+--++--+
+--++--+
No, that's just wishful thinking.
--Paul Hoffman
deterministic
behavior if any are not. This is a security issue IMO, but also an
interoperability thing.
In his new wording for strict mode, the decoder will not be able to ignore any
tag.
--Paul Hoffman
.
Also note that critical can be applied to all sorts of data, including data
items that are already tagged! I think this is not allowed for according to
the spec.
That is incorrect. Please point to the area where you think it says that so we
can make it clearer.
--Paul Hoffman
in the singular. For example, the first
sentence could be a data item can optionally be preceded by one or more
tags - but it isn't.
A tag is also a data item. A tag refers to the next data item, even if that
next data item is also a tag. We'll try to clarify this in the -06.
--Paul Hoffman
, this added
a bit of complexity for decoders, but we handled that as best we could.
--Paul Hoffman
to use
normative language for parser behavior, to ensure it is deterministic.
We think we have done so in the next version.
--Paul Hoffman
it. The question is whether granting a different
license will help the goals of the Tao more than the current license. Many
people (including me, the current editor) think that a lighter-weight license
would get the Tao read by more people.
--Paul Hoffman
On Aug 8, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 08/08/2013 02:04 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 8, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
We might reach consensus that it's OK to release change control over
the Tao (although I'm
to add commentary (even in English) to
the Tao, such as to discuss local participants, diversity, and so on.
--Paul Hoffman
needs.
+1
--Paul Hoffman
easily distributed to a wider audience, in
multiple languages, and thus open the IETF up to more people.
--Paul Hoffman
to make it a requirement.
Fully agree. This is a service that the RFC Editor should provide to the
community.
--Paul Hoffman
think you see a legal difference in doing the second, fine; I
propose that you are just searching for problems that do not exist.
--Paul Hoffman
On Jun 27, 2013, at 9:26 AM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
I prefer not to get into a definition of remote attendance for now.
Then maybe we should wait for you to do so. This discussion is kind of
pointless if we don't have shared definitions.
--Paul Hoffman
ignoring all obvious security and
stability issues.
--Paul Hoffman
. The
IETF should support them in that.
--Paul Hoffman
On Jun 17, 2013, at 11:42 AM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
How about a new non-malign WG list?
Haven't seen one of those in the IETF in quite some time.
Memorials planned:
http://www.chuqui.com/2013/06/hugh-daniel-memorial-info/
definition of
what is permissible.
Proposal: maybe don't do this as an Internet Draft, but do it as a tutorial.
--Paul Hoffman
itself.
--Paul Hoffman
has looked at A.
--Paul Hoffman
the poll is
for...)
I suspect that if the meeting is approved, the food in Buenos Aires will be
more interesting than it was in Adelaide, at least for many of us. The locals
speaking English might also be more understandable. :-)
--Paul Hoffman
impose requirements.
Same request.
I don't find either statement supported by RFC 2119 or 2026, or any updates to
the latter, but I may have missed it.
--Paul Hoffman
even mention this suggests that
there was not IETF consensus to the opinion.
--Paul Hoffman
seems like something that should be
encouraged, not pecked to death.
--Paul Hoffman
. And
after that, someone might be able to get people to take action against
non-conformant implementations.
--Paul Hoffman
it's a category, it might just be a stage.)
Isn't that Proposed Standard?
No, it very clearly isn't. To get from the last version of this draft to
Proposed Standard takes many months, significant involvement of an AD, and
some involvement of all ADs. All of that has costs.
--Paul Hoffman
make the sure-to-be ensuing flamefest more light-filled.
--Paul Hoffman
consensus is about the document, the author/editor can walk away.
--Paul Hoffman
to be included. 'Nuff said.
--Paul Hoffman
in the IETF tracker or the IETF Tools site instead of locally,
and being able to see the status of a draft from the command line.
See http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/tools/ietf-cli
--Paul Hoffman
to an immutable
requirement of a factor of four?
/tongue
--Paul Hoffman
assertions delivered in certs.
Are you saying that those six items should be added to the experimental RFC as
requirements, or are you just discussing what might happen operationally after
the RFC is published?
--Paul Hoffman
to the erratum.
Further, it is probably not correct to say that the RFC Editor likes it, just
that they got used to using it. It would be better to submit the Internet Draft
with the obviously-more-useful URL and then let them make it less useful, if
they want.
--Paul Hoffman
I am NomCom-eligible and I sign this petition.
--Paul Hoffman
.
I'm willing to let the IAOC define the seat vacant, because it clearly is, and
there is no specific definition of vacant that disagrees with the logical
conclusion.
--Paul Hoffman
Wikipedia and its interminable editing wars are for. Having Dave Crocker or
Paul Hoffman or Randy Bush being the IETF Memorial Editor is simply not a good
idea.
--Paul Hoffman
On Oct 21, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
i started the thread on nanog. i am not sure abha or jon would want to
be on such a list. remember them and honor and carry on their work,
don't memorialize them.
+1
http://xkcd.com/1112/
This is as much about interesting uses of the protocols that the IETF develops
as it is about chess. (Be sure to hover over the cartoon for a pop-up that is
also relevant to our protocol development process.)
On Sep 21, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
And, ultimately, this won't be determined by analysis, but by a court.
These kinds of threats seem a bit over the top.
--Paul Hoffman
tombstones. That is a very
important feature of the proposal.
--Paul Hoffman
when they are written.
--Paul Hoffman
is
adequately explained by bureaucracy.
--Paul Hoffman, whose support for the proposal remains positive
, the document is obviously good. Please sign it.
--Paul Hoffman
for the Secretariat will be about
$25/meeting.
--Paul Hoffman
space?
I suggest that you could cut the cookie budget if funds really are the only
reason this wouldn't be done.
That is one way to pay for the extra space; it might not be so popular in this
particular crowd.
--Paul Hoffman
to be signatories. It would be useful to hear what non-SDOs who
support these principles can do to either become signatories or to support the
document when it is signed by SDOs.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
what if and else mean.
--Paul Hoffman
of
the words make the difference.
However, thanks for your comments,
No problem.
--Paul Hoffman
On Jul 27, 2012, at 2:28 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
The memorial service for RL Bob Morgan will take place on Sunday. Since
many of his friends will be in Vancouver for the IETF meeting, we have
arranged a room at the Hyatt hotel to receive the broadcast from the the
memorial as it takes place
On Jul 22, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
I'd be a lot more comfortable with people describing/speaking up
for their own religious requirements.
That's no fun. We're much more loquacious when we're talking about other
peoples religions, other people's laws, other people's gender
for different holidays of
major religions, I would bet that IETF Secretariat would be glad to hear them.
--Paul Hoffman
Based on many people's input (most recently, John's), I have updated the draft
to more cleanly separate out the history of the Tao from the change that is
happening.
--Paul Hoffman
A new version of I-D, draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-03.txt
has been successfully submitted by Paul Hoffman
.
I think the Tao web page should point to RFC 4677 in a well, how did I get
here? section, given that this is not the same as it ever was.
--Paul Hoffman
in RFC 2026 is for specifications, not descriptive documents like
the Tao.
--Paul Hoffman
source control?). Are such details
intentionally out of scope?
I would imagine that that would be determined by the IESG when they pick a Tao
editor.
--Paul Hoffman
but it should
probably say little more than Tao is now a web page at and
it is not being maintained in the RFC Series.
That's the purpose of this document.
--Paul Hoffman
Based on the earlier comments, I have revised the proposal. See
draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-01, diffs at
tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-01.
--Paul Hoffman
of the various web pages created
by the IESG?
--Paul Hoffman
See draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-00, just published. I am the editor of that
draft, but the ideas in it come from the IESG. The IESG didn't pre-review the
draft, but it is based on what I was told was agreed to during the IESG
telechat on Thursday.
--Paul Hoffman
language
not sure which you were supporting
I am supporting not putting anything about appeals to the ISOC Board in the
Tao. They do not apply to novices.
--Paul Hoffman
, not by
someone participating for the first time on a WG mailing list.
• Move acknowledgments to the back. As it stands that text forms a
disconnect between the Intro and later sections.
Done.
--Paul Hoffman
On Jun 7, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
On Jun 7, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On May 30, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
• It's probably worth adding a word or two about the fact that the ISOC
Board is the final appellate avenue in the standardization process
it as needed. If there is consensus in the
community to do this, I'm happy to take on the HTMLizing and skip the RFCizing
for this round.
--Paul Hoffman
On May 31, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 01/06/2012 00:04, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Works for me, other than it should not be a wiki. It should have one
editor who takes proposed changes from the community the same way we do
it now. Not all suggestions from this community, even from
Advisor, we can start listing
Designated Greybeard. This is progress?
--Paul Hoffman
to be trying to achieve is already easily accomplished.
Here, I agree with you more than I agree with John, but history has shown that
HTML forms are not sufficient. I'm not sure why.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org
be shown to be a significant need, not just a new idea.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
can it meet the goal of choosing at least one
scheme?
It doesn't, of course. If the WG doesn't meet that goal, it will be clear at
the time, and the WG can ask to recharter for that limited purpose.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
exists, I propose that it can be
created easily.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
to
use a feature of the Internet can't persuade their provider to make a trivial
change.
Soon, y'all will be saying we should give up on DNSSEC because so few
registrars support it in their web UIs.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
in wg membership, but not nearly as much as would be
needed for your proposal.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
of them with security analyses. If the charter says ...and
specify one that is mandatory to implement, that seems prone to consensus
failure because of religion about zero-knowledge proofs versus operational
simplicity, but I would be overjoyed to be wrong about that.
--Paul Hoffman
. Later, recharter the
websec WG to, you know, actually do the security work for authentication.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Feb 22, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
The WebSec WG is in the Applications Area.
Yeeps! My apologies. I guess seeing a room full of security regulars made me
forget.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https
to deal specifically with HTTP
authentication seems like the best way to be sure both sets of parties are
fully involved. If the IESG charters it within the next few months, the HTTP
2.0 work can be informed by any changes (if any) that are needed.
--Paul Hoffman
have been following this
silently but this is the first thing I thought was important; I was told to
join the list and vote is also context that is good to know.
All of this, of course, argues against the proposal that started this thread.
--Paul Hoffman
no idea how systems that use this will
work operationally. Simply telling them if it is no longer secret, you're
hosed is sufficient.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Thanks for the comments, but it would be *really* good if you took them to the
vmeet mailing list:
On Jan 5, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
The discussion of the requirements is happening on the vmeet mailing list;
see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet.
You of all people
come to IETF meetings,
your input is welcome.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
are often people
who don't know about the IETF but are tasked with deciding whether or not to
give us significant financial support.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Dec 8, 2011, at 8:31 AM, David Morris wrote:
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Actually, I meant wiki according to its classic, collaborative meaning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
What you folks are describing
that
exists in the IETF Wiki structure. I propose something much more like the
latter, and definitely not the former, so that meeting sponsors (the target
customer) have something mostly stable to look at.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
quoted above says nothing about wait until there is a problem to
consider changes. It says that we don't know how to reduce our risks so we
shouldn't flail around guessing. I would add because some of our guesses can
make things worse than our current state.
--Paul Hoffman
As shown at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request/ballot/,
a few (heh) members of the IESG want to have more discussion on the draft.
Maybe we should wait for one of them (likely Ron) to give direction to that
discussion.
--Paul Hoffman
for the purposes described;
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request is, as its title says, a request for
a new allocation.
If the IESG decides to publish this document, please be forthright and call it
a Proposed Standard.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing
. However, there is also an opportunity to be
more honest and call it a Proposed Standard.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Oct 28, 2011, at 8:17 AM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
And frankly, if there's disrespect to be found here, IMO it lies in using this
sad event as a proxy to criticize some IETF work some people apparently don't
like.
(t)
--Paul Hoffman
had some interesting use scenarios that
were put into the eventual charter. (Funny how this ties to the message that
started this thread bak two or three levels of indirection.)
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org
with
some interaction with the new TLS renegotiation fix, but I haven't seen
substantiation.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
few days.
After looking at a few of the recent messages from my Trash folder, I most
certainly agree.
If long-time IETFers such as those commenting now cannot remember when to
change the Subject line when a topic completely changes, how can we expect
typical IETF participants to do so?
--Paul
moderation, and even
then, there are cabals that supported by the paid management. Few, if any, of
the unmanaged wiki sites have long-lasting value.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
time.
Having said that, if the IETF supports a wiki with pages for each RFC, someone
going to that page might see comments like people who used to use this
protocol now use RFC xyz instead.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https
of the meeting on Friday; the chairs seemed to
like that.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
, but it is still punting the problem of us having just one.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
In the meantime: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/81/materials.html
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Jul 1, 2011, at 4:48 AM, John Leslie wrote:
Hey, folks!
mail.ietf.org[64.170.98.30] got listed on SORBS for spamming.
It's not that hard to get off... Fix it!
It's also not that hard not to use poorly-managed blacklists. Just sayin'
--Paul Hoffman
to work with their poor choices. It really is OK for us
to say there are better choices out there.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
to do to cause a WG document to not pass IETF consensus.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Call would help everyone set their priorities better.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
1 - 100 of 464 matches
Mail list logo
