> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> agree entirely. but for this to work there have to be folks within
> the WG who are willing to raise a fuss.
That's a good point, but there is another question that must always be
asked. When there is no hope of influencing something, then it c
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> And the latest kludge which has been called to my attention is ISP's
> that tamper with the MSS values in TCP SYN packets in flight. This is
> done to work around smaller MTU's caused by PPP over Ethernet (and other
> tunnelling mechanisms) interac
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:47:04 -0600 (MDT)
From: Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Which is why it was depressing. Oh, well, perhaps a future version of
the Problems draft will consider that issue and say as others wrote, it's
not a problem and can be fixed with big buffers wat
Can anyone send the faq that was sent out a few months ago..
thanks
I found the following in rfc2028..
> 2.1 The Request for Comments Editor
>
>The RFC publication series [B] is managed by an Editor (which may in
>practice be one or more individuals) responsible both for the
>mechanics of RFC publication and for upholding the traditionally
>high
> I have a question: so ~who~ is the RFC-Editor these days given that The
> RFC-Editor (aka Jon Postel) has passed on? I've groveled thru the
> www.ietf.org and the www.rfc-editor.org pages and can't see who all is
> presently acting in this role, but perhaps I simply missed it.
brought to you by
I have a question: so ~who~ is the RFC-Editor these days given that The
RFC-Editor (aka Jon Postel) has passed on? I've groveled thru the www.ietf.org
and the www.rfc-editor.org pages and can't see who all is presently acting in
this role, but perhaps I simply missed it.
Am just overall curiou
FWIW, there _was_ discussion in WREC of the hazards of transparent web
caching. I dug up an old e-mail, describing the hazards of transparent
web caching which I summarized at the time, when WREC was forming.
A copy of the note, admittedly very rough (just an outline, and a very
rough one at that
> Call me a non-team playing scab, but I refuse to the honor the old guild
> work rule that limits the questions I can consider. If sourcing
> other-owned etc. or anything else is an architectural or other problem,
> then professional pride ought to force one to raise the issue insetad of
> waiti
> This was a choice - in some larger sense, if sourcing other-owned IP
> addresses or TCP connections is considered an architectural problem,
> needs to come down from above, rather than up from WREC.
sounds like a convenient excuse to me...
where did the wrec folks get the idea that the IP spec
...
> > Joining that mailing list would not be useful, prudent, or honest for
> > people with sentiments like mine. Moving the question of the wisdom of
> > such proxies to WREC would be equivalent to moving the question of the
> > wisdom of wiretapping to the wiretapping working group. At best
This whole thread is perhaps the best reason to have protocols go through
working groups, so that concerns can be raised and documented, and so that
the IESG can weigh in on correctness, risks, and yes, to a certain extent
morality.
I wonder if any of the authors has explored the risks of modifyi
> From: Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> > The problems draft is interesting and depressing. All of the problems
> > listed are technical nits.
>
> This was a choice - in some larger sense, if sourcing other-owned IP
> addresses or TCP connections is considered an architectural problem,
>
"BookIII, Robert" wrote:
>
> Joe,
> Am I to presume by your statement that you are of the mind that the
> time for considering whether vs. which has already come and gone? Is there
> anyone on this list who thinks that?
With respect to 'inside the WG', yes, the assumption has been (to
Joe,
Am I to presume by your statement that you are of the mind that the
time for considering whether vs. which has already come and gone? Is there
anyone on this list who thinks that?
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Vernon Schryver wrote:
>
> > From: John Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > There has been a lot of discussion about the problems associated with
> > so-called "interception proxies". This discussion is very much within the
> > charter of the WREC WG. In fact, we even have a current draft whose sol
wrec is supposed to be about *web* replication and caching.
which probably doesn't include email. so I can hardly
blame them for not talking about port 25. since other kinds
of interception proxies exist, perhaps they should clarify their
document slightly to say it's about web interception pro
Yixin Zhu wrote:
>
> Hi ,
>
> I am interested in the Open Settlement Protocol for VoIP. I have check the
> web site for GRIC and TransNexus, and got some information. It will be
> appreciated if someone here can point to me more places to get info on
> this topic.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yixin (Jam
> From: Erik Fair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Almost all of the pressure created by the growth of the Internet is
> on the network operators and their vendors (e.g. router vendors),
> rather than on the users and the end systems (and the end system
> vendors
Well, there are rationa
Hi ,
I am interested in the Open Settlement Protocol for VoIP. I have check the
web site for GRIC and TransNexus, and got some information. It will be
appreciated if someone here can point to me more places to get info on
this topic.
Thanks,
Yixin (James) Zhu
> From: John Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There has been a lot of discussion about the problems associated with
> so-called "interception proxies". This discussion is very much within the
> charter of the WREC WG. In fact, we even have a current draft whose sole
> purpose is to document such p
At 02:38 AM 4/9/00 +0100, Martin J.G. Williams wrote:
>As far as i'm concerned (IMHO) if the standards bodies were to be driven
>by the
>vendors, then they would become no more
>than sanitised purveyors of de facto standards, and je jure standards would be
>relegated to being nothing more than "m
> It's also bad that there is little or no integration of intermediate
> system vendors with end system vendors (or vice versa), because that
> results in insufficient sharing of information between those two
> industry segments. The IETF should be facilitating information
> exchange, but it i
Bernard Aboba wrote:
...
> >- indicators that there is an important problem that needs to be
> > solved in a technically sound fashion
>
> If this mail thread is any indication, I'd say the indicator is
> shining brightly.
There are many people wearing 3-month goggles who still just can't see i
It's much worse than that.
In the End to End model, far too many of our problems require
changing all the end systems to solve. However, that's extremely
difficult to do, particularly as there is little or no incentive (the
DCA/DISA had guns, and control of the IMPs in 1982/1983 to force the
> >it's completely natural that people will try such approaches -
> >they are trying to address real problems and they want quick
> >solutions to those problems.
>
> In particular, they will try such approaches if they are not
> presented with better alternatives.
there's something odd to my
26 matches
Mail list logo
