Hi, Ben,
Thanks so much for your review! (and my appologies for the delay in my
response). PLease find my comments inline...
On 11/01/2011 04:55 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Minor issues:
-- section 3, paragraph after ISN formula: It is vital that F not be
computable…
If it's vital for
Hi Ron
On 3 December 2011 22:06, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote:
Folks,
On Thursday, December 1, the IESG deferred its decision regarding
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request to the December 15 telechat. The
decision was deferred because:
- it is difficult. (We are choosing
On 5 Dec 2011, at 18:08, Noel Chiappa wrote:
I hear you. However, after thinking about it for a while, I still think we
ought to include a chunk of 240/ space _as well as_ some 'general use' space
(be it a /10 of that, or whatever).
+1
Ray
___
On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Actually, I meant wiki according to its classic, collaborative meaning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
What you folks are describing is a web page, not really a wiki.
Exactly, and that is appropriate for something whose primary target
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Actually, I meant wiki according to its classic, collaborative meaning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
What you folks are describing is a web page, not really a wiki.
Exactly, and that
On Dec 8, 2011, at 8:31 AM, David Morris wrote:
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Actually, I meant wiki according to its classic, collaborative meaning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
What you folks are describing is a
On Dec 8, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Actually, I meant wiki according to its classic, collaborative meaning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
What you folks are describing is a web page, not really a wiki.
Exactly, and
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Dec 8, 2011, at 8:31 AM, David Morris wrote:
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Actually, I meant wiki according to its classic, collaborative meaning:
I don't want to go too far down this road, as it touches sensitive network
architecture issues, but I think you're thinking of this in terms of a
box. Please think, instead, of a regional network with failover
capabilities and widely distributed customers.The aggregate need is
(at least) a
On 12/8/2011 8:00 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
A collaborative page can easily go sideways with contributors who don't
understand the parameters of what is meant to be there
In the IETF? Folks can misunderstand or getting carried away or both?
tsk, tsk.
But seriously, my general impression is
I support adoption of dkim-atps as an experimental RFC. It would have
been clearer to use the term Author-Domain rather than Author. Clearly,
it is not the Author offering Authorization.
-Doug
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Errata 2684 was entered against RFC 5226, Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs. After discussion with one of the RFC authors
and IANA staff, I rejected the errata.
The errata author is saying that in many registries, there are no unreserved
values. For registries
As background, the actual errata is at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5226eid=2715
In it Julian suggests (wdiff shows the proposed text changes):
5) Initial assignments and reservations. Clear instructions
[-should-] {+SHALL+} be provided to identify any initial
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Thomas Narten
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 11:02 AM
To: Russ Housley
Cc: IETF; i...@iesg.org
Subject: Re: Errata against RFC 5226 rejected
I don't see the need for this. should seems
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Douglas Otis
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 10:12 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps-11.txt (DKIM Authorized
Third-Party Signers) to Experimental RFC
I agree, and I think the original text is a better description of the
requirement.
Cheers,
-Benson
On Dec 8, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
As background, the actual errata is at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5226eid=2715
In it Julian suggests (wdiff shows the
Errata 2684 was entered against RFC 5226, Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs. After discussion with one of the RFC authors
and IANA staff, I rejected the errata.
The errata author is saying that in many registries, there are no unreserved
values. For registries
On 12/8/11 12:18 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
That said, the best I can see for this report is held for document
update. It's one of those things that's not worth spending time on,
and, as Thomas says, the should language makes it fine as it is.
+1. There's work happening in the background on
The announcement sent on 13 November 2011 says that the IAB will confirm the
IESG's selection. Review of RFC 4071 reveals that there is not a requirement
for confirmation. Sorry for the confusion.
On behalf of the IESG,
Russ Housley
IESG Chair
On Nov 13, 2011, at 1:04 AM, IETF Chair
In other words, I don't see a problem with the existing text that
warrants bothering with an errata.
If IANA isn't able to figure out what they need to do under the
current wording, we have problems that no amount of word twiddling can
fix.
R's,
John
PS: The last time I checked, it wasn't a
On Dec 8, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
Errata 2684 was entered against RFC 5226, Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs. After discussion with one of the RFC
authors and IANA staff, I rejected the errata.
The errata author is saying that in many
Mark == Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org writes:
Mark This is not a ISP/CUSTOMER problem. This is a
Mark ISP/CUSTOMER/WORK problem.
Mark You have the ISP using 172.16/12 You have the customer using
Mark 192.168/16 or 10/8 You have WORK using 172.16/12
Mark Enterpises have
Chris == Chris Donley c.don...@cablelabs.com writes:
Chris We're requesting a /10, not a /12 or /15 (devices attached to
Chris one CGN might use the whole /15). Such an allocation would
Chris be too small for a regional CGN deployment at a larger ISP,
Chris and would likely
Not sure why rfc1981 PMTUD was never fixed. I've repeatedly tried to
suggest to just forget about PMTUD for IP multicast, and i have never
come across a good use case to justify MTU 1280 for IP multicast
across the Internet.
We did manage to get section 11.1 into rfc 3542 though. It's a little
--On Thursday, December 08, 2011 14:02 -0500 Thomas Narten
nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
As background, the actual errata is at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5226eid=2715
...
I don't see the need for this. should seems good enough for
me. Also, the wording any ranges that are
From: =?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
I have 1918 space at home, that is used at work. My VPN works.
Maybe we should allocate a chunk of space explicity for tunnel termination,
instead of using 1918 for that? I would think it could be re-used across
enterprises
Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
Maybe we should allocate a chunk of space explicity for tunnel termination,
instead of using 1918 for that?
Interesting... I've learned to avoid 1918 for tunnel endpoints at
almost-any cost: you lose all diagnostic packets.
As it is now, I
On 08/12/2011 19:18, Barry Leiba wrote:
Errata 2684 was entered against RFC 5226, Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs. After discussion with one of the RFC authors
and IANA staff, I rejected the errata.
The errata author is saying that in many registries, there are no
In a small registry like this, it is useful to have something in the
box in the table that makes it less likely that the value will be squatted
on.
In the above example it is clearer in the 0..7 case that there are only
two free values and I will need a real good use case.
In the 0..5
Total of 292 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Dec 9 00:53:02 EST 2011
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
5.48% | 16 | 5.12% | 114028 | d...@dcrocker.net
4.45% | 13 | 4.59% | 102200 | ma...@isc.org
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The Item and Collection Link Relations'
draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-04.txt as an
Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
The announcement sent on 13 November 2011 says that the IAB will confirm the
IESG's selection. Review of RFC 4071 reveals that there is not a requirement
for confirmation. Sorry for the confusion.
On behalf of the IESG,
Russ Housley
IESG Chair
On Nov 13, 2011, at 1:04 AM, IETF Chair
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6429
Title: TCP Sender Clarification for Persist
Condition
Author: M. Bashyam, M. Jethanandani,
A. Ramaiah
Status:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6450
Title: Multicast Ping Protocol
Author: S. Venaas
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
Date: December 2011
Mailbox:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6451
Title: Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol
Extensions
Author: A. Forte, H. Schulzrinne
Status: Experimental
Stream:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
BCP 172
RFC 6472
Title: Recommendation for Not Using AS_SET
and AS_CONFED_SET in BGP
Author: W. Kumari, K. Sriram
Status: Best Current Practice
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
IETF Data Center Mailing List
List address: d...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dc/
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc
Purpose: This mailing list is for the discussion of networking issues
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
Apps Area Directorate List
List address: apps...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/appsdir/
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/appsdir
Purpose: This is the discussion list for the Applications Area
38 matches
Mail list logo
