I could ping folks to resend and I was able to resend those that I had sent myself, so it wasn't too onerous to recover given that we

An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

Hi. Inspired by part of the SPF discussion but separate from it, Patrik, Andrew, and I discovered a shortage of registries for assorted DNS RDATA elements. We have posted a draft to establish one for TXT RDATA. If this requires significant discussion, we seek guidance from relevant ADs as to whe

Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:35 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > Hi. > > Inspired by part of the SPF discussion but separate from it, > Patrik, Andrew, and I discovered a shortage of registries for > assorted DNS RDATA elements. We have posted a draft to > establish one for TXT RDATA. If this requires

Re: Mail lost yesterday

Hi Jari, At 01:05 30-08-2013, Jari Arkko wrote: I certainly agree that in incidents like this, a timely notification is in order. (Of course to the extent that the outage itself allows us to do that. Sometimes the outage or the queue that has built up during the outage delays sending a notifica

Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

Hi Phillip, --On August 30, 2013 at 10:16:46 AM -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Service discovery requires prefixes. Here is a draft that works fine (except for the IETF review mistake). Just put IETF last call on it: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gudmundsson-dns-srv-iana-registry-04

Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

This is helpful feedback. We are looking at how the listing of the registries is used by the community. There have been suggestions of adding keywords to help when people search for registries. As the list of registries grows, we want to make sure it is useful and that registries can easily be fo

Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

--On Friday, August 30, 2013 11:48 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> I believe that draft was superseded by RFC6335 and all >> service names (SRV prefix labels) are now recorded at >> > assignments/service-names-**port-numbers/service-names-** >> port-numbers.xhtml

Re: Last Call: (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard

I did not participate in the original working group that developed SPF. However I had a number of long phone conversations with one of the folks who was active in the group. A good part of those conversations involved the use of the TXT record. I objected to overloading that RR. In response t

AppsDir review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait

Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote: > Hi Phillip, > > > --On August 30, 2013 at 10:16:46 AM -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker < > hal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Service discovery requires prefixes. >> >> Here is a draft that works fine (except for the IETF review mistake). Just >> put IE

Re: Last Call: (A Reputation Query Protocol) to Proposed Standard

CR LF was first adopted for the Telnet NVT (Network Virtual Terminal). I think it was Jon Postel's choice, and no one disagreed. Then when FTP was defined, it seemed most economical to use the same. In fact, doesn't the FTP spec explicitly say that the conventions on the control connection shoul

Re: Last Call: (A Reputation Query Protocol) to Proposed Standard

John, I don't think it would of been fun designing and testing a text-based hosting protocol manually with your terminal/telecommunication/telnet client "New Line Mode" (add LF to CR) option disabled or server text responses only issue CR or LF. It would of been very hard or confusing to do

Re: AppsDir review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 02:37:13PM -0400, Hector Santos wrote: > > For example, DKIM-REPUTE product designers would need to consider > > SPF reputons product models. Simple text as follows can resolve the > > integration consideration wi

Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

On 30 aug 2013, at 21:35, John C Klensin wrote: > The "more prefixes" versus "more RRTYPES" versus subtypes versus > pushing some of these ideas into a different CLASS versus > whatever else one can think of are also very interesting... and > have nothing to do with whether this registry should

Re: AppsDir review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 02:37:13PM -0400, Hector Santos wrote: > > For example, DKIM-REPUTE product designers would need to consider > SPF reputons product models. Simple text as follows can resolve the > integration consideration with little SPF fanfare the draft > obviously tried to avoid: Why

Re: An IANA Registry for DNS TXT RDATA (I-D Action: draft-klensin-iana-txt-rr-registry-00.txt)

Hi. I'm going to comment very sparsely on responses to this draft, especially those that slide off into issues that seem basically irrelevant to the registry and the motivation for its creation. My primary reason is that I don't want to burden the IETF list with a back-and-forth exchange, partic

Re: Mail lost yesterday

On 31/08/2013 02:26, SM wrote: ... > > The nit is why is the IETF still using PDT. I assure you that things were operationally much worse when the Secretariat was using EDT. Really - the service level has improved continuously over the last eight years. Of course things can always be better, and

Re: AppsDir review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

On 8/30/2013 10:46 AM, Tony Hansen wrote: The document describes a model for reputation services, particularly those being produced by the Repute WG. It follows the recommendations of RFc4101 for describing a protocol model, which requires answers to 1) the problem the protocol is trying to

Re: AppsDir review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

Hi Andrew, I think it can be generalized functional description without specifics. Designs based on REPUTE and its users of such products, will need some information. That may come (hopefully) from the REPUTE product designer. I am suggesting to remind such future REPUTE product designers of

Re: Mail lost yesterday

On Aug 30, 2013, at 5:26 PM, SM wrote: > > The nit is why is the IETF still using PDT. Because we don't want to get into a religious war of GMT vs UTC.

Re: AppsDir review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 03:39:14PM -0400, Hector Santos wrote: > archives of the Repute WG to find or extract these very real and > practical integration considerations. The document should have > these general considerations summarized. But your suggestion was for protocol-specific advice. I d

Re: Last Call: (A Reputation Query Protocol) to Proposed Standard

--On Friday, August 30, 2013 09:56 -0700 Bob Braden wrote: > CR LF was first adopted for the Telnet NVT (Network Virtual > Terminal). I think it was Jon > Postel's choice, and no one disagreed. A tad more complicated, IIR. It turns out that, with some systems interpreting LF as "same position

Re: AppsDir review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

On 8/30/2013 4:09 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 03:39:14PM -0400, Hector Santos wrote: archives of the Repute WG to find or extract these very real and practical integration considerations. The document should have these general considerations summarized. But your sugges

Re: AppsDir review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

On 8/30/2013 2:37 PM, Hector Santos wrote: > On 8/30/2013 10:46 AM, Tony Hansen wrote: >> >> The document describes a model for reputation services, particularly >> those being produced by the Repute WG. It follows the recommendations >> of RFc4101 for describing a protocol model, which requires an

Re: AppsDir review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

Dear Tony, Use of DKIM offers a very poor authentication example, since this draft makes the same errors made in RFC5863. It is wrong to suggest the DKIM protocol permits associating a validated identifier to a message as stated in the Introduction. This is the same erroneous conflation of a

Re: AppsDir review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

Hi Doug! On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 04:24:17PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote: > Use of DKIM offers a very poor authentication example Thanks for the feedback. I don't recall you having made this point on the repute mailing list. Did you, & I missed it? Do you have a better example, specifically excl

Re: AppsDir review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

Hello, After reading the reviews of the Application Area Directorate review it seems to me that there is some misunderstanding of what an Application Area Directorate review is about. The review is to give the Applications Area Directors a sense of how important it is that they pay attention

Re: WG Review: Dynamic Host Configuration (dhc)

Hello, At 09:53 30-08-2013, The IESG wrote: The Dynamic Host Configuration (dhc) working group in the Internet Area of the IETF is undergoing rechartering. The IESG has not made any [snip] Milestones: Done - WG Last Call on DHCP Options for Internet Storage Name Service (draft-ietf-dhc-

Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

Colleagues, and Doug especially, The message I sent (below) wasn't intended as a "shut up and go away" message, but a genuine query. I have grave doubts that TLS is the right example (to begin with, I think fitting it into the REPUTE approach, given the existing CA structure, would also be contro

Re: WG Review: Dynamic Host Configuration (dhc)

On Aug 30, 2013, at 9:17 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Did the DHC working group read the milestones? I ask because it's been a few > years since the year 2008 ended. Yes. The minutes have been updated in the datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dhc/charter/ I don't know why this didn't

Is the datatracker authoritative (was: WG Review: Dynamic Host Configuration (dhc))

Hi Ted, At 19:59 30-08-2013, Ted Lemon wrote: Yes. The minutes have been updated in the datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dhc/charter/ Thanks. I don't know why this didn't show up in the announcement message. Actually, the I assumed that the message was generated by the datat

Re: Is the datatracker authoritative (was: WG Review: Dynamic Host Configuration (dhc))

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 09:10:25PM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote: > At 19:59 30-08-2013, Ted Lemon wrote: > > announcement really ought to just point to the datatracker, since > >what's there is normative. > > This is an individual opinion. Please assume that the entire IETF > disagrees with it. The