I send my request to the editors including questions but no reply from
them to me. The thread [1] raised some issues, which is not mentioned
in the I-D. The message [2] was ignored not answered (this is last
reminder). The message [3] proposes using RFC5444 into this I-D, or
raise the question of
I am sad to hear about this. I remember Hugh from various IPsec test events.
And the lights… I still remember the lights.
Jari
A couple of minor comments:
- For some unfathomable reason IEEE people seem to call mailing
lists reflectors - that might be worth a mention. Section 4
otherwise seems repetitive.
- 3.3.1.4 says: Since it is
possible to participate in IETF without attending meetings, or even
joining a
Paul Wouters p...@cypherpunks.ca writes:
Hugh Daniel passed away on June 3rd after what appears to have been a
heart attack.
I remember many interesting moments and conversations within the
times that I talked with him. He was a very memorable person.
But certainly the one that stands out
Asking IETF WG chairs to deal with passwords is a bit silly.
Maybe they could be emailed a monthly reminder of their personal subscription
password on the first of each month.
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
Paul Wouters p...@cypherpunks.ca writes:
Hugh Daniel passed away on June 3rd after what appears to have been a
heart attack.
I met Hugh many years ago when we were working on our overlay system,
and had problems integrating it with FreeS/WAN's IPsec implementation.
And yes, I too remember
Hi,
It falls to me to make a call on this issue before the document moves on.
Abdussalam has complained that he has not been acknowledged and has objected to
the current text in section 8.
The authors have responded on the MANET list
We believe that only comments that lead to significant
At 20:01 05-06-2013, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
RFC2031 documented the takeover. Snuck through on informational...
It's part of the poorly documented historical facts which happened
after some IETF financial woes.
I read draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04 again. Section 1 mentions that:
This
In Section 3.3.1.5:
IEEE 802 standards, once approved, are published and made available
for sale.
This could be a cultural difference. RFC 6852 glosses over that (see
Standards specifications are made accessible to all for implementation and
deployment.)
IEEE 802 standards are made
On 6/6/2013 8:12 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
- 3.3.1.4 says: Since it is
possible to participate in IETF without attending meetings, or even
joining a mailing list, IETF WG chairs will provide the information
to anyone who requests it. However, since IEEE 802 work-in-progress
is
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-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02
Reviewer:
I am an additional 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-mmusic-rfc2326bis
Reviewer:
On 6/6/13 3:15 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I send my request to the editors including questions but no reply from
them to me. The thread [1] raised some issues, which is not mentioned
in the I-D. The message [2] was ignored not answered (this is last
reminder). The message [3] proposes using
On 6/6/13, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
It falls to me to make a call on this issue before the document moves on.
Abdussalam has complained that he has not been acknowledged and has objected
to
the current text in section 8.
The authors have responded on the MANET list
We
Reply to your request dated 24/05/2013
I-D: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:06/06/2013
Reviewer Comment A3: Use Cases not considered and the Information Bases Threats.
+++
*Use-cases threats*
Reading the
The Liaison statement can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1258/
The Internet Society will forward this liaison statement to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on
their letterhead. This will carry more weight than a statement just from the
IESG and IAB because the Internet Society holds a
AB,
while the IETF LC has already ended, I will reply to your comments below:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
Reply to your request dated 24/05/2013
I-D: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)
I find it somewhat disruptive that this email raises new questions on a draft
authored in a working group in which you participate, and that it has arrived
after the end of IETF last call.
I see a series of questions in this message, but no suggested textual changes. I
therefore conclude that you
Sorry to everyone for the noise this thread is creating.
Multiple questions that I have to answer.
It falls to me to make a call on this issue before the document moves on.
Abdussalam has complained that he has not been acknowledged and has
objected to the current text in section 8.
The
I received an IESG message asking my comments so I gave it, regard to
your comments below, the reply is that I refer to missing information
needed in the I-D, so the reveiw suggests that there is something
missing. Did not suggested text because I know that it most probably
not be considered.
The
AB,
As Joel pointed out, your questions should have been raised during the
OSPF WG Last Call, which you did not participate in. You
(inappropriately) posted questions on the MANET WG list after the OSPF
WGLC was complete, and several people responded, most of them stating
that RFC 5444 is
Total of 146 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jun 7 00:53:03 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
10.27% | 15 | 9.96% | 125797 | abdussalambar...@gmail.com
4.11% |6 | 6.44% |81389 |
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6957
Title: Duplicate Address Detection Proxy
Author: F. Costa,
J-M. Combes, Ed.,
X. Pougnard,
H. Li
Status:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6960
Title: X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure
Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP
Author: S. Santesson, M. Myers,
R. Ankney,
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6962
Title: Certificate Transparency
Author: B. Laurie,
A. Langley,
E. Kasper
Status: Experimental
Stream: IETF
25 matches
Mail list logo
