I said that it seems to have been the original marketing pitch, not that it
was a good one or that it was going to add security.
That was when almost all of us (myself included) were going through our
'cryptography makes everything secure phase'.
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Brian E
I have reviewed the updated draft, and I believe it to be much clearer in intent
and in which modifications to the underlying matching semantics are present.
If it were to progress in its current form, I would not have any
technical objections.
While it is still somewhat confusing to have a URI
I have reviewed the updated draft, and I believe it to be much clearer in intent
and in which modifications to the underlying matching semantics are present.
If it were to progress in its current form, I would not have any
technical objections.
While it is still somewhat confusing to have a URI
On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
On the general clarity, I also have to say that I believe that the document
tipped over the diff line somewhere. That is, as a set of edits it is now
sufficiently complex that it would almost certainly be better to apply
the edits and re-spin
Hi Ben,
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Ben Campbell b...@estacado.net wrote:
On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
On the general clarity, I also have to say that I believe that the document
tipped over the diff line somewhere. That is, as a set of edits it is now
sufficiently
The new draft is clearer but I still don't think it addresses my concerns. I
would say at this point they could be summarized as
1) The draft is very hard to review without doing the diffs to 4975. To try and
help instead of just complain, I'm willing to go back patch these changes into
the
Hi Adrian,
Are you referring to the COMEDIA support in msrp-acm, the session matching
change in msrp-sessmatch, or both?
Thanks!
Ben.
On Oct 14, 2010, at 5:26 PM, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
My two cents. Having implemented both models in Blink client (Blink is a free
download if someone
On 10/11/10 7:40 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
Le 9 oct. 2010 à 02:50, Fred Baker a écrit :
That's not limited to Germany. Would that dtag.de would use 172.16/12
rather than 10/8 or 192.168/16, as the latter two seem to find their way
into so many home configurations.
Having the same prefix
Including the IETF list because the draft in question is in IETF LC.
Hope this helps.
~gwz
From: LIU Hans [mailto:hans@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 10:09 AM
To: draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Mail regarding draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis
Total of 99 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Oct 15 00:53:02 EDT 2010
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
8.08% |8 | 13.35% |86602 | hal...@gmail.com
10.10% | 10 | 7.35% |47688 |
A modified charter has been submitted for the NETCONF Data Modeling
Language (netmod) working group in the Operations and Management Area of
the IETF. The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The modified
charter is provided below for informational purposes only. Please send
your
11 matches
Mail list logo
