I have probably missed something, perhaps unwritten policy, and for that
I
am sorry. I will not repeat my mistake.
Please DO CONTINUE to discuss this on the list.
Ignore all those messages of complaint. The only
complaints that matter are those of the Mailing
List Administrators whose names
you were attending nanog without registering and paying? that is
rude. have you offered to pay retroactively? that would be the
honorable thing to do.
todd underwood +1 603 643 9300 x101
renesys corporationchief of operations
clear understanding as to what is involved in terms of moving the IPs,
and how fast it can potentially be done.
I don't believe there is any way to get the IPs
moved in any kind of reasonable time frame for
an application that needs this level of failover
support.
If I were you I would focus
attending nanog wasn't an option. i hadn't realized that sitting in on
joao's talk so i could be there for QA equalled attendance, and so i
neither paid nor offered retroactively to pay.
Sounds to me like your intent was to be a Speaker
do you really think i
should? (i asked everybody i
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 02:42:36PM -0700,
Nick Burke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 39 lines which said:
How many of you have actually use(d) Zebra/Linux as a routing device
IMHO, the question is not perfectly phrased. You actually have several
issues:
* use a regular PC instead of
On 6/12/06, Rodrick Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks like this document maybe have been removed? the link appears to
be dead any mirrors?
The slide deck hadn't been put online when I sent my notes; I took a
guess at what the location might end up being, but guessed wrong.
The actual
michael, all,
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:43:16AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you were attending nanog without registering and paying? that is
rude. have you offered to pay retroactively? that would be the
honorable thing to do.
todd underwood +1
On the DLV thread, but not responding to anybody in particular.
As soon as you allow people to attend 1 talk for free, then you opened the
door for people attending without paying. OTOH, I don't think that it is
fair to ask people to pay the whole $350 if they only want to attend a few
talks.
If Paul is present specifically and only for QA that pertains to subject
matter with which he is knowledgeable, his presence helps the ops community.
I have not seen any writings that indicate that Paul was at bg or bofs or
other portions of the conference.
i was at the BG, having first
On 6/12/06, Henk Uijterwaal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As soon as you allow people to attend 1 talk for free, then you opened the
door for people attending without paying. OTOH, I don't think that it is
fair to ask people to pay the whole $350 if they only want to attend a few
talks.
APRICOT
Paul Vixie wrote:
If Paul is present specifically and only for QA that pertains to subject
matter with which he is knowledgeable, his presence helps the ops community.
I have not seen any writings that indicate that Paul was at bg or bofs or
other portions of the conference.
i was at
michael, all,
[ if you can't use procmail, could you at least respond to non-ops
trolls on the nanog-futures list? ]
but todd, you have a bit of clue. do you have a clue at all
regarding the question i asked on-list the other day?
what is the security policy that isc plans to use over
Paul Vixie wrote:
I have not seen any writings that indicate that Paul was at bg or bofs or
other portions of the conference.
i was at the BG, having first checked with the host to find out if visitors
were welcome. while my intent was to pick somebody up for dinner, i admit
that i also ate
now that you know the whole story, perhaps you'll reevaluate
your position.
While I have a number of opinions on the subject (who on
this list does not have opinions?), I suggest that the
program committee members take this on as todo to formulate
some sort of acceptable practice for
Is there a better way to have handled the situation? Perhaps.
indeed, i should have registered as a speaker and sat behind joao while
he spoke.
The positive outcome of this issue is that we are discussing how to handle
drop-ins (freebie conference attenders?).
agreed, there's a salient
i really would rather talk about DLV than meeting manners.
cool! or we should at least take meeting manners and registration
policies over to nanog-futures.
but, if you want to talk about dlv, could you answer my questions?
what is the security policy that isc plans to use over the
Paul Vixie wrote:
[some other stuff]
on the other hand i really would rather talk about DLV than meeting manners.
I'd like to hear about DLV. For example, Randy Bush asked (twice) the
following:
my question was a bit simpler. what is the security policy
that isc plans to use over the
randy, all,
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 06:37:01AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
michael, all,
[ if you can't use procmail, could you at least respond to non-ops
trolls on the nanog-futures list? ]
indeed. i don't use the former but i should have used the latter.
apologies.
but todd, you
Paul may be special ...
nope. we're all just bozos on this bus.
Randy,
On Jun 12, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
as providing a tld key registry is tantamount to emulating the
root key responsibilities of the iana,
While I might wish otherwise, IANA does not have root key
responsibilities.
potential users should be rather concerned.
what is the security policy that isc plans to use over the
content of the isc dlv registry? and how will the dvl trust
key roll-over and revocation be handled?
if the above can not be very clearly answered (by isc?), then this
proposal is techno-political hubris at best.
yes,
My background and position on this is best summed up as one of the
early implementers of DNSSEC and now working for a gTLD/ccTLD
registry. In between I spent a lot of time developing, redeveloping
DNSSEC in the face of operational realities. (To those who are
critics of DNSSEC, I ask
Randy,
On Jun 12, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
actually, i suspect that the issues of dlv are exactly those of
iana root signing, key management and tld signature policy.
Nope. Oh sure, from a technical perspective, the problems are pretty
much the same, but I think they are
This is a follow-up to my and Jason's presentation from Wednesday.
Several people mentioned in the hallways that they were interested in
following this issue and possibly helping work on the solution. If you
are one of them and haven't already seen a message subscribing you to
the mailing list,
For the RIPE meeting, this has been solved by introducing day tickets.
RIPE is a whole week at Butlins[1] to Nanogs' day by the sea
brandon
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butlins
Hi folks,
Quick security tracing question, flame me if you think offnetwork topic.
Earlier this month my daughters Ibook was stolen, oh well that is life I
guess.
Anyway updated mail server software for full debug and IP log since noticed
that mail account was accessed yesterday.
I am now hoping
Colin Johnston wrote:
Hi folks,
Quick security tracing question, flame me if you think offnetwork topic.
Earlier this month my daughters Ibook was stolen, oh well that is life I
guess.
Anyway updated mail server software for full debug and IP log since noticed
that mail account was accessed
I'd like to hear about DLV. For example, Randy Bush asked (twice) the
following:
my question was a bit simpler. what is the security policy that isc
plans to use over the content of the isc dlv registry? and how will
the dvl trust key roll-over and revocation be handled?
I would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Conrad) writes:
Can you have a power play when at least one party doesn't play?
what i find fascinating by the whole why don't you and him fight? angle
being played out here is that there is *no* trusted entity for this. drc,
can you check with your corporate masters
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Randy Bush wrote:
what is the security policy that isc plans to use over the
content of the isc dlv registry? and how will the dvl trust
key roll-over and revocation be handled?
if the above can not be very clearly answered (by isc?), then this
proposal is
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:41:03PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
since joao is probably still sleeping-off the time shift from san jose to
madrid, i'll chime in here. the last plan i saw was the same as the last
draft i heard about for what any other important zone would do with a
key that has to
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
clear understanding as to what is involved in terms of moving the IPs,
and how fast it can potentially be done.
I don't believe there is any way to get the IPs
moved in any kind of reasonable time frame for
an application that needs this
32 matches
Mail list logo
