Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2006 08:23:20 AM -0500 Steven M. Bellovin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:56:51 -0800, Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since it seems like this might be useful, I'll pull a draft together on
how to do this without
Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
...
It would be easy to run a tiny little U[D]P binding server that
took in an application name (yes, we'd have to register those, but
string
Dave Crocker wrote:
I agree that interim WG meetings would be useful, but here is a
further proposal:
There are quite a few really good ideas for improvements to IETF
productivity. The problem with taking a particular suggestion and then
adding others to it will be that nothing gets
Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
Regarding SRV, it's not acceptable to expect that as a condition of
deploying a new application, every user who wishes to run that
application be able to write to a DNS zone. Most users do not have DNS
zones
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:47:46 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel
Chiappa) wrote:
Another option, now that I think about it, though, is a TCP option which
contained the service name - one well-known port would be the demux port,
and which actual application you
Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Another option, now that I think about it, though, is a TCP option
which contained the service name - one well-known port would be the
demux port, and which actual application you connected to would
PS...
Joe Touch wrote:
Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
Regarding SRV, it's not acceptable to expect that as a condition of
deploying a new application, every user who wishes to run that
application be able to write to a DNS zone. Most users do
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The whole idea of fixed ports is broken.
...
The Internet has a signalling layer, the DNS. Applications should use it.
The SRV record provides an infinitely extensible mechanism for advertising
ports.
And with what port would I reach this magical DNS that would
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Joe Touch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And with what port would I reach this magical DNS that would
provide the SRV record for the DNS itself?
You use fixed ports for the bootstrap process and only for the bootstrap
process.
Which means that the DNS
todd glassey wrote:
Response-
No Joel - you are dead wrong IMHO. The IETF doesnt get to redefine the
Industry Term BCP to mean 'some document we publish'.
We use the term Request for Comments when after last call for input.
We use the term Standard when we have no official compliance
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
And for those using PalmOS (import into desktop):
http://www.isi.edu/touch/tools/ietf65-draft.vcs
Same info; same warranties; different format ;-)
Joe
Eliot Lear wrote:
You can find a ical version of the draft agenda at
Tom.Petch wrote:
The phrase 'monotonic increasing' seems to be a Humpty-Dumpty one, used with a
different sense within RFC to that which I see defined elsewhere; and this
could lead to a reduction in security.
Elsewhere - dictionaries, encyclopaedia, text books - I see it
defined so that
There are two different potential intentions to 'Experimental':
1. to conduct an experiment, as Eliot notes below, i.e.,
to gain experience that a protocol 'does good' 'in the wild'
2. to gain experience that a protocol does no harm 'in the wild'
I think of IETF Experimental track as being
mharrima101 (sent by Nabble.com) wrote:
Please excuse if this post is not in the correct place - I wasn't sure
where to put a question such as this.
We are using an HP ProCurve switch in our network as a router ( it’s a
layer 3 switch ). We are communicating with all devices on the far
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Russ Housley wrote:
Most RFCs do not contain source code.
Algorithm specs are the exception, and typically do contain reference
code, though.
They tend to include licenses in that code, however. That code is
typically given as an example, in
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 13. januar 2006 11:44 -0800 Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is my impression, from trying to use it as well. I was troubled by
'yet another embedded text system' that necessitated editing source,
which seemed like a stone-age throwback when I
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 13. januar 2006 22:40 -0800 Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't used it for production yet, but it looks wonderful - not
WYSIWYG, but WYSIPU - What You See Is Pretty Useful.
Pretty useful compared to text-editing the source code, yes
Elwyn Davies wrote:
Seconded.
I *have* used it for a production run and whilst it is not perfect it
makes document creation and editing significantly easier than typing
'raw' xml even into a syntax-aware text editor.
It is also very helpful for proof reading and commenting (spell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ted Faber wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 04:22:53PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
Maintaining xml2rfc is going to far less fragile than maintaining nroff.
Nroff has no current industry penetration. XML has quite a lot.
I'd be cautious here.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ted Faber wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 02:24:53PM -0500, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
A slightly different question is whether we can come up with a Word
template that makes this feasible or at least minimizes the manual
conversion labor at the
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 23 November, 2005 13:54 -0800 Joe Touch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To others:
I'm seeking help with two aspects of this template:
a) being able to generate ASCII printer output from Macs and
under OpenOffice
the current
This doesn't cover all of what middleboxes do, but the part about them
faking responses (e.g., to splice connections), hijacking, or NATing are
covered in RFC1122 sec 3.2.1.3:
When a host sends any datagram, the IP source address MUST
be one of its own IP addresses (but
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'm hesitant to relaunch this thread, but there are a number of points
that incite me to comment. Since there's been a fair amount of
repetition, may I ask people only to chime in with new thoughts?
...
Joe Touch wrote:
...
[re a mandatory section in all drafts
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Joe,
...
Re-reviewing 2026, in all places the IESG is noted as being largely
reactive to the community and guiding process.
Only sec 6.1.2 notes the application of technical judgement, but only
regarding maturity of the document and the standards level being sought
Ned Freed wrote:
Can anyone suggest where I could find the requirement for IANA
Considerations?
There is no requirement that such sections appear in published RFCs. This
debate has never been about what's required in RFCs, but rather what's
required
in drafts submitted to the IESG.
Why
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ned Freed wrote:
Can anyone suggest where I could find the requirement for IANA
Considerations?
There is no requirement that such sections appear in published RFCs. This
debate has never been about what's required in RFCs, but rather what's
required
in drafts
Keith Moore wrote:
Keith,
The IESG can still exercise their best engineering judgment as
individuals, as the rest of us do.
The IESG role itself need not incorporate a privileged position from
which to wield that judgement. There's plenty left to do.
Joe,
The IESG has several
Keith Moore wrote:
If IESG people were to personally benefit from their exercise of this
privilege you'd have a valid gripe.
Personal gain is not the only motive; power can be its own motive. The
gripes are validated by cases of abuse of privilege.
If there's no obvious personal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
2026 separates process management from _independent_ technical review,
IMO for good reason.
I think you're reading more emphasis on independence than was intended
in 2026. But this is also subjective.
History reminds us
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
External reviews are what I'm favoring - external, independent reviews.
so when IESG provides the external review, that's bad, but when someone
else does external review, that's good?
Yup. When judges decide cases, that's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ned Freed wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 8:15 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
RFC 2434 doesn't discuss null IANA sections at all. RFC2434bis does
discuss them, and we will need to form consensus about whether the RFC
Editor is required to retain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ned Freed wrote:
This opens the door to the author forgetting to check and the various
reviewers assuming the prsence of the sections means a check was done.
The goal of putting it in the template is to encourage it be addressed,
rather than
Bruce Lilly wrote:
Date: 2005-07-06 16:16
From: Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
However, I'm not at all in favor of requirements to IDs that are added
ad-hoc; until this actually makes it into an RFC as a formal
requirement, it won't be in the word template I manage.
I wouldn't call it ad
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
Nothing like responsibility to look after the overall technical health of
the
Internet was assigned to the IESG.
You seem to be forgetting something, Dave.
Every IETF participant is supposed to use his best engineering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Can anyone suggest where I could find the requirement for IANA
Considerations?
I found it on the website, but it's not listed in any RFC (just in an
expired ID, one that even mentions that empty IANA Considerations
sections may be dropped by the RFC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Joe Touch wrote:
...
The decision of whether something is an end run should be relatively
fast. One can always air on the conservative side if in doubt and say
looks like end run, while getting more detailed reviews
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Narten wrote:
Well, there are always going to be judgement calls about whether something
is or isn't an end-run, which is where I would expect discuss
positions to come from on such documents.
Process-wise, this isn't right, IMO (which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Joe Touch wrote:
...
Nobody died and made the IESG cop. They took it upon themselves, and
that's not how things (should) work in the IETF.
I suggest you read RFC 2026 again.
Brian
I did; you might as well
Sam Hartman wrote:
Joe == Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joe Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Thursday, April 28, 2005 03:39:36 PM -0700 Joe Touch
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
They're only equivalent if another AD can't tell the
difference
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sam Hartman wrote:
Joe == Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joe delegation) or make their work smaller (by encouraging
Joe feedback to be directional - as in 'take to WG X' - rather
Joe than technical review).
I'll certainly
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
(John's long and interesting message severely truncated)
John C Klensin wrote:
... We may need
a way to have an experimental or probationary WG: to say to
a group we don't have much confidence in this, but you are
welcome to try to run with it and prove us
Keith Moore wrote:
It seems to me that the fundamental problem is that most of the meeting has
not read most of the drafts let alone the latest version under discussion.
I think that's a symptom; a more fundamental problem is that WGs are trying
to do too many things at once.
I've
Keith Moore wrote:
At the same time for each AD there is more than one person in the
IETF who is more technically astute than that AD.
perhaps. however, it's hard to identify those people,
They're the ones disagreeing with the ADs in some cases ;-)
and they may not
have either the
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ralph Droms writes
:
So, without meaning any offense to the ADs, I suggest we lump random
participants, WG members, doc editors and ADs together when the spec is
reviewed - and ensure that all comments are published in the same forum
Keith Moore wrote:
At the same time for each AD there is more than one person in the
IETF who is more technically astute than that AD.
perhaps. however, it's hard to identify those people,
They're the ones disagreeing with the ADs in some cases ;-)
The set of people disagreeing with ADs
Keith Moore wrote:
I think that's a symptom; a more fundamental problem is that WGs are
trying to do too many things at once.
I've lost track of how many times I've seen a WG
a) take valuable meeting time to have a presentation about a draft
that is only peripherally related to the WG's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
The set of people disagreeing with ADs include both technically
astute people and egocentric fools.
Ditto for the ADs themselves.
Depending on whom you ask, you'll get differing opinions as who
which people are in which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
I've never seen an AD insist that a WG devote valuable face-to- face
meeting
time to checking work that was peripheral to the WG's interest.
Check again, please. I personally have been asked to take items to WGs
that I've
Keith Moore wrote:
Let me suggest that the rules be quite simple:
1. A Discuss may be asserted only when it pertains to a normative
concern that
involves the viability of the specification.
not reasonable. even merely informative text can cause interoperability
problems if it is wrong
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Thursday, April 28, 2005 03:39:36 PM -0700 Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
They're only equivalent if another AD can't tell the difference between
the two. IMO, they could, were they involved in the process
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Joe Touch wrote:
Not Sec 4.2.3 for individual submissions; that one talks about checking
for conflict, not editing for content.
Have you taken a look at RFC 3922 (The IESG and RFC Editor Documents:
Procedures)? While these were previously also
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith,
The case John outlines is the one I am concerned about as well.
Keith Moore wrote:
John,
I agree - the situation you describe does occur. However such cases
include major technical omissions and disagreements in addition
to minor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
The case John outlines is the one I am concerned about as well.
[...]
And, FWIW, when the AD suggests specific text changes, it's often
enough the desire of that AD rather than based on feedback from some
other WG.
I don't
Keith Moore wrote:
I wasn't advocating for more ADs, but for more 'virtual' ADs, i.e., to
move the work of reviewing out of the ADs, and let the ADs distrbute the
reviews and collect and interpret the results.
This is _more_ work for the ADs, not less, because the ADs have to
read the
Keith Moore wrote:
The only way to releive work is to distribute it, not concentrate it.
False. You can also relieve work while keeping throughput constant by
reducing overhead.
Distributing work often reduces throughput by creating more overhead.
Only a few applications are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
okay, this is getting way too long, and starting to get repetitive and
even personal, so I'm going to summarize:
And I'll provide some final comments, since the summary isn't
particularly unbiased.
1. A review structure that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
...
I would prefer a bottom up organization that helped us create better,
more coordinated protocols than the top-down one that we have now.
We already have a bottom-up organization. It's because the bottom
is failing to do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
Joe,
I don't agree with your interpretation of 2026.
Keith
I knew that; the disagreement of the interpretation of 2026 is at the
heart of this issue overall.
Joe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dave Crocker wrote:
Note, however, that reducing the workload is not the only possible
solution. I suspect that even partial funding for these positions would
make it easier for people to volunteer.
not really.
most people have full-time
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
So the real requirement is to reduce the load the IETF places on an AD.
This seems like an extremely difficult problem to me. Most of IESG's
workload is in reviewing technical specifications. I don't see any way
to provide
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dave Crocker wrote:
Why isn't a larger number of ADs - or, more specifically, removing the
review process from the ADs and having a real review group, the solution
here?
1. the repeated assessment has been that the aggregate size of the iesg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
Why isn't a larger number of ADs - or, more specifically, removing the
review process from the ADs and having a real review group, the solution
here?
The more ADs there are, the more things get bogged down at the IESG
level.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
The
IESG rules mean that any AD can vote 'Discuss'.
Er, yes, I think it's known as collective responsibility in some
circles. It would happen much less often if WGs conducted their own
cross-area review before
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
...
The real point of a working group process is to establish the coalition
of support you need to get the work deployed.
And this has to be taken into account when you are considering votes.
...
The problem is even bigger when the chair decides to abuse
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dave Crocker wrote:
Joe,
When the IETF pays for the 60% (80%, 100%, take your pick) of an
AD's salary, they can elect ADs.
Funding of candidates isn't the issue.
I disagree; short of funding candidates or reducing the workload (the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Why can't we elect the WG chairs? Why can't we elect the ADs?
...
When the IETF pays for the 60% (80%, 100%, take your pick) of
an AD's salary, they can elect ADs. Unfortunately, the
current system is heavily biased
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The problem with voting is that the IETF does not have a
membership list, so
there is no real basis for running a vote. The nomcom
process is intended as
a surrogate, randomly selecting motivated representatives.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Scott W Brim
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 14:27
On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting',
what the toy shows
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Carl Malamud wrote:
Hi -
I think a research request to study how protocols are designed and features
added over time deserves a more accurate answer than an official
incantation of they're gone.
Is this more official:
Internet-Drafts are
Joe Touch wrote:
Tony Hain wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 6:23 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'iab@iab.org'; 'iesg@ietf.org'
Cc: 'ietf@ietf.org'
Subject: Why?
Why are we wasting effort in every WG and research area on NAT
Tony Hain wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 6:23 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'iab@iab.org'; 'iesg@ietf.org'
Cc: 'ietf@ietf.org'
Subject: Why?
Why are we wasting effort in every WG and research area on NAT traversal
crap???
Jason Gao wrote:
Sorry, there isn't any paper on it yet. I think I should write a paper in a
few weeks.
Anyway, it is just a paper design with many open issues, such as quantitive
comparison with TCP, SCTP and so on.
What is a paper design without even a paper?
What is it that is being
Hi, all,
With agendas appearing ever later - including last night, the issue of
cutoff dates should be revisited.
If reading the drafts to be discussed is NOT an issue, then the I-D
cutoff dates should be dropped.
If reading the drafts IS an issue, then, by correlary, there should be a
.
For BOFs, the formal BOF proposal must include an agenda,
and that was due this time on February 21.
We need to try and follow our own rules next time.
What we have, IMO, is a deadline, but not a cutoff - as in miss the
date and you don't get to hold your WG.
Joe
Brian
Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, all
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nicolas Williams wrote:
| Connection latching is a simple concept: connections, for connection-
| oriented protocols, such as TCP or SCTP, that are run over IPsec should
| be 'bound' to the same quality of protection parameters and initiator
| and
Leif Johansson wrote:
Leslie Daigle wrote:
|
| Well, the choice to put this on the ietf-discuss list was deliberate:
| including making sure that a reasonable cross section of the IETF
| would see the discussion. It's not at all clear that such a cross
| section would bother to subscribe to a
-
Better-Than-Nothing Security [BTNS] BOF
(pronounced 'buttons')
IETF 61, Wash. DC
November 9, 2004
Tuesday
9:00-11:30am
CHAIR: Joe Touch ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
AGENDA:
(1) Agenda bashing (5 minutes)
(2
Hi, all,
The IETF-61 calendar (at least as of a few days ago) is available as a
.vcs file suitable for importing into Palm desktop. This version is
based on Lars Eggert's Ical calendar.
The file has been tried only with Desktop V4.1.4 and PalmOS v5.2.1. Use
at your own risk; no guarantees for
Hi, all,
A new Word template for IDs and RFCs is available, along with a
preliminary Internet Draft describing it and a post-processing perl
script is now available on-line. Comments appreciated.
Joe
--
Network Working Group
Sorry for the missing subtext:
If the nominations themselves ended up being more diverse, a more
diverse set of people might care to help select them.
Joe
Joe Touch wrote:
Lars Eggert wrote:
Danny McPherson wrote:
Only one week left until the cutoff to volunteer for the 2004/05
IETF
Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Touch) wrote on 11.09.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Dear Harald-the-General-AD,
Can we PLEASE do as Melinda says - change the policy now for new drafts?
That may have a chilling effect on new drafts. I.e., this isn't as
simple
Christian Huitema wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
Joe Touch
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 10:42 AM
To: Kai Henningsen
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: archives (was The other parts of the report
Kai Henningsen wrote:
Joe
Melinda Shore wrote:
On Sunday, September 12, 2004, at 04:02 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
It's still unclear - the document contains required wording about its
expiration, under the same document. The two statements are in
conflict in that regard.
I have some problems with retroactively changing
Melinda Shore wrote:
On Sunday, September 12, 2004, at 06:03 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Even the IETF distinguishes between normative refs and non-normative
(though it has a penchant for wanting to redefine those words too).
Private correspondence is not citable as a normative ref, nor
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Dear Harald-the-General-AD,
Can we PLEASE do as Melinda says - change the policy now for new drafts?
That may have a chilling effect on new drafts. I.e., this isn't as
simple as let's just change it now for future stuff.
IMO, changing the policy would indeed be making
Carl Malamud wrote:
Hi Scott -
Thanks for pointing out the proceedings. Having the i-d's published
there certainly demonstrates how futile it is to pretend that we
can erase history. The position that Bill Manning and Joe Touch are
taking reminds of when I was ordered by the Secretary-General
Carl Malamud wrote:
You could do an opt-out period, say 6 months, before publishing
the database. With sufficient publicity, say periodic reposting
of the opt-out announcement on the ietf list, this seems to
strike a balance between the unspecified policy of the past
and a new policy for the
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Why is the list of internet standards so hard to find?
It seems to me this list deserves top ranking on the first page at
www.ietf.org, but that's certainly not the case. (Try to find it and see
what I mean.)
It deserves top ranking on search engines; knowing that
Mike S wrote:
At 12:34 AM 6/16/2004, Sally Floyd wrote...
Alberto Medina, Mark Allman, and I have a draft paper on
Measuring the Evolution of Transport Protocols in the Internet
that has a section (Section V.B.) on Path MTU Discovery.
From the paper:
Table X shows that PMTUD is used and succeeded
Michael Richardson wrote:
Valdis == Valdis Kletnieks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Valdis But anyhow, if we ever update STD005, we'll just do the
Valdis obvious - create STD079 or whatever we're up to, stick an
Valdis Obsoletes: STD005 on it, and stick an Obsoleted By:
Valdis STD079
Michael Richardson wrote:
Joe == Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One thing to consider, is having a web server which, when asked
for: http://www.ietf.org/ref/rfc0791.txt redirects to:
http://www.ietf.org/std/std005.txt
Joe STD-5 is a nice choice - it actually refers to 6
Bob Braden wrote:
*
* And what happens when a STD is updated/revised?
*
* Joe
Joe,
Unnnh, let me guess. Update the web pointer to the new RFC(s)?
Bob Braden
I was thinking of the case where
791 - STD3
In which case when STD3 points to a new RFC, papers citing STD3 would be
Bob Braden wrote:
*
*
* Bob Braden wrote:
*
**
** And what happens when a STD is updated/revised?
**
** Joe
*
* Joe,
*
* Unnnh, let me guess. Update the web pointer to the new RFC(s)?
*
* Bob Braden
*
* I was thinking of the case
Michael Richardson wrote:
One thing to consider, is having a web server which, when asked for:
http://www.ietf.org/ref/rfc0791.txt
redirects to:
http://www.ietf.org/std/std005.txt
STD-5 is a nice choice - it actually refers to 6 different RFCs.
So which one redirects to
Keith Moore wrote:
Okay, I read draft-iesg-rfced-documents-00.txt regarding a proposed
change in IESG policy regarding RFC-Ed documents.
I'm opposed to the change, because I believe it would make it too easy
for harmful documents to be published as RFCs.
As someone who has been waiting over
Matt Holdrege wrote:
I am shocked that the IETF didn't rewire downtown Seoul to accommodate
our conference! The next thing we'll hear is that our TDMA phones won't
work. Or that they don't have TGI Friday's within easy walking distance.
:-)
About phones:
You can use a tri-mode CDMA USA phone
Eric A. Hall wrote:
On 1/12/2004 9:03 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
IPv6's only hope of some modest level of deployment is, as the latter
part of your message points out, as the substrate for some hot
application(s). Somehow I doubt anything the IETF does or does not do
is going to have any affect
John C Klensin wrote:
Noel, I'm slightly more optimistic along at least two other dimensions...
...
(2) The no servers unless you pay business rates, and its close
relative, you don't get to run VPNs, or use your own email address
rather than ours nonsense you and many others are experiencing
Michel Py wrote:
Joe Touch wrote:
Since we've been lacking a similar non-NAT solution,
we (ISI) built one called TetherNet, as posted earlier:
http://www.isi.edu/tethernet
What is this beside a box that setups a tunnel? What's the difference
with:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk583/tk372
Zefram,
Our take on why NATs are bad is at:
http://dsonline.computer.org/0207/departments/wp4icon.htm
And our method for undoing what a NAT does, called TetherNet is at:
http://www.isi.edu/tethernet and paper about it is at:
http://www.isi.edu/touch/pubs/discex03-tethernet/
(Contact me if you
301 - 400 of 482 matches
Mail list logo
