There's a lot of hysteresis... because calling it funny is often a stretch.
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scott Brim
[s...@internet2.edu]
Sent: 08 April 2013 20:34
To: Lucy Lynch
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-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking-07
The good folks at ISOC shot a number of videos during IETF-86 with experts on
various topics. These videos are now available, take a look at the blog post
John and I wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/04/bits-n-bytes-on-video/
The videos can also be accessed directly at:
Dear Peter,
Thanks for the review.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : Peter Yee [mailto:pe...@akayla.com]
Envoyé : mardi 9 avril 2013 10:13
À : draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking@tools.ietf.org
Cc : gen-...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Objet : Gen-ART review of
Actually, what I get from this and all the other discussions is that it's
unclear if the updated OCSP satisfies the suitability for the intended
purpose test. Or at least it fails the KISS principle w.r.t. that.
Rephrasing: an OCSP client should be able to tell from an OCSP response if:
a)
+1.
-Original Message-
From: pkix-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pkix-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Henry B. Hotz
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 1:35 PM
To: Sean Turner
Cc: p...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pkix] Last Call: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-15.txt (X.509
Internet
Dear all,
A new version of the Internet Draft on Flow Selection Techniques has been
submitted. It contains the following changes:
- A new section illustrating the difference between Intermediate Flow
Selection Process and Intermediate Selection Process has been added,
-
On 03/29/2013 01:28 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
The Internet is under a DDoS attack specifically against an email
address reputation service.
You have it backwards. Internet email has long been under DDoS attack
from email address reputation services.
Keith
On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:27 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 4/8/13 9:18 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Mar 31, 2013, at 1:23 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
mailto:do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 03/30/2013 11:26 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
IPv6 makes publishing IP address
Med,
Thanks for the swift response to my review. See my one reply
inline.
Kind regards,
-Peter
Page 13, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: what's meant here is if any PCP
error other than a short-lifetime error, or in the case of a failed
resend, any PCP
Hi Keith,
At 09:56 09-04-2013, Keith Moore wrote:
You have it backwards. Internet email has long been under DDoS
attack from email address reputation services.
Quoting Nathaniel Borenstein [1]:
One man's blacklist is another's denial-of-service attack.
Email reputation services have a
On Apr 9, 2013, at 11:28 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi Keith,
At 09:56 09-04-2013, Keith Moore wrote:
You have it backwards. Internet email has long been under DDoS attack from
email address reputation services.
Quoting Nathaniel Borenstein [1]:
One man's blacklist is
The theory that all April 1 dates RFCs are simply jokes and nothing
else is also easily refuted. Consider RFC 3092. It is an April 1st RFC
produced through that process and has certainly produced some
chuckles. Yet I've lost count of the number of emails I've gotten over
the years from non-English
David:
Thanks for your efforts on this document. Your first review was in May 2011,
and the document has improved greatly for you continued pushing on the concerns.
Russ
On Apr 3, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Black, David wrote:
The -07 version of this draft resolves all of the issues raised by the
Quoting Nathaniel Borenstein [1]:
One man's blacklist is another's denial-of-service attack.
Email reputation services have a bad reputation.
They have a good enough reputation that every non-trivial mail system
in the world uses them. They're not all the same, and a Darwinian
process has
On Apr 9, 2013, at 6:36 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
Thanks for your efforts on this document. Your first review was in May 2011,
and the document has improved greatly for you continued pushing on the
concerns.
Can we take this to mean that the concerns expressed in your
Hi, Brian,
My apologies for the delay in my response. Please find my comments
in-line...
On 04/02/2013 06:45 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Fernando,
Rather than repeating myself, I'll suggest a change to the Introduction
that would (IMHO) improve the message:
OLD:
1. Introduction
Hi Doug,
At 12:22 09-04-2013, Douglas Otis wrote:
In full agreement with Nathaniel. Avoiding unfair collateral
blocking is why source domain authentication, not authorization, is vital.
I doubt that what's mentioned in the subject line will not face
strong resistance within an IETF context.
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Protocol to Access White Space (PAWS) Database: Use Cases and
Requirements'
(draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-15.txt) as Informational
RFC
This document is the product of the Protocol to Access WS database
Working Group.
The IESG
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Analysis of BGP, LDP, PCEP and MSDP Issues According to KARP Design
Guide'
(draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-07.txt) as Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Keying and Authentication for Routing
Protocols Working Group.
The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG
(manet) to consider the following document:
- 'Definition of Managed Objects for theOptimized Link State Routing
Protocol version 2'
draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib-06.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IMAP Access to IETF Email List Archives'
draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-06.txt as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this
The PCP Working Group will hold a virtual interim meeting on Tuesday, April 23,
2013 via WebEx. The time for the meeting is:
0700-0830 PDT
1000-1130 EDT
1400-1530 UTC
1600-1730 Germany, Switzerland
1700-1830 Finland
2200-2330 China
Agenda and dial-in information will be posted at
23 matches
Mail list logo
