On 2013-10-09, at 10:53, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
Of course there are cases where this doesn't matter, and DHCP is just fine,
but I can't think of any other than perhaps a self-setting wall clock.
DNSSEC validation imposes a requirement for clock sync (to the accuracy
On 2013-10-08, at 11:38, Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
Or how about reserving RFC 3399 for use as an example RFC number...
Do we need a document to document that document for use in documents as
documentation?
Joe
On 2013-10-07, at 18:08, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Oct 7, 2013, at 7:29 PM, Aaron Yi DING aaron.d...@cl.cam.ac.uk wrote:
Is there a pointer (maybe from IETF secretary)? The year with highest number
of attendees - which one is that? The exact number of participants will be
On 2013-09-11, at 11:43, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
OK lets consider the trust requirements here.
1. We only need to know the current time to an accuracy of 1 hour.
[RRSIG expiration times are specified with a granularity of a second, right?
I appreciate that most people
Hi Jim,
On 2013-09-10, at 11:55, Jim Gettys j...@freedesktop.org wrote:
We uncovered two practical problems, both of which need to be solved to
enable full DNSSEC deployment into the home:
1) DNSSEC needs to have the time within one hour. But these devices do not
have TOY clocks (and
On 2013-09-10, at 12:58, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
But I'm still thinking of a scheme involving insecure ntp lookups for
pool.ntp.org, then using inception times of RRSIGs of TLDs to narrow
down the current time. Of course, all of that is vulnerable to replay
attacks.
On 2013-09-10, at 16:52, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
NTP can be used to get time from an IP address. I understand all of the
reasons why a DNS name is preferred, but this a bootstrapping problem.
Retrieval of root zone KSK trust anchors requires a DNS name, however (and you
On 2013-09-06, at 10:16, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 06:20:48AM -0700, Pete Resnick wrote:
In email,
we insist that you authenticate the recipient's certificate before
we allow you to install it and to start encrypting, and prefer to
send things in the clear
On 2013-08-26, at 22:28, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
The permitted size of the UDP packet is NOT 512 octets. That is the
permitted size of the DNS Message. DNS Message is not the same thing as a
UDP packet.
Per RFC1035
Section 2.3.4. Size limits
UDP messages512 octets
On 2013-08-07, at 13:28, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
[...] I don't think you can argue that carrying an RFID tag with a simple
number in it makes things any worse.
That sounds right.
The purpose of the badge is to dilute your personal privacy and announce your
identity to those
On 2013-08-06, at 10:26, Aaron Yi DING aaron.d...@cl.cam.ac.uk wrote:
to clarify, imho:
presentation != slides
In my experience, slides are mainly useful:
1. To convey information which is difficult to express accurately by voice only
(e.g. graphs, names of drafts, big numbers)
2. To
On 2013-08-06, at 14:00, Hadriel Kaplan hadriel.kap...@oracle.com wrote:
An example of (2) can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-dnsop-8.pdf where I
presented a one-slide problem statement that consisted entirely filled with
an xkcd cartoon.
Huh, who knew
On 2013-08-06, at 11:27, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 8/5/2013 2:15 AM, Dan York wrote:
[...] I remember that when you went to the mic you put your badge up to
this sensor and your name appeared in the jabber room.
... and the main screen in the room, if we're thinking about
On 2013-08-06, at 15:35, Aaron Yi DING aaron.d...@cl.cam.ac.uk wrote:
PS: I personally find it rather funny to see people claiming one's own
approach works better and so forth implicitly indicating they really
understand what remote/f2f participants need,
For the record, I have zero
On 2013-08-06, at 15:54, Aaron Yi DING aaron.d...@cl.cam.ac.uk wrote:
On 06/08/13 18:31, Michael Richardson wrote:
And move the microphones to the people, rather than the other way around.
This is indeed friendly, although standing up to walk a bit is also good, at
least f2f
On 2013-08-01, at 12:04, manning bill bmann...@isi.edu wrote:
we have never voted at IETFs.
we believe in rough consensus and running code
The enduring tautology in this is the use of the word we.
some of us believe in rough consensus and running code, probably enough that
the mantra is
Hi there,
I haven't reviewed the draft (but I will). One thing stood out though:
On 2013-07-05, at 05:05, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 62449
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
On 2013-06-28, at 15:19, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
The RFC Editor is publishing code in a text file that is formatted like an
RFC. The proposal is for the RFC Editor to publish *the exact same code* in a
file without the RFC wrapping.
If you really think you see a legal
On 2013-06-27, at 11:49, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
chris.dearl...@baesystems.com wrote:
RFC 6234 contains, embedded in it, code to implement various functions,
including SHA-2.
Extracting that code from the RFC is not a clean process. In addition the
code must have existed unembedded
Oh, I missed the first date line in my paste, which makes the second one a
bit mysterious. Here it is :-)
[krill:~]% date
Thu 27 Jun 2013 12:56:35 EDT
[krill:~]% mkdir 6234
[krill:~]% cd 6234
...
On 2013-06-27, at 13:22, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
[krill:~]% mkdir 6234
[krill
On 2013-06-27, at 15:38, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
Ok, other than time, it should be easy to extract, clean up and cross your
fingers that it compiles with your favorite C compiler.
Having just done it, I'm happy to report that there was little finger-crossing
involved. The fact
On 2013-06-19, at 17:03, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:43 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
Assuming we care about stability and interoperability, wouldn't it
make sense for the IETF to spin up a WG, collect these drafts, clean
up the language, make sure
Hi Ted,
On 2013-05-29, at 9:54, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On May 29, 2013, at 12:36 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
If I had been able to figure
out what else to say that would be stronger, constructive, and
not stray into Applicability Statement territory, I would
Hi Ted,
On 2013-05-29, at 15:50, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
Okay, I felt a bit embarrassed about having said this, so I went back and
reviewed the justification for bringing this forth as an IETF document. The
stated reason for publishing the document as an IETF document is
On 2013-05-28, at 3:38, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
In theory the IETF does not publish RFCs to suit the regulations of one
country (see use-case in draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-04). In
practice, the IETF has published a RFC to suit the requirements (it was a
voluntary measure
Hi Randy,
On 2013-05-21, at 11:23, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
i have read the draft. if published, i would prefer it as a proposed
standard as it does specify protocol data objects.
Noted, thanks.
It does seem that the main objection to the standards track for this document
is that I
On 2013-05-21, at 09:36, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
Publishing EUI-XX addresses in the DNS is a bad idea.
With respect, *my* question as the author of this document is simply whether
the specification provided is unambiguous and sufficient. It was my
understanding that
On 2013-05-21, at 10:18, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
Perhaps Informational or Experimental would be a better label for this
document, then.
Informational was my original plan; I was persuaded by Some People that the
standards track was more appropriate. As I mentioned, my
On 2013-05-21, at 11:50, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On 05/21/2013 11:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
With respect to the question of proposed standard. What changes if the
requested status is informational?
I think just get rid of the normative language - SHOULDs, MUSTs,
On 2013-05-21, at 11:56, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On 05/21/2013 11:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2013-05-21, at 11:50, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On 05/21/2013 11:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
With respect to the question of proposed standard. What changes
On 2013-05-21, at 12:02, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
Actually I think that what we need is a BCP that says that DNS is not
intended, not designed, and SHOULD NOT be used for dissemination of any
information that is not deemed acceptable for widespread public distribution.
On 2013-05-21, at 15:08, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
Without responding in detail to John's note, I'll say that I agree
substantially with the notion that the fact that someone manages to get a
protocol name or number registered, should not be any kind of justification
On 2013-05-08, at 17:30, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
At 12:53 08-05-2013, Randy Bush wrote:
MAY != SHOULD
The text is as follows: The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever
possible. If the working group would like a RFC 2119 SHOULD it would help
if there is an explanation
On 2013-04-29, at 16:49, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
Stewart == Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com writes:
Stewart Why would you disregard a statistical analysis? That seems
Stewart akin to disregarding the fundamentals of science and
Statistical analysis is only
On 2013-03-25, at 12:17, Scott Brim s...@internet2.edu wrote:
On 03/25/13 11:54, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com allegedly wrote:
So perhaps a little more guidance to authors and WGs about
acknowledgments would be in order.
or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section and
What useful history can you possibly get when each file is only ever
substantively changed by publishing another file?
Aue Te Ariki! He toki ki roto taku mahuna!
On 2013-03-16, at 14:21, James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
JL == John Levine jo...@taugh.com writes:
JL In practice, rsync
On 2013-03-12, at 12:59, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
There lies the fine line of conflict of interest that I believe the IETF has
done a tremendous job in keeping in control with diverse disciplines and
philosophies well considered. The RFC format by definition,
Were you
On 2013-03-08, at 14:09, Richard Barnes r...@ipv.sx wrote:
I think you may be over-estimating the filtering power of the Internet-Draft
system.
Perhaps the implication is that if the Whitehouse were to insist upon a 1970s
publication format and employed an array of tools to reject
On 2012-07-18, at 11:49, Russ Housley wrote:
So a DNSSEC signer starts under one set of documents, and then for whatever
reason, the policy changes and the parties validating the signature have no
means to determine that the signer is following a new policy.
They have means, they just
Hi Russ,
On 2012-07-17, at 19:06, Russ Housley wrote:
I think you missed my point. In a PKI, when the issuer significantly changes
the policy, subsequent certificates have a different policy identifier. I do
not see a similar concept here.
You're right, I did miss your point, quite
Hi Russ,
On 2012-07-15, at 11:39, Russ Housley wrote:
Peter:
Thanks for the review. I've not read this document yet, but you review
raises a question in my mind.
If a DNSSEC policy or practice statement is revised or amended, what actions
are needed make other aware of the change?
On 2011-05-11, at 20:25, Joe Touch wrote:
FWIW, the Los Angeles County banned the terms in 2003 when used for various
purposes - including technology, preferring primary and secondary, in
specific. The terms don't even appear in the ATA spec after version 1.
I believe that story may be
Hi Dave,
I take no position on whether it's in good taste to use the word whitelist in
this particular instance or in general, but
On 2011-05-16, at 18:21, Dave CROCKER wrote:
1. It is not previously standardized and I believe it is not documented in an
RFC.
the term appears to have some
On 2011-05-16, at 18:33, Dave CROCKER wrote:
2. It is typically a split-DNS private/public mechanism.
No.
No doubt you can point to IETF documentation or other related, formal
documentation of this?
No, and I'm not sure why that's relevant. There's no shortage of examples of
addresses
On 2011-01-28, at 10:15, SM wrote:
Domain Name: EXAMPLE.COM
Registrar: RESERVED-INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY
Whois Server: whois.iana.org
Referral URL: http://res-dom.iana.org
Name Server: A.IANA-SERVERS.NET
Name Server: B.IANA-SERVERS.NET
Status:
On 2011-01-18, at 15:03, bill manning wrote:
and I guess I am the only one who might still use it - but regardless, if its
broken, it should seems that the mail attachment (MIME) is no longer a
copy of the draft in question, its a dummy text block.
I don't think it was ever a copy of
On 2010-06-20, at 15:52, Geert Jan de Groot wrote:
IMHO, there's 2 issues:
1. Global IPv6 connectivity doesn't exist - at best, it's a tunnel mess
with bits and pieces continuously falling off, then getting reconnected
again, and nobody seems to care - there's no effort to make
On 2010-05-26, at 07:18, SM wrote:
I see that in some published RFCs, but I didn't see how to create a
non-appendix section after the appendices using xml2rfc.
section title=Acknowledgements should work.
I think you would need to create the section at the back of the front
section, and
On 2010-05-24, at 20:50, Bill McQuillan wrote:
I noticed the publication of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-00 and, I
presume, the ending of its previous incarnation as
draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol at 76.
I had been watching to see how this test of the naming format of internet
On 2010-05-12, at 12:32, Paul Hoffman wrote:
The use of FTP dwarfs the use of SFTP by at least two orders of magnitude.
Sure.
To paraphrase my comment (or at least re-state it in a clearer way) from a
protocol perspective, setting aside deficiencies in particular implementations,
it seems
On 2010-05-06, at 05:01, Robert Stangarone wrote:
I did just as you suggest (contact the FTC) some time ago, and Dean
stopped the SPAM.
This sounds like valuable operational data. Given your experience, can you
confirm exactly what you had to send and to whom in order to make this happen?
On 2010-03-31, at 20:56, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
In theory it is possible to use a US issued credit card in Europe.
In practice, forget it unless you are willing to face the
embarrassment of 50% of places declining your card.
My experience in the UK is that outside London you are
On 2010-03-30, at 09:49, Theodore Tso wrote:
I'd recommend telling your bank and your credit card issuers that you are
planning on traveling to The Netherlands at least a week or two in advance.
I'd recommend that someone creates the 78-attendees list right now, so that all
this list
On 2010-02-24, at 15:50, Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Shane Kerr wrote:
DNSSEC declares out of scope:
* the channel where DS records get added to the parent
Is that actually out of scope or just not specified yet?
The whole channel from end-user (registrant) to registry
Hi,
On 2010-01-05, at 03:34, SM wrote:
Is what is proposed in this draft a matter of interest to the DNS Operations
Working Group? If so, the document could have been brought to the attention
of the relevant working group before the Last Call. That doesn't preclude
the draft from being
On 2010-01-05, at 16:55, SM wrote:
The diversity of operators has some advantages, i.e. not sharing fate. The
Introduction Section of this draft mentions that The choice of operators for
individual nameservers is beyond the scope of this document. I don't know
whether a change of
Hi Phil,
[Replying from jab...@hopcount.ca rather than joe.ab...@icann.org, since the
former is the address which is subscribed to the ietf@ietf.org list.]
On 2010-01-04, at 16:46, Phil Pennock wrote:
On 2010-01-04 at 06:08 -0800, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an
On 2010-01-04, at 14:43, Sam Hartman wrote:
I'm not really particularly happy with Joe's two recent DNS drafts.
If I can help clarify anything, please let me know.
They give me the impression as a reader that a lot of context is being
hidden from me and that the implications of the draft
On 2010-01-04, at 17:40, John R. Levine wrote:
If you could me more substantive guidance as to where the documents could be
improved, I'd be very happy. As things stand the best I can do is say I'm
sorry :-)
Well, OK. Is there a plan to move the DNS for in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa to
On 2010-01-04, at 17:59, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2010-01-04, at 17:40, John R. Levine wrote:
If you could me more substantive guidance as to where the documents could
be improved, I'd be very happy. As things stand the best I can do is say
I'm sorry :-)
Well, OK. Is there a plan to move
On 2010-01-04, at 19:23, Sam Hartman wrote:
So, I think John is asking the questions well about the in-addr.arpa
plan.
OK. I hope the answers are helpful.
For the sink.arpa, it would be good to explain why we want this name to
exist.
We *don't* want the name to exist; that's the point of
On 2010-01-04, at 21:50, John R. Levine wrote:
For the sink.arpa, it would be good to explain why we want this name to
exist.
We *don't* want the name to exist; that's the point of the draft. I presume
that's what you meant?
It would still be nice to put in an explanation of the
On 2010-01-04, at 21:40, John C Klensin wrote:
Ok, Joe, a few questions since, as indicated in another note,
you are generating these documents in your ICANN capacity:
(1) If ICANN can re-delegate the servers for these domains
without IAB or IETF action, why is IETF action needed to create
On 2010-01-04, at 22:09, John R. Levine wrote:
It would still be nice to put in an explanation of the motivation for
adding SINK.ARPA when its semantics and operations, at least for clients,
appear identical to whatever.INVALID.
I don't know that I have anything much to add to my
On 2009-12-30, at 14:13, John Levine wrote:
Aren't we arguing in circles here? The original proposal was for an
RFC to mark SINK.ARPA as special.
To be slightly pedantic, it was a proposal to make a policy decision that the
name SINK.ARPA should not be made to exist by those responsible for
On 2009-12-27, at 20:16, John Levine wrote:
It seems to me that if we think it's a good idea to specify a domain
name that doesn't exist, we're better off clarifying the status of the
ones already specified rather than inventing new ones. Since the
people who manage .ARPA are the exact same
On 2009-12-25, at 06:02, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
What is the actual difference between the proposed sink.arpa and the existing
.invalid?
(a) Our idea when we chose that name was to try and make the policy environment
within which the (non-) assignment rule was to be instituted clear. The
On 2009-12-27, at 13:07, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
I don't get it. Are you saying that you think it's possible that someone will
come along and overturn RFC 2606, and that that someone wouldn't overturn any
.arpa-related rules?
I'm saying that the body that administers the root zone is not
On 2009-12-22, at 04:57, John C Klensin wrote:
Let me say this a little more strongly. This proposal
effectively modifies RFC 5321 for one particular domain name at
the same time that it effectively (see notes by others)
advocates against coding the relevant domain name into anything
or
On 2009-12-22, at 11:33, SM wrote:
This draft requires IAB review and approval.
You'll note that we asked for it in section 6.
The following paragraph may require some scrutiny:
INVALID is poorly characterised from a DNS perspective in
[RFC2606]; that is, the specification
On 2009-12-22, at 18:32, SM wrote:
At 06:23 22-12-2009, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2009-12-22, at 11:33, SM wrote:
The goal was to provide a set of additional requirements that the IAB would
take into consideration when carrying out the duties as described in 3172.
For example, some far
On 2009-12-08, at 13:22, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
Or is there a way already to customize this that I missed?
You can submit a draft using the I-D submission tool using an address that is
not listed in the document as an author's address.
You can validate a draft for submission using the I-D
On 2009-12-04, at 07:38, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
'largely semantic?'
Yes, by which I meant having little practical impact on the business of
shifting packets on the network. The other text that you couldn't see due to
the searing bright pain you apparently felt when presented with the
On 2009-12-02, at 14:12, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The alternative would be to not use .local at all and insist on that
approach as a means of avoiding ICANNs perceived perogatives. I think
that would be a bad idea as the spec would not serve its intended
purpose.
Given the existing
On 2009-09-08, at 09:50, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'Use of SHA-2 algorithms with RSA in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource
Records
for DNSSEC '
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-rsasha256-14.txt as a Proposed
On 31-Jul-2009, at 07:30, Tobias Markmann wrote:
The protocol that seems to handle such DNS updates seems to be RFC
2136 which is around since 1997. I wonder how far this RFC is
implemented among authoritative DNS servers and whether that RFC is
the right approach to solve the problem of
On 23-Mar-2009, at 14:35, Melinda Shore wrote:
I was auto-subscribed to Dean's ietf-honest mailing
list, and I'm unhappy about it.
As I think was mentioned a day or two ago on this list, the reasonable
way I found to avoid these auto-subscriptions to ietf-honest was to
block packets from
On 23-Mar-2009, at 14:52, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I know someone else who simply refuses all traffic sourced
from inside a certain AS associated with Mr Anderson; that person
seems more cheerful for the effort, too.
r1.owls#show ip access-list from-world
Extended IP access list from-world
On 11 Mar 2009, at 15:22, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
The world is now full of standards organizations that treat their
works as more significant than merely technical information. Why
do we need IETF for that purpose?
The RFC series is an ongoing record of the technical underpinnings of
the
On 19 Sep 2008, at 07:52, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:35:20PM -0400,
Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 31 lines which said:
I think the *whole point* of a standard is to restrict how things
are done, in order to promote interoperability. Complaining
On 17 Sep 2008, at 18:42, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Of course none of the SDOs that I work with want to see incompatible
versions. But this turns the issue on its head. Open source and open
standards deal with the freedom to do things, even though we might
discourage people to take us up on that
On 7 Jul 2008, at 21:36, James Seng wrote:
And all of the questions I asked 10 years ago said that TLDs on
that latter
scale would be problematic to the root.
Was that pre-Anycast or post-Anycast?
There are plenty of examples of people hosting large, infrastructure-
type zones using
On 27 Jun 2008, at 15:57, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:21 PM, SM wrote:
I believe an RFC that provides an IETF-defined list of names (beyond
the 4 in 2606) and/or rules defining names the Internet technical
community feels would be inappropriate as top-level domains would
be
On 23 Jun 2008, at 06:19, Dave Cridland wrote:
A final point is that actually phrasing it as MUST X or Y is
problematic since English lacks the possibility of parenthesis for
precendence - hence a stronger binding, such as MUST X unless Y, is
preferable.
Preferable to me would be to
On 4 Jun 2008, at 12:02, Chad Giffin wrote:
whereas IETF guidelines is a link to
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
I have no access to ftp sites using the FTP protocol due to the
nature of the setup of network I use.
Could any of you please provide me with a URL to access this
On 3 Jun 2008, at 17:37, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I don't deny that some registries have started allocating PI prefixes
for large sites.
ARIN is one such registry.
http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58
All you need to do to qualify for a direct IPv6 assignment from ARIN
is to not
On 27 Mar 2008, at 20:38 , Mark Andrews wrote:
OTOH, I think standardizing this convention makes all sorts of
sense, but
not, of course, in 2821bis.
Why not in 2821bis? Is 2821bis really that time critical?
I would prefer to see the empty field intention implicit in MX 0 .
On 25 Mar 2008, at 10:08 , Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Bill Manning wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in
the future, it will be easy to determine which wgs
On 24 Mar 2008, at 11:18 , Marc Manthey wrote:
hello ipv6 peoples, sorry for crossposting
how can i use ipv6 from my machine ?
using leopard 10.5.2. mail ?
my endpoint is 2001:6f8:1051:0:20d:93ff:fe79:f1e
thought its automatic :-P
I think you just need to make sure that the servers
On 15-Feb-2008, at 09:54, Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote:
I am somewhat surprised about this:
LETTERS OF INVITATION:
After you complete the registration process, you will be given the
option of requesting a Letter of Invitation for IETF 71 in
Philadelphia
and for IETF 73 in
On 13-Feb-2008, at 14:05, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I'm looking for a reasonably recent presentation on the state of IP
address allocation that would be suitable for a class I'm teaching.
If you're looking for source material rather than slideware, I imagine
there is no more up-to-date
On 12-Feb-2008, at 14:42, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The real problem here is the loser MUAs and MTAs that reformat text to
wrap at 60 or 80 cols. It does not matter how you paste the URL, if it
is longer than 60 cols it is quite likely to get mangled en-route.
Clients that implement RFC
On 11-Feb-2008, at 17:38, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
But then shouldn't the question be whether the style manual should
be changed ?
From consistent with English grammar to something else?
Joe
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On 11-Feb-2008, at 13:53, Fred Baker wrote:
I have occasionally found myself wondering whether a grammar checker
that could read our XML files (about 1/3 of our posted drafts have
XML source posted with them) and make suggestions would be of value.
In converting what is now RFC 1716 to RFC
On 8-Feb-2008, at 14:33, Richard Barnes wrote:
I noticed the same thing when I was making my booking. As a
precaution,
I put a note in the Comments block saying that I expect the terms of
the IETF contract to be followed, with a copy of the terms from
Ray's email.
Heh, and I thought I
On 5-Feb-2008, at 23:48, Ram Mohan wrote:
This will get taken care of in a short time here.
Appropriate records were added to the INFO zone earlier today.
Joe
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 18-Jan-2008, at 21:48, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I've always wondered what the designation for your information adds
to an RFC that is already labelled informational.
Me too. I hope to find out :-)
Joe
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On 17-Jan-2008, at 18:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Added sentences to section 8.1 explaining that BCPs and FYIs are
sub-
series of Informational RFCs.
Namely:
The sub-series of FYIs and
BCPs are comprised of Informational documents in the sense of the
enumeration above, with
On 16-Dec-2007, at 22:17, Greg Shepherd wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 3:17 PM, Tony Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Fred Baker wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:17 AM, Jeyasekar Antony wrote:
I heard that TCP is not suitable for high speed network because
of its
is it true? is
On 27-Nov-2007, at 12:16, Marshall Rose wrote:
agreed. at the risk of stating the obvious: the problem is identical
to the one where the authors submit nroff source to the rfc-editor.
it's always a good idea to run the toolchain, and then diff the text
against the I-D approved by the IESG. if
1 - 100 of 183 matches
Mail list logo
