If IPSec adds any latency beyond startup negotiation
The encryption takes some time. Some $olutions will have
hardware for it, but straightforward implementations mean
lots of bit-field operations, which most C compilers don't
optimize very well, and some compilers on certain platforms
From: Stephen Kent [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: Topic drift Re: An Internet Draft as reference
material
As someone who was around when the notion of an I-D was
created, let
me disagree
At 12:07 27/09/00, Melinda Shore wrote:
Archival material is *extremely* important for
future research.
The archival material is the RFC --*only*--.
Just because the document isn't
for publication and cannot be used normatively
doesn't mean that it should be obliterated.
I would not want
Dave Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED], on behalf of "Nexsi
Corporation", has sent unsolicited job-recruitment spam to addresses
apparently gleaned from the posted IETF Nomcom volunteer list.
Form your own opinion. You can guess mine.
Matt Crawford
Archival material is *extremely* important for future research.
no doubt. but we have a conflict of interests here.
on one hand, historians and folks doing patent searches could
make good use of archived internet-drafts.
on the other hand, IETF needs the Internet-Draft series to be very
From: RJ Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: Topic drift Re: An Internet Draft as reference
material
The archival material is the RFC --*only*--.
Actually, it's not. It's whatever's
Dave Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED], on behalf of "Nexsi
Corporation", has sent unsolicited job-recruitment spam to addresses
apparently gleaned from the posted IETF Nomcom volunteer list.
actually, it must have been a wider list, as i was included as a victim.
i foolishly presume folk on the
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: Topic drift Re: An Internet Draft as reference
material
already there are too many folks who avoid issuing
I-Ds except when required to do so
already there are too many folks who avoid issuing
I-Ds except when required to do so because they feel that the
publication process is too burdensome and too slow, and too
many people treat I-Ds as something akin to final form documents
(as in, they need to be close to "right") rather
Tim Salo wrote:
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:02:00 -0700
From: Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
[...]
From RFC 2026, Section 10.3.1. All Contributions:
Reading along further in the same document:
... Internet Drafts
--On Wednesday, 27 September, 2000 09:58 -0400 RJ Atkinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:07 27/09/00, Melinda Shore wrote:
Archival material is *extremely* important for
future research.
The archival material is the RFC --*only*--.
Melinda,
I've got very mixed feelings about this
On the other hand, there's the National Archives in the U.S. If I'm
not mistaken, there's a requirement that even draft papers be
preserved, precisely because of their importance to the historical
record. (There's a lot of discussion there about retention of email
and the like by government
Or "archived".
Steve
- Original Message -
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
I, for one, would like to see the IETF host an public archive
of expired I-Ds
Folks,
This is an announcement for an informal interim discussion of the
(hopefully soon to be approved) Reliable Server Pooling group,
to be held on Wednesday, October 25th in North Carolina.
The group, formerly called RSPool and now called Rserpool, intends to
address requirements and
But seriously - it would be *nice* if the trade press scrutinized all the
documents - but sometimes I wish the reporter would wave a cluon-flux meter
over the press release..
Mabe we need some publicity. How about a working group to issue
"Golden Fleece" type awards at each IETF meeting? We
actually, it must have been a wider list, as i was included as a victim.
i foolishly presume folk on the ietf list are net.savvy enough to know
that wise folk do not do any business with spammers. their lack of ethics
is likely not limited to email.
Come on, this guy's a head hunter.
It's not merely that I-D's are already archived, albeit inconveniently
and obscurely.
yes, but IETF isn't (yet) maintaining public archives, so IETF doesn't
(yet) have the liability of breaking its agreement to expire the draft
after six months.
I agree that anyone who expects an I-D to
It has been brought to our attention that there has been
an issue raised on this alias that the alias has been
spammed by Nexsi. Nexsi takes spamming very seriously and
does not condone nor authorize it. If you have any questions
or further concerns, please contact me directly.
Regards,
Beth
Greg, it is so rare that I disagree, but I'm seeing a pattern now of
loss of institutional memory, and that scares me. This especially holds
for bad ideas or transition documents.
So here's what I propose to address the matter:
Convert the I-Ds to ps or pdf files (something hard to change)
At 21:09 27/09/00, Beth Shaw wrote:
It has been brought to our attention that there has been
an issue raised on this alias that the alias has been
spammed by Nexsi. Nexsi takes spamming very seriously and
does not condone nor authorize it. If you have any questions
or further concerns, please
Actually, the reality is that this alias wasn't spammed. Someone [apparently]
used information obtained from some apparently-IETF-associated list to send
unsolicited messages to lots of folks that are associated with the IETF (in
some form or another).
Ran, does your company make it routine
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not merely that I-D's are already archived, albeit inconveniently
and obscurely.
yes, but IETF isn't (yet) maintaining public archives, so IETF doesn't
(yet) have the liability of breaking its agreement to expire the draft
after six months.
Perhaps the IETF should consider adding an explicit warning
to each I-D when it enters the archive:
STATUS OF THIS MEMO:
THIS DOCUMENT IS AN EXPIRED INTERNET-DRAFT. USE OF
THIS MEMO FOR ANY PURPOSE EXCEPT AS A HISTORICAL
DOCUMENT IS STUPID, WRONG, AND
Below is a so called representation agreement I received but it has many
ambiguities. Is this agreement clear to you why there's $25,000.00 fee
assessed prior and why it can be prudently fined for any "unspecified
damages without proof of actual damages" on a call of "any would be damages
or
24 matches
Mail list logo
