Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

Mark Crispin writes: On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: (I agree that it's currently nearly impossible to use computers if one isn't familiar with the Latin script, of course.) Which probably makes the rest of this discussion academic, unless we're going to undertake solving *that* pro

Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So my question remains: are we doing the 3 billion asians a favor by forcing them to be able to tell the difference between e-caron and e-breve? I got some advertising for www.renault-branchenloesungen.de the other day, because I'm part of the target group "clearly" exp

Re: Protocol for TCP heartbeats?

Ted Faber writes: If an application needs a heartbeat, it almost always needs to be an application to application (layer 7 to layer 7) heartbeat. ... My point is that if you need that layer 7 heartbeat, the layer 4 (TCP) one doesn't help much. I can't think of an application that needs the T

Re: Protocol for TCP heartbeats?

Put differently: The proper job of TCP heartbeats isn't to proclaim a connction dead, it is to proclaim it alive and working, so that L7 heartbeats don't have to be so upgefucked. IMO, a TCP keepalive API needs contain only three functions. Two to answer the questions "are any acks overdue, an

Re: TSV-DIR review of draft-daboo-srv-caldav-05

Patrik Fältström writes: On 17 jul 2010, at 21.39, Joe Touch wrote: Are you suggesting a new RR instead of the SRV or in addition to the SRV? The latter seems useful; the former begs the question of how many SRV variants we would want. A new RR that is a replacement for the SRV for the ca

Re: IETF privacy policy - still a bad idea

On 07/22/2010 12:33 AM, John Levine wrote: It would be helpful for someone, anyone, to explain in terms specific to the IETF what a privacy policy will accomplish. Prevent cockups. Too much time is spent discussing these issues over and over again. Remember that RFID experiment and how the IE

Re: Ad Hoc BOFs

On 08/06/2010 02:45 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: I will confess to describing a problem here without suggesting an associated solution. The natural consequence of your mail seems to be to allow attendees to book spare space at IETF events. Suggested rules: 1. Space is booked by an individual (or

Re: Is this true?

It's true that someone said all that. It's probably true that the firewall your boss bought in 2006 doesn't support IPv6. It's probably even true that some people consider this a problem of IPv6 rather than of the firewall. The rest is all bullshit. Conferences with presentations should have

Re: Tools logins -- Aaaargh!

On 09/03/2010 03:36 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: We've had as a goal for some time to move to having the same login/pw for both the datatracker and the tools pages; I think we'll have to try to move forward with that plan in order to handle the situation, rather than the quick fix proposed above.

Re: existing (and questionable) application designs [was Re: US DoD and IPv6]

The problem with such opinions is that a bunch of purple are deploying ipv6, so that in a couple of years you will have to extend your NAT draft to cover communicating with v6 nodes anyway, and what's the point then? Arnt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@iet

Re: can we please postpone the ipv6 post-mortem?

On 10/11/2010 04:40 PM, Rémi Després wrote: Le 9 oct. 2010 à 02:50, Fred Baker a écrit : Having the same prefix on each side of the residential NAT could be a real pain... With my understanding of how NATs work, I don't see why. Could you elaborate? Admin pain. Many unixes today let you co

Re: Extending the Datatracker to display user-specific lists of drafts

On 10/23/2010 11:27 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: I thought that's what we have Atom feeds for? (at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/...) There isn't an atom feed for draft*-foo*-*, only for specific documents/urls. Right? Arnt ___ Ietf mailing list Ie

Re: Alternate entry document model

On 10/30/2010 10:39 AM, John C Klensin wrote: If that were to be the case, discussion of maturity levels is basically a waste of time. I think it is. The general public perceives RFCs as RFCs, not equally weighty, but NOT ACCORDING TO ANY FORMAL CRITERIA. We might as well get used to that.

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-07

On 09/19/2012 04:24 AM, Ben Campbell wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Do

Actual IPv6 deployment observed

I quote from thepiratebay.org home page: IPv4 21.613.113 peers (10.992.697 seeders + 10.620.416 leechers) in 1.969.865 torrents on tracker. IPv6 210.410 peers (115.584 seeders + 94.826 leechers) in 174.895 torrents on tracker. Most numbers are about 1%, and about 9% of torrents contain one or

Re: Actual IPv6 deployment observed

Iljitsch van Beijnum writes: You do have to understand that IPv6 support was available in BitTorrent clients for a long time, but then the Pirate Bay deployed trackers (servers) that were incompatible with the existing clients, so only people who both have IPv6 and a recent IPv6-capable clie

Re: Actual IPv6 deployment observed

Jeroen Massar writes: No, it is not "Native IPv6 over DSL" or any other form unfortunately. You have to start thanking Microsoft for pushing 6to4 and especially Teredo, having it automatically on new platforms and having clients like uTorrent auto-enable it on install for those that don't. u

Re: Last Call: draft-iana-ipv4-examples (IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation) to Informational RFC

Jari Arkko writes: What should we do about this block? Some of the potential answers include documenting its role, ... Document its role. There are too many examples out there that use 10/8, and I think the reason for the many 10s is that they're easy to use in good writing. It's hard to writ

Re: IPv6 standard?

Eliot Lear writes: Historic is appropriate when we want to make a statement about the appropriateness of the technology. However, we probably enter a huge bureaucratic entanglement of what happens to all of the docs that normatively reference 791, 792, and 793. And that's another question, wha

Re: IPv6 standard?

Steve Crocker writes: I have trouble believing this will all happen in less than 20 years. I do not have trouble imagining it might take much longer. There is one thing that makes me think it'll happen more quickly: 1. I assume that there'll be a market in IPv4 addresses. 2. And that people wi

Re: IPv6 standard?

Steve Crocker writes: Today, one can pretty much count on IPv4 connectivity around the world, and one can also count on being to reach almost any service (Google, Amazon, CNN, etc.) via IPv4. What's the estimated date when those two statements stop being true? When colo vendors start renti

Re: [sasl] Last Call: draft-ietf-sasl-scram

IMO, this is a close relative of a different problem, one that's old and well-understood: Characters that shift to different keys when you cross a boundary. I (now) live in Germany and come from Norway. Germany has Y and Z swapped. Shortly after I started travelling to Germany, I stopped using

Re: One level up on the IAOC decision in re: China.

Bill Manning writes: hum... from a strictly social POV, this whole argument seems to hinge on an "us" v. "them" mentality. To me half the participants sound like Germans going on vacation to Italy and wringing their hands because of all the horrible things that could happe

IPv4 addresses eaten by... what? (was: IPv6 standard)

There is another question, which isn't nearly as thoroughly discussed. Clearly, IPv4 processes are allocated as part of a number of different processes. Chain X opens the 16001st outlet and wants that to have exactly the same computer/network setup there as in other 16000. Telco Y adds another

Re: OK, final NAT66 argument (Was: NAT Not Needed To Make Renumbering Easy

Masataka Ohta writes: Only if IPv6 were worth deploying. Isn't this a little... late? A few hundred million devices are deployed with IPv6, including all the commonly deployed versions of Windows and IOS. By comparison, here's an overview of how an alternative might fare: 1. Some drafts ar

Re: Fix the Friday attendance bug: make the technical plenary the last IETF session, like it was before

Fred Baker writes: I'm not sure I agree that Friday is a "problem"; the problem is that we have N working groups asking for M meetings and N*M needs to be <= that fixed number. Friday is a solution, one that has certain downsides. Stanislaus doesn't like the solution and IMHO has not propo

Re: Fix the Friday attendance bug: make the technical plenary the last IETF session, like it was before

Scott Brim writes: Even a full Friday isn't enough to remove the conflicts. In fact I'm triple-booked on Friday itself. There is no chance the IETF will fit in 4 days. That hasn't been possible for years. Why do so many people in WG meetings read mail, look bored and hardly say a word, then

Re: Fix the Friday attendance bug: make the technical plenary the last IETF session, like it was before

Scott Brim writes: Seriously, are you suggesting that it might be possible to cluster WGs together so that people can stay for parts of the week? I hadn't thought of that... No, I was suggesting that if registrants explicitly say which WGs are really interesting ("conflicts in that set spoil

Re: Logging the source port?

A really big NAT serving, say, eighteen million customers, can easily be so dense that if there's a bit of clock skew between a web server and the NAT operator, another customer might have used the same port at the time recorded by the web server. Therefore, I think it's safer to say that it's

Re: Logging the source port?

Stephane Bortzmeyer writes: On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:49:36AM +0100, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote a message of 11 lines which said: Therefore, I think it's safer to say that it's the NAT operator's responsibility to log enough. Umpteen million web sites will continue to use

Re: Logging the source port?

Phillip Hallam-Baker writes: If people are required to track the source port, it is hardly unrealistic to expect them to abandon a file format that does not meet their legal obligations. A misunderstanding, perhaps. Where I live, what's being talked about is laws that govern residents of this

Re: Last Call: draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns (Multicast DNS) to Informational RFC

Dave Cridland writes: So I reiterate - I see no reason not to charter a working group to revise this specification (and dns-sd), and I would welcome such a group being chartered such that it cannot make any incompatible changes to the protocol. +1 Except that I'd put the compatibility req

Re: Last Call: draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns (Multicast DNS) to Informational RFC

james woodyatt writes: If it could be published as standards-track, instead of informational, *without* *any* *further* *delay*, that would be excellent. However, I believe there is nothing to be gained for the Internet community by any further delay in publishing this important document. It

Re: RIM patents using a mime body in a message (and ignores IETF IPR rules)

Simon Josefsson writes: There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only having people participate, and disclose patents, in the IETF is easy to work around by having two persons in an organization doing differe

Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-06

Samuel Weiler answers Alexey: Isn't it enough to have them in a consensus doc?") And how do you expect the expert to encourage/enforce the SHOULD, given the "favour registering it over requiring perfect documentation" guideline? Again, the current text isn't as clear as I'd like. This is in

Re: RIM patents using a mime body in a message (and ignores IETF IPR rules)

Simon Josefsson writes: Arnt Gulbrandsen writes: Simon Josefsson writes: There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only having people participate, and disclose patents, in the IETF is easy to work

but ipv6 wasn't dead

Today, for the first time, I saw an ad in a mass-market magazine that cited IPv6 support as a feature. Should you wish to rent a colocated server in Germany, Strago AG wishes to inform you that its servers are powerful, inexpensive and support IPv6 (beta). Arnt

Re: but ipv6 wasn't dead

Dave CROCKER writes: > They think v6 is not ready for production use? Production quality is one thing, headline-worthy selling point is another. Arnt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-sink-arpa (The Eternal Non-Existence of SINK.ARPA (and other stories)) to BCP

John C Klensin writes: I guess the issue for me is that I want to see either (i) Exactly one name allocated, with no hand waving about registries and other, similar names. +1, but I want to add a question: What is the actual difference between the proposed sink.arpa and the ex

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-sink-arpa (The Eternal Non-Existence of SINK.ARPA (and other stories)) to BCP

Joe Abley writes: On 2009-12-25, at 06:02, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: What is the actual difference between the proposed sink.arpa and the existing .invalid? (a) Our idea when we chose that name was to try and make the policy environment within which the (non-) assignment rule was to be

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-sink-arpa (The Eternal Non-Existence of SINK.ARPA (and other stories)) to BCP

Joe Abley writes: I'm saying that the body that administers the root zone is not the IETF. Not being a policy person I don't have any specific fears, but I'll observe that the set of people who make policy that affects administration of the root zone has a fairly small intersection with the se

Re: Defining the existence of non-existent domains

John Levine writes: If other people agree that it's a good idea to have a place that IANA can point to for the reserved names, I'd be happy to move this ahead. Or if we think the situation is OK as it is, we can forget about it. I'd be happier with some sort of list (I was surprised by its len

Re: Defining the existence of non-existent domains

I seem to have a problem with short words this week ("can", "to" etc.). They spontanteously mutate or disappear. Sorry. Arnt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

Mans Nilsson writes: But we are not running out of proposals for codecs to adapt. Both CELT and SILK seem reasonable. Speaking for me as a user, MP3 and AAC are at least worthy of consideration. Someone said on this list that they waste bandwidth, but VoIP's main problem for me as a user is l

Re: draft-jabley-sink-arpa, was Last Call: draft-jabley-reverse-servers ...

Shane Kerr writes: Various top-level domains are reserved by [RFC2606], including "INVALID". The use of "INVALID" as a codified, non-existent domain was considered. However: o INVALID is poorly characterised from a DNS perspective in [RFC2606]; that is, the specification that

Re: xml2rfc 1.34 on Ubuntu

On 02/04/2010 05:25 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: Suresh Krishnan wrote: If you are one of the persons who were frustrated waiting for the "new" 1.34 version of xml2rfc to get into the Ubuntu disribution channels, I'm unclear on this - why wouldn't they pick it up from resource.org? apt-get updat

Re: xml2rfc 1.34 on Ubuntu

On 02/04/2010 08:18 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: On Feb 4, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: 2544 different packages installed in my main computer. !!! It happens. So you want xterm. That's one package, but it depends on a few for the shared libraries and a whole lot for fonts. Xter

Re: Why the normative form of IETF Standards is ASCII

Hi Dave, why don't you write a draft? Some possible section headlines: 0. Introduction, abstract, boilerplate 1. Lessons learned from 1.1. xml2rfc 1.2. XSF 1.2.1. Why the XYZ doesn't use RFCs 1.3. W3C 2. Tools to be leeched 3. Generating ASCII 3.1. Limitations on the source 4. Turning existing d

Re: What day is 2010-01-02

Cullen Jennings writes: I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages? Those are RFC 3339 dates. Tell him to write a draft-rfc3339bis if he's u

Re: Towards consensus on document format

Doug Ewell writes: So Microsoft Word inserted a registered-trademark symbol into an *internal properties field* of a PDF file whose *contents* were claimed to be pure ASCII, and now it is claimed that this demonstrates not only that the contents of a PDF file cannot be plain ASCII, but also th

Re: Why the normative form of IETF Standards is ASCII

On 03/18/2010 09:37 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: And how are numbered lists a problem? I thought it was a pain because I got comments referring to and the file I edited contained no . xml2rfc generated numbers, people used them to me, I didn't see them in the source. In general I think the RF

Re: Why the normative form of IETF Standards is ASCII

On 03/19/2010 01:49 AM, Tony Finch wrote: Boggle. A major advantage of xml2rfc compared to HTML is that it does the numbering for you, and you don't have to manually maintain cross references. I don't have any problem editing the source in one window while viewing the presentation document in an

Re: [77all] No Host for IETF 77

On 03/23/2010 02:18 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: Get a dunk tank and some of the most famous IETF trolls and charge $20 for 3 tries to get the troll on the tank. Then gnash your teeth to stumps later, when you have to read a troll's forty-seventh proud proclamation of how he is single-handedly res

Re: T-shirts?

Simon Josefsson writes: Mark Atwood writes: Their quality is not that great, and they want too big of a cut. Is the alternative -- i.e., no t-shirt and no revenue for IETF -- better? That would be like publishing -00 drafts that suffer from lots of idnits: Simply unthinktable. Arnt _

Re: Publishing call for discussion?

On 04/18/2010 06:58 PM, Martin Sustrik wrote: Is there a standard way to publish a "call for discussion" memo? Yes, an internet-draft, perhaps containg prose such as "this draft is intended to initiate discussion. At this time, the author does not intend it to reach RFC status." A little la

Re: Rationale for public, non-subscribable mailing lists

Florian Weimer writes: Okay, you're using Mailman to administrate team membership. Let me say that I think this is a bit bizarre, but it's some sort of technical reason. (Other organizations keep team rosters and mailinglist membership separate.) The IETF doesn't have members, it has particip

Re: Pointing to IANA registries

Ned Freed quotes Jari Arkko: (That being said, I wonder if some tool magic would display these references as pointers, just as already happens for normal references.) 1925, 6a. This wierd resistance to including useful information in our documents may have made some small amount of sense in t

Re: Formal SPAM Compliant filed against Anderson...

On 05/03/2010 07:48 PM, todd glassey wrote: Maybe Joe but I do not want to be a party to his mailing lists, and he will not allow me off of them, so I have no choice but to file the spam compliant. I direct your attention to the IETF's standard for unilateral list unsubscription, RFC 5228 as e

Re: Formal SPAM Compliant filed against Anderson...

On 05/05/2010 03:48 PM, todd glassey wrote: What that means is like auditors NO email may be excluded from the history of the vetting process lest the practice be subjected to random and uncontrolled censorship. You seem to be saying that pests cannot be kicked off WG/IETF lists... or do I mis

Re: Formal SPAM Compliant filed against Anderson...

On 05/03/2010 08:21 PM, todd glassey wrote: These are extensions for Sendmail. No. Sendmail is just one implementer. There's at least a dozen others. The problem is that Dean created a list outside of the IETF and subscribed IETF members to it. Just use a sieve script (or anything else) to

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

Peter Saint-Andre writes: We're trying to measure something vague (familiarity with the IETF) using a blunt measure (number of meetings attended in the last ~2 years). There are bound to be misalignments. But are they bound to be problematic? My two cents: _Use_ the daypass experiment. If som

Re: IPv4 depletion makes CNN

On 05/28/2010 03:42 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: We will need also mainstream news articles in the latter. Expect that around the end of July, intoning «In one year, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority is expected…» Arnt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@iet

Re: IPv4 depletion makes CNN

On 05/28/2010 05:01 PM, David Conrad wrote: On May 28, 2010, at 1:29 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Today, most users are *not* behind ISP NAT or some other form of global address sharing. An interesting assertion. I'd agree on the ISP NAT part. Not sure about the "other form of global addre

Re: IPv4 depletion makes CNN

On 05/30/2010 04:44 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: BitTorrent is popular, yes. People at home *are* behind NAT boxes, with all the usual pain that implies *. It's just that BitTorrent, being a straightforward TCP protocol with no embedded payload addresses **, can operate behind NATs, and t

Re: IPv4 depletion makes CNN

On 05/31/2010 03:49 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: So we need to extend the UPNP protocol so that when the local NAT box receives a request to open up an external port, it relays the request to the carrier NAT. So what are you waiting for? Go ahead, read http://upnp.org, find the relevant WG,

Re: The point is to change it: Was: IPv4 depletion makes CNN

Mark Andrews writes: Seriously, I do think it is time that the root and TLD's had IPv6 only name servers. Why (and do you mean all 6-only or one 6-only)? Arnt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: The IPv6 Transitional Preference Problem

On 06/17/2010 01:38 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: Just in case someone here wants to take sides, have a look at this thread on the IPv6 discussion list at Apple: http://lists.apple.com/archives/ipv6-dev/2010/Jun/msg0.html (the thread actually goes back earlier than that, but I can't be bot

Re: The IPv6 Transitional Preference Problem

On 06/17/2010 07:24 PM, Martin Rex wrote: If you look at hostnames such as hp.com which have 13 IPv4 listed in the DNS, it would probably have a significant effect on their infrastructure if suddenly every client would attempt 13 parallel TCP-connects and kill 12 of them pre-natal or during infan

Re: Protocol for TCP heartbeats?

A lot of the application code I've seen could be described as "second-guess one or more TCP timers, add pepper and salt, serve as desired". The second half of that is obviously not amenable to standardisation. The TCP stack cannot take any action. But the first part seems more... reasonable. I

Re: IETF privacy policy - update

On 07/07/2010 06:57 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: In the meantime, BGP and HTTP, to name just two of the protocols without which the internet and the web wouldn't exist, still don't have standard status. > What do we want to spend our time on? Create more text that people will end up readin

Re: IETF 78: getting to/from/around Maastricht

On 07/13/2010 09:23 AM, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: When in doubt, consult www.bahn.de Since Brussles is i Belgie the last timeI looked, you might be better of looking at That's the same software. If b-rail.be is competent about updating its route database with ot

Re: IETF 78: getting to/from/around Maastricht

On 07/13/2010 11:38 AM, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: I'm not really planning to take a train to IETF-79 but it is an interesting idea. The Dutch internatial railway site planner does show you the Oslo<-> Peking trip which seems to take 196 hrs 2 min (i

Re: Strong Opposition due to spam backscatter. Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07 and -08 (Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions) to Proposed Standard

Matthew Elvey writes: > If a system implementing the specs we're working on works on a > store-and-forward basis, then it MUST NOT MISLEAD, i.e. LIE TO ITS > USERS by claiming to support the enhanced standard we are writing. > -07 allows an implementation to mislead its users by claiming to > s

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

s...@resistor.net writes: If there isn't an authoritative reference and there are differences in semantics or syntax between the draft and RFC5321/5322 or future revisions of these documents, it can lead to serious issues. Standards Track documents are around years. The documents may be edit

Re: Last Call: draft-crocker-email-arch (Internet Mail Architecture) to Proposed Standard

Ned Freed writes: But that's the problem - this is not what RFC 5321 says. It's not what 3501 says either ;) More of a one-sentence simplification than a full and exact description. ... SMTP server do stuff like expand lists all the time. For those tests to be done competently some amount

Re: Comments on draft-dusseault-caldav-15 and draft-newman-i18n-comparator-14

Julian Reschke writes: Maybe the set of initial registrations in needs to be extended? Two more used to be there, but I split them off for various reasons and will them as submit them as separate drafts. As it is, the docu

Re: Comments on draft-dusseault-caldav-15 and draft-newman-i18n-comparator-14

Lisa Dusseault writes: Last week Ted & I were discussing whether one could define a Very Liberal Comparator (VLC) for general use. It would be handy to have one which matched e with E, é, è É... and matched o with O, ø, ô, and so on. That would help in calendar searching use cases, e.g. a user

Re: [Nea] Re: WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

Alan DeKok writes: The people I talk with plan on using NEA to catch the 99% case of a misconfigured/unknown system that is used by a well-meaning but perhaps less clueful employee or contractor. The purpose of NEA is to enhance network security by allowing fewer insecure end hosts in the netw

Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes

Steven M. Bellovin writes: On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:26:33 -0500 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps we should make it a requirement that any document that is Last Called must be associated with a mailing list, perhaps one whose duration is limited to the Last Call period and any

Re: Referencing BCPs [Re: ion-procdocs open for public comment]

Dave Crocker writes: Eric Gray (LO/EUS) wrote: Interestingly enough, your observation provides the strongest argument I've yet seen for assigning a standard number to any RFC that has becomes a Proposed Standard. Well, it's a double-edged capability. All of the concerns abo

Re: [sieve] Second Last Call: (Sieve Notifica tion Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard

Pete Resnick wrote: > We were told by the other company employees who facilitated the > disclosures, at the time of the disclosures, that this was strictly an > individual's failure to comply with the IETF IPR Policy, that the author > in question claims not to have understood the IETF IPR Policy,

Re: Prague

Tim Chown writes: On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:23:21PM -0500, Ralph Droms wrote: I visited Prague about two years ago and had the same experience as Ed. I traveled via the Metro and on foot, visited all the tourist traps; had no problems and never felt unsafe. I second that. The metro syste

Re: DNS role (RE: NATs as firewalls, cryptography, and curbing DDoS threats.)

A prediction: Sooner or later, IPv4 addresses become so scarce that renting a colo server with IPv4 becomes more expensive than IPv6. When that happens, a few NAT-hating spoilsports will set up the first few IPv6-only servers and a year later, the transition to IPv6 starts. I wonder what kind

Re: NATs as firewalls

David Morris writes: I'd bet more than 3/4ths of the space allocated to specific organizations as /8s could be recovered. If that needs to happen, the sooner the current owners of those blocks start planning, the easier it will be. Recovering three-quarters of an /8 delays the moment of truth

ietf@ietf.org

Bob Braden writes: So, would it surprise you to find out now that someone else actually owns your text and can restrict the way others use it? I'll be you would be surprised... you ASSUMED it was "public domain", in those simpler times. Mu. I just wrote it. Nothing and noone forced me to make

ietf@ietf.org

Bob Braden writes: There should be no problem getting pre-1998 authors to sign such a document, since it merely memorializes in modern legalese the implicit agreement between authors and the RFC Editor since the beginning of time. In the less legally-toxic atmosphere of the time, authors were

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Just one comment: Brian E Carpenter writes: On 2007-04-11 10:08, Simon Josefsson wrote: What typically happens in practice, among good-faith practitioners, is that there won't be any GPL (or Apache, or Mozilla, or ...) implementation of the patented technology at all, because the

Re: IAOC Communications Plan: Review Requested

There are at least four feed to email gateways: http://exo.org.uk/code/rss2mail/ http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/rss2email/ http://newspipe.sourceforge.net/ http://home.gna.org/feed2imap/ Arnt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailm

Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

I suggest that a version of this sentence goes into 4234bis: I thought the problem is that protocols that have used LWSP correctly have had too many interop problems, so they have replaced it with a simpler rule such as FWS. ___ Ietf mailing list Iet

Re: IANA registration constraints (was: Re: Withdrawing sponsorship...)

Bob Braden writes: I would note that the purveyors of a "non-standard specification that is already deployed and in successful use" must have somehow obtained their own number assignment without the IANA's help, or this situation could not arise. And before that specification was successfully

Re: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity

Dave Crocker writes: Bob Hinden wrote: Maybe we are getting to the point in time where we should only have IPv6 at IETF meetings or it that's premature run IPv4 behind a couple of layers of NAT. On the theory that the ietf meeting net is for production services, wouldn't it make sense to hav

Re: Annoying auto-reply messages

Ole Jacobsen writes: Is there a way we could have these things filtered at the source? Do you mean broken autoresponders or acronyms like RTCPXNQ? If the former, the esteemed volunteer or secretariat who runs this list can add a couple of lines like 'subject:.*out of office' and 'subject: au

Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?

Stewart Bryant writes: Do we have any firm evidence that we would get more work done if we had more meetings outside the US? I do get work done instead of spending two days applying for a US visa. My two cents. (But in all honesty, I'm not sure I'd go anyway. If an IETF meeting is held in a pl

Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?

Adrian Farrel writes: Well, the fee charged would appear to be directly correlated to the number of people attending. That is, because the IETF must cover its costs not just for the meetings but also for the rest of the year, a good proportion of the cost is independent of the meetings and so

Re: Funding (was Re: Charging I-Ds)

Suresh Krishnan writes: How would you write documents which warn against people doing funny things? I wrote a draft about the issues with hop-by-hop options in IPv6 and cautioning against their use. I see that there are still proposals coming out which depend on new hbh options? What sh

A prediction (was Re: IPv4)

This thread recurs about once for every second or third A that's allocated, so after 15-25 more iterations we're done. Arnt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: selling IPv4 addresses vs. the POTS number model

Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes: We cannot afford to indulge in faith based planning here. A question. Is anyone trying to mitigate effects of the End of Time in any other way than by working on IPv6? Arnt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://

Re: selling IPv4 addresses vs. the POTS number model

Roger Jorgensen writes: On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes: We cannot afford to indulge in faith based planning here. A question. Is anyone trying to mitigate effects of the End of Time in any other way than by working on IPv6? why bother when IPv6

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt

Brian E Carpenter writes: On 2007-08-08 09:40, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: ... Some widespread IPv4 stacks refuse to handle these addresses, so nobody would ever want to use them on the public IPv4 Internet. That will be a bit of a challenge in private networks too :-) Much smaller. If exampl

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt

Carsten Bormann writes: Cheaper to use IPv6, then. Non-starter, I'd say. I'm not sure using this class e thing + ipv6 is significantly more expensive than using either alone, so we may be looking at way to let some people transition with less pain: A big network can grow bigger before some h

  1   2   >