There is the beginning of yet another debate on the SIMPLE mailing list
about do we need an IANA registry from some fields in a specific draft.
There does not seem to be a clear opinion on when to create a registry or
not and past activities are not 100% consistent. I'm sure this has come up
many
Many ietf folks use a open source source code control repository at
sipfoundry.org to edit drafts. The folks at sipfoundry have been happy to
give accounts to any IETF folks (and given sipfoundry is littered with IETF
folks, I'd be surprised to see this change :-). There are already about 160
We have had three proposal for some text on changes to prior work, the
current proposed charter, the text from the XMPP charter, and the text Keith
provided below.
The question that I think IESG should be asking themselves is how is this
similar and/or different from other groups the have
There seems to be two (or more) common base 64 encoding alphabets. Could we
enumerate the alphabets used in at least standards track RFCs and give each
one a more specific name so that specification could specify which one the
forms was used. This might help implementers understand there were
On 4/10/06 4:31 PM, Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did the base32 extended hex version get used in the SASL work? Can we update
the reference or if it is not needed not just remove it.
base32 extended hex is being / will be used for NSEC3 as it
preserves the sort order.
Great -
On 4/10/06 6:34 PM, John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On Tuesday, 11 April, 2006 11:26 +1000 Mark Andrews
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/10/06 4:31 PM, Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Did the base32 extended hex version get used in the SASL
work? Can we upda
te
the
On 4/11/06 12:33 AM, John Loughney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In practice, I've needed to power-cycle these NAT boxes every few weeks, to
clear out the garbage.
I'm curios to understand more of what you mean by this? Are you running out
of ports? Do you have any ideas what is causing this? (I
On May 15, 2006, at 6:23 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Keith == Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu writes:
REQ-8: If application transparency is most important, it is
RECOMMENDED that a NAT have an Endpoint independent filtering
behavior. If a more stringent filtering behavior is most
important, it is
On May 18, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
If we change this to address independent, close to 100% of NATs
produced will be non behave compliant. At this point applications
will have nothing they can rely on and we will be at the same
point we are now and the BEHAVE WG will have been
Sam - sorry - we should have tested this.Andrew - my feeling is that we need to provide a solution to this soon. It's seems to me that just accepting email nominations would be one of the easiest ways to do it. For this nomcom could we switch to accepting either web or email nominations and in
Wow - that was fast. Thanks.
On Oct 20, 2006, at 3:28 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Hi Cullen,
on 2006-10-20 21:21 Cullen Jennings said the following:
Sam - sorry - we should have tested this.
Andrew - my feeling is that we need to provide a solution to this
soon. It's seems to me that just
On Nov 14, 2006, at 11:03 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 4:17 PM +0100 11/14/06, Joe Abley wrote:
For the benefit of those who do not follow dnsext closely, what
friction do you expect?
As Eric stated in his message, we should not rehash old arguments.
This has been beaten to death on the
On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
My gripe is when an outside AD takes an
interest in the work, goes to the f2f meetings, maybe reads the drafts
but then waits to IESG evaluation time to DISCUSS their issues. If
they know they have a problem(s), it would be *far* better to air
On Jan 15, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
I have argued for years that an I-D that doesn't say in its status
of this memo section which mailing list it is to be discussed on
is incomplete, but I don't seem to have achieved much success for
that.
100% agree. On many of my
WIth my WebDAV WG Chair hat on I would like to make a few comments.
On Jan 15, 2007, at 8:42 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
... snip...
(4) Examples for open issues
(4a) One of the things RFC2518bis was supposed to fix was the
confusion around locking. Right now, it fails big time. For
Julian's draft has been around for a very long time and I think that
you have suggested we just adopt it before so the WG certainly has
been aware of this option. The bulk of this draft has been available
to the WG for many months if not years and the WG did choose to use
text out of
On Jan 19, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Cullen,
I was tempted to finish that mail with and thanks for the fish,
in honor of Douglas Adams, but I resisted.
lol :-)
Anyway, please understand that I don't want to make your or Ted's
life harder than it needs to be. I just feel
I certainly consider Geoff and Manfred part of the WG. I don't think
any of these were ignored my Lisa or me, I've read everyone one of
them several times. I think that for WG did not come to consensus to
adopt these into the WG draft.
Cullen with my webdav WG chair hat on
On Jan 19,
On Jan 22, 2007, at 4:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Hi,
RFC2518bis updates parts of RFC3253 (DAV:error below DAV:response)
in an
incompatible way, and thus should note it in the front matter
(Updates: 3253) and mention it as a change near the Changes
Appendix.
(see
on a previous
hum) that it was important to walk away from the meeting with a
resolution. To one particular point:
Cullen Jennings both called the consensus
and cast the last and tie-breaking vote in the room.
We feel it is important to clarify that Cullen Jennings did not call
As far as I can tell, there are three people that have posted an
email abut this document in and some of theses got back to early
2005. I don't think this document has received adequate review from
the SIP community.
It seems like the SH mode is preferable to the MMC mode in general
On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:17 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
The idea that somehow the ADs and the IAB are above the rest of the
contributors is just wrong. They are judges of consensus when
appropriate and the consensus better be independently verifiable
I would be very interested in
David - I put this tracker as a note so we are sure the appropriate
ADs don't miss it in IESG review.
On Jul 5, 2007, at 6:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gonzalo,
The -05 draft looks fine, and I have no problem with leaving comment
(1) [whether to say something applicable beyond BFCP on
I think a much better design would be one that supported many
protocols and took advantage of the flexibility or URIs instead of
just jabber - for example a header that looked like
IMPP: xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The way we did vcard might be a good thing to look at, or heck, just
attach a
Making this experimental not make much sense to me - there is no real
experiment here other than will anyone use it and that could be
said about a large percentage of PS documents. When I read 2026, this
looks like PS.
On Aug 24, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Eric Allman
On Aug 24, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Cullen Jennings wrote:
I think a much better design would be one that supported many
protocols
and took advantage of the flexibility or URIs instead of just
jabber -
for example a header that looked like
IMPP: xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Aug 24, 2007, at 11:23 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Cullen Jennings wrote:
Making this experimental not make much sense to me - there is no
real experiment here other than will anyone use it and that
could be said about a large
Would you see them being above or below BOFs?
On Oct 11, 2007, at 4:38 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
I have one additional concern about this proposal. If a study
group is
intended to meet at an IETF, it will compete with slot requests both
from IETF working groups and IRTF research groups. I
, the problem seems
controllable, particularly since a fair number of WGs are on the
verge of
concluding.
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Would you see them being above or below BOFs?
On Oct 11, 2007, at 4:38 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
I have one additional concern about this proposal
I like it - thanks. And please continue a practice of Release early,
Release often, I'm willing to bet it will work better for this type
of software than a waterfall mode.
On Nov 5, 2007, at 1:37 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Thanks to everyone who provided input regarding the front page
resend as I was told this did not make it the first time
There are a wide variety of problems with this draft. I think the two
big topics are
1) as far as I understand the needs to defining an address for
sending SMS, I would want to understand why it would not be better to
a tel URI
On Nov 11, 2007, at 12:57 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
I also don't see any particular reason for prohibiting direct use
of XMPP or SIP URIs here. There is no need in extra resolution step
if an email author only supports one type of IM application.
+1
(thought I am fine either way - this
On Nov 27, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
Ray, I think you need to comment on this. Part of the secretariat
booking hotels is to avoid nonsense like this. Why are they not
kicking out other guests instead of us?
Actually, I'm interested in a more basic thing. We usually put a
, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
Ray, I think you need to comment on this. Part of the secretariat
booking hotels is to avoid nonsense like this. Why are they not
kicking out other guests instead of us?
Actually
What happens if the appeal is claiming that changes made in Auth 48
should have been reviewed by the working group and go against WG
consensus? Given some of the changes I have seen between IESG
approval and published RFC, this seems like a reasonable plausible
scenario.
On Nov 28,
Wow. That greatly exceeded my expectations for a resolution. Thanks
to everyone who made that happen.
On Nov 28, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote:
All;
Some background as regards the Westin moving people to other hotels
as a result of renovations. We executed a contract with the
are doing on this.
Cullen with my individual contributor hat on
On Nov 26, 2007, at 3:11 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Nov 11, 2007, at 12:57 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
I also don't see any particular reason for prohibiting direct use of
XMPP or SIP URIs here
On Dec 18, 2007, at 10:32 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, 18 December, 2007 09:17 -0800 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S. I don't really understand how you envision this working.
Are you thinking that people will be speaking during this
period? It's hard to imagine
On Dec 19, 2007, at 11:39 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
If we could only get the IESG
to get serious about killing off working groups that are still
focused on
IPv4 ... ;)
Suggestions of WGs?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
I'd like to comment as an individual on one part of our process for
doing IONs.
The process for publishing them has many bottlenecks and delays and we
need a better way of doing it. If we decide to continue with IONs, I
will provide detailed comments on issues with how we are doing them.
Inline
On Jan 18, 2008, at 10:56 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Hi.
The current cutoff schedule for Internet Drafts dates from my
time on the IESG (i.e., is ancient history). It was conditioned
on the pre-IETF rush and the observation that the Secretariat,
at the time, required a
On Feb 1, 2008, at 12:51 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
(3) Cullen's note emphasized the reading problems faced by ADs
who are trying to stay on top of all of the documents in their
areas. I think we need to be very careful about that, balancing
permitting the ADs to function/manage effectively
100% agree with all your points.
I think we should focus on if the IONs are needed. If we determine
they are, then we can discuss things we learned about the tooling and
how to do it better.
Cullen with my individual contributor hat on
On Feb 6, 2008, at 6:34 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
On Feb 14, 2008, at 1:24 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
In essence, something like this would increase the address lenght by
16 bits.
Well, as I am sure you know, the reason NAT is so successful is that
it
basically does extend the IP address space by 16 bits, but in a
backwards
There are free conference bridges that only use the PSTN - they make
money by reverse termination charges (for example /www.freeconference.com
). There are very expensive conference bridges that do cool tricks SS7
technology. There are free confernce bridges that use SIP/H.323/IAX/
Skype
Harald,
I'm lost, what BOF are you talking about?
Cullen
On Mar 4, 2008, at 6:19 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 04:32:08PM +0200,
Jari Arkko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 21 lines which said:
But it is quite common when we revise
Ted,
Speaking for myself here but I suspect that other ADs are in the same
boat ... I'm keen to make sure my Discusses are within the parameters
of the discuss criteria ION regardless of the official status of this
document. Agree we need to sort out what we the end result is of
several
understanding of the
English language is poor (they are both probably true), but could
you explain how one of your most recent DISCUSSes:
Cullen Jennings:
Discuss [2008-03-05]:
There has been a lot of discussion about keying modes for
SRTP, so I'm glad to see a document that covers this topic
I believe Sam's discuss cover the issues I was concerned about and I
have removed my discuss.
On Mar 6, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Sam,
There is no need to prolong this particular side of the discussion
now that Cullen clarified his position. But, I have to say that
-0800 3/6/08, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Part of the reason I replied so quickly on this thread is that I
think I currently have two discuss that do not meet the discuss
criteria (this being one of them the other being on Lost). Totally
fair to pick on me here. Both were entered as, excuse the pun
On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:14 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I would say not.
If people want to harvest our email addresses, they are readily
available from IETF mail archives, which have
the advantage of actually being machine readable.
I do not see that any change is required in the blue
Hi Henrik,
Seems this email about email still needs some more discussion - I have
not been involved much with this much but I suspect that Chris Newman
would probably be the best person on the IESG to work with on both
clarifications and changes.
Cullen
On Apr 15, 2008, at 10:49 AM,
Seems like a good idea to me.
On May 21, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote:
The IETF Trust is considering applying to the U.S. Library of Congress
to obtain an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) for the RFC
Series and would like community input to inform its decision. The
On Sep 2, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as
agreement.
Well that's and interesting point to consider when looking at the
average IETF Last Call.
___
Ietf mailing list
Great document I really like it but I think there are a few things
that need to be done to improve it on the administrative side
(technically looks great)..
First of all, it seems to me that there are lots of standards track
stuff that will want to use this, it is well defined, works,
Fair Enough. I was not thinking of the behave mailing list as
presuming the answer but I see your point.
On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:30 , Tony Hain wrote:
Cullen Jennings wrote:
I'm sure that the IAB and IESG is keenly interested in this topic but
everyone that cares is subscribed to behave
On Nov 29, 2008, at 5:15 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
I think it would be good to finally enforce the rules for agenda
submissions. For instance, if no agenda for a meeting is published
in time, the meeting shouldn't take place.
+1
But in practice, every time something is late, an
Say a client gets the an single address in the response. Now what
protocol does it use? Does it just randomly try protocols seeing if
one will work? It seems like it needs to say use TFTP. Or say
something like try HTTP then TFTP or something. Just providing a
random address does not
I find the claim that attacks are easier to do with VoIP
Configuration Server Address than the TFTP Server Name to be pretty
dubious. All the devices I am aware of that use either option also get
the DNS server from DHCP. If I can attack the DHCP response, I can
probably get a DNS server
On Dec 12, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
This was the consensus of the IPR WG and the IETF,
I doubt the IPR WG really fully thought about this or understood it.
If someone who was deeply involved can provide definitive evidence of
this one way or the other that would be great. I
John,
I like the draft. It looks like a fairly pragmatic approach to solve
the problem.
I believe it would allow us to continue work where the text had been
provided under the 3978 rules. Without something like this, I don't
know how I can submit new versions of the WG internet drafts
Larry, your email sounded dangerously close to suggesting that it
might be ok to break the copyright law because no one would object to
it. Is that what you are suggesting?
On Dec 17, 2008, at 5:56 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
That was the culture. Law often
follows
On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
So, having just cleared this note with the Trustees, sending it in,
and forwarding the note to the IETF list, I observe http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/Contributor_Non-Exclusive_License_RFC5378.pdf
.
By all means, folks, use the form.
That link
Just as FYI for others, the link is now up and points to a doc that is
a placeholder while some fixes get made to it.
On Dec 22, 2008, at 10:34 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
So, having just cleared this note with the Trustees, sending
In fairness, the posts resulting from the FSF, uh, call to action, of
this issue have been polite and tried to make a point. Some of them
may be more or less informed about the facts at hand but they have
been on topic and do express an opinion. I'm sure we can all think of
examples of
I've gotten a bit lost on all the changes. Would it be possible to
send to the list a single email that summarizes the current proposed
changes to the document published on the web sight? or just a new copy
of the document?
On Feb 9, 2009, at 5:41 PM, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
My understanding is that this registry requires IETF Consensus as
defined in 2434. However, theses registration are being defined by
3GPP TS 29.272 which does not have IETF Consensus. If the DIME
community wishes to allow registrations like this, why not update the
IANA registration
IANA registration process.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 5:28 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call:
draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes (DiameterCommand Code
The XML2RFC folks are busy producing a good version of xml2rfc that
deals with the new license statements. However in the meantime I have
a hacked up version that does seem to work at least some of the time.
You can find it at
Method 1: (Not recommended)
Go read the BCP and Trust statement and edit your .txt to have the
right text.
Method 2: (Recommended for people using word template)
Go look at a draft that did work, such as
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jennings-http-srv-01
And copy the Copyright Notice
On Feb 13, 2009, at 11:15 AM, David Morris wrote:
while providing the operational efficiency of collecting all
discussion in one place for actual analysis of last call
While there may be better ways of doing it, I'll note the IETF LC
subject line is constructed to make it possible to find
On Mar 7, 2009, at 1:45 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
So, I'm not against another re-organization, but, in this time,
PLEASE:
- plan it well (think of all consequences for both I-Ds and RFCs)
- make the requirements precise and actually implementable
(remember: must be on page 1 :-)
- give
On Mar 7, 2009, at 12:21 PM, David Morris wrote:
I can't recall any examples of any document or source file where the
copyright was at the end. It certainly isn't common.
agree it is unusual and weird but much of resiprocate has them at the
end because some people had a hard time with the
On Mar 3, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
Giving to early implementers a guaranty that
their contributions will not be forgotten is a way to counterbalance
the time and effort spent in working on this contributions.
Marc, I feel that it is well worth thanking anyone in the
Some companies are dealing with this by having people travel with a
blank laptop with nothing but VMWare on them, then download the
image of their real machine once they arrive and running it on the VM.
I realize your company policy does not allow this but it's interesting
all the same.
I was somewhat shocked to see the draft in IETF Last Call. The last
time this draft was discussed at the microphone in Behave, many people
were very concerned that it id not possible to correctly characterize
a NAT without using more than one address behind the NAT. The tests
done on on
On Apr 5, 2009, at 8:57 PM, Bruce Lowekamp wrote:
Bernard,
Thanks for the comments. Let me see if I can describe a scenario in
which behavior-discovery is useful.
First, we don't want to go back to 3489. There were two problems
(well, there were a lot more problems, but I just want to talk
A NAT that if it's external IP was 1.2.3.4, any time it saw the binary
pattern 0x01020304 passing through it in any data it would replace it
with the nats internal IP. (Many NATS call this feature a Generic
ALG so if you see a NAT with that, run screaming) Most stuff worked
fine but the
On Apr 17, 2009, at 9:32 AM, Samuel Weiler wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I really don't understand why Dean should be blocked from
rai-...@tools.ietf.org.
Dean is the subject of a PR Action; Henrik needs no other reason to
apply the blocking and, if there is a reason
Thanks for review ... just wanted to respond to one point in this.
On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:47 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
C5. User Identity Protection: The location URI MUST NOT contain
information that identifies the user or device. Examples include
phone extensions, badge numbers,
So to follow up on the gen-art and sec reviews (thank you btw) ... I
tried to look at all the traffic and I put the changes into an RFC Ed
note. Please have a look at this and let me know if I did not get it
right. Thanks, Cullen
In first paragraph of section 3 change
OLD:
This
not posted to GEOPRIV WG mailing list - I will post a
summary
of the changes and a link to the review when I submitted the updated
document which I'm working on right now and hope to
submit shortly.
Mary.
-Original Message-
From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:flu...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June
On Apr 14, 2009, at 20:38 , Bruce Lowekamp wrote:
Many of the NATs out there you
can not make this determination without multiple IP addresses
behind the
NAT.
So you're right that you can test for a few more bizarre NAT behaviors
with multiple IP addresses, but I haven't seen any
On Jun 2, 2009, at 8:03 , Olaf Kolkman wrote:
RFC4846 section 5 uses the word recommend
If the IESG, after completing its review, identifies issues, it may
recommend explanatory or qualifying text for the RFC Editor to
include in the document if it is published.
Olaf, I believe this
Given that the the current Location for IETF 79 is listed as Canada/
China, the correct questions to ask is would people prefer IETF 79 be
in Vancouver of Beijing.
On Sep 19, 2009, at 9:52 AM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
Hi Ole,
The IETF is highly ideological. Probably more so than most other
IAOC,
I'm trying to understand what is political speech in China. The
Geopriv WG deals with protecting users' location privacy. The policies
of more than one country have come up in geopriv meetings in very
derogatory terms. There have been very derogatory comments made by
people about
On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Should the contents of the Group's activities, visual or audio
presentations at the conference,or printed materials used at the
conference (which are within the control of the Client)
the meeting in one of theses zones would eliminate the
concerns I have raised.
On Sep 23, 2009, at 9:45 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
IAOC,
I'm trying to understand what is political speech in China. The
Geopriv WG deals with protecting users' location privacy. The policies
of more than one
On Sep 24, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Ole Jacobsen (ole) wrote:
Does your above response mean that the host would not consider
slides and oral presentations made during working group sessions to
be part of the Group's activities, visual or audio presentations at
the conference? Or does your
+1 to Adrian's suggestion. I'd love to hear from people who live in
the PRC about any of the legal questions I have raised. Using specific
previous IETF discussions seems a fine way to look at it in a very
concrete way.
So far I have heard in private from more than one person that is not
On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:53 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Cullen,
For purposes of discussion, one comment below and one addition
to your list...
--On Monday, October 05, 2009 11:07 -0600 Cullen Jennings
flu...@cisco.com wrote:
I have done a little digging around on the questions I asked
On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
At its base, your exercise seems to be an effort at doing the IAOC's
job for it.
It's their job to research venue details and make choices and to
ensure the
logistics for productive IETF meetings. The IETF as a body is not
likely to
On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Cullen Jennings wrote:
Well it sounds like we both agree that it is the IAOC job to make
sure they
have answers to the questions I am raising before making a decision.
We are seeing a solid pattern to suggest that U.S. reading skills
the timelines of when you
might have an answer for questions you can't currently answer. I
don't have any problem with you telling me some of these questions are
TSTA (too stupid to answer).
Thanks, Cullen
On Sep 23, 2009, at 9:45 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
IAOC,
I'm trying to understand what
On Oct 7, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
I agree. So-far, we have always assumed that discussions on crypto
as well as writing, testing and using code during the meeting were
legal in the country. And if they weren't, we'd assume that the
local policy would not notice.
Henk, just
I'm very confused about the relationship of this draft and the work
the OAUTH WG is doing. Can you explain?
On Oct 9, 2009, at 15:38 , The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider
the following document:
- 'The OAuth Core 1.0 Protocol '
Can someone walk me through the pro/cons of this being standards track
vs informational?
Thanks, Cullen
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I'd like to draw peoples attention to the IPR disclosure
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1213
on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn
The associated patent seems to be
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=O7qXEBAJ
Let me point out Mr. Allen is an author of both
On October 8, the IESG approved the registration of application/3gpp-
ims+xml Media Type. On Nov 2, RIM filed an IPR disclosure related to
this at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1219/
The associated patent, filed Oct 2008, is at
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Mk7GEBAJ
and the
, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Can someone walk me through the pro/cons of this being standards track vs
informational?
Thanks, Cullen
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
1 - 100 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
