Bravo! At last. Spam is a clutter of our way to use TCP/IP and SMTP in
which criminal and cyberwarfare actions develop. I was interested talking
about vulnerability to internet with the Chair of a Banking Association
Committee on Security to hear him calling spam "saturation bombing".
Solution
At 16:52 06/02/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To create open technical standards and identify best practices that are
useful to and
adopted by the world internet communtity and the public at large
Along your lines, what about:
"To propose open technical standard and identify best practices striving
John, Donald,
might the common sense experience from a non-internut bring some external
suggestion? I accept it is not welcome in special environements: IETF is a
special environment, in particular with its proven records in consensus
building - let not harm something which works. Anyway I will
My understanding was that IANA is a neutral, independent, technical
authority, everyone using the TCP/IP technology could trust, independently
from any operational, political, national, commercial consideration which
are the areas of ICANN, and of other bodies (such as GAC, MINC, ITU, ISOC,
UN,
At 22:39 25/06/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IANA and the ccNSO/ccTLD are two different beasts.
hmmm. They seem now to be both ICANN stuff. This is the point.
ccNSO and company keep track of what NS records are authoritative for what
zones.
Happily not (most of the ccTLD would not like it !!!). Thi
At 01:49 26/06/04, Scott Bradner wrote:
see RFC 2860
Dear Scott and Karl,
thank you for your comments. I explain. I consider the interest of a draft
on the digital intergovernance I do not know yet if I want to undertake
such a task, how, with who, and where. I established a site
(http://intergo
At 23:22 06/07/04, John C Klensin wrote:
Vendors who are going to do these things will -- based on the
fact that they are being done already -- do them, with or
without this document. And that includes providers who are
doing very little that we would recognize as "internet service"
characterizing
At 17:48 06/07/04, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tony Hain" writes:
>Sitting here in Seoul, Janet Sun (BII) said this is self-promotion of a
>single researcher looking to improve his funding. There is technical
>content, but no business content and the service providers
At 17:24 15/07/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
This item has been discussed to death once every 3 months on this very
list. We have never found a consensus to add these tags.
It would be illusory to have everyone (consensus) accepting to be
nice/polite to a few/many others and to conform to a
At 23:52 16/07/04, Paul Vixie wrote:
One way of reading these tea leaves is to say that ICANN hasn't been seen as
truly open, truly inclusive, or truly independent. "Lapdog of the US-DoC"
was one critic's description. Speaking as an early adopter of Vint's and
Jon's philosophy of openness/inclusi
What about an information draft reporting on the results of the work of an
existing organization or project? Can it use the name of the organization
and only quote as authors the actual writers? where/holw should the
organization be introduced? Is there any difference if the draft is not for
in
At 13:03 31/07/2004, Sal Mangiapane wrote:
PS. Can someone tell me which RFC says that a draft must include a
security part?. thank you;
RFC2223 section 9
Sal
Thank you. I was also looking for an RFC - if any -which documents why. To
know what would be the proper process to introduce a comparable
At 09:50 11/10/2004, Dean Anderson wrote:
Rather, its the truly novel patents that cause the most damage. They have
the potential to cripple entire subject areas. Being truly novel, they
won't be reversed, and will stand. And being novel, they may be hard or
impossible to overlap and cross-lic
Dear Margaret and Pete,
I understand your position. It would be OK if status quo was the target.
Who hires the contractors would then be neutral. But the situation calls
for improvements. The first improvement is financial stability. This means
to make the IETF deliverable pay better and to crea
Please remember that IETF adheres to a consensus process, which is not a
democratic process. There is no representation by delegation but
representation by competence. Because at the end of the day one does not
count votes but serious opponents. The target is to present a solution non
one will
At 11:17 30/09/2004, Dave Crocker wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:42:18 +0300, John Loughney wrote:
> I have heard that there have been some problems with the
> Secretariat, I have not been privy to the fact that the IETF
> is going to hell in a handbasket. Are things so dire? I have
> been much
Dear John,
your last two mails do not point out all the problems (I am quite
interested in Dave's remark on IANA), but they give a good account of a
pure technical (management) problem. Internet is defined as the adherence
of its users to the documents resulting from the Internet standard proces
On 12:59 04/10/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
--On 1. oktober 2004 13:48 +0200 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I apologize for not having followed the debate over the IETF
administrative structure as I should have probable done it .
Dave's response se
At 09:59 06/10/2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
As Ted says, the IETF should stay out of passing judgment on the
validity of claims and/or fighting patents. It's really way outside of
our charter.
I gather that the US patent office pretty much rubber stamps patent
applications in the IETF's area
At 13:59 07/10/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
a. "IETF": In the context of this document, the IETF includes all
individuals who participate in meetings, working groups, mailing
lists, functions and other activities which are organized or
initiated by ISOC, the IESG or the IA
At 09:57 28/10/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Someone made the comment that there may be people who (like me) read the
IETF list more often than they read the IETF-announce list - here's a copy
of the call for consensus, just to make sure you've all seen it...
Dear Harald,
the work you have
Dear Harald,
This the first time I agree with everything in an IETF mail. Thank you to
be candid enough to have writen this.
May I just suggest one tunning: "Investigate" rather than "Create the
mobile Internet"? To preserve the possibility that there is not such a
thing as a "mobile", or a "mu
The need you describe is the true need of the users. What they discuss is
IPv6 as an IPv4 patch better than NATs. You discuss tier to tier exchanges.
This is almost a different vision of the network.
A vision IPv6 is properly design to support. The problem acknowledged by
Michel Py and Steve Cr
at 17:17 08/11/2004, Aaron Falk wrote:
I'd like to suggest that this thread move to the internet-history
list.
(For those unfamiliar with this list, information is available at
http://www.postel.org/internet-history.htm)
Dear Aaron,
The work you do at www.postel.org is not only great to pay a tribu
At 18:17 16/11/2004, Noel Chiappa wrote:
The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the network that's really
out there, not the network some of us wish were there.
To put it another way (and mangle a well-known phrase in the process), if
life gives you lemons, you can either sit around with a
Harald,
the first look of it seems to be comprehensive and balanced enough. But
there is a problem you will have to address sooner or later which is the
"usage" (whatever you name the technically competent users) representation.
ISOC is supposed to include it. You can claim that them being invol
On 14:14 17/11/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
The IETF standards process is not supposed to be affected by this
reorganization (except, hopefully, by having better support). I agree that
the IETF standards process needs to have participation from users, but
doing so through management of th
Good analysis (however there are probably 9 possibilities if a "newbox" was
to be proposed by some smart person). This scenario is technically logic.
But OSI, ATM, ISDN, etc shown us the market is not always logic.
At 03:02 18/11/2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> >> Let's assume ... that a large par
At 17:52 18/11/2004, Scott W Brim wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 04:38:37PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> It didn't. For an effort always expected to take at least 15 years,
> we are doing OK.
>
> It is always good to learn from history, of course.
That's funny. I recall that when we st
At 19:08 18/11/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On torsdag, november 18, 2004 10:26:07 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The least they want to hear is "relative ease of acquiring v6 address
space" even least than "relative ease to delpo
Sorry. I made a mistake, it was 313 months ago that I started using names
made of a root, customer and host part. Robert Tréhin would know better (he
was the one with Joe Rinde to introduce root names - or TLDs). Again if
that is what you refer to. So old.
249 months ago is roughly when I starte
Dear Robert,
if only Cugnot's team had promoted cars As Harald put it wisely first,
the organization and promotion is not upto IETF but to sales, Govs,
operators, users, etc... IETF and ICANN are actually blocking IPv6 as it is
widely perceived for what it still is: a non-operational (if y
On 19:10 19/11/2004, Kurt Erik Lindqvist said:
I have long thought that the knowledge of having long (life-long)
persistent, well-spread unique personal identifiers are bad was general
knowledge. Then again, I guess the US biometric stuff has proven me
wrong on that already.
I am not sure I underst
---
Subject: Re: How the IPnG effort was started
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Time: 11/20/2004 5:13 am
On 19:10 19/11/2004, Kurt Erik Lindqvist said:
>I have long thought that the knowledge of having long (life-long)
>persistent, well-spread unique personal i
Dear Stephen,
there are two things necessary first to accept:
- that what we name "names" and "addresses" are two of the three main ways
to identify objects. The way linked to the object, the way attached to the
system, the way related to the users. And because this analysis is not
worded clearl
On 23:19 20/11/2004, Michel Py said:
What's ridiculous is you. Tell me, mister I-know-it-all-for-the-entire
world, how does it cost to get 3mbit always-on service with a static IP
over ISDN lines? Oh, I see. It's not available and you have to bond
_two_ E1s to get this much bandwidth. Right on. You
At 21:31 21/11/2004, Eric A. Hall wrote:
My feeling is that there has to be a group effort to change this, and it
needs across-the-board cooperation. VCs need to be shown that
bidirectional reachability is in their ultimate interest, in that it opens
the door for new technologies and products. Smal
Eric,
this is a sine qua non requirement.
With plug, play, testing and document of every appliance but also of every
competing network connection I can grab (wi-fi, ISPs, cable, ISDN,
satellite, etc. ). So when I a move around nothing is changed, and I know
to use the my environment in hotels wi
On 07:32 23/11/2004, some undisclosed @yahoo.com said:
your last email kinda reminded me of a bunch ofpoliticians arguing. You
managed to write hundreds of words and say nothing. You should have just
wrote (what he said) and saved us all a bunch of time. ... I'm sure that
there's a lot of other
buting than that you will get the IETF to change its ways by
long-winded messages on the IETF list.
Harald
--On 23. november 2004 15:16 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IPv6 is a good example: the IETF deliverable is OK (again Harald is
right). B
At 00:47 27/11/2004, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 17:08 26/11/2004, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 10:11 +0100, Leif Johansson wrote:
> > For somebody administering a network of 100 machines, the hassle cost of
> > IP renumbering would be twenty times larger. Given thi
At 03:53 27/11/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:33:54 +0100, "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" said:
> But why to spend time and money and to take risks to change something
which
> is not broken. IPv6 has no problem in keeping the same host numbers if the
> used add
The IETF is supposed to gather everyone concerned and there is here a
controversy on this real life and key/vital point. So the best is to ask in
here. If no one says yes, it will mean either there is no felt shortage
yes, or that those suffering from shortage do not share in the IETF (why
woul
Sorry, in this I must disagree. We are in an international situation and
we want simple to read for everyone, crystal clear statements in due time
by third party. The only certified situation reports we have in case of
conflict is a neat banking monthly statement.
Another complex issue where an
At 09:11 02/12/2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yes. I have a feeling that even with the BCP approved by the IESG
and by an ISOC Board motion, we would still need a piece of paper with
ink signatures - it might only say that the IETF and ISOC agree to the
terms of the BCP - it might also contain term
I am afraid this is meaningless unless this is insurred and warranted by a
third party and the money in escrow, what a Bank is for. I am even afraid
this is illegal wording in the way you intend it. Whatever the
irrevocability ISOC may sign, ISOC is bound by legal and tax priority
obligations.
At 03:41 07/12/2004, Bob Kahn wrote:
Harald,
I am enroute back to Washington at the moment, but did want to comment on
IP matters.
I think it fair to state in the document what the IETF thinks appropriate
for it to manage its own affairs going forward, but one of the matters we
will have to work
At 13:38 07/12/2004, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
Has anyone present on this list ever experienced a problem in getting
a new
chunk of IP addresses from a RIR or from an ISP?
=> the administrative procedures used by RENATER, the French NREN, are
so heavy than nobo
At 17:29 07/12/2004, Joe Abley wrote:
On 7 Dec 2004, at 10:33, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 13:38 07/12/2004, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
Has anyone present on this list ever experienced a problem in
getting a new
chunk of IP addresses from a RIR or from an ISP
At 18:27 07/12/2004, Joe Abley wrote:
On 7 Dec 2004, at 12:18, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
What is the particular thing that you find so useful, here? That some
LIRs are not as easy to deal with as others?
That the affirmation that no RIR has ever refused an IPv4 chunk is wrong,
and that its
At 04:46 08/12/2004, shogunx wrote:
both count. if they do not understand it to the level of acceptance at
least, then how its built does not matter. if its not built correctly,
large percentages of migrators will drop anchor and turn around to v4 NAT
again.
True. Obviously the techology is of th
If we want to get WSIS support and subsequent R&D public fundings as RFC
3869 calls for, we need a short and clear description, in the draft, of
what is discussed today. A statement that everyone can understand, quote
and consider as acceptable whatever the changes the Internet Governance may
m
At 23:01 08/12/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 13:26:50 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If we want to get WSIS support and subsequent R&D public fundings as RFC
3869 calls for...
RFC 3869 does not talk about
At 16:38 13/12/2004, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>> "JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JFC> Tax aspects on donations will, most probaly in many
JFC> countries, call for donations to a legally incorporated
JFC> entity. What is th
Could this not be used for an enhancement? The IETF needs to globalize, to
motivate and reward its members (see current analysis), to motivate (cf.
RFC 3869) local Govs (meeting, debates, PR announces) and industries (PR on
products) and to get "independent" and stable money for its budget.
Why
At 13:16 17/12/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
HAVING THE IETF CONTINUE TO SAY ONE THING AND DO ANOTHER IS NOT A GOOD
THING FOR THE INTERNET.
OK, finished shouting. Eric and Bob: the NEWTRK list is waiting for your
contribution on the principle involved, and your internet-draft suggesting
Gentlemen,
I see several points discussed here which are/are not of the same order and
seem confusing the issue.
1. the discussion creeps from Harald's RFC 3066 to Multilingual Internet.
It seems strange to discuss byte oriented details without having first a
Multilingual framework telling what
Tax aspects on donations will, most probaly in many countries, call for
donations to a legally incorporated entity. What is the IETF legal entity I
am to write on the check and then claim for resulting tax benefits for
supporting research. No tax controller will buy that ISOC is an R&D lab.
jfc
I am confused by the announce of ICANN to consider ".mobi" as a TLD. Should
not "mobi:" be declared as a scheme comparable to "tel:"; to make sure the
registrants of this possible TLD do not mistakenly understand they should
use ".mobi" for their mobile?
jfcm
___
At last ... This is why the ISOC scheme cannot work. One cannot serve two
masters. This rises the question of who has the lead over the Internet R&D
(a part from the users).
1. may be it is the time to remember the IRTF and its Chair: this would
transform a praxis into a triumvirate.
2. rather t
At 05:36 27/12/2004, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 27 December, 2004 03:00 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At last ... This is why the ISOC scheme cannot work. One
> cannot serve two masters. This rises the question of who has
> the lead over
n Phillips [wM]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "John Cowan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The draft isn't a process draft. Take your process problems to the IETF
or IESG (or W3C or appropriate
Dear Peter,
please let focus on the discussion of draft to be approved by the IESG and
on its role. This document intends to replace RFC 3066 but does not want to
take into account RFC published since the RFC 3006, the current IANA
procedures, the work chartered in some WG, the internet architec
Chief Architecture Office
Reuters
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JFC (Jefsey)
Morfin
Sent: 30 December 2004 15:46
To: Peter Constable; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications,
"
e way in which language tags are used in HTTP, HTML and XML,
before writing another word on this subject.
Misha Wolf
Standards Manager
Chief Architecture Office
Reuters
-Original Message-----
From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 30 December 2004 17:52
To: Misha Wolf
Cc: [EMA
Full agreement. Thank you Tex.
This discussion now lead to nowhere and may delay the draft.
1. I have documented the needs and listed the discrepancies (only one asked
a question on that, all the rest is noise over my comments on others
positions - what is normal since the target was to comment a
At 03:20 02/01/2005, Glen Zorn \(gwz\) wrote:
2003 was, indeed, exceptional. OTOH, it is hardly exceptional that
everyone who can leave the city in August, does. This is no doubt
because it is just so damn pleasant they can't stand it, right?
They now build a true beach on the Seine river - right
At 13:56 03/01/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
I hope these are mutually exclusive.
Yes, if this means that the three of them should be aggregated into the
final strategy.
(i) Since we have no "Next-Best Current Practices"
category, publish this as an Informational Document,
m
On 18:04 03/01/2005, John C Klensin said:
No, I really meant "pick one", since doing any combination I of
the three that I have been able to think about would just
produce more confusion.
John,
please review your propositions. They are not fully satisfactory because
each address (correctly) only o
On 20:37 03/01/2005, Peter Constable said:
I note with interest that ccTLDs make use of ISO 3166 in spite of its
potential for instability. In the case of ccTLDs, however, there is a
considerable infrastructure for dealing with this: the DN system and
strict procedures for deploying changes in ccTL
Dear Peter,
I am sorry to comment this again. But this is a Last Call over a private
proposition. There is no other forum to comment this key document for the
future of the Internet. There is also no other forum to correct what you
say on me.
I whish to recall that the main issues are the prete
At 18:06 04/01/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
Returning to the DNS/IDN situation, ICANN has created a
recommendation for all TLDs, and a requirement on at least some
gTLDs, that languages not be mixed within a label and for
registration and use of tables similar to those recommended by
RFC 3743. Thos
At 05:39 04/01/2005, Franck Martin wrote:
Don't forget also: It is FULL of French!
And very upset Frenchies if the IESG accepts the
Draft-Phillips-language-08/9.txt as a standard to be. I suppose there could
be a premiere: street riots opposing an IETF meetings :-) This would
warm-up the atmosph
At 23:37 04/01/2005, John Cowan wrote:
John C Klensin scripsit:
I know that -- I did read 3743 first. But in that case, whatever did
you mean by "ICANN has created a recommendation [...] that languages
not be mixed within a label"?
The first question (see may yesterday mail) is to define what we
At 00:55 05/01/2005, Addison Phillips [wM] wrote:
The characterization of this draft as "controversial" because two or three
people object to *any* change of RFC 3066, regardless of any evidence
presented of evolving needs and careful consideration thereof, is incorrect.
Dear Addison,
your draft
At 03:11 04/01/2005, Addison Phillips [wM] wrote:
I'm not going to respond to most of Jefsey's comments. However, wearing my
W3C hat for a moment*
Thank you for that.
To the extent that W3C specifications are important consumers of language
tags, there is interest at W3C and I'm sure the W3C'
At 16:29 05/01/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> why not to follow under IAB guidance (or to review) the charter I
proposed
> yesterday, in an IETF way everyone could participate, and to have all
these
> applications suppor
Dear John,
thank you to acknowledge that the proposed draft "_impose_" something ! It
therefore do not report on an existing practice.
thank you to acknowledge that the proposed draft even "_limits_" the
current practice !
thank you to explain that the decision of the user is replaced by an
a-pr
Harald,
This does not discuss the language tags comment. This case however provides
some experience. The real problem I see is the increased need of Practice
Documentation. RFC 3066 is a BCP yet it introduces issues (and the proposed
RFC 3066bis does more) which are not established but proposed
Dear Ted,
the experience of this Last Call shown the problem comes from the diversity
of the internet. You may feel that a proposed solution is minor in your
area and not realize that it has a big impact in others areas. This is why
WGs are important: their Charters are the only place for some k
At 19:06 10/01/2005, Ted Hardie wrote:
At 9:00 AM -0800 1/10/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support for
adopting an individual submission is to require that the support be
demonstrated ON THE RECORD.
And the point I'm trying to make is that ther
Dear Bruce,
I changed the subject as the referred case only shown different network
architecture confusions. Positively addressing this confusions will help
more the solution of the case at hand than anything else.
On 01:42 12/01/2005, Bruce Lilly said:
The language-tag reviewer has also recentl
At 09:10 12/01/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
actually the BCP label has multiple, largely disjunct areas of coverage.
I once (many years back) suggested splitting the categories into
Recommended Internet Practices and Directives for Oversight and
Administration, but the acronyms didn't sur
At 14:37 12/01/2005, Misha Wolf wrote:
A first step could be to compare
the two standards bodies'
requirements for language tagging, to establish whether they are
compatible. Further steps could follow, depending on the
outcome.
Note that while HTTP, for example, is an IETF standard, the Web
Dear Fred and Brian,
Your draft is about the way to warn people of a local danger (like the
Tsunami). The AFRAC project may bring some elements in addition to the
examples you quote in appendix. We will document them in a later Draft once
we have morre practical experience. I copy Area Directors
At 00:21 20/01/2005, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Interesting...
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are dealing with
decisions about implementing requirements, I agree.
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are applying judgement
to interpret the "best needs of the IETF" (i.e., determining
those requiremen
Michael,
I see you come - in still a too detailed manner - the real life way I
suggested. That IAOC and IAD are under the obligation to ask the IETF
approval for their decisions. But that they may decide there is a consensus
(there might be a formula coined to that end, they should use when sign
I would like to rise a few points IRT the IASA effort. Keeping in mind that
Members will have to adopt it and the world to trust it.
1. Transparence is of the essence: I would advise the Transition Team
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/adminrest/transteam page to be linked on the
http://ietf.org m
than I thought.
That said.
--On 29. januar 2005 12:43 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would like to rise a few
points IRT the IASA effort. Keeping in mind
that Members will have to adopt it and the world to trust it.
1. Transparence is of t
At 21:40 30/01/2005, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>
"JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
JFC> 2. ISOC is an international organization, yet
there is no
JFC> indication about relations with ISOC local
chapters. For
JFC> organizi
Sam,
after reviewing it today on a mailing list, here is the part I propose to
insert in Part 7, after the "Independence" part:
International: ISOC shall work with its national Chapters, the IAD and IAOC
to document how the IETF meetings and the Internet standard process could
benefit from the
Harald,
I have serious moral concerns accepting your response below.
At 10:10 31/01/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
3. Regional representation. Most of the Internet organizations make sure
their BoD is regionally distributed. This is not appropriate for a
technical entity, however IAOC is an a
At 09:57 02/02/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Version -06 of draft-ietf-iasa-bcp is now available in the archives.
At this time, I'd like to ask:
Does this document, taken as a whole, and seen from the IETF community,
represent an acceptable basis for starting the IASA?
For those who want to
At 02:38 03/02/2005, Eric Rescorla wrote:
"JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The concern is that you do not want to use the ISOC capacity to better
> legally and financially manage/advise the IASA, also that you favor
> the possibility to influence
This also calls for a serious review of the related liabilities. If these
rights are challenged who is going to pay to sustain the action and the
possible damages? Since IASA is not incorporated will the IAOC Members, the
ISOC be liable? The ISOC internal relations with their national Chapters
http://wgig.org/docs/WP-techstand.pdf
This document is interesting and documents well my positions. Except the
need for the user of an organized comprehensive reference center. You will
note the mention of possible national influences. This is what the IASA
internationalization related few words
On 20:25 06/02/2005, Sam Hartman said:
Jefsey, you are proposing involving the regional and local chapters in
the standards process.
Dear Sam,
thank you responding seriously on this point. I value very much this,
because the reel problem is, IMHO, to discuss it. And you point out the
very concern
May be IDN specialists will want to comment this.
http://www.shmoo.com/idn/homograph.txt
Is this exact? This is urgent as the IRI is based upon IDN and support of
multilingualism is a WSIS priority and comments for the WGIG are to close
the day after tomorrow.
Thank you.
jfc
___
Dear John,
you are right the lack of the really requested IRI in the bar is a true
problem. But this would we appealing for babel-names (the IDNs which
transcode in xn--squatting names such as "http://xn--cocacola.com";).
Could not a correct solution be to have an option warning the
user/preven
?
jfc
At 16:21 08/02/2005, James Seng wrote:
For the 5th time today, it is already documented in RFC 3490.
http://james.seng.cc/archives/2005/02/08/idn_and_homographs_spoofing.html
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
May be IDN specialists will want to comment this.
http://www.shmoo.com/idn/homograph.txt
Is
1 - 100 of 398 matches
Mail list logo
