--On August 11, 2011 6:37:52 -0700 The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Yet Another Mail WG (yam) to
consider the following document:
- 'Message Submission for Mail'
draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02.txt as a Full Standard
I have read this draft and
I have read version 08 and support this proposal.
- Chris
--On July 27, 2011 17:46:22 -0400 Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Here's the link:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
___
Ietf mailing
--On December 2, 2009 11:12:26 +0200 Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
On Dec 2, 2009, at 9:04 AM, Chris Newman wrote:
This the most time-sensitive and security-critical IETF draft with
respect to impact on the Internet community that I have seen in 17
years of IETF participation
--On December 2, 2009 15:19:53 +0100 Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
1. Running code: multiple implementations and interop testing was
performed on an earlier version of draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation.
Even EKR admitted that implementing the update is an insignificant
amount of work.
Pushing
I strongly support publishing this draft either in its present form or with
any modification that does not impact the protocol's security analysis.
This the most time-sensitive and security-critical IETF draft with respect
to impact on the Internet community that I have seen in 17 years of
--On November 4, 2008 6:28:19 -0800 The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'DNS-Based Service Discovery '
draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-05.txt as an Informational RFC
As a technical contributor and
--On April 15, 2008 13:30:01 -0700 IESG Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
I support the creation of this WG.
2. The YANG data modeling language and semantics (proposed
standard)
...
5. Mapping rules of YANG to DSDL data modeling framework (ISO/IEC
My last call comment as a technical contributor (apologies for the lateness):
Overall, this is a very important document which I support.
I'm not fond of the current title because I believe it will cause the document
to be ignored by the people who most need to read it. I suggest:
I have reviewed this document and support moving it forward on the standards
track.
On procedural nit:
In section 4, the document states:
The service name specified by this protocol's profile of SASL
is pop.
A note in the IANA Considerations section is needed which directs
