Ed Gerck wrote:
> Because it is outside the scope of the IETF.
Why is it outside the scope of IETF?
-James Seng
Carl Malamud wrote:
> If it is outside the scope of the IETF, why send the announcement
> to the IETF list? :))
For several good reasons but mainly because the IETF list and WGs have
many individuals that have already gone through the learning curve needed
for collaborative work in standards
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 03:53:41PM -0500, Carl Malamud wrote:
> If it is outside the scope of the IETF, why send the announcement
> to the IETF list? :))
Common interests? Notifying those people who think it is with
the scope of the IETF and would bitch that others are doing things behi
Paul,
>
>>When one suggests that a first tier ISP would not need to filter
>>traffic from down stream providers, because IF they do the filtering,
>>then the problem will not arise via those links, one is suggesting
>>precisely this sort of model.
>
>You're approaching this from the wrong perspec
If it is outside the scope of the IETF, why send the announcement
to the IETF list? :))
Carl
According to Ed Gerck:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > >From the web site:
> >
> > "The IVTA takes much of its spirit from the Internet Engineering Task Force
> > (IETF)"
> >
> > and
> >
> > "The developm
At 12:32 PM 2/12/00 -0800, Ed Gerck wrote:
>Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > That's good, but why not undertake this within the existing IETF process,
> > rather than trying to emulate it?
>
>Because it is outside the scope of the IETF.
For once, Ed and I might be in agreement on something. The IETF has
Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >From the web site:
>
> "The IVTA takes much of its spirit from the Internet Engineering Task Force
> (IETF)"
>
> and
>
> "The development of public standards at the IVTA is specific for Internet
> voting applications, but otherwise similar to the work at the IETF and
>
>From the web site:
"The IVTA takes much of its spirit from the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF)"
and
"The development of public standards at the IVTA is specific for Internet
voting applications, but otherwise similar to the work at the IETF and
other Internet standards bodies."
That's
List:
Announcement ivta.org
Internet voting is a case where privacy must be protected, so that
arguments to justify losing voter privacy in the good name of security
are simply not possible. Which firmly posits security as a protection
of privacy -- not as an enemy of privac
This is a small percentage, I would thing, since the percentage of
ISP's offering transit pales in comparison to all other "access"
ISP's that do not. And in cases where ISP's _do_ offer transit, or
have transit agreements, will they really do this on their transit
interfa
We (at least cisco, anyways) already have a knob for this:
[no] ip verify unicast reverse-path
We call it Unicast RPF.
And its well documented... NOT
and available on all routers/interfaces... NOT
If it was documented and available on things like PRIs then it would
be a lot ea
--On Saturday, 12 February, 2000 14:40 +0800 "Rahmat M.
Samik-Ibrahim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also believe what Klensin wrote is still valid:
>
> ..
>
>
> [... 22 Feb 1996 ... skipping voting out of existence, fine
> lu
12 matches
Mail list logo
