Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Whatever one may or may not think of Jefsey's logic, please
> confine yourselves to discussing his logic and not the man
> himself.
I am perfectly willing to do this as long as the rules are enforced
equally. Nobody is better, or more prolific, at inserting "Jefsey th
Bruce Lilly wrote:
> Encoded-words have several characteristics, one of which is
> limited length (in octets). That has two implications w.r.t.
> script:
> 1. specifying script explicitly is unnecessary; it can be
> determined from the charset (always specified in an
> encoded-word) and the spe
From: "Russ Allbery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On the other hand, the DNSEXT WG has worked for several years to produce
the LLMNR specification, and I don't see anything fundamentally wrong
with the mechanism that we have produced (people should res
Bruce Lilly wrote:
>> There is a precedent, by the way: RFC 2341. Note that it
>> postdates RFC 2026.
> Interesting. Are there any others?
Maybe 4156 (wais) & 4157 (prospero). That's a bit special,
because it's a part of the effort to get rid of 1738.
> I have heard that an effort to publis
On Tuesday, August 30, 2005 15:55:56 -0700 Ned Freed
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMO this needs major work even before being approved as experimental. The
overlapped namespace approach in particular seems hugely problematic and
IMO needs to be replaced.
I've only read this document briefly,
> Date: 2005-08-28 20:33
> From: "C. M. Heard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> However, RFC 2026 does not set the rules for
> non-standards track documents, as it explicitly says in Section
> 2.1.
Sorry, I don't see that anywhere in 2.1. 2.1 does say that non-standards
track specifications are not subje
> Date: 2005-08-28 20:33
> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The problem are:
[...]
> - the lack of alternative (are we sure there are no other
> architectural way to address the same need without information leak)
I think the answer is "yes". For tagging of content, there is
> Date: 2005-08-28 16:25
> From: Frank Ellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That's a last call, if you have better ideas than those in the
> draft speak up. Your Content-Script idea is good, but won't
> help e.g. in encoded words (2047+2231).
Encoded-words have several characteristics, one of which
One more thing:
On 31-aug-2005, at 0:55, Ned Freed wrote:
Section 2.4 discusses use of TCP for LLMNR queries and
responses. In
composing an LLMNR query using TCP, the sender MUST set the
Hop Limit
field in the IPv6 header and the TTL field in the IPv4 header
of the
respons
Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Other than a few minor issues that are being dealt with in a -43 update,
> I don't think that anyone has raised a blocking technical issue with the
> LLMNR specification during this IETF LC. If you (or anyone else) has
> intended to raise a blockin
Stuart Cheshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What happened here was *not* that the DNSEXT working group disagreed
> with me on the technical details of my solution. What happened was that
> the DNSEXT working group disagreed with me on the problem statement. I
> said, "Here's a proposed way to do
On 10-aug-2005, at 20:47, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG to
> consider the
> following document:
> - 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) '
> as a Proposed Standard
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and sol
On 10-aug-2005, at 20:47, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG to
consider the
following document:
- 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR) '
as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
Yes, that is exactly what our unvolontary experiment has shown.
And it makes 25% of our root server traffic. It is stealing resources
from us. That is why we consider this protocol harmful to the
internet society.
Kind regards,
Peter and Karin
Stuart Cheshire wrote:
As I understand it, one of
>As I understand it, one of three things will happen:
>
>(1) If the system implements mDNS, the .local domain is treated
>specially, so this just goes out as a link-local request.
>
>(2) If the system implements LLMNR, there will first be a global DNS
>lookup for "twiki.local", which will fail.
Hi Brian,
I'm afraid I don't understand. As far as I can understand,
mDNS uses the .local pseudo-domain and LLMNR does not.
So how can LLMNR be blamed for bogus queries for *.local?
The .local doesn't come from either mDNS or LLMNR... The user types
it and/or an application includes it in t
> > I'm afraid I don't understand. As far as I can understand,
> > mDNS uses the .local pseudo-domain and LLMNR does not.
> > So how can LLMNR be blamed for bogus queries for *.local?
>
> I cannot garantie it was LLMNR. I was told these are windows boxes
> using the default enabled LLMNR and it de
> In the US legal system, I think they have the concept of
> "case law"; one
> passes laws that require judgment to be applied by judges,
> and then the
> practice of that law becomes part of the case history.
> Never using a rule is a kind of "case law" too - it's a
> statement that can
> be
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Peter,
I'm afraid I don't understand. As far as I can understand,
mDNS uses the .local pseudo-domain and LLMNR does not.
So how can LLMNR be blamed for bogus queries for *.local?
I cannot garantie it was LLMNR. I was told these are windows boxes
using the default enabl
Hi Stuart,
Somehow our discussion has gone awry, and I'm not quite sure why,
because I am not sure that we fundamentally disagree with each other.
At least, I think that we both see some of the same potential
problems, even if we disagree about what steps would be appropriate
to resolve them
>Peter,
>
>I'm afraid I don't understand. As far as I can understand,
>mDNS uses the .local pseudo-domain and LLMNR does not.
>So how can LLMNR be blamed for bogus queries for *.local?
Simple: If you call your printer "myprinter.local", and then type
"ping myprinter.local", LLMNR will *always* sen
Looking at the recent discussion and some private emails I've received,
it's clear that I didn't explain some points well enough.
1. I'm not claiming this is an Apple vs. Microsoft battle. Bernard Aboba
is not a Microsoft corporate shill, and I'm not a shill for Apple. What's
happened is more c
Peter,
I'm afraid I don't understand. As far as I can understand,
mDNS uses the .local pseudo-domain and LLMNR does not.
So how can LLMNR be blamed for bogus queries for *.local?
I can easily configure my Windows box to default to *.local.
But why would I want to?
Brian
Peter Dambier wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter writes ("Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution
(LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard"):
Ian Jackson wrote:
Sorry to be pejorative, but as a DNS implementor[1] I'm amazed to find
senior IETF/IESG people seriously contemplating the kind of namespace
Dear Brian and all,
This mail of Harald Alvestrand positively concludes a long, difficult
and boring effort of mine started at the WG-IDNA. I apologise to all
for the inconveniences it created all over these years. My Franglish
and my lack of talents left me with a tested method: the style you
On Aug 30, 2005, at 11:48 AM, Peter Constable wrote:
The difficulty isn't in learning when they should be ignored, but
rather
in knowing that they *will* be ignored by others.
what a poor comment , did you ever say something construcive ?
cheers
--
"The Ego is the little self that preten
Brian E Carpenter writes ("Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution
(LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Sorry to be pejorative, but as a DNS implementor[1] I'm amazed to find
> > senior IETF/IESG people seriously contemplating the kind of namespace
> > confus
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At the moment, learning that Jefsey's opinions can be ignored is a
part of
> the initiation process for new IETF participants in the fora he
frequents.
> I think that's a steep learning curve.
The difficulty isn't in learning when they should
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
Dear all,
at this stage I think it is clear that the langtags issue represents a
strong opposition between two visions of the Multilingual Internet.
These visions for the worse or the better are embodied by Peter
Constable's friends and me.
I know nothing of Peter
Gentlemen,
Whatever one may or may not think of Jefsey's logic, please
confine yourselves to discussing his logic and not the man
himself.
Thanks
Brian
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 07:57:35AM -0700,
Doug Ewell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 37 lines which
William,
We will consider this together with the other appeal.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter
IETF Chair
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM
william(at)elan.net wrote:
Hello Brian,
With IESG already consideri
31 matches
Mail list logo
