Signing up to the URI list, I find it tells me, inter alia, that
All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 3978 and RFC
3979.
Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other
function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity,
group or function,
'.
(And it has not got a web interface, as far as I can see:-(.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv
To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org; Trustees trust...@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: URI IPR
- Original Message -
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
To: Ofer Inbar c...@a.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 12:37 AM
The point of the article was to make more people aware of IPv6 and to
urge them actually start planning to move to IPv6.
I've got IPv6 at home
I am encountering two cases of Contributions where I am uncertain what my rights
are.
One is when material is not posted directly to an IETF list, rather a URL is
provided in an e-mail to a WG list, pointing to a Word or pdf document or a page
on a web site. Do the contents of such a document
There is something a bit weird in the IETF e-mail system.
The dna list moved from d...@eng.monash.edu.au to d...@ietf.org in June 2008.
I
changed my address in 2010 (and get a monthly reminder from the IETF to confirm
that the change was effective).
The i-d-announce for this I-D and the IETF
I hope that someone can bridge the gap in my understanding between the IETF
databases and those of the USPTO.
Looking, for example, at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1339/
I see
Patent, Serial, Publication, Registration, or Application/File number(s): US
12/708048
but when I go to the USPTO to
- Original Message -
From: Stephan Wenger st...@stewe.org
To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 7:54 PM
Go here: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair
Enter the two words of the graphics challenge
Of the radio buttons
RFC2919 makes reference to [DRUMS] for some of its ABNF but I see no sign of
DRUMS in its references (nor is there a relevant erratum).
Would that be what became RFC2822?
Tom Petch
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
- Original Message -
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com
To: Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl
Cc: IETF-Discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 10:33 PM
On 30 aug 2010, at 21:57, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
If you want to be fair to the individual participants you
- Original Message -
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com
To: John Kristoff j...@cymru.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 11:53 AM
On 31 aug 2010, at 22:04, John Kristoff wrote:
I'm trying to locate an RFC that spells out the behavioral
requirements,
I realise that this thread has moved on to a question of what RFC4985 means (and
I agree with the conclusions) but I thought that this post was about to raise a
quite different point, that may still need clarifying.
see inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Bernard Aboba
[TP]inline
- Original Message -
From: Bernard Aboba bernard_ab...@hotmail.com
To: daedu...@btconnect.com; ietf@ietf.org; stpe...@stpeter.im
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 8:48 PM
That was in fact my original question.
Section 5.1 states that the source domain and service type MUST be
- Original Message -
From: Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im
To: Stefan Santesson ste...@aaa-sec.com
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:16 PM
On 9/13/10 12:39 PM, Stefan Santesson wrote:
On 10-09-13 6:08 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
Hi Shumon,
As I see it,
- Original Message -
From: Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv
To: m...@sap.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; NomCom Chair nomcom-ch...@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 2:47 AM
On Sep 16, 2010, at 8:12 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
NomCom Chair wrote:
Nominations have slowed down
- Original Message -
From: Martin Rex m...@sap.com
To: Randy Dunlap rdun...@xenotime.net
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 7:54 PM
Stripping quoted text to the relevant would be a HUGE improvement.
Some Mails arrive with quotations that are extremely hard to read,
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Walsh twa...@juniper.net
To: IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 6:09 PM
-Original Message-
From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of NomCom Chair
Sent: Monday,
As an engineer, I do like to know what problem I am required to solve before
proposing a solution:-) My reading of this thread is that the problem is the
length of time it takes to produce an RFC of any kind, that vendors are off to
the races at the fifth or tenth version of an I-D stage because
- Original Message -
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com
To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 11:54 PM
I am finding this discussion difficult to parse.
Here we have a post that says 'I can't
Original Message -
From: Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 9:39 PM
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 01:20:23PM -0700, SM wrote:
It would be difficult to get buy-in if the document is not published as a
RFC.
Supppse we actually have the
- Original Message -
From: Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com
To: m...@sap.com
Cc: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:08 PM
Strange. I look at the same facts, and reach the opposite conclusions.
The fact that there were many implementations based
I am somewhat surprised to see this I-D launched straight into IETF last call.
Its predecessor, albeit with a somewhat wider focus, reached -04 in 2006 and I
commented thereon on the ssh list. I see my comments have not been addressed in
the intervening four years, and think that this I-D would
I notice that the RFC Editor has a Citations Committee; should they be
responding to this issue?
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at
- Original Message -
From: John Leslie j...@jlc.net
To: Richard L. Barnes rbar...@bbn.com
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 7:38 PM
Richard L. Barnes rbar...@bbn.com wrote:
ISTM that the success of changes to the infrastructure depends on the
value
- Original Message -
From: Lixia Zhang li...@cs.ucla.edu
To: Bob Braden bra...@isi.edu
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 10:08 PM
On Jan 6, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
Historic might imply that they were once in service, but have later been
- Original Message -
From: Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev evniki...@gmail.com
Cc: i...@ietf.org; ietf-message-head...@ietf.org; IETF Discussion
ietf@ietf.org; httpbis Group ietf-http...@w3.org
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 12:17 PM
On 08.01.2011 11:19,
- Original Message -
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock bidul...@openss7.org
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev evniki...@gmail.com
Cc: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com; ts...@ietf.org; IETF Discussion
ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 9:06 AM
Mykyta,
RDP is still in use (I know of companies
tn3270 is a widely used protocol but also a venerable one, so it is a little
surprising that the IETF is to register a provisional URI for it at this stage.
I have always seen it as an IBM protocol, and while that is no bar to being
an RFC - there are plenty of Cisco or Microsoft parallels - I am
- Original Message -
From: SM s...@resistor.net
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:00 AM
At 08:29 11-01-11, t.petch wrote:
The provenance of the editor is unknown to
me - and of course, once an RFC has been through the IETF processes,
then the editorship
- Original Message -
From: Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org
To: The IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: author's address (was: Re: Fwd: [OPS-DIR] OPS-DIR
Reviewofdraft-yevstifeyev-tn3270-uri-12)
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
For what it's worth, Section 10 of
- Original Message -
From: Lars Eggert lars.egg...@nokia.com
To: Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com; Phillip Hallam-Baker
hal...@gmail.com; paul.hoff...@vpnc.org; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 3:02 PM
On 2011-1-18, at
doing when they were granting us the right to use their text.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
To: Lars Eggert lars.egg...@nokia.com; Spencer Dawkins
spen...@wonderhamster.org
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com; Phillip Hallam-Baker
hal
I would like to see more clarity in 8.1
For assignments done through IETF-published RFCs, the Contact will be the
IESG.
in that I am unclear what IETF-published RFCs are; presumably that is Standards
Track, BCP
and Individual Submissions, but not Independent Submissions or IRTF RFC.
I think
And what happens when we have ProtocolX over SSH and ProtocolX over TLS?
Must they share a port, with ProtocolX, which has been quietly using its
assigned port for
20 years?
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Lars Eggert lars.egg...@nokia.com
To: Cullen Jennings flu...@cisco.com;
- Original Message -
From: Lars Eggert lars.egg...@nokia.com
To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: Cullen Jennings flu...@cisco.com; IESG IESG i...@ietf.org; IETF
discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:11 PM
On 2011-1-27, at 18:58, t.petch wrote:
And what
- Original Message -
From: Joe Touch to...@isi.edu
To: Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org
IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org; ts...@ietf.org; IESG IESG
i...@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 6:39 PM
To clarify some of this discussion, providing some context that might be
useful:
- Original Message -
From: Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org
To: Magnus Westerlund magnus.westerl...@ericsson.com
Cc: Cullen Jennings flu...@cisco.com; IESG IESG i...@ietf.org; IETF
discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 6:01 PM
On 2/1/11 2:14 AM, Magnus
Original Message -
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net
Cc: Stuart Cheshire chesh...@apple.com; IETF-Discussion list
ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 12:22 AM
On 02/15/2011 01:32 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Stuart Cheshire
Original Message -
From: Cullen Jennings flu...@cisco.com
To: Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com
Cc: ts...@ietf.org; Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org; Chris Benson
cben...@adax.com; IESG IESG i...@ietf.org; Sam Hartman
hartmans-i...@mit.edu; IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org
I find this I-D problematic. The subject matter is of crucial importance,
comparable to, or perhaps more important than, IPv6, yet this I-D is not
an easy read and there should be one such somewhere.
sidr has produced an awesome collection of I-Ds (some now obsolete) but it is
not obvious, short
Shane
What I carry with me - used to be on a diskette, now on a stick - is the index
to RFC, available from the same source as RFC themselves. Plain text, compact,
easy to search. The caveat is you never know whether the people choosing the
title of an RFC will have abbreviated a common term
- Original Message -
From: Ross Callon rcal...@juniper.net
To: John E Drake jdr...@juniper.net; Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com; Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
Cc: IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 6:28 PM
I have been on several design teams over the years,
- Original Message -
From: Worley, Dale R (Dale) dwor...@avaya.com
To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) nurit.sprec...@nsn.com; Huubvan
Helvoort huubatw...@gmail.com; Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
Cc: IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 4:09 PM
Given
- Original Message -
From: Henrik Levkowetz hen...@levkowetz.com
To: Mathieu Goessens mathieu.goess...@irisa.fr
Cc: adr...@olddog.co.uk; 6low...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; 'Paul Hoffman'
paul.hoff...@vpnc.org; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 12:34 PM
Subject: Re:
- Original Message -
From: Joe Touch to...@isi.edu
To: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu
Cc: i...@ietf.org; dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 10:11 AM
Perhaps we're not talking about an API, or even an abstract API, but
just the application interface
- Original Message -
From: Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com
To: Rex Buddenberg bud...@nps.navy.mil
Cc: Paul Lambert p...@marvell.com; p...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; IETF
discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 4:17 AM
Subject: Re: [paws] WG Review: Protocol to
I oppose publication of this as an RFC.
It is about politics, not about technical matters, and politics is the art of
the possible. Even if this
proposal succeeds in persuading (most of) the IETF to rethink the meaning of
'Proposed Standard',
its impact on the rest of the world will be nil. The
The IANA website has moved on and seems to have left my PC behind.
Accessing the registries I get
The XML page cannot be displayed
Cannot view XML input using style sheet.
Please correct the error and then click the Refresh button, or try again later.
offlist
- Original Message -
From: Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: The XML page cannot be displayed
On 2011-05-20 14:11, t.petch wrote:
The IANA website has moved
Another data point from a different and large ISP (and mobile company).
Mobile supplier calls. We have this great new broadband offer for you with all
these irresistible features.
Tom. Does it support IPv6, Internet Protocol version six?
Mobile supplier. I will check with my supervisor.
- Original Message -
From: Nathaniel Borenstein n...@guppylake.com
To: Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
Cc: John Levine jo...@iecc.com; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 8:49 PM
Just for the record:
-- I don't believe that my single experience with first line tech support
- Original Message -
From: Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
To: Michel Py mic...@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us
Cc: Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com; IETF-Discussion
ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 6:15 PM
On Jun 12, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Michel Py wrote:
According to this:
- Original Message -
From: Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com
To: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?
Exactly. Given that we spend most of our days in
- Original Message -
From: Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org
To: The IESG i...@ietf.org
Cc: IETF-Discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 12:36 AM
Greetings again. The subject line is an honest question, not a gripe.
For those on the ietf@ mailing list, please see
- Original Message -
From: Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net
To: Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu; ietf@ietf.org
Cc: v6...@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 10:20 PM
Noel,
Given that each of us reads something different into the definition of
HISTORIC, is there any hope that
- Original Message -
From: Randy Presuhn randy_pres...@mindspring.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 5:53 PM
Hi -
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev evniki...@gmail.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 3:16 AM
Subject: Historic status (was Another look at 6to4
It seems strange that this e-mail is not copied to the v6ops list.
I would have expected this first to have been hammered out on the v6ops list
and, if and only if consensus was reached there, the new text be then brought to
the
IETF list.
I realise that, as you spell out, you are seeking IETF
I oppose this action.
I see clear evidence that 6to4 is damaging the Internet and although there are
those who can use it without causing damage, I believe that the principle is
'First, do no harm'
so the IETF has a responsibility to discourage its use. For me, classifying it
as 'Historic' is
Original Message -
From: Sean Turner turn...@ieca.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:09 PM
On 7/25/11 2:01 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 7/25/2011 1:17 PM, Glen wrote:
I am very pleased to report that the IETF is now applying DKIM signatures
to all outgoing
Original Message -
From: Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 12:18 PM
On 7/28/2011 12:34 PM, t.petch wrote:
But more importantly we have abolished the end-to-end principle. If I am
going
to benefit from improved security on e-mail, I want
- Original Message -
From: Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org
To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 5:02 PM
I think that it is an error for the IETF to add DKIM signatures. They do
indeed
tell me
which intermediary has sent me the mail
Original Message -
From: David Kessens david.kess...@nsn.com
To: Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
Cc: IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 10:49 PM
Russ,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 11:10:24AM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
I am discussing the possibility with the Secretariat
- Original Message -
From: Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
To: Joe Touch to...@isi.edu
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 12:36 AM
On Aug 1, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Not all IDs are discussed at the upcoming IETF. It is inconvenient to need
to delay an
to be controlled?
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
t.petch
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2011 3:26 AM
To: Barry Leiba
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: DKIM Signatures now being applied to IETF Email
Sadly, I
- Original Message -
From: Martin Rex m...@sap.com
To: Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:00 AM
Barry Leiba wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
If one intends to actually *process* close to all of
I find this document utterly bizarre and think it would seriously damage the
Internet to publish it.
The idea that ipv6 should be regarded as normal, as of equal standing to ipv4 is
fine, the sort of statement that the IAB should make, or have made, as an RFC or
in some other form.
But this I-D
tpinline/tp
- Original Message -
From: George, Wesley wesley.geo...@twcable.com
To: ietf@ietf.org; t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-requi...@tools.ietf.org
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 7:12 PM
From: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Reply
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com
To: Alia Atlas akat...@gmail.com
Cc: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu; Dave CROCKER dcroc...@bbiw.net;
ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 10:39 PM
On Aug 24, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24,
Why does the IETF website consider it necessary to use TLS to access the mailing
list archives, when they all appeared without it, or any other security, in the
first place?
Besides all the usual hassle of TLS, today the certificate is reported by IE as
expired, which sort of sums it up.
Tom
- Original Message -
From: SM s...@resistor.net
To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: https
Hi Tom,
At 00:18 26-08-2011, t.petch wrote:
Besides all the usual hassle of TLS, today the certificate is
reported by IE as
expired, which sort
- Original Message -
From: Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com
To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 3:43 PM
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 4:39 AM, t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: SM s
- Original Message -
From: Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: https
It doesn't...
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/maillist.html
Try the source of
http
- Original Message -
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
To: Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
Cc: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com; IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org;
webmas...@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: https
Joel,
I don't know what It doesn't is supposed
- Original Message -
From: Glen Zorn glenz...@gmail.com
To: ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com
Cc: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com; IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 7:29 AM
Subject: Re: https
On 8/26/2011 11:14 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
+1. If you
spammers have caught on that TLS
should be used everywhere. End to end?
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
To: Glen Zorn glenz...@gmail.com; ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 10:53 AM
Subject: Re
Original Message -
From: John Levine jo...@iecc.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 4:31 PM
I can't tell what problem we're trying to solve here. The original
question (other than that whoever runs the IETF web site should
buy a new cert) seemed to have something to
- Original Message -
From: Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
To: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
Cc: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com; IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org;
webmas...@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 9:55 PM
On 8/28/11 11:31 , Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 8/26/11 14:00 , Doug Barton
Original Message -
From: Hector Santos hsan...@santronics.com
To: Adam Novak interf...@gmail.com
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: https
I see, so as long as its not revoked, if compromised, you are hosed
until it expires.
I wonder
Original Message -
From: ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com
To: Yaron Sheffer yaronf.i...@gmail.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 11:54 PM
can you please explain *why* publishing conformance statements would be
such a bad idea? I am not being cynical, I really want to
- Original Message -
From: Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org
To: Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 10:11 PM
Hi, Melinda,
Can anybody point to an incident in which lack of clarity around
2119 language caused problems, and
- Original Message -
From: George Willingmyre g...@gtwassociates.com
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev evniki...@gmail.com; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: 2119bis
While we are on the topic of definitions I hoped to stimulate thinking and we
can reach the
- Original Message -
From: Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
To: Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com
Cc: ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:55 AM
On Sep 6, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
but it means we are changing out a standard that
I believe that this is the first Last Call since RFC6335 was published to
request an entry in the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry
and so a chance to understand how the RFC works in practice.
From the proforma in s.8.1.1., I was expecting to see something similar to the
I notice that section 3, to which IANA are directed, contains many formulations
such as
Specification document(s): [[anchor14: this document]]
Would I be right in thinking that this is what other documents would refer to as
RFC
-- Note to RFC-Editor - replace RFC by the RFC Number
- Original Message -
From: Cyrus Daboo cy...@daboo.name
To: Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com; Ronald Bonica
rbon...@juniper.net
Cc: Scott O Bradner s...@harvard.edu; IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 4:52 PM
Hi Keith,
--On September 16, 2011 10:10:06
Interesting too that the questions about future attendance mention the sponsor,
as if our decision should be predicated upon who is sponsoring the event.
And, in the reasons for non-attendance, it is a shame, in the light of recent
discussions on this list, that 'cost' is not broken down into
-
--- Original Message -
From: Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com
To: Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org
Cc: Stuart Cheshire chesh...@apple.com; IETF-Discussion list
ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 10:11 PM
On Sep 26, 2011, at 5:25 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Sep 25, 2011, at 7:20
The choice of service name for this transport seems unfortunate; having a port
number registry with a service in it called 'port' may be witty but seems like a
source of future confusion.
I notice that IANA currently have a service name of 'pim-port' which seems a
better idea and one that I think
- Original Message -
From: Scott O Bradner s...@sobco.com
To: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 6:30 PM
I'm having a hard time understanding just what this document is trying to do
Scott
Provide another instalment in the long running and yet-to-be
I oppose publication of this I-D in its present form.
The idea of having an I-D that says two OAM solutions will cost is fine, but
there are too many technical errors, especially in sections 4 and 5 (better as
Brian suggested as appendices), for it to go forward as it stands. Huub,
Malcolm and
- Original Message -
From: Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu
To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt
(TheReasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM
Original Message -
From: Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 2:01 PM
Tom
I would take issue with OSPF/ISIS and IPv4/IPv6.
Stewart
See my reply to Loa for the first.
For IPv4/IPv6, we are not talking about two solutions which are
- Original Message -
From: Huub van Helvoort huubatw...@gmail.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 8:47 AM
All,
Section 1.1 contains the following text:
An analysis of the technical options for OAM solutions was carried
out by a design team (the MEAD team)
Original Message -
From: Frank Ellermann hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkzt...@gmail.com
To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; joe...@bogus.com
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 12:32 AM
On 7 October 2011 11:36, t.petch wrote:
No thousands of .gif to spend ages downloading
Original Message -
From: Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: Frank Ellermann hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkzt...@gmail.com; ietf@
ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 3:07 PM
On 2011-10-08 09:20, t.petch wrote:
If I'm looking for an internet
Joe
When I access it, I see a 3.08Mbyte .xml file in temporary storage.
Interestingly, the text variant is still 2.7Mbyte.
My access time is variable. When I first used the xml file, the access time was
always in minutes, time to make a coffee, come back and continue waiting. Now
it is
- Original Message -
From: Yaakov Stein yaako...@rad.com
To: Ross Callon rcal...@juniper.net; Rolf Winter rolf.win...@neclab.eu;
Stephen Kent k...@bbn.com; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 5:09 PM
The IETF has a very long history of pushing back on multiple redundant
I notice that e-mail via this ietf list is being delayed with respect to mail to
a working group list at or around the time of DKIM processing.
Thus to the mpls list, the mail travels at the speed of light
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com
(Postfix) with
- Original Message -
From: Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
To: Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 3:59 AM
Subject: Re: DKIM delays
The long delays are not due to DKIM. These happen when a message to a mail
list gets held for
- Original Message -
From: Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com
To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/22/11 10:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
So the question is how to move the center of gravity
- Original Message -
From: John Leslie j...@jlc.net
To: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 2:46 PM
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:05 -0700 Murray S. Kucherawy
m...@cloudmark.com wrote:
... I
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
