RE: Last Call:

Thanks for this document which was surprisingly readable. I have a number of comments from my AD review, but they are all trivial and can be handled as IETF last call comments. Thanks, Adrian --- Nurit will want to change the minor details or her affiliation. --- Abstract Expand MPLS-TP and P

Re: Last Call: (Characterization of Proposed Standards) to Best Current Practice

On 25 sep. 2013, at 12:44, Benoit Claise wrote: > Reading this draft, I wonder: why would someone still want to go for Internet > Standard, since PS is "mature", "as mature as final standards from other > standards development organizations"? Maybe you want to expand on this. There is a real

NIST documents

One draft I'm working on references some standard NIST cryptographic documents. (RFCs don't include everything we need.) I need to check some details therein. Unfortunately the current US government shutdown has taken NIST's website, including those documents, offline. And (not considering this

Re: NIST documents

Try Wayback, http://archive.org - Ralph On Oct 3, 2013, at 7:02 AM 10/3/13, "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" wrote: > One draft I'm working on references some standard NIST cryptographic > documents. (RFCs don't include everything we need.) I need to check some > details therein. Unfortunately

RE: NIST documents

Good call, thanks Ralph. Should it be useful to anyone else, the relevant link for what I was after is http://web.archive.org/web/20130907062401/http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsFIPS.html (The first link I've tried works.) -- Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer, Communications G

Re: NIST and NASA documents

Le 03/10/2013 13:02, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) a écrit : One draft I'm working on references some standard NIST cryptographic documents. (RFCs don't include everything we need.) I need to check some details therein. Unfortunately the current US government shutdown has taken NIST's website, in

Re: NIST and NASA documents

On Oct 3, 2013, at 7:34 AM 10/3/13, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Le 03/10/2013 13:02, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) a écrit : >> One draft I'm working on references some standard NIST cryptographic >> documents. (RFCs don't include everything we need.) I need to check >> some details therein. Unfo

Re: Last Call: (Terms used in Ruting for Low power And Lossy Networks) to Informational RFC

On Oct 3, 2013, at 6:34 AM, The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power and Lossy > networks WG (roll) to consider the following document: > - 'Terms used in Ruting for Low power And Lossy Networks' > as Informational RFC "Ruting" - "Rüting is a munici

Re: Last Call: Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Internet Standard

On 10/2/2013 5:04 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:41 AM, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make the following status changes: - RFC5617 from Proposed Standard to Historic The supporting document for this request can be

Re: Last Call: (Terms used in Ruting for Low power And Lossy Networks) to Informational RFC

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Scott O Bradner wrote: > > On Oct 3, 2013, at 6:34 AM, The IESG wrote: > > > > > The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power and Lossy > > networks WG (roll) to consider the following document: > > - 'Terms used in Ruting for Low power And Los

Re: Last Call: (Terms used in Ruting for Low power And Lossy Networks) to Informational RFC

that is what I thought at first which caused me to quickly take a look since the topic seemed to be a bit out of scope, even for the quite broad IETF official scope (though I'm not sure what SDO would be a an appropriate venue for standardization in this field) Scott On Oct 3, 2013, at 8:00 AM,

RE: Last Call:

Hello Adrian, Thnak you for your feedback/review. You write: "can be handled as IETF last call comments", so there is no need for revision 13 then. Cheers, Huub. -- Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...

Re: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker

Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >> While I think that individual submissions that are not the result of >> consensus do not belong on a WG page. > Where do they belong? I prefer > that they belong under the Area page, but is there an area page, > not sure why was that not a good ide

Re: Last Call: (Terms used in Ruting for Low power And Lossy Networks) to Informational RFC

Dave Cridland wrote: >> The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power and >> Lossy networks WG (roll) to consider the following document: - 'Terms >> used in Ruting for Low power And Lossy Networks' >>   as Informational RFC > I'd assumed that they'd misspel

Re: Last Call: Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Internet Standard

>> Hi. Just to be sure that everyone has the same understanding of >> what is being proposed here, the above says "to Historic" but >> the writeup at >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-historic/ >> says "to Internet Standard". Can one or the other be corrected? > >

Re: Last Call: Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Historic

On Wed 02/Oct/2013 16:52:38 +0200 John Levine wrote: >>The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make >>the following status changes: >> >>- RFC5617 from Proposed Standard to Historic >> >>The supporting document for this request can be found here: >> >>http://datatracker.ie

Re: Last Call: Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Historic

Alessandro Vesely wrote: >On Wed 02/Oct/2013 16:52:38 +0200 John Levine wrote: >>>The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to >make >>>the following status changes: >>> >>>- RFC5617 from Proposed Standard to Historic >>> >>>The supporting document for this request can be fo

Re: Last Call: Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Historic

On 10/3/2013 11:11 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: Alessandro Vesely wrote: On Wed 02/Oct/2013 16:52:38 +0200 John Levine wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make the following status changes: - RFC5617 from Proposed Standard to Historic The supporting doc

Re: Last Call: Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Historic

--On Thursday, October 03, 2013 16:51 +0200 Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> ADSP was basically an experiment that failed. It has no >> significant deployment, and the problem it was supposed to >> solve is now being addressed in other ways. > > I oppose to the change as proposed, and support the

Re: WG Review: Extensions for Scalable DNS Service Discovery (dnssd)

- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - (reason: 550 5.1.1 : Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias table) On 3October2013Thursday, at 8:42, The IESG wrote: > A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Internet Area. The IESG > has not ma

Re: Last Call: Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Historic

I agree, the problem IMV is the illusion that DMARC will replace it has some domains has already done by switching their strong exclusive mail operations declaration from _ADSP TXT record policy to a _DMARC policy. Like FACEBOOK.COM. The REJECTING/DISCARD concept is still the same and active,

Re: Last Call: Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Internet Standard

On Oct 3, 2013, at 4:53 AM, Hector Santos wrote: > > On 10/2/2013 5:04 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:41 AM, The IESG wrote: >> >>> The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make >>> the following status changes: >>> >>> - RFC5617 from Prop

Re: WG Review: Extensions for Scalable DNS Service Discovery (dnssd)

On 3 Oct 2013, at 18:07, manning bill wrote: > - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - > > (reason: 550 5.1.1 : Recipient address rejected: > User unknown in virtual alias table) I think the active list is still mdns...@ietf.org? See: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/

Re: Last Call: Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Internet Standard

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Hector Santos wrote: > > I don't believe this would be a fair assessment of industry wide support > -- using only one API to measure. There are other APIs and proprietary > systems who most likely are not part of the OpenDKIM group. There are > commercial operatio

Re: WG Review: Extensions for Scalable DNS Service Discovery (dnssd)

but the "To Subscribe" pointer is busted…. /bill On 3October2013Thursday, at 11:43, Tim Chown wrote: > On 3 Oct 2013, at 18:07, manning bill wrote: > >> - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - >> >> (reason: 550 5.1.1 : Recipient address >> rejected: User unknown

Re: WG Review: Extensions for Scalable DNS Service Discovery (dnssd)

Discussion of IETF consensus activities is supposed to occur on the IETF mailing list, not on the working group mailing list, which doesn't yet exist. We'll set up the new mailing list when the working group is approved. Sorry for the confusion.

Re: WG Review: Extensions for Scalable DNS Service Discovery (dnssd)

On Oct 3, 2013, at 3:05 PM, manning bill wrote: > but the "To Subscribe" pointer is busted…. Correct. I should have gotten the information right before sending out the announcement, but I blew it—sorry about that.

Re: WG Review: Extensions for Scalable DNS Service Discovery (dnssd)

but the "To Subscribe" pointer is busted. According to the list is supposed to be . jaap

How to protect DKIM signatures: Moving ADSP to Historic, supporting DMARC instead

On 10/3/2013 1:51 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: Dear Hector, Indeed, more should be said about underlying reasons. The reason for abandoning ADSP is for the same reason few providers reject messages not authorized by SPF records ending in "-all" (FAIL). Mailing-List software existed long before e

Re: How to protect DKIM signatures: Moving ADSP to Historic, supporting DMARC instead

To both Doug and Hector, and others who want to drift in this direction: As I've said before, the question of moving ADSP to Historic is one we're taking on its own, and is not connected to anything we do or don't do with DMARC. Bringing DMARC into the discussion is a distraction, and, worse, mak

Re: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker

On 10/2/2013 9:15 AM, Scott O Bradner wrote: 1 April RFCs excepted Ah. I'm sitting here banging my head on a desk thinking "I knew that" ... thanks, Scott! Spencer

Re: [mdnsext] WG Review: Extensions for Scalable DNS Service Discovery (dnssd)

On Oct 3, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: > >but the "To Subscribe" pointer is busted. > > According to the list is supposed > to be . mdns...@ietf.org was used for the two BoFs. The WG will b

Re: How to protect DKIM signatures: Moving ADSP to Historic, supporting DMARC instead

Please accept my apology as I do not mean to be disrespectful. I find it impossible to separate all design considerations that are involved in this decision you are requesting us to consider regarding a near 7-8 years DKIM + POLICY investment. DKIM originated with POLICY support built-in and i

Re: How to protect DKIM signatures: Moving ADSP to Historic, supporting DMARC instead

On Oct 3, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > To both Doug and Hector, and others who want to drift in this direction: > > As I've said before, the question of moving ADSP to Historic is one > we're taking on its own, and is not connected to anything we do or > don't do with DMARC. Bringing

Re: Last Call: Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Historic

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > I oppose to the change as proposed, and support the explanation called > for by John Klensin instead. Two arguments: > > 1) The harm Barry exemplifies in the request --incompatibility with > mailing list posting-- is going to be a f

Re: How to protect DKIM signatures: Moving ADSP to Historic, supporting DMARC instead

On 10/3/2013 6:25 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: On Oct 3, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: To both Doug and Hector, and others who want to drift in this direction: As I've said before, the question of moving ADSP to Historic is one we're taking on its own, and is not connected to anything we d

Re: Last Call: Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Internet Standard

On 10/2/2013 11:46 AM, John C Klensin wrote: I assume we will need to agree to disagree about this, but... --On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 10:44 -0700 Dave Crocker wrote: If a spec is Historic, it is redundant to say not recommended. As in, duh... "Duh" notwithstanding, we move documents t

Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

Total of messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Oct 4 00:53:02 EDT 2013 Messages | Bytes| Who +--++--+ +--++--+