Re: IPv6 NAT?

Dan, On 2008-02-19 05:51, Dan York wrote: > Brian, > > On Feb 17, 2008, at 10:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> On 2008-02-18 14:30, Terry Gray wrote: >>>> >>> Unless/until enterprise (or even home) network operators have some >>> number of bits

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-02

Thanks for the review, Spencer. A few comments below... ... > Overarching - I don't agree with the use of a patching approach to BCP > revision. We are already patched two layers deep on changes from 2026 on > IPR. Please consider applying these changes to produce an RFC 2026-bis > document. Fo

Re: IPv6 NAT?

On 2008-02-18 14:30, Terry Gray wrote: >> That's a terrible idea, because it would pander to the myths that >> NAT is a security or policy tool. > > Brian, > Several comments in this thread have suggested that security is the > primary driver for NAT. > > While it is surely a factor, I believe t

Re: IPv6 NAT?

On 2008-02-15 22:06, Stjepan Gros wrote: ... > All that said, what happens when organizations would like to use multihoming? > In that case NATs create problems as flows have to use the same > exit/entry point, and when one of the connections breaks all the flows > going through the given connectio

Re: I-D submission tool

... > In particular, if you have the string "(if approved)" on your cover > page, some versions of "file" (at least some Linux distributions) > will identify your draft as "Lisp/Scheme program text" instead of > just ASCII :-) (oh (dear)) However, we have to keep a sense of proportion. Having be

Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment

On 2008-01-30 10:35, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > I'd like to comment as an individual on one part of our process for > doing IONs. > > The process for publishing them has many bottlenecks and delays and we > need a better way of doing it. If we decide to continue with IONs, I > will provide detail

Re: Last Call: draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes (Changes to the Internet Standards Process defined by RFC 2026) to BCP

Hi Ted, On 2008-01-22 10:46, Ted Hardie wrote: > Short summary of my belief: a necessarily incomplete set of diffs is not > the right way to fix this problem. Are you arguing for a genuine 2026bis with the diffs applied, or for inaction? > > Short summary of my assessment of this document for t

Re: Last Call: draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes (Changes to the ..

On 2008-01-22 11:24, Eric Rescorla wrote: > As a procedural matter, I agree with Scott and John. This > document should not be considered for advancement at this > time nor until such time as there is real evidence of > widespread consensus. Actually, I agree too, but I also agree with Russ that t

Re: draft-hoffman-additional-key-words-00.txt

Paul, On 2008-01-22 09:55, Paul Hoffman wrote: > At 11:10 AM +1300 1/16/08, Brian E Carpenter wrote: ... >> The concept supplements not only RFC 2119 but also the >> discussion of "requirement levels" in RFC 2026 section 3.3. >> I think that should be mentioned

Re: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-02.txt

Frank, Thanks for the comments. On 2008-01-19 21:58, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> mosts CDs seem to have index pages of some kind - something like >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html would do it (and that is >> always up to date, whereas

Re: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-02.txt

On 2008-01-18 23:20, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> the question is whether people are interested enough to comment... > > ...and maybe also how interested the author is to answer comments: > <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/27581/ma

Re: I-D Action:draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-00.txt

On 2008-01-18 17:13, Joe Abley wrote: > > On 17-Jan-2008, at 18:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >>> Added sentences to section 8.1 explaining that BCPs and FYIs are sub- >>> series of Informational RFCs. >> >> Namely: >> >>>

Re: Finding information

On 2008-01-19 13:05, Ken Raeburn wrote: > On Jan 18, 2008, at 18:55, Willie Gillespie wrote: >> As someone new to the IETF, how should I go about doing the following? >> >> I want to find some information about IMAP and its extensions. Let's >> say I found RFC 1730. How would I know that it had b

Re: Internet Draft Submission cutoff dates

On 2008-01-19 09:04, Fred Baker wrote: > > On Jan 18, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Eric Gray wrote: > >> For the people who participate in a fair number of working groups in >> the IETF, requiring early posting allows for a greater likelihood that >> they will be able to at least skim each new draft someti

Re: I-D Action:draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-00.txt

On 2008-01-18 13:14, Paul Hoffman wrote: > At 12:50 PM +1300 1/18/08, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >Added sentences to section 8.1 explaining that BCPs and FYIs are >> sub- >>> series of Informational RFCs. >> >> Namely: >> >>> Th

Re: I-D Action:draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-00.txt

>Added sentences to section 8.1 explaining that BCPs and FYIs are sub- >series of Informational RFCs. Namely: >The sub-series of FYIs and >BCPs are comprised of "Informational documents" in the sense of the >enumeration above, with special tagging applied. That's certainly

Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment

On 2008-01-18 08:33, Dan York wrote: > I have to agree with Fred here: > > On Jan 17, 2008, at 2:21 PM, Fred Baker wrote: >> I would argue that (1) has not been shown. Several IONs have been >> produced, but I don't see people referring to them. It looks like it >> is being treated as a lightweigh

[Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-02.txt]

Hi folks, I produced this update at the request of Russ Housley. It's considerably tightened up from the previous versions - now the question is whether people are interested enough to comment... Brian Original Message Subject: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes-02.

Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment

On 2008-01-17 09:30, Frank Ellermann wrote: > The IESG wrote: > >> Have IONs been valuable? Should we continue to make use of >> this mechanism? > > Yes and yes. I'm biased, having helped to start this experiment, but my only criticism is that we haven't made enough use of it (i.e. there are

Re: draft-hoffman-additional-key-words-00.txt

The careful approach needed for phasing crypto algorithms in and out may justify such terminology. However, I think there is experience that careless use, in particular of SHOULD+, which has crept into some non-IETF documents such as procurement specifications, has great potential for confusion. W

Re: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz "experimental" standard

On 2008-01-15 09:19, Sam Hartman wrote: >> "Hallam-Baker," == Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hallam-Baker,> The FSF copntinues to attempt to re-open this > Hallam-Baker,> decision. > > Phil, I think the important point here can be made in a much more > neutral m

Re: AAAA records to be added for root servers

On 2008-01-07 19:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian E Carpenter wrote: As Phill H-B has implied more than once, there's scope for a library on top of the socket API that takes care of this once and for all. Does anyone have such a library? Some TCP/IP stacks include this kind of API:

Re: AAAA records to be added for root servers

Bill, From the layer 7 point of view, I don't see what DISCOVER would offer in addition to getaddrinfo(). The library I'm thinking of would also have to handle reachability checking - and as John said, would ideally also be stateful to avoid repeating the same timeouts. Brian On 2008-01-06 1

Re: AAAA records to be added for root servers

John, Excuse front-posting but it probably works better than interstitial comments for what I want to say. The basic theory is supposed to be that faced with a mixture of A and responses, the host will by default prefer IPv6 and by default use RFC 3484 to choose among multiple IPv6 addresse

Re: Deployment Cases

On 2008-01-04 05:30, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: Yes, as you point out the generic answer to the problem is NAT-PT which was recently squashed after a cabal got together. That's a bizarre statement. Which of the technical arguments in RFC 4966 are you referring to as being products of a cabal

Re: Deployment Cases

I don't want to repeat myself unduly, but I believe that the IETF is institutionally incapable of taking this type of approach, for exactly the same reasons that's it's quite good at doing protocol design. I think that the organisations that do emphasise business cases and deployment have a record

Re: Deployment Cases

Phill, On 2007-12-24 07:32, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: Problem: We have a lot of specifications that work fine, but have not seen deployment Examples: Most security specifications, IPv6, etc. etc. Cause: The economic case for deployment is not made. This is a particular concern when the

Re: IETF interoperability testing

On 2007-12-18 12:49, Dave Crocker wrote: Ralph Droms wrote: > Fred - to be clear, that DHCPv6 interop testing was not associated in > any way with the dhc WG. I'll let the organizers comment on any more > general sponsorship arrangement or other association of the event with > the IETF. and

Re: Revising full standards

On 2007-12-11 09:24, John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, December 10, 2007 11:16 AM -0800 Bob Braden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * The RFC Editor discovers that the community doesn't quite know what to do with the STD number: It can't be reassigned to the new docume

Re: Revising full standards

John, On 2007-12-07 05:20, John C Klensin wrote: Hi. I had intended to bring this up at the plenary last night but, since I had not raised it on the list and was tired, decided not to. Our standards process (RFC2026 and updates) more or less assumes that documents progress from idea -> I-D ->

Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

On 2007-12-03 22:49, Robert Elz wrote: ... Everyone (almost everyone) seems to be assuming that getting the RFC published as quickly as possible is the aim. Why? What does actual appearance of the file in the directories really change? It's the instant of formal publication, and that ch

Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

On 2007-12-01 00:45, Harald Alvestrand wrote: Tom.Petch wrote: I recall a recent occasion when the IESG withdrew its approval, for draft-housley-tls-authz-extns a document that both before and after its approval generated a lot of heat, within and without a WG. Presumably the expedited proce

Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

On 2007-11-29 10:14, Eric Rescorla wrote: At Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:54:47 +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: My conclusion is that the number of appeals is relatively low. I'd hate for the low risk of having to roll back an approval to slow down all publications. So my personal preference

Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

On 2007-11-29 09:21, IETF Chair wrote: ... If we receive an appeal before the RFC is published, we can put a hold on the document, preventing pblication until the appeal has been studied. However, we have no way to pull an RFC back if it is published before the appeal arrives. As we all know,

Re: Last Call Comments on draft-ietf-shim6-hba-04

On 2007-11-27 00:33, Jari Arkko wrote: There are two differences: - both generating and checking public key signatures is more expensive than just hashes - for CGA, a host needs to store a private key somehwere, with HBA there are no secrets Yes, and in addition generating the key pair take s

Re: Last Call Comments on draft-ietf-shim6-hba-04

On 2007-11-26 10:41, Eric Rescorla wrote: At Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:33:17 +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2007-11-26 10:11, Eric Rescorla wrote: At Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:48:39 +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2007-11-26 04:38, Eric Rescorla wrote: ... Yes, I understand that, but again, your

Re: Last Call Comments on draft-ietf-shim6-hba-04

On 2007-11-26 10:11, Eric Rescorla wrote: At Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:48:39 +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2007-11-26 04:38, Eric Rescorla wrote: ... Yes, I understand that, but again, your argument precedes from the premise that people won't want to deploy CGA. Given that substantial e

Re: Last Call Comments on draft-ietf-shim6-hba-04

On 2007-11-26 04:38, Eric Rescorla wrote: ... Yes, I understand that, but again, your argument precedes from the premise that people won't want to deploy CGA. Given that substantial effort was invested in that, I think it's reasonable to take a step back and ask why some new approach will be more

Re: NAT+PT for IPv6 Transition & Operator Feedback generally

Ran, On 2007-11-15 02:19, RJ Atkinson wrote: ... Further, at the recent RIPE meeting in Amsterdam, there seemed to be very broad operator feedback in the hallways that this NAT+PT approach is the only viable transition strategy left available to operators at this late date. Please can yo

Re: Last Call: draft-korhonen-mip6-service (Service Selection for Mobile IPv6) to Informational RFC

I noticed while reviewing this for the Gen-ART team that this proposal specifically allows for the creation of walled gardens in mobile service provision. That's something an IAB workshop warned about some years ago (RFC 3002 section 4.2). The draft makes it clear that the default service should

Re: Last Call: draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update (IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field) to BCP

On 2007-11-06 11:35, Frank Ellermann wrote: The IESG wrote: as a BCP +1, maybe s/to use of the/to use the limited/ I also think this is an appropriate, even if significant, change of policy. I really don't see why we would give away a precious resource such as a protocol number for secr

Re: Reminder: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering

On 2007-11-06 08:22, Spencer Dawkins wrote: FWIW, My understanding of the community consensus in 2003 is what Keith said... Spencer though I'd probably phrase this differently, e.g.: the IETF has decided, as a group, that a blanket patent policy is counterproductive to IETF's goals. Mine to

Re: tools everywhere (was Daily Dose version 2 launched

On 2007-11-03 09:48, Scott O. Bradner wrote: ... why does "tools" have to show up in just about every IETF URL these days? nomcom feedback for example - yes its a tool but the key is that its related to the nomcom not that its a tool - some thing for id submission www.ietf.org/id/subm

Re: 2026, draft, full, etc.

On 2007-11-03 06:00, Bob Braden wrote: *> *> One idea that was floated a couple of years ago, as part of a one-level *> standards track, was to retain the register of implementation reports *> (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html) and mark the entries *> that have been approve

Re: Experimental track

On 2007-11-01 23:49, Frank Ellermann wrote: Dan Riley wrote: there is some evidence that people presumably well versed in IETF process and RFC2026 terminology can be sloppy in its application--from http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg04120.html [...] | The IESG

Re: 2026, draft, full, etc.

On 2007-11-01 21:36, Simon Josefsson wrote: Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... So why are we even having an argument about what gets stuck into requirements for DS? Because Brian wrote a draft... Sorry ;-) Shouldn't we instead be eliminating it entirely? I'm not sure about th

Re: About referenced documents...

On 2007-11-02 08:16, Randy Presuhn wrote: Hi - From: "Tom Yu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Frank Ellermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:59 AM Subject: Re: About referenced documents... ... Is it wrong to note in a document's References section that a set of standa

Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: Performance Metrics atOther Layers (pmol)]

Leslie asked for comments from uninvolved parties and I'm giving my personal opinion that I would not find this work useful. If others do, we should go charter it. I think it will be useful, if it succeeds in rigorously defining metrics for upper layer protocols, given their dependencies on t

Re: About referenced documents...

On 2007-11-01 12:08, lconroy wrote: Hi Tom, folks, Many thanks for that. This is exactly what I wanted to know. I understand that this is a distraction from the wider IPR crusade, but I wonder if people should consider ensuring that our standards refer to just this kind of open document (e.g. re

Re: 2026, draft, full, etc.

On 2007-10-30 23:18, Eliot Lear wrote: [I'm changing the subject and cutting off the references list as we seem to have changed topic.] Simon, DS designates a mature standard. If you read the requirements in RFC 2026 for a mature standard it is clear that few of the modern IETF protocols live

Re: Oppose draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00

Could we discuss this over on the IPR WG list, since the draft responds to a specific request from the WG Chair? Brian On 2007-10-30 08:44, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: I admit to finding the discussion about Draft standards a bit theoretical, given how few RFCs ever make it there. As a rough

Re: Non-participants [Re: Experimental makes sense for tls-authz]

On 2007-10-28 12:18, Bill Manning wrote: On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 07:52:25AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I think the process has proved to be rather resistant to packing of meetings, written statements distributed in the meeting room, and back-channel campaigns to have non-participants

Non-participants [Re: Experimental makes sense for tls-authz]

On 2007-10-28 06:36, Andrew Newton wrote: On Oct 27, 2007, at 11:00 AM, David Morris wrote: Well for starters, the drive-by hummers have to sit through the session and be present for the discussion (note I intentionally did not say listen). They have to demonstrate enough interest in the IETF p

Re: Experimental makes sense for tls-authz

To dispel any possible doubt, I agree violently with what Brian D says below. Brian C On 2007-10-27 13:20, Brian Dickson wrote: Brian E Carpenter wrote: That's quite correct. But when judging the rough consensus of the IETF, I believe that the IESG is fully entitled to consider wh

Re: A priori IPR choices

(Cross posting removed) On 2007-10-24 22:56, Philippe Verdy wrote: ... However, the FSF recognizes that, until now, the IETF was more strict about the licensing conditions, rejecting proposals that included royalties-maker licenses and explicit personal agreement between the licensor and the li

Re: Megatron

Afaik, non-member postings to the list are automatically held in moderation to trap spam, and moderators are only human. Brian On 2007-10-27 08:41, Frank Ellermann wrote: Apparently Megatron put a bunch of messages on hold for eight days, compare

Re: Experimental makes sense for tls-authz

On 2007-10-27 11:13, Bernard Aboba wrote: I agree. The DOS attack on this list seems to be from people who haven't read RFC 2026 and use meaningless phrases like "experimental standard." In fact, publishing this as an experiment to see if it gets implemented and deployed despite the IPR issue see

Re: Experimental makes sense for tls-authz

On 2007-10-27 07:04, Randy Presuhn wrote: Hi - The existence of IPR claims potentially relevant to the implementation of a specification has never been sufficient grounds to block the publication of that specification as an RFC. Given the unfortunate history of this work, publication of draft-h

Re: A priori IPR choices

On 2007-10-26 06:09, Norbert Bollow wrote: Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't disagree with anything that you wrote, but the point here is that if there's a patent with GPL-incompatible licensing, you don't have permission to link that BSD-licensed code into a GPL-licensed program

Re: A priori IPR choices

On 2007-10-25 08:32, Ted Hardie wrote: At 10:02 AM -0700 10/24/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Ted Hardie wrote: The point being, of course, that there is a world of difference between "many" and "all" here. If there is no development community using the GPL in an area, forcing the IPR restrictions

Re: When is using patented technology appropriate?

On 2007-10-25 04:30, Sam Hartman wrote: ... Simon> If you replace IBM with 'A Patent Troll', do you think the Simon> same holds? I think that such behavior should be presumed not to be a patent troll. Patent trolls are not known forpromising to give away royalty-free licenses. The

Re: A priori IPR choices

On 2007-10-24 00:20, Simon Josefsson wrote: Norbert Bollow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... I would recommend that in order to be considered acceptable, implementation in GPL'd free software as well as implementation in proprietary closed-source software must both be allowed by the licensing ter

Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]

On 2007-10-23 16:20, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: I'm confused by this part of the discussion. How can a standard be encumbered by GPL? As far as I know, GPL does not prevent anyone from implementing a standard without any restrictions or fees, just possibly from using somebody else's code under

Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]

Phill, If there were in addition some standard non disclosure contracts, standard contracts for holding pre-standards meeting and the like the result could be turned into a book which most managers in the valley would probably end up buying. Most of them, and those in Armonk that I used to wor

Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]

Phill, If folk can't get their act together when a WG starts then why should we expect them to be able to do so at the end when we are trying to close the work? Because of the difference between known unknowns and unknown unknowns. At the beginning, you're asking an entirely hypothetical que

Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]

that. Among the most exciting discussions of ideas are those that come from having to design around a patent that isn't available for free. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Scott Brim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:12 PM To: Brian E Carpenter Cc:

Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On 2007-10-19 11:29, Eric Rescorla wrote: At Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:26:33 +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2007-10-19 03:30, Simon Josefsson wrote: ... To clarify that the part of the community that I'm a member of is not interested in supporting this technology, we have decided to remov

A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]

On 2007-10-19 05:47, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: ... What I would suggest is that new working groups be required to specify the governing IPR rules in their charter, these would be either that all IPR must be offered according to an open grant on W3C terms or that the working group specifies

Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On 2007-10-19 03:30, Simon Josefsson wrote: ... To clarify that the part of the community that I'm a member of is not interested in supporting this technology, we have decided to remove our implementation. See the announcement for GnuTLS in: ** TLS authorization support removed. This tech

ietf@ietf.org

Joel, The volunteers built a model that was sustainable with a modest amount of capital and time. both jabber and and streaming audio. For which many thanks from many of us, I'm sure. Also, the Secretariat built a tool so that all slides can be uploaded before each session, or even in real tim

Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

On 2007-10-12 16:27, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: On 2007-10-11 23:46, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: Not viewed from the socket programmer's point of view. Look at how an AF_INET6 socket behaves when given an address like :::192.0.2.3 afaik the behavior is then exactly what you describe

Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

Dave, On 2007-10-12 04:07, Dave Crocker wrote: ... The underlying point of my note was: One would think that a 15-year project that was pursued to solve a fundamental Internet limitation but has achieved such poor adoption and use would motivate some worrying about having made some poor

Re: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02

On 2007-10-11 21:10, Eliot Lear wrote: ... As I wrote earlier, I am not at all sure that we should even have dates associated with milestones with this kind of experiment. I'm afraid that this would allow people to game the IETF by abusing the SG mechanism to give their effort an appearance o

Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

On 2007-10-11 23:46, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: Not viewed from the socket programmer's point of view. Look at how an AF_INET6 socket behaves when given an address like :::192.0.2.3 afaik the behavior is then exactly what you describe. Whether the stacks are independent code modules or a

Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

On 2007-10-11 03:17, Dave Crocker wrote: Thomas Narten wrote: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 4. The v6 stack would need to have a v4 mode, for use by v4 applications -- applications that use v4 addresses. Um, sounds an awful lot like dual-stack to me. Hosts (that understand

Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

Stephen, Perhaps, if the folks hadn't been so dogmatically against NAT at the time, the v4-to-v6 transition model would have worked similarly and we'd be done with it by now... I doubt it. The underlying problem with NAT doesn't go away whatever you do. IMHO, there probably isn't any true so

Re: perfect hindsight (was Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering))

On 2007-10-10 12:44, Keith Moore wrote: Brian - is it provable that no design for a follow-on to IPv4 would have provided that backward compatibility? Or were there architectural and engineering decisions that chose other features over backward compatibility? 1. Take the original, simple D

Re: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02

On 2007-10-09 07:30, Eric Rescorla wrote: At Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:13:50 -0700, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: My observation based on some of the BoFs I have been involved with recently is that far too much time is wasted between two BoF sessions. With little or no discussion between sessions,

Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

On 2007-10-05 09:12, Ralph Droms wrote: Typo: should read IPv6 ~= IPv4+more_bits... - Ralph On Oct 4, 2007, at Oct 4, 2007,4:52 AM, Ralph Droms wrote: Regarding transition: On Sep 14, 2007, at Sep 14, 2007,3:43 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: Unless I've missed something rather basic, in the case

Re: Spammers answering TMDA Queries

On 2007-10-06 12:02, Ken Raeburn wrote: On Oct 5, 2007, at 17:00, Douglas Otis wrote: But what is it? A step beyond grey listing. "Beyond" implies "in vaguely the same direction". From skimming the TMDA description, I don't see that at all. In any case, the IETF config for TMDA is a whit

Re: [Tsvwg] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr (Aggregation of DiffServ Service Classes) to Informational RFC

On 2007-10-05 05:38, ken carlberg wrote: I don't recall when was the last (Diffserv-based) QoS talk at NANOG or similar operator-rich meeting. (Sure, there is the tutorial, but it doesn't count.) I would be concerned if outside groups spent time arguing "foo" is bad, or if they advocated o

Re: Random addresses answering TMDA Queries

On 2007-10-03 14:14, John Levine wrote: The Secretariat tells me that Spammers are responding to TDMA queries so that their mail goes through. They have made the suggestion that we clear the list of people once per year. Isn't there an engineering principle that if something is broken, you don

Re: Spammers answering TMDA Queries

On 2007-10-03 11:49, Russ Housley wrote: The Secretariat tells me that Spammers are responding to TDMA queries so that their mail goes through. They have made the suggestion that we clear the list of people once per year. This would mean that a legitimate user of a list that uses TDMA would g

Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition

Ray, I don't think it's quite fair to refer to ostriches when ARIN is already on record: http://www.arin.net/v6/v6-resolution.html Also, for those who like to see things in real time, there's always http://penrose.uk6x.com/ Regards Brian Carpenter University of Auckland On 2007-10-03

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr (Aggregation of DiffServ Service Classes) to Informational RFC

Pekka, [FYI I've already indicated my support for this draft in a message sent to the IESG.] On 2007-10-03 03:11, Pekka Savola wrote: On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Transport Area Working Group WG (tsvwg) to consider the following document: - 'Agg

Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On 2007-10-01 13:53, Dave Crocker wrote: Bernard Aboba wrote: Making an example of a document does not constitute development of a consistent and comprehensive policy on the handling of late IPR disclosure. For example, what happens if IPR disclosure occurs after RFC publication? This is not

Re: [TLS] Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On 2007-09-29 08:58, Eric Rescorla wrote: ... After the fraud by Housley was discovered, I don't know who wrote this libel that Eric replied to (apparently it was someone whose email gets magically deleted before it reaches me), but I would like to remind people that the late IPR disclosure in

Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On 2007-09-26 13:21, Brad Hards wrote: On Wednesday 26 September 2007 01:54, The IESG wrote: The IESG is considering approving this draft as an experimental track RFC with knowledge of the IPR disclosure from Redphone Security. The IESG solicits final comments on whether the IETF community has c

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

On 2007-09-27 03:35, Paul Hoffman wrote: ... At 10:02 AM +0200 9/26/07, Simon Josefsson wrote: Hear, hear. I believe a significant part of the IETF community would agree with Paul Vixie that something similar to what the IEEE have would be very useful for the IETF community as well. When I rea

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

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 :-) Brian --- C:\>ver Microsoft Windows XP [Ve

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

On 2007-08-07 16:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Redesignation of 240/4 from 'Future Use" to "Limited Use for Large Private Internets' Author(s) : P. Wilson, et al. Fil

Re: Beggars _can_ be choosers?

On 2007-08-01 21:01, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, 01 August, 2007 09:03 -0700 "David W. Hankins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... This is also just another version of the "eat our own dogfood" story: if we don't find the dogfood palatable --whether because of its basic specification o

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

I was talking to a couple of people this week about what I consider to be a related issue: the fact that for the two or three wg meetings I'm interested in, there's little point in me being at the meeting for a whole week. What about holding two or three meetings smaller meetings a year for

Re: IPv6: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?

On 2007-07-30 07:05, Tony Li wrote: On Jul 29, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Peter Dambier wrote: Is there any IPv6 activity inside the US? Some. NTT/America, for example, is a Tier 1 provider with v6 deployed. Comcast (cable-based ISP) is rumored to be working on v6. Not to mention every supplier

Re: e2e

On 2007-07-27 06:37, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: But I should point people at RFC 4924. (No, I won't try to summarize it.) Not forgetting RFC 1958, of course. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Requirements for Open IESG Positions

Jonne, On 2007-07-24 01:10, Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo) wrote: Hi, I just happened to read this mail today. I don't remember seeing such a mail during previous nomcom rounds (they might have come, but I just didn't notice them). You didn't notice them :-) Also these descriptions have evolve

Re: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity

On 2007-07-17 14:04, Keith Moore wrote: ... the problem is the expectation that in IPv6 the application has to choose which address(es) to use, coupled with the high probability that the first address(es) chosen will not work well. What high probability is that? The presumption is that the RFC

Re: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity

On 2007-07-17 11:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... it is not reasonable to assume that for all apps the correct model is to do a DNS lookup and then try the resulting IP addresses one at a time until a connection succeeds for one of them. For instance, applications in the global finance indust

Re: take the train in Chicago

So there's me thinking Chicago in July will be mid 80's sunshine, and you mention rain twice in one email :) You can get the occasional thunderstorm of tropical intensity. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/l

Re: The myth of NAT traversal, was: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition

On 2007-07-14 00:07, Melinda Shore wrote: On 7/13/07 5:43 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I believe that we need a more general protocol for hosts inside a site perimeter to communicate with the perimeter gateways and request services from them. We've actually got several of

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >