dust off the IAB wildcard statement, and say it's not any better when
YOU do it?
http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-09-20-dns-wildcards.html
While we're at it, let's say blocking SRV records in your DNS proxy is
harmful too.
Keith Moore wrote:
In the past month or so I've run across two
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
In the past month or so I've run across two separate ISPs that are
apparently polluting the DNS by returning A records in cases where the
authoritative server would either return NXDOMAIN or no answers. The A
records generally point to an HTTP server
One thought:
every time we encounter one of those problems, we should report an issue
to the ISP's helpdesk.
If the opex of the feature is high enough, even accountants may get
the point
Stephen Casner wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
In the past month or so I've
Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it is better that we aren't copied because to do so would be unfair to
the complainer(s).
As much as I've sparred with Glassey in the past ... I think he's right
in this case. In my opinion, any sort of
CDs of Proceedings always seemed like an excellent idea but:
- sometimes they never arrived
- I cannot ever recall them arriving in good time, that is closer to the time
of the meeting they relate to than to that of the next meeting.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: IETF
Brian - what constitutes 'disrupting the normal conversation of the list' -
disagreeing with the management of the list?.
The issue isn't that I wasn't contributing - it was that the IPR and IP
teams and the IETF process teams WILL NOT LET ME PARTICIPATE because I bring
in non-engineering
Edward Lewis made me coment on:
Ironically - in the past year, the DNSOP WG considered a proposal
called white lies in which falsified negative answers were to be
used to prevent someone from using DNSSEC records to discover all of
What Ed didn't say but could have to avoid myth spread:
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 20:01 -0700, Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
I am rather confused by this attempt to make NEA fit into some kind of
a network protection mechanism. I keep hearing that NEA is *one* of a
suite of protocols that may be used for protecting networks. Let's dig
a bit deeper into what
At 16:03 +0200 10/12/06, Peter Koch wrote:
What Ed didn't say but could have to avoid myth spread: the schemes described
in RFC 4471 and RFC 4472 (dnsext's work, btw, but never mind ;-) require the
zone maintainer's consent, so they are applied by the person in technical
control of the relevant
So then Ned you are saying that the Management of the IETF can say anything
they want to on a list about several 'supposed' complaints and then act upon
them without any due process or any recourse -
Noel expressed it better than either Harald or I did. He said:
My reasoning is that the
--On Wednesday, 11 October, 2006 21:59 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 01:03:24PM -0400,
Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
In the past month or so I've run across two separate ISPs
that are apparently
I understand that there is a formal MOU between the ISO and the IETF that
talks about ISO's actions with regard to the reliance on IETF Standards and
RFC's.
I want to physically see a copy of the document - in its entirety.
Todd Glassey
___
Ietf
--On Thursday, 12 October, 2006 12:27 -0700 todd glassey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand that there is a formal MOU between the ISO and
the IETF that talks about ISO's actions with regard to the
reliance on IETF Standards and RFC's.
I want to physically see a copy of the document -
Douglas Otis wrote:
If an application happens to be malware, it seems it would
be unlikely stop these applications. How about:
vi) Provide application level advisory information pertaining to
available services.
Points that seem to be missing are:
vii) Notification of
John,
Please remember with me back to the mid-1990s when ISO sent official
liaison reps to the IETF. The way I recall (perhaps incorrectly) things
working back then was that from the ISO perspective, these were official
liaison reps formally sanctioned according to ISO processes but from our
see RFC 3563 for one agreement
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Eric I proposed a long time ago that we create a new IESG Role and was a
Director of Liaisons and it of course, was shot down. Maybe in this more ...
tolerant climate today (nasbcih) it should be reviewed again. Its likely to
be one of the more powerful and long-term IETF/IESG role's as well
Scott Bradner wrote:
see RFC 3563 for one agreement
And since it would seem a bit useful to make liaison information readily
available, I was happy to fine:
http://ietf.org/liaisonActivities.html
It seems to cover the topic rather thoroughly. it looks as if it links to the
formal
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Edward Lewis wrote:
At 23:37 -0700 10/11/06, Stephen Casner wrote:
connect to 127.0.0.1 on the forwarded port number. I don't know why,
but Pine does a DNS lookup on 127.0.0.1. My problems arose when the
Sounds like an application layer implementation defect. The
Scott this is specific to one small area in IS-IS routing (the JTC) - what I
am looking for a broad agreement type MOU. I don't think one exists.
Todd
- Original Message -
From: Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 3:27 PM
Subject: RE: I
Dave - this really says nothing about what a liaison does or what their
responsibilities are. The IS-IS document talks to some extent about the
processes but the roles are still unclear.
My point was that the liaison is a businesses development role really. Its
about how IETF processes and IPs
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Edward Lewis wrote:
At 23:37 -0700 10/11/06, Stephen Casner wrote:
connect to 127.0.0.1 on the forwarded port number. I don't know why,
but Pine does a DNS lookup on 127.0.0.1. My problems arose when the
Sounds like an application layer implementation defect.
--On Thursday, 12 October, 2006 18:27 -0400 Scott Bradner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
see RFC 3563 for one agreement
Scott, there are lots of agreements at the WG-WG level. There
are even a few agreements creating and identifying IETF Category
A liaisons to a few selected ISO/IEC JTC1 SCs
--On Thursday, 12 October, 2006 14:08 -0700 todd glassey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thats what I thought John but when Verisign's
Corporate-Government Liaison, who is a very reputable
attorney, pops up and says there is one I have to ask.
I am not questioning the reputation of whomever you
Total of 125 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Oct 13 00:03:01 EDT 2006
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
16.80% | 21 | 16.80% | 128654 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6.40% |8 | 10.25% |78494 | [EMAIL
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following documents:
- 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) '
draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3730bis-03.txt as a Draft Standard
- 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Host Mapping '
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4698
Title: IRIS: An Address Registry (areg)
Type for the Internet Registry Information
Service
Author: E. Gunduz, A. Newton,
There are two (2) Internet-Draft cutoff dates for the 67th
IETF Meeting in San Diego, California, USA:
October 16th: Cutoff Date for Initial (i.e., version -00)
Internet-Draft Submissions
All initial Internet-Drafts (version -00) must be submitted by Monday,
October 16th at 9:00 AM ET. As
28 matches
Mail list logo
