Greg == Greg Hudson ghud...@mit.edu writes:
87
Greg On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 08:53 -0400, gareth.richa...@rsa.com wrote:
I had always thought the same way as Sam, that clients would be
required to implement all of the options since there appears to
be no other way for them to
I recommend that the address block be published in the document when it becomes
an RFC.
It's also arguable that 6to4 implementations should recognize addresses from
the assigned prefix and disable 6to4 when configured with such addresses.
The document could perhaps make it clearer that this
My take as an individual is that most of the people who have read the
draft and commented here read it the same way. It's up to the AD to
decide if things are clear enough but I'm not pushing for any specific
change and would be happy if no change were made on this point. I would
not push back
Our next meeting venue is located adjacent to Taipei 101, which was
for a while the world's tallest building, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taipei_101
When you are in Taipei, please make sure to go up to the observation
floor and take a look at the 660 tonne tuned mass damper. You can
see
Hi Mykyta,
At 08:14 18-08-2011, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Neither RFC 2476 nor RFC 4409 asked IANA to make changes according
to the contents of these tables; but this draft does. 4409 and its
predecessor just mentioned which are eligible for use with submission.
I'll discuss this matter with
Actually, I have a question about interoperability here.
It's my assumption that a client of this specification needs to
implement basically all the options:
* encrypted OTP values and values used for key derivation *
separate pins and pins that are
On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 08:53 -0400, gareth.richa...@rsa.com wrote:
I had always thought the same way as Sam, that clients would be
required to implement all of the options since there appears to be no
other way for them to support different disconnected token types. The
specification was
Greg == Greg Hudson ghud...@mit.edu writes:
87
Greg On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 08:53 -0400, gareth.richa...@rsa.com
wrote:
I had always thought the same way as Sam, that clients would be
required to implement all of the options since there appears to
be no other way for them
On Aug 19, 2011, at 7:48 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Greg == Greg Hudson ghud...@mit.edu writes:
87
Greg On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 08:53 -0400, gareth.richa...@rsa.com wrote:
I had always thought the same way as Sam, that clients would be
required to implement all of the options since there
IDNA2008 has introduced the need for post IDNA2008 protocol and technology
adaptations in different areas. Several mailing lists are working on such
adaptations. There is a need they know the others' targets and they use the
same terminology with the same meaning.
To that end we have compiled
I support publication of some document like this one. Suggestions for
clarification to this document:
1. (section 2 in general) I think it's vague for this document to claim that it
updates earlier documents as if it's changing the text of those documents.
The reader is left with only a
--On Friday, August 19, 2011 20:34 +0200 jean-michel bernier de
portzamparc jma...@gmail.com wrote:
IDNA2008 has introduced the need for post IDNA2008 protocol
and technology adaptations in different areas. Several mailing
lists are working on such adaptations. There is a need they
know the
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-05
Reviewer:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 09:10:25AM -0700, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space'
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt as an Informational
RFC
I
At 09:10 19-08-2011, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space'
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt as an Informational
RFC
The IESG plans to make a
On 19 August 2011 23:42, SM wrote:
RFC 5735 covers Special Use IPv4 Addresses.
BTW, some days ago the errata system informed me that a rather old
nit about class E in RFC 3330 made it to held for document update,
but I think RFC 5735 already did that, cf. RFC 3330 eid 1436.
The I-D discussed
On 2011-08-20 09:30, Peter Koch wrote:
...
o draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space-01.txt would have to be elevated
to a normative reference, with all consequences
I don't think this is really required; it is after all an
explanatory document. However, I do think that *if* draft-weil-
is
I fully support this document. It could be tuned in the way
Keith suggested, but basically it is a Good Thing.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Dear Mr. Klensin,
we are Internet and IETF users. This makes a pretty large community. There
are three ways one can do it:
- in surviving with what we (do not) get. Very large part of our community.
- in hacking the internet from the outside on behalf of our right to protect
ourselves from
Hi! John,
This seems to be a pretty odd point of yours! As if every IETF mail had to
list the copyrights of every text or concept it works on or with.
We only are interested in an adequate and coherent multilinguistic
terminology at the IANA. At the end of the day if you want to publish it
under
[trimmed the cross-post To... field]
John,
In case it was not clear, I encourage you do consider who you are
dealing with on this issue: the sock puppets of JFC Morfin. These
individuals are well-known for their disruptive tactics and their
amazing capabilities at generating rectal discomfort
+10
/d
--
Dave Crocker
bbiw.net
via mobile
_
From: Michel Py mic...@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us
Sent: Fri Aug 19 19:54:48 PDT 2011
To: IETF ietf@ietf.org, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
Subject: RE: [iucg] IDNA and Multilingual Internet issues and
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6337
Title: Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Usage
of the Offer/Answer Model
Author: S. Okumura, T. Sawada,
P. Kyzivat
Status:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6349
Title: Framework for TCP Throughput Testing
Author: B. Constantine, G. Forget,
R. Geib, R. Schrage
Status: Informational
Stream:
The SOFTWIRE WG will hold a face-to-face interim meeting in Beijing,
China on September 26-27, 2011. Below please find more information from
the SOFTWIRE chairs.
--
Hi folks,
We, softwire wg chairs, in agreement with our ADs, are announcing
an interim meeting in Beijing on September
The IESG has received a request from the Internet Area Working Group WG
(intarea) to consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes'
draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6360
Title: Conclusion of FYI RFC Sub-Series
Author: R. Housley
Status: Informational
Stream: IETF
Date: August 2011
Mailbox:
27 matches
Mail list logo
