Hi Ted,
As far as this document is concerned, we are open to address technical
concerns. It will be helpful if these concerns are specific enough and
hopefully in reference to
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-05.
Adding a discussion on potential
Re-,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : Ted Lemon [mailto:ted.le...@nominum.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 6 juin 2014 12:48
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
Cc : Brian E Carpenter; ietf-privacy@ietf.org; int-a...@ietf.org; Stephen
Farrell
Objet : Re: [Int-area] [ietf-privacy]
Stephen,
On 06/06/2014 00:48, Stephen Farrell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hiya,
On 05/06/14 08:05, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
If you want to review a document with privacy implications then
have a look at the NAT reveal / host identifier work (with
On 6/5/2014 5:48 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I share those concerns. And adopting this without any consideration
of BCP188 would fly in the face of a very recent, very thoroughly
discussed, IETF consensus.
That BCP thankfully includes zero RFC2119 language except the single
word should (not
On 06/06/2014 09:26, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jun 5, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have to call you on that. WG adoption is not approval. It's agreement
to work on a topic. It is not OK to attempt a pocket veto on adoption
because you don't like the
On 06/06/2014 08:42, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Brian, in my experience working group adoption is more than the working
group agreeing to work on the topic. It is generally the working group
agreeing that the given document is a good basis for starting the work.
Yes, there will almost always be
On 6/5/2014 1:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
As a matter of fact I tend to agree with many of your criticisms
of the draft, and I like the idea (below) of adding what we might
call the misuse cases. That's a discussion the intarea WG could have.
Brian
I'd vote for WG adoption, and
I think Ted answered this but one little bit more...
On 05/06/14 21:28, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Stephen,
On 06/06/2014 00:48, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hiya,
On 05/06/14 08:05, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
If you want to review a document with privacy implications then
have a look at the
I agree too and think Joe's outlined a good starting point to discuss misuse.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: ietf-privacy [mailto:ietf-privacy-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
Sent: 05 June 2014 21:42
To: Brian E Carpenter; Stephen Farrell
Cc: ietf-privacy@ietf.org;
