>> This was then. By now, IP options are very rarely used. The RFC
>> should probably be reclassified as historic.
>
> RFC 1108 is already classified as Historic.
Oops. That's what I get for trying the lottery. The UI just provides the RFC
text, which in the case of 1108 does not present its stat
Hi Christian,
At 21:10 21-05-2014, Christian Huitema wrote:
This was then. By now, IP options are very rarely used. The RFC
should probably be reclassified as historic.
RFC 1108 is already classified as Historic.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
___
ietf-pri
That was my attempt at using the random lottery. I like using the issue page
better for input. Also, I prefer reading the html version of the RFC from
the IETF tools page. Maybe the lottery should just give you a suggestion of
an RFC number…
From: ietf-privacy [mailto:ietf-privacy-boun...@ietf.
This RFC defines an IP header option for "security options." The options
enable hosts to mark their traffic as belonging to a particular security
level. Presumably, secure routers will ensure that traffic marked with a
specific security option is contained within a network that meets the
correspond
Thank you! You win a beer for being the first!
Cheers,
S.
On 21/05/14 18:33, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> [A quick trial of the random RFC tool.]
>
> An interesting historical snapshot of the early days of hypertext
> systems before WWW/HTML/HTTP had come to dominate everything and how
> they might be
[A quick trial of the random RFC tool.]
An interesting historical snapshot of the early days of hypertext
systems before WWW/HTML/HTTP had come to dominate everything and how
they might be relevant to academic users. It even predates Internet
Explorer!
Mainly interesting for its lack of interest
>> So, is there a quick rubric for RFCs to review that might be
>> particularly useful? E.g., should we focus on more recent ones?
>
> :-)
>
> Not necessarily recent, but essential, like TCP and DNS.
My preference: go to the RFC index and check for RFC that are on the
standard track (status set t
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
> Since the first year I remember there being things called "years" was
> 1982, I'm thinking that a review of this might not be that useful, no?
>
> So, is there a quick rubric for RFCs to review that might be
> particularly useful? E.g.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hiya,
On 21/05/14 16:32, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
> One practical question: My first draw was RFC 963 "SOME PROBLEMS
> WITH THE SPECIFICATION OF THE MILITARY STANDARD INTERNET PROTOCOL"
> from 1985.
>
> Since the first year I remember there being
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
For the record, this is seriously awesome and kind of fun... Stephen
may be on the way to "gamify" RFC privacy/PPM reviews. ::)
One practical question: My first draw was RFC 963 "SOME PROBLEMS WITH
THE SPECIFICATION OF THE MILITARY STANDARD INTERNET
Hi,
Scott Brim invoked me as the author of RTSP 2.0. So I hope can shed some
light on the below questions.
>
>
> On 21/05/14 07:27, Christian Huitema wrote:
>> I am currently taking a look at RFC 2326: Real Time Streaming Protocol. The
>> design of RTSP/1.0 is pretty close to that of HTTP/1.0,
On 21/05/14 07:27, Christian Huitema wrote:
> I am currently taking a look at RFC 2326: Real Time Streaming Protocol. The
> design of RTSP/1.0 is pretty close to that of HTTP/1.0, with very similar
> security and privacy considerations, but RTSP did not evolve as quickly as
> HTTP. In particular,
Hi Christian,
Am 21.05.2014 um 08:27 schrieb Christian Huitema :
> I am currently taking a look at RFC 2326: Real Time Streaming Protocol. The
> design of RTSP/1.0 is pretty close to that of HTTP/1.0, with very similar
> security and privacy considerations, but RTSP did not evolve as quickly a
13 matches
Mail list logo
