--On Tuesday, 19 July, 2005 19:39 -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While we are on the subject of SRV, port numbers etc:
Why not define SRV prefixes for POP3, IMAP4 and SUBMIT so that
email applications can auto-configure from the email address
alone.
Because it
No, I was not intending to imply IESG review would gain a last call.
I was only speaking to IETF review.
I don't think IESG review gaining a last call is all that benefical.
It's not clear how you would interpret the results or what the
success/failure criteria is. I think interpreting IESG
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 19:39 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
While we are on the subject of SRV, port numbers etc:
Why not define SRV prefixes for POP3, IMAP4 and SUBMIT so that email
applications can auto-configure from the email address alone.
Actually.. there is, at least in draft
Because it raises some very interesting issues about just
which server a particular client should be bound to. The
network-nearest available one or the one associated with the
same organization as the client are typical possibilities
(along with the somewhat vague email address) and, if
In Las Vegas I waited 8 hours in the security queue last time to return back
to my home. Of course the flights already departed and as it was not a fault
of the company, I needed to buy a new ticket, no refund and of course, I
don't think the US government will pay for it, right ?.
I don't think
--On Wednesday, 20 July, 2005 07:03 -0400 Sam Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I was not intending to imply IESG review would gain a last
call. I was only speaking to IETF review.
I don't think IESG review gaining a last call is all that
benefical. It's not clear how you would
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:12:24 +0200
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Las Vegas I waited 8 hours in the security queue last time to return back
to my home. Of course the flights already departed and as it was not a fault
of the company, I needed to buy a new ticket, no refund and
Phil,
...
Boy are you in for a shock when you try to connect to an ethernet with
802.1x.
I have yet to do so. I do have the facility on my Mac, but I've never
had to turn it on.
Authentication is being built into the NIC cards. At some point in the
future it will not be possible for any
layered defenses are a good notion, but mostly when the layers are
under the same administrative control. all too often people forget
that relying on the security provided by someone else is a risky
proposition, as in your example of ISPs providing ingress filtering.
I would restate your
On 7/20/2005 9:34 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
If I have [EMAIL PROTECTED] there is only going to be one set of
servers for incomming mail for that address, the place for POP3 and
IMAP4 services is obvious.
Traditionally it was possible to choose the outgoing mail service. That
option
Phil,
layered defenses are a good notion, but mostly when the layers are
under the same administrative control. all too often people forget
that relying on the security provided by someone else is a risky
proposition, as in your example of ISPs providing ingress filtering.
I would
the Internet is composed of Autonomous Systems, and they take the
first word of the name very seriously. I suspect ISP accountability
in China, for example, may be as successful as copyright enforcement
in that region.
Everyone has a common interest in keeping the Internet.
Thus far law
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
In Las Vegas I waited 8 hours in the security queue last time
to return back to my home. Of course the flights already
departed and as it was not a fault of the company, I needed
to buy a new ticket, no refund and of course, I don't
On 20-jul-2005, at 18:35, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Thus far law enforcement outside the US have arrested and prosecuted
considerably more suspected Internet criminals than the US.
This may come as a surprise to you, but the rest of the world is
actually larger than the US. (Oh wait,
On 7/19/05, Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It also breaks the RFC Editor's REF state into two seperate
states - REF-INT, where all of the REF documents are also in
the queue, and REF-EXT, where one or more is not. Only
REF-EXT is a blocking state.
REF-INT could point to
Date: 2005-07-12 15:58
From: Colin Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12 Jul 2005, at 13:43, Bruce Lilly wrote:
Re: Ietf Digest, Vol 15, Issue 19
Date: 2005-07-11 19:13
From: Colin Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
As will I, since your message includes many misstatements of facts
Thus far law enforcement outside the US have arrested and
prosecuted
considerably more suspected Internet criminals than the US.
This may come as a surprise to you, but the rest of the world is
actually larger than the US. (Oh wait, there I go with that dreaded
sarcasm. Sorry.)
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There would probably be a lot more people working in the IETF who share
my views if they did not meet with sarcasm, patronising remarks and
intimidation.
Just out of curiousity (and in total seriousness), I was wondering what
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
om, Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
They did it for the telephone system in the 1920s - the term phony
appears in the English language in 1900 when the telephone started to
spread. [The alternative etymology in certain editions of Webster via
Fawney appears to be
Which is exactly the point.
John
- Original message -
From:Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Subject:Re: Port numbers and IPv6
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Spencer Dawkins writes:
It would be OK if someone smart
Bill Fenner wrote:
Bruce Lilly writes:
It would be nice to have something analogous to the I-D tracker
for the RFC-Editor process, recording process state transitions
and their dates.
The parking area isn't really meant to be an analysis of the RFC Editor's
queue, just a statement about
inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IETF General Discussion Mailing List ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: Port numbers andIPv6(was: I-D
On 20 Jul 2005, at 18:26, Bruce Lilly wrote:
Date: 2005-07-12 15:58
From: Colin Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12 Jul 2005, at 13:43, Bruce Lilly wrote:
Re: Ietf Digest, Vol 15, Issue 19
Date: 2005-07-11 19:13
From: Colin Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
As will I, since your message
Tom Petch wrote:
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In other words: if the endpoints in the communication already do
something, duplicating that same function in the middle as well is
superfluous and usually harmful.
Mmmm so if I am doing error correction in the end hosts, and
Folks,
I am burdening the IETF list with this note because I looked around on the IETF
web pages and couldn't find the document or statement that would resolve the
point.
The question of acceptable behaviors on ietf mailing lists has been discussed at
length, of course. But I cannot find a
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
...
Here is an alternate suggestion :
The IESG could have open meetings at selected IETF
meetings. Since the infrastructure is already there, these could be
webcast and recorded at no additional cost, except to everyone's already
overburdened schedules (and a little
On 20-jul-2005, at 19:41, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The number of arrests per capita and the toital number of arrests in
several countries outstrips the US.
Well, since the number of countries in the world is counted in triple
digits, it's highly unlikely that the US is at the top of
At 17:44 20/07/2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
layered defenses are a good notion, but mostly when the layers are
under the same administrative control. all too often people forget
that relying on the security provided by someone else is a risky
proposition, as in your example of ISPs
Saltzer, Reed and Clark's paper End-to-end Arguments in
System Design points out the exceptions:
http://mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf
(starting at the heading Performance aspects).
And if Tom bothers to actually read the only two paragraphs in the paper
on security he
--On onsdag, juli 20, 2005 14:49:27 -0700 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Folks,
I am burdening the IETF list with this note because I looked around on
the IETF web pages and couldn't find the document or statement that
would resolve the point.
The question of acceptable behaviors
On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 12:20, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Exactly. It's in the parking area is our equivalent of the check's
in the mail. Seriously, we can point enquiries about the status of
a draft to there.
yup. except that the rfc editor queue is not a FIFO.
hopefully the final result will
Dear Harald,
At 01:14 21/07/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
So I resorted to here's what would happen if this was a WG list, and I
had the power of the WG chair to control the list, and because I run the
list, I'm going to make it happen.
Did you? I will not dispute here the way a
How bout an underdeveloped sense of humor?
scc
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Noel Chiappa
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:46 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sarcarm and intimidation
From: Hallam-Baker,
The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport WG to consider
the following document:
- 'RTP Payload Format for 3GPP Timed Text '
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-15.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
34 matches
Mail list logo
