At 04:05 PM 3/14/2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
There are numerous improvements in this version and I hope we
can get consensus soon.
Just a couple of remarks on
5. Transition to a Standards Track with Two Maturity Levels
1) Probably there should be a statement that all existing
Internet
Hello,
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area
directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These
comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but
are copied to the document's authors for their information and to
allow them to address any issues
On 28.02.2011 23:43, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis
WG (httpbis) to consider the following document:
- 'Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP)'
draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-06.txt
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Mobility for IPv4 WG (mip4) to
consider the following document:
- 'GRE Key Extension for Mobile IPv4'
draft-ietf-mip4-gre-key-extension-04.txt as a Proposed Standard
I've done an ops-dir review of
Hello,
2011/3/14, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com:
There are numerous improvements in this version and I hope we
can get consensus soon.
Just a couple of remarks on
5. Transition to a Standards Track with Two Maturity Levels
1) Probably there should be a statement that all
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:33 AM, James M. Polk jmp...@cisco.com wrote:
Brian
playing devil's advocate here...
Say someone submits a request for an existing DS to the IESG and it takes 6
months (or 3 months) to get through the process, but only 2 months remain
before the 2 year window is up
Hello,
I had some discussion with Bart Preneel[0] on the use of a 96-bit
MAC for the Finished messages. His comments were:
My general advice to IETF was to keep half the bits of the internal
state of the hash function. For HMAC-MD5 this would be 64 bits, for
HMAC-SHA-1 this would be
80 bits and
On 03/14/2011 05:49 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
The MD5 output is 128 bits = 16 bytes, and the input is *MUCH* larger
than 128 bits. The master_secret should is 48 bytes alone. Even if one is
successful at inverting MD5, one can not undo the collisions from
the Finished computation caused by the
On 3/14/11 2:26 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
Paul -
1) If we publish this as an RFC, note that imgur.com will only keep
an image if it's viewed at least once every three months.
Good catch. I have added a note in the upcoming -08 that the sentence
removed before publication. FWIW, I do not know
On 3/14/2011 2:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
2) More substantively,
Any protocol or service that is currently at the Draft Standard
maturity level may be reclassified as an Internet Standard as soon as
the criteria in Section 2.2 are satisfied. This
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:33 AM, James M. Polk jmp...@cisco.com wrote:
Brian
playing devil's advocate here...
Say someone submits a request for an existing DS to the IESG and it takes
6 months (or 3 months) to
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev
evniki...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
2011/3/14, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com:
There are numerous improvements in this version and I hope we
can get consensus soon.
Just a couple of remarks on
5. Transition to a Standards
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 3/14/2011 2:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
2) More substantively,
Any protocol or service that is currently at the Draft Standard
maturity level may be reclassified as an Internet Standard as soon as
the
I will put a note in the tracker
Stewart
On 15/03/2011 19:52, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 12:26 PM
To: draft-ietf-isis-genapp@tools.ietf.org
Cc: General Area Review Team; The IETF
Bob == Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com writes:
I'm sorry, but how could this *not* be posted to the IETF list?
http://xkcd.com/865/
Bob I did a rough calculation and think they would have not run out
Bob of IPv6 addresses :-)
Bob I assumed a nanobot was 1 x 10^-6
At 02:05 PM 3/15/2011, Brian Carpenter wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
hal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:33 AM, James M. Polk jmp...@cisco.com wrote:
Brian
playing devil's advocate here...
Say someone submits a request for an existing DS to
Have you considered the possibility that you might be over-analyzing the
joke here?
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.cawrote:
Bob == Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com writes:
I'm sorry, but how could this *not* be posted to the IETF list?
Hi Paul -
In section 2.2, I would prefer either using the names the tracker currently
uses for IESG evaluation:
Discuss and Comment, or some set of words that do not intersect those,
perhaps Blocking and
Not-Blocking. The current set (discuss and regular) will lead to
confusion.
In section
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Any documents that are still classified as Draft Standard two years
after the publication of this RFC will be automatically downgraded
to Proposed Standard.
1. While the accounting ugliness of leaving these untouched is
On Tue, 2011-03-15, Martin Rex wrote:
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Any documents that are still classified as Draft Standard two years
after the publication of this RFC will be automatically downgraded
to Proposed Standard.
1. While the accounting
On 2011-03-16 11:22, Martin Rex wrote:
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Any documents that are still classified as Draft Standard two years
after the publication of this RFC will be automatically downgraded
to Proposed Standard.
1. While the accounting ugliness of
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6171
Title: The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) Don't Use Copy Control
Author: K. Zeilenga
Status: Standards Track
Stream:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6178
Title: Label Edge Router Forwarding of
IPv4 Option Packets
Author: D. Smith, J. Mullooly,
W. Jaeger, T. Scholl
Status:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6181
Title: Threat Analysis for TCP Extensions
for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses
Author: M. Bagnulo
Status: Informational
80th IETF Meeting
Prague, Czech Republic
March 27 - April 1, 2011
Host: CZ.NIC
1. Registration - Early Bird Cut-off Friday, March 18, 2011
2. Social Event
1. Registration - Early Bird Cut-off is March 18, 2011
Early-Bird: $650 USD, if paid in full prior to 1700 PDT March 18.
25 matches
Mail list logo
