is ...an IETF context... well defined?
/bill
On 11/6/12, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review and
comment.
Russ
=== Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===
Note Well
This summary is only meant to point you in the right
The IANA function was split?
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf
--bill
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
and I guess I am the only one who might still use it - but regardless, if its
broken, it should be fixed
to wit:
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-(ofthehour).txt
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
don't forget the comfy chairs and soft cushions...
--bill
On 15November2010Monday, at 1:34, Bert wrote:
On Nov 14, 2010, at 10:55 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Bert on the other hand has clearly been taking advantage of us for
years, we should put a stop to that :-)
The Secret Working
another datapoint for those keeping score. I am aware of people who
register, pay
and don't attend. seems that IETF attendance is a value proposition.
is it worth it (to my organization/self) to spend the time, money,
effort to engage in the
IETF and its
while I agree that the hierarchical and distributed nature of the DNS is
a scintillating, shimmering attractant, it is wise to be aware of the baseline
assumption in your arguement, e.g. that a client will -ALWAYS- ask an
authoritative
source...
The DNS is so designed that caching is a huge
[mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of bill
manning
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:43 PM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: 'Ray Bellis'; draft-iab-dns-applicati...@tools.ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-iab-dns-applications - clarification re: Send-N
while I agree
On 20October2010Wednesday, at 14:06, David Conrad wrote:
Bill,
On Oct 20, 2010, at 1:58 PM, bill manning wrote:
right... but only rarely in the DNS world do edge nodes actually go hit
the authoritative sources. much/most of the time they hit a cache,
often
one run
On 27September2010Monday, at 7:48, Tony Finch wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
DNSSEC is a mechanism for establishing inter-domain trust. It is not an
appropriate technology for intra-domain trust.
Why not?
Because the atomic unit of DNSSEC is a
On 24September2010Friday, at 17:16, John Levine wrote:
Plan A: few consumers will use DNSSEC between their PCs and the ISP's
resolver, so they won't notice.
Plan B: consumers will observe that malicious impersonation of far away
DNS servers is rare and exotic, but malware spam arrives
Dave,
thats not what the text says... again:
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/hzqz/zgqz/t84247.htm
Updated: 23/04/2009
Business Visa (F Visa) is issued to an alien who is invited to China for a
visit, an investigation, a lecture, to do business, scientific-technological
and
perhaps this will muddy the waters some...
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/hzqz/zgqz/t84247.htm
sez:
Updated: 23/04/2009
Business Visa (F Visa) is issued to an alien who is invited to China for a
visit, an investigation, a lecture, to do business, scientific-technological
and culture
ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because other cultures use
yyddmm. If the IETF website used something like ISO-2010-01-02 maybe.
This format is less confusing: 02jan2010
--bill
On 13March2010Saturday, at 7:06, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 13, 2010, at 9:51 AM,
data point. I tried this in Hiroshima and was rebuffed.
They would only allow a -single- one day pass per IETF week.
the second day they inisted I pay the walk up cost for the
whole week - minus the cost of the one day pass I already
used.
So for one day, plus 20min in a WG on the second day
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:40:07AM -0800, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The Eternal Non-Existence of SINK.ARPA (and other stories) '
draft-jabley-sink-arpa-02.txt as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 07:24:43AM -0800, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
(except it's not a joke)
Chinese proposal to meter Internet traffic
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8417680.stm
China wants to meter all internet traffic that passes through its
borders, it has emerged.
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 01:16:37PM -0800, David Conrad wrote:
On Nov 6, 2009, at 9:30 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Clearly the root operators are responsible to and accountable to the
Internet community.
Err, no.
First, the root server operators are all independent actors performing
On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 05:28:52AM -0500, Steve Crocker wrote:
On Nov 5, 2009, at 11:30 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
I actually don't think we have any serious disagreement here.
ICANN's management of the root zone is cautious for all sorts of
reasons, and as you note the root server
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:58:17AM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
Howdy,
I'd like to take one step up on this discussion. When the discussions
[elided]
making it possible for participants to attend can have. I think their
efforts to make it easier for colleagues from China to attend are
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:05:02AM +0200, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
The matter came up in an IPv6 discussion ISOC Chapters teleconference call
last night. We reached a burning question which nobody could answer
factually:
Is a dual stack IPv4-IPv6 likely to be more unstable than
the japanese equivalent of the OMROM V600-D23P71
--bill
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 09:16:37AM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I have asked Osamu and Kato to answer. Stay tuned.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972
a standard does not deployment make. There are networks still
running DECNETpV, Chaosnet, X.25, and even XNS. If there ever
is a time when IPv4 -not- running somewhere, it is likely to be
after 2038 - there is no pure IPv4 today and it is doubtful there
will ever be a pure IPv6 Internet.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:11:39AM -0400, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
the reason that the blue sheets were created was as part of maintaining
a full record of the open standards process - the question of room size
was never considered
the basic idea is discussed in section 8 of RFC 2026
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 04:25:11PM +0200, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 7/30/09 at 3:03 PM +0100, Samuel Weiler wrote:
What harms would come from destroying those old records and/or not
collecting such details in the future? And how widespread is the
support for destroying them?
Repeating
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:54:28PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Hello;
I am writing this to see what people think about creating a tlp-
discuss mailing list.
While I hope that the need for TLP revisions will diminish after the
current round is completed, it seems to several of the
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:55:05PM +0100, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
Silly question, I'm sure - any chance of putting the DNS into a
gigantic DHT and spreading the entry nodes liberally about the planet?
Cheers,
Sabahattin
PS: No political agenda implied.
been proposed quite
So quit trying to be a dead horse that is not even there.
If you are so interested in transport layer security, then
by all means, encourage, promote, and develop solutions.
STCP is one such measure. IPSEC is another. there are
many choices.
transport level security (integrity, authenticity)
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 10:38:28PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Christian Huitema wrote:
That is, security of DNSSEC involves third parties and is not end
to end.
That is indeed correct. An attacker can build a fake hierarchy of
secure DNS assertions and try to get it accepted. The
The question is why there should be moratorium on returned ASNs. I can
think of one reason that could be of dis-service to a new assignee, but
all we have so far is handwaving from the proponents.
___
a thought experiment.
John is
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:16:43PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
That's why I challenged Ted Hardie directly. Please don't take it personally
or as flaming, but anyone who wants to assert a private ownership right in
any copyright in any IETF RFC ought to do so now or forever hold your peace.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:17:47AM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Bill Manning wrote:
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of
Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the right to produce derivative works
is not granted.
- and -
So for some IETF work product
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 04:28:31PM -0800, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
From: Bill Manning bmann...@isi.edu
To: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com
Cc: 'IETF Discussion' ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 03:52:50PM -0500, Steve Crocker wrote:
All of the above should invisible unless the end system explicitly
invokes the DNSSEC-compliant recursive resolver AND asks for a signed
response.
Steve
for me, this statement is the crux of the issue.
it
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:58:59AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
As a DNS geek, I'd _prefer_ more-intelligent end points with respect
to the DNS. But I don't buy the argument that they're a necessary
condition for DNSSEC deployment.
apparently you and john (and me too) do not share
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:50:56AM -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
I have been approached about a plenary experiment regarding
DNSSEC. The idea is for everyone to try using DNSSEC-enabled clients
during the plenary session. I like the idea. What do others think?
Russ
nifty! jck shares my
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 07:46:21AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
but what about cookie preference?
s/cookie preference/cookie size preference/
Marshall
;-)
James
Dietary Restrictions?
Tony Hansen
see Dietary Restrictions, re cookie pref.
--
--bill
Opinions
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 05:32:36PM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Third, on site you received a booklet rather than the usual stack of
various sheets of paper. The Note Well, Local Info and Agenda was
combined into a single document thus making those manilla envelopes a
thing of the past. And
what is interesting to me is the weekend factor.
for nearly a decade, I've been going to mtgs the
wkend before the start of IETF - workshops, training sessions,
sidebars, RSSAC mtgs, etc.
about five years ago, the -other- suite of interesting/useful
meetings started occuring the weekend -after-
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 02:34:59PM -0700, Ted Faber wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 05:11:35PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
And vanity TLDs are going to be much more attractive if people think
they can get single-label host names out of them.
Of your concerns (which I don't have the relevant
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 01:49:24AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 07 July, 2008 12:08 -0700 Bill Manning
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John, do you beleive that DNS host semantics/encoding that
form the bulk of the IDN work (stringprep, puny-code, et.al
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 12:25:09PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 07 July, 2008 10:30 +1000 Mark Andrews
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
If / when MIT stop using ai.mit.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED] will not longer
mean [EMAIL PROTECTED] This will mean that any configuration
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:44:28PM -0700, Ted Faber wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:38:28PM -0700, Ted Faber wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:32:10PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you can cite verifiable evidence that even a single case that works
reliably now, will cease to work,
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 02:25:31PM -0700, Ted Faber wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 02:04:31PM -0700, Bill Manning wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:44:28PM -0700, Ted Faber wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:38:28PM -0700, Ted Faber wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:32:10PM -0700, [EMAIL
you are not the first to report this problem.
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 10:47:53PM -0700, 'kent' wrote:
Hi Rich
I'll cc this to the ietf list, as you suggested.
I've found the problem. It may or may not be something that ietf want's to
do something about -- I would think they would,
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 07:57:58AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
A mobile machine can register its current addresses in the
DNS regardless much more easily than it can register its
reverse PTR records.
er... both are registering things in the DNS. manipulation
I'm suggesting it would be helpful if there were an RFC directing IANA
to establish a registry that contains both labels and rules (e.g, no
all-numeric strings, no strings that start with 0x and contain
hexadecimal values, the string 'xn--', the 2606 strings, etc.) that
specify what
would the ISSN apply to the whole series?
--bill
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 01:52:09PM -0400, Ray Pelletier wrote:
The IETF Trust is considering applying to the U.S. Library of Congress
to obtain an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) for the RFC
Series and would like community input
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 06:02:20PM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
So? The rules of academic citation are broken. Take a look at their idiotic
criteria for citing web pages.
Unfortunately the folk who designed the reference manager for office 2008
made the mistake of taking them
Two additional observations:
(1) While we think of RFCs as online documents, their
antecedents, and all of the early ones, were paper publications.
[elided]
I suggest that the community would be better served, and the ISSN
made more useful, if we treated RFCs as authoritative paper,
copies
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:08:41AM -0400, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
it started w/ folsk scanning the pages of the early bound
copies of IETFF proceedings.
the sheets are no longer included in the proceedings
right - the point is that this has been a problem
for years.
the
WIDE camps have done the RFID thing for several years now.
--bill
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:35:12AM -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
The registration database for each IETF meeting already contains email
addresses of all attendees, presumably a superset of the blue-sheet
signers.
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 03:14:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:50:08AM -0700, Bill Manning wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:08:41AM -0400, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
it started w/ folsk scanning the pages of the early bound
copies of IETFF proceedings
,
-drc
On Apr 4, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Bill Manning wrote:
WIDE camps have done the RFID thing for several years now.
--bill
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:35:12AM -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
The registration database for each IETF meeting already contains
email
addresses of all
the process you describe has happend in recent memory at more than
one IETF. it started w/ folsk scanning the pages of the early bound
copies of IETFF proceedings.
--bill
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 08:10:12PM -0400, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
Ole guessed
My understanding is that the blue sheet
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 11:53:37PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
It was obvious 20+ years ago that MX processing was broken
as there was no way to say I don't want email.
First, it may have been obvious to you, but it wasn't obvious to
many of us. In the general case, it still
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:10:38AM -0700, SM wrote:
At 19:32 25-03-2008, Bill Manning wrote:
er... what about zones w/ A rr's and no MX's?
when I pull the A rr's, you are telling me that SMTP
stops working? That is so broken.
SMTP will still work
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 01:15:23PM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Bill Manning wrote:
example.com. soa (
stuff
)
ns foo.
ns bar.
;
mailhost fe80::21a:92ff:fe99:2ab1
is what i am using today.
In that case adding an MX record pointing to mailhost
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:00:23AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Ned Freed wrote:
If the consensus is that better interoperability can be had
by banning bare records that's perfectly fine with me.
FWIW, I'd like that...
Clarity can be established and interoperability _improved_
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in
the future, it will be easy to determine which wgs attract the same
people and overlap can be avoided more effectively.
as someone who has
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:08:02AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Bill Manning wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in
the future, it will be easy
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:17:36AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
On 25 Mar 2008, at 10:08 , Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Bill Manning wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 03:56:14PM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Bill Manning wrote:
FWIW, I'd like that...
Clarity can be established and interoperability _improved_
by limiting discovery to just A and MX records. Perhaps a
note might be included that at some point in the future
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 09:30:27AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:00:23AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Ned Freed wrote:
If the consensus is that better interoperability can be had
by banning bare records that's perfectly fine with me.
FWIW,
one has to schedule unpleasentness, since there is so much of it.
--
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
___
IETF mailing list
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 07:25:17PM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
lconroy wrote:
I guess that the IETF Meeting Registration pages are run by/on
behalf of the IETF, and that's where the mandatory code is required.
Tons of forms want this for obscure purposes, if in doubt I pick UM.
in the case of B - you would have only gotten A records
prior to 04feb2008.
--bill
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 01:59:38PM -0500, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
Prior to 4 Feb, quite a few of the root servers had listed IPv6
addresses
(see http://www.root-servers.org). I took this announcement to
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 02:27:13PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 01:29:40PM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
I really have a hard time being sympathetic to this complaint. If
the purpose of the IETF is open discussion and cross-pollination,
what does it matter where we
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:15:26AM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
At 10:25 -0800 1/19/08, Bob Braden wrote:
*
* The RFC repository also has rfc-index.txt, which lists all the RFCs,
And an RFC search engine... just type 1730 into the little box,
and it will magically return the information
if you read the ARIN statement on IPv6, you will find that Keith
is describing the story of how to cook a frog. soon, (pick your
favorite study) all IPv4 space will be allocated. For folks who
need IP access after that time, IPv6 will be available. Its those
(ones and twos) who will need
to getaddrinfo(). The library
I'm thinking of would also have to handle reachability
checking - and as John said, would ideally also be stateful
to avoid repeating the same timeouts.
Brian
On 2008-01-06 11:45, Bill Manning wrote:
the IETF has refused to adopt the DISCOVER opcode
the IETF has refused to adopt the DISCOVER opcode for
the DNS - which pretty much handles this problem. Others
may have developed other techniques.
--bill
As Phill H-B has implied more than once, there's scope
for a library on top of the socket API that takes care
of this once and for
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 01:33:54PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 31 December, 2007 10:05 -0800 Barbara Roseman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4 February 2008, IANA will add records for the IPv6
addresses of the four root servers whose operators have
requested it.
...
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 07:57:29PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
(3) As Keith Moore has pointed out repeatedly for the general
case and as I and others have pointed out for more specific ones
(including today's mail-and-DNS case), dual stack is a nice
thing to do if one is developing
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 10:09:28PM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Bill Manning wrote:
as offical spokesmodel for the IETF in your role
as Sgt at Arms, your you SURE you want to advocate
the IETF abandon its published statement wrt there
being ONE ROOT ...
Our interpretation
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:05:36AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:20:32PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:36:34AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
The problem is getting the records for them published.
A local copy of
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 08:48:38AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 7:56 AM -0800 12/16/07, Dave Crocker wrote:
Yaakov Stein wrote:
Why don't we dedicate a separate 2 hour plenary just to this
experiment with the moderator announcing workarounds and collected
statistics ?
That's not a
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 08:54:01AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
We will make more information about the structuring of this activity over
the next few weeks. Please do whatever you can to make ready ...
Russ Housley
IETF Chair
___
Ietf
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:32:26PM -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Bill Manning wrote:
The IETF can do that?
Just have Bill jack it again...
again? i never (well not publically)
--
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 05:11:47PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
Hello Ray ,
Brian
You need both physical (power, hardware, location) and
operational (different global prefixes, preferably different
AS's) diversity for reliable DNS.
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 07:52:25AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think the process has proved to be rather resistant to packing of
meetings, written statements distributed in the meeting room, and
back-channel campaigns to have non-participants commenting on drafts
they haven't read.
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 12:06:26PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
Mark,
I get renumbered in IPv4 today.
I suspect there is probably a question of scale here.
I wouldn't be surprised that a small home network with a limited
number of subnets and systems could be automatically
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:08:30AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
interestingly, some software vendors ship w/ license
keys tied to IP addresses... particularly for enterprise
level stuff. not so easy to update in my experience.
I've always thought that practice to be
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:17:21PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:08:30AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
interestingly, some software vendors ship w/ license
keys tied to IP addresses... particularly for enterprise
level stuff. not so
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 05:29:39PM -0700, Tony Hain wrote:
David Conrad wrote:
IPv6 _is_ IPv4 with more bits and it is being deployed that way.
No it is not, and you need to stop claiming that because it confuses people
into limiting their thinking to the legacy IPv4 deployment
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:05:22PM +0300, Jari Arkko wrote:
David,
We had an opportunity to fix that, but we blew it.
I think everyone agrees that having that flexibility
(ease of renumbering, no routing explosion in the
core etc) would be good.
But I would suggest that instead of
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 02:03:47AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
maybe I'm misled but I've never thought of the registries as bodies
whose purpose was to collect operational experience.
but yes, I'd very much like for IETF to have more input from those
involved in operation, as well as
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 04:36:51PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
again, the fundamental problem here is that the RIRs are trying to
second-guess IETF design decisions.
the RIRs are membership organizations, with members
consisting of the operational community. they have
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 10:58:21PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
perhaps, but if IETF has the problem that it's not willing to assert its
ownership over its own protocols, that problem is better addressed in
IETF than in ARIN.
very true. but throwing protocols over the wall and
Michael Dillon sez:
ARIN ... belives IPv6 addresses are ... resources that need to be
[distributed] according to need.
I guess I have to agree with this sentiment. If the ARIN community
decides there is a better way to distribute IP addresses *OTHER THAN*
need, I'd be really happy to hear
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 01:25:13PM -0400, Stephen Kent wrote:
At 4:36 PM +0200 8/8/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 8-aug-2007, at 12:07, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Routing certificates are simple. If HP sells (lends, leases,
gifts, insert-favourite-transaction-type-here) address space to
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 10:49:20AM -0400, Stephen Kent wrote:
At 6:35 AM -0700 8/9/07, Bill Manning wrote:
...
The RIRs are working to enable clean transfer of address space
holdings, using X.509 certs. While one could do what what Harald
suggested, the new address space holder would have
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 04:35:02PM -0400, Stephen Kent wrote:
At 11:40 AM -0700 8/9/07, Bill Manning wrote:
O...
ICANN is also a legal entity, with the same vulnerabilities
as all other companies including RIR's... which was my point.
Special is reserved for governments
so your concerned about editing ASCI text vs. ASCI XML?
i think you'll be spending that hour regardless.
--bill
On Nov 9, 2005, at 12:02, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
What I do find somewhat tedious is coming to edit an internet draft or
RFC someone else wrote and discovering that I have to
On Nov 9, 2005, at 6:27, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, November 09, 2005 04:05 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think I've seen a reminder this week that
jabber room for the XXX WG or BOF is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian,
I commented to someone last
M. Eduardo,
i am persaded that you are inconsistent at best. first you state:
This is may be we do not share the same culture.
Every culture is to be respected.
and then you state:
On Oct 17, 2005, at 10:04, Eduardo Mendez wrote:
IETF culture is no interest.
Please respect the
On Sep 20, 2005, at 10:55, Bernard Aboba wrote:
DNSsec is very important for other reasons, such as the current
pharming attacks. The risks have been known in the security community
since at least 1991, and publicly since at least 1995. The long-
predicted attacks are now happening. We
sorry, the I-D has no information as to where this should be discussed... so:
i am convinced that the IETF has no business telling me what routes i may or may not
accept from or send to my peers, with the exception of prefixes of undefined BEHAVIOUR,
much like the IPv4 class E space. That said,
On Sep 1, 2005, at 15:17, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On torsdag, september 01, 2005 20:30:56 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You choose in the DNS case is because you believe (presumably) in
the chain of servers between you, the root node and the
authoritative
On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:25, Peter Dambier wrote:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Other than a few minor issues that are being dealt with in a -43
update,
I don't think that anyone has raised a blocking technical issue with
the
LLMNR specification during this
there is a fairly extensive history of multicast DNS...
in 1998/1999, along w/ this draft:
Woodcock, B., Manning, B., Multicast Domain Name Service,
draft-manning-dnsext-mdns-02.txt, August 2000. Revied twice now
Expired.
was this one:
Vixie, P., Manning, B., Supporting unicast replies to
1 - 100 of 219 matches
Mail list logo
