Date:Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:50:40 +1100
From:Geoff Huston g...@apnic.net
Message-ID: 08fcd406-f556-4f7e-ba98-9591d161a...@apnic.net
| With respect Robert, I disagree with your line of argument and I disagree
| with your assertion that a reference to an existing RFC
Date:Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:16:58 +1100
From:Geoff Huston g...@apnic.net
Message-ID: 99b9866c-41d6-4784-aa69-cd25e5910...@apnic.net
I have no idea whether the allocation requested is reasonable or not,
I haven't read the draft (and unless it becomes more widely used than
Date:Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:08:51 -0800
From:Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
Message-ID: 4ed87983.4090...@dougbarton.us
| Step 3: If your customer has somehow chosen the same prefix, tell them
| they can't do that.
Another alternative there is for the ISP to simply
Date:Fri, 2 Dec 2011 15:20:34 -0800
From:Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com
Message-ID:
ca+9kkmajnup60nczwctokzstctk1lrdvrfqjzmbzpfbgoo5...@mail.gmail.com
| Big enterprises buy small ones; sometimes at a great rate.
And this itself is a good argument that 1918 space is
Date:Tue, 29 Nov 2011 21:09:22 -0700
From:Sumanth Channabasappa suma...@cablelabs.com
Message-ID: 76AC5FEF83F1E64491446437EA81A61F81D7CBBA11@srvxchg
This whole question is weird, when someone needs an address to use,
and given that the pool of free (or close to it),
One final message from me on this topic, then I'm done ...
Date:Mon, 17 May 2010 08:10:01 +0200
From:Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com
Message-ID: 4bf0ddb9.60...@cisco.com
| but I do accept that they have the authority to make such a statement,
| if rough consensus
Date:Mon, 10 May 2010 21:29:30 -0400
From:Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com
Message-ID: aanlktikr_ekunqtsglxsvleeda8ndd8nxu6ofmpiw...@mail.gmail.com
| It's fine if you think the qualification threshold should be a bit
| lower than what I think. But to change it,
Date:Mon, 10 May 2010 16:25:12 -0400
From:Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
Message-ID: 4be86ba8.2060...@vigilsec.com
| From the discussion at the plenary, it was clear to me that some people
| expected the purchase of a day pass to count as participating in that
Date:Thu, 06 May 2010 18:07:40 -0400
From:The IESG i...@ietf.org
Message-ID: 4be33dac.80...@ietf.org
| The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
| Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on
| a policy statement,
Date:Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:50:30 +0200
From:Roni Even ron.even@gmail.com
Message-ID: 4b33100a.01135e0a.2ab9.8...@mx.google.com
| I am not sure but are you suggesting that the IETF will define the
| requirements, metric and quality assessment requirements and
Date:Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:15:01 -0800 (PST)
From:IESG Secretary iesg-secret...@ietf.org
Message-ID: 20091223171501.7bae33a6...@core3.amsl.com
Given ...
| There exist codecs that can be widely implemented and easily
| distributed, but that are not standardized
Date:Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:48:18 +0200
From:Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
hannes.tschofe...@nsn.com
Message-ID:
3d3c75174cb95f42ad6bcc56eb450204c...@fiesexc015.nsn-intra.net
| That's something for the working group to figure out.
| My experience: things
Date:20 Nov 2009 05:36:18 -
From:John Levine jo...@iecc.com
Message-ID: 20091120053618.8729.qm...@simone.iecc.com
| But I have often been sorely tempted to return messages like this with
| boilerplate of my own explaining that since I cannot accept the
|
Date:23 Nov 2009 10:54:09 -0500
From:John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com
Message-ID: alpine.bsf.2.00.0911231045140.12...@simone.lan
| You must know different CEOs and lawyers than I do. The CEO's secretary
| will send it to the lawyer, and the lawyer will say yes,
Date:Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:16:37 -0400
From:Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
Message-ID: 20091009181642.626a8f24...@odin.smetech.net
| You have the motivations for rfc3932bis completely confused. The
| IESG is not the source for the proposed changes to RFC 3932.
Date:Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
From:Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com
Message-ID: pine.gso.4.63.0909181236360.12...@pita.cisco.com
| Whether or not we should meet in China based on principles of
| free speech and such is, I think, something we need to come
Date:Wed, 09 Sep 2009 07:17:50 -0400
From:Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu
Message-ID: tsl7hw89xk1@mit.edu
| Right; I think I made it fairly clear in my reply to John Klensin that
| I disagreed fairly strongly with that and argued why I believed that
| the
Date:Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:53:42 -0400
From:Polk, William T. william.p...@nist.gov
Message-ID: c6cd2ba6.1483b%tim.p...@nist.gov
| IMHO, the RFC series (as comprised by the four document streams) is not
| similar to IEEE Transactions on Networking or the NY Times. I
Date:Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:29:26 +0300
From:Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net
Message-ID: 4a9bd036.1000...@piuha.net
| And now back to the input that I wanted to hear. I would like to get a
| sense from the list whether you prefer (a) that any exceptional IESG
|
Date:Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:37:31 +0300
From:Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net
Message-ID: 4a9d239b.7070...@piuha.net
| Right, and we are not.
That is very good to hear. I haven't been watching much of recent
IETF happenings (last few years) so I explicitly make no
Date:Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:57:01 +0200
From:Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no
Message-ID: 4a6566bd.1080...@alvestrand.no
| We have two possibilities:
|
| 1 - the update consists of revisions of *every single RFC* that
| references the BSD license
| 2 -
Date:Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:40:52 +0200
From:Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no
Message-ID: 4a65ef94.2050...@alvestrand.no
| I'm afraid that your perception disagrees with the structure that RFC
| 5378 set up.
I was misunderstanding what's going on, Joel has
To simplify the text, and make things a little simpler, I suggest
inventing a new name for the thing that acts as nomcom chair has
in the past, but which can act before the nomcom chair is appointed.
Say, that was to be called convenor - then the doc would
define that position
The
In other organisations, when I see (what has been called here), an
over the wall list of changes, I usually expect, and usually receive,
in addition to the list of changes (along with what used to be there)
all of which exists here, some kind of explanation why the changes are
being proposed.
Date:Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
From:IESG Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
Date:Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:24:39 +0200
From:Lars Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The first bullet says deal with the world as it is; the second
| says deal with the world as you wish it were
|
| I think that is a very sensible
Date:Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:13:46 -0500
From:Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I'm actually OK with the process that Dave is not OK with, because I'm
| assuming that public vetting can also be retroactive - as long as the
| IESG
Date:Wed, 9 Jul 2008 09:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
From:The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
| the following document:
|
| - 'IANA Considerations for the IPv4 and IPv6
Date:Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:32:59 +0200
From:Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Isn't the IESG is meant to serve two roles?
Yes, but not the two you enumerated. The first, and far and away
most important, is to cause the work to get done -
Date:Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:02:44 +0100
From:Debbie Garside [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I see your point.
I doubt that you do.
| I do think, assuming it is not already documented and
| further assuming this is the whole point of the appeal,
Date:Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:35:54 +0200
From:Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Figuring out what the demonstrated will of the IETF is
| is the job of the IESG,
Agreed, that is part of their role.
| and in the case of an individual
Date:Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:50:02 +0100
From:Debbie Garside [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I would also add that to go against an IETF BCP
Huh? The BCP in question says (in a bit more eloquent form)
Here are some domain names that are reserved
Date:Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:23:28 +1200
From:Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Which, in fairness, the IESG has documented, in the DISCUSS criteria
| document and generally in practice, over the last several years.
The IESG is free
Date:Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:04:38 +1300
From:Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| It's the instant of formal publication, and that changes at least
| two things:
|
| 1. It allows other SDOs that require a normative citation to
Date:Sun, 2 Dec 2007 17:34:14 -0800
From:Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Only issue I would raise here is don't expire the ID if this situation
| arises...
That did not really need to be said - once submitted for IESG
Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:29:48 +0200
From:Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| We are overlapping a term that is
| commonly used by the ITU the way working group is used by the IETF.
| Let's not make the process any more confusing than
Date:Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:08:13 -0700
From:Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| (Now would be an excellent time to
| consider updates/clarifications to the above text.)
Aside from the minor problem that the paragraph you quoted is way
Date:Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:28:29 -0400
From:Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Um, this train left the station a LONG time ago. RFC 2434 (and
| existing practice) have given the role of approving assignments to the
| technical/protocol
Date:Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:50:06 +0200
From:Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The draft (ignoring 3683) restores 2418 and adds the extra powers
| created by 3934.
I'm sure that's what you're intending, and it may even be that that
Date:Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:42:38 +0200
From:Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
|| 1) Do you support the proposal in section 2 of the draft to restore
|| the AD and IESG's ability to suspend posting rights for longer than
Date:Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:29:37 -0400
From:The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I guess I should reply to the questions...
| 1) Do you support the proposal in section 2 of the draft to restore
| the AD and IESG's ability to suspend posting
Date:Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:46:47 +0200
From:Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Actually, this document doesn't *need* to contain any rationale.
| The question is whether the community agrees. It doesn't say the IESG;
| it uses the
Date:Wed, 19 Jul 2006 03:06:10 +0200
From:Henrik Levkowetz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Ok. So I'm not sure what you propose here - should we not require
| rsync and ftp mirroring capability, or should we ask for it, and not
| specify
Date:Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:40:06 -0700
From:Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| That's a problem when it changes page numbers (which end up being as
| useful as semantic tags) or figures. Or (as importantly) template or
| boilerplate text.
I cannot see why there's a debate going on here. If someone, anyone,
can read a spec, and, in good faith, point out a possible ambiguity in
the text, before the doc is finalised, and if fixing it to avoid the problem
is easy, what possible justification can there be for not adding a few
words
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 summary, there
is nothing broken beyond your understanding of
Date:Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:09:07 -0400
From:Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am not going to comment on the substance of the issues, or the
doc in question, as I haven't been following what is happening with
it, nor have a read a
Date:Thu, 7 Jul 2005 22:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
From:C. M. Heard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Would it be unreasonable to ask that you point to some text in the
| document to support your claim? Or lacking that, to point to some
| publically
Date:Wed, 06 Jul 2005 17:28:28 +0200
From:Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Well, that is not how I read the text in RFC 2460. It's pretty clear
| to me that there are only 32 option codes and that the other three bits
| don't
Date:Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:32:12 +0200
From:Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Also remember that no consensus in an issue like this, really needs to
| mean no authority - if you cannot get at least most of the community to
|
Date:Tue, 5 Jul 2005 00:58:36 -0700
From:Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The problem is the really small size of the option type field in IPv6.
| There really only are 5 bits available for numbering both the hop by hop
| and
Date:Fri, 1 Jul 2005 15:16:09 -0400
From:Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| In what way would that differ from Specification Required?
See below.
| No. That one (Specification Required) explicitly states that the
| document
Date:Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:39:37 -0400
From:Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The arguments against what the IESG has done seem,
| mostly, to be that we should have gotten IETF consensus before
| making a decision.
That is
Date:Fri, 01 Jul 2005 14:11:47 +0800
From:Scott W Brim sbrim@cisco.com
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scot,
| Something like this must have a serious, long-term IETF review.
| We need to take the overall design of the Internet into
| account and not just be
Date:Fri, 1 Jul 2005 09:36:30 +0300 (EEST)
From:Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| though I can understand the arguments why
| documenting the proposed use could be useful.
I believe it is documented (though I haven't read the
Apologies for missing the second 't' in your name in the message
I sent to the list - I must have been asleep...
kre
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Date:Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:50:01 -0400
From:Jeffrey Hutzelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Have you read the spec in question?
I have not, and I expressly will not, because that cannot possibly be
relevant.
| The issue is not that the presence
Date:Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:12:07 -0400
From:Jeffrey Hutzelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Note that I would consider it entirely reasonable for the IESG to say that
| something conflicts with work in the IETF on the grounds that its
|
Date:Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:32:41 +0200
From:Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have yet to read John's draft, but there's one comment that you
made that I want to comment on.
| Summary: I think the document offers very good
Date:Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:57:15 +0100
From:Colin Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I do not find this argument persuasive, since the media types in
| question have been deliberately specified as framed types to avoid
| this issue.
I
Date:Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:35:53 +0100
From:Colin Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| You're misunderstanding what is being done.
Thanks for the explanations, that helps.
| The question becomes: will the leakage go away if we separate the
Date:Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:38:19 +0200
From:Magnus Westerlund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I understand everything you're saying, except this part...
| I do want to point out that how we RTP uses the top-part of the media
| type name. They are
Date:Fri, 1 Jul 2005 06:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
From:Keith McCloghrie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| On the contrary, having vendor OID space has been a tremendous success.
OK, I didn't mean what I said in the way you clearly interpreted it.
I
Date:Fri, 01 Jul 2005 16:14:54 +0200
From:Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I don't agree, which is no surprise.
Not really!
| RFC 2434 also says (section 2):
|
|One way to insure community review of prospective
Date:Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:24:42 -0400
From:Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| So if someone documented a code point in a registry with a scares
| number of available code points which was actively harmful to the
| entire
Date:Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:39:05 -0400
From:Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| You seem to be arguing that the only thing that the IESG _should_
| have done regarding this allocation was to determine whether or not a
| document
Date:Fri, 01 Jul 2005 03:25:25 +0200
From:Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| As I said in the plenary in Minneapolis, my goal is for the IESG to be
| able to *steer*. Not to rule. Steering means finding the narrow line
| between
Date:Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:21:10 -0400
From:Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The RFc 2780 procedures are a sparse. We'd all be happier if the
| community had given us more advice on what criteria to use when
| evaluating hop-by-hop
Date:Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:23:47 -0400
From:Bill Sommerfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| assigning a final IPv6 option codepoint might actually be
| counterproductive (as early behavior might be cast in code, concrete, or
| silicon and forever
Date:Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:16:56 +0200
From:Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Yakov Rekhter wrote:
| What was the reason(s) the request was made for an assignment
| that required IESG Approval, rather than either Specification
Date:Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:13:20 +0200
From:Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Let's look at an analogy that worked just as you suggest: the assignment
| of 10/8 172.16/16 and 192.168/16 in RFC 1597.
They'e not options. There's no
Date:Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:21:35 +0200
From:Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Not publicly. Certainly there was a problem. Indeed someone (I forget
| who) had made a request for a /8, which forced the issue.
At the time 1597 was being
Date:Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:00:22 +0200
From:Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The debate (except that since the work hadn't been brought to the IETF,
| the debate hasn't happened)
Except that it has been reported that the work was
Date:Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:26:46 -0700
From:Barbara Roseman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| To address some misunderstandings of IANA's role in this action, [...]
I hadn't actually noted any. As best I can recall, there neither has
been, nor
Date:Mon, 27 Jun 2005 13:28:24 -0400
From:Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| What 2434 says about IESG approval is:
|
|IESG Approval - New assignments must be approved by the IESG, but
| there is no requirement
Date:Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:25:24 -0700
From:Bob Hinden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| There are IPv6 option types available, but this was a request for an IPv6
| hop-by-hop option.
I had always assumed that the option space for HBH and
Date:Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:03:03 +0100
From:Colin Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sure, but if the display agent is unaware of the restrictions, it won't
| ever be able to receive the media data. The example I have in mind in
|
Date:Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:20:28 +0100
From:Colin Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| RFC 3555 allows media types to be defined for transport only via RTP.
| The majority of these registrations are under the audio and video
| top-level
Date:03 Feb 2005 00:54:29 -0500
From:stanislav shalunov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is totally irrelevant to the doc in question, but ...
| Actually, the convention used in C and Perl is to use \0, followed by
| zero, one, or two octal
Date:Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:28:52 +0100
From:Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| In general, any time you have a set of values that can change over time,
| and there is a reason for the community to know the currently-valid set
Date:Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:40:56 -0500 (EST)
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa)
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Not even my powers of pithy commentary can scale the heights needed to
| adequately comment on the fact that we've now consumed more than twice
|
Date:Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:33:18 -0400
From:Eric A. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Others should note that RFC2048 is designed to facilitate registrations --
| more definitions for common data-types are widely preferred over a
|
Date:Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:18:57 +0200
From:Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| However, I find the criticisms raised against the process leading to the
| forwarding of these documents to the IESG to be very much off target.
Date:Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:30:51 +0100
From:Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Given that a large portion of the IETF does not in fact subscribe to the
| ietf-announce list,
That's irrelevant, anyone who cares can subscribe
Date:19 Feb 2003 05:44:54 -
From:D. J. Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| In the situation under discussion, one server has both zones, so that
| server _can_ guarantee RFC 1034 consistency---and my server _does_.
| (BIND 8 also
Date:Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:25:40 -0500 (EST)
From:Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Andreas Gustafsson wrote:
| RFC1035 specifically suggests using separate data structures
| that ensure that no such mixing
Date:15 Feb 2003 04:29:44 -
From:D. J. Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|* The BIND company's ``AXFR clarifications'' try to eliminate the
| RFC 1034 database-consistency requirements, allowing data for the
| same
Date:14 Feb 2003 10:32:28 -
From:D. J. Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| This ``clarification'' document prohibits several perfectly legitimate,
| very widely deployed, AXFR implementation techniques.
It prohibits some odd-ball
Date:Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:45:13 -0500
From:Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I had been avoiding reading this set of messages, because I couldn't
really see discussions of what was required to get IANA to assign a
number in some (irrelevant
Date:Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:12:05 -0500
From:Jacqueline Hargest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Applications Area.
[...]
| Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service environments
|
This is an appeal to the IAB against the IESG decision to reject
my appeal against their earlier decision to approve the publication
of draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt as a Draft Standard.
The issues here are very simple, and no lengthy examination of mailing
list archives, taking of
I'm trying to work out why anyone (outside the IESG anyway) really
cares about this issue.
Areas are a bureaucratic invention of the IESG - they have their
uses for sure, but their real purpose is for dividing up the WG's
amongst ADs who are able to handle them.
Deciding how many areas should
Date:Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:57:11 -0500
From:Alagna, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: 19DE307E1D15D61193690008C75D6E94030BF46A@TBHWMIS5
| The use of a master list to specify what version is
| current will stop a lot of noise. Suppose edits are to be made to version
Date:Sat, 9 Nov 2002 17:02:29 -0500
From:Scott W Brim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: 015b01c2883c$0ca35040$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Personally I wouldn't consider a few messages, giving me clues about
| what you are doing with/to a document, to be noise or disrupting.
Date:Mon, 04 Nov 2002 16:44:11 -0500
From:Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| For the last year or so, the secretariat has been working on a tool to help
| us keep track of what documents are on our plate, what state they are
Date:Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:04:35 -0700
From:Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: 2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E327@server2000
| kre wrote:
| It's the root of the Internet, not OSI or anything else.
| Maybe TCP/IP needs to be more competative.
No he
Date:Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:01:56 -0400
From:Bill Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: 000701c26892$52428400$5844903f@a
| I think the main goal is to compete with OSI's much more defined model.
Why?
| I for one, don't want to see OSI overtake in any way
Date:Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:44:06 -0400 (EDT)
From:Donald Eastlake 3rd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Drafts expire in six months and get automatically removed
Eventually, which I think is relevant here. The draft in question
has passed its
Date:Mon, 16 Sep 2002 03:57:34 +0200
From:Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: 44304256.1032148654@localhost
| Blithely ignoring a conclusion because it was drawn a year ago is as
| harmful (IMHO) as blithely ignoring new ideas because they
Date:Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:58:21 -0500
From:Matt Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Eve on port X can keep up a steady stream of ARP
| replies to Alice on port Y and Bob on port Z, telling each that the
| MAC address corresponding to their
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
