Hi Ben,
Please see inline...
-- Avi Lior
--Bridgewater Systems
eview Date: 2011-06-03
IETF LC End Date: 2011-06-03
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. I
have a question concerning the procedure for generating PSKs, and a
number of minor
with each application provider. This has advanatages and also
disadvantages.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 3:50 AM
To: Avi Lior; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: IETF Last Call on Walled Garden Standard
-
From: Dan Harkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 4:52 PM
To: Jari Arkko
Cc: Avi Lior; ietf@ietf.org; Bernard Aboba
Subject: Re: EAP applicability (Was: Re: IETF Last Call on
Walled Garden Standard for the Internet)
Hi Jari,
On Thu, March 13, 2008 8:49 pm, Jari
that can be or may not be
exportable.
The notion of doing something to prevent temptation sounds like a religious
thing. SDOs will just derive a key and export it out.
-Original Message-
From: Dan Harkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 11:48 AM
To: Avi Lior
I would prefer not to say anything at all. But that may not be realistic.
I do understand Jari's concern that there *could* be some issues if no used
correctly.
I think the main objection as I understand it is that Network Access
Authentication should be decoupled for Application
Pasi wrote:
Here I agree with you fully: this is an extremely bad idea.
Architecturally linking application security to the link
layer is just bad engineering, and hinders the ability of
link layers and applications evolve independently of each other.
Lets start with this: Any application?
Brian wrote:
I think Jari's suggestion is the right one. Make it clear in
the draft that this is not suitable as a universal mechanism for apps.
Jari's suggestion is too broad. Since it is hard to classify applications.
And as we can see there are some class of applications that this is
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Narayanan, Vidya
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 6:54 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IETF Last Call on Walled Garden Standard for the Internet
As much fun as I've had in
U Bernard please check your calendar, it seems to be 18 days too early.
Nice FUD anyway.
Avi
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 6:17 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call on
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jari Arkko
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 7:04 PM
To: Bernard Aboba
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call on Walled Garden Standard for the Internet
Bernard,
For what it is worth, this
See inline
-Original Message-
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:50 PM
To: Avi Lior
Cc: Bernard Aboba; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: EAP applicability (Was: Re: IETF Last Call on Walled
Garden Standard for the Internet)
Avi,
For what
: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:53 PM
To: Avi Lior
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: IETF-SDO liaison (was Re: The Emperor Has No
Clothes: Is PANA actually useful?)
Avi Lior wrote:
The statement regaring GEE and PANA was not made by me but
rather
Lakshminath,
Please see inline...
-Original Message-
From: Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 2:32 PM
To: Avi Lior; Pekka Savola; Sam Hartman
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: The Emperor Has No Clothes: Is PANA actually useful?
Avi
If I characterize the 3GPP2 decision not to use PANA I would have to say
that it was purely based on Politics and not on technical merits.
The politics included misinformation such as telling operators That
PANA was dead at the IETF and that GEE will become a Standard Track RFC
soon.
Other
I just found this for Canadian Citizens: (Source:
http://www.emb-korea.ottawa.on.ca/html/html1/e_menu.htm)
Canadian citizens are exempt from obtaining a visa for tourism, visiting or
business(without any employment activities) for a stay of 90 days or less.
The permission to stay for 90 days or
Okay. Can somebody please tell me what the relevance of this is to the
IETF. This is absolute noise. Take this thread off-line. This list is
starting to annoy the heck out of me. I am starting to get the same feeling
about this list and SPAM. The list is starting to be unusable.
Moderator
16 matches
Mail list logo
