On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:08:31AM +0100,
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
we had this exact problem with the many identities of Jeff
Williams; he had enough pseudo-personalities on the list that he
would sometimes claim to have a majority,
Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:
I think Vidya has a good point.
My opinion is that, bootstrapping protocols from long-term
credentials used for network access authentication is not such a bad
idea, but we just do not know yet the best way to realize it:
On Mar 25, 2008, at 01:07, Charles Clancy wrote:
Something tells me they haven't updated this boilerplate since the
1980s. I'm surprised there weren't any references to GOPHER.
Perhaps someone should tell the DoD that WW2 has ended. :-)
___
IETF
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC has published the IETF Meeting Network Requirements ION at
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/
The purpose of the document is to assist IETF meeting Hosts and technical
teams with the network requirements in support of the
Hi Pasi,
Thanks for your response.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:04:00AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:
I think Vidya has a good point.
My opinion is that, bootstrapping protocols from long-term
credentials used for network access authentication is not such a bad
What I am trying to get at here is the problem of usability. Security is no use
to me to stop Internet crime if everyone either turns it off or is unable to
use it. The layered model is a big problem here because the lower layers
abstract away the user. There is no user interface, there are no
Phillip does have a point regarding 802.1x authentication, which is
typically used to authenticate the user to the service, and not vice
versa. Conceivably a person could set up an evil access point that
advertises the same beacon as the official access points, and has
802.1x enabled to accept the
On 25 mrt 2008, at 4:58, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The WG scheduling tool has 3 lists of groups to avoid conflicts
with, 1st, 2nd and 3rd priority.
I don't know if these are visible to anyone but the requesting WG
Chair, but they're listed on the confirmation notice from the tool;
On 24 mrt 2008, at 18:58, Jari Arkko wrote:
Now, if we had a proposal that turned IPsec into as easily deployable
between random clients and known servers as TLS, I would be interested
in a new experiment! But I did not see a proposal for that yet. Maybe
time for that draft that Phillip
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 08:53:15AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:08:31AM +0100,
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
we had this exact problem with the many identities of Jeff
Williams; he had enough
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:00:23AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Ned Freed wrote:
If the consensus is that better interoperability can be had
by banning bare records that's perfectly fine with me.
FWIW, I'd like that...
Clarity can be established and interoperability _improved_
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in
the future, it will be easy to determine which wgs attract the same
people and overlap can be avoided more effectively.
as someone who has
Jim Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps someone should tell the DoD that WW2 has ended. :-)
Might work. After all, the feds finally realized we didn't need to
fund the Spanish-American War any more
-Dave
--
Dave Aronson
Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein
Work:
On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Bill Manning wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in
the future, it will be easy to determine which wgs attract the same
people and overlap can be avoided more
On 25 Mar 2008, at 10:08 , Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Bill Manning wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in
the future, it will be easy to determine which wgs
Theodore Tso wrote:
Suppose you have 100 sock puppets all with gmail or hotmail accounts
Wait a moment, I don't know about hotmail accounts, but for gmail
it is possible to have corresponding google pages, a profile, a
jabber account, etc., and the task to check how plausible this is
is not
Yes, a security experiment is not so interesting without an attack.
I would like an evil twin access point to be set up with a cert that says 'evil
twin' and measure how much traffic goes through it. This is frequently done at
BlackHat albeit not necessarily in a manner that complies with
I've been carefully not posting in this thread for a while, but can't
control myself today. (So I'm not particularly arguing with Ted's points,
his e-mail is just the the latest e-mail in the thread)
My apologies in advance.
As Ted said, in theory, all decisions are supposed to be confirmed on
Bill Manning wrote:
FWIW, I'd like that...
Clarity can be established and interoperability _improved_
by limiting discovery to just A and MX records. Perhaps a
note might be included that at some point in the future MX
records may become required.
Again, I have no problem with this
Avi Lior wrote:
Here I agree with you fully: this is an extremely bad idea.
Architecturally linking application security to the link
layer is just bad engineering, and hinders the ability of
link layers and applications evolve independently of each other.
Lets start with this: Any
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
...
And yes, the issues I referred to are DoS and TCP spoofing.
These can only be protected against at the network level.
What are your thoughts on DTLS's DoS and spoofing protection?
-d
___
IETF mailing list
On 24 mrt 2008, at 18:58, Jari Arkko wrote:
Now, if we had a proposal that turned IPsec into as easily deployable
between random clients and known servers as TLS, I would be interested
in a new experiment! But I did not see a proposal for that yet. Maybe
time for that draft that Phillip
we had this exact problem with the many identities of Jeff
Williams; he had enough pseudo-personalities on the list that he
would sometimes claim to have a majority, jut from his own postings.
Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?
This is not totally true. A WG
Hi Pasi,
I don't disagree.
We need to make recommendations along your thoughts and let SDOs and operators
decide how to implement their networks.
By the way, a single-sign-on network is also a walled garden right? The walled
garden is between the parties that aggregate around the identity
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:40:38AM -0500, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
As Ted said, in theory, all decisions are supposed to be confirmed on the
mailing list, but I haven't seen anyone point out the reason why - because
we also think it's important to have very few barriers to participation in
o how widespread, and how frequent, a problem this is,
In terms of the number of people, it's tiny. I can only think of
three incorrigibly abusive people that bother the IETF, and even if I
polled everyone here to name candidates, I doubt that I'd run out of
fingers.
On the other hand, the
From: Russ Housley...
Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?
This is not totally true. A WG Chair or Area Director cannot
judge rough consensus if they are unsure if the portion of the
population that is representing a dissenting view is one person
or many different
From: Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frankly, it strikes me as somewhat odd that a body acting as a
standards-setting organization with public impact might allow any
technical decision on its specifications to be driven by people
operating under a cloak of anonymity.
Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frankly, it strikes me as somewhat odd that a body acting as a
standards-setting organization with public impact might allow any
technical decision on its specifications to be driven by people
operating
On 3/25/08 11:57 AM, Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I've never met you, Noel. And I certainly don't have any reason to
believe that this email I'm responding to wasn't forged. How do I know
that you're not a dog?
Reputation system.
Melinda
The PR-Action related aspects of a person using a bogus identity seem
easy to address, perhaps using the mechanism that Harald
suggested. However, the implications on IPR are much harder. In the
IETF, posting to a maillist and speaking at a meeting are two ways of
making contributions. If
From: Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So I've never met you, Noel. And I certainly don't have any reason to
believe that this email I'm responding to wasn't forged.
(Responding to the point of your message, rather than the actual words... :-)
I think there are two parts to the
Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Russ Housley...
Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?
This is not totally true. A WG Chair or Area Director cannot
judge rough consensus if they are unsure if the portion of the
population that is representing a
From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frankly, it strikes me as somewhat odd that a body acting as a
standards-setting organization with public impact might allow any
technical decision on its specifications to be driven by people
operating under a cloak of anonymity.
On 3/25/08 12:12 PM, Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think decisions should be based on technically sound arguments.
Whether someone wants to reveal their real identity is not necessarily
correlated to the same person providing useful contributions.
In practice I don't think there's
Hi, Russ,
The PR-Action related aspects of a person using a bogus identity seem
easy to address, perhaps using the mechanism that Harald
suggested. However, the implications on IPR are much harder. In the
IETF, posting to a maillist and speaking at a meeting are two ways of
making
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:12:33PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Frankly, it strikes me as somewhat odd that a body acting as a
standards-setting organization with public impact might allow any
technical decision on its specifications to be driven by people
operating under a cloak of
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC has published the IETF Meeting Network Requirements ION at
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/
The purpose of the document is to assist IETF meeting Hosts and technical
teams with the network requirements
At 12:02 -0400 3/25/08, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 3/25/08 11:57 AM, Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I've never met you, Noel. And I certainly don't have any reason to
believe that this email I'm responding to wasn't forged. How do I know
that you're not a dog?
Reputation system.
On 3/25/08 12:56 PM, Edward Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where I lose interest in this conversation is when I ask what does
it matter who made the point?
I suppose that's the ideal. We know some voices carry more
weight and some carry less, but I think what's actually under
discussion is
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:03:22 -0700
Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this also disallow (rather typical) filtering of Windows
ports (at least 137-139, 445)?
I understand it to mean that yes, the advisability of using SMB
across the public internet notwithstanding.
Umm -- I
Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So I've never met you, Noel. And I certainly don't have any reason to
believe that this email I'm responding to wasn't forged.
(Responding to the point of your message, rather than the actual words... :-)
I think
Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which once again brings us back to the question of what is the value
of letting contributors operate under a cloak of anonymity, and do the
benefits outweigh the costs. For political speech where someone wants
to distribute the equivalent of leaflets
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Thomas wrote:
| Noel Chiappa wrote:
| From: Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| Frankly, it strikes me as somewhat odd that a body acting as a
| standards-setting organization with public impact might allow any
|
At 13:18 -0400 3/25/08, Melinda Shore wrote:
I suppose that's the ideal. We know some voices carry more
weight and some carry less, but I think what's actually under
discussion is process abuses, not the resoluation of technical
differences.
Okay, that's different from what I was assuming the
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Fortunately, if the IETF becomes more like ISO, then I am
confident that there will be another organization that is
similar to the original IETF spirit. When there is damage,
route around it...
Strong ACK
___
IETF mailing
Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thinking not-that-far-back to the arrival of the FSF-driven
hordes trying to stop publication of the TLS authorization
document, I think the IETF pretty much blew them off, which was
the right thing to do under the circumstances. If it didn't
matter
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:08:02AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Bill Manning wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in
the future, it will be easy to
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:17:36AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
On 25 Mar 2008, at 10:08 , Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Bill Manning wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets
Simon:
Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?
This is not totally true. A WG Chair or Area Director cannot
judge rough consensus if they are unsure if the portion of the
population that is representing a dissenting view is one person
or many different people.
Good Day All,
I have a question. Did any one try to register any port for his/their
application/service through IANA?
Please help.
Thank You,
Kapil
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
On 20th Feb 2008 I wrote:
This request is premature. There has been some discussion of this proposal
on the ietf-nntp mailing list (see thread commencing at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-mailto-00.txt) to which
the proponent has not seen fit to reply, though he was aware
Hi everyone,
For the record, Acee responded to my review off-list, and the preview
of version 9 of this draft addresses all of my comments to my
satisfaction.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Mar 20, 2008, at 11:20 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
On Mar 25, 2008, at 2:55 PM, Bill Manning wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:08:02AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Bill Manning wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum
wrote:
So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue
Lots of people have.
See http://www.iana.org/protocols/apply/
Regards,
-drc
On Mar 25, 2008, at 6:16 AM, Gupta, Kapil wrote:
Good Day All,
I have a question. Did any one try to register any port for his/
their application/service through IANA?
Please help.
Thank You,
Kapil
The
(Oops, sent from wrong account and ended up in moderation. Here it is
again. Sorry for the duplicates.)
Hi everyone,
For the record, Acee responded to my review off-list, and the preview
of version 9 of this draft addresses all of my comments to my
satisfaction.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Mar 20,
Yes.
For ports specifically see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
Most registrations with individuals listed as the contact applied directly to
IANA.
Other registrations were made through publication of RFCs.
Let us know if you have any further questions.
Thank you,
Michelle
If someone participates under a pseudonym with the objective of inserting
patented technology and anyone finds out they are in big trouble. Much worse
than any prior case.
The much bigger problem is people who read an rfc and write out a patent
application over it. It has happened and people
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:23:42PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
I do cringe when anyone says not wearing any hats - especially when
I don't know what hat they might be wearing at any given time. I
know it's a time-honed (not honored) tradition in the IETF but I
don't think it's a good thing.
Russ Housley wrote:
Raising a technical problem anonymously does not seem to be a
concern. However, there could be significant IPR problems with
anonymous solutions to technical problems.
It is my understanding that IETF is already in this type of problems.
Solutions contributed by
Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon:
Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?
This is not totally true. A WG Chair or Area Director cannot
judge rough consensus if they are unsure if the portion of the
population that is representing a dissenting view is
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
|| I've been carefully not posting in this thread for a while,
|| but can't control myself today. (So I'm not particularly
|| arguing with Ted's points, his e-mail is just the the latest e-mail
|| in the thread)
||
|| My apologies in advance.
||
|| As Ted said, in theory,
On 2008-03-26 04:44, John Levine (or somebody) wrote:
...
So rather than inventing yet more complex rules, I would be inclined
to have a much simpler rule that says that if a group's leader sees
mail from someone who is obviously You Know Who or You Know Who Else
already subject to 3683, just
On 2008-03-26 08:43, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Russ Housley wrote:
Raising a technical problem anonymously does not seem to be a
concern. However, there could be significant IPR problems with
anonymous solutions to technical problems.
It is my understanding that IETF is already in this
The Blue Sheets only tell you where someone was rather than where they
wanted to be. I suggest having every registrant, indicate some number (5?)
of Primary WGs and a similar number of secondary WGs. It should be
possible to derive a set of WG conflicts-to-avoid from that info. This
would not
Hi,
I think asking attendees during registration which sessions they
intend to attend and building a conflict matrix would be the simplest
approach. Of course, attendee conflicts matter less than ADs, chairs,
and presenter conflicts.
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
Simon:
Raising a technical problem anonymously does not seem to be a
concern. However, there could be significant IPR problems with
anonymous solutions to technical problems.
What kind of problems?
If there is IPR associated with a potential solution, then a
malicious person could use
David Harrington wrote:
Hi,
I think asking attendees during registration which sessions they
intend to attend and building a conflict matrix would be the simplest
approach. Of course, attendee conflicts matter less than ADs, chairs,
and presenter conflicts.
The best fit solution will be
Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon:
Raising a technical problem anonymously does not seem to be a
concern. However, there could be significant IPR problems with
anonymous solutions to technical problems.
What kind of problems?
If there is IPR associated with a potential
[...]
If we learned that the anonymous posting actually came from person was
affiliated with the IPR holder, then there is legal recourse. My
point is that by avoiding anonymous posting, the likelihood of such
abuse is significantly reduced.
I think the point would be valid if there were
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:00:23AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Ned Freed wrote:
If the consensus is that better interoperability can be had
by banning bare records that's perfectly fine with me.
FWIW, I'd like that...
Clarity can be established and interoperability
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
If we learned that the anonymous posting actually came from person was
affiliated with the IPR holder, then there is legal recourse. My
point is that by avoiding anonymous posting, the likelihood of such
abuse is significantly reduced.
I think the point
At Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:17:56 +0100,
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 19 mrt 2008, at 1:46, Eric Rescorla wrote:
A more interesting experiment would be to do away with SSL for a bit
and use IPsec instead.
Why would this be either interesting or desirable?
SSL is vulnerable to more
Gentlemen,
Since I agreed to replace JFC Morfin to the IETF I sent less than ten
mails. Most had two abnormal reasons. (a)To explain that I am not JFC
Morfin. (b) Because our commercial opponents of our non-commercial
approach did not asked, politely or not, before to accuse me of it;
and to mock
Charles Lindsey wrote:
I gave the wrong URL for the thread in the ietf-nntp mailing
list. It should have been:
http://lists.eyrie.org/pipermail/ietf-nntp/2007-November/006005.html
FWIW the GMaNe thread includes the LC followup on the URI list:
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If someone participates under a pseudonym with the objective of
inserting patented technology and anyone finds out they are in big
trouble. Much worse than any prior case.
We should write in our rules that anyone who contributes
Noel Chiappa wrote:
if our IP rules, which I haven't looked at recently, already
said that, my apologies, and don't kick me too hard! :-)
*KICK* ;-) Posted yesterday:
| The IESG has received a request from the Intellectual Property
| Rights WG (ipr) to consider the following document:
| -
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 03:56:14PM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Bill Manning wrote:
FWIW, I'd like that...
Clarity can be established and interoperability _improved_
by limiting discovery to just A and MX records. Perhaps a
note might be included that at some point in the future
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 09:30:27AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:00:23AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Ned Freed wrote:
If the consensus is that better interoperability can be had
by banning bare records that's perfectly fine with me.
FWIW,
Simon Josefsson simon at josefsson dot org wrote:
Thinking not-that-far-back to the arrival of the FSF-driven hordes
trying to stop publication of the TLS authorization document, I think
the IETF pretty much blew them off, which was the right thing to do
under the circumstances.
Some of
er... what about zones w/ A rr's and no MX's?
when I pull the A rr's, you are telling me that SMTP
stops working? That is so broken.
That's exactly the issue that's being debated now: The issue of what happens
when a domain has one or more records and no MX. RFC
er, NO. SMTP has no dependence on what may or may
not exist in the DNS. Forcing SMTP to depend on DNS
is a huge mistake. And yes Virginia, I plan on removing
A rr's from my zones (eventually)
You know, that's a very interesting point. One of more common
Ned Freed wrote:
er, NO. SMTP has no dependence on what may or may
not exist in the DNS. Forcing SMTP to depend on DNS
is a huge mistake. And yes Virginia, I plan on removing
A rr's from my zones (eventually)
You know, that's a very interesting point. One of more
er, NO. SMTP has no dependence on what may or may
not exist in the DNS. Forcing SMTP to depend on DNS
is a huge mistake. And yes Virginia, I plan on removing
A rr's from my zones (eventually)
You know, that's a very interesting point. One of more common configuration
Ned Freed wrote:
er, NO. SMTP has no dependence on what may or may
not exist in the DNS. Forcing SMTP to depend on DNS
is a huge mistake. And yes Virginia, I plan on removing
A rr's from my zones (eventually)
You know, that's a very interesting point. One of more
Russ Housley wrote:
During the Wednesday Plenary at IETF 71, I gave the IETF community a
heads up on two documents from the IPR WG that were nearing IETF
Last Call. Both of the documents have now reached IETF Last
call. The Last Call announcements are attached. Please review and comment.
--On Tuesday, 25 March, 2008 23:18 -0400 Keith Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know, that's a very interesting point. One of more common
configuration variations we see is to disable MX lookups and
just use address records.
how does anyone expect that to work across administrative
Ned, by disable MX lookups, do you mean don't put MX records
into the DNS zone and therefore force a fallback to the address
records or ignore the requirement of the standard that
requires using MX records if they are there? If the latter,
the behavior, however useful (or not) is, IMO,
On 2008-03-25 08:52, Russ Housley wrote:
During the Wednesday Plenary at IETF 71, I gave the IETF community a
heads up on two documents from the IPR WG that were nearing IETF
Last Call. Both of the documents have now reached IETF Last
call. The Last Call announcements are attached.
Comments in response to your comments on -outbound...
Firstly, thank you for reading these.
Second, what follows are my understandings of the reasons / contents.
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Russ Housley wrote:
During the Wednesday Plenary at IETF 71, I gave the IETF community a
heads up on two
Ned Freed wrote:
er, NO. SMTP has no dependence on what may or may
not exist in the DNS. Forcing SMTP to depend on DNS
is a huge mistake. And yes Virginia, I plan on removing
A rr's from my zones (eventually)
You know, that's a very interesting point. One of more
--On Tuesday, 25 March, 2008 23:18 -0400 Keith Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know, that's a very interesting point. One of more common
configuration variations we see is to disable MX lookups and
just use address records.
how does anyone expect that to work across
Ned Freed wrote:
er, NO. SMTP has no dependence on what may or may
not exist in the DNS. Forcing SMTP to depend on DNS
is a huge mistake. And yes Virginia, I plan on removing
A rr's from my zones (eventually)
You know, that's a very interesting point. One of more common
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5189
Title: Middlebox Communication (MIDCOM) Protocol Semantics
Author: M. Stiemerling, J. Quittek, T. Taylor
Status: Standards Track
Date: March 2008
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5190
Title: Definitions of Managed Objects for
Middlebox Communication
Author: J. Quittek, M. Stiemerling, P. Srisuresh
Status: Standards Track
95 matches
Mail list logo
