On Jul 1, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
the ietf has some of the more heavily and consistently moderated mailing
lists on the planet.
but how well does the IETF do in not producing email in response to SPAM?
Seems the IETF generates a lot of backscatter, and aside from scattering
Ben,
Thank you for your comments. They have lead to a number of improvements in the
I-D (new revision to be published shortly). A few notes below.
-- Kurt
On Oct 11, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please
On Nov 7, 2010, at 6:26 PM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG is seriously considering a WG and BOF scheduling experiment. The
goal of the experiment is to provide WG agenda sooner and also provide
more time to craft BOF proposals.
The proposed experiment includes three parts. First, schedule all
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.
Document editors should treat these comments just like any other
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marc Blanchet marc.blanc...@viagenie.ca
Date: May 14, 2010 2:13:25 PM PDT
To: Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com
Cc: draft-sheffer-emu-eap-...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [newprep] other customers of *prep
Le 10-05-14 16:49, Kurt Zeilenga a écrit :
Yaron
On May 7, 2010, at 10:12 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
And, yes, a regular IETF participant who attended the last
meeting on a day pass should have been able to know whether that
would count for the Nomcom qualification or not. But nothing
prevented a person in that position from asking the
On May 10, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The nature of that price -- besides the pain of this discussion -- is going
to be retroactive enfranchisement or disenfranchisement of some attendees.
Either way, that's pretty egregious. But since Day Passes have been handled
pretty
Having served on Nomcom before as well have participated in the Day Pass
Experiment, I find myself disagreeing with this policy statement.
The statement seems to assumes that the day-pass holder minimally use their
pass and a week-pass holder maximumly uses their pass. The statement
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
On Feb 22, 2010, at 9:52 PM, Chris Leong wrote:
Hi,
I am implementing a parser for LDIF, working off the document here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2849. A ldif-change file has a
changetype: possibly after some control: lines. This changetype line
seems to be the only difference between
On Feb 23, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Chris Leong wrote:
I am aware of this, but the syntax still seems ambiguous. The only way
I could find to tell if an LDIF file is a set of directory entries or
a set of changes is to see if there is a changetype possibly after
some controls.
If the dn-spec is
On Sep 15, 2009, at 2:41 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:55 +0200 Simon Josefsson
si...@josefsson.org wrote:
Personally, in
the long term I would prefer to deprecate SASLprep in favor of
Net-UTF-8 (i.e., RFC 5198) for use in SASL applications. I
believe
The newly minted RFC 5429 offers a solution:
if envelope :domain :contains from [av8.net, av8.com,
iadl.org] {
ereject go away; stop;
}
-- Kurt
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Mar 11, 2009, at 6:45 AM, SM wrote:
Harmful here should be viewed as harmful to the work of a Working
Group
I think we need to look more at harmful to the Internet.
I note that the IETF has a long established practice of allowing
publication of alternative solutions. I fully support
On Mar 10, 2009, at 2:32 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
Is this a big enough problem to justify setting up a Netbook Rental
Desk near IETF checkin?
Maybe the IETF should offer to lease to Netbook Rental firms the space
to operate such a desk. That way, the IETF'ers get a service... and
the
On Mar 6, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Tim Polk wrote:
Folks,
After some time reflecting on the hundreds of messages submitted to
the IETF discussion list, I have come to several conclusions about
progressing draft-housley-tls-authz. I will summarize the
conclusions up front, then provide the
On Mar 6, 2009, at 1:59 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:34:19 -0800,
Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
I think if the IESG chooses not to publish draft-housley-tls-authz
now, the authors should immediately take it RFC Editor for
publication
and the IESG should not object to its timely
That's not what IETF Consensus means in the context of
RFC 2434:
IETF Consensus - New values are assigned through the IETF
consensus process. Specifically, new assignments are made
via
RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek
input on
Since Eric pointed out process issues with the independent publication
approach...
While I concur with:
the Last Call comments show rough consensus for publication as an
Experimental RFC.
I do not feel it appropriate to further delay the publication of this
I-D as an Experimental
On Mar 6, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Tim Polk wrote:
As stated in the Last Call announcement, I had intended to request
IESG evaluation for publication on the standards track. It is clear
that the community does not support publication of this document on
the standards track.
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and others should treat
these comments just
On Mar 9, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi,
Would anyone know (could anyone find out) if the Dublin hotel will
countenance camping on their wonderful parkland, or camper vans in
their
extensive car parks?
You could just camp out in the terminal room. :-)
-- Kurt
No, an I-D is a Draft Standard. An RFC is a Standard. :-)
-- Kurt
On Jul 20, 2007, at 8:16 AM, Philip Matthews wrote:
From the draft:
1. Rename PS as Preliminary Standard.
I have often confused the order between Proposed and Draft
standard.
[In my view, one needs to draft a standard
On Jul 6, 2007, at 4:02 AM, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
Unless there is strong support for the more complex registration
process in the draft, we'd like to go to expert review.
The technical argument in favor of a review list, whether a special
list for this purpose or some
25 matches
Mail list logo
