Bonney Robin Hood Kooper wrote:
[..]
But if you take the
system view and consider the big picture, and try to
see who is benefitting most in increased revenues as a
result of pushing their proprietary standards as IETF
standards, [..]
If you are not seeing any personal or business
Furthermore, the IETF specifications that allow 7-bit software should be
fixed as soon as possible. Do you disagree with this?
Or do you want these bugs to continue to plague programmers in 10 years?
20 years? 50 years?
I'm having trouble understanding why we're still using these old
At 10:18 AM 3/18/2002 -0600, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William Allen Simpson writes:
The Purple Streak (Hilarie Orman) wrote:
...
But Bill, I'm trying to understand what your point is. We can't force
people to use security. IPsec is standard in most major business
Ok, I have to say something.
I agree that NATs are evil, and *should* not exist. But, since ISP's
currently charge tons of money for more than one IP address, they always
*will* exist.
Maybe IPv6 will fix all that . . . . we can only pray . . .
--
David Frascone
Reality is for those
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:00:22 PST, Peter Ford [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I would love to see the complete solution to signaling all the potential
blocking intermediate hops in the network that specific traffic should
pass.
I would love to see the complete *SECURE* solution to signaling all the
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:40:02 CST, David Frascone said:
I agree that NATs are evil, and *should* not exist. But, since ISP's
currently charge tons of money for more than one IP address, they always
*will* exist.
Bad logic. They won't always will. They will as long as ISPs have the
current
Being practical, you only *need* to attend a meeting if there is an
intractable problem in front of a WG you're actively participating in,
and solving that problem requires a face-to-face session.
essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
restaurants, and bars -
essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:43:06 CST, Matt Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
I'm willing to place
OK, but that does not solve the problem where the NATs are mostly deployed
-- home and SOHO -- until all internet servers of interest to those users
speak IPv6. Can be upgraded to do so is great if you control the server,
but these users don't. So Yahoo, Google, etc can be pursuaded to
in a just world, the NAT vendors would all be sued out of existence for
the harm they've done to the Internet. in the real world, if you can
hire a famous personality to advertise your product on TV, then by
definition it must work well.
The last time I was this
OK, but that does not solve the problem where the NATs are mostly deployed
-- home and SOHO -- until all internet servers of interest to those users
speak IPv6. Can be upgraded to do so is great if you control the server,
but these users don't.
true enough. fortunately, NAT doesn't
On Mar 19, D. J. Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Robinson writes:
Something *should* be done, but your argument has a hint of
'I never want anything done, ever' about it, which is putting people off.
I have put a huge amount of effort into evaluating the costs of various
IDN
essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
I'm willing to place bets that a *very* large chunk of things
accomplished in the
everyone--
I know this is a frequent source of heated discussion, and that much has
already been said that doesn't need to be repeated here, but I *just*
*can't* *let* *this* *go* unchallenged.
-
On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 08:26 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
[...]
in a just world, the NAT
On Mar 19, D. J. Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Go sell a Greek user an ``internationalized domain name'' with a delta,
Pete. Then tell him that most of his correspondents will see the delta
as incomprehensible gobbledygook rather than a delta. See what he says.
OK, scenario 1:
You tell
The first thing I would suggest is to sit back and contemplate whether
the situation bears any resemblance to other problems in which the user
population engages in behavior that results in short-term personal
benefit in exchange for long-term harm to the welfare of society.
granted there
essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
you cleverly left off the rest of my statement where I said
the ideas are reviewed by WGs.
nor
On Mar 18, grenville armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the IETF meetings you've participated in, are you saying the morning
and afternoon stimulants failed to help you stay awake during your various
WGs, BOFs, and hallway discussions?
Stimulants? Who needs stimulants when you've got
Keith,
In a just world, people freely purchase the things they want and believe
solves a real world problem for them.
The Internet has grown at an incredible rate and I suspect in large part
due to NATs. I wonder if the Internet would sue the NAT vendors, or
thank them for establishing a
You've said that you don't go to meetings, so I won't fault your
naivete, but the bulk of the hallway and bar work consists of
squashing, not originating, WG items.
since more bad/naive ideas are generated than good ones, this seems
entirely appropriate.
Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Keith Moore
had to walk into mine and say:
granted there are numerous instances of this. but it seems disingenuous
to blame the NAT problem on users when the NAT vendors are doing their
best to mislead users about the harm that NAT
On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 01:10 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
[I wrote:]
The first thing I would suggest is to sit back and contemplate whether
the situation bears any resemblance to other problems in which the user
population engages in behavior that results in short-term personal
benefit in
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
I think this is an artifact of the use of mailing lists for WG traffic:
it's just not practical to follow all the mailing lists. (I sure
don't.) A possible solution would be to feed all of the WG lists into a
read-only IMAP (and NNTP) server,
To believe this, you must believe that large vendors
are unable to ship a
product until it has some sort of IETF rubber stamp.
Stephen,
It does increase the acceptance of a solution
specially when customers are concerned about
inter-operatability issues. It is more so in carrier
networks.
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it seems disingenuous to blame the NAT problem on users when the NAT
vendors are doing their best to mislead users about the harm that NAT
does.
Oh, piffle. NAT's don't harm the Internet, any more than a host of other
things: invisible Web
I think you missed the important point. It's not the NAT vendors, it's
the ISPs.
I'll grant that ISPs have something to do with it. But there is a
shortage of IPv4 addresses, so it's not as if anybody can have as
many as they want. And it's not the fact that people are selling
NAT that I
Noel Chiappa wrote:
...
security alone demands that we be able to
move some functionality to a site border router, or some
such.
Why does security demand an external border? Is that based on the
assumption that the host is too stupid to protect itself? If it is based
on having an app
Oh, piffle. NAT's don't harm the Internet, any more than a host of other
things:
the fact that other things do harm doesn't mean that NATs don't also
do harm, or that the harm done by NAT is somehow lessened or excused.
and IMHO most of the other things you mentioned do less harm than NATs,
Keith;
I think you missed the important point. It's not the NAT vendors, it's
the ISPs.
I'll grant that ISPs have something to do with it. But there is a
shortage of IPv4 addresses, so it's not as if anybody can have as
many as they want.
Wrong.
There actually is no shortage of IPv4
Paul Robinson writes:
You tell him that although it's gobbledygook to people without greek
alphabet support, it will still work. It's not convenient, but it WILL
work. Guaranteed.
False. IDNA does _not_ work. IDNA causes interoperability failures. Mail
will bounce, for example, in situations
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:01:14 PST, Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Why does security demand an external border? Is that based on the
assumption that the host is too stupid to protect itself? If it is based
Yes.
The host may be too stupid to protect itself - read Bugtraq or other similar
D. J. Bernstein;
Paul Robinson writes:
You tell him that although it's gobbledygook to people without greek
alphabet support, it will still work. It's not convenient, but it WILL
work. Guaranteed.
False. IDNA does _not_ work. IDNA causes interoperability failures.
IDNA does _not_
Hi.
One or two of the messages I've sent out haven't received a single reply
(wich is strange, considering there's always some person who disagrees
with you).
How is this list moderated? Is it at all? What's ok and what gets filtered
out?
--
Thor
Date:Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:32:41 +0859 ()
From:Masataka Ohta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| IDNA does _not_ work, because Unicode does not work in International
| context.
This argument is bogus, and always has been. If (and where) unicode
is
35 matches
Mail list logo
