In your letter dated Fri, 29 Jul 2011 04:38:12 +0200 (MEST) you wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
Martin Rex writes:
Mark Andrews wrote:
More correctly it is try the first address and if that doesn't
connect in a short period (150...250ms) start a second connection
to the next address
2011/7/28 Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org
You're going to ask attendees to self-identify as tourists and leave
the room? Today's tourists may well become tomorrow's document
editors.
...
Let's just assign large enough rooms to BoFs and newly-formed WGs
so that the work can start
In your letter dated Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:55:04 -0700 you wrote:
On Jul 28, 2011 5:28 PM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
It would be so much easier if hosts on the public internet could
use one single IPv6 address that contains both, the IPv6 network prefix
and the IPv4 host address, and then
I don't have too much to say on whether the IESG is effective. Our
standards production rate and the market uptake of same seems to speak
for itself. I also don't have the numbers Dave is looking for either.
However, I would like to contribute my own anecdotal experience,
involving at least one
On 28/Jul/11 18:34, t.petch wrote:
The minor point is that e-mails have just got yet bigger. They are now
100-150%
bigger than when first I started following the IETF
According to Nielsen's Law, network connection speeds double every 21
months. DKIM is apparently using a quite reasonable
On Jul 28, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Michel Py wrote:
IMHO, the only valid stats we can gather are either from a large content
provider (which is why Lorenzo's numbers are so interesting) or from a
large eyeball ISP. Cisco, Juniper, Apple, the academia, the IETF, etc
are NOT valid places to collect
On Jul 29, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Michel Py wrote:
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
6rd is global unicast... there's nothing to discriminate
it from any other native range.
No. there is nothing in the current classification algorithm to
discriminate from any other native range. But it's not native, as it
On 7/28/2011 12:34 PM, t.petch wrote:
But more importantly we have abolished the end-to-end principle. If I am going
to benefit from improved security on e-mail, I want to from the originator to
me, not some half-way house giving a spurious impression of accuracy.
The end-to-end principle
On Jul 29, 2011, at 6:18 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 7/28/2011 12:34 PM, t.petch wrote:
But more importantly we have abolished the end-to-end principle. If I am
going
to benefit from improved security on e-mail, I want to from the originator to
me, not some half-way house giving a
Michel,
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
6rd is global unicast... there's nothing to discriminate
it from any other native range.
No. there is nothing in the current classification algorithm to
discriminate from any other native range. But it's not native, as it
has, among other things, the same
agree but if you're trying to discriminate it by:
This graph shows the daily unique queried reverse addresses by type.
you can't.
On Jul 29, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Michel Py wrote:
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
6rd is global unicast... there's nothing to discriminate
it from any other native range.
No.
oh boy...
On 7/29/2011 6:36 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
The Truth About DKIM http://bbiw.net/presentations/DKIM%20Truth.pdf
specifically slide 4. The left hand side includes a short list of common
mis-assumptions about DKIM's meaning, along with the one correct one. See
whether you know which is
On 29/07/2011, at 8:03 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
agree but if you're trying to discriminate it by:
This graph shows the daily unique queried reverse addresses by type.
you can't.
Very true Joel. I did, for a while, pattern match the 6rd prefix from Free.FR's
declared ranges in RIPE
On 7/28/2011 7:54 PM, SM wrote:
At 04:24 PM 7/28/2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Er, no. By definition, it's correct until we update RFC 2026.
Quoting the Status of this memo section from RFC 6305, RFC 6308, RFC 6319 and
RFC 6331 which are Informational and from the IETF Stream:
This
Philip Homburg wrote:
I think that would have been a much better use of thse bits then simply
storing the ethernet address there.
IPv6 address was (when it was SIP) and should be 8B, but extended
to be 16B to store ethernet address with wrong reasoning of RFC1715
only to make IPv6
SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 04:24 PM 7/28/2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2011-07-28 18:45, SM wrote:
At 04:13 PM 7/27/2011, Martin Rex wrote:
According to rfc2026:
4.2.2 Informational
An Informational specification is published for the general
information of the
Le 27 juil. 2011 à 17:29, Michel Py a écrit :
...
Fred Baker wrote:
Actually, I think one could argue pretty
effectively that 6rd is 6to4-bis.
Indeed, and it also is a transition mechanism for the very same reasons
that 6to4 is.
Keith Moore wrote:
only if you're confused about the
Le 27 juil. 2011 à 08:10, Tore Anderson a écrit :
* Ronald Bonica
After some discussion, the IESG is attempting to determine whether there is
IETF consensus to do the following:
- add a new section to draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
- publish draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic as
I do think that pmipv6 has some issues about how it does mag-mn
interface. One solution to one issue may be this reserved iid.
Is this updating the stds track rfc5453 reserved iids?
Does this mean that pmipv6 spec is to be updated? (eg say that its RAs
are src'ed with an address formed from
I have read version 08 and support this proposal.
- Chris
--On July 27, 2011 17:46:22 -0400 Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Here's the link:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
___
Ietf mailing
+1
IMHO, it does make a lot of sense.
(I made a similar comment before reading this one)-.
Regards,
RD
Le 27 juil. 2011 à 18:14, Noel Chiappa a écrit :
From: Philip Homburg pch-v6...@u-1.phicoh.com
I think it would be quite weird to keep 6to4 at standards track just to
prevent some
Original Message -
From: Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 12:18 PM
On 7/28/2011 12:34 PM, t.petch wrote:
But more importantly we have abolished the end-to-end principle. If I am
going
to benefit from improved security on e-mail, I want to
Le 28 juil. 2011 à 08:07, Michel Py a écrit :
James,
If I remember correctly, you mentioned a bit ago that your job required
you had native IPv6 at home.
Question: Does an ISP providing you IPv6 out of the CPE box (meaning,
without any software other than dual-stack on the hosts)
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
t.petch
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 5:22 AM
To: dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf
Subject: Re: DKIM Signatures now being applied to IETF Email
It functions, but does not work, in that it tells me
On Jul 29, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
Le 28 juil. 2011 à 08:07, Michel Py a écrit :
James,
If I remember correctly, you mentioned a bit ago that your job required
you had native IPv6 at home.
Question: Does an ISP providing you IPv6 out of the CPE box (meaning,
without
Le 29 juil. 2011 à 15:51, Joel Jaeggli a écrit :
On Jul 29, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
Le 28 juil. 2011 à 08:07, Michel Py a écrit :
James,
If I remember correctly, you mentioned a bit ago that your job required
you had native IPv6 at home.
Question: Does an ISP
Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
Le 27 juil. 2011 à 17:29, Michel Py a écrit :
...
Fred Baker wrote:
Actually, I think one could argue pretty
effectively that 6rd is 6to4-bis.
Indeed, and it also is a transition mechanism for the very same reasons
that 6to4 is.
Keith
Hi,
I generally support this proposal, but have some questions on Section 2.3,
Transition to a Standards Track with Two Maturity Levels. I am both an
author of several Draft Standards and have chaired working groups that have
produced them.
Any protocol or service that is currently at
Le 29 juil. 2011 à 14:16, George Michaelson a écrit :
On 29/07/2011, at 8:03 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
agree but if you're trying to discriminate it by:
This graph shows the daily unique queried reverse addresses by type.
you can't.
Very true Joel. I did, for a while, pattern
I think that it is an error for the IETF to add DKIM signatures. They do
indeed
tell me
which intermediary has sent me the mail, but does nothing for the 'spam' that
the
intermediary accepted in the first place (albeit there being little of that on
the IETF
managed lists).
...
It
Bob:
I generally support this proposal, but have some questions on Section 2.3,
Transition to a Standards Track with Two Maturity Levels. I am both an
author of several Draft Standards and have chaired working groups that have
produced them.
Any protocol or service that is currently
Rémi Després wrote:
- 6to4 delivers native IPv6 prefixes to customer sites, which 6to4 doesn't.
That is playing with words. In that case, any router that delivers native IPv6
to the hosts (by having the tunnel software on the router, not on the hosts)
can be called a native solution.
This is
I seem to recall having sometimes seen the chair reserve the front of the
seating for people who claim to have read the drafts.
d/
On 7/29/2011 12:12 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
Just for the record: we want big rooms!
On Jul 28, 2011, at 10:01 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
And do you really only want
I have updated the graph to include 6rd, based on my understanding that the
prefixes of the form 2a01:e3xx: are your 6rd space.
There is *other* FreeNet space, which appears to do things, but I sense its not
part of the 6rd deployment since the numberforms in the lower /64 appear to be
Le 29 juil. 2011 à 18:21, Michel Py a écrit :
Rémi Després wrote:
- 6to4 delivers native IPv6 prefixes to customer sites, which 6to4 doesn't.
That is playing with words. In that case, any router that delivers native
IPv6 to the hosts (by having the tunnel software on the router, not on
On 7/29/2011 11:13 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
(2) At any time after two years from the approval of this document as a
BCP, the IESG may choose to reclassify any Draft Standard document as
Proposed Standard.
I think this is unfair to the people who have done considerable work to get
a document
On 7/29/2011 11:02 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
What it does is allow you to assure yourself that the message was,
indeed, from an IETF mailing list (well, from an IETF email server),
and that it wasn't that someone tried to spoof that. That, in turn,
allows you to confidently increase your trust
Rémi Després wrote:
6rd is designed to offer native IPv6 prefixes
across IPv4-only routing domains.
There is a word for that: oxymoron. In French: oxymore.
If it stops working when IPv4 is broken, it is not native.
Michel.
___
Ietf mailing list
6rd addresses a different problem than 6to4.
6to4 is a global solution, that relies on pretty much every native IPv6
provider deploying 6to4 relays. If these relays were really well deployed and
reliable, 6to4 would allow any router with a native IPv4 address to provide
IPv6 connectivity to
At 07:02 PM 7/27/2011, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels'
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-08.txt as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
In your letter dated Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:38:16 -0700 you wrote:
R?mi Despr?s wrote:
6rd is designed to offer native IPv6 prefixes
across IPv4-only routing domains.
There is a word for that: oxymoron. In French: oxymore.
If it stops working when IPv4 is broken, it is not native.
Could you
Christian,
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Christian Huitema
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 12:17 PM
To: Michel Py; Rémi Després
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Keith Moore
Subject: RE: 6to4v2 (as in ripv2)?
6rd addresses a different
In message 4e3127f1.2030...@unfix.org, Jeroen Massar writes:
On 2011-07-28 01:36 , Mark Andrews wrote:
[..]
Is there *one* tunnel management protocol that they all support or
does a cpe vendor have to implement multiple ones to reach them
all? I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this
Ole,
Ole Troan wrote:
I presume you are arguing that MPLS (6PE) is not native either?
That's a tough one.
What would make me say it is native is: MPLS is a L2/switching animal,
not a L3/routing one. In theory you can bind any L3 protocol such as
IPv4, IPv6, IPX, Appletalk, etc to it. So the
The Comcast 6rd trial will conclude very soon, so I do not recommend doing
anything specific for Comcast 6rd.
John
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
o) 609-377-6594
m) 484-962-0060
w) http://www.comcast6.net
t.petch wrote:
It functions, but does not work, in that it tells me nothing about the true
origin of the communication.
Yes and No and that the main problem with DKIM, which I see is the
lack of 3rd party signal controls or put another way - anyone, middle
ware and especially list servers
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifier for Proxy Mobile IPv6'
draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations-00.txt as an
Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
The IESG has received a request from the Kerberos WG (krb-wg) to consider
the following document:
- 'The Unencrypted Form Of Kerberos 5 KRB-CRED Message'
draft-ietf-krb-wg-clear-text-cred-01.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6225
Title: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Options
for Coordinate-Based Location Configuration
Information
Author: J. Polk, M.
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6310
Title: Pseudowire (PW) Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM) Message Mapping
Author: M. Aissaoui, P. Busschbach,
L.
50 matches
Mail list logo
