Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 4/19/11 1:47 PM, Paul Lambert wrote:
How does the area that the group is assigned impact the choices of
technology?
I'm an advocate for an efficient solution set for PAWS ... it will be
much like DNS for spectrum in the future and should be viewed as a
core
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:13:13PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
There is an argument, which you allude to, which would place this WG
in the Internet Area as part of infrastructure. While that does
not resonate with me, I do see that there is some merit in that
perspective.
On the other
On 12/Apr/11 18:31, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Todd,
This is totally confused and you are completely wrong.
Under the Federal Election Campaign Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Campaign_Act, an
organization becomes a political committee by receiving
Review --
Title:Architectural Considerations on Application Features in the DNS
By: Kolkman, Peterson, Tschofenig, Aboba
I-D: draft-iab-dns-applications-01
Reviewer: D. Crocker dcroc...@bbiw.net
Review Date: 20 April 2011
RFC 882: DNS Concepts and
When I hear the term device identity spoofing, IEEE 802.1ar comes to mind
(see http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.1AR.-2009.pdf).
In addition to the liaisons with IEEE 802.19, 802.22 and IEEE 802.11af, is
there a liaison contemplated to IEEE 802.1 relating to device identity?
Building from Bernard's note, it strikes me that if we are going to get
into device identity, we probably need to be communicating with (liaise)
3GPP/3GPP2, because they have very strong views on that topic. (Whether
one agrees or disagrees with their biases, talking to them seems important.)
How does the area that the group is assigned impact the choices of technology?
I'm an advocate for an efficient solution set for PAWS ... it will be much like
DNS for spectrum in the future and should be viewed as a core infrastructural
component that needs careful design. There are good
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 12:47 -0700, Paul Lambert wrote:
How does the area that the group is assigned impact the choices of
technology?
I'm an advocate for an efficient solution set for PAWS ... it will be
much like DNS for spectrum in the future and should be viewed as a
core
Hi Stephen, All,
I believe the current wording
Robust security mechanisms are required to prevent:
device identity spoofing, modification of device requests, modification
of channel enablement information, ...
is acceptable because mechanisms are required means they should be in the
protocol,
Hi Bob,
At 14:04 19-04-2011, Bob Hinden wrote:
But that may not always be the case that all IAOC members have a lot
of IETF experience. We need to have a governance model that works
into the future.
Yes, it may happen that some IAOC members may not have a lot of IETF
experience. How do you
On 4/19/2011 12:53 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
1. ISOC, IAB and IESG each appoint one person currently. Change this to be
two each, the same as Nomcom. Each year, they would appoint one person.
2. Move the I* Chairs to be non-voting ex-officio participants, the same as
the IETF Administrative
Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 4/19/2011 12:53 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
[Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:]
1. ISOC, IAB and IESG each appoint one person currently. Change this
to be two each, the same as Nomcom. Each year, they would appoint
one person.
2. Move the I*
Hi,
It seems like I-D submission for a revised draft (after expiration)
encounters
so many new hurdles:
1. Version number. Submission page complains about the version number even
though it is correct. This seems to be because the system keeps the expiration
message in html format as the new
- Original Message -
From: Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com
To: Rex Buddenberg bud...@nps.navy.mil
Cc: Paul Lambert p...@marvell.com; p...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; IETF
discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 4:17 AM
Subject: Re: [paws] WG Review: Protocol to
GEOLOC has been a WG that is somewhat on the edge between Apps and RAI. Much of
what geoloc was doing, particularly the location for emergency calling, had
real time issues and the interested people largely lined up with the the other
RAI groups even though geoloc has uses outside anything to
On 2011-04-20 21:13, SM wrote:
Hi Bob,
At 14:04 19-04-2011, Bob Hinden wrote:
But that may not always be the case that all IAOC members have a lot
of IETF experience. We need to have a governance model that works
into the future.
...
You may notice that there isn't any intersection with
Brian,
If we are going to do this, then I tend to agree with your conclusions.
I agree with you that the views of the I* Chairs are important.
In the case of the IETF Chair I believe the issue is that it's
highly desirable, from a governance viewpoint, that the IETF Chair
has
On 4/21/2011 12:18 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Hi,
It seems like I-D submission for a revised draft (after expiration)
encounters
so many new hurdles:
1. Version number. Submission page complains about the version number even
though it is correct. This seems to be because the system
The CLUE WG will hold an interim virtual meeting on:
2011-05-12, 15.00-17.00 GMT (starting at 8.00 Pacific, 10.00 Central,
11.00
Eastern).
Agenda and details will be announced on the CLUE WG mailing list
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/clue/) as soon as available.
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6111
Title: Additional Kerberos Naming Constraints
Author: L. Zhu
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
Date: April 2011
Mailbox:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6112
Title: Anonymity Support for Kerberos
Author: L. Zhu, P. Leach,
S. Hartman
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
Date:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6113
Title: A Generalized Framework for Kerberos
Pre-Authentication
Author: S. Hartman, L. Zhu
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6169
Title: Security Concerns with IP Tunneling
Author: S. Krishnan, D. Thaler,
J. Hoagland
Status: Informational
Stream: IETF
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6197
Title: Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Service List
Boundary Extension
Author: K. Wolf
Status: Experimental
Stream: IETF
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6213
Title: IS-IS BFD-Enabled TLV
Author: C. Hopps, L. Ginsberg
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
Date: April 2011
Mailbox:
25 matches
Mail list logo
