Comments inline
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1) Overall: Being able to reauthenticate the client (either
periodically or by some other trigger) is a common requirement in
remote access deployments. It's a
On Nov 30, 2009, at 5:37 PM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG
(tls) to consider the following document:
- 'Transport Layer Security (TLS) Renegotiation Indication Extension '
draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation-01.txt as a Proposed Standard
On Dec 2, 2009, at 9:04 AM, Chris Newman wrote:
This the most time-sensitive and security-critical IETF draft with respect
to impact on the Internet community that I have seen in 17 years of IETF
participation.
This is the part I disagree with.
New extensions to protocols will take
I've stayed out of this discussion so far, because my opinion has already been
noted, but since you've changed the subject...
On Jan 27, 2010, at 12:50 AM, Kemp, David P. wrote:
Yes. I agree that SCSV could be defined to convey only 1 bit of
information while RI conveys 2 bits, and agree
It sometimes bugs me that spelling my name in Latin letters like in this email,
does not give English speakers enough information to pronounce my name
correctly.
In fact, I don't think there's any sequence of Latin letters that will do it.
Still, I don't think putting יואב ניר in the author
Without paper, I don't see the point of pagination.
On Mar 20, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
So you would argue that RFCs should normally be used in paper form? This is the
only way I can see to avoid requiring internet access.
This idea seems sane to me. Given the current policy, the
The corporate name on my nametag is there only because I filled that field in
the registration form. Others haven't and don't have a corporation name.
Besides, the corporation name is there not because Check Point has bought the
IETF, but so that if I say that everyone should use a firewall,
Agree. This was just in response to the IETF is bought message.
This disclosure in important for identifying bias, I think.
On Mar 23, 2010, at 11:03 AM, todd glassey wrote:
On 3/23/2010 10:20 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote
Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't find any files there.
On Mar 25, 2010, at 12:03 AM, Stefan Santesson wrote:
Actually, there seems to be one here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/rfc2xml/
Not sure how much of a good work it does.
/Stefan
On 10-03-24 5:10 PM, Julian Reschke
On Mar 25, 2010, at 3:07 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
So a month ago, I was wondering about something like
one day pass: $300
two day pass: $500
all week pass: $645 or whatever I paid this time
We might (in some cases, please see below for details) want to give some
people a break
On Apr 5, 2010, at 5:25 AM, Bill Strahm wrote:
Anyhow, it has to be an iPad app, rather than iPhone/iPod-touch,
because the smaller devices can't display 80-char-66-line ASCII
properly. -T
Just thinking what would happen if someone were to propose a Windows 7 app
for the IETF.
You have to admit, though, that sending spam in a link to Google docs is
impressive. Shows real ingenuity and innovation from the spamming community.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert
Stangarone
Sent: Thursday, April 15,
How about a Real World Deployment wiki page linked from each RFC, where
implementers can insert comments like Don't do like vendor xxx - don't always
set the nonce to zero.
Hopefully vendor xxx fixes it in the next release, and changes the page to read
Don't do like vendor xxx did prior to
On Apr 22, 2010, at 1:46 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
It might be worse than that, actually.
When RFC-5746 was recently published, the URL from an extremely useful
informative reference apparently got stripped by the RFC Editor:
draft -03:
[Ray09]Ray, M., Authentication Gap in TLS
Nice to hear just worked in the context of IPv6. Did your router give you
just an IPv6 address, or also an IPv4 address? If both, does the IPv6 address
ever get anywhere on the Internet, or is it always NATted?
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
Hi Lars
Great study. Looking forward to seeing more devices there.
Two tests I would add to this:
1. TCP segment size negotiation - have a low-MTU link somewhere between the NAT
box and the server, and see if the MSS gets adjusted like it should.
2. IKE/IPsec - IKE was supposed to go from
I like this proposal, but there should be a (relatively) easy process to
advance from Experimental to Proposed, especially if implementation experience
shows no need for bits-on-the-wire changes.
We should be able to say that for a particular experimental RFC there have been
this many
On Thursday, June 24, 2010 22:01 Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
snip/
We currently have the idiotic position where RFC821 is a full standard and
RFC2821 which obsoletes it is not.
Why is this idiotic. RFC 821 needed to be obsoleted. It had some features that
needed to be removed, and some
On Jun 26, 2010, at 12:56 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The fact remains that RFC 821 has the STANDARD imprimatur and the better
specification that was intended to replace it does not.
Yes, but most of the RFC repositories, including
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc821 show Obsoleted by:
On July 08, 2010 12:42 AM joel jaeggli wrote:
On 2010-07-07 12:53, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Sam,
I view this more or less as standard boilerplate, something you find
in a lot of online places. I think it is reasonable to expect that
if you register for a meeting your personal info (e-mail
There this:
http://www.maastrichtbrusselexpress.nl/?id=26
But apparently it doesn't run on Sunday.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Iljitsch van Beijnum
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:03 AM
To: IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re:
Hi Adrian
It depends on the definition of politicking. In this, umm, draft, there's this
definition:
An organized campaign that seeks selection of a particular nominee
So you can't promote Dave all by yourself. You'll have to get a bunch of people
sending over-the-top opinions (Dave will save
But we have...
On Jul 27, 2010, at 5:08 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The endpoints used in these protocols all have the ability to perform
public key cryptography at acceptable speeds. Even if they did not,
the price of 64Mb of flash memory is negligible these days and that is
sufficient
I think there are really two issues here.
First is people who have an idea they want to present, but that idea either
doesn't fit the charter of any particular working group (or they don't know
about such a working group), or else said working group's schedule is too full
with existing work.
On Jul 30, 2010, at 7:32 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
Yoav Nir wrote:
First is people who have an idea they want to present,
but that idea either doesn't fit the charter of any
particular working group (or they don't know about such a
working group), or else said working group's schedule
On Jul 31, 2010, at 2:00 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
At 9:32 AM -0800 7/30/10, Melinda Shore wrote:
The implication that there needs to be a session, with a room
and slides and humans sitting in chairs, kind of suggests that
people who want to participate in the IETF have to attend
On Aug 1, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
Yoav Nir wrote:
Who's folks? A lot of people come to an IETF meeting, and are
only following one or two of the working groups. That does not mean
that they sit in their hotel rooms for the rest of the meeting.
Instead, they pick what looks
Partially agree.
Just requiring a draft (that was not submitted within the meeting week) gives
you a two-week waiting period. I'm not so sure about the mailing list
requirement.
One of the best presentations-posing-as-barBoF in IETF 77 was about a traceback
experiment in Japan. They did
On Aug 2, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Dear Joel;
On Aug 1, 2010, at 10:08 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
In hallway discussion about this, it was suggested to me that part
of the problem is that some folks can not figure out how to
socialize their ideas.
I would say
On Aug 2, 2010, at 6:16 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
In the case of the 2 BarBOFS I organized at IETF-78, in both cases
there were very useful contributions made by people I didn't know and
therefore wouldn't have invited. Even if the efforts fail (and one of
them was DOA and will not move
On Aug 2, 2010, at 10:20 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Aug 2, 2010, at 6:16 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
In the case of the 2 BarBOFS I organized at IETF-78, in both cases
there were very useful contributions made by people I didn't know and
therefore wouldn't have invited. Even if the efforts
Asia is big. Some parts of Asia (the middle east and the eastern parts of
Russia) are closer to Europe than to China, Japan or Korea, at least as far as
traveling goes.
But I think that only adds up to about 15-20 attendees, so it's still in the
noise.
I also wonder if the data we have is
On Aug 5, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Yoav == Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com writes:
Yoav In keeping with IETF traditions, I'm putting some XML where my
Yoav mouth is.
Yoav Here's a -00 draft about this.
Yoav
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nir
I'm more in favor the 3-2-1 model. The stats clearly show that the largest
group of repeat offenders comes from the US.
But either way, I also agree that Europe is the summer is not ideal. in the US
there's much less of the vacances phenomenon.
So how about:
- March in Europe
- July in N
On Aug 26, 2010, at 4:35 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi Alexa, all,
In many countries, applying for a VISA different that the main purpose of
the travel to the country is illegal and could mean that you pay fines, get
deported, or even go to the jail.
In many countries, if you are
On Aug 27, 2010, at 12:18 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 8/26/2010 2:08 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Thank you for providing this but this data seems to support something closer
to 2-1-1 than 1-1-1
...
(and sorry I just joined the thread now - been on vacation )
Cullen,
The rest of the
On Aug 29, 2010, at 2:55 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
What you save in transportation at the tail end can be totally destroyed
by hotel and dining costs, and the IETF has to pay more for meeting
facilities.
Speaking of which, I hope to be the first to note that paying $192 for a
room in Beijing
On Aug 29, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
You said:
For an IETF meeting, we don't really have either of these.
What? IETF 79 is hosted by Tsinghua University, CERNET and CNNIC. The
website is still work in progress, but I would be very surprised if
they won't iinclude
On Aug 29, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
Lonely Planet? Google? Ask someone who has been there? Wait a couple
of weeks and see what the host comes up with?
Again, that’s not the problem: in about an hour I was able to come up with
half a dozen 4*+ hotels as close or closer to the
On Aug 29, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
Ole Jacobsen [mailto:o...@cisco.com]mailto:[mailto:o...@cisco.com] writes:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Yoav Nir wrote:
Hopefully. But only the two hotels listed there have agreements and
special rates for IETF attendants. In Maastricht there were
On Aug 29, 2010, at 11:08 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
At 8:51 AM -0700 8/24/10, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Let me get this straight. You are going to go to China and you
are /not/ going to do ANY site-seeing? If the answer is yes, I
think you have deeper problems than the visa...
I
On Aug 31, 2010, at 10:43 AM, t.petch wrote:
If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize
in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual
that
regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting
fairly
On Aug 31, 2010, at 4:56 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Consider that contributors
usually start as newcomers, attend several meetings, then write a draft,
I don't know about you, but I wrote drafts before my first meeting.
Me too. I actually had an RFC published two months before
True.
But the visa issues seem to be the worst part of any US IETF. Travel, food and
finding a hotel are typically much easier in most US venues then European
venues.
People from Europe, Japan, Australia, and some other countries don't need a
visa at all to go to an IETF meeting in the US.
On Sep 8, 2010, at 3:03 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Sep 7, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
I think you should have shared the message from our public relations agency
that started this incident, Russ. Here's what it said:
--
IETF Chair speaks on Paid
This comes back to the question or why have maturity levels at all. Ideally, an
implementer should prefer to implement a mature standard over a less-mature
one. In practice, adopting the more advanced standard may give you an obsolete
protocol, rather than a more stable one. IOW the
On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:56 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
In this environment, the only thing that seems to make sense is for WGs
to start usually at Experimental (someone else suggested this, I
apologize for not recalling who it was).
You might mean me. But having authored 2 experimental
.
Yoav
On Oct 28, 2010, at 3:57 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Oct 27, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
This comes back to the question or why have maturity levels at all. Ideally, an
implementer should prefer to implement a mature standard over a less-mature
one. In practice, adopting the more
On Oct 29, 2010, at 10:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
If all of those things are right and we're actually trying to solve
them all, then it seems to me that the answer is indeed to move to _n_
maturity levels of RFC, where _n_ 3 (I propose 1), but that we
introduce some new document series
On Oct 30, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
The second biggest thing that IETF could do to raise productivity in
meetings is to ban Internet use in meetings except for the purpose of
remote participation.
Harder to do not clearly an improvement: it clear out meeting rooms a bit,
but
Strange. I look at the same facts, and reach the opposite conclusions.
The fact that there were many implementations based on drafts of standards
shows that industry (not just us, but others as well) does not wait for SDOs to
be quite done. They are going to implement something even we label
On Nov 3, 2010, at 1:42 PM, t.petch wrote:
tp
Perhaps we should step back a little further, and refuse to charter work that
will become an RFC unless there are two or more independent organisations that
commit to producing code. There is nothing like interoperability for
demonstrating the
On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:36 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi Henk,
I don't agree. If there is people essential to the meeting but can't pay,
as we all pay for that, we have the right to know.
I disagree with that. There is a privacy issue here. If x can't pay his way,
and needs a comp
On Nov 14, 2010, at 10:06 AM, SM wrote:
At 04:03 12-11-10, Shane Kerr wrote:
It is sometimes possible to create systems to meet the needs of privacy
and oversight - for example a closed review board - but I think just
publishing a list of who gets free access to each IETF is probably good
a
On Nov 14, 2010, at 10:50 PM, SM wrote:
enough, because the corruption that we're trying to solve would
require collaboration between the IETF chair and the IAOC. I would
say that the risk is low enough that privacy trumps transparency.
As you used the term corruption, I'll go with it.
On Nov 15, 2010, at 10:41 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
You are incorrect.
Firewalls can be used for many purposes. Authenticated traversal is well
established in the firewall model.
Given the diversity of firewalls and their operations, it's
practically
To: Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com
Cc: i...@ietf.org i...@ietf.org, IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org,
jordi.pa...@consulintel.es jordi.pa...@consulintel.es
Subject: Re: [IAOC] Badges and blue sheets
On Nov 12, 2010, at 4:08 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:36 AM, JORDI PALET
Hi
The Prague meeting is still nearly 3 months away, but I'm wondering why there's
only a date yet.
No hotel, no registration, no details.
Some of us need to get the corporate wheels or authorization moving.
Thanks
Yoav
___
Ietf mailing list
Thanks
On Dec 30, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote:
On Dec 30, 2010, at 4:38 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
Hi
The Prague meeting is still nearly 3 months away, but I'm wondering why
there's only a date yet.
No hotel, no registration, no details.
Some of us need to get the corporate
On Jan 4, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
It could be the 11a support.
Or it might well be the vendor that supplies the 11a equipment.
At home I have a box with 7 defunct WiFi routers that I discarded after they
started to fail. Specifically the wireless side of the router
Sigh.
You'd think they would have learned by now.
A native IPv6 network will restore end-to-end connectivity with a vastly
expanded address space...
On Jan 5, 2011, at 11:56 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
This seems like a document that might interest some on this list...
From: Robert Cannon
On Jan 6, 2011, at 11:26 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
I've never attended an IETF meeting. Why? Because it seems to me quite
unlikely to have a chance to say something useful by going there. I mean
useful with respect to a problem that I consider important. That is, not
just a minimal
On Jan 10, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
On 2011-1-8, at 19:41, R. B. wrote:
I'm really in a rush, but I want to send my 0.02 too. I like the idea of a
poster session, since a single I-D could go unobserved in the churn of other
I-Ds.
many areas have open meetings where
On Jan 10, 2011, at 1:22 PM, Loa Andersson wrote:
ALl,
what is here called poster session reminds me a awful lot of the
bar bof's we been running for a long time.
No coincidence. There's been a lot of criticism of these bar BoFs, and we keep
looking for better ways to present new ideas.
On Jan 10, 2011, at 1:09 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
The costs for a poster session are almost 0. Isn't this something we
can just try?
I don't agree that the costs are zero. You can't have the poster session last
all week long, because the presenter may want to go to other sessions. So we
We can have as high a barrier as necessary to ensure there are no more than,
say, 12 posters.
On Jan 11, 2011, at 3:39 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
+1. Very strongly.
Whether the logistics of space and times could be worked out or
not, poster sessions strike me as a really bad idea and Fred
On Feb 28, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Pete,
On Feb 27, 2011, at 11:32 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
I'm sorry, but how could this *not* be posted to the IETF list?
http://xkcd.com/865/
I did a rough calculation and think they would have not run out of IPv6
addresses :-)
I
Yup. It's posted (right after mine)
On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Chris Elliott wrote:
Bob, et al.:
I took the liberty of informing Randall that he hit the IETF list on his
forum here:
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7t=68893
May take a bit for my post to get approved.
And,
On Mar 1, 2011, at 5:00 AM, John Levine wrote:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf
I'm glad to see they are up to date:
Paper submissions should include a three and one-half inch computer
diskette in HTML, ASCII, Word or WordPerfect format (please
On Mar 16, 2011, at 1:08 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
To make clear which documents were issued under the original regime
and which were issued under the new, there should probably be
an obvious gap in the number range (going to 5 digit or 6 digit numbers).
Oh, have you any guess how many
Hi all
Yesterday, the IESG has started last call on three documents:
- draft-harkins-ipsecme-spsk-auth-03
- draft-shin-augmented-pake-03
- draft-kuegler-ipsecme-pace-ikev2-05
All three seek to improve the authentication in IKEv2 when using pre-shared
keys, as compared with RFC 5996. The IPsecME
A bargain! RFC 5996 goes for $58.
Does it come leather-bound with the title gold-stamped on the cover?
On May 9, 2011, at 1:06 AM, Bob Braden wrote:
I just discovered an astonishing example of misinformation, shall we say, in
the IEEE electric power community. There is an IEEE standards
Yup.
Years ago, when I was at university, I learned that the best way to find an
article was to google the author's name, find his or her personal website, and
the article would probably be linked from there.
Worked about 75% of the time.
Yoav
-Original Message-
From:
Extremist-A should be to publish a 6to4 considered dangerous draft with lots
of MUST NOT language.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin
Rex
Sent: 06 July 2011 23:50
To: Doug Barton
Cc: v6...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject:
On Jul 15, 2011, at 10:20 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-07-11 16:50, Internet-Drafts Administrator wrote:
This is a reminder that the Internet Draft Final Submission (version -01
and up) cut-off is today, July 11, 2011.
All Final Version (-01 and up) submissions are due by 17:00 PT
Hi
Very appropriate for XKCD to post this just a few days before an IETF
meeting.
http://www.xkcd.com/927/
(For those who are not familiar with XKCD, don't miss the alt-text on the
picture)
Yoav
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
[Helmet on]
Maybe they should first move the 14 competing standards to Historic.
On 7/20/11 10:17 AM, Bert (IETF) Wijnen berti...@bwijnen.net wrote:
I LOVE this one.
Bert
On 7/20/11 8:23 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
Hi
Very appropriate for XKCD to post this just a few days before an IETF
meeting
I think this is a terrible idea.
IKEv2 has a way for mutual authentication with a shared key.
A concern was raised that this method was vulnerable to guessing if trivial
shared keys were configured.
There were several proposals for a better cryptographic method.
The IPsecME working group
On 8/1/11 5:14 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:39 AM, John Leslie wrote:
For one, I suggest we take remote-participation _seriously_ for the
Friday meetings. Many of us are waiting-for-Godot at airports on Friday,
and could certainly wear a
On Aug 8, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Nothing is a reasonable walk when the average temperature is 32 C.
At least not for the average IETF attendee.
(34 in April, 31 in December, lowest nightime temp 21 in December and
27 in April-May-June).
Pretty much like Tel Aviv in
On Aug 11, 2011, at 6:58 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
Richard Kulawiec wrote:
Let me start with a preamble: I think that those of us who choose
to drink from the firehose by subscribing to many mailing lists
List-Id: is only useful for folks who have either lots of time on
their hands, or want
On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 9/19/11 10:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
+1
I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki.
I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a
On Sep 26, 2011, at 5:25 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Sep 25, 2011, at 7:20 PM, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
% svn info https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/hybi
svn: OPTIONS of 'https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/hybi': SSL negotiation
failed: SSL error code -1/1/336032856
forgot to attach.
tls.cap
Description: tls.cap
On Sep 26, 2011, at 11:11 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Sep 26, 2011, at 5:25 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Sep 25, 2011, at 7:20 PM, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
% svn info https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/hybi
svn: OPTIONS of 'https
On 9/27/11 12:45 AM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
So there seem to be two problems:
- The server (svn.tools.ietf.org) does not seem to be sufficiently
aware of the server names that it is servicing.
If it takes more than a server configuration file change to make it
aware of that
On 9/27/11 12:45 AM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
- The server (svn.tools.ietf.org) does not seem to be sufficiently
aware of the server names that it is servicing.
If it takes more than a server configuration file change to make it
aware of that additional hostname, then there is a
Cheaper, yes. Easier?
Sure, a 5-hour flight to Paris sure beats a 12-hour flight to New York plus a 4
hour flight to Minneapolis, but you end up in Paris, and if the conference
hotel is too expensive for your corporate budget (it usually is for mine), you
have to go really far away to find a
On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Please can everybody who doesn't upload PDF to the meeting materials page
at least take care to upload PPT instead of PPTX?
Not everybody has paid the ransom necessary to open PPTX files.
The latest LibreOffice (and I think also
On Nov 15, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 15 Nov 2011, at 16:26, Bob Hinden wrote:
+1
The Datatracker does officially support PPTX, so I don't believe it's
unreasonable to use it. If you don't like that policy, I'm not sure where
you would take that up.
It also hadn't
On Nov 16, 2011, at 2:28 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
todd glassey wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Should the system reject PPTX files ? If people can't read them, why
are we accepting them ?
I would appreciate if that datatracker simply rejected PPTX on upload.
It is several mangnitudes
Hi Kevin
You can register at https://www.ietf.org/meeting/register.html
You can hold off on paying until early March.
That will give you the ability to edit the meeting wiki:
https://www.ietf.org/registration/MeetingWiki/wiki/ietf83
You can easily add a page there for what you're looking for.
On Feb 15, 2012, at 1:56 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Martin,
On Feb 14, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Martin,
One the one hand, the IETF was frowning upon NATs when they were
developed outside of the IETF. But if you look at the IETFs
(lack of) migration
On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
Subject: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at
09:04:03AM -0500 Quoting John C Klensin (john-i...@jck.com):
...
first appearance of many no-information I support this
endorsements from people and constituencies
On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:04 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
A current Last Call has apparently brought on another of the
please tell all your friends to send in supportive notes, even
if they don't say much of anything substantive campaigns that
we see from time to time. When those notes come from
On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
snip
I think that an endorsement like I work for Cisco and we intend to
implement this in every one of our products is useful. But it's not nearly
as useful
On Feb 24, 2012, at 5:02 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Feb 24, 2012, at 4:54 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Proposals for new HTTP authentication schemes are in scope.
How would a plan like the following look to folks:
- httpbis is chartered to include auth mechanism work as
per the above
On Feb 26, 2012, at 2:44 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I proposed a plan that I think might allow us to make progress
on that. I believe we could.
OK, great.
Could you please explain why you think tying this effort to HTTP/2.0 is
necessary to achieve that? To me that's the critical
Even better, also add the XML2RFC output if it's available at the same time:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-name.html
for example, (just picking my own latest draft as an example):
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nir-websec-extended-origin-02.html
I don't know which drafts get this version
The XML2RFC version is not linked from there. If that was added to the Other
versions field, that would be great.
On Mar 6, 2012, at 5:11 PM, Xavier Marjou wrote:
With a link like https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-name/ (e.g.
On Mar 6, 2012, at 11:44 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2012-03-06 16:26, Yoav Nir wrote:
The XML2RFC version is not linked from there. If that was added to the
Other versions field, that would be great.
...
Indeed. HTMLized plain text is progress over plain text, but properly
generated
1 - 100 of 218 matches
Mail list logo
