Hi -
> From: "David W. Hankins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "DHC WG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 10:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery(DHCPv6
> Bulk Leasequery) to Proposed Standard
...
> SNMP likes to present a single t
On Oct 22, 2008, at 7:50 AM, Tim Polk wrote:
Stephen,
I will concede that most of the excitement about IBE and other Weil
Pairing based cryptography has been in the research community.
However, the technology has matured and products are slowly
emerging. (I am also loath to write off
All,
We have submitted a draft explaining the overall problem of peer selection -
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saumitra-alto-multi-ps-00.txt.
Below are my suggested revisions to the charter based on arguments the draft
puts forth (and based on emails exchanged over the last severa
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:36:22AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> $ snmpwalk -m IP-FORWARD-MIB -v 2c -c foo foo-rtr
This essentially would be identical to DHCP leasequery, minus the
bulk. Even if transported via TCP, on the wire it would look like
a single client->server GETNEXT, waiting for a ser
On Oct 13, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
I believe this work could be useful and would provide an improvement
over existing p2p usage and traffic management.
I also believe that an ALTO WG should be formed and would like to
contribute to a solutions draft.
The current requirements
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:57:12PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Classified documents have this thing called paragraph marking. Each
> paragraph within a document is marked with the highest level of data
> within the paragraph. A page is marked with the highest level of data
> in any paragraph
Hey, stupid thought...
Could you do proximity based on "who's your DNS resolver"? Do a few
name lookups: one to register YOU as using YOUR DNS resolver to the
remote coordinator, and one to get "who are other peers using the same
resolver"?
An ugly, UGLY hack, but it might be interesting
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:16:14PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
> Nico:
>
> >So if I understand correctly then this document would have an
> >implementation of, say, NFSv4[0] over TCP[1] send TCP packets for the
> >same TCP connection with different labels, *and* ensure that each packet
> >contains
Stephen Farrell wrote:
So while I don't strongly object to these as informational RFCs,
I do wonder why, if only one implementation is ever likely, we
need any RFC at all. Its not like these docs describe something
one couldn't easily figure out were there a need, given that
the (elegant but not
Stephen,
I will concede that most of the excitement about IBE and other Weil
Pairing based cryptography has been
in the research community. However, the technology has matured and
products are slowly emerging. (I am
also loath to write off any technology that attempts to address our
enro
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 20:44 -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> But then:
>
> |In order to
> | maintain data Sensitivity Labeling for such applications, in
> | order to be able to implement routing and Mandatory Access
> | Control decisions in
11 matches
Mail list logo
