On Feb 9, 2009, at 17:49, Clint Chaplin wrote:
I see that the FSF has beeen alerted. Prepare for the flood of very
similar whinges from people who have not immersed themselves in the
subject at hand.
I'm particularly amused by the people who think we should not grant
Red Hat the patent.
I
On Jan 26, 2009, at 12:14, John C Klensin wrote:
If common sense were relevant here (and it may not be), Fred
gets notified of the Note Well and any changes to it in the
following cases:
If Fred cc's an IETF mailing list he's not on because a discussion on
another list has turned to how the
On Dec 17, 2008, at 11:01, Keith Moore wrote:
One could possibly extend getaddrinfo() or make something a bit
similar.
getaddrinfo() is perhaps already becoming too complex though. A neat
thing with extending getaddrinfo() could be to make existing code use
SRV without changes. Not exactly
On Oct 5, 2007, at 17:00, Douglas Otis wrote:
But what is it?
A step beyond grey listing.
Beyond implies in vaguely the same direction. From skimming the
TMDA description, I don't see that at all.
Ken
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On Jul 30, 2007, at 16:26, Michael Thomas wrote:
Would it really be so horrible to, say, have a per day rate? I know
that there
are a lot of people who are only interested in one or two wg
meetings and
would just assume go home instead of hanging around, kibbutzing in
wg's
that you're
On Jul 12, 2007, at 22:03, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Jul 12, 2007, at 8:33 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
That doesn't help much, because then we all still get private
vacation messages. Please kick these people off the list.
The web interface for Mailman allows subscribers to re-enable their
On Jul 13, 2007, at 05:09, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 13-jul-2007, at 8:00, Ken Raeburn wrote:
That doesn't help much, because then we all still get private
vacation messages. Please kick these people off the list.
Shutting off their list email when we don't need to seems kind
On Jul 13, 2007, at 09:05, John C Klensin wrote:
However, I think the IETF benefits from policies whose effect is
to keep the clueless and inconsiderate off our mailing list
until they can be educated.
I think most organizations or lists would benefit from such
policies. But where does the
On Jul 12, 2007, at 11:33, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 12-jul-2007, at 16:57, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
So I instruct here the secretariat to *automatically* take the
appropriate
measures with this case and any other similar one in the future,
such as
restricting (only) postings from
On Jun 11, 2006, at 20:00, IETF Secretariat wrote:
All,
As you’re all aware, on 06/06/06 NSS successfully launched IPv6
services for
IETF Web, Mail, and FTP.
Has anyone had FTP work for them when not in passive mode since
this configuration change was made?
My site's got a clunky old
On May 24, 2006, at 14:42, Russ Housley wrote:
If the people with copyright interest are the combination of the
authors plus the contributors, then we need to specify this in a BCP.
We might also want to suggest that the acknowledgment specifically
indicate if someone contributed text, as a
On Mar 23, 2006, at 21:58, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Just wanted to state what's obvious to all of us by now:
This time the wireless WORKED, and Just Went On Working.
That hasn't happened for a while. THANK YOU!
Mmm... well, my laptop (Mac Powerbook) fell off the b/g network
several times,
On Feb 17, 2006, at 11:14, Tom.Petch wrote:
Elsewhere - dictionaries, encyclopaedia, text books - I see it
defined so that when applied to a sequence of numbers, then each
number is not
less than its predecessor, so that
That's non-decreasing. As far as I've ever heard (math classes as
Huh. You learn somethin' new every day...
On Feb 17, 2006, at 16:06, Tom.Petch wrote:
I agree that there is no clear cut case where security will be
compromised, but
as long as RFC eg RFC1510 (kerberos) tie the concept of nonce to a
monotonic
increasing sequence, I think the risk is there
On Jan 26, 2006, at 9:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also I figure anyone banned by an experimental process is going
to make a lot of noise in the appeals process and we might start to
annoy our counterparts who have to hear them?
Isn't the (seemingly) requisite appeal following any action
On Jan 23, 2006, at 17:07, Allison Mankin wrote:
2.
Some of us wondered if Friday would be more attractive if the net
didn't come down at noon, so that if you commit to staying for the WG
meeting on Friday morning, and you have a late flight, or fly out the
next morning, you can get some work or
On Jan 23, 2006, at 21:57, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
In my own case, having a Mac is not easy to get built-in 802.11a. I
can of
course buy an external card,
Are there cards with Mac OS X drivers nowadays? If I knew where to
get one, I'd consider it, given the condition of the 802.11b/g
On Jan 6, 2006, at 09:02, Sandy Wills wrote:
This is not a change; this seems to be the way the IETF works.
Many group gatherings work the same way; to me its an intuitive way
of getting any/all objections brought up, or establishing that
there aren't any, after a period of free
On Jan 5, 2006, at 18:35, Sandy Wills wrote:
People who agree will mumble yeah under their breath and
otherwise ignore the post. People who disagree will reply on the
list. After two weeks, someone will compare the size of the
subscriber list to the number of negative replies, and we'll
On Jan 5, 2006, at 09:25, Ash, Gerald R ((Jerry)) wrote:
I'd suggest we try to reach consensus first on the following:
Alternative format(s) for IDs, in addition to ASCII text, should be
allowed.
One requirement/motivation for this change (as set forth in the ID)
is to be able to include
On Jan 5, 2006, at 11:49, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Ken Raeburn wrote:
Personally, I'm skeptical that we'll find an alternative that
meets our requirements as well, but perhaps we'll wind up with
plain UTF-8 text or something.
How would I encode graphics in UTF-8?
Same as you do in ASCII
On Sep 29, 2005, at 9:39, Dean Anderson wrote:
Let me ask you Ken: Are you participating in the IETF as part of
your job? Or
are you just here for personal kicks?
It's part of my job; has been for a few years.
It has nothing to do with legal standing. Its a question of
etiquette. Office
On Sep 28, 2005, at 21:20, Dean Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Dave Singer wrote:
This was offlist, but I think it is relevant, now to similar
questions raised by
others.
Yes, emailed to you offlist. Do you have NO idea of professional
courtesy? You do not post personal emails by other
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 26, 2005, at 03:14, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Indeed when some 'malicious' person would add Cc's/To's and would
instruct his SMTP to not forward to the additional addresses in the
Cc/To the users will effectively not receive the message.
But
On Aug 26, 2005, at 05:42, Jari Arkko wrote:
I realize that this is something that could happen. Interesting
attack! But I missed the part where its somehow news to
us that e-mail system can be tricked in various ways.
It's not. But that doesn't mean we need to add new ways, and enable
them
On Jul 15, 2005, at 11:59, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
For TCP, the issue is less critical as there are already other
mechanisms that allow us to move away from well known port numbers.
One is the SRV DNS record that I mentioned yesterday, but if you set
your way back machine to 1988 you'll
On Jun 23, 2005, at 13:03, Steve Crocker wrote:
On Jun 23, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
For anyone who was sleeping during the relevant Psych 101 lecture,
this is
called the Hawthorne effect.
Damn. I knew there was a famous study that identified this effect,
but I
couldn't remember
On Jun 8, 2005, at 14:23, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Wednesday, June 08, 2005 01:59:19 PM -0400 Bruce Lilly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Evidently (and unfortunately) the
IETF Secretariat apparently doesn't enforce that part of the
ID-Checklist
rules.
Aside from making sure the proper
--On Thursday, 24 February, 2005 16:03 -0500 Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, the rule about -00 drafts could be modified to
allow them to be posted on the followup date IF and ONLY IF
they are now a WG draft AND they've been previously published
as an individual submission.
But not
On Nov 18, 2004, at 11:38, Scott W Brim wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 06:15:03PM +0200, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote:
At IETF60, the Sheraton hotels charged me both for the deposit of one
day, and for all days I stayed there.
Now at IETF61, I noticed that the Hilton has also charged me for the
On Nov 8, 2004, at 11:24, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Just a quick thank-you to Alcatel for providing t-shirts that are
long-sleeved, heavier-weight than usual, and (my personal favorite)
non-pure white
I second that. These do seem quite nice.
(though, for future sponsors: pockets are nice too. :-)
On May 10, 2004, at 14:17, Dean Anderson wrote:
It seems that WG co-chair has begun to use an email address that is
defaming Av8 Internet, Inc by returning business email to users of Av8
Internet claiming that Av8 Internet has hijacked some address space.
That may or may not be, but since you
On Wednesday, Jan 14, 2004, at 11:43 US/Eastern, Fred Baker wrote:
At 07:52 AM 1/14/2004, The IETF Secretariat wrote:
When an Internet-Draft expires, a tombstone file will be created
that includes the filename and version number of the Internet-Draft
that has expired. The filename of the
On Friday, Jan 9, 2004, at 18:00 US/Eastern, Mike S wrote:
Meanwhile, the site that's actually rejecting your mail has made that
decision *itself*,
that it doesn't want to receive mail from you, possibly with MAPS as
one component
of the information used to make said decision.
To have a chance
On Friday, Jan 9, 2004, at 22:06 US/Eastern, Mike S wrote:
At 06:43 PM 1/9/2004, Ken Raeburn wrote...
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.
Not in any mail I've
At IETF-52 in Salt Lake City, you will find in your registration kit a CD,
courtesy of ITU
The people at the registration desk say these CDs have not arrived,
but we'll be notified when they do. So don't be surprised if you
don't find a CD in your kit...
Ken
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kerberos tried to deal with this problem by talking about "canonical
domain name", which it tried to define as being the name that you got
when you took a DNS name, forward resolved it to get an A address, and
then reverse-resolved it to get a DNS
37 matches
Mail list logo
