Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> There is a big difference in real engineering (i.e. outside a
> university) between a solution that only addresses part of a problem
> and one that is 'useless'.
> In observed attacks and in simulations, the IP-AS number attack is
> much more significant than the rou
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:59, MtFBwU wrote:
> I am an average Internet user from China. Sorry for my bad English.
Actually, it seems fairly good to me. Anybody who can understand, let
alone come up with, a username like yours, obviously has a pretty good
grasp of it. :-)
> In my opinion, the
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:31, Joe Baptista wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer
> wrote:
>> Such a censorship system would be quite stupid.
...
> try to be more helpful when people ask questions. don't use harsh words like
> "stupid" or else you'll scare people away
Martin Rex wrote:
> Discussing non-ASCII characters often requires the use of
> unicode codepoints to avoid ambiguities and the lack of familiarity
> of most people of this planet with the glyphs on most unicode codepoints.
Avoid ambiguities with unicode?
> Describing a unicode codepoint by its
Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> I don't buy that. We've got something like 1 billion people on the
> planet running web browsers, and I'm pretty confident we can find a few
> non-ASCII characters everybody can display which could be used in examples.
What exactly is the purpose of "a few non-ASCII ch
On Mar 19, 2010, at 3:26 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
As previously mentioned, I gave up on trying to _install_ xml2rfc
one hour after downloading it. I was writing the third page of
my I-D one hour after downloading NRoffEdit.
Even if you're one of those rare birds who has difficulty
installing xml2
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 01:39:38PM -0700, Bob Braden wrote:
> > It would be good if RFC authors put atleast as much care into the
> > clarity and organization of their contents as you are devoting to a
> > discussion of the formatting. The contents are what matter,
You have a pretty strong accent, I'm having severe difficulties
understanding your language:
>
> Your statement bespeaks a certain degree of na=C3=AFvet=C3=A9, =C3=A0 la =
> those whose
> heads are planted firmly in the sand. When shall we strip away the mere
> fa=C3=A7ade of global participation
Hi -
> From: "Peter Saint-Andre"
> To:
> Cc: ; ; ;
>
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 2:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Make HTML and PDF more prominent, was: Re: Why the normative
...
> naïveté, Ã
...
> façade
...
> übermensch
...
> résumé
...
> soirée
...
> Café
...
Modern English spellings, ple
SM wrote:
>
> One of the effects
> of this proposal is that the programmer will be complying with the
> IANA registry to cherry pick which protocol or algorithm to implement.
I don't understand what you mean by "implementing an IANA registry".
On 3/19/10 3:33 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
> Since we are writing RFCs in the _english_language_, so that they
> can be consumed by the widest possible audience, _all_ text in them
> ought to be written in the english language.
Your statement bespeaks a certain degree of naïveté, à la those whose
head
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 01:39:38PM -0700, Bob Braden wrote:
> It would be good if RFC authors put atleast as much care into the
> clarity and organization of their contents as you are devoting to a
> discussion of the formatting. The contents are what matter, and fancy
> formatting may (or m
todd glassey wrote:
>>It merely means IETF documents MUST BE internationally legible,
>>that is, pure ASCII.
> No, it means that they must be internationally available. And since many
> people DO NOT SPEAK ENGLISH mandating them to be in English eliminates
> those party's participation.
It's a l
Dave Cridland wrote:
>
> The IAB made a clear statement that we need i18n support, yet over a
> decade after RFC 2130 or RFC 2825, the RFCs themselves still have a
> strict ASCII limitation. Sure, that wasn't mentioned at the time, but
> does nobody else find this plain shameful?
You taking
On 3/19/2010 1:06 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> SM wrote:
>
>>> The IAB made a clear statement that we need i18n support, yet over a
>>> decade after RFC 2130 or RFC 2825, the RFCs themselves still have a
>>> strict ASCII limitation. Sure, that wasn't mentioned at the time, but
>>> does nobody else f
On 19 mrt 2010, at 12:02, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Why care about a normative output? You change the subject to talk about using
> non-normative representations already, why care about a normative output *at
> all*?
You have a point. But it's in the subject line...
> Let's concentrate on a norma
It would be good if RFC authors put atleast as much care into the
clarity and organization of their contents as you are devoting to a
discussion of the formatting. The contents are what matter, and fancy
formatting may (or may not) be a distraction from the more important
issues of contents.
SM wrote:
>> The IAB made a clear statement that we need i18n support, yet over a
>> decade after RFC 2130 or RFC 2825, the RFCs themselves still have a
>> strict ASCII limitation. Sure, that wasn't mentioned at the time, but
>> does nobody else find this plain shameful?
> As seen in an I-D:
>
>
Le Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:59:44 +0800,
MtFBwU a écrit :
> My point is, today's Internet architecture can be very easily
> censored, because the semantic content is bounded with data. FEC
> algorithms can dispersal meaning-ful content into meaning-less data,
> thus makes the transfer neutral to all
Olafur,
> In my mind there are basically three kinds of IETF working groups:
>1) New protocols/protocol extensions frequently with limited
> attention to operations.
>2) Protocol maintainance groups
>3) Operational groups
>
> RFC2119 words are aimed at the first type, and can to
I have been assigned this draft as part of the secdir review process. I
see no security issues with the draft that are really within the scope
of a secdir review.
I do have significant concerns I'd like to raise as last call comments.
In general, I agree with most of the concerns raised about
> The virtues (or lack thereof) of xml2rfc are a separate discussion. The
> question isn't how we generate the normative output, but what the normative
> output should be.
Seems to me that this discussion has reached the point at which
running code is needed in order to get any further.
May I s
On 19/03/2010 12:14 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 10:33 AM -0400 3/19/10, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
Well here a proposed problem statement for the requirement:
How does an implementer of a protocol X, find which ones of the many
features listed in registry Y, he/she needs to implement and which
Raj kiran,
The answer to this question will depend on the specific implementation
of the MIB module.
SNMP allows vendors to detail specifics of their implementations in
capability files. However, in my experience, few vendors have
published many capability files and even for those that have, the
c
On 3/19/2010 3:29 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 19 mrt 2010, at 5:05, John Levine wrote:
>
> > xml2rfc does a pretty good job of capturing what needs to be in an
> > RFC, so that is the strawman I would start from.
>
> The virtues (or lack thereof) of xml2rfc are a separate discussion.
> The
Maybe I'm not enough of a amateur lawyer, but has "authoritative" been a
practical issue, i.e., has there been confusion or legal action because one
rendition (say, PDF) differed in some trivial aspect from another (e.g., ASCII)?
Pragmatically, one could simply state that one form (say, good-ol
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Such a censorship system would be quite stupid. We would not even need
> complicated protocols to workaround it, just using synonyms or
> euphemisms would suffice.
>
what an embarrassment you are. no people skills. no grace nor tact
At 10:33 AM -0400 3/19/10, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>Well here a proposed problem statement for the requirement:
> How does an implementer of a protocol X, find which ones of the many
> features listed in registry Y, he/she needs to implement and which
> ones are obsolete.
>
>and
> How does an
At 2:37 PM + 3/19/10, Elwyn Davies wrote:
>Not ready. The document contains a lot of minor niggles and nits plus a major
>item that I am not sure the IETF should support: this is the removal of all
>mention of mandatory to implement security suites from the document. I
>appreciate the dif
At 04:02 19-03-10, Dave Cridland wrote:
The IAB made a clear statement that we need i18n support, yet over a
decade after RFC 2130 or RFC 2825, the RFCs themselves still have a
strict ASCII limitation. Sure, that wasn't mentioned at the time, but
does nobody else find this plain shameful?
As se
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:59:44PM +0800,
MtFBwU wrote
a message of 232 lines which said:
> What if we break our data to many parts first, the transfer the
> debris nobody will notice, finally assemble them back to the
> original in the other end?
It is used in several protocols, some of them
Dear Colleagues,
The Internet Society has announced that it is seeking applications for the next
round of the ISOC Fellowship to the IETF program, part of its Next Generation
Leaders (NGL) programme (www.isoc.org/leaders). The Fellowship program offers
engineers from developing countries fello
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.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-ipsecm
On 18/03/2010 12:31 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
If the real reason for this draft is to set conformance levels for
DNSSEC (something that I strongly support), then it should be a one-page
RFC that says "This document defines DNSSEC as these RFCs, and implementations
MUST support these elements o
Ohta san,
Let me guess: You're not a big fan of IDNs either, right?
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Hi list,
I am an average Internet user from China. Sorry for my bad English. I have
this simple, naive or even stupid idea, thought I'd like to share in case
someone find it useful. I apologize if this topic is improper or spammy to
this maillist.
The Internet censorship in China makes many peopl
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>1. I cannot print them correctly on either Windows or Mac.
>>2. I cannot view them at all on the mobile device
> These two issues can easily be solved by using the PDF or HTML versions.
Simple plain ASCII text is just fine.
>>3. I cannot enter the name of an autho
Hi,
The description of ospfASBdrRtrStatus object in OSPF-MIB (RFC 1850) says
that it is a flag to note whether this router is configured as an ASBR.
My question is whether this object can be set irrespective of any other
configuration or any pre-requisites have to be satisfied.
Thanks in advance
On Fri Mar 19 10:29:04 2010, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 19 mrt 2010, at 5:05, John Levine wrote:
> xml2rfc does a pretty good job of capturing what needs to be in an
> RFC, so that is the strawman I would start from.
The virtues (or lack thereof) of xml2rfc are a separate discussion.
The
On 19 mrt 2010, at 5:05, John Levine wrote:
> xml2rfc does a pretty good job of capturing what needs to be in an
> RFC, so that is the strawman I would start from.
The virtues (or lack thereof) of xml2rfc are a separate discussion. The
question isn't how we generate the normative output, but wha
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 02:44:07PM +0530,
piyush dwivedi wrote
a message of 47 lines which said:
> I am doing study on IPv6, i need guidance on how i could join groups
> already working on Drafts.
As far as standardisation is concerned, IPv6 is almost over. The
working groups still working on
Hi All,
I am doing study on IPv6, i need guidance on how i could join groups already
working on Drafts.
Thanks
Regards
Piyush Dwivedi
Your Mail works best with the New Yahoo Optimized IE8. Get it NOW!.
Your Mail works best with the New Yahoo Optimized IE8. Get it NOW!
htt
Hi All,
I am doing study on IPv6, i need guidance on how i could join groups already
working on Drafts.
Thanks
Regards
Piyush Dwivedi
The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.
http://in.yahoo.com/___
Ietf mailing l
On 03/19/2010 01:49 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Boggle. A major advantage of xml2rfc compared to HTML is that it does
the numbering for you, and you don't have to manually maintain cross
references.
I don't have any problem editing the source in one window while viewing
the presentation document in an
44 matches
Mail list logo
