Russ,
On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 17:24 -0400, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82.
The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this
schedule:
In principle this
Glen,
On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 17:14 +0700, Glen Zorn wrote:
If the idea of not fixing agendas is to remain, then any experiments for
extending the Friday schedule pretty much mean that everyone has to
extend their stay, doesn't it? I think if we want to use Friday time
properly, then
tried to interest the IETF in producing road
maps for all the major protocols/protocol families. As a worked
example, we produced a roadmap for TCP. It seems to me that you are
asking for more roadmaps.
Bob Braden
On 3/1/2011 4:18 AM, Shane Kerr wrote:
Mark,
FWIW, this came up
Andrew,
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 07:29 -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 01:18:12PM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:
FWIW, this came up in the dnsext working group a few years ago. In the
end, I don't think anything was done, which is kind of a shame.
Nothing was done for want
Joel,
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 12:49 -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
in v6ops ops we have documents like:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jankiewicz-v6ops-v4v6biblio-03.txt
Cool, this is actually the document I was looking for when I started
this thread - even if it doesn't have the logging
Tony, Dave,
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 19:59 +, Tony Finch wrote:
On 1 Mar 2011, at 18:56, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
If you all promise to keep in mind that it is only a /very/ rough
and formative effort, please take a look at:
http://bbiw.net/trac/suites/
This seems
:
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shane Kerr
[sh...@isc.org]
My question is... how is this advice expected to trickle out into actual
use? There are more than 6000 RFCs, and they don't seem to be organized
in a useful way that I
All,
I just happened to notice this document on ietf-announce today:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations/
It seems quite reasonable.
My question is... how is this advice expected to trickle out into actual
use? There are more than 6000 RFCs, and
wrote:
Shane,
Like this one, aren't recommendations usually published as BCPs?
Bob
On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Shane Kerr wrote:
All,
I just happened to notice this document on ietf-announce today:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging
Yoav,
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 11:08 +0200, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:36 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I don't agree. If there is people essential to the meeting but can't pay,
as we all pay for that, we have the right to know.
I disagree with that. There is a privacy issue
Phillip,
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 10:00 -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I took a look at DNSCurve. Some points:
* It could certainly win.
* It is designed as a hack rather than an extension.
* It considers real world requirements that DNSSEC does not.
On the 'winning' front. Have people
John,
On Sat, 2010-01-09 at 12:25 -0500, John R. Levine wrote:
for the record, sink.arpa document was my idea and Joe volunteered to help
it has nothing to do with his day time job but is related to something that
Joe cares about, having explicit documentation of special cases.
In that
John,
On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 17:13 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
I am extremely concerned about getting into a situation in which
the IETF spends time debating issues that are basically
minutiae, designing (or fine-tuning) procedures or naming
schemes in a committee of a few thousand.
Tony,
[top-posting since that's what you did]
AIUI, the intention is not for the RIRs to be controlling the market,
but rather to provide the same value they do now: a location where I can
see who is responsible for a given address.
I think the RIRs all have a transfer policy now. So when a
Iljitsch,
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 15:24 +0200, 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.
Ohta-san,
On Sat, 2009-06-06 at 12:04 +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Shane Kerr wrote:
I think we all understand that it is possible to inject bad data into
the DNS at the parent.
I the parent in the same sense as in RFC 1034 - the delegating level.
So, for EXAMPLE.COM this would be COM
Ohta-san,
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 21:32 +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
I mention transport security merely because it is still required
with DNSSEC, because administrative security of DNSSEC is
cryptographically weak.
I think we all understand that it is possible to inject bad data into
the DNS at
Ohta-san,
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 22:15 +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
I think we all understand that it is possible to inject bad data into
the DNS at the parent.
What do you mean the parent?
Do you mean master zone file of the parent or some caching server
expected by a client to have
Janet,
Driving from Amsterdam is likely to be expensive - rental, fuel, and
parking are all pricey in Holland, and you run the risk of very long
traffic jams (605 kilometers total yesterday - about 3x the distance
from Amsterdam to Maastricht - a new record).
OTOH it's not far, and parts of it
Michael,
[ stripping out a lot of content to just say what I want to say... ]
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 10:38:11AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At this point, I think it is inappropriate to continue the Central
ULA discussion on the RIR policy lists.
Agreed.
In fact, if any policy were to
Brian,
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 01:34:31PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-05-11 23:32, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
The RIRs don't depend on IETF at all, they can define global
policies for things that the IETF failed to complete if that's the
case. IANA can be instructed the same by
21 matches
Mail list logo
