Sam Hartman wrote:
I notice that this transport provides no authentication of the data
that is retrieved.
The security considerations needs to discuss the potential attacks if
an attacker modifies this public data. The security considerations
section also needs to point to best practice for
Mark == Mark Townsley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mark Sam Hartman wrote:
I notice that this transport provides no authentication of the
data that is retrieved.
The security considerations needs to discuss the potential
attacks if an attacker modifies this public
Marcos Sanz/Denic wrote:
open source implementation: http://iris.verisignlabs.com/
Thanks, that should help client developers to figure it out.
4 - Could a server just offer a whois interface and be done
with it ?
I don't understand this question.
I'm not exactly happy with LWZ,
Andrew Newton wrote:
3 - Why is LWZ limited to UDP, desperately trying to solve
various size issues with delated XML and other tricks ?
TCP is handled by XPC and BEEP.
But those are the (complex) protocols for more serious tasks
than only whois queries, updates / confidential data /
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
There's nothing in the document that says if you want to send 4000
requests, and 70 out of the first 100 get lost, you should slow down
your sending rate to that server.
I just checked the simple user-drive, cli client I wrote and it doesn't
retransmit at all
Sam Hartman wrote:
I notice that this transport provides no authentication of the data
that is retrieved.
The security considerations needs to discuss the potential attacks if
an attacker modifies this public data. The security considerations
section also needs to point to best practice for
Andrew == Andrew Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew Sam,
Andrew For the second case, you are referring to BCP 38, correct?
Andrew This was mentioned on the wg list by William Leibzon, and
Andrew should have been incorporated into the draft. Thanks for
Andrew noting
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 11:55:58AM -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
There's nothing in the document that says if you want to send 4000
requests, and 70 out of the first 100 get lost, you should slow down
your sending rate to that server.
I just checked the simple
Hi,
On Aug 16, 2006, at 17:55, Andrew Newton wrote:
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
There's nothing in the document that says if you want to send
4000 requests, and 70 out of the first 100 get lost, you should
slow down your sending rate to that server.
I just checked the simple user-drive, cli
Lars Eggert wrote:
I just checked the simple user-drive, cli client I wrote and it
doesn't retransmit at all (perhaps not the best UI experience).
the issue isn't with retransmissions. If - to use Harald's example - no
reply arrives for 70 out of 100 issued requests, this is a pretty strong
Andrew Newton wrote:
3 - Why is LWZ limited to UDP, desperately trying to solve
various size issues with delated XML and other tricks ?
TCP is handled by XPC and BEEP. But for very short and quick answers
(and lots of them, such as domain availability checks) UDP is better.
Don't know
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Andrew Newton wrote:
3 - Why is LWZ limited to UDP, desperately trying to solve
various size issues with delated XML and other tricks ?
TCP is handled by XPC and BEEP. But for very short and quick answers (and
lots of them, such as domain
Harald - you sure you are not talking about IETF Mail Servers?
Todd
-Original Message-
From: Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Aug 16, 2006 12:20 AM
To: Andrew Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'A Lightweight UDP Transfer Protocol for the the
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 02:20:51PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Tell us where 'retransmit', 'packet loss' and 'congestion' appear in DNS,
DHCP or some other UDP-based protocol documents and I'm sure author of
this spec will be happy to put something similar in his document.
There might be
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 02:34:38PM -0700, Ted Faber wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 02:20:51PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Tell us where 'retransmit', 'packet loss' and 'congestion' appear in DNS,
DHCP or some other UDP-based protocol documents and I'm sure author of
this spec will be
Hi -
From: william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'A Lightweight UDP Transfer Protocol for the the
Internet Registry Information Service' to Proposed
Standard
On Aug 16, 2006, at 6:47 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote:
One example would be STD 62, SNMP.
Specifically, clause 2.2 of RFC 3416.
Thanks. I've also looked at the advice in RFC 1035. After reading
both, I felt the advice to implementers amounted to don't flood the
network with packets; it is
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Andrew Newton wrote:
3 - Why is LWZ limited to UDP, desperately trying to solve
various size issues with delated XML and other tricks ?
TCP is handled by XPC and BEEP. But for very short and quick answers (and
lots of them, such as
william(at)elan.net wrote:
my congestion control alarm went off.
after reviewing the document, it's still ringing.
There's nothing in the document that says if you want to send 4000
requests, and 70 out of the first 100 get lost, you should slow down
your sending rate to that server.
The
The IESG wrote:
draft-ietf-crisp-iris-lwz-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
Some general questions about this draft:
1 - Has anybody implemented it ?
2 - If so, do test servers exist for client developers ?
3 - Why is LWZ limited to UDP, desperately trying to solve
various size issues with
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Some general questions about this draft:
1 - Has anybody implemented it ?
Yes. See http://iris.verisignlabs.com/blojsom/blog/iris/
2 - If so, do test servers exist for client developers ?
Yes. See above. Additionally, see the archives of the CRISP wg.
3 - Why is
Frank,
Some general questions about this draft:
1 - Has anybody implemented it ?
Yes, we have implemented it (as of ID-version 05). VeriSign, too. I've
heard there is at least another implementation.
2 - If so, do test servers exist for client developers ?
I can't provide (yet) with a
At 3:46 PM +0200 8/15/06, Frank Ellermann wrote:
4 - Could a server just offer a whois interface and be done
with it ?
Andy and Marcos seem to have tackled the other issues you
raise, but I'd like to point out the following from the charter:
Specific topics that are NOT goals of this WG
I notice that this transport provides no authentication of the data
that is retrieved.
The security considerations needs to discuss the potential attacks if
an attacker modifies this public data. The security considerations
section also needs to point to best practice for avoiding UDP
The IESG has received a request from the Cross Registry Information Service
Protocol WG to consider the following document:
- 'A Lightweight UDP Transfer Protocol for the the Internet Registry
Information Service '
draft-ietf-crisp-iris-lwz-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to
25 matches
Mail list logo
