On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 08:39:36AM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, manning bill bmann...@isi.edu wrote:
the question is not that nobody checks type 99, the question is
is the rate of adoption
of type 99 -changing- in relation to type
actually, it was the right questions... and the answers all distill
down to your reply. security and trust are in the eyes/validator
of the beholder. Sam Weiler borrowed the term local policy - which
trumps any middleman. Steve B. suggests VPNs (or their functioal
eqivalant) between the
my error here - Paul said DNS does no ordering... he did not specify
ordering of what. we now return you to your rant.
--bill
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 07:54:37PM +, Chris Thompson wrote:
On Mar 4 2009, OndEej SurC= wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:57 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
perhaps your answer can be found in the first line of Barbaras
message. let me quote it:
On 4 February 2008, IANA will add records for the IPv6 addresses
of the four root servers whose operators have requested it.
for the four root servers whose operators have REQUESTED it.
And what do we see: 6bone space and still in use.
As a lot of places correctly filter it out, the PMTU's get dropped, as
they are supposed to be dropped.
The whois.6bone.net registry is fun of course:
inet6num: 3FFE:800::/24
netname: ISI-LAP
descr:Harry Try IPv6
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 04:31:40PM -0800, David Morris wrote:
So I got curious and checked the 'current' list. Looks to me like the
question revolving around MIT is small potatoes compared with some
other organizations ... HP now owns two /8 blocks ... their own and DECs.
HP is down
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 11:22:05AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, I don't have any examples to present since most of the
reclamation that has been done over the past few years was done without
any fanfare. The RIRs and the organizations involved are really the only
ones who
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 10:10:48AM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
But this is enough about my opinions. Please
state your opinion -- in the interest of not
replicating this discussion on multiple lists,
send follow-ups to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3 last call comments:
Secondly, in Section 7
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 01:00:14PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If that's indeed the case, the first order of business needs to
be to document current practice. I see no chance of making
forward progress on actual changes without first having a
consensus as to what our current state is.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 11:07:32AM -0700, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
On Sep 23, 2006, at 2:20 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
But as a matter of fact, draft-newman-i18n-comparator-14 doesn't
define any collations that would actually solve the Unicode NF
issue, so it's not really clear how this
todd,
you never did answer my question. when do you think the IETF
aquired the attribute of members?
open elections kind of presupose a defined electorate.
what would be the criteria for some entity to cast a vote in
such an election?
--bill
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:36:38AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
Bill - I think the IETF has tried to for years claim it has no members and
that simply isn't true - and I can arrange to have a Judge tell you and the
IETF that if you like.
great... i'd appreciate that. i stand by my
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 06:08:08PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
This isn't a call for bureaucracy, but for precision. As this year's
glitch
shows, extreme precision is needed in the rules.
Interesting. What it showed me is that we
ietf has members? when did that happen Todd?
--bill (checking for his membership card, reviewing tax records for missed
membership dues, etc...)
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 09:10:41AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
Ned Eliot - why fix the process??? - lets just turn the IETF into a
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:43:48AM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Just to clarify here there were two problems:
1) The list was not published on time
2) There was an unqualified person on the list.
er... there might have been a third problem, qualified people were
there were some people who volunteered and were rejected.
apparently i've not been to the required number of IETF mtgs...
--bill
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 04:59:39PM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Folks,
I think that volunteering for the nomcom is something that I should do
as a duty to an
MEXICO
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 10:54:16AM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
There are two issues:
1) Cost. IETF has limited resources, so unless each of us want to pay more
and more for the registration fees or we are able to compensate the cost
with more
Without knowing the specifics of Jon's overrides - I can only say
that those I know of involved poorly written or unclear documents
that Jon was exercising reasonable editorial control over. If you're
saying that we don't want an editor for the series - e.g. just
publish what the IESG
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:12:28PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 3-jun-2006, at 5:33, Steven Blake wrote:
I am concerned about the conclusion reached in this document (that HD
ratios 0.8 and closer to 0.94 should be considered when making
address
allocations to larger providers).
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 06:42:06AM -0700, Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
Let me try re-stating my question. Is there a one-to-one relationship
between the listed authors on an IETF document and ownership of the
given document's
not being the RFC editor, the IAB (or member thereof), or even the
(as yet undefinable) IETF, I am not sure I am qualified to render
a value judgement here. That said, I am in posession of two bound
volumes of the collected RFC series as of the date of publication of
said volumes (modulo
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 06:47:46AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ah yes, the IETF as a FormulaOne race car.
I'll approach CocaCola Visa for branding rights
if that would help (esp for those folks denied a 770)
ah yes, the ad absurdem form of
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ray,
I think our goal is to not lose essential participants from the IETF due
to clashes. In fact that's why we want to schedule several years out, so
as to make it easier for many other organizations to do their scheduling.
Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:27:22AM -0500, Scott W Brim wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 04:18:42PM +0100, Tim Chown allegedly wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:38:03AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I don't think the analogy holds, for a number of reasons. (As a matter
of interest, there
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 07:34:00PM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael StJohns wrote:
What I think Jordi is saying is that he wants the US sponsors to
subsidize the cost of the overseas meetings. At least that's what it
works out to be
This view can be mapped to a
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 09:58:25PM -0600, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Just wanted to state what's obvious to all of us by now:
This time the wireless WORKED, and Just Went On Working.
That hasn't happened for a while. THANK YOU!
Harald
for novel interpretations
It is broken, anyone that has proposed to host an IETF meeting know it. What
you can read in the actual web page about hosting a meeting is not correct
in the reality, and can't be 100% subjective (yes there will be a decision
at the end, and that imply certain degree of subjectivity, but a
understood, but i was just responding to the subject line
--bill
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 11:40:52AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Folks, let's be clear about procedure here.
If the IESG receives a formal request under RFC 3683,
we are obliged to make an IETF Last Call and listen
to
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:35:33PM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:
Hi Bill,
At 02:55 PM 09/16/2005, Bill Manning wrote:
sorry, the I-D has no information as to where this should be discussed...
so:
Umm, from the file name I would have thought V6OPS is the intended venue to
discuss it.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 11:21:06AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
I am perhaps just being slow and dim-witted after minor surgery, but why
should a protocol that no-one will use be standards track ?
Why should we accept a few (mostly axe-grinding) peoples' assertions
that no-one will use it?
yes, yes, but the query to Roland was/is, what happens in his
particular situation? Do address literals bypass the ISP redirect?
--bill
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 07:03:49AM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Behalf Of Bill Manning
steve bellovin and jck have very good advice.
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 05:24:40PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, 05 July, 2005 08:47 -0700 Bill Manning
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't believe that is true in this case, as long as RFC
2780 is in force.
Especially since there is a clear path for
The headline is misleading. The recommendation is to support
IPv6 registration of TLD servers in the root zone. The root
servers themselves still need some testing before registration
of their IPv6 capabilities.
--bill manning
but ISC.ORG doesn't want to take a complaint. Bill Manning, of EP.NET
(ISC.ORG upstream) says he has no contract with me to accept complaints
about ISC.ORG.
--Dean
Dean... you are asserting a relationship that you have no
way to prove exists. Unless or until
assignment of IP space does not impune any other
service. Asserting otherwise is foolish. Pressing
the point, esp. in public fora, appears to be
willful ignorance. Please enjoy your blissful state.
--bill
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:02:45PM -0400, Dean
if you are serious, please feel free to contact your legal council
to persue remedies.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 03:32:27PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
I can't parse your statement. I didn't say assignment of IP space
__impunes__ a service. Perhaps you meant to say that your assignment of
36 matches
Mail list logo
