In your previous mail you wrote:
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Pre-Shared Key Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) '
draft-ietf-tls-psk-09.txt as a Proposed Standard
= this document seems to go in the wrong way: pre-shared secrets
are known to be
Vint,
Vinton G. Cerf wrote:
I want to clarify something here. IANA is not at fault. It submits requests
like this to IESG to assure that there is consistency in
standards work. In the past there have been attempts to circumvent standards
work that is under way by directly submitting requests
Vinton G. Cerf wrote:
I want to clarify something here. IANA is not at fault. It submits
requests like this to IESG to assure that there is consistency in
standards work. In the past there have been attempts to circumvent
standards work that is under way by directly submitting requests to
Ralph,
I'm not sure I understand your question. This is the IETF so
we take decisions by on line deliberation inside the IESG
just as much as any WG does, and the minutes or IESG announcements
are the public record. And this decision, and the formulation
of the response to IANA and the
I read it as a statment of fact. I could reasonably
rule it irrelevant and ask Harald not to repeat it.
Brian
Dean Anderson wrote:
This would be a personal attack, I think.
--Dean
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Since I'm no longer responsible for
I have the good fortune to not be subscribed to the
namedroppers list, so I have no familiarity with past
traffic on that list. I think it behooves us all to let
bygones be bygones - I don't see much point in debating
alleged misdeeds of former ADs.
Brian
Dean Anderson wrote:
Mr.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I read it as a statment of fact. I could reasonably
rule it irrelevant and ask Harald not to repeat it.
I thought we also had a mechanism for taking action against posters who
violate list policy egregiously.
--
d/
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
All,
To address some misunderstandings of IANA's role in this action, Dr.
Roberts requested a hop-by-hop option number from section 5b in the
following registry: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters.
Currently, the registration rule for this particular registry is IESG
Approval,
I just came across a 1993 mailing list for the ietf. Anyone care,
before I delete it?
Bob Braden
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On one point (since it was mentioned in other thread as well):
(ii) For the reasons above and in my earlier note, I think the
IESG, and the IETF more broadly, must exert great caution in
rejecting a registration request and must exert that caution in
public. For example, the language of
I care.
I spend an increasing amount of time giving evidence in patent disputes
which might never have arisen if the IETF did not have a policy of
deleting all IDs after 6 months.
Google have it right: storage should not be an issue.
Feel free to email the data to my google mail account ha ll
Bob -
We care, or at least I do. The IAOC has been discussing archival
storage as part of the on-going needs of the IETF.
If you need a quick place to stash something, let me know and I'll
store stuff here at the UO until we have a long term solution in
place.
Lucy E. Lynch
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 09:08:44AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I read it as a statment of fact. I could reasonably
rule it irrelevant and ask Harald not to repeat it.
I thought we also had a mechanism for taking action against posters who
violate list policy
I thought we also had a mechanism for taking action against posters who
violate list policy egregiously.
As one of the IETF list's sargent at arms, I certainly don't see
Harald's one-time, single line posting as being egregious in any shape
or form. I also didn't see it as a personal
Ned,
To state that somewhat differently, since we cannot effectively
prohibit the deployment of an extension or option of which the
IETF disapproves, the best things we can do for the Internet are
make it as easy as possible to identify the use of the extension
so it can be effectively
As one of the IETF list's sargent at arms, I certainly don't see
Harald's one-time, single line posting as being egregious in any shape
or form. I also didn't see it as a personal attack.
i screwed up. i was trying to invoke procedure, not claim it should be applied
to harald. in fact i
Since I have already received 6 requests for the 1993 IETF mailing
list, I put it up on the ancient history page of the RFC Editor web
site. See:
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/museum/IETF.maillist.1993.txt, or the
first link under http://www.rfc-editor.org/history.html.
Bob Braden
Re: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-choi-pkix-ui-03.txt
Dave Crocker wrote:
- 'Required functions of User Interface for the Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure '
draft-choi-pkix-ui-03.txt as an Informational RFC
RFC document titles should not carry language that states or
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:23:31AM -0700, Bob Braden wrote:
I just came across a 1993 mailing list for the ietf. Anyone care,
before I delete it?
Is ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/ietf considered to be the
definitive archive for the IETF discussion list? According to the
names of the
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 11:35:24AM -0700, Bob Braden wrote:
Since I have already received 6 requests for the 1993 IETF mailing
list, I put it up on the ancient history page of the RFC Editor web
site.
Oops ... didn't realize it was the distribution list, not the archive.
Since some of those
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Greg Skinner wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:23:31AM -0700, Bob Braden wrote:
I just came across a 1993 mailing list for the ietf. Anyone care,
before I delete it?
Is ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/ietf considered to be the
definitive archive for the IETF
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 11:32:15AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
As one of the IETF list's sargent at arms, I certainly don't see
Harald's one-time, single line posting as being egregious in any shape
or form. I also didn't see it as a personal attack.
sorry for the badly written note. i was
Dave Crocker wrote:
Vinton G. Cerf wrote:
I want to clarify something here. IANA is not at fault. It submits
requests like this to IESG to assure that there is consistency in
standards work. In the past there have been attempts to circumvent
standards work that is under way by directly
--On Monday, 27 June, 2005 17:00 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The debate (except that since the work hadn't been brought to
the IETF,
the debate hasn't happened) is whether the proposed mechanism
will interfere
with existing or other proposed mechanisms. It isn't about
wc -l IETF.maillist.1993.txt
661
hm, pretty small # of addrs. I wonder how many are sub'd to the list today?
JeffH
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 26 Jun 2005, at 14:48, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
AND - apply for visas for the Canadian meeting in November as soon as
you can, too - it is not likely that it's very much simpler than
Europe.
For those interested in the requirements to enter Canada in November,
the following URLs
Date:Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:00:22 +0200
From:Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The debate (except that since the work hadn't been brought to the IETF,
| the debate hasn't happened)
Except that it has been reported that the work was
Date:Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:26:46 -0700
From:Barbara Roseman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| To address some misunderstandings of IANA's role in this action, [...]
I hadn't actually noted any. As best I can recall, there neither has
been, nor
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 12:30:44PM -0700, Dr. Lawrence G. Roberts allegedly wrote:
Steve,
Thank you for your thoughts. I am not sure about the next step, but I can
clarify some of the points that were unclear.
British Telecom submitted it to the ITU SG12 in January and we had
unanimous
Date:Mon, 27 Jun 2005 13:28:24 -0400
From:Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| What 2434 says about IESG approval is:
|
|IESG Approval - New assignments must be approved by the IESG, but
| there is no requirement
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'Required functions of User Interface for the Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure '
draft-choi-pkix-ui-03.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Session Initiation Protocol Call Control - Conferencing for User Agents '
draft-ietf-sipping-cc-conferencing-07.txt as a BCP
This document is the product of the Session Initiation Proposal Investigation
Working Group.
The IESG contact
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Network News Transfer Protocol '
draft-ietf-nntpext-base-27.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the NNTP Extensions Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Scott Hollenbeck and Ted Hardie.
A URL of this
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'The LDAP Assertion Control '
draft-zeilenga-ldap-assert-05.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Ted Hardie.
A URL of this
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'LDAP Absolute True and False Filters '
draft-zeilenga-ldap-t-f-10.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Ted Hardie.
A URL of this
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Scripting Media Types '
draft-hoehrmann-script-types-03.txt as an Informational RFC
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Scott Hollenbeck.
A URL of this
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'RObust Header Compression (ROHC): ROHC over Channels that can Reorder
Packets '
draft-ietf-rohc-over-reordering-03.txt as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Robust Header Compression Working Group.
The IESG contact
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'XHTML+Voice - application/xhtml-voice+xml '
draft-mccobb-xplusv-media-type-04.txt as an Informational RFC
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Scott
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'The W3C Speech Interface Framework Media Types: application/voicexml+xml,
application/ssml+xml, application/srgs, application/srgs+xml,
application/ccxml+xml and application/pls+xml '
draft-froumentin-voice-mediatypes-02.txt as an
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Attacks on Cryptographic Hashes in Internet Protocols '
draft-hoffman-hash-attacks-04.txt as an Informational RFC
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Russ
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4101
Title: Writing Protocol Models
Author(s): E. Rescorla, IAB
Status: Informational
Date: June 2005
Mailbox:[EMAIL PROTECTED], iab@iab.org
41 matches
Mail list logo
