Hello,
We got a problem how to interpret the RFC 3164 document with respect to how to
define the possible delimiters that can separate the TAG and CONTENT field.
More specifically, is space a valid delimiter?
The part in RFC 3164 that supports space as a valid delimiter is in section
4.1.3:
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
John Calcote writes:
I'll just jump in here for a second and mention also that vendors
offer what they have to, not what they can. They want to provide the
most bang for the buck, so to speak. These companies don't offer
the multiple-static-ip-address option today
Peter Dambier writes:
http://www.manitu.de/
They offer you:
fixed IPv4 address with reverse lookup at 9.99 Euros per month.
I don't live in Germany. The exception does not disprove the rule.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
,
|1.2. Document Structure
|...
|
| The sections dealing with attacks on DKIM each begin with a table
| summarizing the postulated attacks in each category along with their
| expected impact and likelihood. The following definitions were used
| as rough criteria for scoring the attacks:
|
|
A friend of mine wants to include copies of some early RFCs in a book.
My understanding is that anything published before 1976 without a
copyright notice, which would presumably include RFCs up through about
number 700, is in the public domain.
Does the IETF or IAB or RFC Editor take a position
Hi Bob,
I think the issue at hand is not the interpretation of text, but the
conflicting text in the 802.11i standard. David Nelson has already shed some
light to this.
Text in Clause 5 opens the door for non-802.1X protocols to utilize the
uncontrolled port, and we didn't find any limitations
The official way to do this is to submit an interpretation request to
the IEEE. The instructions can be found here:
http://standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/interp/. The request will then
be referred to the appropriate working group for response and approval.
The earliest that this could be
Thanks for the URL to the interpretation request.
The text in the URL says:
Interpretations are issued to explain and clarify the intent of the
standard and are not intended to constitute an alteration to the
original standard or to supply consulting information. The
interpretations subgroup
On Friday, March 24, 2006 08:23:20 AM -0500 Steven M. Bellovin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:56:51 -0800, Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since it seems like this might be useful, I'll pull a draft together on
how to do this without 1078's extra connection, more
On Thursday, March 23, 2006 09:40:06 PM -0800 Stuart Cheshire
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right now there are a couple of hundred application-layer protocols
implemented that work this way.
And wow is there a lot of MDNS broadcast traffic on my network.
Yoshihiro,
You say that the intent of the standard has been already clarified by
David Nelson. This is incorrect. David has offered his opinion as an
individual as to what he believes took place. He has no authority to
interpret the intent of the standard.
Only the working group can interpret
All,
The IAB is currently looking to appoint an Executive Director.
The Executive Director is a non-voting ex-officio member of the IAB.
(See RFC2850, the IAB's charter, for details). We are looking for
suggestions, based on the brief profile for the role, below.
We would like you to consider
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2006 08:23:20 AM -0500 Steven M. Bellovin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:56:51 -0800, Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since it seems like this might be useful, I'll pull a draft together on
how to do this without
From: Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TCPMUX doesn't 'handoff'. It expects that .. the service desired is
served off of its port once opened after the initial exchange
(in-band).
.. The downside is that it then forces a two-step demultiplexing of
incoming packets; there
On Apr 6, 2006, at 6:37 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Why can't the TCPMUX listener just bind the correct application to
the TCB
(after figuring out what the appropriate application is), and then
forget
about the connection, leaving it entirely to the application to
deal with?
All packets which
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 21:37:49 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel
Chiappa) wrote:
From: Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TCPMUX doesn't 'handoff'. It expects that .. the service desired is
served off of its port once opened after the initial exchange
(in-band).
.. The
The IESG has received a request from the IP Security Policy WG to consider the
following document:
- 'IPsec Security Policy Database Configuration MIB '
draft-ietf-ipsp-spd-mib-05.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments
17 matches
Mail list logo
