3.4.1 says
The data plane behaviour of MPLS-TP is the same as the best current
practise for MPLS. This includes the setting of the S-Bit.
Without a reference, or any detail, I think this can only muddy the waters. How
do I know that your best practice is my best practice, or his?
Tom
I have reservations about the readiness of this I-D.
The technical content looks ok, but the process by which it has been arrived at
gives me pause.
It is a crucial document for MPLS-TP, perhaps the most important after the
requirements ones, like, say, RFC3411 for SNMP.
This Last Call is on
- Original Message -
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
To: Melinda Shore sh...@arsc.edu
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: Public musing on the nature of IETF membership and employmentstatus
On 2010-04-07 05:57, Melinda Shore
Since this last call was issued, there have been a further 340 messages posted
to the TLS list about how to tackle this topic, a degree of activity some I-Ds
may not see in their entire life cycle. This does suggest to me that consensus
may yet to be reached on the best way forward for this topic
I think that Stefan sums up the state of play well (after some 1,000 posts to
the TLS list with the number still rising steadily).
The IETF Last Call was premature, capricious even, given the ongoing debates on
the TLS list.
Technically, either draft will do but the mrex draft is superior in
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:03 PM
I just filled in the form.
The main potential issue I would have with such a meeting
is whether or not we'd have a normal meeting network
with normal Internet access.
It
Jason
When I saw the announcement of this I-D, I thought that the asrg Working
Group would be well placed to comment on this, since it has already had a
lot of discussion about bots and what to do with them:-)
You may be familiar with the I-Ds on blacklists that this WG has produced.
Tom Petch
Original Message -
From: John C Klensin john-l...@jck.com
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 4:33 PM
--On Monday, August 31, 2009 16:29 +0300 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I would like to get some further input from the community on
this draft.
...
And now back to the
Looking at RFC5102 (IPFIXinfo), it, like many RFC, has normative definitions
in the body of the document and a non-normative appendix, which, since it
brings the definitions together, is easier and so more likely to be used.
Indeed, the IANA considerations, s.7, tell IANA to register the
Petch
- Original Message -
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) droma...@avaya.com
To: Stephen Hanna sha...@juniper.net; Tom.Petch sisyp...@dial.pipex.com;
sec...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-netconf-partial-l...@tools.ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:10 PM
Subject: RE: secdir review
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Hanna sha...@juniper.net
To: i...@ietf.org; sec...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-netconf-partial-l...@tools.ietf.org
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:28 PM
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to
- Original Message -
From: Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk
To: Tom.Petch sisyp...@dial.pipex.com
Cc: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:36 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements (MPLS-TP
Requirements)toProposed Standard
Hi Tom,
a) The security
- Original Message -
From: Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk
To: Tom.Petch sisyp...@dial.pipex.com
Cc: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements (MPLS-TP
Requirements)toProposed Standard
Thanks for the input Tom,
I
I see some difficulties with the references in this I-D.
a) The security section of this I-D says
see[I-D.ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework]
which is an informative reference.
I believe that security should be normative, not informative, even in this, a
requirements (as opposed to
I think that the conclusion in s.4, that this is the solution to problems of
cooperation, will turn out to be rather rose-tinted in years to come.
It reminds me of a Professor of Engineering in my student days, who one year,
told us how successful his redesign of a road junction was, relieving
+1
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: SM s...@resistor.net
To: David Harrington ietf...@comcast.net; IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) droma...@avaya.com; ops...@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: LC summary for
- Original Message -
From: Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv
To: ietf list ietf@ietf.org; IAB IAB i...@iab.org; IESG
i...@ietf.org
Cc: Trustees trust...@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:32 AM
Subject: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
The IETF
Original Message -
From: Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:30 PM
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com writes:
Assuming that I'm not the only one who sees the recent patterns
as problematic
I don't think you are alone with that impression. The process
- Original Message -
From: Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: ops...@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:58 AM
In the discussion of IETF consensus of this document and its position as a
BCP or otherwise, can I throw into the melting pot
- Original Message -
From: Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no; IETF Discussion
ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
I don't know why you think moving the
Since about March 2009, most if not all, IETF Last Calls have included the text
The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:
I assume that this is telling us that there are no IPR Declarations relating to
this I-D and that if there were, then they would be listed.
My question is,
I am surprised not to have seen more formal reviews of the quartet for isms I-Ds
whose Last Call has just finished, updating as they do a Standard, while at the
same time introducing a Transport subsystem and model, and also introducing a
new (to snmp) way of providing Security.
I do not know
Allison
inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Allison Mankin man...@psg.com
To: ietf@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Cc: TSV Dir tsv-...@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 8:57 AM
Subject: Transport directorate review of Last Call: draft-ietf-isms-tmsm
Transport directorate review
Complete
Hi -
From: Tom.Petch sisyp...@dial.pipex.com
To: Alexa Morris amor...@amsl.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:34 AM
Subject: Re: Repair of Public Mail List Archives Complete
...
But when I really need an archive, to see what was
agreed in 2006, I have to get
Alexa
I noticed the lists were down and would normally have flagged it, as many
another organisation knows. I did not do so partly because of the usual problem
of where to flag it but more because what is the point? These are not so much
archives as current affairs. I can look at what has been
On an allied topic, I notice that a recent I-D - draft-ietf-sidr-arch-06.txt -
published March 9, 2009, had a running heading which included 'November 2008'.
Paranoid as I am, I immediately link this date to RFC5378 and the time when the
IETF Trust introduced the new rules for IPR.
Is there a
- Original Message -
From: Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk
To: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com; Tom.Petch sisyp...@dial.pipex.com;
ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-farrel-rtg-common-bnf (Reduced Backus-Naur
Form(RBNF) A Syntax Used
Reading this, and reading it and reading it again, I think we are going
backwards more than is desirable where code is concerned.
I expect that for some years, the s.6.iii.c clause will be common ie no
derivative works outside the Standards process without obtaining an adequate
licence. The
- Original Message -
From: Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu
To: Tom.Petch sisyp...@dial.pipex.com
Cc: Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: RFC 5378 contributions
So I wasn't on the IPR working group, but it seems to me
A) The start of this I-D seems a little coy - 'various protocol specifications'
'several protocols' - and this is reflected in the Abstract and Introduction.
Reading between the lines, this seems to have had its genesis in the 'Sub-IP
Area' specification; nothing wrong with that, but the coyness
- Original Message -
From: Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 1:23 AM
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:50:46AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Consider the threat model here.
This threat applies ONLY to material that the Trust licenses to
third parties (such as,
- Original Message -
From: Bill Fenner fen...@fenron.com
To: Tom.Petch sisyp...@dial.pipex.com
Cc: Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com; trust...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review andcomments
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:52 AM
Subject: Re: RFC 5378 contributions
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 08:33:35PM -0500, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
No, absolutely not.nbsp; Use of pre-5378 materials in the IETF
- Original Message -
From: Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
To: Tom.Petch sisyp...@dial.pipex.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 10:36 PM
Correction: RFC 5378 was published on 10 November 2008.
http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-dist/2008-November/002142.html
Thanks
Russ
I would like greater clarity about the meaning of pre-5378.
Ed's original announcement said that the new regime was in effect from 12
November 2008 (no time specified).
Ed's revised text uses 'before 10 November 2008' (no time specified).
Ed's original announcement also placed
- Original Message -
From: Dave CROCKER [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: [73attendees] IsUSA qualified for
2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Surely there is enough choice in venue to permit a global organization like
the
IETF
Not sure how wide this net is being cast but there has also been
draft-ietf-secsh-scp-sftp-ssh-uri
draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-extensions
draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: SM [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Behave WG
IETF lists are sometimes criticised for their dominance by purveyors of boxes,
by the lack of involvement of those who deploy and depend on those boxes.
A striking feature of this Last Call is the (most welcome) contributions by
these other communities and the fact that, in this instance, an IETF
- Original Message -
From: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Olaf Kolkman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: not the Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07
- Original Message -
From: Olaf Kolkman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07
I can imagine that the posting of an I-D may cause Pavlovian reactions
- Original Message -
From: Cyrus Daboo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IETF Chair [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; IETF Announcement list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed
Yes, I think that this is an excellent idea and should be pursued.
I note that this will also give us a URN (RFC3044). Any thoughts on what the
URN might in future resolve to?
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org; IAOC
- Original Message -
From: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Eric Rescorla' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Bert Wijnen - IETF'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:49 PM
Subject: RE: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
- Original Message -
From: Paul Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Henning Schulzrinne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tony Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]; SMTP
Interest Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF General Discussion Mailing List
ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008
- Original Message -
From: IESG Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF Announcement list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 5:39 PM
Subject: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists
The following principles apply to spam control
- Original Message -
From: Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Tony Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
...
Yes. I suggest
- Original Message -
From: Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt
Tom.Petch wrote:
Hm, we are talking about XML
- Original Message -
From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dan York [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Bill Fenner [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: Transition status (was Re: ISO 3166
I have read this I-D and believe it should be published as an RFC.
The author has a challenging task in that on the one hand, there is a pressing
need to provide a replacement for parts of the, by now very ancient, RFC1738
while on the other, the subject matter is a moving target and it will be
Inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 1:24 PM
Subject: RE: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
While there are a couple of IONs whose content I find valuable (such
as ad-sponsoring and
- Original Message -
From: Lixia Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?
snip
I'm late getting into this discussion, but also have
Original Message -
From: Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?
IETF Chair skrev:
Dear IETF Community:
Due to
This I-D proposes a namespace of CGI.
This acronym is already so widely used in the world of IT - just look at this
announcement and every one like it for an example - that I think it would be
irresponsible of us to define this acronym as the namespace for the
Commission for the Management and
at the bottom
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: FW: I-D Action:draft-narten-ipv6-statement-00.txt
Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: FW: I-D Action:draft-narten-ipv6-statement-00.txt
A little more background/context that got me here.
My original thinking was to do
Original Message -
From: Clint Chaplin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: Spammers answering TMDA Queries
I believe the term is tmda, not tdma.
Never mind how it is spelt, what is it? Something to do with e-mail, something
- Original Message -
From: Lisa Dusseault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: XML updates Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-simple-xml-patch-ops (An
Extensible Markup
- Original Message -
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-simple-xml-patch-ops (An Extensible Markup
Language (XML) Patch Operations
- Original Message -
From: der Mouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: [saag] Next step on web phishing
draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt)
I
- Original Message -
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: on the value of running code (was Re: Do you want to have more
meetings outside US ?)
David Conrad wrote:
I'd offer that
- Original Message -
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 7:08 PM
Subject: Application knowledge of transport characteristics (was: Re: Domain
Centric Administration)
Ned Freed wrote:
Keith, while I agree
ofChannel
Bindings to Secure Channels) to Proposed Standard
On Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:09:24 PM -0700 Randy Presuhn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi -
From: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call
I think this a significant I-D which could be, in a few years, be the way in
which security is done in the Internet.
But I also think it understates its achievements in the Abstract and that it may
be inaccessible to those who would use it, those who are not also security
experts.
The Abstract
- Original Message -
From: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-norm-ref (Handling Normative References
for Standards Track Documents) to BCP
My strong
inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-norm-ref (Handling Normative References
I have no problem with the underlying idea, in so far as I understand it, but I
do not agree that this I-D is the best way to achieve it.
I think that my problem is well illustrated by a sentence in the Abstract
' This document replaces the hold on
normative reference rule will be replaced by
- Original Message -
From: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Tom.Petch' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'ietf' ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:10 AM
Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-harrington-text-mib-doc-template (A Template
Yup.
Trying to figure out how to publish
I think that the idea behind this draft is a good one but that the choice of
technology is wrong.
The template should be on a web site available for download and that the way to
get it there is the same as is used eg to get SMI TCs on to a website, namely
publish it as an appendix to an RFC, so
- Original Message -
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines (Guidance on Area
Director Sponsoring of Documents) to Informational
inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David W. Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-syslog-protocol: Reliable delivery considered harmful.
Daring to rush in without
Who is shepherd for an individual submission?
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Henrik Levkowetz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; Jeffrey
Hutzelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Henning Schulzrinne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: lconroy [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Identifying mailing list for discussion(Re: Tracking resolution of
DISCUSSes)
From: Henk Uijterwaal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: The IESG Approved the Expansion of the AS Number Registry
snip
There is:
Canonical Textual Representation of 4-byte AS Numbers
- Original Message -
From: The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF-Announce ietf-announce@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 12:29 AM
Subject: Last Call: 'Progressive Posting Rights Supsensions' to BCP
(draft-carpenter-rescind-3683)
The IESG has received a request from an individual
CDs of Proceedings always seemed like an excellent idea but:
- sometimes they never arrived
- I cannot ever recall them arriving in good time, that is closer to the time
of the meeting they relate to than to that of the next meeting.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: IETF
- Original Message -
From: Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Philip Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: Novell IETF bag
After four and a half years of solid use, one of the fasteners
on the strap of my Novell
inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Tony Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
ietf@ietf.org;
iesg@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request
I use ftp all the time to access the
FTP over IPv4 stopped working for me about four weeks ago. Like you, I get
'failed to establish connection'
immediately. I flagged it as a problem and have had no response. I can access
shadow sites ok
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Ken Raeburn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf Mailing
- Original Message -
From: Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
To: Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 1:38 AM
Subject: Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was:
moving from hosts to sponsors)
I'm much
inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IETF-Discussion Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: Image attachments to ASCII RFCs (was: Re: Last Call:
'ProposedExperiment:
PROTECTED]
To: Bill Fenner [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bill Strahm [EMAIL PROTECTED]; iesg
iesg@ietf.org; ietf ietf@ietf.org
Cc: Disman disman@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote
- Original Message -
From: Bill Strahm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: iesg iesg@ietf.org; ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping,
Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to
I find the following unclear and would like to see it spelt out in detail
traceRouteHopsHopIndex
snip
MUST start at 1 and increase monotonically.
Recent discussions on the ietf main list identified two meanings for
'monotonically' - a sequence where each value is greater than or equal
- Original Message -
From: Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: 'monotonic increasing'
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
a RFC-2119 type RFC to define mathematical terms ?
Maybe more like some glossaries (Internet, security,
- Original Message -
From: Yaakov Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Elwyn Davies
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 7:10 AM
Subject: RE: 'monotonic increasing'
Actually, even mathematicians don't agree on the wording here
The phrase 'monotonic increasing' seems to be a Humpty-Dumpty one, used with a
different sense within RFC to that which I see defined elsewhere; and this
could lead to a reduction in security.
Elsewhere - dictionaries, encyclopaedia, text books - I see it
defined so that when applied to a
by
its use in mathematical textbooks, but it appears not to be
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Elwyn Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: 'monotonic increasing'
Hi.
Tom.Petch wrote
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: 'monotonic increasing'
Hmm! I don't think I see your problem with any of the usages in the
RFCs mentioned. In all cases monotonically is used to express that the
sequence
- Original Message -
From: Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: IETF65 hotel location
I don't understand why this discussion keeps going on and on, much
less why it started in the first place.
Folks,
have yet to see any
use of this in an I-D or RFC. I did post a question about this to this list on
24th December and the lack of response reinforces my view that this is uncharted
territory.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: James Seng [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc
I have always thought that ASCII had much to commend it - ease of use,
compactness, open standard - which outweighed its limited functionality.
But while we debate this, have events already overtaken us? I was surprised to
find, when reading
draft-fu-nsis-qos-nslp-statemachine-02.txt
repeated
- Original Message -
From: Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: Troubles with UTF-8
From: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 28
- Original Message -
From: Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: Troubles with UTF-8
Ned Freed wrote:
(Unicode lacks a no-op, a meaningless octet, one that could
be added or
- Original Message -
From: Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TomPetch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2005 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: Troubles with UTF-8
Presented with a comparable problem where
XML is in use, one WG has
- Original Message -
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Troubles with UTF-8
--On onsdag, desember 28, 2005 10:09:05 +0100 Tom.Petch
- Original Message -
From: Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Troubles with UTF-8
Tom.Petch wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED
Dave
Is this an ok use of RFC4234? Reading it, I am not clear whether U+FEFF should
be
specified as %xFE %xFF or whether %xFFEF is ok? And what is the ABNF for any
possible ISO 10646 character, all 97000 of them?
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
From: Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TomPetch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Troubles with UTF-8
snip
(Unicode
lacks a no-op, a meaningless octet, one that could be added or removed
without
causing any change to the meaning of
The IETF mandates the use of UTF-8 for text [RFC2277] as part of
internationalisation. When writing an RFC, this raises a number of issues.
A) Character set. UTF-8 implicitly specifies the use of Unicode/IS10646 which
contains 97,000 - and rising - characters. Some (proposed) standards limit
- Original Message -
From: Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: Troubles with UTF-8
I would like to check the correct name of eg hyphen-minus
(Hyphen-minus, Hyphen-Minus, ???) and in the absence of
IS10646 am
100 matches
Mail list logo
