John, Brian
Most standards organizations require that participants who have, or whose
company has, IPR relevant to a potential standard, disclose this at an early
stage and at least prior to publication.
The participants in the IETF are individuals however RFC3979 addresses this
by stating that
On 17/09/2013 05:34, Alan Clark wrote:
...
It should be noted that the duty to disclose IPR is NOT ONLY for the authors
of a draft, and the IETF reminder system seems to be focused solely on
authors. The duty to disclose IPR lies with any individual or company that
participates in the IETF not
One of the biggest problems resulting from the Snowden/PRISM fiasco is that
we now know that the NSA has been spending a significant sum (part but not
all of a $250 million budget) on infiltrating and manipulating the
standards process.
As one of my friends in the civil rights movement from the
From: Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net
I would even suggest that all I-D authors, at the very least, should
need to register with the IETF to submit documents.
Oddly enough, back in the Dark Ages (i.e. the ARPANET), the DDN maintained
such a registry, and so if you Google 'NC3
I would even suggest that all I-D authors, at the very least, should
need to register with the IETF to submit documents.
Oddly enough, back in the Dark Ages (i.e. the ARPANET), the DDN maintained
such a registry, and so if you Google 'NC3 ARPANET' you will see that that
was the ID
Hi Phillip,
I am personally not worried that the standardization work in the IETF
can be sabotaged by governments since our process is open, and
transparent to everyone who cares to see what is going on. I could,
however, see easily how that is a problem with some other organizations
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net wrote:
Hi Phillip,
I am personally not worried that the standardization work in the IETF can
be sabotaged by governments since our process is open, and transparent to
everyone who cares to see what is going on. I
I read this draft and tried to participate in shaping into something I as an
operator believe useful in SIDR WG, but to no avail -- IMO because the protocol
work, and then the requirements work, were largely completed already. I
believe this approach will cause more harm than good and result
I read this draft and tried to participate in shaping into something I as
an
operator believe useful in SIDR WG, but to no avail -- IMO because the
protocol work, and then the requirements work, were largely completed
already. I believe this approach will cause more harm than good and
result
On Sep 19, 2013 12:01 PM, Hannes Tschofenig hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net
wrote:
PS: From my work in the IETF I am more worried about security privacy
unfriendly ideas individuals and companies come up with. Those obviously
help the NSA and others to intercept communication more easily.
Right,
And the -12 version is likewise ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Thanks,
--David
-Original Message-
From: Black, David
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 12:41 PM
To: Ben Campbell
Cc: Eric McMurry; General Area Review Team (gen-...@ietf.org); ietf@ietf.org;
d...@ietf.org;
I got my arm slightly twisted to produce the attached: a simple
concatenation of some of the actionable suggestions made in the
discussion of PRISM and Bruce Schneier's call for action.
Brian
Original Message
Subject: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections-00.txt
Jim Gettys wrote:
Radio clock receivers often don't work where these devices are deployed
(like in my basement). Not enough view of the sky (and multiple layers of
floors). Radios are nice to have, but can't be guaranteed to work.
No, the problem of radio clock is not its availability but
The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG
(dhc) to consider the following document:
- 'Guidelines for Creating New DHCPv6 Options'
draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-14.txt as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 7021
Title: Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT
on Network Applications
Author: C. Donley, Ed.,
L. Howard, V. Kuarsingh,
15 matches
Mail list logo
