On 11 May 2010, at 22:15, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : ZRTP: Media Path Key Agreement for Unicast Secure
RTP
Author(s) : P. Zimmermann, et al.
Filename:
Signing up to the URI list, I find it tells me, inter alia, that
All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 3978 and RFC
3979.
Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other
function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity,
group or function,
On May 14, 2010, at 8:26 AM, t.petch wrote:
Signing up to the URI list, I find it tells me, inter alia, that
All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 3978 and RFC
3979.
Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other
function, that are clearly not intended to
Hi,
While the SNMP RFC(1157/2571/SNMPv3) mentions the behavior of Error Status
and Error Index field as will be set in the response and the value of
these fields in all set/get/getnext request is zero, It does not mention if
it is *mandatory* for these fields to have zero in set/get/getnext. Could
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Hi -
From: deepak rajaram deepak.raja...@gmail.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 4:18 AM
Subject: Query on SNMP Error Fields
...
While the SNMP RFC(1157/2571/SNMPv3) mentions the behavior of Error Status
and Error Index field as will be set in the response and the value of
This is an update to the Last Call that is currently in progress.
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on
this statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this
statement. Please send
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 03:48:33PM -0400, The IESG wrote:
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment.
I do not object to this statement, and I support the IESG making some
statement on the matter so that the eligibility rules are clear.
Best regards,
A
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/14/10 12:48, The IESG wrote:
So far, only one person has registered for the IETF 78 meeting with a
day pass, and that person has not paid yet.
I asked on 10 May for the number of people that the policy would apply
to from the last 2
My $.02 worth.
1) For the purposes of the upcoming Nomcom, the decision to not count a day
pass as attending is reasonable and timely and within the purview of the IESG
(or for that matter the IETF chair) to decide.
2) The IESG/IAOC can choose whether or not to offer such a day pass as that is
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Michael StJohns wrote:
My $.02 worth.
1) For the purposes of the upcoming Nomcom, the decision to not count a
day pass as attending is reasonable and timely and within the purview
of the IESG (or for that matter the IETF chair) to decide.
2) The IESG/IAOC can
On May 14, 2010, at 4:02 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/14/10 12:48, The IESG wrote:
So far, only one person has registered for the IETF 78 meeting with a
day pass, and that person has not paid yet.
I asked on 10 May for the number of people
Day Pass History:
Hiroshima: 121
Anaheim: 135
On 5/14/2010 4:02 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 05/14/10 12:48, The IESG wrote:
So far, only one person has registered for the IETF 78 meeting with a
day pass, and that person has not paid yet.
I asked on 10 May for the number of people that
On 5/14/2010 3:23 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Day Pass History:
Hiroshima: 121
Anaheim: 135
Thanks Russ (and Ray). However it's not clear to me if those numbers
represent the total number of day pass participants (which they seem to)
or if those numbers are an answer to the question I posed
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marc Blanchet marc.blanc...@viagenie.ca
Date: May 14, 2010 2:13:25 PM PDT
To: Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com
Cc: draft-sheffer-emu-eap-...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [newprep] other customers of *prep
Le 10-05-14 16:49, Kurt Zeilenga a écrit :
Doug,
I had also wished for numbers that more clearly translated into impact on
who was NomCom eligible (as you requested), but decided not to, simply
because I wasn't convinced this would matter enough on who was selected to
serve on NomCom, to justifiy spending secretariat time gathering
This is an update to the Last Call that is currently in progress.
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on
this statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this
statement. Please send
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5856
Title: Integration of Robust Header Compression
over IPsec Security Associations
Author: E. Ertekin, R. Jasani,
C. Christou, C.
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5857
Title: IKEv2 Extensions to Support Robust
Header Compression over IPsec
Author: E. Ertekin, C. Christou,
R. Jasani, T. Kivinen,
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5858
Title: IPsec Extensions to Support Robust
Header Compression over IPsec
Author: E. Ertekin, C. Christou,
C. Bormann
Status:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5873
Title: Pre-Authentication Support for the Protocol
for Carrying Authentication for Network Access
(PANA)
Author: Y. Ohba, A. Yegin
21 matches
Mail list logo
