I am glad that NSI has published the I-D for their protocol, now does it
need to go beyond that and become an RFC, IMHO, no.
Since I-Ds still officially vanish after a while, we need to move it to
RFC to maintain its visibility. Let's defer comments on the I-D fade out
policy.
The IETF
I am writing to request that the RFC Editor not publish
draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt as an RFC in its current form,
for the following reasons:
2. A primary purpose of the NECP protocol appears to be to
facilitate the operation of so-called interception proxies. Such
proxies violate the
I'd like note my agreement with to the comments made by Dave Crocker.
And I would like to suggest that there is perhaps yet another aspect of
this debate:
The IETF recently made a strong moral statement against CALEA. That
statement carried weight; it was noticed; it had impact.
And that
Which raises the interesting (to me anyway) question: Is there value in
considering a new protocol, layered on top of TCP, but beneath new
applications, that provides an "association" the life of which transcends
the TCP transports upon which it is constructed?
been there, done that.
a. TCP is too CPU intensive and creates too much latency for storage I/O operations.
b. The IP stack is too top heavy and processing packet headers is too
slow to support storage I/O operations.
There were some papers published duing the late '80's or early '90s by
John Romkey and I
actually your urls could be:
http://www.bq--aduwvya.fr/
http://www.deja.fr/
a application may render the bq--aduwvya.fr as déjà.fr or it may not.
Finally it would be up to the URDP process or the courts as to *if* the
two domains are the same. We shouldn't worry what the URDP or
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, John Stracke wrote:
Try this one: while in your hotel room, you see there's something you need
to download By the time you get dressed, it's still coming down; and you
have to go to a meeting If you're using Mobile IP, you may be able to
move from one network to
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
so it seems like what we need is a bit in the IP header to indicate that
L2 integrity checks are optional
A lot of folks seem to forget that from the point of view of IP L2
includes the busses between memory and the L2 network interface. There
have been
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Dean Anderson wrote:
H.323 and ASN.1 eventually surpass ...
Ummm, based on my own direct experience with ASN.1 since the mid 1980's
(X.400, SNMP, CMIP...), I disagree.
It has been my experience that ASN.1, no matter which encoding rules are
used, has proven to be a failure
It has been my experience that ASN.1, no matter which encoding rules are
used, has proven to be a failure and lingering interoperability and
denial-of-service disaster.
I think the nugget of our discussion is the old, and probably
unanswerable, question of what is the proper balance
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Zefram wrote:
... I suggest the following courses of action, to be taken
in parallel and immediately:
1. Via ICANN, instruct Verisign to remove the wildcard.
It isn't clear that this power is vested in ICANN. There is a complicated
arrangement of Cooperative
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Paul Robinson wrote:
... realistically there is only one option left for a single,
cohesive Internet to remain whilst taking into account ALL the World's
population: ICANN needs to become a UN body.
If you look at what ICANN really and truly does you will see that it
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, vinton g. cerf wrote:
I strongly object to your characterization of ICANN as abandoning
the operation of roots and IP address allocation. These matters have
been the subject of discussion for some time.
I can't seem to recall during my 2 1/2 years on ICANN's board that
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, vinton g. cerf wrote:
I can't seem to recall during my 2 1/2 years on ICANN's board that there
ever was any non-trivial discussion, even in the secrecy of the Board's
private e-mail list or phone calls, on the matters of IP address
allocation or operation of the DNS root
On 1 Dec 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
ICANN's obligation is to guarantee to the public the stability of DNS at
the root layer.
i disagree...
From ICANN's own bylaws:
The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) is to coordinate, at the overall level, the
So, place your bets on which slippery slopes ICANN takes us down...
ICANN loves these sponsored TLDs. It's the only kind they are presently
considering. Sponsors generally have the cash needed to cover ICANN's
application fee (which is typically on the order of $35,000 to $50,000,
and is
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
My understanding was that IANA is a neutral, independent, technical
authority
the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is a function performed by
ICANN.
There is a significant lack of clarity in these matters.
ICANN has a number of legal
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
I think this and a number of other points made here gloss over a key point of
which some of the participants may not be aware.
Under US law, there is a significant difference between not-for-profit and
charitable nonprofit
It might be useful to
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Gene Gaines wrote:
ISOC is non-profit, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, incorporated in the
District of Columbia.
I suggest it would be a serious mistake for the IETF not to
obtain the same status.
There are many kinds of 501(c) exemptions. They all come with different
kinds of chains
John Levine wrote:
As someone noted a few days ago, ICANN and the current roots have yet
to address the issues related to IDNs. There's only one significant
technical issue, mapping non-unique Unicode strings into unique DNS
names
There is an ancillary issues that have not, to my knowledge,
David Conrad wrote:
How do you renumber the IP address stored in the struct sockaddr_in in a
long running critical application?
...
If you had a separation between locator and identifier, the application
could bind to the identifier and renumbering events could occur on the
locators without
Tony Li wrote:
A key question here is whether the 'association' is a single connection
or not. While the association may span the change of underlying
infrastructure, the real question is whether it presents a single
concatenated transport abstraction or if it's multiple connections. I
John C Klensin wrote:
I'm going to try to respond to both your note and Mark's, using
yours as a base because it better reflects my perspective.
I sense that many of your concerns are well grounded. And I find it
interesting that the concerns come not so much from DNS as a system and
I guess you've heard the old joke which asks How could God create the
world in only seven days? - Because He had no installed base.
If we move this thread up one level of abstraction much of the
conversation is asking the question of how strongly we respect the
installed base of software
Lars Eggert wrote:
FYI, there's at least one more proposal in this space: the Ono stuff
from Northwestern
(http://www.aqualab.cs.northwestern.edu/projects/Ono.html). There was a
paper at SIGCOMM this year, and their system has the interesting feature
that it simply freeloads of Akamai's DNS
25 matches
Mail list logo
