On 05/10/2012 09:49 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
Warren Kumari wrote:
-- if you are active in the IETF (or even if you aren't), you email
address is already known to the spammers. Our lists, and list archives
are all public
If the blue sheets would _only_ contain PII that is _already_available_
in ot
On 05/10/2012 11:17 AM, David Morris wrote:
I object to the quantum change in ease of access and persistence of the
information. I see way too much aggregation of personal information and
don't think open-ness is justification for increasing that potential.
+1
On 04/23/2012 07:23 PM, Samuel Weiler wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Randy Bush wrote:
i see ourselves some years from now having electronic tracking of whether X was in the room
during which parts of the discussion. do not like.
+1
I am very sympathetic to the desire to minimize the work of r
What about some text like
It is the responsibility of application to properly react on
the values for servername presented during session
initiation or session resumption and any related value(s)
presented during the application protocol
according to the needs of the application.
All values can
The entire response has been posted to the tlp-interest list
Why wasn't it send to the ISS? It may be easier ...
Please copy the response to the IETF list
Thanks
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
encourage the TLS working group members to
seriously treat the issue.
Peter Sylvester
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I had given my +1 a bit early after having seen
"the techniques
for sending and receiving authorizations defined in TLS Authorizations
Extensions (version draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt) do not
infringe upon RedPhone Security's intellectual property rights"
Anyway, there
Sam Hartman wrote:
I think a standard in this space is really needed. I would definitely
like to be able to include SAML assertions and other statements of
authorization as part of a TLS exchange.
In the appropriate environments I'd be willing to implement this spec
given the current IPR situat
What is missing that would require a new AREA.
The security area is not appropriate?
If 'area' actually meant working group,
I wonder to what degrre the problem of 'digital evidence'
is already treated in the LTANS working group.
Eric Burger wrote:
The idea that time services are important and o
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
On 2007-11-27, at 22:20, ext Terry Monroe wrote:
The event is now planned to take place in North America, specific
location
still to be determined.
Similar to IETF-67, which moved from Europe to San Diego, we're
again moving a meeting that
I think that the current texts would merit some additional work.
In particular to permit authorisation statements and to clarify
that how which client acts as a proxy for someone else.
I mentioned the first part to the authors some time ago, but
they didn't buy the idea.
Sam Hartman wrote:
Folk
For your interest:
The document below has a date of 13 july 2005, it was a result of a
reviews of several months by
various people in various areas of the French adminstration and other
public services.
The text essentially does:
- establish a secure communication among two organisations usi
by error I send the following only to Russ
1:
When more than one signature is present, the successful validation
| of one signature associated with a given signer is usually treated
| as a successful signature by that signer.
in this text is sued twice but with different meanings, maybe this
To the second point:
Denis:
you describe that the text concerning how to determine one signer with
multiple
signature is weak, nobody has disagreed, the text says 'ought to be'
'usually' etc.
but then you start a new discussion about a single signature
verification which
is IMO not related
1 - The document goes beyond specifying how to determine if a message
is validly signed by a given signer. The core of the dispute is the following
proposed sentence:
| When the collection represents more than one signature, the successful
| validation of one of signature fr
> ruled out because it "mixes" English and German?
>
Sorry I can't resist: like in EdelWeb.fr
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
> ok, what about DoC & ICANN agreements w/ VSGN giving them
> the authority to continue to register in and publish
> the .COM and .NET domains? That looks like an entitlment to me.
Hm, to me publishing all registered entities of a domain
is not the same as publishing that th
17 matches
Mail list logo
