Date:Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:11:23 -1000
From:Foulk, Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Can anyone on this list tell me how one goes about making changes to
| existing RFC's? For instance, adding options to a protocol, or finding a
| portion
Date:Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:10:28 -0500
From:COLES, RICHARD J. (JSC-EV) (LM) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| So, I will repeat a previous posting: NASA needs FAX.
Since I'm the one who started this meaningless discussion with a side
comment to
Date:Tue, 02 Jul 2002 19:39:46 -0700
From:Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Keith, your term overloading suggests that RCPT-TO parameters are being
| invented here. They aren't.
First, let me say that I haven't read the draft, and
There's a simple reason why the DNS isn't suitable as a PKI,
and it has nothing to do with transitivity of trust, and nothing
to do with DNS packet size limitations, or root server workloads.
It is that DNS admins did not sign on for the job of authenticating
anything (with the possible
Date:Thu, 30 May 2002 23:13:24 -0500
From:Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| So, what exactly do folks think is a practical kind of change to the
| current IETF policies?
Actually, like many things, I suspect that the underlying
Date:Fri, 31 May 2002 09:03:43 -0400
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| OK.. I'll bite - at what point should a not-yet-full standard expire to
| historic?
Pretty quickly. What the max period at DS should be I'm not sure, but
certainly no
Date:Fri, 31 May 2002 11:48:24 -0400
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| How would that work (having 2 full standards for the same exact thing)?
Depends on what the thing is, and how precisely you mean the same exact
thing.
In some cases it
Date:Sun, 14 Apr 2002 14:59:39 -0400
From:Henning Schulzrinne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| A spec in a WG work item
| generally gets some amount of exclusivity, in that the working group
| isn't going to consider a similar spec by a
Date:Fri, 05 Apr 2002 14:41:53 -0500
From:John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: 9863660.1018017713@localhost
I really hoped to be able to avoid having to do this, yet again...
| As I read them, what 1034 and 1035 say is that the DNS can
| accomodate any
Date:Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:50:01 -0800 (PST)
From:Gary E. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Maybe it can, but that does not make it right.
|
| RFC 1035 DOMAIN NAMES - IMPLEMENTATION AND SPECIFICATION
|
| 2.3.1
If you actually go read
Date:Thu, 21 Mar 2002 00:57:18 +0859 ()
From:Masataka Ohta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Otha-san
| Anyway, with the fix, there is no reason to prefer Unicode-based
| local character sets, which is not widely used today, than existing
| local
Date:Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:32:41 +0859 ()
From:Masataka Ohta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| IDNA does _not_ work, because Unicode does not work in International
| context.
This argument is bogus, and always has been. If (and where) unicode
is
Date:Sun, 17 Mar 2002 21:24:50 +0800
From:Tim Kehres [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: 10e401c1cdb7$3ce5ffe0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Traditional metrics for defining spam
| (header forging, indiscriminate mass mailings, use of third party relays,
| etc.) don't seem to
Date:Sat, 16 Mar 2002 05:54:58 -0800
From:Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The DNS does not have searching.
The sad thing about this whole debate is that the DNS has nothing
to do with it at all.
It is touted as international domain
Date:Sun, 17 Mar 2002 09:24:32 -0700 (MST)
From:Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| That you cannot tell whether someone climbing through a window in a
| neighbor's house is a burglar or someone who lost their keys does not
|
Date:Sun, 17 Mar 2002 23:58:31 +0700
From:Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| This isn't really relevant, but it certainly changes whether a crime
| is being committed.
Actually, I didn't read your words closely enough - what you wrote
Date:Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:43:25 -0800 (PST)
From:RL 'Bob' Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Yes. The subject of the capitalized verb MUST (SHOULD, MAY, etc) is
| always, at least implicitly, an implementation of this specification.
You'd
Date:Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:52:17 -0800
From:Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Actually, MUST was first introduced in RFC1023 two years earlier :-)
That's true, it appears there, but there it really is just a
strange typographical convention
Date:Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:54:07 -0600
From:David Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Is the 2119 keyword simply must or MUST or Must or
| MuSt ... , or is the weight of the 2119 definition
| reserved strictly for MUST (all caps)? I assume
Date:Sun, 16 Dec 2001 15:22:46 -0600
From:Matt Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| For the name harvesting attack, my favorite idea
| (perhaps for no better reason than because its mine) is peel-off
| numbered (or bar-coded) labels on the
Date:Tue, 27 Nov 2001 02:32:56 +
From:Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks for the comments.
I'm quoting almost your entire message for the benefit of the ftpext
WG list ...
| There are a couple of unclarities in the specification
Date:Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:26:08 -0600
From:Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: a05100316b818642aca03@[216.43.25.67]
I don't care if the I-Ds get announced someplace else - it is just one
more list to join .. which is the sole downside to the proposal really,
Date:Mon, 12 Nov 2001 14:27:58 -0500
From:J. Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I'm a bit puzzled as to how you can agree that the location and identity of
| the mobile node ... [has] been unlinked, but still argue that the two
|
Date:Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:14:06 -0500
From:J. Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I was merely pointing out that your catechismic canard about no fully
| worked out example of separating location and identity is ludicrous
| on its
Date:Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:43:55 +0200
From:Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: 001801c15e13$7f84e550$0a0a@contactdish
| That's what killfiles and filters are for.
Nonsense. There's no reason everyone else should have to go install/fiddle
mail
Date:Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:34:57 -0400 (EDT)
From:James M Galvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| My interpretation of that charter (which I'll boldly proclaim is a
| shared interpretation by the General AD and my co-Chair) is that when an
|
Date:Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:15:57 +0200
From:Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: 930592431.1002881757@[192.168.1.31]
| Since 199x, the IETF's process issues have been handled by a couple of
| working groups, POISED and POISSON.
There was also
Date:Sat, 13 Oct 2001 11:20:08 -0400 (EDT)
From:James M Galvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Robert, it has never worked this way while I've been Chair. Neither
| POISSON nor any working group gets to do what it wants to do when it
| wants
Jiwoong Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
| If something is unclear, it's always recommendable to
| review the discussion archive and the whole document.
True, though not really applicable here, as nothing was really unclear.
| However, the specification should remain as a specification,
Date:Fri, 28 Sep 2001 08:45:10 -0400
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I assume that what you're asking is whether for exceptions (1) and (2),
| if the intent is that an ICMPv6 error MAY, SHOULD, or MUST be generated?
|
| If so, then you
Date:Mon, 21 May 2001 20:21:10 -0700
From:grenville armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Most spammers strike me as opportunistic and not overly interested
| in special-case-handling a couple of subscribe-to-send lists,
Of course, and as
Date:Wed, 03 Jan 2001 23:57:53 -0500 (EST)
From:James M Galvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aside from what Donald said...
| In addition to better managing resources on the server side I consider
| it a service to the subscribers.
I don't.
Date:Wed, 27 Dec 2000 14:52:19 -0600
From:Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I hate to argue with Randy's common sense but I don't think this
| works. There are always people who can't get travel authorisation
| until very late,
Date:Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:53:00 -0500
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I assume that by "Presentations", you mean "tutorial presentations",
| and not "Gee George, your proposal on the mailing list looks novel
| and interesting, but we're
Date:Sun, 1 Oct 2000 09:06:48 -0700
From:"Melinda Shore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: 004601c02bc1$9c4194c0$3c61530a@spandex
| Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't think that anybody
| has proposed that expired drafts are to be considered
| valid inputs to the
Date:Sun, 01 Oct 2000 11:16:31 -0400
From:vint cerf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I think the I-D are explicitly NOT public domain.
As a general rule, absolutely, I agree. However, drafts that I happen
to write which are WG output explicitly
Date:Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:13:41 -0400
From:"Simon St.Laurent" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I think the meaning of RFC publication would get diluted
| quickly, but that might be fine as well.
The "meaning" of RFC publication is also something
Date:Tue, 22 Aug 2000 07:48:11 -0600 (MDT)
From:Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Both IPv6 and ATM-to-the-desktop-and-replacing-IP
|- require major changes to applications, hosts TCP code, and the boxes
|that connect
Date:Fri, 18 Aug 2000 01:36:01 +0200 (CEST)
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Doran)
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I'm not upset at all. I am merely pointing out that there
| is a major cultural rift between IPv6-Lovers, a group which
| includes precious few ISPs
Date:Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:45:50 +0200
From:"Anthony Atkielski" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: 003f01bffe6e$1fd89ad0$0a0a@contactdish
| Not if all those things are routed to based on their address.
You left out the bit (from what you quoted) where Valdis said that
Date:Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:05:59 -0500
From:"Maddux, Michel" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [mam] This is a very good suggestion; some list servers add a mailto
| automatically. What's the chance up updated the I-D distribution to include
|
Date:Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:38:09 -0500
From:The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name Server Operations
| Working Group to consider Root Name Server Operational Requirements
|
Date:Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:20:43 -0800
From:Phil Karn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Even if I could find somebody at their help desk
| who understood a request to open up their filter to my own IP addresses,
| they would have no incentive to
Date:Mon, 14 Feb 2000 00:37:29 -0500
From:"Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I think that making egress filtering a BCP, applying community
| pressure, bringing law suites, etc., will be about as effective
| at
101 - 144 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
