Since I assume that most people on the lists already understand
this stuff, I'll followup to Peter privately...
> Somebody suggested out-of-band that I might be trolling with my last
> post, but actually I was just surrendering to my frustration, for which
> I apologize. I know what a wasteland
g'day,
Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > Somebody (I
> > think it was Keith) suggested earlier in this thread that nobody should
> > be trusted with the single PKI root. Maybe the same sentiment applies to
> > DNS roots, as well??
>
> no, it doesn't follow at all.you need a unique root (of some kind
on 6/11/2002 11:01 PM David Conrad said the following:
> Why would anyone care about root or TLD _certificates_?
Uhh, because it was requested:
on 6/8/2002 8:22 AM Franck Martin said the following:
| The root servers would share the ROOT Certificates and would sign a
| certificate to each
On 6/11/02 6:51 PM, "Derek Atkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Why do you think the roots and TLDs would get millions of TCP queries for
>> their certs? Why would anyone want to get the certs of the roots or tlds?
>
> Just to play devil's advocate
On 6/11/02 6:15 PM, "Eric A. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why do you think the roots and TLDs would get millions of TCP queries for
>> their certs? Why would anyone want to get the certs of the roots or tlds?
> Why do you think anybody would cache them long-term if they were right
> there
> These arguments are going beyond silly and reaching ludicrous. Yes, some
> ISPs do stupid things. That's when you choose a different ISP or come up
> with some workaround. Yes, there are broken DNS servers out there that
> can't handle TCP queries. Get an unbroken DNS server, there are plent
So the modems change binaries such as the protocols developed by IETF to
analog, I didn't know that. I remember acc/couplers. I had an exaternal 300
bps modem once, wow things have changed. My speaker goes off after
handshaking.
- Original Message -
From: "Nepple, Bruce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on 6/11/2002 8:00 PM David Conrad said the following:
> Why do you think the roots and TLDs would get millions of TCP queries for
> their certs? Why would anyone want to get the certs of the roots or tlds?
Why do you think anybody would cache them long-term if they were right
there handy in th
On 6/11/02 4:34 PM, "Eric A. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The big deal is that some of the more restrictive ISPs may not permit
>> customers to bypass their DNS servers. Same as with HTTP interception
>> proxies.
> No, the big deal is that the roots and TLDs would be crippled from
> millio
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: "John Stracke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >So users wanting this new service will be pretty motivated to switch DNS
> >servers when the time comes, what's the big deal in that?
>
> The big deal is that some
Are you sure the sound he is hearing is not the modem fan screeching? :P
> -Original Message-
> From: Pete Resnick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:37 PM
> To: Lloyd Wood
> Cc: Bill Cunningham; ietf
> Subject: Re: modems
>
>
> On 6/11/02 at 9:04 PM +0100, Llo
> Somebody (I
> think it was Keith) suggested earlier in this thread that nobody should
> be trusted with the single PKI root. Maybe the same sentiment applies to
> DNS roots, as well??
no, it doesn't follow at all.you need a unique root (of some kind) to
prevent name conflicts - mutual sel
on 6/11/2002 5:36 PM John Stracke said the following:
> The big deal is that some of the more restrictive ISPs may not permit
> customers to bypass their DNS servers. Same as with HTTP interception
> proxies.
No, the big deal is that the roots and TLDs would be crippled from
millions of TCP
John Stracke wrote:
>
> >> Because it's not their software? If I wanted to do PKI through DNS, and
> my
> >> ISP's server did not support TCP, I might be stuck. Personally, I
> don't
> >> depend on my ISP for DNS, but many users do.
> >
> >So users wanting this new service will be pretty motiv
>> Because it's not their software? If I wanted to do PKI through DNS, and
my
>> ISP's server did not support TCP, I might be stuck. Personally, I
don't
>> depend on my ISP for DNS, but many users do.
>
>So users wanting this new service will be pretty motivated to switch DNS
>servers when the
g'day,
John Stracke wrote:
>
> >Such software would not see this kind of data unless a user
> >of the server tried to use this stuff, and in that case I don't see
> >why that user couldn't upgrade her own software to get it to work.
>
> Because it's not their software? If I wanted to do PKI thr
On 6/11/02 at 9:04 PM +0100, Lloyd Wood wrote:
>You're confusing your modems and your acoustic couplers.
>
>An electrical transmission in the ~3.5kHz bandpass range that equates
>to the dominant frequencies used by the human voice, which the phone
>system was engineered to convert and carry easil
>Such software would not see this kind of data unless a user
>of the server tried to use this stuff, and in that case I don't see
>why that user couldn't upgrade her own software to get it to work.
Because it's not their software? If I wanted to do PKI through DNS, and my
ISP's server did not su
(Please respect Reply-To)
"Eric A. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> on 6/8/2002 8:54 PM Simon Josefsson said the following:
>
>> Despite the FUD presented by certain individuals that doesn't want
>> keys/certs in DNS, people have already tarted doing it and it works
>> fine.
>
> Setting aside
on 6/8/2002 8:54 PM Simon Josefsson said the following:
> Despite the FUD presented by certain individuals that doesn't want
> keys/certs in DNS, people have already tarted doing it and it works
> fine.
Setting aside the issue of whether or not people are spreading FUD,
perhaps you could tell u
I'll go a little farther...
Common configurations for modems leave the speaker on during
handshaking, but turn it off during normal data traffic...
When I was doing a lot of modem programming I remember there were ATA
commands that would turn off the speaker, or leave it on all the time...
Reall
On 6/11/02 at 3:22 AM -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>I know modems communicate on the physical layer by electrical pulses
>or binaries sent on copper wires.
No, not at all. Modems communicate by sound. They MODulate the
electrical pulses they get from the computer into sound, and the
other en
Ummm . . . how 'bout: During handshaking the modem's speaker is on.
On Tuesday, 11 Jun 2002, Pankaj Bhandari wrote:
> Screeching occurs during handshaking.
>
> During the handshaking, the frequency is audible, thats the reason for screeching.
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From:
Screeching occurs during handshaking.
During the handshaking, the frequency is audible, thats the reason for screeching.
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Cunningham [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 12:53 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: modems
>
> I k
> > 1) short lived certs
> > 2) CRL's published at regular intervals.
> >
> > both involve a regularly-signed short-lived objects.
>
> Errr - OCSP?
last year we implemented a system that used DNS (with security extensions)
to distribute ceritificate validity information (among other things)
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
>> As others have pointed out, the DNS already has the capability
>> to store certs. So you could use the DNS as a publication
>> method. But is this the only thing a PKI needs? How would
>> one revolke a cert that was in the DNS? How can you update
>
> As others have pointed out, the DNS already has the capability
> to store certs. So you could use the DNS as a publication
> method. But is this the only thing a PKI needs? How would
> one revolke a cert that was in the DNS? How can you update
> -every- cached c
Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> > "Franck" == Franck Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Franck> I was wondering if the best system to build a global PKI wouldn't be the
>> Franck> DNS system already in place?
>>
>> Fra
At 09:07 PM 6/7/2002 -0700, liana Ye wrote:
>This is CDNC final comments. Please respect their experties
>in dealing with large character sets.
The IETF has showed a great deal of respect for that expertise. It is the
reason the IETF has extended discussion about IDN much, much longer than
was
This is CDNC final comments. Please respect their experties
in dealing with large character sets. Yes, it is difficult to
standardize character mapping tables, as we know well
enough. Without the mapping tables there is no IDN either.
Yes, you are right on divide and conquor. What is dividabl
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 03:22:40 EDT, Bill Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> communication? Computers don't communicate by screeching...or do they?
Any language that you don't understand sounds like screeching.
msg08507/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I know modems communicate on the physical layer by electrical pulses or
binaries sent on copper wires. Is that screeching you hear electrical
communication? Computers don't communicate by screeching...or do they?
32 matches
Mail list logo