Rémi Després wrote:
Christian Vogt - le (m/j/a) 12/4/08 10:26 AM:
In any case, your comment is useful input, as it shows that calling the
proposed stack architecture in [1] hostname-oriented may be wrong.
Calling it service-name-oriented -- or simply name-oriented -- may
be more
On Dec 17, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Webmaster,
Julian noticed that this page contains the old NOTE WELL text.
According to:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg05509.html
The new NOTE WELL text have been updated.
It will be updated today.
Ray
Ken Raeburn wrote:
On Dec 17, 2008, at 11:01, Keith Moore wrote:
One could possibly extend getaddrinfo() or make something a bit similar.
getaddrinfo() is perhaps already becoming too complex though. A neat
thing with extending getaddrinfo() could be to make existing code use
SRV without
Sam Hartman wrote:
Dave == Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net writes:
Dave Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Yes, having to get rights from folks is a pain.
Dave When the person is not longer available, the effect is more
Dave than discomfort.
Strictly speaking, that's not
--On Tuesday, 16 December, 2008 22:08 -0500 Joel M. Halpern
j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
I have a very different view of this situation, and disagree
wstrongly with John's recommended fix (or the equivalent fix
of completely rolling back 5378 and 5377.)
First and foremost, it should be kept
Sanm,
I believe it has already been observed by others that this is not a reasonable
scenario.
However your response does provide a good example of just how badly the latest
model is broken.
d/
Sam Hartman wrote:
Dave == Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net writes:
Dave Joel M. Halpern
--On Wednesday, 17 December, 2008 12:31 -0500 Sam Hartman
hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
Dave == Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net writes:
Dave Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Yes, having to get rights from folks is a pain.
Dave When the person is not longer available, the effect
is
John C Klensin wrote:
I agree that there were perceived problems that needed to be
fixed. I think you have given a good summary of most of them.
It is exactly for that reason that I did not propose rolling
back 5378 (or 5377).
Unfortunately, we do not get to pick and choose the parts of
Ray Pelletier wrote:
...
It will be updated today.
Ray
...
Indeed.
At this point, I think, people on IETF mailing lists need to be informed
about the IPR change as well. I don't believe everybody is following
this discussion.
BR, Julian
___
Mark Seery allegedly wrote on 11/30/08 10:38 AM:
Some questions have also risen WRT identity:
http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2006-11-30-whoareyou.pdf
Is identity a network level thing or an application level thing?
Whatever. All of the above. There are many possible ways to use
Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
The NOTE WELL refers to BCP 78 so it is has already been extended to
cover the new expanded rights, hasn't it?
...
As of today, http://www.ietf.org/maillist.html states:
All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 3978 (updated by RFC
4748) and RFC
Having recently completed TLS 1.2 (RFC 5246), I thought it would be worth
going through the thought experiment of what it would be like to
submit it under the RFC 5378 terms. As I understand the general
consensus, if I were to submit RFC 5246bis, I would need to get
approval under the new terms
On Dec 17, 2008, at 11:01, Keith Moore wrote:
One could possibly extend getaddrinfo() or make something a bit
similar.
getaddrinfo() is perhaps already becoming too complex though. A neat
thing with extending getaddrinfo() could be to make existing code use
SRV without changes. Not exactly
Dave == Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net writes:
Dave Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Yes, having to get rights from folks is a pain.
Dave When the person is not longer available, the effect is more
Dave than discomfort.
Strictly speaking, that's not actually true. We're talking about
Stig Venaas wrote:
I would have liked some standard API for looking up SRV records. It's
hard to use SRV in portable applications.
In general there is a need for a standard, general purpose API for DNS
queries - one that lets you query for arbitrary record types. It also
needs to be thread
Dear John;
From your email :
On Dec 17, 2008, at 12:16 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
(iii) Rewrite the document to remove any copyright
dependencies on text whose status is uncertain or for
which rights transfers are significantly difficult.
This is a dangerous
[Resending from an account that should work]
Having recently completed TLS 1.2 (RFC 5246), I thought it would be
worth going through the thought experiment of what it would be like to
submit it under the RFC 5378 terms. As I understand the general
consensus, if I were to submit RFC 5246bis, I
Marshall,
I completely agree. I also don't want to have us start down the
path of rewriting text: most of what the IETF produces are
technical documents, not works of fiction, and the odds
significant rewriting screwing things up are high, perhaps a
near-certainty.
I also share your dislike for
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
10.1.2.3 is simply a string litteral that may be used in place of a
DNS name. In neither case should the application require knowledge of
the IP address itself. In fact you don't want that as at some point in
the distant future, 10.1.2.3 is actually going to map to
Based on the discussion I have seen, an escape mechanism for old text
that really can not be processed otherwise is probably reasonable.
However, if we are making an effort to retain the work that was done, my
personal take is that the barrier to that escape mechanism has to be
high enough that
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Yes, having to get rights from folks is a pain.
When the person is not longer available, the effect is more than discomfort.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
John C Klensin wrote:
But both your comments and that can't get it right issue just
reinforce my view that we either need an escape mechanism for
old text or need a model in which the Trust, not the submitters,
take responsibility for text Contributed to the IETF under older
rules. For the
Dave CROCKER wrote:
What is change control if not the authority to make changes to the
document?
exactly. or to use copyright terminology, the right to make derivative
works.
Keith
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Among the things that ISOC focuses on is broadening the audience for
credible Internet technical information -- IETF material, eg through the
IETF Journal; getting Internet model information injected into global
public policy discussions etc.
As part of an effort to explore whether there
Fred Baker wrote:
Silly question. Is this discussion more appropriate to ietf-ipr?
Not any more.
It was. But the result is what a number of different folk who are serious,
long-term IETF contributors consider the current situation to be a basic crisis
that prevents working on some
John C Klensin wrote:
The assumption that you made was ultimately that work done for
or within the IETF was available for IETF use.
...
The issues that drove 5378 have to do with non-IETF uses of text
from these documents. For example, if someone on the other side
of the world decided to
Fred Baker wrote:
Silly question. Is this discussion more appropriate to ietf-ipr?
Not any more.
It was. But the result is what a number of different folk who are serious,
long-term IETF contributors consider the current situation to be a basic crisis
that prevents working on some existing
--On Wednesday, 17 December, 2008 13:05 -0800 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
But both your comments and that can't get it right issue
just reinforce my view that we either need an escape
mechanism for old text or need a model in which the Trust,
not the
Randy Presuhn wrote:
That is: Working groups are part of the IETF and 'authors' of working group
documents are acting as when writing IETF documents.agents of the IETF. While
I assume the missing word is editors
fooey. thanks for catching that. very sorry i didn't.
no, I meant to
Hi -
From: Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net
To: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
Cc: IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary
...
That is: Working groups are part of the IETF and
--On Wednesday, 17 December, 2008 14:32 -0800 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
My assumption was not that the work was available for IETF
use.
My assumption was that the IETF owned the work. Pure and
simple.
The IETF was free to do whatever the hell if felt like with
the work
Dave,
On 2008-12-18 11:32, Dave CROCKER wrote:
...
My assumption was not that the work was available for IETF use.
Correct.
My assumption was that the IETF owned the work. Pure and simple.
False. You never implicitly transferred ownership.
The IETF was free to do whatever the hell if
Dave CROCKER wrote:
My assumption was that the IETF owned the work. Pure and simple.
The IETF was free to do whatever the hell if felt like with the work and
I retained no rights. Use it. Give it to another group. Kill it.
Whatever.
My understanding was that IETF had a non-exclusive,
Hi -
From: John C Klensin j...@jck.com
To: Randy Presuhn randy_pres...@mindspring.com; IETF discussion list
ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary
...
What gives your WG the ability to function is
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-12-18 11:32, Dave CROCKER wrote:
My assumption was that the IETF owned the work. Pure and simple.
False. You never implicitly transferred ownership.
Yes I did. As I say, that was the culture.
Scott didn't have to come to Erik or me and ask permission,
--On Wednesday, 17 December, 2008 15:23 -0800 Randy Presuhn
randy_pres...@mindspring.com wrote:
Hi -
From: John C Klensin j...@jck.com
To: Randy Presuhn randy_pres...@mindspring.com; IETF
discussion list ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, December
17, 2008 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: IPR Questions
Dave Crocker wrote:
That was the culture. Law often
follows culture, since culture creates established practice.
I hope you're right.
May I ask: Is there anyone on this list who is asserting a current copyright
interest in any IETF RFC--on your own behalf or on behalf of your
company--that
--On Wednesday, 17 December, 2008 16:56 -0800 Lawrence Rosen
lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
That was the culture. Law often
follows culture, since culture creates established practice.
I hope you're right.
May I ask: Is there anyone on this list who is asserting a
Reply below. /Larry
-Original Message-
From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:02 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; 'IETF discussion list'
Subject: RE: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary
--On Wednesday, 17
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
That's the problem around here. People worry to death about IP claims that
nobody is willing to actually make. People develop IP policies that solve
nonexistent problems (such as the code vs. text debate) and, by doing
so, add further confusion, evidenced by this current
Larry, your email sounded dangerously close to suggesting that it
might be ok to break the copyright law because no one would object to
it. Is that what you are suggesting?
On Dec 17, 2008, at 5:56 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
That was the culture. Law often
follows
Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com writes:
Dave CROCKER wrote:
My assumption was that the IETF owned the work. Pure and simple.
The IETF was free to do whatever the hell if felt like with the work and
I retained no rights. Use it. Give it to another group. Kill it.
Whatever.
My
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Measures for making DNS more resilient against forged answers '
draft-ietf-dnsext-forgery-resilience-10.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the DNS Extensions Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Mark Townsley
74th IETF Meeting
San Francisco, CA, USA
March 22-27, 2009
Host: Juniper Networks
Registration is now open for the 74th IETF Meeting!
You can register on line at:
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/74/
REGISTRATION INFORMATION:
Early-Bird Registration - USD 635.00
If you register and pay for your
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The Sieve mail filtering language - extensions for checking mailbox
status and accessing mailbox metadata '
draft-melnikov-sieve-imapext-metadata-08.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG
45 matches
Mail list logo
