On Apr 20, 2011, at 3:41 PM, scott.proba...@nokia.com
scott.proba...@nokia.com wrote:
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
On 4/20/2011 1:18 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
...
2. RFC XML has changed. It seem like
xml.resource.org has a new xml compiler. I had a lot of trouble in compiling my
existing xml files. I am OK with improving RFC XML but why not keep upward
compatibility?
An optional strict checker was added
+1
I would suggest a small change to REQ-022 that John has drafted below to
make it more explicit:
REQ-022 The mechanism MUST provide means for facilitating the following
either at storage or at playback:
a. Synchronization among the recorded media streams and
b. Synchronization of the
I agree, we should have dedicated wall clock requirement
Leon
-Original Message-
From: Parthasarathi R (partr) [mailto:pa...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 4:51 PM
To: Muthu ArulMozhi Perumal (mperumal); Elwell, John; Ram Mohan R (rmohanr);
Leon Portman; ietf@ietf.org
Cc:
Hi,
I agree with the concept, just want to be sure the PAWS is not expected to
develop these security mechanisms (i.e. the tools) as contrasted to including
or using in PAWS the security tools developed by appropriate expert groups.
Inclusion of robust security mechanisms is required:...
??
Muthu/John,
I will prefer to have a and b as separate requirement as a is
related to RTP its model, needs more discussion whereas b will be
related to SIPREC metadata model which will be addressed by the current
mechanism of start/stop time of media stream block.
REQ-022: The mechanism MUST
I like the separated REQ-022 and REQ-xxx. In accordance with previous
discussions, I think we need REQ-023 too.
John (as individual)
-Original Message-
From: Leon Portman [mailto:leon.port...@nice.com]
Sent: 21 April 2011 14:54
To: Parthasarathi R (partr); Muthu ArulMozhi Perumal
I am fine with separated REQ-022 and REQ-xxx. Though the solution for
REQ-022 and REQ-xxx could be based on the wallclock time, having an
explicit REQ-023 looks fine from a requirements perspective.
Muthu
|-Original Message-
|From: Elwell, John [mailto:john.elw...@siemens-enterprise.com]
On 4/20/2011 2:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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 *personal* responsibility in IAOC decisions,
Why?
What happens if the person in that role is not specifically
On 4/21/11 10:38 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 4/20/2011 2:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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 *personal* responsibility in IAOC decisions,
Why?
What
On 2011-04-22 05:49, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 4/21/11 10:38 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 4/20/2011 2:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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 *personal* responsibility in
On 2011-04-21 17:18, Glen Zorn wrote:
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
--On Thursday, April 21, 2011 10:49 -0700 Joel Jaeggli
joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 4/21/11 10:38 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 4/20/2011 2:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
In the case of the IETF Chair I believe the issue is that
it's highly desirable, from a governance viewpoint, that the
Hi Roni,
Thank you for reviewing my draft. Comments inline
On Mon, April 11, 2011 5:11 am, Roni Even wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve
Hi Mykyta,
Thank you for reviewing my draft. Responses inline
On Sat, March 26, 2011 10:06 pm, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Hello,
A question on the flowing extract:
This memo contains a new numberspace to be managed by IANA, a
registry used to indicate a password preprocessing
On 4/21/2011 8:05 PM, scott.proba...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi,
I agree with the concept, just want to be sure the PAWS is not expected to
develop these security mechanisms (i.e. the tools) as contrasted to including
or using in PAWS the security tools developed by appropriate expert groups.
Total of 78 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Apr 22 00:53:02 EDT 2011
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
8.97% |7 | 7.32% |53224 | d...@dcrocker.net
5.13% |4 | 5.33% |38714 |
On 4/22/2011 7:54 AM, Dan Harkins wrote:
Hi Mykyta,
Thank you for reviewing my draft. Responses inline
On Sat, March 26, 2011 10:06 pm, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Hello,
A question on the flowing extract:
This memo contains a new numberspace to be managed by IANA, a
To close the loop on this, VeriLAN did double check all of the
recordings and, unfortunately, both streaming05 and streaming08 have
identical files for that day. Likely one of the files was mis-named
and the sync process overwrote the local copies. However, VeriLAN does
plan to make
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A Survey of Mobility Support In the Internet'
(draft-zhu-mobility-survey-04.txt) as an Informational RFC
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Jari Arkko.
A URL
20 matches
Mail list logo
