Hi,
where are we with regards to resolving this discuss?
Lars
On 2010-9-9, at 19:51, Roland Bless wrote:
Hi Russ,
On 09.09.2010 16:56, Russ Housley wrote:
Will any implementations be impacted? If not, we should ask the
Security ADs for their best suggestion.
At least we have one
Keith Moore wrote:
I would strongly object to a change to our process that removed
the requirement to demonstrate interoperability.
If we need additional incentives to advancement, perhaps we should
require that proposed standards revert to informational or historic
if no action is taken
On Sep 20, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
I would strongly object to a change to our process that removed
the requirement to demonstrate interoperability.
If we need additional incentives to advancement, perhaps we should
require that proposed standards revert
I certainly recall instances where features were dropped from the Draft
Standard version of a specification precisely because interoperability had not
been demonstrated.
As can I on quite a few occasions, but what I cannot provide is any evidence -
or even an anecdote - that in the present
Data:
In the most recent round of updates to interior routing
cryptographic authentication, the collective conclusion
was that HMAC-SHA-256 would be best for mandatory
implementation, as it likely has the longest lifetime
of the widely available (mode +
One of the problems I have seen emerge on many IETF mailing lists is the
habit of fisking.
By fisking I mean responding to a post line by line *while reading it for
the first time*.
Now sometimes a line by line response is entirely appropriate. If someone
raises six different issues, you want
I am not sure I understand whats being meant by in-band negotiation
here?
Many protocols negotiate which crypto algorithm (or even more generic
security mechanism) to use. Those negotiations, if done poorly, can
be subject to downgrade attacks.
Given how common security
On Mon Sep 20 19:20:03 2010, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Traditionally, top-posting (or bottom posting) has been discouraged
in favor
of responding line by line. I think it is time to reverse that
preference.
The primary argument in favour of inline responses is that they allow
context
On Sep 20, 2010, at 4:51 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
I certainly recall instances where features were dropped from the Draft
Standard version of a specification precisely because interoperability had
not
been demonstrated.
As can I on quite a few occasions, but what I cannot
I take your point that the whole message should be read before replying.
Thank you. However, one can top-post and bottom-post without reading a
message just as well as one can when interleaving a reply :-). Reply
style is separate from the first issue (people should read their mail
fully),
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
Those are the very people who need to be involved in cleaning up the
specification, but (depending on market conditions) they may see it as mostly
benefiting their competitors.
For protocols where interoperability
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
btw top-posting is not the spawn of evil demons, it's perfectly
appropriate in some situations, e.g. this one, where the original mail
is just attached for possible reference.
Aha!
(Scott can take care of himself without feeling the need to
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:59:13 -0400 John Leslie wrote:
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
btw top-posting is not the spawn of evil demons, it's perfectly
appropriate in some situations, e.g. this one, where the original mail
is just attached for possible reference.
Aha!
Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Title: Proposed mechanics for document advancement
Author(s): T. Hardie
Filename: draft-hardie-advance-mechanics-00.txt
I seem to have been inordinately busy recently: sorry to take so long
getting around to this.
Ted has correctly identified the
-Original Message-
From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of NomCom Chair
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 10:07 PM
To: IETF Announcement list
Subject: Nomcom 2010-2011: Open disclosure of willing nominees
Hi Folks,
The first open
On Sep 20, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
wrote:
Those are the very people who need to be involved in cleaning up the
specification, but (depending on market conditions) they may see it as
mostly benefiting
The IESG has received a request from the STORage Maintenance WG (storm)
to consider the following document:
- 'Updates to the iFCP Protocol and Internet Protocol Number 133'
draft-ietf-storm-ifcp-ipn133-updates-02.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
The IESG has received a request from the Diameter Maintenance and
Extensions WG (dime) to consider the following document:
- 'The Diameter Capabilities Update Application '
draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-05.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
The IESG has received a request from the Network Configuration WG
(netconf) to consider the following document:
- 'With-defaults capability for NETCONF '
draft-ietf-netconf-with-defaults-11.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Segmented Pseudowire'
draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-18.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel.
A URL of this
The iri wg will be holding a virtual interim meeting using Webex at the
following time:
- tuesday, october 5th, 2010 from 17h00- 18h00 Pacific time
- tuesday, october 5th, 2010 from 20h00- 21h00 Eastern time
- wednesday, october 6th, 2010, from 0h00-1h00am GMT
- wednesday, october 6th, 2010, from
The Internet Architecture Board (IAB), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C),
Internet Society (ISOC) and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
will hold a joint Internet privacy workshop on 8 and 9 December 2010 at
MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts on the question:
How Can Technology Help to Improve
Hi Folks,
The first open disclosure of willing nominees for the IETF open positions
is now available at
https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/10/input/
NomCom 2010-2011 will follow the policy for Open Disclosure of Willing
Nominees described in RFC 5680. As stated in RFC 5680: The list of
23 matches
Mail list logo
