Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dkim-04-05: Block
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
The document, along
-editor.org/errata/eid5312
Lars Eggert
IETF Chair
___
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/irtf-announce
http://isoc.org/join
Regards,
Lars Eggert, IRTF Chair
Mat Ford, Internet Society
http://irtf.org/anrp
http://isoc.org/research
--
ANRP Selection Committee
Mark Allman, ICIR
Marcelo Bagnulo, UC3M
Lou Berger, LabN
Olivier Bonaventure, UCL Louvain
Ross Callon
We need to run this past Jorge. The gist of that section of the text basically
came from an email exchange we had. I'm not at all opposed to changing it, but
if we change it, Jorge needs to OK it.
On 2011-9-9, at 18:36, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Lars,
For what it's worth, I have the same
Hi,
thanks, Ben. We will incorporate most of your suggestions in the next revision.
That said:
On 2011-9-8, at 0:22, Ben Campbell wrote:
-- Section 6 suggests side meetings should be (somehow informally) covered
by NOTE WELL. I think this is a very dangerous suggestion. The rest of the
CALL FOR NOMINATIONS:
APPLIED NETWORKING RESEARCH PRIZE (ANRP)
http://irtf.org/anrp
*** Submit nominations until August 28 for the ANRP for IETF-82,
*** November 13-18, 2011 in Taipei, Taiwan:
*** http://fit.nokia.com/anrp/82/
The Applied Networking
Hi,
The final agenda for the IRTF Open Meeting is available at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/agenda/IRTF.txt
Please note that the meeting is *Wednesday* at 09:00 and not Thursday, as
originally scheduled and still listed on the printed agenda.
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME
Final Agenda
IRTF Open Meeting
Quebec City, Canada
*Wednesday*, July 27, 2011, 9:00 - 11:30 (new time!)
Slot lengths below indicate presentation+discussion time.
State of the IRTF
Lars Eggert
10+5 min
Applied Networking Prize (ANRP) Awards
2x 20+10 min
*PRELIMINARY* Agenda
IRTF Open Meeting
Quebec City, Canada
July 11, 2011, 9:00 - 11:30 (tentative)
Will be uploaded to the datatracker as soon as I have access rights.
Slot lengths below indicate presentation+discussion time.
State of the IRTF
Lars Eggert
10+5 min
Applied
Regards,
Lars Eggert, IRTF Chair
Mat Ford, Internet Society
http://irtf.org/anrp
--
ANRP Selection Committee
Mark Allman, ICIR
Lou Berger, LabN
Ross Callon, Juniper
Lars Eggert, Nokia
Olivier Festor, INRIA
Mat Ford, ISOC
Andrei Gurtov, HIIT
Al Morton, ATT
Bruce Nordman, LBL
Jörg Ott, Aalto University
CALL FOR NOMINATIONS:
APPLIED NETWORKING RESEARCH PRIZE (ANRP)
*** Apply until May 8, 2011 for the ANR Prize for IETF-81,
*** July 24-29, 2011 in Quebec City, Canada!
The Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP) is awarded for
recent results in applied networking
CALL FOR NOMINATIONS:
APPLIED NETWORKING RESEARCH PRIZE (ANRP)
*** Apply until May 8, 2011 for the ANR Prize for IETF-81,
*** July 24-29, 2011 in Quebec City, Canada!
The Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP) is awarded for
recent results in applied networking
As one of the authors/editors, I am fine with this change. Thanks!
On 2011-3-28, at 14:14, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
After discussing this new text with IESG and some participants of the TSVWG,
it became clear that while there is clear agreement for adding the first
sentence quoted above (There
On 2011-2-15, at 19:45, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
Noting the increasing length of the list
athttp://isoc.org/wp/worldipv6day/participants/
...I mostly note that I see very few eyeball ISPs on that list (with the
notable exception of two large US cable ISPs - great, guys!)
Turning on IPv6
Hi,
On 2011-2-3, at 17:03, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
While I fully agree with what this document proposes. This might be an
editorial comment but I 've noticed that RFC 1072 is not mentioned to be made
Historic despite the option specified by it is made obsolete.
you mean it's missing from
On 2011-1-30, at 17:12, Paul Hoffman wrote:
The above emphatic statements means that IANA can reject a request for an
IETF-approved protocol that needs two ports without recourse.
I don't follow. Assignments through IETF-stream documents do not go through
expert review. And I've never
Hi,
On 2011-1-31, at 16:51, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On 1/31/11 12:23 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
On 2011-1-30, at 17:12, Paul Hoffman wrote:
The above emphatic statements means that IANA can reject a request for an
IETF-approved protocol that needs two ports without recourse.
I don't follow
Hi
On 2011-1-27, at 2:12, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Big Issues 1: I don't like mandating one port for secure and not secure
versions of a protocol
I don't think this reflects IETF consensus given the number of protocols that
deliberately choses to use two ports. I also don't think that it is
On 2011-1-27, at 11:20, Carsten Bormann wrote:
With UDP-based protocols, it is harder to do this.
Please look at section 7.3 of
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-core-coap-04.html#section-7.3
and tell us whether this is how you would like this to be handled for
UDP-based
On 2011-1-27, at 18:58, t.petch wrote:
And what happens when we have ProtocolX over SSH and ProtocolX over TLS?
Must they share a port, with ProtocolX, which has been quietly using its
assigned port for
20 years?
No. The expert reviewer can obviously assign a second port in that case (if
I've made this change in our working copy.
On 2011-1-21, at 14:50, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
t.petch skrev 2011-01-21 12:43:
I would like to see more clarity in 8.1
For assignments done through IETF-published RFCs, the Contact will be the
IESG.
in that I am unclear what IETF-published RFCs
: Phillip Hallam-Baker
To: Lars Eggert
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum ; paul.hoff...@vpnc.org ; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: Use of unassigned in IANA registries
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Lars Eggert lars.egg...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi
Hi,
On 2011-1-18, at 16:32, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
That would work IF the reason this is happening is that people don't
understand that unassigned means reserved for future assignment.
that *is* the reason, for at least those cases that I have been involved in.
But I rather suspect that
On 2011-1-18, at 17:15, Eric Rosen wrote:
The only way to avoid collisions
due to squatting is to adopt a policy that all codepoint fields be large
enough so that a significant number of codepoints are available for FCFS
allocations.
That's certainly a suggestion we should follow for new
Hi,
On 2011-1-17, at 1:23, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
If people think that IANA is a tool they can use to impose their own
personal political agenda on the Internet, they are mistaken.
that isn't the point of this thread.
The point of IANA assignment is to avoid conflicting codepoint usage.
Hi,
On 2011-1-13, at 22:43, Michelle Cotton wrote:
Many believe it makes it very clear to the users of the registry what is
available for assignment. Something we will be rolling out soon (for those
registries with a finite space) will be small charts showing how much of the
registry space
Hi,
On 2011-1-8, at 19:41, R. B. wrote:
I'm really in a rush, but I want to send my 0.02 too. I like the idea of a
poster session, since a single I-D could go unobserved in the churn of other
I-Ds.
many areas have open meetings where folks already can present such ideas.
It's up to the ADs
Hi,
the TSV area office hours are Tue 15:20-17:00 in Diamond 3.
If you plan on stopping by, please send us (tsv-...@tools.ietf.org) a quick
email beforehand.
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Ietf mailing list
On 2010-11-8, at 11:32, Eggert Lars (Nokia-NRC/Espoo) wrote:
the TSV area office hours are Tue 15:20-17:00 in Diamond 3.
Correction: Diamond *** 2 ***
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Hi,
On 2010-10-26, at 6:37, James M. Polk wrote:
I'm not in love with the 3 maturity levels, especially when I was
asked by an AD during Maastricht to provide proof of 2 independent
implementations just to have an ID I was presenting be considered to
become a WG item.
I was that AD, and
On 2010-10-26, at 23:54, Tony Hain wrote:
Did you miss James Polk's comment yesterday? The IESG is already changing
their ways!! They now require 2 independent implementations for a personal
I-D to become a WG draft.
James characterization is inaccurate. See my other email.
Lars
smime.p7s
On 2010-10-27, at 2:10, John Leslie wrote:
I'm quite certain the IESG doesn't have such a blanket policy.
Correct (of course).
The reported incident _may_ be accurate, but such a requirement
would have come from the WG Chair, not the responsible AD, least of
all some other AD. I'd be
Begin forwarded message:
From: Michio Honda micc...@sfc.wide.ad.jp
Date: October 3, 2010 2:30:57 GMT+03:00
To: Multipath TCP Mailing List multipath...@ietf.org, t...@ietf.org
t...@ietf.org
Cc: Mark Handley m.hand...@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: [multipathtcp] Call for contribution to middlebox
Hi,
where are we with regards to resolving this discuss?
Lars
On 2010-9-9, at 19:51, Roland Bless wrote:
Hi Russ,
On 09.09.2010 16:56, Russ Housley wrote:
Will any implementations be impacted? If not, we should ask the
Security ADs for their best suggestion.
At least we have one
On 2010-7-25, at 14:19, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Why?
You've made it onto the IAB watch list. They like to geo-track the
troublemakers.
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
of the study.
Lars
Thanks,
Yuchung
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Lars Eggert
lars.egg...@nokia.commailto:lars.egg...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi,
a quick status update. We now have received over 100 donated home gateways,
plus a DSLAM. The students are on their summer break, after which we'll
the EU and North America,
or any other model we may not have yet (see
http://fit.nokia.com/lars/tmp/2010-hgw-study-devices.txt). And we're still
lacking a CMTS for testing cable modems...
See you in Maastricht,
Lars
On 2010-6-2, at 18:36, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
FYI, a first report with test
to the
testbed and include in a follow-up study.
If you have an unused, spare home gateway to donate to this effort, please
contact us at nat-st...@fit.nokia.com. We're also interested in obtaining a
DSLAM and a CMTS.
Thanks,
Lars
On 2010-4-29, at 12:34, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi
Hi,
for a measurement study done together with Markku Kojo's team at the University
of Helsinki, we're looking to collect as many different NAT home routers as
possible. If you have an old clunker lying around somewhere, please contact me
off-list. I'll cover shipping via DHL. Feel free to
Hi,
On 2010-3-27, at 13:41, Ray Pelletier wrote:
We have been working with an online vendor to allow t-shirts and other
paraphernalia (coffee mugs, ball caps, etc)
to be purchased. The rock concert design has been a particular
challenge.
why is this harder than uploading the various
Here is mine. It's a hacked up (= simplified) version of some code that was
apparently originally done by Rob Austein (I got it form someone else at some
point).
This reminds me that I still owe Rob the beer-ware beer...
Title: Discussion Timer
TimeRemaining
0:00
On
On 2010-3-17, at 8:48, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I have actually written a few drafts that way. The text part isn't hard, but
the hard breaks at every line are, and the hard breaks at every page even
more so. Tools do create those don't exist in today's world.
they do, e.g., something
Hi,
On 2010-2-5, at 16:52, Aaron Falk wrote:
Details about this event and registration information are posted on-line as:
http://netfpga.org/tutorials/IETF2010/index.php
the page says: Cost of the tutorial is $200.
I'm trying to understand if this is a for-profit event. The reason is that I'm
On 2/8/10 1:38 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
On 2010-2-5, at 16:52, Aaron Falk wrote:
Details about this event and registration information are posted on-line as:
http://netfpga.org/tutorials/IETF2010/index.php
the page says: Cost of the tutorial is $200.
I'm trying to understand
Hi,
On 2010-1-18, at 1:11, Reinaldo Penno wrote:
What I mean is that the sentence starts of with In such cases These
'cases' are those when the NAT cannot determine whether the endpoints of a
TCP connection are active, as written.
right. I believe the thinking was that if you can detect
On 2009-12-16, at 10:55, JP Vasseur wrote:
Yes you are right, that rings a bell. That said, I think that with the
added text, this should be clear now.
So if we changed it to overload in the earlier documents, wouldn't it make
sense to make the same change here for consistency?
Lars
Hi,
On 2009-12-15, at 17:50, JP Vasseur wrote:
First it wasn't clear from the document if congestion was
referring to the PCE itself or the corresponding LSPs. For clarity
of discussion, I will assume LSP congestion. Even if that is not
correct, my comments are general and there are
Hi,
you really want to be asking this on the TSVWG list. CC and Reply-To set
accordingly.
Lars
On 2009-12-4, at 1:57, Sudhanva Mudigere Narayana Gowda wrote:
Hi,
I have a query regarding sctp multihoming behavior.
I have setup a multihomed association and this is my observation
Host_A
FYI: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg02914.html
On 2009-11-20, at 4:41, Randy Presuhn wrote:
From: Andrew Allen aal...@rim.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
...
This transmission
FWIW, this source is my hacked up version of the original that commented out a
bunch of stuff I don't need when I use this. YMMV. (And thanks to the guys who
originally put this together! It's been helpful many times.)
Lars
On 2009-11-11, at 18:46, Scott Brim wrote:
Tony Hansen allegedly
Hi,
On 2009-11-1, at 1:00, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I haven't heard of an AD's doing this before.
most areas have been scheduling office hour slots during the week
for the last few years, for this and other purposes, but those usually
only get announced to the area lists.
Maybe we should
Hi,
On 2009-10-28, at 11:53, SM wrote:
At 02:28 27-10-2009, Lars Eggert wrote:
The second URL points to a list of FTP mirrors, fully half of which
are defunct in some way (don't respond, DNS name doesn't resolve,
contains stale content, etc.) Again, nobody has been noticing this.
The second
Hi,
I'm proposing a change to the ID boilerplate in order to save some
lines on the first page. The current text says:
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute
On 2009-10-27, at 14:09, Scott Lawrence wrote:
On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 11:28 +0200, Lars Eggert wrote:
The list of current Internet-Drafts is at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/.
Is a nice space-saving measure, but isn't true. That URL leads to a
query page, not a list of current drafts
Hi,
On 2009-10-27, at 14:39, Lars Eggert wrote:
On 2009-10-27, at 14:09, Scott Lawrence wrote:
On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 11:28 +0200, Lars Eggert wrote:
The list of current Internet-Drafts is at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/.
Is a nice space-saving measure, but isn't true. That URL
On 2009-10-16, at 15:54, John Leslie wrote:
There have been a number of voices favoring what Jari tried to call
as consensus, and I'd like to add mine.
+1
Lars (assuming my voice counts)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Hi,
On 2009-8-31, at 18:34, Adam Roach wrote:
In particular, when a user accesses a document at a url of the form
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc.txt, there is going to be a strong
presumption on their part that the document was produced by the
IETF. In
the cases that this presumption is
On 2009-8-31, at 19:24, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
But the same could be said all our experimental and informational RFCs.
Should we insist that all experimental and informational RFC, even
from IETF WGs, carry big warnings THIS IS NOT AN IETF STANDARD.
FWIW, this was exactly what I proposed a
Hi,
looks good.
I have one (probably stupid) question: who checks this and how? Will
we use different colored paper for the name tags for different days?
Will the secretariat patrol the hallways? Or is the abuse angle
something that we don't think is a realistic issue?
Lars
On
Hi,
On 2009-8-21, at 16:01, David Harrington wrote:
Maybe we should have an RFID reader/recorder at the door to each
session, and to send bills to people based on what they actually
attend (plus a base fee).
...
This approach might also cut down on people using sessions
to just read email and
On 2009-8-10, at 23:24, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Please, approve this document for publication as an BCP.
Agreed.
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Release early, release often.
Can't we simply do a 1.35 whenever the upcoming changes have been
finalized?
Lars
On 2009-7-7, at 0:30, Julian Reschke wrote:
Marshall Rose wrote:
julian, bill - i thought we were waiting on another revision for
boilerplate changes? is that imminent?
Some
On 2009-7-5, at 16:20, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Would it help to simply call it 1.34 now?
(Then it would be picked up by distributions and packaging services
such as macports, and people could stop installing by hand.)
+1
I maintain the fink package for xml2rfc, and the committers asked me
Hi,
On 2009-7-5, at 16:24, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the
silent majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine
that the vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no problems
with XML2RFC. So I'm assuming they've
I agree with Sam and Jari. This is a good and overdue change.
Lars
On 2009-6-10, at 17:21, Jari Arkko wrote:
I also support the publication of this document (modulo some nits that
were discussed earlier). Yes, there are trade-offs. But having
observed
the process from various sides over
On 2009-4-21, at 9:00, Sam Hartman wrote:
Keith, I've considered your points and continue to disagree. I'm
mostly replying in the interest of judging consensus.
I believe that the primary use cases identified in the MIF BOF are use
cases that are not going to go away. I think that saying
Hi, Todd,
On 2009-4-14, at 22:21, Todd Glassey wrote:
Fernando Gont wrote:
Lars Eggert wrote:
I agree with Joe that some of the hardening techniques that
vendors are
implementing come with consequences (make TCP more brittle). To
me, this
is a *reason* this document should be published
Hi,
On 2009-4-14, at 20:51, Fernando Gont wrote:
Lars Eggert wrote:
My personal take is that the IETF is responsible for the
maintenance of
its protocols, and this effort carried ut by the UK CPNI should be
welcome, and the IETF should take the chance and benefit from this
work
to publish
Hi,
all hats off
On 2009-4-14, at 1:38, Joe Touch wrote:
Advice in making a hardened version of TCP would be useful to the
implementation community.
To a large extent this is what draft-gont-tcp-security is about.
Implementation advice is outside the scope of the IETF. It's not even
ftp.ietf.org, in the ietf-mail-archive directory
On 2009-3-31, at 5:41, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
I want to download the whole lisp maillist archive and import it into
Thunderbird.
I have a plugin for Thunderbird that will take mbox format, and I have
pulled in maillist archives from other
Hi,
On 2009-3-4, at 15:39, a...@tr-sys.de wrote:
I do not want to blame anybody, but in the TSV area I am aware
of documents in at least two different WGs that describe common
(and recommended) _existing_ implementation practice and have
not even been submitted to the IESG after more than 4
Hi,
On 2009-3-3, at 22:54, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think adding any new mandatory section to all I-Ds is a bad idea.
It will quickly become bureaucratic. We've had proposals for mandatory
Management Considerations, IPv6 Considerations, and no doubt others
that I've forgotten, and they all
Hi,
On 2009-2-14, at 0:25, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
If I am reading this correctly the UK Centre for the Protection of
National Infrastructure
wants the IETF (or some other body) to produce a companion document
to the IETF specifications that discusses the security aspects and
implications of
On 2008-12-3, at 10:47, Fernando Gont wrote:
(FYI, the draft originally aimed at Std. Track, and discussed other
alternative approaches for dealing with the problem of long delays
between connection establishment attempts. Then we changed the draft
category to Informational, to simply document
On 2008-11-28, at 12:49, Stewart Bryant wrote:
We could maybe start earlier on Friday as well - say 8am - i.e. run
0800
till 1300 with only only a 10 min
coffee break. That would put nearly 5 hours into the schedule.
That overlaps with the IESG/IAB what happened this week breakfast.
(But
Hi,
On 2008-10-31, at 10:45, ext Robert Elz wrote:
This looks like useful work to do, and to me, the charter mostly
looks fine, just one point.
The (proposed) charter says ...
| * operate well in networks with FIFO queueing with drop-tail
| discipline
which in itself is OK, but doesn't say
Hi,
On 2008-10-10, at 15:00, ext Marshall Eubanks wrote:
considered for prioritizing standardization work, for example the
number of operators and clients that are likely to be able to provide
or use that particular data. In any case, this WG will not propose
standards on how congestion is
On 2008-10-11, at 4:27, ext Enrico Marocco wrote:
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
It's difficult to write a charter without actually designing the
solution.
This is an interesting opinion. May I translate that to mean that
there
is already a solution in the minds of the people who wrote the
On 2008-10-3, at 4:11, ext Joe Touch wrote:
Agreed; I propose to take this over to TSVWG. It's more general than
just TCP...
I agree that the intersection of TSVWG and SAAG will probably more or
less capture the correct set of folks, let's move the discussion there.
I'll send another
Hi,
I believe the gen-art comments need to be discussed before this
document can move before the IESG.
Lars
On 2008-8-21, at 23:30, ext [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
Looks good. My only comment is about where the justification is to be
provided - the PROTO writeup is at least an alternative to putting
this into the document itself, and IMO it's a better alternative.
Lars
On 2008-8-13, at 12:21, ext Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
The revision 1.8 of the
Hi,
On 2008-8-11, at 2:32, ext John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, August 10, 2008 6:03 PM +0200 Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- check that if the document obsoletes or updates another
document, that one appear in the references section, and make
sure that the document actually says
On 2008-7-28, at 13:55, ext Marc Manthey wrote:
NATs necessary for IPv6, says IETF chair
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/072109-nat-housley-qna.html
The quote form the article is: They are necessary for a smooth
transition from IPv4 to IPv6 so that the important properties of the
Hi,
IETF-75 takes place in Stockholm, Sweden, from July 26-31, 2009. A
bunch of us are planning to sail from Finnland to Stockholm during the
week before the IETF, and to sail back from Stockholm to Finnland in
the week afterwards. Coordinating this with several boats and a bunch
of
Hi,
On 2008-2-16, at 0:58, ext Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
So lets say I am building an application and I want to extend that
application to users that may be NATted. Now, I have a choice. I can
build that application to run on SCTP, which may be advtantageous.
In that case, I'll be able
Hi,
I enjoyed reading your draft, and I'm looking forward to discussing it
in Philly. (We've asked Jonathan if he'd present at TSVAREA or INTAREA.)
On 2008-2-13, at 15:44, ext Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
I wrote this because of a discussion that happened during behave at
the
last IETF
On 2008-2-15, at 16:21, ext Bernard Aboba wrote:
However, I would suspect that clearly specifying how SCTP and DCCP
work with NAT would eventually make it possible to obtain a home NAT
supporting those protocols, particularly if implementations were made
available within the popular
Hi,
On 2008-2-14, at 18:38, ext Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
In particular there are many cases where you would like to establish a
'lossy TCP connection'. That is you want the flow ct. advantages that
you get from establishing a control channel session while accepting
the
fact that in a
On 2008-2-11, at 18:55, ext Dan York wrote:
Can we move some of this conversation in the bill below onto the
Internet using systems where our costs essentially go to $0?
(Obviously we still need to communicate to non-wired folks across
the PSTN, such as event location facilities, etc.)
On 2007-11-29, at 6:28, ext [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with your reasoning. I should have asked,
why do *ALL* IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive?
They don't. Several WGs are holding interim meetings between the IETF
meetings. I'm not sure if there have been joint
On 2007-11-26, at 22:11, ext Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
I agree on the general sentiment of *one* deadline time.
I'd prefer it expressed in a TZ which iCalendar files and most
calendar
applications understand right off, though. UTC sounds good to me.
Let me put in a plug for
On 2007-11-28, at 19:00, ext Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Keep in mind that the locations are subject to change until a host has
been identified and the hotel contract signed. This means that you
could well see one of the OTHER meetings in 2009 take place in Europe.
TBD and Provisional really does mean
On 2007-11-28, at 20:08, ext Russ Housley wrote:
The IAOC plan for 2008 and 2009 is to have three meetings in North
America, two meetings in Europe, and one meeting in Asia. This
3:2:1 ration will be repeated for 2010 and 2011. So far, we are on
track to make this happen.
I appreciate
On 2007-11-25, at 23:51, ext Paul Hoffman wrote:
They still should (strongly) consider checking the validity of the
XML by comparing it to what the IESG approved.
I agree with Paul. The IESG approves the text version of a draft, so
the text version is definitive.
Making the XML available
On 2007-11-6, at 2:08, ext Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Red herring as far as this draft is concerned: I'd be interested
to know why we are still willing to allow non-disclosure for
port numbers (see RFC 2780 sections 8 and 9.1). Port numbers
are going fast.
We've recently been discussing port
Hi,
I'm hoping that everyone who's criticizing the volunteers that create
and maintain our tools is considering to offer their obviously vast
expertise in Vancouver: http://www3.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/wiki/
VancouverSprint
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Authors,
if you want to change the draft based on the sec-dir or gen-art
reviews, please let me know and either send me a corresponding RFC
Editor Note or tell me that you're submitting a new draft.
Lars
On 2007-10-23, at 9:06, ext Tom Yu wrote:
Bob == Bob Briscoe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2007-9-17, at 17:40, ext John Day wrote:
Fast Select was a single packet that opened, transfered data, and
closed a connection. The same as what Mr. Ford's description.
What you outline above is very different from SST. I'm surprised that
after reading the paper you'd think that there
On 2007-9-14, at 21:54, ext Tony Finch wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Keith Moore wrote:
I actually don't think that having multiple concurrent TCP
connections
between two peers is a bad thing. sure we could have a transport
protocol that provided multiple streams, but why bother when
priorities such that objects that were being rendered on the screen
were transmitted at a higher priority, even while scrolling around a
large page.
On Sep 17, 2007, at 2:02 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
You might be interested in Bryan Ford's SST paper from this year's
SIGCOMM:
Structured
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
