I want to post
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 2007-9-6, at 12:01, ext Elisa Boschi wrote:
To be specific, how would an application using
IPFIX over UDP obtain the packet loss information needed to implement
TFRC as recommended in Section 3.1.1 of the UDP guidelines draft?
The IPFIX implementation guidelines draft says:
The Collecting
rawad Melhem wrote:
I want to post
Congratulations, you got your wish.
Did you actually have anything to SAY?
--
Dave Aronson
Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein
Work: http://www.davearonson.com/
Play: http://www.davearonson.net/
___
Ietf
Thanks for your email, comments inline
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Based on the errors/warnings I get from both SMICNG and SMILINT, I
wonder how
how an IETF Last Call can go out for a MIB module in this shape.
I did not look at any MIB details yet.
I get this from SMICng:
Since
David,
We're getting close, but I think some more work on UDP guidelines
is still appropriate. As the existence of the UDP guidelines draft
indicates, this is a topic of current interest in the Transport Area.
see inline
Section 6.2: UDP
[2] I don't see any discussion of congestion
Lars,
On 2007-9-6, at 14:51, ext Paul Aitken wrote:
As far as I can see, draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines-02 contains no
guidance other than:
Applications that perform bulk transmission of data (3.1.1)
and
When applications that exchange only a small number of messages with
a
Paul,
On 2007-9-6, at 14:51, ext Paul Aitken wrote:
As far as I can see, draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines-02 contains
no guidance other than:
Applications that perform bulk transmission of data (3.1.1)
and
When applications that exchange only a small number of messages
with
a
Looks like there was a misunderstanding on my part r.e. the
InetAddressType refinement. The refinement only applies to the
InetAddress objects, InetAddressType should be unmodified, apologies for
that. I'll issue an update, however AFAIK the other comments still apply.
Thanks,
Julian
Wijnen,
Lars,
Looking at draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines-02, I see TFRC recommended
for Bulk Transfer Applications (section 3.1.1).
However, I think that netflow and IPFIX export fall into the Low
Data-Volume Applications category (section 3.1.2) which says:
I don't see IPFIX falling into this
Elisa,
Most of these responses look fine. I do think additional text
should be added on the topics of:
- warnings about when not to use unordered delivery
- explanation of when UDP use is appropriate
More details inline ...
Some responses also in line. I have deleted
Dave Crocker wrote:
SM wrote:
The Jabber Identifier is associated with the author of the message; see
[MESSAGE]. If the From: header field contains more than one mailbox,
the
Jabber-ID header should not be added to the message. There should be no
more than one instance of the Jabber-ID
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I have no objections to working on a more general approach. Probably
Yup. I wasn't criticizing the idea, either. It's just a question of who is
trying to satisfy an immediate requirement.
that would mean two different header fields: one to encapsulate an im:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Dave Crocker wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Jabber is to XMPP as email is to SMTP+POP+IMAP.
Well, I appreciate the effort, but no.
IM is to XMPP as email is to SMTP et al.
That would be premature, since Jabber has not yet taken over the IM world
in the way that the
Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Dave Crocker wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Jabber is to XMPP as email is to SMTP+POP+IMAP.
Well, I appreciate the effort, but no.
IM is to XMPP as email is to SMTP et al.
That would be premature, since Jabber has not yet taken over the IM world
in
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Dave Crocker wrote:
IM is to XMPP as email is to SMTP et al.
That would be premature, since Jabber has not yet taken over the IM world
in the way that the Internet standards have done for email.
Right. Jabber
Total of 42 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Sep 7 00:53:01 EDT 2007
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
7.14% |3 | 15.44% |48835 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4.76% |2 | 7.82% |24754 | [EMAIL
The IESG has received a request from the IP Flow Information Export WG
(ipfix) to consider the following document:
- 'Specification of the IPFIX Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic
Flow Information '
draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-26.txt as a Proposed Standard
A previous version
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5003
Title: Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types
for Aggregation
Author: C. Metz, L. Martini,
F. Balus, J. Sugimoto
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5032
Title: WITHIN Search Extension to the
IMAP Protocol
Author: E. Burger, Ed.
Status: Standards Track
Date: September 2007
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4964
Title: The P-Answer-State Header Extension to
the Session Initiation Protocol for the
Open Mobile Alliance Push to Talk
over
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5011
Title: Automated Updates of DNS Security
(DNSSEC) Trust Anchors
Author: M. StJohns
Status: Standards Track
Date: September 2007
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4990
Title: Use of Addresses in Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Networks
Author: K. Shiomoto, R. Papneja,
R. Rabbat
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'i;unicode-casemap - Simple Unicode Collation Algorithm '
draft-crispin-collation-unicasemap-07.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'On the Use of Channel Bindings to Secure Channels '
draft-williams-on-channel-binding-04.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Sam
70th IETF Meeting
Vancouver, BC, Canada
December 2-7, 2007
Registration is now open for the 70th IETF Meeting!
You can register on line at:
http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/70-IETF.html
REGISTRATION INFORMATION:
Early-Bird Registration - USD 700.00
If you register and pay for your attendance to
25 matches
Mail list logo
