On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 20:44 -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
But then:
|In order to
| maintain data Sensitivity Labeling for such applications, in
| order to be able to implement routing and Mandatory Access
| Control decisions in
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 11:09 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
In many cases the performance of security protocols is not a huge
issue at all with modern hardware.
Depending on the scope of this effort I see a bunch of things that might
be worth modelling:
- additional compute resources (cpu, memory,
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 09:05 -0700, Bill Fenner wrote:
RFC 2026, section 10.4.(D), gives boilerplate to add to a document
where there is known ipr:
The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights
claimed in regard to some or all of the specification contained
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Among the results are:
1. Slightly more than 25% say their laptop is compatible with 802.11a.
[Note the IETF 65 NOC for Dallas recommends 802.11a]
5. Only 1/3 of the respondents expressed satisfaction with the wireless
connectivity.
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 11:43, Ted Faber wrote:
I
request that the RFC editor will accept xml2rfc as an input format.
I thought they did take it as a supplement or something, which I hope
indicates that they are considering moving
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 01:53, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
A number of folks had nailed up PPP connections from their hotel rooms
to Sweden, Japan, Germany, you name it.
It seems fitting that 30 IETF's after the host was kind enough to
provide free IP over voice, a different host provided free Voice over
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 12:05, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Anyone would does not like it is encouraged to suggest one
that other folks will like better.
I like Keith's terms MON / MRN (mail originating / receiving
networks) better, because seen as sets of systems they can be
different. An
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 11:51, Eliot Lear wrote:
Looking at the snippet of the RFC queue you provided, the draft blocked
on a normative reference to draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2401bis, which entered
the queue in April. It references a bunch of other stuff, but they're
all earlier in the queue, and
Ralph's call for volunteers says:
I have e-mailed acknowledgments to those from whom I have already
received offers to participate in NomCom 05. If you think you've
already responded, but did not receive an acknowledgment, please let
me
know.
I've volunteered, but have not received an ack.
On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 12:27, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
... the monolingual/etc. Internet is the ...
Huh? The Internet is already multilingual. Heck, the message following
yours in my inbox was in a mix of Korean and English.
- Bill
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 13:27, william(at)elan.net wrote:
potentially they could switch
to using different CLASS (i.e. like HESIOD is locally used in MIT)
Actually, MIT switched to class IN for Hesiod data years ago because
multiple-class support didn't work as well as hoped. With the data in
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 16:50, Fleischman, Eric wrote:
That RFC said hosts do X and other devices (which in that era meant
routers) do Y. They do Y because they are not hosts --
middleboxes are sometimes router-like, and sometimes host-like, and
sometimes both at the same time, and sometimes
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 12:41, Fleischman, Eric wrote:
Specifically, when I first became associated with you all in 1992, the
RFCs of most IETF standards were incomplete and the reference
implementations (i.e., running code) were what was considered to be
normative.
I didn't get directly
On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 10:06, Robert Elz wrote:
Date:Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:41:56 -0400 (EDT)
From:Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| It is not DNSSEC that is broken.
I have not been following dnsop discussions, but from this
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 14:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there was a way to lighten-up the IESG review process, then this
would be a good idea. For example, having a single DISCUSS per Area
would be one way to reduce this could be one solution.
Why do you think this would make any difference
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 06:48, Pekka Savola wrote:
I think there needs to be separation of two different kinds of
documents,
1) informational, because the normative specification is elsewhere
(usually another standards organization) and we could reference the
normative spec directly, and
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 13:14, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
are you of the opinion that the IESG should try to police which experiments
get run on the Internet by refusing to publish RFCs documenting
possibly-conflicting experments?
It depends on the form of the conflict.
I believe that the
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 14:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, I support this appeal to the extent that I believe the conflicts
need to be resolved prior to publication. I take no position on the means
by which the conflict is resolved as long as a resolution is reached.
And I
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 19:14, John C Klensin wrote:
Even if one believes that it is desirable, 3967 already weakens
traditional norms for documents on the IETF standards track. A
suggestion that further weakening is needed definitely calls for
some discussion, at least IMO.
There is
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 11:38, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Nobody suggested to kill the whois protocol, just the badly written
and obsolete RFCs which were requiring violations of various european
laws regarding privacy. Neither ICANN or IETF should specify privacy
policy for a ccTLD.
I believe
On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 15:40, Stephen Kent wrote:
I thought that what Russ asked for was not a threat analysis for
DKIM, but a threat analysis for Internet e-mail, the system that DKIM
proposes to protect. The idea is that only if we start with a
characterization of how and why we believe
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 09:44, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
... I believe Leslie said we shouldn't use IETF servers for testing.
In and of itself I fully agree with that statement.
I'd go farther. I strongly disagree.
While the availability and stability of the IETF infrastructure is
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 07:35, Sam Hartman wrote:
BTW, this conversation and a side conversation with John has convinced
me that IESG review should involve a call for comments phase.
A call for comments requires having something for the community to
comment on.
Will an internet draft will be
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 08:12, Bill Fenner wrote:
So, e.g., for draft-ietf-ospf-2547-dnbit, is it enough to say Waiting for
draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547 (IESG Evaluation :: AD Followup)
and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities (Approved- Announcement sent)?
(Note that the 2nd one is a REF that's
On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 12:20, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Exactly. It's in the parking area is our equivalent of the check's
in the mail. Seriously, we can point enquiries about the status of
a draft to there.
yup. except that the rfc editor queue is not a FIFO.
hopefully the final result will
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 00:15, Scott W Brim wrote:
In SG13 there was considerable debate, and at the end the
group *allowed* exploration of the topic through development through a
new draft recommendation.
assuming, for sake of argument, that the general proposal makes
sense[1], it sounds like
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 00:28, Nicholas Staff blames the victims:
whats funny to me is if anything would have given spammers a reason to
exploit open relays it would have been the blacklists. I mean when
you
arbitrarily blacklist millions of their ISP's addresses you leave them with
no other
Ted,
While I have not been following this issue particularly closely, this
appears to be a case where two experiments are using the same codepoint
to enode data with (allegedly) different meaning.
Specifically (quoting from Frank's message):
| Sender ID implementations SHOULD interpret the
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 04:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Would it be better if the process required an explicit request for
more time?
In the face of variable workload it makes no sense to expect
constant-time response from the IESG.
My understanding is that there is no load-levelling on the
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 04:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
A delay of that length is generally due to dependencies -- normative
references to other documents that are held up.
When a document is in the RFC Editor queue, you can query its state via
their web site.
But that gives very
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 10:34, Bill Fenner wrote:
You may be interested in
http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/iesg/rfc-deps.pdf for a visualization that
I've been fine-tuning for a couple of years; it's auto-generated
daily.
I bow to your superior graphviz skills.
We need a link to this from the
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 09:35, Ralph Droms wrote:
Let me restate for clarity - ADs aren't necessarily more technically
astute than *all* the rest of us. That is, we need to be careful that
technical input from ADs isn't automatically assigned extra weight or
control (veto power).
Indeed.
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 09:27, Elwyn davies wrote:
Xml2rfc has a mechanism for adding comments which is a little bit more
trouble than M$Word's but works in very similar ways.
You are right that revision marking is not so easy but the various diff
tools help. Maybe we ought to ask for some
As the next IETF meeting will be in Paris, and France has had something
a reputation for placing strict controls on the use of cryptography, I
took a look..
(This is, of course, a matter of potential concern to those of us who
carry laptops with encryption software for personal use to every IETF
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 03:10, Tim Chown wrote:
Indeed; there seems to be some 'smart' Alcatel software that is doing
some ARP/DHCP trickery (at least the APs are Alcatel, so the favourite
for the s/w is the same vendor...).
Note that my problem all week was getting dis-associated from WLAN a
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 06:26, Bruce Campbell wrote:
The IETF Meeting crew should look at supplying an additional 3 ethernet
and power drops per room, labelled 'chair', 'presenter' and '(jabber)
scribe' with the expectation that they be used accordingly.
Power was most assuredly not a problem
On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 08:55, Johan Henriksson wrote:
my idea is to use encryption (for now - better alternatives might exist);
if it takes up to 1 minute to encrypt a mail, the cost per mail is
increased greatly.
this is not new. variants have been proposed under a number of names for
years
On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 20:16, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I would include modify in this clause, or clarify exactly which
license you are talking about (e.g., GNU Free Documentation License).
IMHO, if modify is allowed, the license must require that modified
versions are clearly distinguished from
On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 21:43, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
Hmmm. I had no problem about an hour ago coming from the National
Airport via the Metro. They said over the PA they were going to shut
down a segment over the weekend but shuttle-bus people around the
shut-down part.
If we can
On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 02:34, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
I said this: if IETF wants to know what form of patent license will be
acceptable to the open-source community, the people to ask are Richard
Stallman (representing FSF) and myself (representing OSI).
Between us (and especially if we
On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 02:34, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
I said this: if IETF wants to know what form of patent license will be
acceptable to the open-source community, the people to ask are Richard
Stallman (representing FSF) and myself (representing OSI).
Between us (and especially if we
On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 11:49, Tim Bray wrote:
I'm with ESR on this one. The W3C bit the bullet and built a
patent/IPR policy that has integrity and is based on the notion that
the Net works properly when important components can be built by
un-funded independents without worrying about
There are collars and ties at IETF meetings now?
How the mighty has fallen.
Huh? There have been (small numbers of) clued people wearing collars
and ties at just about every IETF I've attended..
- Bill
I was last in San Diego in late January of this year. For my
(domestic US) return flight, I arrived at the terminal about an hour
and a half before my (domestic) flight home on a 9:50am Friday morning
flight.
I think there were about a dozen people ahead of me in line for
security in terminal 2
Good point. That's why I favor giving users access to their spam pool
when they suspect problems, and using challenge/response in certain
(carefully defined) situations.
A good filtering mechanism is not nearly as black and white as a blacklist.
so, you're conflating two things here:
- Individuals traveling to Korean to attend the IETF meeting
do not need a visa, as they are traveling to attend a
non-profit conference. They can stay in Korea up to 30
day for such purpose and for tourism.
- If you travel to Korea for business purposes, such as
If you think there's some violation of law going on here, please be more
specific. What law, and in what country?
Try to keep up. A specific citation has already been made.
and already been debunked.
- Bill
The RBL, and particularly the DUL, are not good faith, as it is
well known that both block significant amounts of legitimate,
non-spam, non-uce, recipient-desired email.
I guess it depends on your definition of significant. I haven't
noticed a problem, but the amount of spam I get is large
That law reads in part:
Whoever... knowingly causes the transmission of a program,
information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct,
intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected
computer...shall be punished...
Except that use of DNSBL's is generally
If someone tries to send mail and their key is not on the
recipient's list, the mail is returned to them until they can
perform a Hashcash calculation consuming a non-trivial amount of CPU
time, at which point their key is placed on the recipient's list,
and the sender can retry to send the
I checked 39USC and 39CFR955 I guess the postal service maintains a list if
you want to not receive mailing for sexually oriented materials,
sweepstakes, and pandering solicitations. But that's about it. As far as the
USPS goes.
I have not yet tried filing a form 1500, but, if you believe the
dig, dig...actually, this is the only problem the article finds. And,
yes, I can certainly understand why they consider it a problem: those
neighbors are getting, for free, the same bandwidth they would if they
paid for the cable modem service.
It's should not be surprising that this is a
Somecases. However, ICMPv6 example case, described in the first mail of
this thread, has not been found but already described in the spec; which
is not a bug at all.
could you give the RFC or draft name, and quote the text you are worried
about?
Yes. Please have a look on
If DNSSEC were deployed, I see no reason why SAs could not be
bound to domain names.
I disagree. IPSEC is about Security at the IP layer, and that means we
need a security association which is tied to an object which is
addressable at the IP layer --- an IP address.
except that,
Convert the I-Ds to ps or pdf files (something hard to change)
Postscript files are straightforward for a postscript hacker to
change. I imagine the same is true for pdf files.
If you want to make the files hard to change, try a pgp signature.
- Bill
Usage of language does change and meaning does evolve. (has anyone set
up a VPN sans encryption recently?)
Well, does it count if the encryption doesn't cover the whole path?
I'm aware of a number of ipsec "vpn" hardware vendors out there who
are looking to put encryption in ISP edge
I would like to propose the introduction of a "no action" period for
Internet Drafts. Upon (re)publication of an I-D, no action (except
removal) would be allowed upon the I-D for a short period of time
(two weeks?). No LAST CALLs, no submission to AD, IESG, RFC-Editor,
etc.
Its already set up link that, Not that I can ever recall seeing a
.us.
you have now.
- Bill
doesn't this require the NAT to use the same inside-outside address
binding for the connection between the client and the KDC as for
the connection between the client and the application server?
e.g. it seems like the NAT could easily change address bindings
during the lifetime of a ticket.
This is the same card as an Apple Airport. It is 802.11 DS, 11Mbps, and
supports Wire Equivalent Privacy (WEP). The idea here is that you need a key to
get on the network, but once you're on you can see all the traffic "on the
wire" that you care to. The Apple software only lets you set a 40
At 02:50 PM 12/14/1999 , Christian Huitema wrote:
No. This is no different from the present situation. BGP does not recompute
routes in case of congestion. It is a problem that we are stuck with today,
that multi-address multi-homing actually gives us the hope of solving.
Only minimally,
There is also a potential scaling issue of using multiple addresses
as general purpose multihomging mechanism. This is because if this
is the case, most of the Internet hosts will end up with multiple
addresses.
I don't see why this is inherently a problem.
It's possible that some
62 matches
Mail list logo
