Many thanks to Stephanie for manually overriding the broken tool(s), and
processing the draft this morning.
After 3 dozen RFCs over 22+ years, that was my first attempt to use the
automated submission tool -- a mistake I'm unlikely to make again
William Allen Simpson wrote:
The URL
As of Feb 9th, the IESG posted a second status boilerplate. But the tool
doesn't yet recognize it Be warned.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
On 2010-02-26 20:42 William Allen Simpson said the following:
As of Feb 9th, the IESG posted a second status boilerplate. But the tool
doesn't yet recognize it Be warned.
Specifics, please?
* Is this the idnits tool or some other tool?
* Which version did you
to the newest version.
---
The longer response is that diagnosing this required much more time than
would have been required if all the requested and available information
had been supplied below (instead of flippancy); further comments inline:
On 2010-02-27 00:03 William Allen Simpson said
Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Your initial 'bugreport' contained no specifics whatsoever.
You inappropriately sent the 'tool is broken' message to the whole IETF
general discussion list, in addition to addressing me directly (so it's
not as if you didn't know where to direct a bug report).
All IETF
Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
So you're still maintaining that it's good and right to send out a notice
of a problem widely and provide no information which makes it possible to
resolve it? Bah!
Please stop before you embarrass yourself further. The original report
was very clear:
As of Feb
Thank you for informing me of the re-write. A few obvious editorial
corrections:
EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The former machine hasn't existed since circa 1994, and the latter since
circa 1998. Easy Googling has given reviewers one of my half dozen
active emails
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On fredag, desember 17, 2004 11:49:04 -0500 William Allen Simpson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, here's my promise to you. I'll track down McGregor, and we'll
write something up. I will work on moving my Proposed Standards,
assuming that the IESG is actually
at the
time of publication, but couldn't get the IESG to publish 3DES or SHA1
or any other more robust algorithm as a Proposed Standard.
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL
in 2 IETF meetings, and
to Full Standard in under 1 year on average, 2 years for extremely
controversial items.
You see, I disagree with one of your earlier statements. The IESG
really DOESN'T have anything more important to do
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31
something in days!
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
, although for some odd reason I thought you
were disagreeing with me. That no confused me. ;-)
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org
describe what currently shipping, actively
marketed products do (and should do) in this domain.
And that needs to be documented on the PPP list.
I found the nroff, and would be happy to document interoperability,
should there be any.
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31
protests) for them to be published!
Especially without the 40-bit export restrictions!
At the time, I advocated Triple-DES to be the Proposed Standard,
since we already knew 56-bit DES was broken. I requested Historic
status for these many years ago
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint
by lobbyists for lobbyists.
Let's not find out.
It exists: remember that protocol suite: ISO OSI?
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
RJ Atkinson wrote:
On Saturday, March 16, 2002, at 08:01 , William Allen Simpson wrote:
... I didn't happen to be at that ad-hoc meeting
in San Diego, so I wasn't influenced by it
No, but you were at the meetings where swIPe was demonstrated --
ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATED -- and where
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William Allen Simpson writes:
Right. The only copy I could find was from 1996, but I don't think
that that difference is important.
(http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-simpson-ipsec-enhancement-00.txt)
Remember, the WG chair
RJ Atkinson wrote:
On Wednesday, March 13, 2002, at 06:49 , William Allen Simpson wrote:
10 years ago on Tuesday, Phil Karn sprawled out across my hotel
room bed and drew the packet header that became ESP.
Actually, that packet header wasn't directly related to ESP,
though there aren't
Protection sequence number in 1995:
Internet Security Transform Enhancements
This was in the old IETF tradition of posting minority positions when
the main WG disagrees.
Perhaps you missed reading it?
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
.
...
Should I remind folks that at that same San Diego IETF, JI and Phil and
Steve Deering and others of us had a lunch BOF on Mobile-IP?
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
) Thurmond (R-SC) Thurmond (R-SC)
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
will now debate and vote on this report, even though few
members of the House have actually seen the report. Even minority
members of the Rules committee haven't seen the report.
This may rank as one of the biggest raw power grabs in US history.
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40
of out of the
office autoreplies...
Amazingly enough, I haven't had any on my posts!
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
More I haven't seen the proposed amendments yet. But this is a
broader call than just our Internet Engineering groups.
Original Message
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:31:05 -0400
From: Ari Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: CDT Calls on Internet
://www.aclu.org
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Fred Baker wrote:
At 12:13 PM 10/10/2001, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Unlike CALEA, there are no provisions for reimbursing ISPs for these
expenses -- tens of thousands of dollars could bankrupt many ISPs.
This is an attack on both civil liberties and small business.
I agree that our
, Einar Stefferud wrote:
Aye, Verily! Here! Here! Let's Hear it For MicroSoft!
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
This is a rare case where I disagree with Phil. This is a good
location. Unfortunately, it wasn't cold enough to discourage the
usual gaggle of folks that haven't read the charter or the drafts
It seems pretty warm to me, and I'm walking down 6 blocks to the
cheaper hotel.
The real
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
what would happen if there was an open server that would allow (filtered)
MBONE tunnels to connect, and a widely available (Linux?) client that would
connect to that server, and behave like a multicast router?
It's been done. I've implemented such in various real
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I've tried the election mechanism this morning at nearly the earliest
possible time, and after proceeding through all the pages, and verifying
my choices, suddenly the page indicated that I could not proceed at this
time.
First of all, that's a terrible
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
While I'm thinking about it, here's a bit of advocacy on ICANN board
membership. Of course, this may just cause folks to vote contrarily,
but participating is important, so get out the vote!
I'm putting Karl Auerbach at the top. He's the only one with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Casey Farrell, Domain Name Broker
cannot post on nanog, none of them show up, as he is not registered.
yet, in all these years, IETF hasn't managed to add a posting
restriction the technology exists, maybe our esteemed staff
could ask merit how they
I have no idea why so many different lists have been spammed. (Spam is
a technical term for massive cross-posting. Spam is bad.)
The US congresscritters listed won't even see the message, as their
mail server searches (or some poor aide searches by hand) for the
correct legislative office
Normally, I'd view this as rather cranky, since many implementations
have asked for this information for rather a long time. I usually
access them with the generic user "ftp", not "anonymous". I long
ago gave up an expectation of anonymity. I believe that the proper
security technique is
- Original Message
Subject: Re: Last Call: Telnet Authentication Option to ProposedStandard
Date: 24 Nov 1999 10:21:09 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johan Danielsson)
To: William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We al
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Protocols that offer increased complexity but no gain in security or
efficiency over other standards-track efforts, but are in use today, are
IMHO excellent candidates for Informational publication.
Not for the standards track.
I'll go further. THIS
36 matches
Mail list logo
