the leaders are there to inform and moderate the discussion and where
possible, indicate
that consensus has been reached (or not).when leaders speak out on behalf
of organization
-particularly- this organization and they are _NOT_ relaying the consensus of
the group at large,
they have
On 10October2013Thursday, at 1:30, SM wrote:
At 12:27 09-10-2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Now, there is indeed a possible issue, and that is that these chairs
were attending a chief officer-type meeting: there were CEOs and so
on, and (presumably by analogy) the chairs got invited to
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 the DNS to
be a single root, it could be signed by a quorum of
On 8October2013Tuesday, at 6:19, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
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
- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
dnssdext-requ...@ietf.org
(reason: 550 5.1.1 dnssdext-requ...@ietf.org: Recipient address rejected:
User unknown in virtual alias table)
On 3October2013Thursday, at 8:42, The IESG wrote:
A new IETF working group has been
but the To Subscribe pointer is busted….
/bill
On 3October2013Thursday, at 11:43, Tim Chown wrote:
On 3 Oct 2013, at 18:07, manning bill bmann...@isi.edu wrote:
- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
dnssdext-requ...@ietf.org
(reason: 550 5.1.1 dnssdext-requ
perhaps you remember the Comodo CA fraud problem?
http://arstechnica.com/security/2011/03/how-the-comodo-certificate-fraud-calls-ca-trust-into-question/
/bill
On 10September2013Tuesday, at 14:47, John R Levine wrote:
You go to a Web page that has the HTML or Javascript control for generating
hum…
i did work on a DNS architecture that can be fully disconnected from
the Internet and still work with nodes within the visible topology.
Needs serious rework of DNSSEC and has some assumptions about topology
discovery - but it might be a basis for starting some discussion
given the nature of the TXT RR, in particular the RDATA field,
I presume it is the path of prudence to set the barrier to registration
in this new IANA registry to be -VERY- low.
Or is the intent to create a two class system, registered and unregistered
types?
/bill
On 30August2013Friday, at
Begin forwarded message:
Resent-From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
Subject: Re: [dnsext] SPF isn't going to change, was Deprecating SPF
Date: August 23, 2013 10:03:26 PDT
Resent-To: bmann...@isi.edu
To: John Levine jo...@taugh.com
Cc: dns...@ietf.org
and the hotel is fully booked….
/bill
On 23August2013Friday, at 6:36, IETF Secretariat wrote:
88th IETF Meeting
Vancouver, BC, Canada
November 3-8, 2013
Host: Huawei
Meeting venue: Hyatt Regency Vancouver:
http://vancouver.hyatt.com/en/hotel/home.html
Register online at:
On 23August2013Friday, at 11:04, John Levine wrote:
Nobody has argued that SPF usage is zero, and the reasons for
deprecating SPF have been described repeatedly here and on the ietf
list, so this exercise seems fairly pointless.
the reasons for not deprecating SPF have been described
would this mandate wearing badges only in certain locations, e.g. over the left
breast?
/bill
On 6August2013Tuesday, at 23:26, Riccardo Bernardini wrote:
Just thinking out aloud
What about a web-cam (maybe a wireless one? Never tried to use
them...) right under the mic, so that it
we have never voted at IETFs.
we believe in rough consensus and running code
/bill
On 1August2013Thursday, at 2:14, A ndy Bierman wrote:
Hi,
Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works?
(Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't.
The sum of all hands
you are not allowed to register for two days.
/bill
On 10July2013Wednesday, at 9:01, Paul Aitken wrote:
Can you help me understand why the One Day Pass rate ($350) is so high
compared with the full week rate ($650 / $800)?
Registering for two days could cost more than a week!
Surely
amen! :)
On 31May2013Friday, at 17:23, Randy Bush wrote:
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of
ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and
cost, let me get an
there is also the not uncommon event where an idea starts as an individual idea,
moves into a WG, is rejected by the WG, becomes an individual idea, is picked up
by another WG, rejected, (lather, rinse, repeat), and then the -right- WG is
formed
and it is processed that way. In the current
I believe that there are a couple of problems with this plea…
1) - The IETF has -never- tested for or assured compliance with their document
series.
2) - The only DNS test suite I am aware of is the older TAHI test suite from
http://www.tahi.org/ - which was focused on IPv6 development and is
:
In message 6a13ceb4-8906-4ec5-9210-571d5474e...@isi.edu, manning bill
writes:
I believe that there are a couple of problems with this plea.
1) - The IETF has -never- tested for or assured compliance with their
document series.
Which has what to do with requesting that a known problem get fixed
On 17April2013Wednesday, at 12:45, SM wrote:At 04:54 17-04-2013 it was written:Is it true that you are really Professor Irwin Corey?As I was unfamiliar with the above I looked it up.From RFC 3184: "The work of the IETF relies on cooperation among a broad cultural diversity of peoples, ideas, and
On 17April2013Wednesday, at 12:45, SM wrote:
At 04:54 17-04-2013 it was written:
Is it true that you are really Professor Irwin Corey?
As I was unfamiliar with the above I looked it up.
From RFC 3184:
The work of the IETF relies on cooperation among a broad cultural
diversity of
21 matches
Mail list logo
