--On Friday, November 28, 2008 4:20 PM -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You would face two problems with the IETF. One is that we
rarely take on work for which we cannot add value and do
effective reviews. The other is that we generally don't do
work that is not Internet-specific, and your a
> "John" == John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> flights from Narita to the US seem to leave late afternoon,
John> one has to transit from Hiroshima to Narita, either by air
John> (the only departure I can find is at 0755) or train, again,
John> killing most of the
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:28 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi -
>
> There are several issues with Unicode.
Many of the world's standards organizations, including the IETF to
some degree, have more or less outsourced issues of character
definition and specification to Unicode. Were your writin
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 02:28:23PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Second, Unicode is used with sequential scripts: one character after
> another. Our script is spatial: the words are characters written in space
> based on coordinates. The words are sequential, but not the characters.
> Even if
> For the past 5 years, I've been processing written sign
> language as data.
> I've worked directly with the inventor of the script, which
> is over 30 years old.
>
> We are ready to standardize. The latest symbol was finalized
> last month after more than a year of improvements and refining
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > It's worse. Before you can start validating on your own, or use some
> > trusted remote TSIG accessable resolver, you are likely to need
> > to accept some spoofs to get past the hotspot authentication.
>
> Which is something the IETF should be p
Lol :) I couldn't agree you any more...
On 11/28/08, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, we all know that it is much easier to get O/S vendors to fix their
> billion plus lines of code and the apps vendors to fix their million plus
> lines of code than it is to deploy a $50
On 28 nov 2008, at 22:19, John C Klensin wrote:
chartering five or so planes to bring
IETF'ers from major American and European hubs to Hiroshima
and back... I wonder how many commitments it would take to
make it feasible and how many to make it competitive.
That, of course, would create anot
One note about the charset name. The registered name would be
charset="iswa-2008", *not* charset="x-iswa-2008". The x- prefix should
only be used for experimenting until the name is registered. Per RFC
2978, section 3.1, "x-" prefix can only be used *until* the registration
is complete. You should
> You would face two problems with the IETF. One is that we
> rarely take on work for which we cannot add value and do
> effective reviews. The other is that we generally don't do work
> that is not Internet-specific, and your audience would seem much
> broader that the Internet alone. Terms l
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Wout
ers writes:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> > That said, I don't want to make light of the end-point problem, since
> > TSIG between a stub and a recursor isn't a trivial problem today
> > either. Moreover, since end nodes in many envir
--On Friday, 28 November, 2008 22:11 +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 28 nov 2008, at 21:37, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
>> flying into Kansai is much better, assuming the sagging
>> economy does not do away with flights to Kansai as well.
>
> Hm, seems like we could try an
On 28 nov 2008, at 21:37, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
flying into Kansai is much better, assuming the sagging economy does
not do away with flights to Kansai as well.
Hm, seems like we could try another experiment for the Hiroshima
meeting: chartering five or so planes to bring IETF'ers from major
>> Our latest symbol set may be our last, but maybe not. In 2 or 3
>> years, we may update our symbol set. This would cause problems
>> because Unicode is not allowed to change.
>
> How good an idea is it to attempt to standardize a character encoding in
> which it is expected that characters mig
On 28 nov 2008, at 19:20, John C Klensin wrote:
At any given meeting, in any given timezone, that will always be
the cost for some people: meeting on Friday morning equals not
getting home until Saturday morning and possibly not until late
Saturday night or Sunday. That, to me, is the bottom li
The work applies to all sign languages. SignWriting has been used or
investigated in over 40 countries. We have many active dictionary
projects with several thousand signs in each.
-Steve
> Steve,
>
> Can you clarify whether this work applies to one particular sign
> language or to many? I am c
Here is a link to an English-language travel planner that you can use
to check train times, prices and duration:
http://www.hyperdia.com/cgi-english/hyperWeb.cgi?
Enter, for example, Tokyo as the starting point and Hiroshima as the
destination, in the next step set your departure time, type of
wrote:
First, Unicode is written in stone.
A gross overgeneralization. Unicode characters are not allowed to be
moved or renamed once they have been encoded. New characters can always
be added, though.
Our latest symbol set may be our last, but maybe not. In 2 or 3
years, we may updat
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> It is quite easy to see how an application that is designed to tolerate
> renumbering is able to cope with it given appropriate O/S and protocol
> level support. I suspect what is happening there is that SSH loses the
> connection and then transparently attempts to re
Again, there needs to be an expectations reset here.
The pro-NAT faction are not 'asking' for anything. They are serving notice that
this is the approach that they intend to take.
You are saying, 'you can beg for your NAT but I am not giving it to you, now go
away'. They are saying, 'I do not r
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> hiroshima shin-osaka non-reserved
> is around 4000 yen.
One correction, I was on a rail pass the last time. it is ~5400 without one.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
John C Klensin wrote:
> Hiroshima is going to be at least as "interesting": while the
> flights from Narita to the US seem to leave late afternoon, one
> has to transit from Hiroshima to Narita, either by air (the only
> departure I can find is at 0755) or train, again, killing most
> of the day.
It is quite easy to see how an application that is designed to tolerate
renumbering is able to cope with it given appropriate O/S and protocol level
support. I suspect what is happening there is that SSH loses the connection and
then transparently attempts to reconnect before telling the user th
Steve,
Can you clarify whether this work applies to one particular sign
language or to many? I am completely "illiterate" in these languages,
but I understand that there are many of them.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2008-11-29 08:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi -
>
> There are several issue
Yes, we all know that it is much easier to get O/S vendors to fix their billion
plus lines of code and the apps vendors to fix their million plus lines of code
than it is to deploy a $50 NAT box.
What you are proposing here is that we bell the cat instead.
-Original Message-
From: Ma
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
That said, I don't want to make light of the end-point problem, since
TSIG between a stub and a recursor isn't a trivial problem today
either. Moreover, since end nodes in many environments get their
recursor's address(es) via DHCP, and since that pat
Hi -
There are several issues with Unicode.
First, Unicode is written in stone. Our latest symbol set may be our
last, but maybe not. In 2 or 3 years, we may update our symbol set. This
would cause problems because Unicode is not allowed to change.
Second, Unicode is used with sequential scri
--On Friday, 28 November, 2008 11:02 -0800 Randy Presuhn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi -
>
>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 10:50 AM
>> Subject: Advice on publishing open standards
> ...
>> For the past 5 years, I've been processing written sign
>> langu
Hi -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 10:50 AM
> Subject: Advice on publishing open standards
...
> For the past 5 years, I've been processing written sign language as data.
> I've worked directly with the inventor of the script, which is over 30
> years old.
>
Hi IETF list,
For the past 5 years, I've been processing written sign language as data.
I've worked directly with the inventor of the script, which is over 30
years old.
We are ready to standardize. The latest symbol was finalized last month
after more than a year of improvements and refining.
--On Friday, 28 November, 2008 10:49 + Stewart Bryant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Another option would be to run until 1300, that's still early
>> enough to have lunch but it does give us a 1.5 hour extra
>> timeslot but only takes that 1.5 hours, not 3.5 like the
>> 1300 - 1500 times
Andrew,
I don't want to stretch this discussion out too much because I
think the point has been made, but a few comments below.
--On Friday, 28 November, 2008 10:58 -0500 Andrew Sullivan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:09:16AM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> ones) are
This is a combined Gen-ART and Transport Area review, hence
the introductory "boilerplate" for both reviews follows:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.htm
[As entertainment for the audience, I am sure everyone will enjoy
seeing my brother and I take opposite sides in this discussion.
Enjoy ;) ]
I too have been watching this thread but from the vantage of having
been deeply involved in DNSSEC deployment and, more specifically, as
one of the
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 08:58:19AM -0800, Bill Manning wrote:
> a linked suite of signed zones with the DNSKEY/DS records
> imbedded in the parents zones, all the way to the root zone,
> and or a look aside system where these records are kept
> constitutes DNSSEC deployment
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:58:59AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> As a DNS geek, I'd _prefer_ more-intelligent end points with respect
> to the DNS. But I don't buy the argument that they're a necessary
> condition for DNSSEC deployment.
apparently you and john (and me too) do not sh
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:09:16AM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
> ones) are the most likely targets of attacks. If they are, then
> having DNSSEC verification only to those servers, with client
> machines trusting the nearby caching servers without DNSSEC
> protection, provides very little protec
Steve,
While I very much appreciate the background, I think the
fundamental point I was trying to make remains unchanged and
part of your response further muddies the waters.
Russ's note suggests DNS-enabled clients. There is a serious
shortage of those clients for what I believe is still the
mo
On 28/11/08 09:44, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 07:49:13PM +,
Matthew Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 13 lines which said:
After all the years of FUD surrounding DNSSEC deployment, I feel
quite strongly that having the IETF do as you suggested and then
On 2008-11-28, at 12:49, Stewart Bryant wrote:
We could maybe start earlier on Friday as well - say 8am - i.e. run
0800
till 1300 with only only a 10 min
coffee break. That would put nearly 5 hours into the schedule.
That overlaps with the IESG/IAB "what happened this week" breakfast.
(But
Another option would be to run until 1300, that's still early enough
to have lunch but it does give us a 1.5 hour extra timeslot but only
takes that 1.5 hours, not 3.5 like the 1300 - 1500 timeslot so people
with flights at 1700 or even 1600 can possibly attend.
We could maybe start earlier on
Mark Andrews wrote:
[...]
> And if you stop thinking IPv6 == IPv4 + big addresses and
> start thinking multiple IPv6 addresses including a ULA IPv6
> address + RFC 3484 you get local address stability without
> needing a NAT. You use ULAs for internal communication and
>
About having sessions until 1500 on friday: I found it very useful
this time out, even though there were two sessions I wanted to attend
friday afternoon.
However, I had a flight at 1950 this time so it wordek out. I doubt
I'd have stayed a day longer just for the friday afternoon session.
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 03:52:50PM -0500, Steve Crocker wrote:
>
> All of the above should invisible unless the end system explicitly
> invokes the DNSSEC-compliant recursive resolver AND asks for a signed
> response.
>
>
> Steve
for me, this statement is the crux of the issue.
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 03:52:50PM -0500,
Steve Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 161 lines which said:
> the intent is to simply include the DNSSEC-compliant recursive
> resolver in the standard DHCP configuration during the plenary.
> That is, during the plenary, DHCP responses w
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 07:49:13PM +,
Matthew Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 13 lines which said:
> After all the years of FUD surrounding DNSSEC deployment, I feel
> quite strongly that having the IETF do as you suggested and then be
> able to point to 'no discernible impact'
46 matches
Mail list logo
