On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 10:32:22AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> The issue here is that there is a MAY in RFC 3168 that IMHO should
> be a SHOULD. That's the first MAY in section 6.1.1.1. If your ECN
> code implemented that MAY, you would not have seen a problem.
>
Nope, not true. The pr
> Please stop arguing on how a router should handle bits. There is a problem
> here ISOC or ISOC's ISP has some broken routers (we all agree on that?)
> and they need to be fixed.
best to call the net police immediately
randy
RFC 3174
http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/rfcdoctype.pl?loc=RFC&letsgo=3174&type=ftp&file_format=txt
==
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851
hi,
is there any public domain where SHA1 license free
source code (C - source code) is available??
Thx in advance
chintan
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
http://www.sendmail.org/tips/pathmtu.html
As we are talking about ECN and the funny handling of the IP suite by some
admins and vendors, here another one for your reference. I had this problem
4 years ago, when my default MTU was 576 on my slow unreliable link... Found
out that about 5%(pifomatic
> From: "David J. Aronson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm only on the regular IETF list .. and I eventually got it four times
> too
I think there's some bug in the mailer that handles the IETF list. For the
past couple of months, I've often seen longer messages get multiplicated (e.g.
in
Sandy Wills wrote:
>
> "David J. Aronson" wrote:
> > Eliot Lear wrote:
> > > Here is last week's presentation.
> > ...
> >
> > Yes, all 278k of it. TWICE.
> I received that post
> FOUR times (I know, it's my fault for lurking on so many IETF lists),
I'm only on the regular IETF list (used to b
In regards to all comments.
Yes I'm using linux 2.4.x, and I'm disabling linux to handle ECN, because
there is too much trouble with important organisations we are working with.
I gave early an URL that lists some of these organisations like some
important departments of the US government
Pl
"David J. Aronson" wrote:
> Eliot Lear wrote:
> > Here is last week's presentation.
> ...
>
> Yes, all 278k of it. TWICE.
>
> The usual accepted way to share large files, is to post them somewhere
> on the Web (or at least ftp-able), and send the URL to the list.
Sometimes, it helps to hear
Yo Daniel!
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Daniel Senie wrote:
> RFC3168 is dated September 2001. That's pretty recent.
RFC 793 is dated September 1981. If the routers/firewalls handled
packets per RFC 793 there would be no problem. Just set them to zero
and pass them along.
The reserved bits were firs
Eliot Lear wrote:
> Here is last week's presentation.
...
> Name: NSRG Presentation-1.ppt
>NSRG Presentation-1.pptType: Microsoft PowerPoint Show
>(application/vnd.ms-powerpoint)
>
At 09:49 PM 7/23/2002 -0400, Peterson, Jon wrote:
>I believe that the industry, the press and even some governments have
>consistently looked to the IETF to produce a single standard for instant
>messaging and presence precisely because IM&P is an unusually balkanized
>application on the Internet
A
>regardless, there are numerous precedents to invalidate your position that
>we can work on only one. the most obvious is cpim, which explicitly
>acknowledges the existence of many.
Understood.. but Marshall I never wrote there should only be one. I am
keeping a open mind on this as I noted in
I believe that the industry, the press and even some governments have
consistently looked to the IETF to produce a single standard for instant
messaging and presence precisely because IM&P is an unusually balkanized
application on the Internet - unlike email and the web and so on instant
messagin
On 7/23/02, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>
>While these "blow by blow" accounts give the appearance of
>great detail, I think they are seldom sufficiently
>accurate or complete enough to support using them to
>discern "motivations and other nuances." YMMV.
>
>A few years ago the minute taker for one WG
I think I missed something. ECN routers aren't ignoring reserved bits? Why?
At 01:16 AM 7/24/2002, Franck Martin wrote:
>I'm not in a campaign to promote ECN, or anything... I'm saying that ISOC
>web site is not reachable if you enable ECN, which RFC793(standard) or
>RFC3168(proposed Standard) talk about.
>
>I don't want to talk about what is a standard or what is not...
Richard Shockey wrote:
> this is XML
> messaging ...why didnt the Jabber community choose OASIS or W3C..which
> strikes me as a more logical home for these kind of things and there is a
> larger community of XML expertise there.
But using XML is not the hard part. Using XML is nearly trivial;
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Franck,
>
> ISOC knows about this, but you actually need to contact ISOC's ISP.
>
> But frankly it's a quixotic mission; SMTP mailers that break when they
> find a non-ECN-tolerant SMTP peer are likely to encounter trouble for
> some years to come
At 11:21 PM 7/23/02 +0100, Lloyd Wood wrote:
>I'm just waiting for someone to log a workgroup chat session and send
>it in for publishing as minutes or a draft.
That happens all the time in W3C working groups.
#g
---
Graham Klyne
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi -
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 21:25:21 -0400
> From: Scott Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: how to take minutes
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
> > Some of these meeting notes that capture (some of) the words
> > but miss the point of the discussion.
>
> That
Franck,
ISOC knows about this, but you actually need to contact ISOC's ISP.
But frankly it's a quixotic mission; SMTP mailers that break when they
find a non-ECN-tolerant SMTP peer are likely to encounter trouble for
some years to come.
The issue here is that there is a MAY in RFC 3168 that
I agree with Pekka and Scott. When I was chairing an active working group,
I put significant effort into collecting detailed minutes so as to record
the meeting discussions, not just the results. In response, I often
received positive comments from WG participants (both attendees and
non-attende
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Pekka Savola wrote:
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:43:24 +0300 (EEST)
> From: Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Scott Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: how to take minutes
>
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Scott Brim wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 05:5
Minutes or notes of meetings should record the issues discussed,
proposals, the differences and agreements, conclusions or decisions,
disagreement, together with any further or follow-up action to be taken,
by whom, and by when.
All participants should as far as possible be identified and recorde
I don't see why this is embarrasing. I have no problems with people
setting up filtering rules that say DENY-ALL accept packets that I
EXPLICITLY know what every bit does, and I want to allow it...
That said, ECN is a relatively recent addition to the suite and I
wouldn't expect all firewalling
26 matches
Mail list logo
