+1
John C Klensin пишет:
+1
Well, OK. Let me rephrase my question: why do you believe
that removing the IETF's MX record will
a) decrease the amount of spam it receives?
b) not damage its legitimate mail flow?
Based on my experience and that of other people, neither is
true.
R's,
I reviewed the document draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations in general
and for its operational impact.
Operations directorate reviews are solicited primarily to help the area
directors improve their efficiency, particularly when preparing for IESG
telechats, and allowing them to focus on
Dorothy Stanley [mailto:dstan...@arubanetworks.com] writes:
I am submitting one comment on draft-harkins-emu-eap-pwd :
(1) Channel bindings are becoming increasingly necessary for new and
evolving uses of EAP.
This point is certainly debatable, if for no other reason that the concept
of
Glen, I have to agree with Dorothy's comment. This method should
provide for channel binding support. I find your unsubstantiated
assertion that doing so wouldbe be absurd uncompelling.
You claim that channel bindings are poorly defined. I believe that
draft-ietf-emu-chbind brings us most if
