On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 10/12/2013 5:25 AM, John Levine wrote:
>
>> ICANN has a long running fantasy that they are a global
>> multi-stakeholder organization floating above mere politics, and not a
>> US government contractor incorporated as a California non-pro
To have a leader there must be followers. Ergo there are no IETF leader
statements.
As a practical matter any organization that tries to do things with other
organizations needs to have some party that can act on its behalf. That is
why Ambassadors are necessary.
The current constitution of the IETF means that the chairs of the IAB and
the IETF have very limited authority to spea
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control
> > before the
> > vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be to
> &g
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:53 AM, manning bill wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control
> before the vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be
> to ensure that no such leverage exists. There is no reason for the apex of
> the DNS t
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> >
> > This wording is surprising. It looks like it is the revelations that
> > undermined confidence, and not the NSA actions. I would prefer
> > something like, to avoid shooting the messenger:
>
> Of course :-) We meant that the loss of privac
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
> Phill,
>
> On 09/24/2013 05:25 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > Looking at the extreme breach of trust by US govt re PRISM, I think it is
> > time to do something we should have done decades ago but were
Looking at the extreme breach of trust by US govt re PRISM, I think it is
time to do something we should have done decades ago but were stopped at US
Govt request.
Lets kill all support for X.400 mail.
This is still in use, I know. But looking through the PKIX spec the schema
is ten pages long. I
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
> On 19/09/13 17:59, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
> I am personally not worried that the standardization work in the IETF
>> can be sabotaged by governments since our process is open, and
>> transparent to everyone who cares to see what is go
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Martin Sustrik
>
> > Isn't it the other way round? That exactly because IETF process is
> open
> > it's relatively easy for anyone to secretly introduce a backdoor
> into a
> > protocol?
> > ...
> > With IETF
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> I'd like to snippet Phil's suggestion to an abbreviated version of one
> sentence, becaue I think this is right on.
>
>
> On 09/19/2013 05:37 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>> The issue we need
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <
hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi Phillip,
>
> I am personally not worried that the standardization work in the IETF can
> be sabotaged by governments since our process is open, and transparent to
> everyone who cares to see what is going
One of the biggest problems resulting from the Snowden/PRISM fiasco is that
we now know that the NSA has been spending a significant sum (part but not
all of a $250 million budget) on infiltrating and manipulating the
standards process.
As one of my friends in the civil rights movement from the 60
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM, John Levine wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> >Since this has turned out to be ambiguous, I have decided to instead use a
> >SHA-256 hash of my DNA sequence:
> >
> >9f00a4-9d1379-002a03-007184-905f6f-796534-06f9da-304b11-0f88d7-92192e-98
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:24 PM, John Levine wrote:
> >* The purpose of ORCID is to /uniquely/ identify individuals, both to
> >differentiate between people with similar names, and to unify works
> >where the author uses variant or changed names
>
> If you think that's a good idea, I don't see an
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Tobias Gondrom
wrote:
> On 09/09/13 09:29, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> We're talking.
>
> Eliot
>
>
> On 9/9/13 10:20 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
> So, has Bruce Schneier actually been invited to speak at the Technical
> Plenary (or elsewhere) during the Vancouver IET
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2013, at 1:49 PM, "Dickson, Brian"
> wrote:
> > In order to subvert or redirect a delegation, the TLD operator (or
> > registrar) would need to change the DNS server name/IP, and replace the
> DS
> > record(s).
>
> Someone who posses
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 04:46:01PM +, Ted Lemon wrote:
> >
> > The model for this sort of validation is really not on a per-client
> > basis, but rather depends on routine cross-validation by various
> > DNSSEC operators throughout the n
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Joe Abley wrote:
>
>
>>> 1. We only need to know the current time to an accuracy of 1 hour.
>>>
>>
>> [RRSIG expiration times are specified with a granularity of a second,
>> right?
>>
>> I appreciate that most people ar
OK lets consider the trust requirements here.
1. We only need to know the current time to an accuracy of 1 hour.
2. The current time is a matter of convention rather than a natural
property. It is therefore impossible to determine the time without
reference to at least one trusted party.
2a) A t
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM, SM wrote:
> Hi Yoav,
> At 03:28 11-09-2013, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
>> I don't think you'd even need the threats.
>>
>
> [snip]
>
> Notice the important parts of that pitch. A sense of danger; Making the
>> target feel either patriotic or a humanitarian; Sharing a "se
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2013, at 9:18 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
> wrote:
> >
> > The DNS is the naming infrastructure of the Internet. While it is in
> theory possible to use the DNS to advertise very rapid changes to Intern
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
> wrote:
> > You go to a Web page that has the HTML or Javascript control for
> generating a keypair. But the keypair is generated on the end user's
> computer.
>
>
I faced this problem in Omnibroker.
One answer is that DNS is an infrastructure for resolving Internet labels
to Internet resources including IP addresses. It is thus the only Internet
infrastructure where infrastructure providers may reasonably be expected to
maintain long term IP addresses by na
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2013, at 5:47 PM, John R Levine wrote:
> > How likely is it that they would risk their reputation and hence their
> entire business by screwing around with free promo S/MIME certs?
>
> I don't know. What happens if they are served
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
> wrote:
> > The CA NEVER ever gives the user the key in any of the systems I have
> worked on.
>
> This appears to be untrue.
> > Comodo offers that exact s
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2013, at 9:26 PM, John R Levine wrote:
> > Um, didn't this start out as a discussion about how we should try to get
> > people using crypto, rather than demanding perfection that will never
> > happen?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Typical S/MIME key
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
> Actually, I interpret the chemistry professor's comment in a different
> light. It would be possible to design a system where:
>
> o the standard end user software doesn't facilitate editing the other
> person's text, and
>
> o each piece of
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>
> >The other countries concerned did not employ torture as the US did under
> President Bush.
>
> You mean like Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia
>
My original comment was limited to adversaries with potential intercept
capabil
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> Probably best if we keep the politics off the IETF list.
>
> Noel
>
I grew up in politics. There is a method to my approach here.
I know that the IETF list is watched. I am making it clear that I am a
personal political opponent of C
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 3:21 AM, SM wrote:
> Hi David,
> At 16:10 06-09-2013, David Morris wrote:
>
>> Seriously though, NSA makes a nice villan, but much of our hardware is
>> manufactured in counties with fewer restraints than the NSA when it
>> comes the right to privacy, etc. Wouldn't suprise
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 11:39:59PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > For purposes of email security it is not about the keys at all. It is the
> > email addresses that are the real killer.
> >
> > I
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> How about a BCP saying conforming implementations of a wide-variety of
> security-area RFCs MUST be open-source?
>
> *ducks*
>
And the user MUST compile them themselves from the sources?
Nobody runs open source, (unless its an interpreted langua
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2013, at 8:21 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> > when you vouch for someone's identity - in an authoritative
> > trust system - you're also vouching for the authenticity of
> > their transactions.
>
> This is what I mean by "a high bar." S
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 9/6/13 12:54 AM, t.p. wrote:
>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Phillip Hallam-Baker"
>> Cc: "IETF Discussion Mailing List"
>> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 4:56 AM
>>
&g
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 9/6/2013 10:17 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>>
>> I will be happy to participate in a pgp signing party.
>> Organized or not.
>>
>> I suggest that an appropriate venue is during the last 15 minutes of the
>> newcomer welcome and the fir
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2013, at 2:51 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > The issue is that smime email clients are more common so I would
> > rather teach the smime doggie pgp like tricks than vice versa
>
> The problem is getting your
Could we do smime as well?
If we had a list of smime cert fingerprints it can be used for trust
reinforcement
The issue is that smime email clients are more common so I would
rather teach the smime doggie pgp like tricks than vice versa
Sent from my difference engine
On Sep 6, 2013, at 1:20 P
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 03:28:28PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > OK, that's actionable in the IETF, so can we see the I-D before
> > the cutoff?
>
> Why is that discussion of this nailed to the cycle of IETF meetings?
It is not.
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/09/2013 15:11, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> ...
> > S/MIME is almost what we need to secure email. What is missing is an
> > effective key discovery scheme. We could add t
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry, I don't detect the emergency.
>
> I'm not saying there's no issue or no work to do, but what's new about
> any of this?
>
> Was PRISM a surprise to anyone who knew that the Five Eyes sigint
> organ
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> so, it might be a good idea to hold a pgp signing party in van. but
> there are interesting issues in doing so. we have done lots of parties
> so have the social protocols and n00b cheat sheets. but that is the
> trivial tip of the iceberg.
>
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:56 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> John,
>
> > Either that or figure out how to make it easy enough to deploy new
> > RRTYPEs that people are willing to do so.
> >
> > The type number is 16 bits, after all. We're not in any danger of
> running out.
>
> We have been told on num
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Dan Schlitt wrote:
> As the manager of a modestly large network I found the TXT record as a
> useful tool in management of the network. Such a use was even suggested by
> other system managers. That was a time when the Internet was a friendlier
> place. Today I m
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> Hi Phillip,
>
>
> --On August 30, 2013 at 10:16:46 AM -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker <
> hal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Service discovery requires prefixes.
>>
>> Here is a draft that works fine (except fo
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:35 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Inspired by part of the SPF discussion but separate from it,
> Patrik, Andrew, and I discovered a shortage of registries for
> assorted DNS RDATA elements. We have posted a draft to
> establish one for TXT RDATA. If this requires
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:31 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 07:21 -0700 Dave Crocker
> wrote:
>
> >> RFC 5507 primarily raises three concerns about TXT records:
> >
> > RFC 5507 is irrelevant to consideration of the SPFbis draft.
> >
> > Really.
> >
> > RFC 5507
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:28 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Phillip,
>
> At 15:53 27-08-2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>> What I found incredibly rude was when an AD and Working Group chair
>> actually hissed when I gave my company name at the mic.
>>
>
&
Sometimes there is a need for sarcasm.
I find it very rude when people begin by lecturing a Working Group on the
'fact' that nobody understands the subject matter. This is not the
exhibition of modesty etc. that it pretends to be, it is actually a trap
designed to gull the WG into agreeing that th
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 6:43 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 08:39:36AM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, manning bill wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > the question is not that "nobody" checks type 99, the q
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, manning bill wrote:
>
> the question is not that "nobody" checks type 99, the question is
> "is the rate of adoption
> of type 99 -changing- in relation to type 16?
>
As John pointed out, support for checking type 99 has decreased and
continues to
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 8/23/2013 11:06 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
>
>> We don't have to be like the ones we all know who sneer at anyone
>> presuming to get in the way of their code going into production.
>>
>
>
> Since this is such a fundamental point, I'm sending t
>From a pure protocol point of view the SPF record does have one major
advantage over TXT and that is in the use of wildcard records.
In short a wildcard on a TXT record for SPF is going to have impact on
every other scheme that overloads TXT, of which there are many. SPF does
have a mechanism to
I am having trouble understanding this discussion.
If the data is in a database then surely the production of RFC xx00
standards series is simply running an automated query on the database and
emitting the result as an RFC?
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:48 AM, SM wrote:
> Hola Arturo,
>
> At 07:34 19-08-2013, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
>> Academic might work. "Open source" not so much as other
>> mentioned. Does
>> "Big Corporation" doing Open Source apply?
>>
>> I was tempted to propose "non-profit", but a
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> >>> parsers need to canonicalize maps to any depth in order to
> >>> detect duplicates. This is "complex" by any definition of the word.
>
> It isn't complex in terms of computational efficiency ... you can
> canonicalize in O(N log N) and
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2013, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>
> My web submission told me "Your submission is pending email
>> authentication. An email has been sent you with instructions." more than an
>> hour ago, but I haven't seen such a mail.
>>
>> I
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Hadriel Kaplan
wrote:
>
> On Aug 18, 2013, at 5:21 AM, SM wrote:
>
> > 1. If the IETF is serious about running code (see RFC 6982) it would try
> to encourage open source developers to participate more effectively in the
> IETF.
>
>
> Define "open source developer
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> I am quite sure that I fully understand the semantics of "critical"
> (probably erroneously), so I'm not the right person to clarify the various
> meanings of the word. I would appreciate a proposal.
>
> Just for the record, my "
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 13:14, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> > MessagePack is simpler so will need even less code
>
> FWIW, earlier today I had a nice afternoon with the msgpack-ruby C code,
> converting it to encoding and decoding CBOR instead.
>
>
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 8/13/2013 3:20 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>
>> One of the reasons why I like the CBOR tag applied to a byte stream is
>> that
>> it can be used to skip parsing on entire sections (no matter their
>> underlying types) in processors that don'
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> BCP 70 " Guidelines for the Use of Extensible Markup Language (XML)
> within IETF Protocols"
> attempted to outline some of the design considerations for data
> representation using XML.
> In 2003, it represented the consensus and also th
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> On Aug 10, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Hadriel Kaplan
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > But, if the IESG feels an encoding mechanism doesn't need any targeted
> use-case to be published as a PS, then please ignore my email for purposes
> of consensus. I'm not stron
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Hadriel Kaplan
> wrote:
> > I'm not saying that will happen in this case at all, but we shouldn't
> kid ourselves that it doesn't matter. If it didn't matter, people wouldn't
> care about labeling their IDs Informa
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>
>> To the rest of the community: Does anyone else think it is not
>> appropriate to publish CBOR as a Proposed Standard, and see who uses
>> it?
>>
>
> I have two moderate concerns:
>
> 1. I ha
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > * Will CBOR become the default binary JSON encoding?
>
> That would be up to the implementors. If they like it, they will
> implement it and use it in other protocols. No one is suggesting at
> this point that there be any specific directio
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2013, at 09:05, Martin Thomson
> wrote:
>
> > What would cause this to be tragic, is if publication of this were
> > used to prevent other work in this area from subsequently being
> > published.
>
> Indeed.
>
> As Paul and I ha
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:31 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
> When next you walk into a target or big W, ask to see the conditions of
> entry. Along with implied consent to have your bags checked at any time,
> you have probably given consent to be video'ed and tracked at their behest.
> The poster
Hmmm didn't a certain large company whose name rhymes with scroogle
recently get whacked with a huge fine for violating privacy in a similar
manner in the EU?
Like you say, must be just fine it says so on the net.
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
>
> >> Why bother with R
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 8/6/13 11:58 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> > For what it's worth (not much) I would miss the line at the mic.
> > There are useful conversations that happen within the line that I
> > think we would lose if the mic followed the speaker, and I also
process off to two individuals to
make a design decision in private.
For example, take the following messages from the CBOR authors:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Paul Hoffman
wrote:
> On May 22, 2013, at 9:14 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
> wrote:
>
> > I think we can all agree
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> >> Unless we adopt the WIDE practice where the tag is re-used from
> >> meeting to meeting. It's an elegant solution, and not that different
> >> from the reason I own a complete set of Suica, Pasmo, ICOCA, PASPY and
> >> London Oyster car
The situation with CBOR illustrates a difference of design philosophy that
I think is of much wider relevance. Consider the normal process of
engineering design:
1) Use use cases to develop requirements
2) Perform triage on requirements to focus on most important ones and
3) Implement
4) Test, if
The point is that there would BE discussion. Consensus is not enough, the
process has to be open. A consensus formed by keeping people out of the
room is no consensus at all.
Though if the discussion was of the form 'this was already decided' then
that effort would be a farce as well.
What we ne
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On 7/29/13 4:54 AM, "Phillip Hallam-Baker" wrote:
>
> >There are existing specs that does what CBOR does just as well that have
> >actual users.
>
> Some of these were approached, and none of them th
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
>
> > The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the
> > ISP business model.
>
> So this is rather amusing: you're trying to tell me that ISPs wa
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Simon Leinen wrote:
> Noel Chiappa writes:
> > But in any event, it's doesn't void my point: if people want
> > something, we have two choices: i) blow people off, and they'll adopt
> > some point solution that interacts poorly with everything else, or ii)
> > give
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/07/2013 05:21, Melinda Shore wrote:
> > On 7/30/13 7:59 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> >> I don't think that's the problem; I think the problem is that most
> >> users don't realize how much lack of transpar
The question I want an answer to is whether this is going to be the only
standard for a binary version of JSON allowed.
I have an alternative proposal which is designed to be compatible with JSON
so that existing encoder and decoder implementations can be used and so
that a single decoder can hand
Why not put the presentations up on YouTube as podcasts. That way people
can watch them before starting off for the meeting.
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> I agree with Randy.
>
> Presentation material, documents, etc. should be available in
> advance
>
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> nroff still works fine for me. It's already there in Mac OS X.
>
>
Only the topic of the conversation is how to get more people involved in
IETF, not how to make them run away screaming and crying.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 7/27/13 1:38 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
> > I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could
> > provide short video overviews to help people understand the work.
> > This includes newcomers and also interested observer
If I had known this was taking place I might have made the trip to Berlin.
I am very interested in the problem this tries to solve. I think it is the
wrong way to go about it but I am interested in the problem.
The case for having some sort of local name discovery mechanism is clear in
both the e
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:23 PM, John Levine wrote:
> >>> domains are going to be dotless and three of the biggest dotless
> domains
> >>> are going to be called .apple and .microsoft and .google and they are
> going
>
> I've read the applications for .apple, .microsoft, and .google. None
> of
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> I notice you are missing .oracle and .exchange and .mail. Is that
>> because you can't take any more slaps on the back or because you know
>> too many comp
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>> And I don't expect things to be different this time round. But in ten
>> years time it will be obvious that
>> domains are going to be dotless and three o
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
Anyone who tried to
> monetize per-device would have had competition from people who only charged
> based on their actual costs.
So not deploying NAT would somehow magically cause a second broadband
provider to unroll a fiber optic cable
house was that Roadrunner wanted $10 extra per
month for every device I connected to a maximum of 4. I have over 200 IP
enabled devices in my house.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 07/12/2013 09:28 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at
To be clear here, I do not think the IETF conference fee to be at all
unreasonable. I have paid it out of my own pocket on occasion.
My concern here is that arguments of the form 'we can't change the
conference model because IETF needs the money' will lead to disaster. The
Internet is changing a l
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 07/12/2013 08:16 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>>
>> And before people start bringing up all the reasons I am wrong here,
>> first consider the fact that for many years it was IETF ideology that NATs
>> wer
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 7/10/2013 11:59 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>
>> The IAB has made a statement on dotless domains. You can find this
>> statement here:
>> http://www.iab.org/documents/**correspondence-reports-**
>> documents/2013-2/iab-**statement-dotless-dom
There are several interlocking issues with the day passes and cross area
participation.
One issue is the fact that the IETF chose a business model in which profits
from the conferences fund the organization and the IETF has no ability to
reconsider or change decisions of that sort. I can see that
+1
And don't lets forget that plenty of people have proposed schemes that WGs
have turned down and then been proven right years later.
If people are just saying what everyone else is saying here then they are
not adding any value. Rather too often WGs are started by folk seeking a
mutual apprecia
+1
I think SHOULD and RECOMMENDED should both be used when there is a strong
suggestion that implementations comply with the following statement unless
there are reasons not to.
Where I think it is time to go beyond 2119 is that we can distinguish two
circumstances:
SHOULD is the preferred term
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Scott Brim wrote:
>
> > 2119 overrides anything you might think you know about what words
> > mean.
>
No, 2119 PURPORTs to do that. It can try but it probably isn't going to
succeed.
The purpose of RFCs is to communicate ideas. In ordinary
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
like an
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
> Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> >
> > RECOMMENDED is a strong suggestion that the implementation may override
> at
> > the discretion of the implementer. SHOULD is normative.
> >
> > So the first tells me
reference the
new RFC.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>>
>> RECOMMENDED is a strong suggestion that the implementation may override
>> at the discretion of the implementer. SHOULD
RECOMMENDED is a strong suggestion that the implementation may override at
the discretion of the implementer. SHOULD is normative.
So the first tells me that I can make up my own mind, the second says that
I should give a reason if I don't comply.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Yoav Nir wrote
.
On Jun 24, 2013, at 8:39 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, June 24, 2013 07:52 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
> wrote:
>
>> They are not synonyms
>>
>> Lets go back to 1980:
>>
>> Implementations SHOULD support DES
>> vs
>> R
1 - 100 of 494 matches
Mail list logo
