On 11Oct 2006, at 7:03 PM, 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
I apologise for this message having reached the list,
since the person who sent it is currently supposed to have
his posting rights suspended. An administrative issue.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:
I think it may be a good idea to also create an IAB document that
documents all these DNS issues that have to do with namespace tricks.
The IAB comment on Sitefinder [1] could act as the core of that
document. I'd be happy to work with a few volunteers to make that fly.
todd glassey 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.
Google searching seems to indicate that this role belongs to Michael
Aisenberg. I suggest that anyone who cares to
Of course, see (2) above. But the question was about a formal
agreement with ISO, and I am reasonably certain that no such
agreement exists. Certainly it did not exist in the mid-, or
even late-, 90s.
It never existed. Liaison letters with a few JTC1 SCs were
signed around 1992.
Brian
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:50:46AM -0700, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
(Note - there is an ITU-T Recommendation that talks about almost exactly
what is being described. It is documented in RFC 3356, which is shared
text with ITU-T A-Series Supplement 3. This is, however, not an MOU;
it's an ITU
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if your contractor has carefully configured the laptop to
give all the right answers? What if it has already been infected with
a virus that causes it to give all the right answers?
Yes, that's a problem with NEA. No, it's not a problem for
Greetings,
Both of the existing flavors of NEA-type protocols (Cisco NAC and TNC) provide some mechanisms for integrity checking after the admission process has completed and removing an endpoint's privileged access if it falls out of compliance. So IMHO, support for post-admission integrity
I have a very basic fear that this working group is getting chartered
with a bunch of aims added by people who will not take on the
task of doing the work. After private discussion with folks
involved, my sense is that the very core of this work is a
perceived
need to be able to pass
Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/08/2006 11:45:37 PM:
[snip]
my sense is that the very core of this work is a perceived
need to be able to pass opaque strings between a host and the network
prior to the host attaching.
Yes, that is the essence of this work which is what we need
Alan DeKok writes:
The people I talk with plan on using NEA to catch the 99% case of a
misconfigured/unknown system that is used by a well-meaning but
perhaps less clueful employee or contractor. The purpose of NEA is to
enhance network security by allowing fewer insecure end hosts in the
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-appeal-support
...it's just wrong.
I think he's got a good idea. It maybe could use some tweaking.
The IETF should stop doing things that are not relevant to its
constituency and serve
yeah, I sympathize with the desire to be less vulnerable to asymmetric
attacks, and also with the general notion that if your appeal has
sufficient merit to sway the iesg, iab, etc then you can probably find
some people outside those bodies who think your appeal has merit.
I also believe that
Hi. RFC 3967 is not applicable in cases where the appropriate
solution is to advance the normative downreference on the standards
track. In each case where you have a normative down reference, to a
PS, please explain why advancing that document is not the appropriate
solution.
It is my opinion
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:16:53PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
I just don't think that IETF meeting attendance is an appropriate way to
decide who is a nutcase and who isn't.
Appropriate or not, it's not an effective way to distinguish nuts,
as it should not surprise you to learn that most of
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:03:39AM -0700, David W. Hankins wrote:
One perfectly acceptable tactic, which Olafur has codified in this
s/Olafur/Olaf/g
How embarrassing. Sorry, Olaf.
--
ISC Training! October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay Area,
covering topics from DNS to DDNS DHCP.
Keith Moore wrote:
I just don't think that IETF meeting attendance is an appropriate way to
decide who is a nutcase and who isn't.
Me too. That'd be a move towards paid membership IMO and as was shown
with the recent NomCom selection, the record keeping involved can
lead to disputes.
If we
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-appeal-support
...it's just wrong.
I think he's got a good idea. It maybe could use some tweaking.
A lot of tweaking is needed IMO. I have no problem with the idea of requiring
some
--On Friday, 13 October, 2006 13:37 -0400 Dean Anderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, John C Klensin wrote:
And please see my earlier comments about your rights in
these issues generally and to make this type of demand, even
if the agreement and documents did exist.
I
Frank == Frank Yeh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frank Standardized VS vendor-specific attributes is not something that
needs to be
Frank solved today. Solutions can start with vendor-specific and migrate
toward a
Frank standard, if one develops, without changing the protocol. The
John C Klensin wrote:
You are not a member of the IETF.
Todd is not a member of the IETF.
I am not a member of the IETF.
Jorge isn't a member of the IETF either.
The IETF has no members.
Not only are you right, but per se, the IETF is not a non-profit.
Further most people who participate
Of course the IETF is a non-profit entity. For-profit entities are
entities whose purpose is for the operations of the entity itself to
produce profits which accrue to its owners/proprietors/partners/...
Non-profit entities are entities with any other purposes.
Note that these definitions have
Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:
Of course the IETF is a non-profit entity.
Don, I think you lost the thread of this thread.
The operative phrase that triggered my comment was ...by law, Members of a
non-profit
By law. So this was about the legal construct of a member of a
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:08:42PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
At base, I cannot figure out why anyone keeps feeding such trollish topics,
I thought it might at least be amusing to comment on the term member.
Note that at this point Dean and Todd have been banned from the IETF
list. While this
David W. Hankins wrote:
The definitions in Olafur's draft for qualified supporters
shouldn't be considered exclusionary.
That's precisely how I understand them, and it's not hard to
guess which cases this tries to address. It's also not hard
to guess which _unrelated_ 3.5 appeals I have in
To the Internet community:
The RFC Editor is saddened by the imminent departure of Joyce Reynolds
from the RFC Editor staff. She is leaving ISI to take on a new and
challenging job assignment elsewhere. The brass ring came by, and she
grabbed it!
Over many years, Joyce has made major
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4609
Title: Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse
Mode (PIM-SM) Multicast Routing Security Issues
and Enhancements
Author: P. Savola,
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4593
Title: Generic Threats to Routing Protocols
Author: A. Barbir, S. Murphy,
Y. Yang
Status: Informational
Date: October 2006
28 matches
Mail list logo
