Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
My comments are as an implementer of a port restricted IP.
* The typical initial scenario probably is that an A+P gateway
is NATing the traffic to a legacy host in private address
realm, but I understood that if a host/application supports
A+P, it could use A+P
This IETF draft contains normative references to three Fibre Channel standards
that are developed by INCITS Technical Committee T11 (www.t11.org) - FC-BB-6,
FC-FS-2 and FC-SP. FC-BB-6 is under active development at T11, and hence its
latest working draft (revision 1.02) is publicly available
Hi folks,
Sam Hartman wrote (and others suggest):
I think that being able to discuss concerns with reviewers and being
able to consider potential conflicts and other issues mean that an open
dialogue with identified reviewers is an important part of our
process. Anonymous contributions
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like
I don't see that public identity (of expert reviewers) is required for
interactive discussion.
Or would anonymous interaction fail a Turing test of some kind?
Public identity is required for reviewer accountability. It is easy to imagine
how withholding registration of some required
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Juho Vähä-Herttua juh...@iki.fi wrote:
On 20.12.2010, at 15.15, Pekka Savola wrote:
3.2.3. Message Size
TLS and DTLS handshake messages can be quite large (in theory up to
2^24-1 bytes, in practice many kilobytes). By contrast, UDP
datagrams are often
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cullen
Jennings [flu...@cisco.com]
I am still not aware of any use case where this actually helps. I searched the
IETF and WG lists for email with the subject draft-ietf-sipcore-199 and I
On Feb 8, 2011, at 9:41 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
I don't see that public identity (of expert reviewers) is required for
interactive discussion.
Or would anonymous interaction fail a Turing test of some kind?
Public identity is required for reviewer accountability. It is easy to
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6071
Title: IP Security (IPsec) and Internet
Key Exchange (IKE) Document Roadmap
Author: S. Frankel, S. Krishnan
Status: Informational
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Addition of the ARIA Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)'
draft-nsri-tls-aria-01.txt as an Informational RFC
Last calls were earlier issued on version -01 of this document and this
10 matches
Mail list logo