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,
Side question -
I am wondering where are the video/audiologs of recent BoFs? So I can
prepare what to to expect during a typical BoF.
Alex
Le 25/09/2013 00:29, Arturo Servin a écrit :
Thanks,
Jabber, and audio room is enough for me. Anything else is a plus.
Cheers,
as
On
Dear IETFers,
I invite to join us at the bar BoF ITS - IP for Intelligent
Transportation Systems
today 30 july 2012
19h30-20h30 Vancouver at Pacific time
room Plaza C, 2nd floor
email list i...@ietf.org, https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
webex
What a perspective refresher - March 2016!
My projects end 2013. Those which have not yet started end 2015.
2015 is the deadline for fire detectors being mandatory in EU.
2018 - maybe a new metro line near where I live, but not known
underground or above.
2016 new presidential elections
Dear participants at IETF,
A new email list ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems has been set up
at IETF. It is intended for discussions of IP and vehicular communications.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
Let us meet in Paris about this as well (details to follow).
Alex
I do think that pmipv6 has some issues about how it does mag-mn
interface. One solution to one issue may be this reserved iid.
Is this updating the stds track rfc5453 reserved iids?
Does this mean that pmipv6 spec is to be updated? (eg say that its RAs
are src'ed with an address formed from
Le 27/07/2011 21:25, Roger Jørgensen a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:07 PM, John Mann (ITS)john.m...@monash.edu wrote:
snip
[ And that native dual-stack is a replacement for both. ]
We want normal users to move past experimental IPv6 towards production
IPv6.
Exactly, we should focus on
After reading your text, let me share my experience:
I struggled hard to get a class C w/o NAT. As hard as that was it was
still easier than obtaining native IPv6. I wont struggle to get native
ipv6 too.
We use 6to4 on a frontend machine, and we use native IPv6 out of that
6to4 on several
I jump in the midle of discussion and lazy to dissect emails:
Is there a replacement for historic 6to4? What should I now install in
the lab, without interaction to some admin or web page of some core server?
Thanks,
Alex
Le 26/07/2011 15:47, Ronald Bonica a écrit :
Brian,
Does the
For text in section 10 Mobility.
First,
Please cite RFC3963 NEMOv6 in this section. I am a co-author. For
example, instead of current:
Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] and associated specifications [RFC3776]
[RFC4877] allow a node to change its point of attachment within the
Internet, while
I have read parts of the document and I find it ok.
The DHCP Server SHOULD allocate a subnet with prefix size less than
or equal to the size P specified in the request. In other words, a
subnet at least the size requested and possibly bigger.
I agree, but prefix size less than or equal to
Of Alexandru
Petrescu [alexandru.petre...@gmail.com]
I am trying to figure out how close is hotel Nikko to Shangri-La? Is
this within walking distance? Is there a protected pedestrian allay I
could walk on or is it only for cars?
___
I can
Hello IETFers,
I am trying to figure out how close is hotel Nikko to Shangri-La? Is
this within walking distance? Is there a protected pedestrian allay I
could walk on or is it only for cars?
(google maps wouldn't locate the hotels and no streetview either).
Thanks in advance,
Alex
Le 15/09/2010 17:27, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
= That can work but I don't understand why you don't like the
host on egress interface behaviour. The RFC seems inconsistent
on its requirements for the egress interface at home, but it's
been a long time since I read it so I may have forgotten
Le 12/09/2010 01:03, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
= I thought we were discussing the specific issue of how to
solve this problem in _this_WG_ as I mentioned in my first email.
I know what the RFC says and I wouldn't have done it this way but
given this, I don't know how else you can solve it
Le 12/09/2010 01:03, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
= I thought we were discussing the specific issue of how to
solve this problem in _this_WG_ as I mentioned in my first email.
I know what the RFC says and I wouldn't have done it this way but
given this, I don't know how else you can solve it
Le 11/09/2010 08:13, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 11/09/10 12:34 AM, Alexandru Petrescualexandru.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 14:12, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
When it is away from home it is fully a Host on the egress
interface. When at home fully Router on same. I am happy
Le 10/09/2010 11:30, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 9/09/10 4:28 PM, Alexandru
Petrescualexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 09/09/2010 08:01, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 9/09/10 3:54 PM, Wassim Haddadwassim.had...@ericsson.com
wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote
Le 10/09/2010 11:48, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
= Who cares, specify it in your product description. The IETF
doesn't specify how to build products.
Hmm... to me it is a very IETF sensitive issue the Router vs Host.
For example, an ND spec says distinctively what a Host and what a
Router
Le 10/09/2010 11:58, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 10/09/10 7:55 PM, Alexandru
Petrescualexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 11:48, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
=Who cares, specify it in your product description. The
IETF doesn't specify how to build products.
Hmm... to me
Le 10/09/2010 14:12, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
When it is away from home it is fully a Host on the egress
interface. When at home fully Router on same. I am happy with it
this way.
= Ok that doesn't make any sense to me.
Well, let me rephrase as the RFC text puts it: when the MR is at
Le 10/09/2010 18:57, Laganier, Julien a écrit :
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 11:58, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 10/09/10 7:55 PM, Alexandru
Petrescualexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 11:48, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
= Who cares, specify it in your product
Le 10/09/2010 23:18, Laganier, Julien a écrit :
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 18:57, Laganier, Julien a écrit :
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 11:58, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 10/09/10 7:55 PM, Alexandru
Petrescualexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 11
Le 09/09/2010 08:01, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 9/09/10 3:54 PM, Wassim Haddadwassim.had...@ericsson.com
wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I agree mainly with the document draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd.
It is good and needed to dynamically assign a Mobile Network
Le 09/09/2010 07:54, Wassim Haddad a écrit :
On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I agree mainly with the document draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd.
It is good and needed to dynamically assign a Mobile Network
Prefix to the NEMO-enabled Mobile Router.
However, here are a couple
Le 03/09/2010 07:54, Pekka Savola a écrit :
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, 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: -
'RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks'
I agree mainly with the document draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd.
It is good and needed to dynamically assign a Mobile Network Prefix to
the NEMO-enabled Mobile Router.
However, here are a couple of missing points.
One missing point is about how will the Mobile Router configure its
default route on
I have already sent a number of substantive comments on version -10 of
this draft on the RoLL WG list. Version -11 was not LC'ed on the RoLL
WG list.
I can send more substantive comments but I am not sure until september
1st 2010.
Alex
Le 19/08/2010 00:28, The IESG a écrit :
The IESG has
Le 24/03/2010 20:57, Ryuji Wakikawa a écrit :
Hi Erik,
Thanks for comments.
You had two chances to make comments, i.e. during WGLC and IETF LC.
It's way too late to send such comments. The document is now in RFC
ed. queue.
The link-local address is not banished from manet routers. You can
not the presentation, use name acronyms
like AP for Alexandru Petrescu, etc.
Some times the practice is different.
Different people use different practice. When the same practice is
used, scribing and mike relaying is easier. For example, last time
scribing a fellow scriber helped me with the names
Now http://feed.verilan.com/ietf/stream06.m3u plays I still got the
blues for you... will this be archived too?
This is new to hear (good) music on the IETF streams, thanks.
Alex
Philip Matthews a écrit :
Thanks for the pointer!
- Philip
On Tue, 28-Jul-09, at 13:19 , Thomas Narten wrote:
Philip Matthews a écrit :
Where will they be posted?
Do I look for a message to IETF Discussion, or is there a web page
somewhere that will track these?
Click a speaker icon in the toolsified agenda at:
http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/75
For example, for today ROLL WG meeting is at 15h20 and
IETFers,
Is there an audio stream for IETF 75 in Stockholm starting next Monday?
I can't find any info on the ietf.org site, nor on the toolsified
agenda. Yet there seems to be an Audio Stream Sponsor.
Where is the audio?
Thanks,
Alex
___
Ietf
On Jul 24, 2009, at 10:59 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
IETFers,
Is there an audio stream for IETF 75 in Stockholm starting next Monday?
I can't find any info on the ietf.org site, nor on the toolsified
agenda. Yet there seems to be an Audio Stream Sponsor.
Where is the audio?
Thanks,
Alex
Sorry I missed it, but what was the April's Fool draft this year?
(if tools.ietf.org had date search feature...)
I'm asking because we wrote here a funny draft but decided not to submit
because it seemed too risky on a second lecture...
Thanks,
Alex
Marc Petit-Huguenin a écrit :
OK, so nearly everybody seems to think that I misunderstood the
motivations of early implementation contributors, so let's ask them
directly.
If you did contribute an early implementation or did think of
contributing but finally didn't, please respond to this email
Dear IETF,
This may be late, after 2009-03-05, but here it goes anyways.
There was some discussion in the WG about the Mobility requirement,
section 5.3. It seems the requirement is indeed in the draft but
discussions don't make it appear as important as it may imply. This
leads to
Dear IETF,
This may be late, after 2009-03-05, but here it goes anyways.
There was some discussion in the WG about the Mobility requirement in
this draft, section 8. It seems the requirement is indeed in the draft
but discussions don't make it appear as important as it may imply. This
leads
Lyndon Nerenberg a écrit :
Take it off line. This has nothing to do with the IETF.
I think this may be relevant to IETF.
I'm discovering LORAN, and there seems to be a foo channel over which IP
could run.
Maybe also LORAN-specific data could be encoded in UDP payloads. Maybe
Geopriv WG
Just found a nice pair of sun glasses at teh back of Salon I, right
after the MIP4 WG meeting. Not sure whether they were there before MIP4
or not.
I pinned them together with their box on the board at the Registration Desk.
Alex
Basavaraj Patil wrote:
Alex,
On 3/14/07 11:47 AM, ext Alexandru Petrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Basavaraj Patil wrote:
Hello,
A slightly revised version of the I-D is now available at:
http://people.nokia.net/~patil/IDs/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-09.txt
This revision incorporates
Basavaraj Patil wrote:
Hello,
A slightly revised version of the I-D is now available at:
http://people.nokia.net/~patil/IDs/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-09.txt
This revision incorporates changes based on some of the comments made by the
directorate. It will be submitted to the ID
Is it possible to read content of the IETF lists (WG discussions,
announce, etc) as RSS feeds? I think the IETF doesn't provide it as
such, but is there maybe a gateway mailman-rss that would allow to read
it so?
Please excuse if the technical formulation is aberrant, I'm just getting
familiar
Michael Thomas wrote:
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Is it possible to read content of the IETF lists (WG discussions,
announce, etc) as RSS feeds? I think the IETF doesn't provide it
as such, but is there maybe a gateway mailman-rss that would allow
to read it so?
Please excuse
Good idea, if the network works ...
- Original message -
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I understand that is difficult to get the slides of everyone before the
meeting itself, but it should be very easy to centralize the slides in an
IETF server and ask the co-chairs
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Of course, I have suggested before on this list that the IETF
consider using some sort of on-line whiteboard technology, which
would allow for real time viewgraph production and annotating, which
also has its uses.
Whiteboard sounds good idea to me, but maybe new
I just booked saturday-friday checkout at the first hotel, over the
phone, 2 rooms, for ietf, 160CAD excluding taxes.
From past experience hotel web registration is unreliable, better call in.
Alex
Pekka Savola wrote:
Hi,
At least for me (5-11.11) The Westin Bayshore Resort and Marina web
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 11-aug-2005, at 11:22, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
However, what may well be missing in the mix
is input from people who actually deploy and operate our stuff, and
live with its limitations and quirks every day. We need to understand
the indirect consequences of
Bill Manning wrote:
On Aug 11, 2005, at 7:09, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 11-aug-2005, at 11:22, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
However, what may well be missing in the mix
is input from people who actually deploy and operate our stuff, and
live with its
Prasanna S.J wrote:
hello sir,
this is prasanna research student in SERC,IISc,Banglore.
Hey Prasanna.
sir i am working on bandwidth utilization and power control in adhoc
n/ws. if it is possible to give some idea regarding basic power
control i.e. Pmax for control packets such as
Carsten Bormann wrote:
Lucy,
congratulations, but First intercontinental videoconference from the
air; hmm. Some of us have done this before (using iChat, no less).
Well, I've read my emails at 9.6kbps 2-3 years ago, even replied to
some, while above Atlantic. I must not have been the first
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh - how is Paris going to be physically dangerous. Are there
terrorists planning on blowing up a tower, I really don't think a few
warm days count as physically dangerous to most of the crowd I see
at IETF meetings...
This morning on radio - announce a trial of a very
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
So what I can say is that I'm very happy that Paris is hosting this meeting
and hope that some time Madrid has a similar opportunity,
Oh, ok, yes, IETF, but where will the _Games_ be hosted? :-)
Alex
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
HIDEGA TIKU Lea RD-TCH-ISS wrote:
France Telecom, the host for the 63rd IETF August 2005 meeting, is
paying for the rental of the venue and provides the network.
Please, where is the venue planned, if this information can be shared?
Is it in the 75 or outside?
Please don't take apparently harsh
Doo Timbir wrote:
Dear Hadmut,
This is a very good piece of information.
Dear Doo, what does the piece say? Because I can't access Mercury news
without creating an account on their site, i.e. leaving my info to them
and storing their password on my keyfile.
Alex
--- Hadmut Danisch [EMAIL
Hadmut Danisch wrote:
A cap like those LAPD caps? An FBI-like jacket? IETF-suspenders? Cool
sunglasses? Outdoor-Shirts?
Backpacks? Computer bags?
Find a hotel with a laaarge swimming pool and give IETF swimsuits?
Baywatch? Netwatch? IETF-Towels?
Mugs, pins, belts?
Translucent eye-controlled
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Leslie Daigle wrote:
| The IAB is ready to ask the RFC-Editor to publish
|
| A Survey of Authentication Mechanisms
|
| draft-iab-auth-mech-03.txt
|
|
| as an Informational RFC. This
Michael Richardson wrote:
Alexandru == Alexandru Petrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandru If my node has mode managed it will never attach to laptop
Alexandru nodes
Alexandru having same key same essid but mode ad-hoc.
No, that's isn't true.
It is true for:
ad-hoc
Michael Richardson wrote:
Why do you think that the helpful drivers that kept us coming up in
IBSS mode (proper name for new ad-hoc mode) won't use the keys as
well?
Ok, I didn't know that.
Further, as was said, it does nothing against malicious rogue APs?
Rogue malicious wily ruthless users
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
So instead of forcing key+essid on the clients, would setting the
AP's MAC address on the clients be a solution?
not really unless you want to want to be associated with one of 30
aps for the entire conference...
Right. So label
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BNSF (Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway) has started to
deploy Wi-Fi wireless LAN systems extensively in rail yards to allow
crews to remotely control engines used to make up trains. These Wi-Fi
systems are connected to a control panel that mimics the control
panel
Hi, I was not at the last IETF, and couldn't see live the reportedly bad
workings of WLAN. I am not going to make suggestions to 58crew since
I'm certain they've already tried lots of configurations. Just to share
our thoughts on how we make work several
independent/deterministic-behaviour
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
what exactly is the point of having a wep key shared by 2000 people.
I didn't mean it for data confidentiality; I meant it for building the
wires W in WEP not for the P privacy. Basically one such W for ietf and
one for aodv.
We've noticed that setting both the essid and the
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
-for the general public, set the AP's with both an essid and a key,
in Infrastructure mode (managed).
-for the aodv public, convene to use a different essid and a
different key and ad-hoc mode. If the aodv people need several
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
We've noticed that setting both the essid and the key helps a lot with
the automatic detection various procedures, such as end-user laptops
don't get automatically attached to essid's that happen to be advertised
without keys by other end-users' laptops.
I expect you'll get
S Woodside wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, the IETF doesn't have any activities looking
at the fixed mesh case.
I haven't read the IEEE docs you've sent.
Could the fixed mesh case match something like micro-mobility or
local mobility?
If you were to look into fixed meshes, how would you approach
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
nope. we have had a lot of PGP key signing parties at IETFs, but
nothing official.
I see, I might want to attend.
From what I've read, keys (or fingerprints?) were read aloud.
I generally use wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net when I look for keys, but there's
nothing very
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Can't I just create a public key with the Harald's name and email
address and then post to this list claiming I'm Harald?
However, those who care about whether it's me or you posting will
look at who signed it - that's why my key block is so huge; it's got
all
Franck Martin wrote:
it running at an individual user level with the www.keyservers.net
Which is not secure :-)
but for TLS NO CA will deliver a certificate that can sign other
certificates
One particular CA that is built in some particular MUA's does.
(corporate e-mail certificates).
Nothing
Jari Arkko wrote:
So, its the same old question once again: how do we all enroll
ourselves to the same trusted root or web of trust? Should the next
PGP key signing party be held in the plenary, for everyone? Or maybe
Harald stands in the IETF reception desk to look at people's
passports and
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I think me replying to your questions here is no substitute for
reading a good introductory text on PGP... all this is explained,
sometimes in gruesome detail, in the
I'm sorry, I didn't want to sound like making questions.
It is correct that I can find the
71 matches
Mail list logo
