know
what they were doing when they were granting us the right to use their text.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "t.petch"
To: "Lars Eggert" ; "Spencer Dawkins"
Cc: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" ; "Phillip Hallam-Baker"
; ;
Sent: Tues
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Eric Rosen wrote:
>
> Phillip> But I rather suspect that the reason that this is happening is
> that
> Phillip> people know full well that there is a process and choose to ignore
> Phillip> it because they either can't be bothered to put up with the hassle
> Phil
- Original Message -
From: "Lars Eggert"
To: "Spencer Dawkins"
Cc: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" ; "Phillip Hallam-Baker"
; ;
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 3:02 PM
On 2011-1-18, at 15:58, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Lars can speak for himself, but what I THOUGHT he was talking was changing the
Lars Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2011-1-18, at 17:15, Eric Rosen wrote:
> > The only way to avoid collisions
> > due to "squatting" is to adopt a policy that all codepoint fields
> > be large enough so that a significant number of codepoints are
> > available for FCFS allocations.
>
> That's certainly a
On 2011-1-18, at 17:15, Eric Rosen wrote:
> The only way to avoid collisions
> due to "squatting" is to adopt a policy that all codepoint fields be large
> enough so that a significant number of codepoints are available for FCFS
> allocations.
That's certainly a suggestion we should follow for new
Phillip> But I rather suspect that the reason that this is happening is that
Phillip> people know full well that there is a process and choose to ignore
Phillip> it because they either can't be bothered to put up with the hassle
Phillip> or don't think that the application will be accepted.
Lars>
Hi,
On 2011-1-18, at 16:32, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> That would work IF the reason this is happening is that people don't
> understand that unassigned means reserved for future assignment.
that *is* the reason, for at least those cases that I have been involved in.
> But I rather suspect th
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Spencer Dawkins
wrote:
> Phillip,
>
> Lars can speak for himself, but what I THOUGHT he was talking was changing
> the phrase "unassigned" to something like "reserved for future assignment".
>
> That made sense to me...
>
That would work IF the reason this is hap
> Spencer
> - Original Message -
> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
> To: Lars Eggert
> Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum ; paul.hoff...@vpnc.org ; ietf@ietf.org
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 7:51 AM
> Subject: Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries
>
>
>
Hi,
On 2011-1-18, at 15:51, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> >Using a term other than "unassigned" might prevent some instances of the
> >latter.
>
> I don't see how changing the name is going to affect behavior for the
> positive here. If you do succeed in confusing people as to which numbers are
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum ; paul.hoff...@vpnc.org ; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
On 2011-1-17, at 1:23, Phillip Hallam-Baker wro
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2011-1-17, at 1:23, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > If people think that IANA is a tool they can use to impose their own
> > personal political agenda on the Internet, they are mistaken.
>
> that isn't the point of this thread.
>
>
Hi,
On 2011-1-17, at 1:23, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> If people think that IANA is a tool they can use to impose their own
> personal political agenda on the Internet, they are mistaken.
that isn't the point of this thread.
The point of IANA assignment is to avoid conflicting codepoint usage.
On 17.01.2011 18:53, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Dear all,
The isues discussed here is the use of unassigned values in IANA
registries. And I really agree with the authors of RFC5226 that sets
MUST criterion for mentioning these values. Not mentioning them will
lead to misunderstanding by IANA and
Dear all,
The isues discussed here is the use of unassigned values in IANA
registries. And I really agree with the authors of RFC5226 that sets
MUST criterion for mentioning these values. Not mentioning them will
lead to misunderstanding by IANA and other people whether the values are
avail
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 14 jan 2011, at 23:06, Martin Rex wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I'm actually more concerned about code assignments for
> > severely IPR-impaired algorithms (e.g. Elliptic Curve related)
> > than about GOST. (Admittedly, the GOST 34.10-2001
On 14 jan 2011, at 23:06, Martin Rex wrote:
> Frankly, I'm actually more concerned about code assignments for
> severely IPR-impaired algorithms (e.g. Elliptic Curve related)
> than about GOST. (Admittedly, the GOST 34.10-2001 signature
> algorithm appears to use Elliptic curve math, and it's ent
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
> Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> >
> > The illusion of control is comforting to some but it is an illusion. At
> the
> > end of the day the IETF has roughly 2000 people involved. Nobody elected
> us.
> > We are accountable to no-one.
>
> I assume
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> The illusion of control is comforting to some but it is an illusion. At the
> end of the day the IETF has roughly 2000 people involved. Nobody elected us.
> We are accountable to no-one.
I assume the number of IETF contributors is more like 5000-1.
>
> The In
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I suggest that the IAB consider a policy for registries that requires all
cryptographic and application layer code
points to make use of an approved extensible identifier format, with the two
approved forms being URIs and ASN.1 OIDs.
-1
Not t
The first law of the Internet is
'You are so not in charge (for all values of you).'
The illusion of control is comforting to some but it is an illusion. At the
end of the day the IETF has roughly 2000 people involved. Nobody elected us.
We are accountable to no-one.
The Internet has 2 billi
On 1/14/11 12:23 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
On 2011-1-13, at 22:43, Michelle Cotton wrote:
Many believe it makes it very clear to the users of the registry
what is available for assignment. Something we will be rolling out
soon (for those registries with a finite space) will be small
charts sh
22 matches
Mail list logo
