Re[2]: Last Call: draft-shimaoka-multidomain-pki-11.txt

2007-12-05 Thread Masaki SHIMAOKA
Stephen and Martin, # sorry for twice posting. Thanks for your quick comments. - Trust Anchor definition: I agree your comments. I think the term "trust anchor CA" is more appropriate. - MUST NOT and MUST for trust anchor: I understand IETF statement, so I am going to replace "MUST" to "strongl

Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

2007-12-05 Thread JP Vasseur
+1 > From: Henrik Levkowetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:37:05 -0800 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ietf , iesg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months? > > > > On 2007-12-02 10:38 Bob Hinden said th

Re: SAVI BOF notes

2007-12-05 Thread Barry Leiba
Sorry; that got garbled by funny characters that came from copy/paste. Here it is again: Problem statement: IP source addresses can be spoofed. Packet delivery is based only on destination addresses, to the spoofed traffic arrives, and hurts (attacks/threatens) the destination. It'd be nice

SAVI BOF notes

2007-12-05 Thread Barry Leiba
Problem statement: IP source addresses can be spoofed. Packet delivery is based only on destination addresses, to the spoofed traffic arrives, and hurts (attacks/threatens) the destination. It'd be nice to stop the spoofing, and existing solutions aren't sufficient. There are product solutio

Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

2007-12-05 Thread Loa Andersson
hmmm... Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > > On 2007-12-02 10:38 Bob Hinden said the following: > ... >>> Based on the past record, we're talking about something that >>> happens 0.58% of the time, or less. >>> >>> Of course, predicting the future from the past is iffy; there have >>> been 10 appeals

Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

2007-12-05 Thread Henrik Levkowetz
On 2007-12-02 10:38 Bob Hinden said the following: ... >> Based on the past record, we're talking about something that >> happens 0.58% of the time, or less. >> >> Of course, predicting the future from the past is iffy; there have >> been 10 appeals in 2006 and only one (not document related)

Re: Audio streaming server challenges tuesday afternoon.

2007-12-05 Thread Joel Jaeggli
David B. Nelson wrote: > This is still a problem. Please turn off whatever logging or debugging is > causing the servers to drop connections, and refuse to accept reconnects It's not that it refuses to accept your connection, it's that it has nothing to serve. one-through three stayed up through

RE: Audio streaming server challenges tuesday afternoon.

2007-12-05 Thread David B. Nelson
This is still a problem. Please turn off whatever logging or debugging is causing the servers to drop connections, and refuse to accept reconnects ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf