The OPSAWG discusses a proposal to reclassify COPS-PR and SPPI to
Historic, based on an I-D authored by Juergen Schoenwaelder -
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoenw-opsawg-copspr-historic-01.txt . Any
input about implementation and deployments of COPS-PR, SPPI and PIB
modules should be sent to
(Please send replies to gr...@ietf.org)
Today's applications usually exchange an IP address and a TCP (or UDP)
port for referrals. While this works in a wide variety of situations,
it has been shown insufficient with more complex networks that consist
of different address realms (due to IPv4
-Original Message-
From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:si...@josefsson.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:20 PM
To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
Cc: Michael D'Errico; martin@sap.com; ietf@ietf.org; t...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-rfc4366-bis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/30/09 10:45 AM, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:si...@josefsson.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:20 PM
To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
Cc: Michael D'Errico;
On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Hui Deng wrote:
Does this survey still work?,
I failed to do anything over there.
Yes it does.
What problems did you experience?
We have had one other complain of Java problems, but he had an old
Browser.
Otherwise 343 have completed the survey successfully.
Hello All,
We have submitted a new revision (13) of the Binding Revocation draft
which addresses all comments including Ben and Ralph outstanding ones.
In summary, we did the following:
1. After some discussion, we removed the Acknowledge (A) bit but
maintained the same logic.
2. We also
Does this survey still work?,
I failed to do anything over there.
-Hui
From: t...@americafree.tv
To: ietf-annou...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; wgcha...@ietf.org
Subject: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting
of the IETF
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:42:00
excuse me for previous sending wrong email.
Hello, all
I have to say something before the deadline of this survey.
To be honest, I am not the hoster, but live in Beijing, China
for the long time, and would like to clarify several
different concerns about China and Beijing.
1)
Michael D'Errico wrote:
I do not see why you consider this a vulnerability in the _server_!
Because a malicious client could theoretically establish a secure
connection using one server domain and then ask for pages from a
different domain. If the server does not check for this, it
I do not see why you consider this a vulnerability in the _server_!
Because a malicious client could theoretically establish a secure
connection using one server domain and then ask for pages from a
different domain. If the server does not check for this, it could
potentially leak sensitive
I think this text is helpful and does belong to RFC 4366bis. TLS is a tool.
This is a piece of information how to avoid a pitfall when using this tool.
Which does not preclude from writing a lengthier document - a guide for
application developers.
On 9/30/09 12:51 , Peter Saint-Andre
Hui Deng's statement (below) is the most important I have read on the issue
of a meeting in China.
Re-read the Tao. The IETF is about building, developing, contributing to an
Internet available to all. It is people, not governments. If you,
personally, are afraid of China, I recommend you go
Just out of curiousity, why is this registering it as provisional,
rather than permanent scheme?
Also, I didn't see any discussion about this on uri-review. This may
be because it dropped during my recent mailbox moves, but if it hasn't
been seen there it might be a reasonable idea. Support for
Ted:
Just out of curiousity, why is this registering it as provisional,
rather than permanent scheme?
There is not a rsync protocol specification and URI scheme. The
protocol is widely deployed. In fact the IETF depends on it
everyday. This document is intended to provide a citable
Russ,
I think the point is that the IESG should probably refer the doc to the
uri-review team to look for any red flags. Mistakes in URI specs are
common (speaking has one that has made some).
Eliot
On 9/30/09 9:51 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Ted:
Just out of curiousity, why is this registering
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
Ted:
Just out of curiousity, why is this registering it as provisional,
rather than permanent scheme?
There is not a rsync protocol specification and URI scheme. The protocol is
widely deployed. In fact the IETF
FWIW, this version resolves my remaining objection.
Thanks
Brian
On 2009-10-01 11:45, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF
Stream
Thanks Ray,
Now I remember that I forget I have done that once already.
that will be fine for me.
Regards,
-Hui
2009/10/1 Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org:
On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Hui Deng wrote:
Does this survey still work?,
I failed to do anything over there.
Yes it does.
What
At 4:41 PM -0700 9/30/09, Ted Hardie wrote:
Fair enough; thanks for the explanation. I think adding something to
the IANA considerations documenting that logic couldn't hurt, e.g:
A provisional registration is being sought as there is no citable
rsync protocol specification at this time, despite
The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG
(ospf) to consider the following document:
- 'Support of address families in OSPFv3 '
draft-ietf-ospf-af-alt-08.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG
(ospf) to consider the following document:
- 'Advertising a Router's Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions '
draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The rsync URI Scheme '
draft-weiler-rsync-uri-01.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send
The IESG has received a request from the Multiparty Multimedia Session
Control WG (mmusic) to consider the following document:
- 'Connectivity Preconditions for Session Description Protocol Media
Streams '
draft-ietf-mmusic-connectivity-precon-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Baseline Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion Information '
draft-ietf-pcn-baseline-encoding-07.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Congestion and Pre-Congestion Notification
Working Group.
The IESG contact
Social Event
Where: Grand Prince Hotel Hiroshima
When: Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Host: WIDE
The Social Event will be held at the Grand Prince Hotel Hiroshima
(http://www.princehotels.com/en/hiroshima/) overlooking the Seto Inland
Sea. Social Event Registration is available on the IETF76 meeting
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Data Structure for the Security Suitability of Cryptographic
Algorithms (DSSC) '
draft-ietf-ltans-dssc-12.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Long-Term Archive and Notary Services
Working Group.
The IESG
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5637
Title: Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA)
Goals for Mobile IPv6
Author: G. Giaretta, I. Guardini,
E. Demaria, J.
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5650
Title: Definitions of Managed Objects for
Very High Speed Digital Subscriber Line
2 (VDSL2)
Author: M. Morgenstern, S. Baillie,
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5689
Title: Extended MKCOL for Web Distributed
Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)
Author: C. Daboo
Status: Standards Track
Date:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
BCP 9
RFC 5657
Title: Guidance on Interoperation and Implementation
Reports for Advancement to Draft Standard
Author: L. Dusseault, R. Sparks
30 matches
Mail list logo
