.). Please note that
I am not arguing for or against a change in the RFC 2119 key
words. The write-up only mentions that the draft has been
implemented on stateless firewalls. I am curious about whether there
are any implementations for a host.
Regards,
-sm
specifications to Internet standard
Which RFCs does the above refer to? Is the milestone about
delivering the work item(s) to the IESG?
Regards,
-sm
not
sure whether the requirement can be implemented without too much
difficulty. I have not looked into the code which processes inbound packets.
Regards,
-sm
to
negotiate due to the current rules. The question of trust comes up
every now and then. Responsibility [3] seems to be an inconvenient
word on this mailing list.
What's the opinion of the persons who are part of leadership about all this?
Regards,
-sm
1. People outside think IAB has power
to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the
evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation.
Should a global body have oversight over the IETF? Some people are
arguing for that as part of the future of Internet Cooperation.
Regards,
-sm
that the IAB has issued a statement without
requesting comments from the IETF Community. In my humble opinion it
would be good if there was a comment period.
Regards,
-sm
not enthusiastic about having a discussion
which does not materially affect the outcome.
Regards,
-sm
1. something that has been done and cannot be changed.
option.
The last sentence mentions the default configuration. It looks clear
to me. The first (quoted text) RFC 2119 should says that same thing.
Regards,
-sm
if other people
believe that it would be a better metric.
Regards,
-sm
.
Regards,
-sm
1. I read the thread :-(
,
-sm
recent effort to talk
I read the article. As a comment about the last paragraph, the
metric being used is not the best in my humble opinion. Spencer
Dawkins made an insightful comment which I would look into if I was
looking for a better metric.
Regards,
-sm
considered as important. Harald
Alvestrand mentioned actually finishing our specs. It's difficult
to get there when a working group suffers from exhaustion.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg07313.html
I recently read an article about XMPP (
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/google-abandons-open-standards-instant-messaging
). From the article:
removes the option to disable the archiving of all chat communications
Regards,
-sm
1. I welcome any questions about conflict of interest.
RFC. The reason given for publication was that 3GPP has tight
deadlines. It is understandable that there can be delays in reaching
a milestone. What is the INSIPID WG estimate for that future date?
Regards,
-sm
by REQ4?
Regards,
-sm
is taken.
This draft is well-thought. There's a cryptography angle to one of
the references. I wondered about the why for that reference.
Regards,
-sm
1. The explanation was that each individual is wholly involved in
the democratic process, work at it or no. The results of the process
fall
for them to do a good job.
Over the last few years nobody noticed that there might be a
problem. That's not reassuring. I doubt that people would not
comply with a NSL.
Regards,
-sm
for a while. There can be a leap
of faith at startup to get the correct time. DNSSEC can be done after that.
Regards,
-sm
Hi Brian,
At 13:48 09-09-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
(Excuse my ignorance, but do existing MUAs allow one to edit a body part
that arrived with a PGP signature?)
Yes. Somebody would write a MUA to do it if it wasn't possible.
Regards,
-sm
to privacy. It doesn't seem so.
Regards,
-sm
[censored] out of
us. They certainly seem to be endorsing [censored]. What should we
think if the [censored] had a similar program codenamed [censored]?
It would not look good.
Regards,
-sm
to give up on privacy though.
Regards,
-sm
,
-sm
that or does it remain
strictly neutral?
Would anyone notice it on a Last Call? Would anyone say something
about it? I doubt that. Ted Lemon said it nicely: we should pay attention.
Regards,
-sm
if you do not implicitly trust senior members of the community.
Regards,
-sm
,
http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/pkg-openssl/openssl/trunk/rand/md_rand.c?rev=141view=diffr1=141r2=140p1=openssl/trunk/rand/md_rand.cp2=/openssl/trunk/rand/md_rand.c
*ducks*
Where? I don't see any ducks. :-)
Regards,
-sm
1. The word we is used in a general context.
1. The word you is used
of record is different from formal record.
Regards,
-sm
5954.
The Security Considerations Section references
draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-04. That draft contains exhaustive
security considerations. This draft doesn't say much about security
considerations.
Regards,
-sm
. The mailing list probably has a wider readership and anyone
can subscribe to it. The usage of the mailing list is also
consistent with other parts of RFC 2026.
Regards,
-sm
questions. On a lighter note I
have been watching too many IETF movies. :-)
The nit is why is the IETF still using PDT.
Regards,
-sm
document, but it also seems as
though more information than what's needed with just FCFS or DE or
the other lesser rules is appropriate either.
I'll suggest Expert Review here as it is a lesser barrier. I'll
defer to you on this.
Regards,
-sm
. :-) I haven't
had time to test what the draft specifies. Thanks for addressing the comments.
Regards,
-sm
as the stable reference),
RFC Required, IETF Review, or Standards Action.'
I suggest not having the comment (where) and leaving it to RFC 5226
to define Specification Required.
Regards,
-sm
, or Standards Action.
That looks better.
Regards,
-sm
/her end.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68755.html
community.
There is question of whether the services are being monitored. There
is also the question of the reliability of the services provided to
the community. Usage has likely increased since 2007. I hope that
the contract has been updated to take all of that into account.
Regards,
-sm
.
That's not the angle, it's one possible template.
Does it not qualify as a Proposed Standard? If not, why not? Will
it fail to interoperate?
The quick answer is that I am not sure. I'll defer to you.
Regards,
-sm
to be
Historic is something the RFC Editor or IAB shouldn't be doing. The
above document solves the problem by making it clear that the IETF
isn't interested in the document being updated anymore.
I support moving the draft to Last Call as it solves the problem.
Regards,
-sm
.
Regards,
-sm
discounts) than BSD or
GPL software, which get more points than FRAND, and so on?
No. :-)
Regards,
-sm
whether it is a good idea to be honest or try the weasel words [2] approach.
Regards,
-sm
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.
2. weasel words give the impression of taking a firm
wrote:
I've been told, though obviously I don't know, that the costs are
proportional. I assume it's not literally a if we get one
additional person, it costs an additional $500. But I assume SM
wasn't proposing to get just one or a few more open source
developer attendees. If we're talking about
the draft, the Proposed Standard angle is:
http://{service}/{application}/{subject}/{assertion}
with a application/reputon+json response. Why should that be a
Proposed Standard?
Regards,
-sm
?
Regards,
-sm
information.
I don't see anything actionable in the above.
Why was specification required chosen for the Reputation
Applications Registry?
Regards,
-sm
,
-sm
to retire STD 1.
Regards,
-sm
that the draft is okay.
Regards,
-sm
-MSK
a draft.
Padlipsky's Law states that:
To The Technologically Naive, Change Equals Progress;
To Vendors, Change Equals Profit.
I would read The Relevant Literature instead of RFC 2026.
Regards,
-sm
didn't bother asking about them. The correct
question would have been about the item on the agenda instead of the slides.
Regards,
-sm
. It
would be very difficult to claim that the IETF Trust has taken
unreasonable steps in not maintaining a thing which does not have any value.
Regards,
-sm
the work needs to be done and how it will make the
Internet better, are more important than any kind of numbers game.
That one sentence covers all the points which are relevant. It's an
Area Director decision. It does not require consensus or any kind of
number game.
Regards,
-sm
is the minutes. The rest of the
answer is in something mentioned in the Note Well.
Regards,
-sm
domain. As for trademarks, well, I don't see why the
IETF needs more of them.
Regards,
-sm
be undermined
by people conforming to what other people in the group think.
Regards,
-sm
for
disclosure of conflicts of interest. I did not find any text about
protecting the disclosure of the identity of the person.
Regards,
-sm
specifications. He decides to ask the question at the
plenary. The community thanks him for his valiant efforts.
The alternative is to settle for Informational Standards as that
requires less effort.
Regards,
-sm
a plenary.
I have one question. The subject line says setting a goal. How
would you assess the results? Please note that I am not asking about
how to measure the results.
Regards,
-sm
-proposed-00 proposes a nice fix and it might
even help lessen time to publication.
Regards,
-sm
P.S. Olaf asked the question to the correct body.
. Notifications could be sent to xmpp:hall...@jabber.ietf.org so
that people do not hit the reload button repeatedly.
Regards,
-sm
the problem that will be discussed before
the session, so to cut on the thinking out loud on the microphone?
That is where the agenda can help. The name of the draft does not
tell me about the issues that will be discussed.
Regards,
-sm
on outreach efforts that are expensive in one or the
other (or both).
It is a waste of energy and money to pursue outreach efforts if the
IETF is not serious about how to lower the barriers for newcomers and
its strategy about diversity.
Regards,
-sm
is just plain wrong. Is this from RFC 3184? Many
of the first time IETFers are
Yes.
Regards,
-sm
work as he or she tried that. The
operator knows that whatever the RFC says it is not possible to
follow that due to operational constraints.
A guideline is not a good one if it will have a chilling effect
(motivate people not to speak up).
Regards,
-sm
agenda. However, the BoF is listed
on the meeting agenda. Is the BoF cancelled or will this be one of
those willful violations of IETF Best Current Practices?
Regards,
-sm
win, it means you're not taking enough risks.
The IETF might say that it does not scale [1]. Who am I to prove
that the IETF is wrong? :-)
Regards,
-sm
1. People who are old will actually understand the quote.
does not look like a technical specification. It
looks like the working group took FYI 36 as a template for designing
a security service instead of thinking about security and designing a
security service.
Regards,
-sm
through the ietf-announce@ mailing list.
Regards,
-sm
in
some future document. This future Proposed
Standard is under-specified to the such an extent
that it would be extremely difficult to implement without insider information.
By the way, the RFC 4627 and RFC 5234 references should be normative.
Regards,
-sm
the potential for
a cascaded failure at first (see Section 4.4). On a second read I
realized that I was confusing a specific case with a general
approach. The many pitfalls and subtleties mentioned in Section
1 sums up IP anycast.
Regards,
-sm
.
Regards,
-sm
read RFC 6635 I don't think that it
is not good enough. I understand that the IAB may be reluctant [1]
to talk to the Internet Community about all this.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhmjnYKlVnM
signed by the IAD. The
IAD previously mentioned that the contracts will be published after
the last meeting.
Regards,
-sm
have about my
vested interests.
PS Hope to see you in Berlin
It's unlikely that I will be able to make it to Germany.
Regards,
-sm
degenerate into cronyism. Diversity can also
degenerate into cronyism. Perceptions are what people believe and
what people believe is reality. The answer being sought might be in the above.
Regards,
-sm
1. I am not sure whether I actually knew about it. There are many
things which I do not know.
every time :-)
The question I would ask is how many continents are there.
Regards,
-sm
political convenience.
Regards,
-sm
for adoption of a draft in
DNSOP failed as there wasn't significant interest
within the working group to do that work.
I'll ask a question to the other persons
subscribed to this mailing list. Are there other
active participants in ICANN interested in doing work in the IETF?
Regards,
-sm
University is an American private Ivy League
research university.
Regards,
-sm
the decision. It's up
to me to know what will influence the content and fate of the draft.
Regards,
-sm
the community an opportunity to see the draft and
comment on it before it progress to the IESG. This draft is an AD
sponsored draft.
I'll keep it short; the intended status is Informational, it's not
worth spending too much time arguing about it. :-)
Regards,
-sm
I give more weight to them or to a content-free
comment? I do not support the publication of this document as a
Proposed Standard as it is doubtful that it has the consensus of the
working group.
Regards,
-sm
to
be difficult to balance that if one-line statements of support (or
objections) are not considered in a determination of consensus.
Regards,
-sm
(iii) it might rain tomorrow
As an off-topic comment, there are are alternative ways in making a
decision; the best judgement of the most experienced or IETF Consensus.
Regards,
-sm
of an Expert Review approval recommendation looks unusual to me.
Regards,
-sm
is
that the two organizations operate differently. The details of that
is written as politically appropriate version of reality.
Regards,
-sm
.
Nits:
At the time of writing, the Adobe Flash Player runtime is
installed on more than one billion end-user desktop computers.
Shouldn't the memo be about the protocol?
Regards,
-sm
for
publication.
The first part of the text says that the IETF uses voting whereas the
hum is not considered as voting. Decision-making might be a
better label.
Regards,
-sm
loopholes as possible.
The text I suggested was based on my reading of the above.
Regards,
-sm
for a country
4. doing what is right for the IETF
Regards,
-sm
diligently by highly
respected people in the Internet Engineering Task Force.
I still do not plan to raise any objection on the draft.
Regards,
-sm
1. Out of context quote: One issue being contended with by several
data protection authorities was whether or not Media Access Control
(MAC
the path
forward. I personally would not support publication. That can
easily be overcome and I won't do anything about it.
Regards,
-sm
1. I did read Section 2 carefully.
Considerations section. Maybe
Publishing EUI addresses in DNS lowers the security of the Internet.
Regards,
-sm
? Will that participant
implement the draft by writing code?
Regards,
-sm
of their contribution through the IETF activity addresses.
That's fairly expensive, time consuming, and has uncertain results.
Yes.
Regards,
-sm
some feedback
about it to edu-discuss mailing list?
Regards,
-sm
that.
(a) Was the IESG working on how to get more participation from
under-represented regions?
(b) Was the IAB working on how to get more participation from
under-represented regions?
I am asking the above questions as it is not clear who in the IETF
was doing that.
Regards,
-sm
people from Africa
who have attended IETF meetings. They don't participate in the
IETF. Why is it that there are some participants from South America
whereas there aren't any participants from Africa?
Regards,
-sm
not respond to the questions.
Regards,
-sm
1 - 100 of 701 matches
Mail list logo
