There are label segments that have semantics.
The -- violation, prepended by something, ^xn, where ^ indicates
a label boundary, to indicate a (the current) IDN processing.
Bytes within a label with values in excess of 127.
Off hand I can't think of anything else (that is intentional). Along
Russ, did you mean 1 or more likely 2?
IETF Chair wrote:
Stockholm IETF Code Sprint
When: July 15, 2009, begining at 9:30 AM
Where: IETF Hotel in Stockholm
What: A bunch of hackers get together to work on code for the IETF web
site. Some people may be porting of existing
LB wrote:
Dear IETF Members,
Sorry, I do not speak but I read Engslih. I use Google translation.
tant pis. il ya des ingénieurs à beijing, des vrai contributeurs, qui
ont fait plus d'efforts que tois.
*French text:*
JFC Morfin m'avait demandé d'interfacer nos groupes de travail,
Ted,
As Edmond pointed out, the position at present is that:
Single and two-character U-labels on the top level and second level of a domain
name should not be restricted in general.
I personally expect that for applications made as IDN ccTLD, whether
fasttrack or not, will be reviewed for
Oh goodie! We get to chat about the other IAB -- Internet Advertizing Bureau.
(http://www.iab.net)
Reading Mr. Kehres back-to-front.
Is in-list spam in-scope for poisson? Yup. Is there a venue for general spam?
Yup (April's got it).
Would adopting an opt-in regime in the US improve things?
James,
I'm going to differ with my learned colleges Dave and Paul. There may be
points of 2727 and draft 2727bis that have the potential to benefit from
deference until the current nomcom has done its job, but from my reading
not all of them fall into that bin. In particular, I don't see how
Not having seen an RFC come over the transom yesterday or today, here is an
alternative.
http://216.218.205.86/april1.asp
Enjoy,
Eric
David,
Ron Natalie and I renumbered hq.af.mil the week of the Loma Prieta quake.
List the NAT implementations deployed at the time.
The point you'll have made is that an-aide-to-renumbering NATs weren't.
If they are marketed now as such, happy, but not necessary, is the marketeer.
Eric
David,
IPv6 does not solve the need to renumber if you change providers (and no,
not everyone can be a provider -- IPv6 uses CIDR, just like IPv4). Until
that issue is addressed, there will be NATs. Even for v6.
Odd. Every time I renumbered some site (hq.af.mil and sundry other sites
following that, the use of other languages might be a considerably
benefit - e.g. spanish, chinese and hopi spring to mind
Add Dineh (Navaho), don't want to inflame the Joint-Use Area conflict
any further, though Hopi do go Republican (those who "vote"), unlike
the majority of Dinetah and
Martin,
I'll send you a copy of the "@sign vs !path" debate from my USENIX papers
archive. See "Pathalias: or The Care and Feeding of Relative Addresses" by
Honeyman and Bellovin, undated, at http://www.uucp.org/papers/pathalias.pdf.
Speculations on the general utility and availability of
I guess one of the first questions should be; "Is some partitioning of the
Internet community such a bad thing?"...
If the "partition" intended for discussion is "@sign vs !path" addressing
conventions, Eric Allman and Peter Honeyman have left a discussion archive
on the subject. Arguably
Harald (the match peddler) wrote:
I know I shouldn't be bringing more tinder to the bonfire, but
Cache interposition semantics on end-to-end policy evaluation and expiry
semantics is my cup of gasoline. The policy-de-jour is P3P, to which Mark
and I both ... contribute ... or er,
And what WG? Internet Drafts were and are generated by Individuals w/o
benefit of an associated WG.
Precisely my point to Grenville.
Grenville,
I don't mind that you don't find anything valid in my little bit of our
exchange, that was the point -- WGs, IESG, inexpiry, etc., aren't the
exhaustive sources of "validity".
Incidently, the "isn't revised, and falls into the expired (and hence
not-valid) state" applies to both the
I would suggest only "possibly of current interest to an IETF WG".
Too WG-centric, e.g., if draft-jaye-http-trust-state-mgt-01.txt has
expired (it has), and if the HTTP WG has shut down (it has), then no
interested party (using the above suggested definition of "validity")
can exist. Mind, it
The "P" in
"VPN" stands for "privacy", which requires encryption ...
I expected the term or concept of "data confidentiality" (the "p" is
silent) to be bundled into this service model, not "privacy".
Eric
PS - is no one else alarmed by the re-publishing of material
submitted under an explicit agreement for 'removal after 6 mos'?
Yes. More generally the presumption that RFC doesn't mean "Request for
Comments" and that the explicit withdrawal of the preliminary form has
been over-ridden by a
keith,
having punted on the marks over strings2addrs (policy by indirect rather
than direct beneficiaries), is anyone kidding themselves that the result
of the content over routing (policy by ...) is going to follow a similar
path?
i wish i'd made the "you can't do good design with a mindset
[from [EMAIL PROTECTED], (www.benton.org/News/)
Communications-related Headlines for 7/19/2000
]
BRITISH AUTHORITIES MAY GET WIDE POWER TO DECODE E-MAIL
Issue: Privacy/International
Britain may adopt a law making it the only Western democracy where the
government could require anyone using the
The Swedish legal definition (Patrik provided the pointer) may not be the
only one which attempts to define what "Internet" is, fixed or broken, er,
"mobile".
Anyone else with a normative legal reference, your favorite jurisdiction or
someone else's, please drop me a line. I'll summarize to the
Simon,
The IETF general list may not be the best venue for advocacy pieces written
for non-specialists. The characterization of Keith Moore's and Franklin
Reynold's works ("Substrate" and "CC/PP", resp.) are not substantive and
in my opinion detract from or confuse a reading of your
I have seen a lot of different people bash WAP over the past two days.
However, I am a firm believer that WAP will become what IP is to us today.
How nice to have firm belief-systems. What I write here are only my personal
opinions.
I posted Rohit's tour of the tangle when I was at Nokia
Keith,
Assume that that e-ad and direct e-marketing (email) was $4 billion in 1999.
The estimates I have at hand are that the the rate will be $18 billion in
2002. Roughly between now and 2005 the net's share of ads, regardless of the
delivery form, is going to increase six-fold -- according to
Forgive this spam, but I am looking for 7 CCIE's
for locations in London, Silicon Valley,
California and Tokyo.
i can not find an rfc for "CCIE." what is one, some kind of can opener?
"Carbon Copy Internet Explorer", from the "New Corporation(s)." They'll I-D
on or about 04/01/01, after
The National Indian Telecommunications Institute (NITI) run Digital Council
Fires (DCF) mailing list carries the following URGENT request for 10-15
Network Systems volunteers to assist in the Los Alamos fire response.
The originator of the request is the New Mexico Information Technology and
Normally I ignore Cook, and am grateful to have missed the original screed.
Technical contributions on the content of the draft-hollenbeck-rrp-00.txt
are nice, but deviations from content analysis are awkward.
Eric
27 matches
Mail list logo
