On 09/16/2013 08:03 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
Hi Glen,
as I mentioned in another email, that question is just a reminder.
No, it's not. It is a roadblock. If it was just a reminder. I would
be free to ignore it, in the same way that I ignore a reminder from my
calendar about a meeting
under
direct questioning, like 8-year-old children suspected of some prank.
This isn't merely obnoxious, it's insulting and highly offensive.
Regards,
Dan
-Original Message-
From: Qin Wu [mailto:bill...@huawei.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 8:45 AM
To: Glen Zorn
Cc
On 08/21/2013 09:20 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
Dear authors of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe,
Please confirm that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full
conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 for this document have
already been filed. The confirmation
On 08/21/2013 09:20 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
Dear authors of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe,
Network Working Group A. Clark
Internet-Draft Telchemy
Intended status: Standards Track
On 08/21/2013 09:20 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
Dear authors of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe,
Please confirm that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full
conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 for this document have
already been filed. The confirmation
On 08/21/2013 09:20 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
Dear authors of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe,
Network Working Group A. Clark
Internet-Draft Telchemy
Intended status: Standards Track
On 08/21/2013 09:20 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
Dear authors of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe,
Please confirm that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full
conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 for this document have
already been filed. The confirmation
On 06/08/2013 02:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Rule 1 for complex and divergent mail threads is to change the
Subject header when the subject changes. If you don't do that,
your mail is rather likely to get junked.
I think that IETF last call threads should stay on the main IETF
discussion
On 04/29/2013 07:53 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Apr 19, 2013, at 6:03 AM, t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
If we required the IETF to reflect the diversity of people who
are, e.g., IT network professionals, then the IETF would fall apart
for lack of ability.
[…]
If the
On 03/25/2013 09:23 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I think I at least partly disagree. The acknowledgements section of
RFCs was not, and to the best of my knowledge is not, concerned with
capturing the history of where specific changes or ideas came from.
It ought to be concerned with giving
On 02/27/2013 03:46 PM, Stefan Winter wrote:
Hi,
[...] ferkakte [...]
As a German, I'm now torn apart between being flattered that we've
successfully exported a German word to the U.S. and being
speechlessly shocked by the way spelling was b0rked in the process.
I believe that it's
On 01/07/2013 05:31 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013, Michael Richardson wrote:
yeah, I know, but I gotta say to the IEEE SERIOUSLY?
Apparently the IEEE folks love it, have been there before.
It was very nice (I am one of those IEEE folks) if you had a nice
expense
On 01/05/2013 06:17 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Mark,
This location was dictated (if that's the right word) by a desire
to co-locate (back-to-back) with the IEEE.
So if you don't attend IEEE, quit your whining: at least you won't have
to eat he same hotel food for 2 weeks in a row...
...
On 01/05/2013 11:51 AM, John Levine wrote:
So if you don't attend IEEE, quit your whining: at least you won't
have to eat he same hotel food for 2 weeks in a row...
You don't have to eat there. Check out the reviews of this
restaurant across the street:
On 09/18/2012 06:53 AM, Black, David wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
comments you may receive.
On 09/26/2012 04:01 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:55, Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
stuff that's utterly incompressible
In the header compression WG (ROHC), we had that a lot.
(SCNR.
Signal to Clutter plus Noise Ratio?
I'm not sure that this
On 09/25/2012 05:03 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-dime-erp-12 I am the assigned Gen-ART
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the
FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with
On 09/26/2012 03:29 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Good questions all.
IMHO, Independent Stream at most. Or a simple blog post would do. :)
On 9/25/12 1:13 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi, I don't understand the process for this document.
I read
On 09/21/2012 10:44 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 9/21/12 10:23 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
Why? There is a statement in the header, 10 lines above the abstract,
that says Obsoletes: 5721 (if approved).
It does.
Sorry. You said
On 09/22/2012 03:25 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
...
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
Why? There is a statement in the header, 10 lines above the
abstract, that says Obsoletes: 5721 (if approved).
The IESG put this into the nits check before my time. The Last Call
By my count that would put about 5 months between IETF 94 and 95, and
just a bit more than 3 months separating 95 from 96. Leave it the way
it was.
On 09/12/2012 08:02 AM, kuor-hsin.ch...@us.elster.com wrote:
3 - 8 April 2016is good.
- Forwarded by Kuor-Hsin Chang/USE/Elster on
On 09/10/2012 06:04 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Sep 10, 2012, at 12:46, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
chris.dearl...@baesystems.com wrote:
If someone wants to provide guidance on how to do a least bad job
with Outlook, that will be gratefully received.
I'm not an expert for this, but, as far
On 08/20/2012 09:29 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
We are paid well to design protocols because designing protocols that
work well in practice is a tricky art that is best practiced by experts
in the field.
But negotiating all the arrangements for a complex technical conference
is a
On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 20:49 -0700, SM wrote:
...
At 19:06 11-08-2012, Glen Zorn wrote:
any one other than themselves. If support by IETF members at-large
is to be signified, then an online petition of some sort would be a
much better idea much less deceptive.
RFCs, for example RFC
On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 07:41 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Lähettäjä: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com
...
(I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate
in this case.)
The for the IRTF underscores a
On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 17:13 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
consensus-oriented process
Sometimes, though, you have to act.
While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to
improve (or deteriorate)
On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 10:34 -0600, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
I also would vote to return to Minneapolis again and again even
permanently.
Geoff
On Aug 6, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Richard Shockey rich...@shockey.us
wrote:
[RS ] +1 and no employer ever argued that
On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 20:13 +0200, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod
HaSharon) wrote:
+1
Indeed, almost any place in Europe is easier cheaper for me (not to
mention less hassle from immigration and customs!) than any place in the
US.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 12:18 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 8/8/12 12:06 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
Mileage varies.
For me it was the shortest and cheapest flight of any IETF meeting I have
attended.
If we discussed protocols the way we discuss venue sites, all would be
lost. Oh, this
I would personally prefer if the meeting was rescheduled for the week of
April 3 - 8.
Strongly opposed.
...
On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 14:13 -0500, Mary Barnes wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org
wrote:
On Aug 3, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Instead, I think we should ensure that future venues have
adequate space
On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 16:58 -0400, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
From: Murray S. Kucherawy [superu...@gmail.com]
I think it's impossible to determine with certainty whether someone
standing at the mic and asserting a position is doing so based on what
an employer is insisting on doing,
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 19:26 +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I agree with the comments about 2804.
I do note a lot of April 1 RFCs in the references
though, so maybe its all a joke.
Gotta be!
S
On 07/30/2012 06:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yes, Scott, that is correct, sorry for
On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 12:19 -0700, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Just a minor comment on this one:
On Jul 29, 2012, at 8:20 AM, SM wrote:
[the] working group at the IETF started with strong web presence. But as
the
work dragged on (and on) past its first year, those web folks left
On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 23:37 +0300, Yoav Nir wrote:
...
The IETF allows open participation and, as such, everyone, including
companies that develop enterprise software, are free to participate in the
discussions.
Do you think open participation is wrong?
Do you think that
On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 13:28 -0700, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Do you think that corporate domination of open standards development is
OK?
The barrier for participation is low since there are no membership fees, etc.
For participation, yes, all that is needed is an email account; if
On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 10:08 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
On 20/07/2012 18:06, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change for IETF 95
scheduled for March 2016.
Currently IETF 95 is scheduled for 27 March to 1 April 2016. 27
On Sat, 2012-07-21 at 01:30 +, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Jul 20, 2012, at 6:08 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
As for the Ramadan issue: we've had IETF meetings during Jewish holidays a
few times, and folks dealt with it as best they can. If there are some
accommodations that can be made
On Sat, 2012-07-21 at 13:25 -0700, Martin Thomson wrote:
On 21 July 2012 06:55, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
This year Ramadan started yesterday, and ends on August 19. Moving the
meeting one week in either direction would not have helped.
But moving it to the southern hemisphere
On Sat, 2012-07-21 at 21:42 -0400, Ofer Inbar wrote:
Glen Zorn glenz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 2012-07-21 at 13:25 -0700, Martin Thomson wrote:
On 21 July 2012 06:55, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
This year Ramadan started yesterday, and ends on August 19. Moving
Looks like this didn't get through the first time.
From: Glen Zorn glenz...@gmail.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: glenz...@cmail.com
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of
IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to
Informational RFC
Date: Sat
E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Skype: organdemo
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012, Glen Zorn wrote:
A quick check of the Upcoming IETF Meetings calendar
(http://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html) shows that the next meeting
in Asia is scheduled for November 2015, while
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 16:09 -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
...
• The Tao mentions that we meet once a year in each region. I don't
think that's true for Asia at this point. The text might call out that we
meet where there are participants, or words that the IAOC might provide.
It
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 21:21 -0700, C. M. Heard wrote:
...
In Section 6.1:
Datagram de-duplication can be accomplished using hash-based
duplicate detection for cases where the ID field is absent.
Under what circumstances would the ID field be absent?
Replace
On 05/01/2012 02:52 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Here is an article that does a far better job of explaining the
situation than I did:
http://www.todaysengineer.org/2011/May/women-in-engineering.asp
The largest reason women leave engineering is due to the work
environment and perceived lack of
expertise, though...
Dan
-Original Message-
From: Glen Zorn [mailto:glenz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Fri 1/13/2012 5:34 AM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: Stephen Farrell; jouni korhonen; jouni.korho...@nsn.com;
lionel.mor...@orange-ftgroup.com; d...@ietf.org; IETF-Discussion;
i...@ietf.org
On 1/12/2012 7:15 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
Hi,
If a number of hands were raised now and the folks commanding them say
'we are ready to work on this NOW' I would support including explicit
wording in the charter.
Consider my hand raised.
If this does not happen until the telechat
Indeed. In fact there is a conversation currently on the pppext WG list in
which certain people are claiming that PPP (?!) is obsolete, demonstrating
that even subject-matter experts are often clueless about what's happening in
the real world...
Sent from Samsung tablet
Keith Moore
On 8/28/2011 12:25 PM, Adam Novak wrote:
On Aug 28, 2011 12:06 AM, Glen Zorn glenz...@gmail.com
mailto:glenz...@gmail.com wrote:
Good to hear. Getting rid of cookies can save a _lot_ of money since
you're at IETF to work I'm sure you wouldn't mind if the conditions
more closely
On 8/27/2011 4:12 PM, t.petch wrote:
Glen
Me again.
Just after I posted my last message, I received a post on the ietf-ssh list,
hosted by netbsd.org, and looking through the 'Received: from' headers, as one
does on a wet Saturday morning of a Bank Holiday weekend, there was TLS, used
On 8/27/2011 10:30 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 8/27/2011 7:48 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
What I have heard is that the community would prefer going to locations
that were easy to travel to over interesting.
How do
On 8/26/2011 11:14 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
+1. If you want signatures, do them properly. Don't pretend a transfer
protection mechanism covering exactly one hop provides real object security,
because it doesn't.
I could have sworn that TLS was an e2e mechanism. Maybe you're
On 8/27/2011 4:08 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
...
As long as they know
they're on the same subnet (and ARP broadcasts will reach everyone)
they should just ARP for each other and not involve the router at all.
If they are on different IP subnets, but the same Ethernet,
Yes, this is more often
On 8/25/2011 3:52 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
Including only the hotel costs may (I haven't crunched the numbers) be
providing a very distorted view of the situation. In order to get the
whole picture you have to include the meeting fees and air fare, at
minimum.
As I believe has been mentioned,
On 8/24/2011 8:31 PM, George, Wesley wrote:
I’ve been watching this discussion across several attendee lists,
plenaries, etc and it appears that we have a routing loop.
Perhaps it’s time for those who seem most concerned about this to author
a BCP draft regarding IETF meeting venue and
On 8/25/2011 12:10 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 8/24/11 9:05 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:
I think that a large part of the problem is that the IAOC is attempting
to satisfy policies based upon consensus.
Really? Consensus of whom? I haven't seen anything remotely
like consensus on much to do
On 8/23/2011 10:13 PM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
...
I agree that the overall cost of each meeting is what really counts.
HOWEVER, most of us work at companies which have rules for
limits on specific charges (i.e.: hotel room rates). Having room rates
(fees/taxes/etc...) that exceed about
On 8/24/2011 12:46 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
From: Thomas Nadeau
One would think that when the IETF negotiates the room block/fees,
that this could be done as well. After all we are in many cases,
booking a significant portion of the hotel in question in addition to
its conference
On 8/24/2011 3:33 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:29:34AM -0700, David Morris wrote:
For this to be a meaningful disccusion re. the success or lack there of,
we need to compare what we have vs. similar sized groups in the same
season, etc. at the same venue.
_And_
On 8/24/2011 5:50 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
...
Come on, folks, let's be honest: all-in-one conference hotels, and
hotels connected to conference centers, charge exorbitant amounts of
money for the convenience of sleeping in close proximity to the meeting
rooms. Thanks to tips from other
On 8/9/2011 9:52 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:58:32 +0700, Glen Zorn g...@net-zen.net said:
GZ In any case, a taxi from any of the hotels on the list would today
GZ cost $3 (probably closer to $2) one way.
I'd argue that group shuttles, as has been done in the past
On 8/10/2011 5:12 AM, Dean Willis wrote:
...
Y'all come on down to Dallas. It was 39C while I was walking the dog
last night, down from the daily peak of about 44C. We're looking
forward to October, when the highs should drop to 32C. And the lows
to around zero pack a sweater.
And
On 8/10/2011 3:06 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
...
I would NOT want to be in the business of moving an IETF meeting 2
months before the event.
Certainly not, but all hell can break loose with little or no warning
virtually anywhere (see
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/08/london_riots.html).
On 8/8/2011 2:56 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Nothing is a reasonable walk when the average temperature is 32 C.
At least not for the average IETF attendee.
Just to add a little perspective for the Celsius-challenged ;-), 32C =
89.6F. Warm, but not IMHO life-threatening, even for the sedentary
On 8/8/2011 8:56 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
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
On 8/8/2011 4:03 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
When using reference and the document I am referencing has say 20
authors. Is there a way to fill in the author field as John Doe
et al or do I have to list all the 20 authors?
above five, the rfced's deal with the iesg is that the masthead lists
an
On 8/8/2011 9:43 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
...
Of course, given some of the other suggestions made recently, we
probably should also be considering Tel Aviv as a meeting site
I like this idea.
-- from what I understand, non-trivial numbers of IETF
participants (unlike some places discussed
On 8/9/2011 1:53 PM, SM wrote:
Hi Glen, At 23:05 08-08-2011, Glen Zorn wrote:
I see. So the author limit isn't really a guideline (as
advertised) or even a rule, just a backroom deal. I wonder how
many other things
http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.authlist
says
On 8/9/2011 3:07 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Aug 8, 2011, at 11:07 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
above five, the rfced's deal with the iesg is that the masthead
lists an editor and all the rest are in a Contributors or
Authors section
I see. So the author limit isn't really a guideline (as
On 8/8/2011 11:35 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Looks fine to me. I have very little sympathy for those whinging
about long flights.
While where at it: http://www.mcec.com.au/
Brand-new conference centre, canonical hotel is a Hilton, and boy can
I show you some bars...
Unfortunately, the
On 8/8/2011 12:58 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 8/5/11 2:46 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
I note that there is an opening on the IETF meeting calendar for an
Asian meeting in 2013. Here is a suggestion:
Meeting Facilities:
http://www.qsncc.com/venue-information/our-facilities.html
I'm happy
On 8/6/2011 3:00 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 5, 2011, at 12:46 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
I note that there is an opening on the IETF meeting calendar for an
Asian meeting in 2013. Here is a suggestion:
Meeting Facilities:
http://www.qsncc.com/venue-information/our-facilities.html
On 8/6/2011 8:48 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Dear Glen;
Thanks for all of this information. Do you know if there is an
off-season for
Bangkok ?
Yes, it's pretty much now (July, August September). However, November
is widely considered the nicest month of the year: it's at the tail end
of
I note that there is an opening on the IETF meeting calendar for an
Asian meeting in 2013. Here is a suggestion:
Meeting Facilities:
http://www.qsncc.com/venue-information/our-facilities.html
There are 7 pages of Official Hotels, starting at about $60/night.
Official Hotels:
On 8/2/2011 6:35 AM, David Kessens wrote:
Margaret,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:02:22PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to
conflicts, I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the plenaries
and hold meetings during that time slot.
On 7/6/2011 10:38 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Has anyone found a particularly good solution to reading drafts on an ipad?
What about markup and notes on drafts?
The iPad is a porn toy; get a real computer.
...
attachment: gwz.vcf___
Ietf mailing
On 6/21/2011 11:30 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
...
Actually, it seems that the conference rates at IETF hotels are quite
predictable: a couple of months ago it was possible to book a room at
the QC Hilton for $176 CAD/night _during the IETF meeting_; if you check
the Hilton Web site right now,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/21/2011 1:16 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:
...
please look at the balance sheet here:
http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/Meeting-Financials-2010-77.pdf
and note both the hotel commission, a credit, and the zero charge associated
with meeting rooms
On 6/21/2011 1:48 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
...
Which you are qualified to asses on the basis of you long experience in
meeting booking...
As a matter of fact, yes.
...
attachment: gwz.vcf___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On 6/20/2011 11:54 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Keith,
Here is the tradeoff:
The community has expressed a strong preference for one-roof venues
[which often translates to convention center + hotel next door in our
case] in a city setting (City West and Maastricht being non-examples).
On 6/21/2011 2:02 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Exactly. Given that we spend most of our days in air conditioned
meeting rooms, Phoenix or Dallas are not bad choices. Dallas is slightly
better due to air connections. Houston is not a good choice under any
circumstance IMHO - I don't think A/C can
On 6/21/2011 3:14 AM, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) wrote:
Same in my case!
So why is that the case? The IAOC is virtually guaranteeing a a
sold-out hotel the week of the IETF meeting, a thing that has not
inconsiderable value in the hospitality. How can they possibly not do
better?
On 6/18/2011 9:52 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Frankly, I'm appalled at the prices and think it's highly inappropriate for
IETF to be meeting in venues where the conference hotels are so expensive.
Don't get me started on the negotiating skills of the IAOC. More to
the point, there are a lot of
On 6/18/2011 7:08 AM, John Levine wrote:
As you may have noticed, flying to Quebec City (YQB) is incredibly
expensive.
Hmm. My ticket to QC was only ~$40 CAD than the equivalent one to
Montreal, far less than R/T bus or train fare...
...
attachment:
On 6/18/2011 8:31 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:08:52AM -, John Levine wrote:
By train: there are four trains a day from Montreal to Quebec.
Although there is a train station in Dorval, close to the airport, it
doesn't have any through trains to Quebec so it's
On 4/21/2011 8:05 PM, scott.proba...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi,
I agree with the concept, just want to be sure the PAWS is not expected to
develop these security mechanisms (i.e. the tools) as contrasted to including
or using in PAWS the security tools developed by appropriate expert groups.
On 4/22/2011 7:54 AM, Dan Harkins wrote:
Hi Mykyta,
Thank you for reviewing my draft. Responses inline
On Sat, March 26, 2011 10:06 pm, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Hello,
A question on the flowing extract:
This memo contains a new numberspace to be managed by IANA, a
On 4/21/2011 12:18 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Hi,
It seems like I-D submission for a revised draft (after expiration)
encounters
so many new hurdles:
1. Version number. Submission page complains about the version number even
though it is correct. This seems to be because the system
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like
Looks good to me.
Hope this helps.
~gwz
-Original Message-
From: Sean Turner [mailto:turn...@ieca.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 4:36 AM
To: t...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Cc: m...@sap.com; Glen Zorn
Subject: Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-ssl2-must-not-03.txt
On 12
Michael D'Errico [mailto:mike-l...@pobox.com] writes:
Glen Zorn wrote:
Section 3 says TLS clients MUST NOT send SSL 2.0 CLIENT-HELLO
messages.
and TLS servers MUST NOT negotiate or use SSL 2.0 and later TLS
servers
that do not support SSL 2.0 MAY accept version 2.0 CLIENT-HELLO
messages
Martin Rex [mailto:m...@sap.com] writes:
Glen Zorn wrote:
Glen Zorn wrote:
Section 3 says TLS clients MUST NOT send SSL 2.0 CLIENT-HELLO
messages.
and TLS servers MUST NOT negotiate or use SSL 2.0 and later TLS
servers
that do not support SSL 2.0 MAY accept version 2.0
Joe Salowey [mailto:jsalo...@cisco.com] writes:
Hi Glen,
In reading the text and I'm not exactly sure where the confusion or
contradiction comes in. I think your suggested text is fine, but I'm
not sure how it improves things. If I understand your point correctly
accepting an SSL 2.0
Section 3 says TLS clients MUST NOT send SSL 2.0 CLIENT-HELLO messages.
and TLS servers MUST NOT negotiate or use SSL 2.0 and later TLS servers
that do not support SSL 2.0 MAY accept version 2.0 CLIENT-HELLO messages as
the first message of a TLS handshake for interoperability with old clients.
Looks OK to me.
Hope this helps.
~gwz
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Yaron Sheffer
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 6:14 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Problem with draft-sheffer-emu-eap-eke
Expanding on my
Keith Moore [mailto://mo...@network-heretics.com] writes:
On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
In-person meeting time is used regularly for powerpoints rather than
discussion.
+1.
The single biggest thing that IETF could do to raise productivity in
meetings is to
Glen Zorn [mailto://g...@net-zen.net] writes:
...
My apologies, I was mistakingly believing that the previous
discussions
on this topic had lead to the adoption of Route-Record AVPs in
answers.
I'm not at all sure that you were mistaken about that, but no such
decision
has been
Including the IETF list because the draft in question is in IETF LC.
Hope this helps.
~gwz
From: LIU Hans [mailto:hans@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 10:09 AM
To: draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Mail regarding draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis
Mary Barnes [mailto://mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com] writes:
Glen,
I had zero expectation that Maastricht would be anything like the city
I live in. However, it never crossed my mind to think that the city
would be so deserted when I arrived, nor that I would end up on the
last train. So,
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
