--On mandag, november 28, 2005 12:41:43 +1100 Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The virtual consensus question I responded to last week was along the
lines of "Is this the best of all possible outcomes for the IETF's
IPR?", and my response was "no, I do not believe so". In making that
Pekka:
Regarding your one major issue, the updater is NOT the entity that gets
to decide whether to allow any DNS update to occur or not. It is the DNS
server that restricts who can do updates and what they can update.
We're assuming that the most likely entity to be given fairly open
access to a
This would, as Ted indicates, greatly complicate the entire update
sequence. The current update sequence (see
draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-10.txt), never does a query of the RRs in
the server. Therefore, either we'd have to do a query first to obtain
the DHCID RR and extract the algorithm so we c
* I infer that the IAOC has concluded that the present
draft agreement is about as good as we are going to get,
at least without abandoning this path, discarding the
work of the last nine or ten months, and trying
something else entirely.
The inference
--On Saturday, 26 November, 2005 22:16 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 04:28:50AM -0500,
> John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 113 lines which said:
>
>> The IAOC has concluded that this trust arrangement is, on
>> balance in
> "Steven" == Steven M Bellovin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm currently writing a discuss on the md5 issue.
At a minimum you will need to specify the complexity in order to deal with
changing hash algorithms.
Steven> More generally... The currently-known attacks on MD5 are
Steven
Speaking not so much to the deadline in particular, but to the concept of
"rules versus judgments"
--On lørdag, november 26, 2005 11:39:22 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To begin:
1. A problem working group is not fixed by imposing arbitrary rules and
deadlines on it.
2.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
...
The last requirement (boilerplate) was done on legal advice, and after
discussions in the IPR WG that are much too voluminous for me to even
remember it may be an unwise decision, but it was a very public one.
Judging by the occasional arrival of legal le
--On 26. november 2005 03:58 -0500 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just to clarify: there are no number of lines or number of
columns requirements for submitting Internet Drafts. It is
acceptable to turn in unpaginated plain text, and the number
of columns is only required for ASCII
Doug Royer wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
...
To elaborate:
Is is ever valid for a working group to want to post a new draft late
in the
game, very near -- or even during -- and IETF meeting? The answer is
clearly yes, which is why working groups route around the IETF's
arbitrary
deadline i
10 matches
Mail list logo
