On 5/10/2004 3:02 AM, RL 'Bob' Morgan wrote:
So a secure ports only policy has very little to do with security and
very much to do with organizational power relationships, and making
your computing environment dysfunctional.
Somebody check my math on this please, but it seems to me that
So a secure ports only policy has very little to do with security and
very much to do with organizational power relationships, and making
your computing environment dysfunctional.
Somebody check my math on this please, but it seems to me that the whole
STARTTLS approach is succeptible to
Speaking as OPS AD who is currently on-line.
The other OPS AD (David Kessens) is in the air and so is Harald.
Please refrain from this discussion on the DNSOP mailing list.
I have seen the complaint and will investigate and come with an
answer. The issue was between Dean and one of Rob Austein's
but ISC.ORG doesn't want to take a complaint. Bill Manning, of EP.NET
(ISC.ORG upstream) says he has no contract with me to accept complaints
about ISC.ORG.
--Dean
Dean... you are asserting a relationship that you have no
way to prove exists. Unless or until
assignment of IP space does not impune any other
service. Asserting otherwise is foolish. Pressing
the point, esp. in public fora, appears to be
willful ignorance. Please enjoy your blissful state.
--bill
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:02:45PM -0400, Dean
On the other hand, STARTTLS *requires* a clear channel that the client
MUST *already* be using. So whereas the attack on SSL *might* succeed in
putting the client in touch with an unencrypted service, TLS is
*guaranteed* to be using such a service already anyway. The only question
is whether
DNSOP list members -
A friendly reminder about the list setup:
DNSOP, the Domain Name System Operations WG list.
Questions about the administration of this list should be addressed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posts intended for the entire list should be addressed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you plan to
if you are serious, please feel free to contact your legal council
to persue remedies.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 03:32:27PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
I can't parse your statement. I didn't say assignment of IP space
__impunes__ a service. Perhaps you meant to say that your assignment of
Where would you suggest I take it?
It says in the IETF mission statement:
The IETF will pursue this mission in adherence to the following
cardinal principles:
Open process - that any interested participant can in fact
participate in the work, know what is being decided, and
On 10 May 2004, at 16:10, Dean Anderson wrote:
As Joe Abley revealed previously, this configuration from ISC.ORG isn't
meant to actually block spam.
What?
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 11 May 2004, at 14:26, Dean Anderson wrote:
One thing I've noticed is that of none of the people criticizing me has
thought to address the fact that OUR ADDRESS SPACE IS NOT HIJACKED, and
that these people associated with the IETF: Paul Vixie, Joe Abley, Bill
Manning, and Rob Austein as WG
On 11 May 2004, at 14:02, Dean Anderson wrote:
The following message indicates that EP.NET has assigned an IP address
to
ISC.ORG. You are quite well aware of this. Dissembling will not help
you.
For the benefit of less-operational people here who don't see humour in
this, 198.32.176.0/24 is
I would ignore this, but it materially mis-states ISC.ORGS involvement in
SORBS. ISC.ORG __HOSTS__ www.sorbs.net on 204.152.186.189:
On Tue, 11 May 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
For the benefit of less-operational people here who don't see humour in
this, 198.32.176.0/24 is the PAIX IPv4 peering
On 11 May 2004, at 17:55, Dean Anderson wrote:
I would ignore this, but it materially mis-states ISC.ORGS involvement
in
SORBS. ISC.ORG __HOSTS__ www.sorbs.net on 204.152.186.189:
For a more complete list of resources hosted at ISC, you might try:
http://www.isc.org/ops/hosting
On Tue, 11
I sent a response to Rob in regard to a post he made on DNSOP, and he
responded that my IP addresses were hijacked.
--Dean
On Tue, 11 May 2004, Richard Barr Hibbs wrote:
while Rob and I have had serious disagreements about
technical matters in the past, I've never known him
--On 11. mai 2004 17:10 -0400 Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the benefit of less-operational people here who don't see humour in
this, 198.32.176.0/24 is the PAIX IPv4 peering fabric in the Bay Area.
Some of Dean's mail servers are listed on SORBS. ISC's MXes use SORBS.
Perhaps we
Dean,
third time same complaint, third time same answer.
No.
A WG chair is expected to read mail coming from the working group list.
What he does with copies that go directly to him is his own business.
And as I have told you on the previous two instances of this complaint:
Personal mail to
--On 10. mai 2004 09:33 -0400 Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this misses one of the outcomes listed in RFC 2026 - specifically (quoting
from 2026):
the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the
IETF and progressed within the IETF context
this path has been
On 5/10/2004 10:31 AM, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
At 9:38 AM -0500 5/10/04, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Using an encrypted port just means an attack can only produce
failure, rather than inducing fallback.
Unless that's wrong for some reason, I'd say that a secure ports
policy actually is more
On 11-mei-04, at 6:47, Mark Smith wrote:
The basic idea is that a source host initially
assumes that the PMTU of a path is the (known) MTU of its first
hop, and sends all datagrams on that path with the DF bit set.
^
And this is where all the problems start. This flies
Pete,
I thought I was describing the status quo and what is currently
happening. Unless the IAB has handed off that responsibility
to the IESG in the last two years (in which case the community
wasn't told), the IESG's having any discussion at all with the
RFC Editor about an IAB document
--On 10. mai 2004 09:33 -0400 Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this misses one of the outcomes listed in RFC 2026 - specifically (quoting
from 2026):
the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the
IETF and progressed within the IETF context
this path has
--On 11. mai 2004 08:46 -0400 Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- The work can be done in the IETF, and the author agrees. The author
should (IMHO) be the one to inform the RFC Editor that he/she is
dropping the request to publish outside IETF review.
but that seems to drop a ball - the
Anything else should (IMHO) be advice to the RFC Editor and the author, and
not be part of the formal position-taking the IESG makes.
we may be debating termonology
your ID says The IESG may return five different responses
that seems to eliminate the possibility of communicating any
such
At 2:18 AM -0500 5/11/04, Eric A. Hall wrote:
I'm not even sure they are similar arguments. I mean, the argument against
SSL is that *if* an SSL connection is blocked, and *if* an alternative
clear channel exists, and *if* that channel accepts clear-text logins, and
*if* the client fallsback
Scott, Harald,
It seems to me that this problem/ disagreement could be easily
solved while preserving the (IMO, valid) points both of you are
making, by including a sentence somewhere to the effect of...
Of course, the IESG or individual ADs may have
discussions with the author
in general that seems OK though I'd like to see including the possibility
of the author pursuing the work within the IETF added
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue May 11 12:18:30 2004
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 12:18:20 -0400
From: John
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Dean,
third time same complaint, third time same answer.
No.
A WG chair is expected to read mail coming from the working group list.
What he does with copies that go directly to him is his own business.
I disagree. A WG chair has to
The following message indicates that EP.NET has assigned an IP address to
ISC.ORG. You are quite well aware of this. Dissembling will not help
you.
--Dean
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:26:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: bill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Noel Chiappa wrote:
So? Rob's not refusing to accept *any* email *at all* from you as a person
(just from a range of addresses which are generating email he doesn't like);
and you're more than savvy enough technically to get email to him via some
other path.
As an IETF
Dean Anderson wrote:
One thing I've noticed is that of none of the people criticizing me has
thought to address the fact that OUR ADDRESS SPACE IS NOT HIJACKED, and
that these people associated with the IETF: Paul Vixie, Joe Abley, Bill
Manning, and Rob Austein as WG Co-chair in his role for IETF
Dean,
ok, i asked nicely and privately several times.
PLEASE! take this thread some place else.
-rick
On Tue, 11 May 2004, Dean Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Noel Chiappa wrote:
So? Rob's not refusing to accept *any* email *at all* from you as a person
(just from a range of
I can't parse your statement. I didn't say assignment of IP space
__impunes__ a service. Perhaps you meant to say that your assignment of
IP address space to abusers doesn't impune the rest of your services. This
was the claim made by Media3 in Media3 v. MAPS. Media3 lost.
But assignment of IP
The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG to consider the
following document:
- 'Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition '
draft-ietf-v6ops-application-transition-02.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
34 matches
Mail list logo
