Gonzalo,
Would a proxy reject a whole request because it carries some type of
information (without the proxy knowing the exact contents of the
information)?... or would the proxy remove the information and proxy the
remainder of the request?.
Today, in the PSTN, DT uses both methods, and
I don't make that assumption at all. ENUM cannot be used to establish any
authoritative mapping of E.164 to domain. I fought that war for 10 years and
lost thank you.
In addition I reject the assertion in the proposed charter that private
federations don't scale. In fact they do and are widely
A few months ago I drew up a strawman proposal for a public-facing
IETF privacy policy (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cooper-privacy-policy-00.txt
). I've submitted an update based on feedback received: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cooper-privacy-policy-01.txt
In discussing the policy with the
Alissa Cooper wrote:
1) Respond on this list if you support the idea of the IETF having a
privacy policy (a simple +1 will do).
+1
It's time, I think.
Melinda
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hi.
As mentioned in the analysis of
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels I posted yesterday, I've made
a pass through the old (NEWTRK-vintage) ISD specification. A
new version is in the posting queue as draft-klensin-isdbis-00.
While the flavor and much of the text of the old version is
still
--On Monday, July 05, 2010 5:05 PM +0100 Alissa Cooper
acoo...@cdt.org wrote:
A few months ago I drew up a strawman proposal for a
public-facing IETF privacy policy
(http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cooper-privacy-policy-00.txt).
I've submitted an update based on feedback received:
On 7/5/2010 9:05 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
In discussing the policy with the IAOC and others, it seems clear that the RFC
model is probably not the best model for maintaining and updating a document
like this.
While I could imagine that you are correct, the answer isn't at all clear to me.
wearing no hats
On Jul 5, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 7/5/2010 9:05 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
In discussing the policy with the IAOC and others, it seems clear
that the RFC
model is probably not the best model for maintaining and updating a
document
like this.
While I
Dear colleagues,
This is an update on the DNS Extensions (DNSEXT) efforts on aliasing
in the DNS, and a call for participation.
Prior to IETF 77, we posted some background and a call for
participation. You can find that in the archives at
Marshall,
On 7/5/2010 11:28 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I assume (for I do not know) that people are worried about time involved in
bringing a new RFC to publication.
The IESG often states that it is not difficult to bring an RFC to publication.
In any event, what makes this document more
Paul of course I've read them, though the PVP document is uniquely dense and
gave me a headache. Security by ID Obscurity.
My assertion still stands. In the absence of any linkage in the PVP to the
E164 numbering authorities and or databases any assertion about verification
and validation of a
Hi Alissa,
At 09:05 05-07-10, Alissa Cooper wrote:
A few months ago I drew up a strawman proposal for a public-facing
IETF privacy policy
(http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cooper-privacy-policy-00.txt ). I've
submitted an update based on feedback received:
Hi John,
At 17:38 04-07-10, John C Klensin wrote:
(1) Analysis of the problem as stated in
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-01
The draft indicates (Section 1) that:
The proposed changes are designed to simplify the process
and reduce impediments to standards progression
and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greetings,
For those interested in monitoring sessions or participating remotely
the following information may prove useful.
- -Audio Streaming-
All 8 parallel tracks at the IETF 78 meeting will be broadcast starting
with the commencement of
Thank you Brother Conroy... this is a full IETF discussion since it does
involve the creation of a new working group that does not seem to understand
what is actually involved in E.164 validation.
I do understand what this is really about..how do we screw global voice
service providers since the
--On Monday, July 05, 2010 11:40 AM -0700 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Marshall,
On 7/5/2010 11:28 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I assume (for I do not know) that people are worried about
time involved in bringing a new RFC to publication.
The IESG often states that it is not
On 2010-07-06 08:49, SM wrote:
...
The author of the draft is the current IETF Chair. I have some
reservations about the IETF Chair driving such a proposal through the
process. Although the IETF Chair is also an IETF participant, it can be
perceived as problematic when the person writes a
On 7/5/10 6:05 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
1) Respond on this list if you support the idea of the IETF having a
privacy policy (a simple +1 will do).
+1.
2) If you have comments and suggestions about the policy itself, send
them to this list.
Our lingua franca are internet-drafts RFCs.
18 matches
Mail list logo
