Hi Pasi, all
Following up on this, I think ERX-11 addresses all of Pasi's comments.
I have previously added (in v10) clarifying text to address the
lock-step issue based on Bernard's suggestion in his detailed review. I
have now added a section on lower layer considerations. The channel
Mark Andrews wrote :
On 19 feb 2008, at 10:02, Dan Wing wrote:
It would be interesting to write it down, and to see what
would break if the IP stack acquired and provided a fresh
v6 address to every new connection. Maybe nothing would
break, which would be great.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:08:37AM +0100,
Rémi Després [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 68 lines which said:
The proposal is, more precisely, a new fresh v6 address for each
OUTGOING connection.
...
Then, there is no need to concern the DNS with these new
addresses:
Mark
Can't you set your MUA to emit TEXT/PLAIN? It's just
plain impolite to send only HTM ~!#!~!#$~ L.
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN
html
head
meta content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type
/head
body bgcolor=#ff
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote :
The proposal is, more precisely, a new fresh v6 address for each
OUTGOING connection.
...
Then, there is no need to concern the DNS with these new
addresses:
Mark Andrews' concern was, I believe, for the many
[Mark Andrews is right, it is very difficult to separate your message
from the parts you quote, my mail reader does not have a HTML
parser !]
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:57:18PM +0100,
Rémi Després [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 44 lines which said:
The first 64 bits of IPv6
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote :
[Mark Andrews is right, it is very difficult to separate your message
from the parts you quote, my mail reader does not have a HTML parser
!]
Thanks.
I will try to be more careful.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:57:18PM +0100, Rémi Després
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:42:43PM +0100,
Rémi Després [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 49 lines which said:
A similar result could be achieved if resolvers, when they have to
get a name for an IPv6 address having a privacy ID, instead of
having no chance to get any name, would replace
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote :
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:42:43PM +0100, Rémi Després
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 49 lines which said:
A similar result could be achieved if resolvers, when they have to
get a name for an IPv6 address having a privacy ID, instead of
having no chance
This is a reminder that if you have not already purchased your social
ticket and would like to attend, you should do so *immediately.* This
event is strictly limited to 500 people, and we currently have 467
registered. So just 33 tickets remain available as of a few minutes
ago.
To buy your
I just registered for IETF-71 and tried to pay. I wasn't bothered too
much when I got an SSL warning for the former, but I hesitate to
proceed with the latter, which is also under the amsl.com domain.
My browser (the latest version of Safari on the Mac) complains that
the issuer of the
On Feb 20, 2008 12:23 PM, lconroy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Folks,
WTF - why am I REQUIRED to enter the ISO-3166 code for my country
of residence.
[snip!]
This is (if nothing else) a Fenian ploy.
[snip!]
add United Kingdom (UK), you *[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not sure where in your rant you
Hi folk,
I guess that the IETF Meeting Registration pages are run by/on
behalf of the IETF, and that's where the mandatory code is required.
Also, could someone fix the python - it appears to barf now that the
Social is sold out.
[who apparently got the last ticket, but whose colleague now
Hi Folks,
WTF - why am I REQUIRED to enter the ISO-3166 code for my country
of residence.
This is the -Internet- Engineering Task Force. So what the heck is
wrong with UK
(as in the country code TLD of the same name), not to mention the
Country.
This is (if nothing else) a Fenian ploy.
I
--On Wednesday, 20 February, 2008 13:03 -0500 Daniel Brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 20, 2008 12:04 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip!]
My browser (the latest version of Safari on the Mac)
complains that the issuer of the certificate is untrusted.
That would be
On Feb 20, 2008 12:04 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip!]
My browser (the latest version of Safari on the Mac) complains that
the issuer of the certificate is untrusted. That would be Starfield
Secure Certification Authority.
Is this a CA in good standing that we should
Ray,
Which services will be affected by this (all, Tools EDU, email)?
On Feb 20, 2008 12:52 PM, Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ATT, the IPv6 service provider for the IETF, is planning a major
change in their IPv6 network on Thursday, 21 February, at 8am
Eastern for one
Hi -
From: lconroy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:23 AM
Subject: ISO 3166 mandatory?
...
why am I REQUIRED to enter the ISO-3166 code for my country
of residence.
...
Quite right. It should use UN M.49 codes instead.
;-)
ATT, the IPv6 service provider for the IETF, is planning a major
change in their IPv6 network on Thursday, 21 February, at 8am
Eastern for one hour duration.
All services are anticipated to be back up and running at 9am Eastern.
We are sorry for this temporary IPv6 service interruption and for
lconroy wrote:
I guess that the IETF Meeting Registration pages are run by/on
behalf of the IETF, and that's where the mandatory code is required.
Tons of forms want this for obscure purposes, if in doubt I pick UM.
The history of UK vs. GB is explained in RFC 3071 - for unrelated
reasons I
Don't worry. This problem effectively no longer occurs. It has
been replaced by the following feature:
(1) The Social event line, which we were never required to fill
in before, especially with a specific number of tickets, in
order to register for IETF, now reads sold out.
(2) When one tries
AMS obtains certificates for their clients from Starfield
Technologies:
http://www.starfieldtech.com/
Do you have a concern about this choice or is your concern about
the fact that your browser didn't accept the certificate by default?
If you have a concern about this choice it would help
In local.ietf.announce you write:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The 'news' and 'nntp' URI Schemes '
draft-ellermann-news-nntp-uri-08.txt as a Proposed Standard
This request is premature. There has been some discussion of
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote:
The history of UK vs. GB is explained in RFC 3071 - for unrelated
reasons I read it yesterday again.
RFC 3071's comments about the crown dependencies are now obsolete,
since they have been added to ISO 3166. The ISO 3166 FAQ also has
more information
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 05:23:52PM +,
lconroy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
So what the heck is wrong with UK (as in the country code TLD of the
same name),
It's true that there is a discrepancy between ISO 3166 and the root of
the DNS. Do not worry, David
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 07:25:17PM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
lconroy wrote:
I guess that the IETF Meeting Registration pages are run by/on
behalf of the IETF, and that's where the mandatory code is required.
Tons of forms want this for obscure purposes, if in doubt I pick UM.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:50:10PM -0500,
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 59 lines which said:
* This ISO 3166 code business, rather than, e.g., a
country name.
While a country name is more intuitive and certainly better for a
general Web site, it seems safe
Dear IETF Participants:
John Klensin reported an error that occurred when he was trying to
register for IETF 71. As John suspected, it was related to the
Social. The Social is now sold out, and the registration software
did not handle the situation gracefully. AMS promptly fixed the error.
Mark Andrews skrev:
You also don't want to do it as you would also need massive churn in
the DNS.
Microsoft gets this wrong as they don't register the privacy addresses
in the DNS which in turn causes services to be blocked because there
is no address in the DNS.
perhaps the advent of IPv6
On Wed Feb 20 20:26:14 2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 05:23:52PM +,
lconroy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 23 lines
which said:
So what the heck is wrong with UK (as in the country code TLD of
the
same name),
It's true that there is a
Hi,
ISO 3166 MA has designated UK as exceptionally reserved. IANA has
permitted the use of codes ISO designates as exceptionally reserved
in ISO-3166 for quite some time (the yellow boxes in the table at
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table)
.
Oh, and I'm not with IANA anymore
At 1:45 PM -0500 2/20/08, James Galvin wrote:
As far your browser not accepting the certificate, I'm sure you
realize there a lot of reasons that could happen including the
latest version of Safari missing a particular root certificate.
...or there is a configuration issue with your
On 20 feb 2008, at 21:26, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
So what the heck is wrong with UK (as in the country code TLD of the
same name),
It's true that there is a discrepancy between ISO 3166 and the root of
the DNS. Do not worry, David Conrad, IANA, reads this list and he will
certainly
On 20 feb 2008, at 19:45, James Galvin wrote:
AMS obtains certificates for their clients from Starfield
Technologies:
http://www.starfieldtech.com/
Do you have a concern about this choice or is your concern about
the fact that your browser didn't accept the certificate by default?
The
Tony Finch wrote:
RFC 3071's comments about the crown dependencies are now obsolete
Yes, Debbie fixed this. Unfortunately IANA introduced EU as a new
exception.
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Do not worry, David Conrad, IANA, reads this list and he will
certainly resolve the discrepancy
Frank,
On Feb 20, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Unfortunately IANA introduced EU as a new exception.
ICANN introduced the top-level domain for EU by request of appropriate
entities within the EU.
IANA has permitted the use of codes ISO designates as
exceptionally reserved in
As soon as the SSL problem was reported, AMS performed additional testing on
many different computers. However, we were unable to duplicate this problem.
If someone else experiences this issue and is concerned, please send an
email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternatively, please feel free to contact me
David Conrad wrote:
Unfortunately IANA introduced EU as a new exception.
ICANN introduced the top-level domain for EU by request
of appropriate entities within the EU.
Yes, one of the exceptionally reserved codes, added to
the AC + UK club of exceptions. That's 5+1-3 exceptions
in
Frank,
On Feb 20, 2008, at 5:24 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Neither of those documents needs to be updated since IANA
and ICANN are still using ISO-3166.
When I ask whois.iana.org for CP, DG, EA, FX, IC, or TA it
tells me that there's no such TLD.
Well, yes. They haven't been delegated yet.
The default setting in Firefox (and possibly safari) is to use OCSP for
validation of certificates where OCSP is referenced. The *.ietf.org
certificate has as part of the Authority Information Field the value;
OCSP: URI: http://ocsp.starfieldtech.com
This url is unreachable from many non-US
David Conrad wrote:
[CP, DG, EA, FX, IC, or TA]
When you do a query against EH (for example) you get a blank
template but when you query against (say) FX, you get not
found. Not sure why this is the case as it is clearly broken.
I'll recommend it get fixed.
They could make it worse if
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area
directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These
comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but
are copied to the document's authors for their information and to
allow them to address any issues
--On Wednesday, 20 February, 2008 16:30 -0800 David Conrad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank,
On Feb 20, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Unfortunately IANA introduced EU as a new exception.
ICANN introduced the top-level domain for EU by request of
appropriate entities within
Frank,
On Feb 20, 2008, at 6:57 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
They could make it worse if they add the fantasy island codes.
They who? I doubt ISO-3166 MA will be adding fantasy island codes,
but if they do, IANA is not in a position to deny the creation of TLDs
representing those codes.
John,
On Feb 20, 2008, at 9:31 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
FWIW, this is a fairly radical re-interpretation of the policies
IANA followed under RFC 1591 and even of any policy I'm aware of
the ICANN Board having approved.
Given ICANN's board approved the EU delegation and AC and UK were
ATT, the IPv6 service provider for the IETF, is planning a major
change in their IPv6 network on Thursday, 21 February, at 8am
Eastern for one hour duration.
All services are anticipated to be back up and running at 9am Eastern.
We are sorry for this temporary IPv6 service interruption and for
46 matches
Mail list logo
