draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05 and draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-00 are in
conflict with each other.
From draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05:
When
used with MPL, Realm-Local scope is administratively defined and used
to define the boundaries of multicast message dissemination by
Try Wayback, http://archive.org
- Ralph
On Oct 3, 2013, at 7:02 AM 10/3/13, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
chris.dearl...@baesystems.com wrote:
One draft I'm working on references some standard NIST cryptographic
documents. (RFCs don't include everything we need.) I need to check some
On Oct 3, 2013, at 7:34 AM 10/3/13, Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 03/10/2013 13:02, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) a écrit :
One draft I'm working on references some standard NIST cryptographic
documents. (RFCs don't include everything we need.) I need to check
some
On Oct 3, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Jaap Akkerhuis j...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
but the To Subscribe pointer is busted.
According to https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo the list is supposed
to be https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mdnsext.
mdns...@ietf.org was used for the two BoFs. The WG
On Sep 16, 2013, at 9:20 AM 9/16/13, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
droma...@avaya.com wrote:
Hi,
I have doubts myself, doubts that I shared with the IESG that this question
is really needed. Asking this question at the end of the process after the
conformance with BCP 78 and BCP 79 was
I found the process in the 6tsch BoF (Tue 1520) for asking about taking on the
work discussed in the BoF to be thought-provoking.
Toward the end of the BoF, the chairs asked the question 1. Is this a topic
that the IETF should address? First, the chairs asked for a hum. From my
vantage
.
- Ralph
The sum of the amplitude of all hums is not.
Andy
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:50 AM, Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote:
I found the process in the 6tsch BoF (Tue 1520) for asking about taking on
the work discussed in the BoF to be thought-provoking.
Toward the end
On Aug 1, 2013, at 3:30 PM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
Hi,
Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works?
(Analog vs.
On May 16, 2013, at 5:00 PM 5/16/13, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On May 16, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments during
working
group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm
Dave - I hope you'll indulge my selective quoting as I have a couple of
specific points to address. My apologies if I end up quoting you out of
context...
On May 16, 2013, at 12:23 PM 5/16/13, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
[...]
So here's a simple proposal that pays attention to
On May 16, 2013, at 5:58 PM 5/16/13, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
wrote:
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field fixed
length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is used in an
appropriate way,
On May 15, 2013, at 10:39 AM 5/15/13, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 5/14/2013 9:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Publishing broken or unclear documents is not progress.
Keith
Broken, agreed.
Unclear, nope - please review the NON-DISCUSS criteria, notably:
The motivation for a
On May 2, 2013, at 9:47 PM 5/2/13, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 5/2/2013 4:13 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Instead of imposing even more work on the RFC Editor team, I suggest
that you find someone in the WG, in your company, in the IETF
community (etc.) to help with the language
On May 3, 2013, at 8:59 AM 5/3/13, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Just a few points...
Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca writes:
I'll repeat what has been said repeatedly in the newtrk and related
discussions. The step from ID to RFC is too large because we are
On May 1, 2013, at 1:59 PM 5/1/13, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
The blog nicely classes the problem as being too heavy-weight during final
stages. The quick discussion thread seems focused on adding a moment at
which the draft specification is considered 'baked'.
I think
On May 1, 2013, at 5:00 PM 5/1/13, Scott Brim s...@internet2.edu wrote:
A draft does get cross-area review, at least once, often more than once.
Some drafts in some WGs get it earlier than others, by explicit
invitation. Others don't get it until the latest they can, when they go
to last
On Apr 30, 2013, at 4:53 PM 4/30/13, David Meyer d...@1-4-5.net wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
-- bob dylan
we do not need measurements to know the ietf is embarrassingly
On Mar 15, 2013, at 9:39 AM 3/15/13, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I wanted to give recognition to someone. As Ralph Droms stepped down from the
IESG this week, he completed 24 continuous years of service in the leadership
of the IETF, with a dot on his badge. The last four years
On Mar 14, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote:
Dave,
Thank you for sharing your experiences in such an open way, and for your
long and dedicated service to the Internet community.
Eliot
Unequivocally and enthusiastically +1
- Ralph
On 3/12/13 4:41 PM, David
On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM 3/4/13, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
Hi,
On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this
situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want
Note that this last call is a second last call, to gather comments on the
publication of the document considering the IPR disclosures that were published
late in the previous IETF last call.
- Ralph
On Feb 5, 2013, at 3:57 PM 2/5/13, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has
. There is just the one disclosure.
- Ralph
George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
President GTW Associates
-Original Message- From: Ralph Droms
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 10:53 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: a...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ANCP] Last Call: (Applicability ofAccess Node Control
On Jan 4, 2013, at 2:55 AM 1/4/13, Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com wrote:
You have been warned.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/request-ketchup-philly-cheesesteak-leads-001204299.html
I'm sorry - seeing the words Philly cheesesteak and Subway in the same
title are such a non sequitor for this
On Nov 20, 2012, at 10:43 AM 11/20/12, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Eric,
On 11/20/2012 10:20 AM, Eric Gray wrote:
I think this is a point of confusion, anyway.
I thought the process was for the previous NomCom to be coopted to
address any
unexpected mid-term vacancies, rather than
I'm convinced the IAOC needs to be restored to full membership and I'm not
convinced we need to bypass our existing recall process. I would prefer that
we exercise that process, but will accede to whatever process is judged to have
consensus.
- Ralph
that any such assignment can only
be (or
become) associated with an IETF protocol specification upon its approval and
publication
as an IETF RFC.
--
Eric
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ralph
Droms
Sent: Friday
your point...
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 6:43 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: Joe Touch; IETF Chair; IETF list discussion
Subject: Re: Draft IESG Statement on Ethertype Assignments for IETF Protocols
Importance: High
On Sep 7, 2012, at 10:51 AM 9/7/12, Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, all,
This statement seems fine, but it's worth noting that it would apply only to
*IETF* protocol specs.
What did you have in mind as noting? This text seems pretty clear to me as
applying only to IETF protocol specifications:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 11:07 AM 8/2/12, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Looks good to me, but I agree with whoever suggested to increase the fees. I
think you could easily double or triple them.
I agree with Lars and the suggestion that the fees could be higher.
- Ralph
On Aug 2, 2012, at 9:47, IETF
On May 16, 2012, at 10:22 PM 5/16/12, Ned Freed wrote:
On May 16, 2012, at 5:22 PM 5/16/12, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT,
SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this
document are to be interpreted as
On May 18, 2012, at 2:27 PM 5/18/12, Randy Bush wrote:
I recommend an errata to RFC 2119: These words MUST NOT appear in a
document in lower case.
first, that is not an erratum, it is a non-trivial semantic change.
You are correct and point taken.
second, do we not already have
On May 18, 2012, at 2:40 PM 5/18/12, Randy Bush wrote:
Dave Crocker's suggestion would minimize the number of words taken out
of our vocabulary:
for a language other than english.
In addition to clear and concise we need precision and avoidance of
ambiguity.
wonderful rofl. thanks.
On May 16, 2012, at 5:22 PM 5/16/12, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT,
SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] when they
appear in ALL CAPS. These
a pretty high bar for what udpates another RFC. I
don't see that this document has met those requirements.
But this isn't really my call. I'll let Ralph Droms and
the DHC WG chairs decide on this one, and I'll do
whatever they tell me to do.
Agreed. FWIW, my bar
On Feb 11, 2012, at 12:27 AM 2/11/12, Doug Barton wrote:
On 02/10/2012 20:44, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
You snipped the bit of the my post that you're responding to where I
specifically disallowed this as a reasonable argument.
What an easy way to win a
On Dec 1, 2011, at 3:35 AM 12/1/11, Eliot Lear wrote:
Randy,
On 11/30/11 6:09 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
skype etc. will learn. This does prevent the breakage it just makes
it more controlled. What's the bet Skype has a patched released
within a week of this being made available?
cool.
space pool...
- Ralph
Eliot
On 12/1/11 2:06 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
On Dec 1, 2011, at 3:35 AM 12/1/11, Eliot Lear wrote:
Randy,
On 11/30/11 6:09 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
skype etc. will learn. This does prevent the breakage it just makes
it more controlled. What's the bet Skype
On Nov 30, 2011, at 9:14 PM 11/30/11, Pete Resnick wrote:
Daryl,
The problem described in the draft is that CPEs use 1918 space *and that many
of them can't deal with the fact that there might be addresses on the outside
interface that are the same as on the inside interface*. The claim
was gathered and what conclusions are drawn.
- Ralph
Report suggested that all three RFC1918 blocks are well utilized.
Regards,
Victor K
On 11-11-30 9:19 PM, Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2011, at 9:14 PM 11/30/11, Pete Resnick wrote:
Daryl,
The problem
Gone isn't so important as not worth expending any more energy on.. So I'm
with Keith and would like to find some words like when it doesn't take any
more work.
- Ralph
On Jun 30, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Fernando Gont ferna...@gont.com.ar wrote:
On 06/30/2011 12:46 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
I'd
*
functions for IPv4.
- Ralph
It's not the protocols... it's the DEPLOYED APPLICATIONS and DEVICES that
users have.
regards, kiwin
On 6/30/2011 9:11 AM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote:
Gone isn't so important as not worth expending any more energy on.. So
I'm with Keith and would like
On Jun 30, 2011, at 12:51 AM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/29/11 8:32 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
However it does not follow that home networks need NAT or private address
space. Those are hacks of the 1990s. They always were shortsighted, and
they turned out to be an
Wow. An absolute tour de force from someone who *clearly* has too much time on
his hands.
Thanks; made my day. Well, except for now I've got that long-forgotten tune
stuck in my head...
- Ralph
On Jun 21, 2011, at 5:47 PM 6/21/11, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
A bit of levity about migration
/21/11 4:14 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
Wow. An absolute tour de force from someone who *clearly* has too much time
on his hands.
Thanks; made my day. Well, except for now I've got that long-forgotten tune
stuck in my head...
- Ralph
On Jun 21, 2011, at 5:47 PM 6/21/11, Peter Saint-Andre
to be any impact or relevance.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2011-06-08 08:27, Ralph Droms wrote:
The IETF has recently received a liaison from ITU-T Q5/SG-11 regarding a
Draft Recommendation. That liaison is available as
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1054/. The official liaison
technical advice and recommendations to improve the Draft
Recommendation itself.
Please respond with any comments on the Draft Recommendation to ietf@ietf.org.
Thanks in advance for your review of the Draft Recommendation.
- Ralph Droms, Internet Area Director
for the IESG
of the C12 Standards and the manner in which
they are implemented.
Avygdor Moise
- Original Message - From: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net
To: Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com; Avygdor Moise a...@fdos.ca
Cc: Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com; Jonathan Brodkin
jonathan.brod
Time for another contrarion position...
Tony, why do you say the most pressing problem is getting past the IESG, and
what evidence do you have that we are going to be attacking I-Ds.
- Ralph
On Oct 26, 2010, at 4:54 PM 10/26/10, Tony Hain wrote:
[...]As many others have said, the most
I'll take the contrarian position.
Demonstrate to me that the barriers for PS really are higher than they used to
be.
- Ralph
On Oct 26, 2010, at 10:39 AM 10/26/10, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 26.10.2010 16:31, Dave CROCKER wrote:
...
This seems to be the core idea driving support for this
Combining an excellent suggestion from Donald and Avygdor's clarification as to
the official status of this document, I suggest an RFC Editor note to add the
following text as a new last paragraph in the Introduction:
This document was created by technical experts of the ANSI C12.22
and
Bernard - this text is, in my opinion, intended to sync the internal data
structures if the RA advertises different prefixes than the last time the host
was attached to this link:
On reception of a Router Advertisement the host MUST go through the
SDAT and mark all the addresses
I am OK with publication of the document if Bernard's comments are addressed.
- Ralph
On Aug 18, 2010, at 6:19 PM 8/18/10, Bernard Aboba wrote:
Overall, I think the document the document looks good. Some comments:
Section 2.4
The host uses a combination of unicast
Neighbor
:
In that scenario, it makes sense to me.
However, if the RA advertises the same prefixes would there be a reason to
mark all addresses as inoperable?
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:50 PM
To: Bernard Aboba
Cc: IETF
My recollection is that they were a gift from Craig Partridge...
- Ralph
On Aug 17, 2010, at 2:23 PM 8/17/10, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 17 aug 2010, at 19.43, Fred Baker wrote:
I actually really appreciated Marshall Rose's shirt from Danbury -
Internet Staff
+1
Patrik
One of the contributors, in my opinion, to the evolution of an ad hoc meeting
in a bar to Bar Bof as Fred defines it has been a series of small actions,
intended to facilitate the organization ad hoc meetings, that have had the
unintended consequence of increasing the apparent close
So, with all this discussion, I'm still not clear what to expect.
When I walk up to a train ticket kiosk in Schiphol, should I expect to
be able to use my US-issued, non-chip credit card (AMEX, VISA - I
don't care as long as *one* of them works), or should I have a fistful
of Euros handy?
I propose $40 for a seat at the table in the front of the meeting
rooms, $20 for a seat toward the front with extra legroom and $100 for
an exit row.
- Ralph
On Mar 22, 2010, at 5:46 PM 3/22/10, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Ever had a dot on your badge? Well this is your chance.
...
You
I agree with Christian that there are two orthogonal issues. Comments
in line...
- Ralph
On Apr 22, 2009, at 1:19 AM 4/22/09, Christian Vogt wrote:
Folks -
It seems that folks are considering two related, yet still orthogonal
topics for inclusion in the MIF charter:
- Conflicts between
Christian - I think address selection is part but not all of the
problem.
I would be happy to see a summary of current practice in dealing with
simultaneous attachment to multiple networks. How does an iPhone
decide between its WiFi and dell interfaces? How does an RG that can
reach
Ralph Droms rdr...@cisco.com wrote:
For example, would a host process
information received from a Starbucks network over its 802.11
interface differently from information received a home network over
the 802.11 interface?
It's even more fun than that. How do we reliably know that we
Ted - I think it's just as likely for the RG to get different
information from different interfaces (or different administrative
domains) as it is for a host to get get different information
directly. Traffic from the host, which is then forwarded by the RG to
one of more than one
s...@employees.org:
Excerpts from Ralph Droms on Fri, Apr 10, 2009 03:25:49PM -0400:
Scott raises an interesting point about identifying the source of
options when delivered to clients.
BTW, Scott - what is DHS?
Sorry, DHCP server
The usual case - almost the only case today
in, but does this or could this interact with
the options specified in RFC3046 in an unexpected way?
At 01:41 PM 4/11/2009, Ralph Droms wrote:
Scott - even knowing which interface which DHCP information came
from may not be enough for a device with multiple interfaces. Can
policies for merging
- or does the device need to differentiate
between Verizon Wireless and Starbucks if I'm away from home? Or
differentiate between my ATT femtocell and my home WiFi network?
- Ralph
On Apr 11, 2009, at 6:00 AM 4/11/09, Scott Brim wrote:
Excerpts from Ralph Droms on Fri, Apr 10, 2009 03:25:49PM
Scott raises an interesting point about identifying the source of
options when delivered to clients.
BTW, Scott - what is DHS?
The usual case - almost the only case today - is that there is a
single upstream service provider and a single source of DHCP options
to be passed along to the
(and, in fact, mostly
unimplemented).
- Ralph
On Dec 2, 2008, at Dec 2, 2008,3:53 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, 02 December, 2008 15:23 -0500 Ralph Droms
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sam - I think most of the issues in your review of
draft-raj-dhc-tftp-addr-option-04 can be resolved
Jari - I agree that mentioning security issues, pointing to the
Security Considerations in RFC 2131 and citing RFC 3118, is appropriate.
Responding to Richard...
On Dec 2, 2008, at Dec 2, 2008,5:35 PM, Richard Johnson wrote:
Ok, maybe I'm not understanding what's being suggested or maybe I'm
Iljitsch - I understand the theory behind what you're describing...in
practice, it's a hard problem to know where all the prefixes are that
should be changed; worse yet, it's hard to know which prefixes in
which parts of the configuration should be replaced with new prefixes,
and which
Sam - I think most of the issues in your review of draft-raj-dhc-tftp-
addr-option-04 can be resolved by reviewing the purposes of RFC 3942
and publishing Informational RFCs describing DHCP option codes.
Fundamentally, the reason to publish RFCs under the process described
in RFC 3942 is
Would a reasonable BCP for future docs looks something like:
terms defined in RFC 2119 are to be capitalized for clarity;
alternatives for RFC 2119 terms, such as ought and can are to be
used in
non-normative text to avoid confusion
- Ralph
On Jun 30, 2008, at Jun 30, 2008,10:08 AM,
No, you're not the only one seeing insanity.
- Ralph
On Jun 18, 2008, at Jun 18, 2008,12:44 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Hi,
Let me see if I understand this.
- This is the specification for SMTP. It's was first used on the
Arpanet.
- It is probably as widely deployed as IP and TCP. Maybe
Without some way to choose which rule to use and when to use it, how
can a recommendation that has conditional rule usage be implemented?
- Ralph
On Jun 3, 2008, at Jun 3, 2008,8:50 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Longest match in 3484 is a hack, ant it
nominaions. As Brian writes,
the IAB can ask for specific additional information in those cases where
it finds that information is necessary to complete its due diligence.
- Ralph
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-03-17 14:16, Ralph Droms wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Michael
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Michael StJohns wrote:
[...]
Put another way, the Nomcom is a search committee, but the hiring
authority resides in the confirming bodies.
Mike - I fundamentally and strongly disagree. In my opinoin, the Nomcom
is the hiring committee; the confirming body is the
Lakshminath - thanks a lot for publishing this report. We all
appreciate and applaud the work you and the Nomcom put into this
year's I* selections, and I especially appreciate that you invested
the time and effort - after all that earlier hard work - to produce
this report. It will be
On Mar 6, 2008, at Mar 6, 2008,8:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-03-07 14:06, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Brian,
A small clarification below on the reference to the interpretation
problems related to 3777:
On 3/6/2008 4:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave,
On 2008-03-07 12:34,
Iljitsch raises an interesting point that I'll generalize: can we
maximize the learning by identifying specific applications to target
for IPv6 compatibility during the IPv4 eclipse?
- Ralph
On Feb 29, 2008, at Feb 29, 2008,9:34 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
What's going on with the
Seems to me we need ensure some formality in the experiment if we
expect to get anything out of it. Asking everyone to send in notes
from their experience won't be enough - especially, as some have
predicted, if many participants get exactly 0% Internet connectivity
while IPv4 is off.
Fred - to be clear, that DHCPv6 interop testing was not associated in
any way with the dhc WG. I'll let the organizers comment on any more
general sponsorship arrangement or other association of the event with
the IETF.
- Ralph
On Dec 17, 2007, at Dec 17, 2007,12:23 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
left the station...
- Ralph
On Oct 6, 2007, at Oct 6, 2007,4:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-10-05 09:12, Ralph Droms wrote:
Typo: should read IPv6 ~= IPv4+more_bits...
- Ralph
On Oct 4, 2007, at Oct 4, 2007,4:52 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
Regarding transition:
On Sep 14, 2007, at Sep 14
issues.
- Ralph
On Oct 6, 2007, at Oct 6, 2007,4:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-10-05 09:12, Ralph Droms wrote:
Typo: should read IPv6 ~= IPv4+more_bits...
- Ralph
On Oct 4, 2007, at Oct 4, 2007,4:52 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
Regarding transition:
On Sep 14, 2007, at Sep 14, 2007,3:43 PM
Regarding transition:
On Sep 14, 2007, at Sep 14, 2007,3:43 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Unless I've missed something rather basic, in the case of IPv6,
very little
attention was paid to facilitating transition by maximizing
interoperability
with the IPv4 installed base.
Dave, I have to agree
Typo: should read IPv6 ~= IPv4+more_bits...
- Ralph
On Oct 4, 2007, at Oct 4, 2007,4:52 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
Regarding transition:
On Sep 14, 2007, at Sep 14, 2007,3:43 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Unless I've missed something rather basic, in the case of IPv6,
very little
attention
Hear, hear. We're making binary claims in a grey-scale world of
economics.
Put the costs on the table and let the enterprises and ISPs fight out
PI/PA.
- Ralph
On Sep 13, 2007, at Sep 13, 2007,5:27 AM, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
wrote:
my persistent question to the enterprise
I seem to remember that the idea of a postmortem was discussed at
some point. I don't know that anything came of that discussion.
Having some facts and data to examine probably beats anecdotal
observations about network behavior.
I think David is wise to observe that experience like DHCP
DHCP is also a frequently-used building block (some would say
attractive nuisance). Stig, Jari and I are trying to identify drafts
from outside the dhc WG that extend DHCP or use DHCP in novel ways,
so we can provide guidance to the authors of those drafts as early as
possible. Jari and
Can we please leave the specific opinions about DHCP out of this discussion?
The dhc WG has done its due diligence, with review and support from the IETF
and the IESG, to put into place processes to govern assignment of extensions
to DHCP and to accommodate future extensions to both DHCPv4 and
Huh? DHCP is carried in UDP and IP. There is a little funkiness in the
DHCPv4 transport, which we wouldn't have need if IPv4 link-local addresses
had been defined when RFC 2131 was published. DHCPv6 uses link-local
addresses and garden-variety IPv6.
- Ralph
On 4/20/07 1:48 PM, Hallam-Baker,
.
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 1:57 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; David W. Hankins; ietf@ietf.org
Cc: GEOPRIV WG
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68
Working Group Hums
Huh? DHCP is carried in UDP
I visited Prague about two years ago and had the same experience as Ed. I
traveled via the Metro and on foot, visited all the tourist traps; had no
problems and never felt unsafe.
- Ralph
On 3/7/07 10:54 AM, Edward Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will attest to Prague being survivable. I
Following up on that, I suggest a requirement that any DISCUSSes be posted
to that mailing list, along with conversation/resolution of the DISCUSSes.
I would very much like to see those last steps out in the open.
Only drawback to separate mailing list is that it requires active
involvement to
I read Dave's words clear statement of what actions must be taken to clear
the Discuss not as requiring the specification of a complete fix, but
rather as an indication of what needs to happen to the draft.
Implementation details of meeting those requirements are left to the WG.
I agree with Dave
Comment about DHCPv6 question in line...
- Ralph
-Original Message-
From: Soliman, Hesham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 11/22/2006 4:51 AM
To: Scott W Brim; General Area Review Team; Jari Arkko; Mark Townsley
(townsley); Bob Hinden; Brian Haberman; Thomas Narten; Erik Nordmark;
Here are my comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt. In general, I think
the document is ready for publication. Included below are a few substantive
comments that I would like to see addressed before publication, and some
editorial corrections/suggestions/comments.
- Ralph
-
Bob - depends on the meaning of straw poll. Any vote that results in an
action should be restricted to the 10 voting members. My understanding of
straw poll is an opinion poll that results in no direct action.
But I'm speculating and don't know what straw poll means in the context
we're
OK, now I have to step in with a response and to correct a couple of
misconceptions.
On 9/28/06 12:27 PM, John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Issue 1: Even if the option is desirable and the motivation for
it is clear, the specification is inadequate in definitions and
specificity in
Perhaps we could avoid similar delays in generating the final list of
volunteers in the future:
Secretariat generates a list of eligible volunteers as early as possible
(As far as I know, eligibility data is available well before call for
volunteers is posted)
List is used to verify
What is the current state of the nea WG? I don't see it listed at
http://ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html
- Ralph
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Sam - I see where the nea BOF was more-or-less associated with the Internet
Area at IETF 65. Do you expect that nea would (if eventually chartered)
land in Internet or Security?
- Ralph
On 5/26/06 10:58 AM, Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ralph == Ralph Droms [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Dave - one quick follow on to your observation about will not work that
falls somewhere between will not work and don't like it. There is
another possibility: works, but there's a much simpler way to meet the same
requirements...
- Ralph
On 5/26/06 11:34 AM, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
