it would mean we are approving 4020bis without knowing what
it
> means, until 5226bis is approved.
Actually, it would be pointless as things stand since all that 5226bis
has in it is
"I was
looking through the 5226bis draft and there is nothing in there about
how to deprecate values
arnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
-Original Message-
From: Michelle Cotton [mailto:michelle.cot...@icann.org]
Sent: 29 August 2013 15:53
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); t.p.; ietf
Subject: Re: "Deprecate"
We are working on 5226bis ri
Original Message -
From: "Adrian Farrel"
To: "'Michelle Cotton'" ; "'Dearlove,
Christopher (UK)'" ; "'t.p.'"
; "'ietf'"
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:13 PM
Subject: RE: "Deprecate"
ietf
> Subject: Re: "Deprecate"
>
> We are working on 5226bis right now and have a plans to discuss the term
> in there.
>
> --Michelle Cotton
>
> Michelle Cotton
> Manager, IANA Services
> ICANN
>
>
>
> On 8/29/13 5:22 AM, "Dearlove,
45 242124
>chris.dearl...@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com
>
>BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
>Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace
>Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
>Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
>
tf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of t.p.
Sent: 29 August 2013 12:56
To: ietf
Subject: "Deprecate"
--! WARNING ! --
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external partner or from the internet.
Keep thi
tf
> Subject: "Deprecate"
>
> I recently saw 'deprecate' used in an IANA Considerations and turned to
> "IANA Considerations" [RFC5226] to see how it was defined only to find
> no mention of it there. I am used to the term from SMI, as quoted
> below, but
I recently saw 'deprecate' used in an IANA Considerations and turned to
"IANA Considerations" [RFC5226] to see how it was defined only to find
no mention of it there. I am used to the term from SMI, as quoted
below, but that seems not quite right, in that a deprecated IANA en
Hi.
In the writeup I asked Stephen to include a note that there is a
normative downreference to RFC 4757. RFC 4757 is informational.
This document recommends that implementations not implement some of the
algorithms in RFC 4757, thus creating a normative down-ref.
My opinion and that of the WG is
On 3/22/12 08:26 , The IESG wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from the Kerberos WG (krb-wg) to consider
> the following document:
> - 'Deprecate DES, RC4-HMAC-EXP, and other weak cryptographic algorithms
>in Kerberos'
>as a Best Current Practice
&
On 1-Oct-2007, at 0511, Jari Arkko wrote:
Hi David, and thanks for your review. Inline:
As such, the whole document is a security consideration. The
vulnerability appears well-documented, and the guidelines for
handling
the deprecated RH0 are clear.
Good.
Just by-the-by, I noticed the
Hi David, and thanks for your review. Inline:
> As such, the whole document is a security consideration. The
> vulnerability appears well-documented, and the guidelines for handling
> the deprecated RH0 are clear.
>
Good.
> I have a few comments
> 1) RH0 really is something we do not want to
So, BCP 61's claim that MUST is for implementers and SHOULD is for
users is always something I've interpreted as non-normative and
additional explanation of RFC 2199. Well, I' guess it is normative in
that we do not for security reasons require that security be used.
I certainly think reviewing
just like any other last call comments.
-
The purpose of draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01 is to deprecate a
feature of IPv6 which has been shown to have undesirable security
implications. In particular, RH0 provides a mechanism for traffic
amplification, which might be used as a denial-of-se
-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 21/9/07
IETF LC End Date: 20/9/07
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary: This document is almost ready for the IESG. I have a couple of
essentially editorial comments below.
Comments:
s3: "IPv6 nodes **MUST NOT process** R
I wanted to mention a few points regarding this
document, given that the matter has been the
subject of some controversy. There was clear
consensus in the WG for picking this approach,
but it was also a rough consensus, with a number
of differing opinions.
One of the concerns was that the discusse
16 matches
Mail list logo
