Several open-source compilers exist. It would not be hard to a) make
a library of modules from RFCs (to deal with IMPORTS), b) make a
cgi-bin compiler. It's not what I do on a daily basis, but if you put
together a cgi-bin where all I need to provide is a command to run on
a file and output
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com wrote:
Oh, well, this is just outdated text. And indeed, the GSS-API's
notion of qop (quality of protection) is broken: it's used in the
wrong place (per-msg token functions). The GSS qop brokenness is why
this text persists
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Benjamin Kaduk ka...@mit.edu wrote:
In combination with Tom's proposed changes, this table should work well.
I agree.
Agreed that some text about what qop 0 means is needed.
I yes. Indeed, maybe we should even remove the qop column and state
that we always
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Benjamin Kaduk ka...@mit.edu wrote:
Section 3.2.1.1 of this document (Kerberos V5 as a security triple) seems
to indicate that it is mandatory for a conformant NFSv4 implementation to
implement the Kerberos V5 GSS-API mechanism and a few security triples
There are times when I hunger for IETF chat rooms in between IETF
meetings. Some mailing list discussions suffer from latency + piling
on. I understand that IM chat rooms would often suffer from lack of
attendance, but a sort of interim meeting could get called on IM much
more often than
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On Sep 12, 2011, at 5:56 PM, Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 9/12/2011 2:43 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
I meant existence as in how it's used. I don't
I disagree w.r.t. your comments regarding the use of SRV RRs for NFSv4
domain root location.
I think it would be a mistake to use TXT RRs to encode what SRV RR
RDATA does just fine just to get around whatever we think the rules
are or ought to be for using SRV RRs.
However, I'll note that the
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 9/12/2011 8:03 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
You're locating the NFS service. You're using that to setup a domainroot.
The former is a DNS SRV issue. The latter is an endhost configuration issue.
No. We do not normally locate
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 9/12/2011 12:00 PM, Robert Thurlow wrote:
Joe Touch wrote:
We don't want to enumerate all NFS servers in a domain.
That's what SRV records do. If that's not what you want, you should consider
defining a new RR type.
No
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 9/12/2011 1:00 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Joe Touchto...@isi.edu wrote:
On 9/12/2011 12:00 PM, Robert Thurlow wrote:
No We don't want to enumerate *all* NFSv4 servers in a domain. We
want
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Sep 12, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
I think RFC 2782 inappropriately specified SRV RRs by defining both the label
syntax and the RDATA syntax at the same time.
I think we can all agree that RFC2782 is
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
My claim is that:
SRVs represent services as they are currently assigned by IANA
a new RR could be useful for things that aren't sufficiently
expressible in the IANA service/port registry
Existence proofs
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 9/12/2011 2:43 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Joe Touchto...@isi.edu wrote:
My claim is that:
SRVs represent services as they are currently assigned by IANA
a new RR could
I support an IKEv2 ZKPP method framework. I don't understand the
controversy -- i.e., I think it's much ado about nothing.
Nico
--
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
14 matches
Mail list logo
