On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Douglas Otis wrote:
Some larger providers and private organizations who depend upon private IPv4
addresses have complained there is no suitably large private IP address
range which can assure each user within their network can obtain a unique
private IP address. It would
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tony Finch wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Side note: on Unix, will cron be forced to authenticate to send emails
at 2 am? :-)
cron sends email by invoking sendmail, which knows the user that invoked
it. authentication is therefore automatic and
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I think something along these lines might be ok, so long as
its not a significant barrier to progress - I'd hate if every
new author had to be an I-D historian, or if anyone who wanted
to slow down a document could play the system using this. I
have a
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Joe Abley wrote:
On 29-Nov-2006, at 08:30, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the NANOG list it has already been pointed out that a lot
of network management software cannot handle such notation and
in some cases, 1.0 could be interpreted as the IP
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Joe Abley wrote:
I did not see any consensus on that issue when it was brought to NANOG-m.
Interesting. I didn't notice any support for separating the 32-bit quantity
into two sections, but I remember many people decrying the need for any
separator at all.
I'd have
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Microsoft showed the source code to the MARID group. It simply does not
support saving unknown RR blobs.
Someone in the DNSEXT working group did a test that showed that if you
violate the administration model of Windows it is possible to
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Andrew Newton wrote:
3 - Why is LWZ limited to UDP, desperately trying to solve
various size issues with delated XML and other tricks ?
TCP is handled by XPC and BEEP. But for very short and quick answers (and
lots of them, such as domain
Its not that I have a big issue with it but is it really necessary to
assign 3 ipv6 global-scope addresses (in addition to two link-local)
for my interface (yes, I know we have plenty of ip space :)?
And BTW wasn't 6/6/6 the last day for 6-bone?
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
Mike,
Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in
another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person
can override the will of the community, as Jon did on more than one
occasion. I don't think we want that
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here: there is no dispute (afaict) that the
RFC Editor series started before the IETF, or that it has had a broader
mandate than IETF standards.
What
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Masataka Ohta wrote:
There was debate. But, 8+8 was rejected without any discussion or
reasoning.
Could someone tell me where I can read about 8+8?
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
I will however caution against the assumption that IESG is inherently
overbearing and a separate review function is inherently more
reasonable. No matter who does the review there will always be the
potential for capriciousness on the part of the reviewer.
It seems to me that while many
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Dave Cridland wrote:
If they were popular projects pulling useful input away from the IETF
and Lemonade respectively, I'd classify that as harm.
Why? Harm to who and in what way?
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
I will however caution against the assumption that IESG is inherently
overbearing and a separate review function is inherently more
reasonable. No matter who does the review there will always be the
potential for capriciousness on the part of the
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear Phillip,
Full agreement. Let not confuse alt-roots and open-roots.
I was not suggesting confusing them, I was suggesting ignoring them.
Ignore China?
I know some do it with their
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Just by itself without last call experiment is probably ok when
you have some new concept that needs to be tested and documented
and its use should would cause any significant problems for anything
else.
This was supposed to be:
Just
I'm against the PR action. From links included with PR action, I do
not see that Jefsey's actions include anything that maybe deemed as
personal attacks or similar actions clearly prohibited by IETF and
his posts seem to be an advocacy and representing his views and IETF
as organization is
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Free speech is at the core of discussions at IETF and those
representing minority positions should not be prevented from
expressing it
OK, I'll bite. How do you reconcile this principle
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Scott Kitterman wrote:
As I understand it, one of the major concerns of the people pushing for
alternative formats is a desire to be able to include drawings and diagrams
with something other than ASCII art.
I don't believe that XML does much to help that.
It does in the
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006, Yaakov Stein wrote:
2: Folks who can't read MS Word documents are also irrelevant.
It's the most 'standard' document exchange language on the
Internet. (Actually all its versions are from the people
who invented the Internet, please don't forget to submit an
IPR
issue. So in what follows I will try to give a reasonably
simple explanation of why a bunch of long-term IETF guys decided to form a
private group to develop DKIM:
I think simple explanation is the one you can fit in one sentence, this
wasn't it...
On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:23 PM, william
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Eric,
Eric Rescorla wrote:
The not-DKIM proponents want something better, for some value of
better.
More accurately, we want the charter not to foreclose the option
of doing something better, on the grounds that it's incompatible.
I hope
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Keith Moore wrote:
Sometimes feed-forward _is_ useful, and I would agree that the use of DNS to
store public key information is one of the fundamental assumptions behind
DKIM. Change that assumption and you will probably produce a system with
very different
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Barry Leiba wrote:
Actually, the DKIM base spec does provide a mechanism for replacing the
DNS keystore with something else. Look at 1.4 for a general statement,
and the description of the q= tag in 3.5. DKIM's intended to be able
to support user-level keys in a future
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Mark Delany wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 06:35:47AM -0800, william(at)elan.net allegedly wrote:
Not necessarily. One of the proposals that went into DKIM had characteristic
of storing public key fingerprints in dns. This seems quite close to DK but
has a number
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, John C Klensin wrote:
(i) you are obligated to demonstrate that sufficient
production-level deployment actually exists to justify
such a request and that it has been successful in
There is no wide deployment of DKIM. What is there are several
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On onsdag, desember 21, 2005 05:36:08 -0800 william(at)elan.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also think that if allowed to be presented alternatives to putting
public keys in DNS, those would technically be found superior and less
damaging
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Douglas Otis wrote:
The reduction to 111 DNS lookups is not a resounding impact with
respect to this concern.
You can do setup that involves multiple CNAME and NS redirections
with DNS and it all could come to those 100 lookups. In practice
these setups do not exist
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Douglas Otis wrote:
Actually there was case that came close to this limit by an access
provider, but was rewritten into CIDR notation to reduce the number of
records, increasing their chances for error. At the email
authentication summit in NY, there was a large company
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Pekka Savola wrote:
Basically the IESG decided that accurate documentation of the running code
is more important than documenting something that does not exist, and maybe
never will exist.
That's certainly an understandable tradeoff to make, and it gets back to the
more
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Dick St.Peters wrote:
Do you know if Sendmail Inc. is committed to conforming to the RFCs
and will change if the RFCs change?
You'll have to ask them. However, I suspect it's safe to say that
they will conform to any RFCs that become standards.
SPF SID document if
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Sam Hartman wrote:
wayne == wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
wayne Isn't the time to fix the problem now? Before the
wayne experiment is run?
Can you convince the sender ID authors to do so and to change their
implementations?
I don't think the IETF or IESG could
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 4. desember 2005 10:26 -0500 Daniel Feenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a proper place to discuss
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-church-dnsbl-harmful-o1.txt ?
There has been some discussion of the draft in the ASRG
You can not have two authoritative texts. Yes I understand that it may
happen (probably already did) that RFC text is translation from original
written in another language. The reason it got translated however is so
that it could be checked on and commented by IETF community and so that
it
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On tirsdag, november 01, 2005 08:13:26 +0100 Frank Ellermann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'm told that my recollection is faulty
It's not, that breach of RfC 2418 chapter 4
caused two of the three pending
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 10/17/05 1:25 PM, Scott W Brim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm done.
Ever the optimist, I like to think that the fact that the
leadership's energy is increasingly going into stuff like
this indicates that the IETF has reached a new level of
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Wouldn't it at least make sense to require that the .gprs
pseudo-TLD be reserved by IANA under Section 4 of RFC 2860
(technical work items and assignments of domain names for technical
uses), with the proviso that this TLD must not be resolved,
Would it be too much to ask for new rules so that in the future these
petitions be discussed on some other mail list setup for this purpose
(and for other general issues of ietf email lists administration) and
that ietf@ietf.org be only used to indicate new petition or results of
one and
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
[Note: Not very long ago, I argued persuasively to a large and broad
movement within the IETF seeking to have the IETF adopt an anti-patent
position.
my memory is slipping worse that I thought.
i don't recall seeing evidence of the community's being
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
It is completely outside of its technical standards-setting
mission.
With that idea you could also claim that RfCs should not talk
about postmaster@ or [EMAIL PROTECTED] This cannot work. I don't care
who publishs / maintains these RfCs, maybe
Hello Brian,
With IESG already considering other issues with publication of
draft-lyon-senderid-core as experimental RFC, I'd like to request it
also formerly consider and make determination in regards to issues
raised at the very end of MARID regarding use of Resent- header fields
by
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
incompatible with RFC2822
I'm still a bit lost how this could actually _break_ something.
For obvious reasons the author can't say updates 2822, how
should he fix it ? As you said the 822 issue is mentioned in
the senderid-pra draft.
Do you want
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
(I am not referring to our own process BCPs in this
statement.)
Please consider to split BCP vs. meta / admin documents.
I agree. There needs to be new track for IETF standardization
work procedures.
--
William
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, John Glube wrote:
|The only relevant boundary is between what the sender
|controls and what they do not. All that any sender,
|forwarder or any other mail injector can ever be expected
|to do is to define the boundaries of the systems they
|control.
|
|Once that boundary
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 12:00 -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
But if reuse of spf1 records is really realy the only way for MS
and it wants to continue, then the only possibility for negotiation
I see is to get it part the way for both sides
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
As has recently been pointed out on the namedroppers list, the dual
track RR and TXT approach does not work. It leads to ambiguities when
the records do not match - which they will inevitably dur to the DNS
protocol.
Actually what has been
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Ted Hardie wrote:
Hi Frank,
This is one of the issues that the IESG believes is at
the heart of concerns about using them in tandem. Your message
highlights, though, that one of the statements in the IESG note
got dropped accidentally. The original said: the IESG
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Keith Moore wrote:
The argument in favor of publishing this document at proposed is that
the existing arcfour cipher is part of a standard and that many other
IETF protocols use rc4 in standards track documents.
previous mistakes are not valid justifications for new
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sam Hartman writes:
Hi, folks. The IESG has received a last call comment recommending
that the new rc4 cipher for ssh be published as informational rather
than as a proposed standard because of weaknesses in rc4.
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Eliot Lear wrote:
Yakov,
Perhaps the IETF traditional motto, rough consensus and working
code should be revised to make it clear that the rough consensus
goes only up to a certain point, but after that point the IETF
operates solely by a decree from the IESG.
You and I were
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Eliot Lear wrote:
At the same time reverse is not true, i.e. I do not think IESG should be
allowed to make a decision on document on its own if there is no consensus.
An individual has the ability to write a draft. The IESG has the ability to
gauge consensus as to whether
without changing the rules the closest we can get is two weeks
Personally I'd actually prefer 10 days, but two weeks is much better
then 4 weeks and is a reduction of no-draft-can-be-published time
from 30% to 15%.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Tim Chown wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 04:33:33PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
We know that booking early saves money, and we know that locations fill
up early. (Me, I like Minneapolis just fine. I do wish to have fewer
meetings in the US)
Minneapolis is
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Dean Anderson wrote:
This is a personal message, and doesn't qualify as being published. You
mentioned that you failed to follow up. That may be true. And that's why
you shouldn't be credited for originating the idea, and why David Green
and later Hadmut Danisch should
At 4:55 PM -0400 8/30/04, Dean Anderson wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2002/msg00658.html
The idea came from David Green, and Vixie says it originated from Jim
Miller in 1998. Vixie had little
Paul,
MARID was formed to merge Microsoft Caller-ID with SPF and so far has
been successfully used by Microsoft to bully us to submit to their own
proposal or else ... There are better ways to implement mail-from (i.e.
as from Paul's draft which is basicly still the basis for MARID) which
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vernon Schryver) writes:
... but I don't see any direct connection between [DNSSEC] and a
replacement for DNS blacklists.
i know. but you asked about trust query protocols, not about
Dave Aronson writes:
On Tue March 2 2004 18:18, Michael Thomas wrote:
Or is this just a covert way of saying that we need an e-Yentl?
Nitpick: yenta (meddler/gossiper/busybody, but especially matchmaker),
not Yentl (name chosen by girl disguised as boy to get accepted to a
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Vernon Schryver wrote:
It is also a classic example of what is wrong with the MUA filtering
You certain dont assume that there is nothing wrong with the filtering
system you use and others may try duplicate as well. Otherwise how would
you explain that you have Elan and
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Vernon Schryver wrote:
From: william(at)elan.net
It is also a classic example of what is wrong with the MUA filtering
You certain dont assume that there is nothing wrong with the filtering
system you use and others may try duplicate as well. Otherwise how would
60 matches
Mail list logo
