On 25 mei 2010, at 20:17, todd glassey wrote:
The IETF does NOT own the underlying license rights to TCP/IP in ANY WAY.
For the record TCP/IP actually probably still belongs to the US
Government as it was originally produced under a Department of Defense
contract with BBN about 40 years ago
On May 27, 2010, at 7:06 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 25 mei 2010, at 20:17, todd glassey wrote:
The IETF does NOT own the underlying license rights to TCP/IP in
ANY WAY.
For the record TCP/IP actually probably still belongs to the US
Government as it was originally produced under
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/05/27/internet.crunch.2012/index.html?hpt=T2
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
All;
I've not had any feedback on these dates. Surely there must be some
conflicts you could identify.
Thanks
Ray
On May 18, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote:
All;
The IAOC proposes the following IETF meeting dates for the years
2014 through 2017 and requests your feedback before
On 27 May 2010, at 14:16, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Is that the Matt Ford who works for ISOC or somebody else?
The latter.
The person quoted is well-known, so that makes me think this story was
written by someone with a clue.
No comment ;)
Mat
From: Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com
this story was written by someone with a clue.
Not really. A high marketing FUD / technical content ratio.
Noel
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I agree. That said, it's a bit challenging to get the right message across.
IPv4 hosts will continue to increase for quite a while, but address space will
increasingly hard to obtain. The large growth will come in the IPv6 space.
IPv6 networks and products are maturing but are still not yet
On 27 May 2010 16:11, Steve Crocker st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
I agree. That said, it's a bit challenging to get the right message
across. IPv4 hosts will continue to increase for quite a while, but address
space will increasingly hard to obtain. The large growth will come in the
IPv6
IPv6 networks and products are maturing but are still not on a par with *IPv4*
networks and services.
Apologies.
Steve
Sent from my iPad
On May 27, 2010, at 3:14 PM, Rumbidzayi Gadhula rumbi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 May 2010 16:11, Steve Crocker st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
I agree.
I guess my point was more that this article actually quotes a *real*
expert rather than someone we've never heard of --- a more common
practice for the press. Whether or not you agree with Daniel, he does
at least have extensive experience in these matters.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and
Peter == Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im writes:
Peter On 5/19/10 12:36 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I believe that without explicitly listing the use cases I've
brought up in the body of the charter, the additional paragraph
Peter I proposed:
PeterAlthough the group
On 2010-05-28 02:44, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I guess my point was more that this article actually quotes a *real*
expert rather than someone we've never heard of --- a more common
practice for the press. Whether or not you agree with Daniel, he does
at least have extensive experience in these
FYI, BBC scooped the story on 11 May, and had a story on the topic last
September.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10105978.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8227117.stm
On May 27, 2010, at 5:10 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
2015 seems awfully optimistic. I wouldn't want to be the poor soul responsible
for their ISP network who built a transition plan based on a 2015 depletion and
then realized I was wrong by a few years.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org]
Hi Dan,
Thanks for reviewing this document. Responding to your main point:
The need to correlate the client's EAP and IKE identity is not new to
this protocol. It has to be done in exactly the same manner, for exactly
the same reasons, in today's IKEv2. This is what IKEv2-bis says about it:
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
The major problem with the story is that it confounds IANA runout
(objectively predicted for 2011) with when ISPs run out of IPv4 space
(which is not so easy to predict, but 2015 is a popular estimate). The
rest is pretty good for a story in
In message 20100527205219.gw5...@mip.a.org, Ofer Inbar writes:
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
The major problem with the story is that it confounds IANA runout
(objectively predicted for 2011) with when ISPs run out of IPv4 space
(which is not so easy to predict,
As native IPv6 connections are compared more and more with IPv4 NAT:ed
connections, I think this will go quicker than what people think. Note that
most of the difference between the protocols are features and operational
experiences the ISPs have. For the end user...how much difference is there
Total of 44 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 28 00:53:06 EDT 2010
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
6.82% |3 | 7.73% |21924 | s...@resistor.net
6.82% |3 | 4.57% |12972 |
I also think 2015 is very optimistic for some players. Specifically cellphone
providers that provide data access over for example 3G or 4G. The growth is so
fast that the block allocations from the RIRs are hard to compute.
I helped one at the last RIPE meeting in Prague, and then will now get
The IESG has received a request from the smime WG (smime) to consider the
following document:
- 'Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) '
RFC 5652 as a Full Standard
This specification contains normative down references to Proposed
Standards RFCs 5280 and 3281. The community previously reviewed
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5863
Title: DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Development,
Deployment, and Operations
Author: T. Hansen, E. Siegel,
P. Hallam-Baker, D.
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5887
Title: Renumbering Still Needs Work
Author: B. Carpenter, R. Atkinson,
H. Flinck
Status: Informational
Stream: IETF
Date:
23 matches
Mail list logo
