- 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
Tom,
Thanks for responding to my comments. Allow me to respond.
You wrote:
As a participant in netconf, I see authorization as one of those topics
which the Working Group sees as necessary but cannot be tackled just
yet. As RFC4741 says,
This document does not specify an authorization
Steve, I believe that the situation is #1 below.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Stephen Hanna
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:53 PM
To: Tom.Petch; sec...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org;
Stephen,
I think it is your first bullet point. We have not standardize it yet.
And so it is implementation dependent as to what authorization is used.
Bert
Stephen Hanna wrote:
Tom,
Thanks for responding to my comments. Allow me to respond.
You wrote:
As a participant in netconf, I
ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
Hi,
it was just pointed out to me that it's hard (impossible?) to find the
archive for the ietf-charsets mailing list.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/charset-info points to
http://mail.apps.ietf.org/ietf/charsets/maillist.html, but that 404s
(maybe just
Thanks to Dan and Bert for answering my question.
If most NETCONF implementations authenticate users
and implement some form of authorization scheme,
there should be no problem with including text
in draft-ietf-netconf-partial-lock-09.txt that
says NETCONF servers that implement partial
locks MUST
Stephen Hanna wrote:
Thanks to Dan and Bert for answering my question.
If most NETCONF implementations authenticate users
and implement some form of authorization scheme,
there should be no problem with including text
in draft-ietf-netconf-partial-lock-09.txt that
says NETCONF servers that
Hi all,
Thank the authors for the good job and I have a minor comment.
In section 8.2 (the last paragraph),
o If the Status field indicates any value other than success, the
home agent SHOULD examine any mobility options included in the
Binding Revocation Acknowledgement. The
[cross-post]
Dear Colleagues,
This mail is about rights in RFCs and Internet drafts. The topic draws
context, and uses terminology from:
RFC 4844: The RFC Series and RFC Editor
RFC 4846: Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor
RFC 5378: Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust
RFC
ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
Hi,
it was just pointed out to me that it's hard (impossible?) to find the
archive for the ietf-charsets mailing list.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/charset-info points to
http://mail.apps.ietf.org/ietf/charsets/maillist.html, but that 404s
(maybe just
Ned Freed wrote:
...
There's no issue at all, if you check you'll see that you have already been
subscribed to the list. It just doesn't happen instantly, that's all.
95%+ of the subscription requests for this list are clearly attempts to
subscribe something bogus to the list. Legit requests
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Wes Hardaker wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:26:54 -0700, Andy Bierman i...@andybierman.com
said:
AB discard-changes only works because authorization is ignored,
AB otherwise the agent would be deadlocked.
Huh why would discard-changes be authorization ignorant??? That's
just as
Hello,
I was discussing RFC 5617 with someone and the person mentioned that
the copyright in the middle of the document is obnoxious. The
copyright statement for the code is 32 lines while the code (ABNF) is
only five lines.
If an author wants to include the statement in a RFC for the sake
That's essentially why we are trying to enable folks to put a
reference in. The license needs to be with the extracted code. Can you
suggest a way to put the license at the end (where I would but happier
to have it also) and have it wind up in the extracted code?
On Aug 13, 2009, at 2:04
At 2:12 PM -0700 8/13/09, Fred Baker wrote:
That's essentially why we are trying to enable folks to put a reference in.
The license needs to be with the extracted code. Can you suggest a way to put
the license at the end (where I would but happier to have it also) and have it
wind up in the
At 14:12 13-08-2009, Fred Baker wrote:
That's essentially why we are trying to enable folks to put a
reference in. The license needs to be with the extracted code. Can you
suggest a way to put the license at the end (where I would but happier
to have it also) and have it wind up in the extracted
Sorry for the late response -- my laptop was stolen in Stockholm I'm just
getting back to normal :-(
If we are to dismiss the Design Guidelines as a personal preference how
are they to be taken seriously?
They shouldn't be taken _too_ seriously.
I understand that following someone else's
On 2009-08-13, at 17:34, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
Instead of putting it at the end, it could be put on a web site on
a URL that is epected to be long-lived. http://www.rfc-editor.org/licenses/rfc6789-figure-1-license.txt
comes to mind.
I don't think I've seen this
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Why not have these stable licences published in RFCs? Those are
already an archival format, so the reference is then not ambiguous. The
code could then just include a [RFC] reference, I guess?
+1
d/--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
Total of 52 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Aug 14 00:53:06 EDT 2009
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
5.77% |3 | 10.25% |35270 | sha...@juniper.net
5.77% |3 | 6.37% |21912 |
21 matches
Mail list logo
