Hello Boris, all,
FYI, authors of draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme allowed me to become the
co-author of this draft. We got to your message. The -07 is almost
prepared for publication, but Lachlan pointed these comments were not
addressed. Let me express my opinion regarding them.
On 2011-06-15 11:07, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
2) Section 6 says:
For example, about:blank, about:blan%6B and about:blan%6b
are equivalent
In Gecko they are not. The string after ':' is treated as a literal
string; when looking up a way to handle the URI the second and third
URIs above
From Noel analysis, it seems that a lot of the issues could be mitigated by a
simple connectivity test. Have the 6to4 router perform a simple ping test
through the tentative 6to4 relay, towards some well-known IPv6 host. Or an
HTTP test, if we fear that ICMPv6 might be somehow tampered with.
15.06.2011 13:13, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-06-15 11:07, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
2) Section 6 says:
For example, about:blank, about:blan%6B and about:blan%6b
are equivalent
In Gecko they are not. The string after ':' is treated as a literal
string; when looking up a way to handle
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
Very few of the people using 6to4 in this way will show up in Google's user
behavior analysis, of course, because Google doesn't run its own 6to4
return-path relay as I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory recommends.
We would not
Hi Yaron,
Thanks for the suggestions.
Please see inline.
-Violeta
-Original Message-
From: Yaron Sheffer [mailto:yaronf.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:32 PM
To: Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; IPsecme WG; d...@ietf.org;
Ben,
Thanks for the comments.
Please see inline [VC].
-Violeta
-Original Message-
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:10 PM
To: draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org
Review Team
Cc: The IETF
Subject: Gen-ART LC
The youtube folks made the decision to leave the video-serving
hostnames available in blacklist-mode, meaning only very broken
networks won't get s.
This is being watched, and could easily change back. The exact policy
for blacklisting has yet to be fully formalized.
But re: 6to4 in this
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:59:47 -0700
Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
Very few of the people using 6to4 in this way will show up in Google's user
behavior analysis, of course, because Google doesn't run its own
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:05:33 -0700
Erik Kline e...@google.com wrote:
The youtube folks made the decision to leave the video-serving
hostnames available in blacklist-mode, meaning only very broken
networks won't get s.
This is being watched, and could easily change back. The exact
Brian - thanks for your review and comments.
- Ralph
On Jun 10, 2011, at 10:45 PM 6/10/11, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ralph,
As far as I can tell this seems to describe some sort of a Layer 2 stateful
per-flow QoS mechanism using new Ethertype headers. As such I don't see why
the IETF would
Hi Ben,
Please see inline...
-- Avi Lior
--Bridgewater Systems
eview Date: 2011-06-03
IETF LC End Date: 2011-06-03
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. I
have a question concerning the procedure for generating PSKs, and a
number of minor and
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:05:33PM +0300, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
15.06.2011 13:13, Julian Reschke wrote:
That being said, if our Mozilla friends do not want to fix this it
might be a good idea to warn readers that certain implementations
fail to properly unescape, thus it's unwise to rely
On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:59 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
That said, I would argue that most or all 6to4 traffic could just as well use
IPv4, since both parties to the communication obviously have access to a
public IPv4 address. What is the advantage of using 6to4 over IPv4 that makes
it worth
On Jun 15, 2011, at 7:10 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
wrote:
That said, I would argue that most or all 6to4 traffic could just as well
use IPv4, since both parties to the communication obviously have access to
a
Dear Colleagues,
The Internet Society has announced that it is inviting applications for its
latest Internet Society Fellowships to the IETF, part of its Next Generation
Leaders (NGL) programme (www.InternetSociety.org/Leaders). The Fellowship
programme allows engineers from developing
In message 22f6318e46e26b498abc828879b08d4f16f...@tk5ex14mbxw653.wingroup.wind
eploy.ntdev.microsoft.com, Christian Huitema writes:
From Noel analysis, it seems that a lot of the issues could be mitigated by=
a simple connectivity test. Have the 6to4 router perform a simple ping tes=
t
In message BANLkTi=ggay2u0sx54hnv7bz7qdgrajz9h+8rwhmwkjk+9s...@mail.gmail.com
, Lorenzo Colitti writes:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrot
e:
That said, I would argue that most or all 6to4 traffic could just as well
use IPv4, since both parties to
On 14 Jun 2011, at 18:59, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
Very few of the people using 6to4 in this way will show up in Google's user
behavior analysis, of course, because Google doesn't run its own 6to4
return-path relay as
In article 20110615213858.9853.22165.idtrac...@ietfa.amsl.com you write:
The IESG has received a request from the Domain Keys Identified Mail WG
(dkim) to consider the following document:
- 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures'
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-12.txt as a Draft Standard
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Suite B Profile for Internet Protocol Security (IPsec)'
draft-burgin-ipsec-suiteb-profile-00.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'The SSL Protocol Version 3.0'
(draft-mavrogiannopoulos-ssl-version3-06.txt) as a Historic
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Sean Turner.
A URL of this
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Suite B Cryptographic Suites for IPsec'
draft-law-rfc4869bis-01.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Registering a SIP Resource Priority Header Field Namespace for
Local Emergency Communications'
draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-01.txt as a Proposed
Standard
The IESG plans to
The IESG has received a request from the Domain Keys Identified Mail WG
(dkim) to consider the following document:
- 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures'
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-12.txt as a Draft Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
25 matches
Mail list logo
