On 9/22/05, Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/22/05 1:14 AM, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The term real-time tends to mean sub-second, and often much faster than that.
That seems to be the vernacular use, but strictly speaking real-timeis about robust assurances of delivery
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 09:34:17 +0200, Lars Eggert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
based on your signature, you're presumably a citizen of the country that
has your fingerprints on file. This allows you - in theory - to
participate in the changing of these rules by voting, should you not
like them.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 08:54:30PM -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake Scott Michel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 07:09:12PM -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
When you add in the (assumed) requirements of backwards compatibility
with existing routers and hosts that don't
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:40:31PM +0100, jfcm wrote:
I am afraid you confuse layers. You can understand firewall as a traffic
filter (what you obviously consider here): this would be obviously absurd
fro what I address. You can also consider it as the appropriate protection
for the
jfcm wrote:
At 21:45 15/03/04, Scott Michel wrote:
We identified five main (immediate/middle terms) threats (and agree with
the USG they may be critical [we say vital]):
- DNS centralization
- IPv6 unique numbering plan
- mail usage architecture (not SMTP)
- governance confusion
- non concerted
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 07:09:12PM -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
When you add in the (assumed) requirements of backwards compatibility with
existing routers and hosts that don't implement a proposed extension, it
gets messy real quick.
The immediate handwave would be Tunnel it. I'm not
Eliot Lear wrote:
While in general I agree with what Scott Michel there is one point of
controversy no-so-hidden in his message:
Scott Michel wrote:
The article also mentioned something along the lines of Redesign The
Seven Layer Model! Frankly, I've always preferred the four layer IETF
model
jfcm wrote:
Interesting as this matches the conclusions of our own meetings in Dec/Jan
on national vulnerability to internet.
Sounds like the internet is a threat, not a tool. (Ok, I know you're not a
native English speaker, but it was hard to resist.)
Agreed. But for a non US observer this
