Re: paralysis

At 3:03 PM -0800 3/7/04, Michael Thomas wrote: From what I can tell, anything that falls short of perfection then gets summarily executed. The majority of the "anti-spam" proposals being actively discussed are variants on the "prove the sender is who he says he is". None of these are perfect, yet

Re: paralysis

At 8:19 AM -0800 3/6/04, Michael Thomas wrote: So... instead of pointing out the obvious that there is no silver bullet, wouldn't it be a lot more productive to frame this debate in terms of what incremental steps could be taken to at least try to change the overall climate? Only if such framing in

Re: visa requirements (US citizens)

At 10:46 AM -0800 1/28/04, Kevin C. Almeroth wrote: >>The Korean embassy page that is linked to from the IETF meetings page () makes it pretty darn clear that US folks should get a visa. They do have a link from that page saying how wonderful US-

Re: visa requirements (US citizens)

At 2:31 PM -0500 1/27/04, Steve Bellovin wrote: I was advised by our corporate travel consultants that I should get a visa. Given the current international climate -- there was an article in last Thursday's Wall Street Journal about how other countries are retaliating for the current U.S. fingerpr

New mail-ng mailing list open for sign-ups

Greetings again. There seems to be more discussion these days about replacing SMTP and/or RFC 2822 and/or POP/IMAP for a variety of reasons. The discussion seems to pop up on a few different lists and in a few different hallways, and it might be good to have a single list where folks can congre

New mail-ng mailing list open for sign-ups

Greetings again. There seems to be more discussion these days about replacing SMTP and/or RFC 2822 and/or POP/IMAP for a variety of reasons. The discussion seems to pop up on a few different lists and in a few different hallways, and it might be good to have a single list where folks can congre

Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx

At 12:48 PM -0500 1/13/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:21:53 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said: > As I said, fascist. Godwin. Valdis, you have confused two protocols that produced similar results but used different underlying transports and different signalling. --Paul

Re: Has anybody heard back from the Hotel in Seoul?

At 2:39 PM -0600 1/5/04, Pete Resnick wrote: I got no response (other than an initial e-mail telling me I filled out part of the form incorrectly, which I answered by e-mail). After hearing nothing, I called them and got a confirmation number. Perhaps it is a NACK rather than an ACK protocol? No

Re: Tag, You're It!

At 12:47 PM -0500 12/17/03, John Stracke wrote: Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: At 9:55 AM -0500 12/17/03, John Stracke wrote: Modifying the Subject: line is a Bad Thing; it invalidates digital signatures. Which digital signatures are you talking about? Neither S/MIME nor OpenPGP sign the headers in

Re: Tag, You're It!

At 9:55 AM -0500 12/17/03, John Stracke wrote: Modifying the Subject: line is a Bad Thing; it invalidates digital signatures. Which digital signatures are you talking about? Neither S/MIME nor OpenPGP sign the headers in messages, only the bodies. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consorti

Re: PKIs and trust

At 4:29 PM -0500 12/14/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:09:37 PST, Paul Hoffman / IMC said: All of that is describable, and many vendors have such products. There are no standards (or none that are significantly followed) for such assertions. So? Many different PKIs can

Re: PKIs and trust

At 2:52 PM -0500 12/14/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:33:23 PST, Paul Hoffman / IMC said: At 2:14 PM -0500 12/14/03, Keith Moore wrote: I trust my boss to make statements about my job. All of those statements, assertions, and so on can be made in simple signed messages

Re: PKIs and trust

At 2:48 PM -0500 12/14/03, Keith Moore wrote: All of those statements, assertions, and so on can be made in simple signed messages. When you get a message with statements about your job, you verify that the message has been signed using your boss' public key. What's the problem here? Some of the

Re: PKIs and trust

At 2:14 PM -0500 12/14/03, Keith Moore wrote: I'd put this a different way. Until PKIs are able to represent the rich diversity of trust relationships that exist in the real world, they are mere curiosities with marginal practical value. Oh, please. Describe a trust relationship that cannot be

Re: PKIs and trust

At 12:12 PM -0500 12/14/03, Keith Moore wrote: To further your point, an area completely outside of ICANN's purview, yet an area requiring governance is PKI. We are at the point where deployment of a PKI has moved beyond technical issues, becoming almost completely the policy & politics of "trust".

RE: ITU takes over?

At 8:39 AM -0800 12/12/03, Tony Hain wrote: vinton g. cerf wrote: ... Unfortunately, the discussion has tended to center on ICANN as the only really visible example of an organization attempting to develop policy (which is being treated as synonymous with "governance" To further your point, an

Re: just a brief note about anycast

At 3:30 PM +1200 12/9/03, Franck Martin wrote: And one important fact, is that IETF issues standards which do not contain patents... but ITU does! It depends on what you mean by "do not contain patents". If you mean "that are not covered by any patents", then tropical living has really affected

Re: How to submit a draft

At 4:21 AM -0800 11/21/03, Dinesh Kumar wrote: Could someone tell the procedure for submitting a draft to IETF. See "The Tao of the IETF" at . --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium

Re: i18n name badges

There are going to be *at least* three desirable encodings of a person's identity -- the 'natural' encoding in the preferred/native charset of the person's name, some kind of phonetic-ASCII encoding that tells non-natives how to pronounce the name, and the email/idna encoding[s] that folks would us

Re: Plans for IETF - 60

At 10:41 AM -0500 11/19/03, Brett Thorson wrote: I am hoping to get this done in time for IETF 59, but with current workload here at the IETF, I am going to aim for 60. Something else to add to the list: make software available for popular OS's that help the NOC team document the problems. For ex

RE: IETF58 - Network Status

Sitting in the Thursday plenary, I note none of the network-to-ad-hoc flappage that have been plaguing us the past few days. Did the attackers get bored and go home? Did the accidental ad-hocers finally get their settings right? Did someone deploy a good blocking mechanism? --Paul Hoffman, Dir

Location of the IMAA list (was: RE: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA))

At 11:54 AM -0500 10/28/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The BOF description lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the discussion list, but this discussion is being cc:ed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd suggest that you move this discussion to whichever of those lists is actually correct. It is [EMAIL PROTECTED], altho

Re: How to bulid a new group?

At 11:07 AM +0800 10/3/03, wang liang wrote: If I find there is no a group for some important issues about Internet, and It may be necessary to build a new one,what should I do?Who will deal with this kind of suggestion?Where can I find the detailed process of asking for a new work group?thank

Re: [Fwd: [Asrg] Verisign: All Your Misspelling Are Belong To Us]

At 2:14 PM +0200 9/18/03, Francis Dupont wrote: => IMHO it should reject SMTP connection from the beginning with the 521 greeting described in RFC 1846... People are unhappy about VeriSign breaking the rules. But here you are proposing that they follow an *experimental* RFC whose rules were not a

Re: A modest proposal - allow the ID repository to hold xml

At 10:47 AM -0700 9/2/03, Eliot Lear wrote: I don't know about about you, Paul, but I'm writing my drafts using EMACS and Marshall's tool. That allows for generation of HTML, NROFF, and text. The HTML allows for hyperlinks, which is REALLY nice. Great! Why does that mean that the XML input sho

RE: A modest proposal - allow the ID repository to hold xml

At 1:22 PM -0400 9/2/03, Rosen, Brian wrote: I think there are quite a few reasons. Mine are: 1) Ability to render in alternate ways to improve readability and accessibility Please be more specific on "accessibility". Which groups of people are currently excluded, or would be much more in

Re: A modest proposal - allow the ID repository to hold xml

At 6:15 PM -0400 8/27/03, Rosen, Brian wrote: I therefore have a modest proposal: Allow the submission of an xml file meeting the requirements of RFC2629 along with the text file (and optional ps file) for an Internet Draft. You didn't say what the additional value would be. We know the additiona

Re: WG review: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (l2vpn)

At 10:26 PM -0700 6/21/03, Alex Zinin wrote: Folks- Having watched this discussion, it seems a couple of data points might be helpful: 1. L2VPN and L3VPN proposed WGs are part of PPVPN WG split Creation of L2VPN and L3VPN WG does not represent addition of new work to the IETF. They are

RE: WG review: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (l2vpn)

At 6:43 PM -0700 6/18/03, Vach Kompella wrote: > I'm not sure how to argue with the statement "the IETF has done a horrible job with a similar working group, so we want our working group in the IETF". Well, how about, we can't agree on IPv6 numbering schemes, so let's find another standards org

RE: WG review: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (l2vpn)

At 1:31 PM -0700 6/18/03, Vach Kompella wrote: > - the IETF's track record for this work so far is quite poor That's not a problem of the ppvpn group only. It is a problem of the IETF. Generally agree. I don't need to refresh your memory about IPSec, do I? SKIP, Skeme, Oakley, IKE. AH or ESP

Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED

At 11:27 AM -0600 6/16/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: All contributions that are rejected by any moderators (including spam filters) of any IRTF or IETF mailing lists must be archived and should be published on web pages somewhere. FWIW, some of the IETF WG mailing lists that IMC runs get >10 spams a

Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here

At 4:12 PM -0700 5/30/03, Dave Crocker wrote: Perhaps you could synthesize the numbers in a way that the carriers will agree to? That it, sanitize out the competitive information, to produce something relevant only to spam control in the aggregate. The numbers are a few years old, anecdotal (alth

RE: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here

At 11:09 AM -0700 5/30/03, Tony Hain wrote: Paul Hoffman wrote: So far on this thread, we have heard from none of the "large-scale mail carriers", although we have heard that the spam problem is costing them millions of dollars a year. That should be a clue to the IETF list. If there is a probl

Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here

At 10:40 AM -0700 5/30/03, Peter Deutsch wrote: Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: ... So far on this thread, we have heard from none of the "large-scale mail carriers", although we have heard that the spam problem is costing them millions of dollars a year. That should be a clue to the IET

Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here

At 11:36 PM -0700 5/29/03, Dave Crocker wrote: The POP->IMAP example is excellent, since it really demonstrates my point. IMAP is rather popular in some local area network environments. However it's long history has failed utterly to seriously displace POP on a global scale. Exactly right. The bene

RE: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here

At 4:58 PM -0700 5/29/03, Tony Hain wrote: The sysadmin effort would be setting up an automated way to hand out keys, and the user would have a one-time (or very infrequently) effort to establish a key pair. And you are saying that is trivial? How would a typical user know which third parties to t

Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here

At 2:22 PM -0700 5/29/03, Eliot Lear wrote: Please indicate some historical basis for moving an installed base of users on this kind of scale and for this kind of reason. History is replete with examples. From the Internet Worm to Code Red, consumers do install software when they perceive either

RE: spam

At 11:36 AM -0700 5/28/03, Tony Hain wrote: The external mechanisms already exist to deal with the social engineering once the originator can be pinned down. This is good to hear. I thought that the international trusted micropayments that would be needed for such a sender-pays system was a probl

RE: [Sip] Eating our own Dog Food...could the IAB and IESG useSIP for conference calls

A modest request: could all the people who think that this is a good place to advertise their company's products and services please reconsider? If you really want to offer your services, send a message to the original proposer, not the whole mailing list. Advertising here is really, really tac

Re: Barrel-bottom scraping

At 12:05 AM +0200 3/24/03, Pekka Savola wrote: I fail to see what added value they might bring They could be very useful to explaining to our management and marketing departments and so on the value of standards, particularly IETF standards. Further, because most companies focus on a small part

Can we move this discussion to a more appropriate place? (was:Re: IAB policy on anti-spam mechanisms?)

This thread is trying to redefine or redesign SMTP's use of TLS. It should probably be happening on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list instead of the main IETF mailing list. That's where the implementers are, and that's where the implementers of most of the foo-over-TLS protocols are. They too should b

Re: IAB policy on anti-spam mechanisms?

At 5:34 PM -0800 2/27/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your question assumes that the DUL is actually a meaningful anti-spam mechanism. It is not. Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by "meaningful"? As someone who uses the DUL list as an anti-spam mechanism and who experiments with turning it

RE: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area

At 4:50 PM -0800 12/9/02, Tony Hain wrote: If there were are real need for cross group coordination within the sub-IP area, that would be a little clearer. A presentation at the SubIP Area meeting in Atlanta drove home the point that the amount of coordination in the area was not as high as ex

Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input

A few more issues for this discussion: - The statement that some of the WGs in the SubIP area are about to finish up may be deceptive. Some of the WGs are accepting new proposals on wide-ranging topics. Some of the proposals that are within the charters are bogged down in personal/political has

Re: mail headers for announce

Or the IETF could simply start using its own Proposed Standard mechanism described in RFC 2919. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium

Re: Global PKI on DNS?

At 7:44 PM +0200 6/12/02, Jakob Schlyter wrote: >could we perhaps move this discussion to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? Yes we could, but whether or not people want to is another question. As for the people who have made comments about "it would be nice to be able to discover paths to trusted roots", plea

[idn] Re: CDNC Final Comments on Last call of IDN drafts

At 12:52 PM +0200 6/6/02, Simon Josefsson wrote: >This means IDN is not guaranteed to be secure on non-Unicode systems. >There are alot of non-Unicode systems out there today... Nothing is ever guaranteed to be secure. Even if we supplied mapping tables, there is no guarantee that the mapping ta

Re: [idn] WG last call summary

At 3:58 AM + 3/11/02, D. J. Bernstein wrote: >You say that you are obliged to ignore all these objections because the >IDN WG has to _do something_. You are lying again, Dan. Marc never said that, and you know it. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium

Re: RFC2119 Keywords

At 8:15 AM -0500 2/15/02, Scott Brim wrote: >In normative text, I don't see how "must" could occur anywhere except >where it was supposed to mean "MUST". It occurs when describing how something happened, not what needs to happen. Example from a current Internet Draft that is having the capitali

Re: REMINDER: revision to RFC2727 - NOMCOM

At 8:50 AM -0800 1/25/02, Dave Crocker wrote: >At 10:34 AM 1/25/2002 -0500, James M Galvin wrote: >>I just wanted to call your attention to the recently announced proposed >>revision: > >Perhaps the best time for pursuing revisions to this document is >immediately after the nomcom has done it job

Re: one copy sent to list but THREE returned

At 5:11 PM -0500 1/6/02, Gordon Cook wrote: >I sent but a single copy of 'empowering' to the list. It returned >THREE to me. If everyone else got 3, my apologies. If anyone can >inform me as to what happened i'd appreciate it. Er, a better question is why you spammed the IETF list at all. -

Re: Splitting the IETF-Announce list?

At 4:02 PM -0600 11/13/01, Pete Resnick wrote: >I am interested in getting all of the posts to the IETF-Announce >list *except* for the greatest bulk of those posts: Internet Draft >announcements. I find it hard to believe that I am the only one who >would prefer if the I-D announcements were o

Re: participation in IETF meetings

Going back to the original question about more multicast sessions: The advantage of multicast vs. tape-and-archive is the real-time aspect for the viewer. However, this is rarely, rarely used. If it turns out that switching from multicast to tape-and-archive can get more camera operators in mo

Re: Last Call: PIC, A Pre-IKE Credential Provisioning Protocol toProposed Standard

At 3:56 PM -0400 10/11/01, Darren Dukes wrote: >This may be nit-picking but I have seen no mention on IPSRA, or any other >list, or during any meetings that there are two interoperating independent >implementations of this draft. Is anyone able to confirm that >implementations exist and interope

Re: since drums is closed...

At 12:00 PM -0500 5/22/01, Chip Rosenthal wrote: >On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 05:00:49PM +0200, Maurizio Codogno wrote: > > I hope someone may give me an answer here, even if the topic is > > not quite in topic for the list. > >Don't have an answer to your question, but thought I'd point out >that m

Re: Mailing list policy

At 4:54 PM -0400 5/20/01, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >When you are the maintainer of a list That assumes that someone is the maintainer of the IETF mailing list. At this moment, that is not the case. You are asking that an additional task be put on one of the IETF Secretariat folks. That's a rea

Re: Deja Vu

At 12:52 PM -0500 3/22/01, William Allen Simpson wrote: >None of the Mac folks I've talked to have had any success with the >wireless DHCP. We have to hand configure. You must run in a different circle of IETF Mac users. None of the many that I know (including me) had any problem. --Paul Hoffm

Re: Blast from the past

At 10:30 PM -0500 1/24/01, J. Noel Chiappa wrote: >PS: Those of you with sharp eyes will notice that everything has a class A >address! ...and that some of those addresses still work, and appear to be used by folks directly related to the original owners. If only URLs could be so persistent...

Re: Again: Number of Firewall/NAT Users

At 12:10 PM -0500 1/23/01, Frank Solensky wrote: >One could ask a sample of administrators and extrapolate the results >but, again, the problem becomes how confident you could be of the >results if you don't get a very significant response rate The problem is *much* worse than that. You have to b

Re: internet voting -- ICANN, SmartInitiatives, etc.

Ed, why do you insist on advertising your patent-pending voting solution on the IETF mailing list? It does not involve any IETF protocol work, does it? --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium

Re: When presentations are a good idea (Re: IETF logistics)

At 9:33 AM -0800 1/3/01, Dave Crocker wrote: >1. IETF meetings should not be used for transmitting "news" that is >relevant to the working group; use the list. Right. >2. IETF meetings should not be used for introducing ideas or >specifications; use the list. There are times where meetings

Re: Bottom feeders

At 1:54 PM -0600 12/20/00, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >Hard to say, but the newcomer's briefing and the Tao of the IETF are >both on the web site. It is important to note that the Tao is being substantially upgraded and has lots of new material specifically aimed at dealing with some of the prob

RE: IETF logistics

At 9:44 AM -0800 12/20/00, Christian Huitema wrote: >I have a simpler point about logistics. What we are doing in the IETF >nowadays is downright dangerous. Prevalence of the laptops means that >the room is criss-crossed with power cables. Lack of room means that the >alleys are packed with standi

RE: IETF logistics

Just to be clear, Pete's idea does not preclude giving newcomers to the meeting context. Instead of the 5 minutes for agenda bashing and then straight into presentations, the WG chair can spend 15 minutes saying what the group is doing, where the WG is and is not meeting its charter, and the s

Re: Congestion control

WG chair says "OK, the room is now over-full. Who are there people in the doorway or outside who intend to work actively on drafts or forming the charter for this group? I see seven hands up. Could fourteen people who are currently sitting or jammed up against a wall who do *not* already plan

Re: Postel's razor applied to ACE

One more time with feeling: please take this discussion to the IDN WG's mailing list. It has no place on the main IETF mailing list, and it needs to be discussed where the people working on the protocol are working. Of course, one might want to read the WG's archive before posting to the list

Re: Diacritical application in the DNS

At 7:06 PM -0500 12/5/00, Dan Kolis wrote: >Now we are getting down to the nuts and bolts No, we're not. This is a long re-hash of unfinished discussions happening in the IDN Working Group. As was requested earlier in this thread, please go read the archives of the IDN WG, and if you have some

Re: Bake-off as trademark

OK, we have now reached >20 messages from armchair lawyers on trademark law. Given the earlier threads this year from armchair lawyers on patents, that leaves us just two months for us to have a ponderous thread on trade secrets, and we will have covered the main parts of intellectual property

RE: can vpn's extended to mobility

At 2:19 PM -0700 9/26/00, Dave Crocker wrote: >At 07:56 PM 9/26/00 +0100, Lloyd Wood wrote: >>Beg to differ. Encapsulation makes the VPN virtual. >>Encryption ensures that the VPN is private. >> >>All networks are privately managed, whether virtual or not; referring >>to that explicitly seems a bi

Interesting article on patents and standards

A recent editorial in Microprocessor Report (a pricey but very useful newsletter) covers an interesting patent tussle in the RAM market. It is relevant to the IETF process in that the features that were patented were put into the standards process while the patent owner silently moved the pate

RE: rfc-editor?

At 04:46 PM 4/14/00 +, Bob Braden wrote: >There IS no dark conspiracy here, just people devoting CONSIDERABLE >time and energy (without stock options, I might add) to making the >internet work. A great idea! Stock options in the RFC Editor function! - A hot startup of about 25 years (in real

Re: 1601bis -03: Still Vague

At 03:32 PM 3/3/00 +0800, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim wrote: >The role descriptions of section 2 remains vague. Thus, the relation >with IANA and the RFC Editor will remain vague. It seems quite clear to me. You might want to suggest alternative wording that you think is clearer. > No wonder, if t

Re: Device upload for all platforms -- the official HTML WG position

Why is this thread being run on the IETF mailing list? The IETF handed off responsibility for HTML to the W3C long ago. If the reason is to show people that someone has a beef with the way that the W3C is handling HTML, that point has been made. (I can already picture certain IETF folks starti

Re: Question re: an Internet-Draft and testing/deployment

At 10:49 AM 2/16/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Note: this protocol is quite experimental and should not be deployed in >the Internet until it reaches standards track in the IETF. >--- end excerpt > >Regarding the Note: - is there any coherent plan regarding testing/deployement >in regards to

Re: Announcement ivta.org

At 12:32 PM 2/12/00 -0800, Ed Gerck wrote: >Ross Finlayson wrote: > > That's good, but why not undertake this within the existing IETF process, > > rather than trying to emulate it? > >Because it is outside the scope of the IETF. For once, Ed and I might be in agreement on something. The IETF has

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

At 03:05 PM 1/4/00 -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote: >The IETF does not need to publish broken implementations of one companies >view of the shared gTLD registration process. True. They don't need to do anything. They have the *option* of continuing the tradition of approving publication of Informatio

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

At 03:58 PM 1/4/00 -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote: >In short you are suggesting that the I-D be published to document a >bad but current practice? A review of the Informational RFCs issued in the past few years would reveal a few RFCs that match that description quite well. > It seems counter-intu

Re: Documents need to conclude

At 05:07 AM 11/11/99 -0800, Dennis Glatting wrote: >Therefore, I offer to you this rule to consider: > > Once something is committed to paper in a WG a timer > starts. The document has 24 months (6 IETF sessions) > to either be sent to the IESG for advancement or >

Re: Citation bug in RFC 2425

At 03:16 PM 10/29/99 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Using a URL in a citation in an RFC seems like a bad idea. There may >be exceptions, e.g., an IETF.org or RFC-Editor.org URL might be less >risky. But expecting a URL in general to stay invariant for 25 years >seems dubious. Not to worry in