On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 10/12/2013 5:25 AM, John Levine wrote:
ICANN has a long running fantasy that they are a global
multi-stakeholder organization floating above mere politics, and not a
US government contractor incorporated as a
As a practical matter any organization that tries to do things with other
organizations needs to have some party that can act on its behalf. That is
why Ambassadors are necessary.
The current constitution of the IETF means that the chairs of the IAB and
the IETF have very limited authority to
To have a leader there must be followers. Ergo there are no IETF leader
statements.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
This wording is surprising. It looks like it is the revelations that
undermined confidence, and not the NSA actions. I would prefer
something like, to avoid shooting the messenger:
Of course :-) We meant that the
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:53 AM, manning bill bmann...@isi.edu wrote:
I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control
before the vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be
to ensure that no such leverage exists. There is no reason for the apex of
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.cawrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control
before the
vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would
Looking at the extreme breach of trust by US govt re PRISM, I think it is
time to do something we should have done decades ago but were stopped at US
Govt request.
Lets kill all support for X.400 mail.
This is still in use, I know. But looking through the PKIX spec the schema
is ten pages long.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.iewrote:
Phill,
On 09/24/2013 05:25 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Looking at the extreme breach of trust by US govt re PRISM, I think it is
time to do something we should have done decades ago but were stopped
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.nowrote:
I'd like to snippet Phil's suggestion to an abbreviated version of one
sentence, becaue I think this is right on.
On 09/19/2013 05:37 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The issue we need to focus on is how
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.eduwrote:
From: Martin Sustrik sust...@250bpm.com
Isn't it the other way round? That exactly because IETF process is
open
it's relatively easy for anyone to secretly introduce a backdoor
into a
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Martin Sustrik sust...@250bpm.com wrote:
On 19/09/13 17:59, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
I am personally not worried that the standardization work in the IETF
can be sabotaged by governments since our process is open, and
transparent to everyone who cares to
One of the biggest problems resulting from the Snowden/PRISM fiasco is that
we now know that the NSA has been spending a significant sum (part but not
all of a $250 million budget) on infiltrating and manipulating the
standards process.
As one of my friends in the civil rights movement from the
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net wrote:
Hi Phillip,
I am personally not worried that the standardization work in the IETF can
be sabotaged by governments since our process is open, and transparent to
everyone who cares to see what is going on. I
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:24 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
* The purpose of ORCID is to /uniquely/ identify individuals, both to
differentiate between people with similar names, and to unify works
where the author uses variant or changed names
If you think that's a good idea, I
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Since this has turned out to be ambiguous, I have decided to instead use a
SHA-256 hash of my DNA sequence:
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Tobias Gondrom
tobias.gond...@gondrom.orgwrote:
On 09/09/13 09:29, Eliot Lear wrote:
We're talking.
Eliot
On 9/9/13 10:20 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
So, has Bruce Schneier actually been invited to speak at the Technical
Plenary (or elsewhere) during
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 04:46:01PM +, Ted Lemon wrote:
The model for this sort of validation is really not on a per-client
basis, but rather depends on routine cross-validation by various
DNSSEC operators throughout
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Sep 12, 2013, at 1:49 PM, Dickson, Brian bdick...@verisign.com
wrote:
In order to subvert or redirect a delegation, the TLD operator (or
registrar) would need to change the DNS server name/IP, and replace the
DS
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Nicholas Weaver nwea...@icsi.berkeley.edu
wrote:
On Sep 11, 2013, at 9:18 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com
wrote:
The DNS is the naming infrastructure of the Internet. While it is in
theory possible to use the DNS to advertise very rapid changes
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi Yoav,
At 03:28 11-09-2013, Yoav Nir wrote:
I don't think you'd even need the threats.
[snip]
Notice the important parts of that pitch. A sense of danger; Making the
target feel either patriotic or a humanitarian; Sharing
OK lets consider the trust requirements here.
1. We only need to know the current time to an accuracy of 1 hour.
2. The current time is a matter of convention rather than a natural
property. It is therefore impossible to determine the time without
reference to at least one trusted party.
2a) A
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Paul Wouters p...@nohats.ca wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Joe Abley wrote:
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 are
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Sep 9, 2013, at 9:26 PM, John R Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
Um, didn't this start out as a discussion about how we should try to get
people using crypto, rather than demanding perfection that will never
happen?
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Sep 10, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com
wrote:
The CA NEVER ever gives the user the key in any of the systems I have
worked on.
This appears to be untrue.
Comodo offers that exact
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Sep 10, 2013, at 5:47 PM, John R Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
How likely is it that they would risk their reputation and hence their
entire business by screwing around with free promo S/MIME certs?
I don't know.
I faced this problem in Omnibroker.
One answer is that DNS is an infrastructure for resolving Internet labels
to Internet resources including IP addresses. It is thus the only Internet
infrastructure where infrastructure providers may reasonably be expected to
maintain long term IP addresses by
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Sep 10, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com
wrote:
You go to a Web page that has the HTML or Javascript control for
generating a keypair. But the keypair is generated on the end user's
computer
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Steve Crocker st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
Actually, I interpret the chemistry professor's comment in a different
light. It would be possible to design a system where:
o the standard end user software doesn't facilitate editing the other
person's text, and
o
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 3:21 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi David,
At 16:10 06-09-2013, David Morris wrote:
Seriously though, NSA makes a nice villan, but much of our hardware is
manufactured in counties with fewer restraints than the NSA when it
comes the right to privacy, etc. Wouldn't
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.eduwrote:
Probably best if we keep the politics off the IETF list.
Noel
I grew up in politics. There is a method to my approach here.
I know that the IETF list is watched. I am making it clear that I am a
personal
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com wrote:
The other countries concerned did not employ torture as the US did under
President Bush.
You mean like Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia
My original comment was limited to adversaries with potential
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Tim Bray tb...@textuality.com wrote:
How about a BCP saying conforming implementations of a wide-variety of
security-area RFCs MUST be open-source?
*ducks*
And the user MUST compile them themselves from the sources?
Nobody runs open source, (unless its an
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 11:39:59PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
For purposes of email security it is not about the keys at all. It is the
email addresses that are the real killer.
I can be very sure that I have
Could we do smime as well?
If we had a list of smime cert fingerprints it can be used for trust
reinforcement
The issue is that smime email clients are more common so I would
rather teach the smime doggie pgp like tricks than vice versa
Sent from my difference engine
On Sep 6, 2013, at 1:20
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Sep 6, 2013, at 2:51 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
The issue is that smime email clients are more common so I would
rather teach the smime doggie pgp like tricks than vice versa
The problem
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 9/6/2013 10:17 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
I will be happy to participate in a pgp signing party.
Organized or not.
I suggest that an appropriate venue is during the last 15 minutes of the
newcomer welcome and the first
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.comwrote:
On 9/6/13 12:54 AM, t.p. wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 4:56 AM
The design I think
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Sep 6, 2013, at 8:21 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
when you vouch for someone's identity - in an authoritative
trust system - you're also vouching for the authenticity of
their transactions.
This
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
so, it might be a good idea to hold a pgp signing party in van. but
there are interesting issues in doing so. we have done lots of parties
so have the social protocols and n00b cheat sheets. but that is the
trivial tip of the
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't detect the emergency.
I'm not saying there's no issue or no work to do, but what's new about
any of this?
Was PRISM a surprise to anyone who knew that the Five Eyes sigint
organisations
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/09/2013 15:11, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
...
S/MIME is almost what we need to secure email. What is missing is an
effective key discovery scheme. We could add that and add Ben Laurie's
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.comwrote:
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 03:28:28PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
OK, that's actionable in the IETF, so can we see the I-D before
the cutoff?
Why is that discussion of this nailed to the cycle of IETF
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Dan Schlitt schl...@theworld.com wrote:
As the manager of a modestly large network I found the TXT record as a
useful tool in management of the network. Such a use was even suggested by
other system managers. That was a time when the Internet was a friendlier
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:56 AM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
John,
Either that or figure out how to make it easy enough to deploy new
RRTYPEs that people are willing to do so.
The type number is 16 bits, after all. We're not in any danger of
running out.
We have been
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:35 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
Hi.
Inspired by part of the SPF discussion but separate from it,
Patrik, Andrew, and I discovered a shortage of registries for
assorted DNS RDATA elements. We have posted a draft to
establish one for TXT RDATA. If
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Cyrus Daboo cy...@daboo.name wrote:
Hi Phillip,
--On August 30, 2013 at 10:16:46 AM -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
hal...@gmail.com wrote:
Service discovery requires prefixes.
Here is a draft that works fine (except for the IETF review mistake). Just
put
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:31 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 07:21 -0700 Dave Crocker
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
RFC 5507 primarily raises three concerns about TXT records:
RFC 5507 is irrelevant to consideration of the SPFbis draft.
Sometimes there is a need for sarcasm.
I find it very rude when people begin by lecturing a Working Group on the
'fact' that nobody understands the subject matter. This is not the
exhibition of modesty etc. that it pretends to be, it is actually a trap
designed to gull the WG into agreeing that
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 6:43 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 08:39:36AM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, manning bill bmann...@isi.edu wrote:
the question is not that nobody checks type 99, the question
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, manning bill bmann...@isi.edu wrote:
the question is not that nobody checks type 99, the question is
is the rate of adoption
of type 99 -changing- in relation to type 16?
As John pointed out, support for checking type 99 has decreased and
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 8/23/2013 11:06 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
We don't have to be like the ones we all know who sneer at anyone
presuming to get in the way of their code going into production.
Since this is such a fundamental point, I'm
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:48 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hola Arturo,
At 07:34 19-08-2013, Arturo Servin wrote:
Academic might work. Open source not so much as other
mentioned. Does
Big Corporation doing Open Source apply?
I was tempted to propose non-profit, but
I am having trouble understanding this discussion.
If the data is in a database then surely the production of RFC xx00
standards series is simply running an automated query on the database and
emitting the result as an RFC?
From a pure protocol point of view the SPF record does have one major
advantage over TXT and that is in the use of wildcard records.
In short a wildcard on a TXT record for SPF is going to have impact on
every other scheme that overloads TXT, of which there are many. SPF does
have a mechanism to
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Larry Masinter masin...@adobe.com wrote:
parsers need to canonicalize maps to any depth in order to
detect duplicates. This is complex by any definition of the word.
It isn't complex in terms of computational efficiency ... you can
canonicalize in O(N log
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Hadriel Kaplan
hadriel.kap...@oracle.comwrote:
On Aug 18, 2013, at 5:21 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
1. If the IETF is serious about running code (see RFC 6982) it would try
to encourage open source developers to participate more effectively in the
IETF.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Benjamin Kaduk ka...@mit.edu wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2013, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
My web submission told me Your submission is pending email
authentication. An email has been sent you with instructions. more than an
hour ago, but I haven't seen such a mail.
I
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote:
On Aug 13, 2013, at 13:14, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
MessagePack is simpler so will need even less code
FWIW, earlier today I had a nice afternoon with the msgpack-ruby C code,
converting it to encoding and decoding
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Yaron Sheffer yaronf.i...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Paul,
I am quite sure that I fully understand the semantics of critical
(probably erroneously), so I'm not the right person to clarify the various
meanings of the word. I would appreciate a proposal.
Just for the
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 8/13/2013 3:20 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
One of the reasons why I like the CBOR tag applied to a byte stream is
that
it can be used to skip parsing on entire sections (no matter their
underlying types) in processors
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Larry Masinter masin...@adobe.com wrote:
BCP 70 Guidelines for the Use of Extensible Markup Language (XML)
within IETF Protocols
attempted to outline some of the design considerations for data
representation using XML.
In 2003, it represented the consensus
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Aug 10, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Hadriel Kaplan hadriel.kap...@oracle.com
wrote:
I'm not saying that will happen in this case at all, but we shouldn't
kid ourselves that it doesn't matter. If it didn't matter, people
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
On Aug 10, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Hadriel Kaplan hadriel.kap...@oracle.com
wrote:
But, if the IESG feels an encoding mechanism doesn't need any targeted
use-case to be published as a PS, then please ignore my email for
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote:
On Jul 30, 2013, at 09:05, Martin Thomson martin.thom...@gmail.com
wrote:
What would cause this to be tragic, is if publication of this were
used to prevent other work in this area from subsequently being
published.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
* Will CBOR become the default binary JSON encoding?
That would be up to the implementors. If they like it, they will
implement it and use it in other protocols. No one is suggesting at
this point that there be any
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Tim Bray tb...@textuality.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.orgwrote:
To the rest of the community: Does anyone else think it is not
appropriate to publish CBOR as a Proposed Standard, and see who uses
it?
I have
The point is that there would BE discussion. Consensus is not enough, the
process has to be open. A consensus formed by keeping people out of the
room is no consensus at all.
Though if the discussion was of the form 'this was already decided' then
that effort would be a farce as well.
What we
The situation with CBOR illustrates a difference of design philosophy that
I think is of much wider relevance. Consider the normal process of
engineering design:
1) Use use cases to develop requirements
2) Perform triage on requirements to focus on most important ones and
3) Implement
4) Test, if
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.comwrote:
Unless we adopt the WIDE practice where the tag is re-used from
meeting to meeting. It's an elegant solution, and not that different
from the reason I own a complete set of Suica, Pasmo, ICOCA, PASPY and
London
process off to two individuals to
make a design decision in private.
For example, take the following messages from the CBOR authors:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org
wrote:
On May 22, 2013, at 9:14 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think we
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.comwrote:
On 8/6/13 11:58 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
For what it's worth (not much) I would miss the line at the mic.
There are useful conversations that happen within the line that I
think we would lose if the mic followed the
Hmmm didn't a certain large company whose name rhymes with scroogle
recently get whacked with a huge fine for violating privacy in a similar
manner in the EU?
Like you say, must be just fine it says so on the net.
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.comwrote:
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:31 PM, George Michaelson g...@algebras.org wrote:
When next you walk into a target or big W, ask to see the conditions of
entry. Along with implied consent to have your bags checked at any time,
you have probably given consent to be video'ed and tracked at their
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Joe Hildebrand hil...@cursive.net wrote:
On 7/29/13 4:54 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
There are existing specs that does what CBOR does just as well that have
actual users.
Some of these were approached, and none of them thought
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Simon Leinen simon.lei...@switch.ch wrote:
Noel Chiappa writes:
But in any event, it's doesn't void my point: if people want
something, we have two choices: i) blow people off, and they'll adopt
some point solution that interacts poorly with everything else,
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.eduwrote:
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com
The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the
ISP business model.
So this is rather amusing: you're trying to tell me that ISPs
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/07/2013 05:21, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 7/30/13 7:59 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
I don't think that's the problem; I think the problem is that most
users don't realize how much lack of transparency is
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
nroff still works fine for me. It's already there in Mac OS X.
Only the topic of the conversation is how to get more people involved in
IETF, not how to make them run away screaming and crying.
--
Website:
Why not put the presentations up on YouTube as podcasts. That way people
can watch them before starting off for the meeting.
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.comwrote:
I agree with Randy.
Presentation material, documents, etc. should be
The question I want an answer to is whether this is going to be the only
standard for a binary version of JSON allowed.
I have an alternative proposal which is designed to be compatible with JSON
so that existing encoder and decoder implementations can be used and so
that a single decoder can
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.comwrote:
On 7/27/13 1:38 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could
provide short video overviews to help people understand the work.
This includes newcomers and also
If I had known this was taking place I might have made the trip to Berlin.
I am very interested in the problem this tries to solve. I think it is the
wrong way to go about it but I am interested in the problem.
The case for having some sort of local name discovery mechanism is clear in
both the
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 7/10/2013 11:59 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
The IAB has made a statement on dotless domains. You can find this
statement here:
http://www.iab.org/documents/**correspondence-reports-**
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
On 07/12/2013 08:16 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
And before people start bringing up all the reasons I am wrong here,
first consider the fact that for many years it was IETF ideology that NATs
were a terrible
To be clear here, I do not think the IETF conference fee to be at all
unreasonable. I have paid it out of my own pocket on occasion.
My concern here is that arguments of the form 'we can't change the
conference model because IETF needs the money' will lead to disaster. The
Internet is changing a
was that Roadrunner wanted $10 extra per
month for every device I connected to a maximum of 4. I have over 200 IP
enabled devices in my house.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
On 07/12/2013 09:28 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.eduwrote:
Anyone who tried to
monetize per-device would have had competition from people who only charged
based on their actual costs.
So not deploying NAT would somehow magically cause a second broadband
provider to
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Paul Wouters p...@nohats.ca wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
And I don't expect things to be different this time round. But in ten
years time it will be obvious that
domains are going to be dotless and three of the biggest dotless
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Paul Wouters p...@nohats.ca wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I notice you are missing .oracle and .exchange and .mail. Is that
because you can't take any more slaps on the back or because you know
too many companies that have servers
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:23 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
domains are going to be dotless and three of the biggest dotless
domains
are going to be called .apple and .microsoft and .google and they are
going
I've read the applications for .apple, .microsoft, and .google. None
There are several interlocking issues with the day passes and cross area
participation.
One issue is the fact that the IETF chose a business model in which profits
from the conferences fund the organization and the IETF has no ability to
reconsider or change decisions of that sort. I can see that
+1
And don't lets forget that plenty of people have proposed schemes that WGs
have turned down and then been proven right years later.
If people are just saying what everyone else is saying here then they are
not adding any value. Rather too often WGs are started by folk seeking a
mutual
+1
I think SHOULD and RECOMMENDED should both be used when there is a strong
suggestion that implementations comply with the following statement unless
there are reasons not to.
Where I think it is time to go beyond 2119 is that we can distinguish two
circumstances:
SHOULD is the preferred term
that reference the
new RFC.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.comwrote:
RECOMMENDED is a strong suggestion that the implementation may override
at the discretion of the implementer. SHOULD
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
RECOMMENDED is a strong suggestion that the implementation may override
at
the discretion of the implementer. SHOULD is normative.
So the first tells me that I can make up my own mind
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
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
Scott Brim scott dot brim at gmail dot com wrote:
2119 overrides anything you might think you know about what words
mean.
No, 2119 PURPORTs to do that. It can try but it probably isn't going to
succeed.
The purpose of
They are not synonyms
Lets go back to 1980:
Implementations SHOULD support DES
vs
RECOMMENDED encryption algorithms: DES, IDEA
There are many specifications that specify crypto algorithms that should
not. JOSE and XML Signature should not have required algorithms or even
SHOULD language. The
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
Yeah, and act is what Americans call statutes, and Selma is a city in
Alabama where there was some controversy about voting rights. You sure need
to know a
.
On Jun 24, 2013, at 8:39 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Monday, June 24, 2013 07:52 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
hal...@gmail.com wrote:
They are not synonyms
Lets go back to 1980:
Implementations SHOULD support DES
vs
RECOMMENDED encryption algorithms: DES, IDEA
1 - 100 of 481 matches
Mail list logo
