On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/14/12 3:37 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote:
List address: ietf-...@ietf.org
Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in the year
2258?!?
Well, I've started working on draft-nir-ipv6-were-finally-deploying-it but I'm
On 06/15/2012 08:46 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/14/12 3:37 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote:
List address: ietf-...@ietf.org
Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in the year
2258?!?
Well, I've started working on
After thinking more about the draft, I think it is
purposelessly hostile against innocent operators and
end users who are suffering between people filtering
ICMP and people insisting on PMTUD.
Today, innocent operators often clear DF bit and
end users are happy with it, because, today,
Joe Touch wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
But, then,
Sources emitting non-atomic datagrams MUST NOT repeat IPv4 ID
values within one MSL for a given source address/destination
address/protocol triple.
makes most, if not all, IPv4 hosts non compliant if MSL=2min.
This is already
On Jun 15, 2012, at 5:24 48AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
On 06/15/2012 08:46 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/14/12 3:37 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote:
List address: ietf-...@ietf.org
Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in
--On Friday, June 15, 2012 11:13 -0400 Steven Bellovin
s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
Well, I've started working on
draft-nir-ipv6-were-finally-deploying-it but I'm not sure
what format would be an appropriate submission format in the
23rd century.
ASCII, of course. But the boilerplate will
Masataka,
On 6/15/2012 3:48 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
After thinking more about the draft, I think it is
purposelessly hostile against innocent operators and
end users who are suffering between people filtering
ICMP and people insisting on PMTUD.
Today, innocent operators often clear DF bit
Hi, Masataka,
On 6/15/2012 5:01 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Joe Touch wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
But, then,
Sources emitting non-atomic datagrams MUST NOT repeat IPv4 ID
values within one MSL for a given source address/destination
address/protocol triple.
makes most, if not
oh boy...
On 6/15/2012 3:57 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
On 12/06/2012 15:56, Dave Crocker wrote:
It's almost inevitable that many designated experts will, in fact,
act as gatekeepers.
...
The effect may sometimes be similar to being a gatekeeper but,
speaking for myself, that's not how I see my
At 01:46 AM 6/15/2012, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/14/12 3:37 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote:
List address: ietf-...@ietf.org
Is no one thinking ahead to the 822nd meeting of the IETF in the year
2258?!?
Well, I've started working on
--On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 13:44 -0700 Paul Hoffman
paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
but I can see the advantages if
others disagree. On the other hand, publishing
draft-hoffman-tao4677bis in the RFC series seems to me to have
no value at all. There should be an RFC 4677bis but it should
Hi Graham,
On 06/15/2012 11:48 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
Stephen,
(Personal hat on)
I've followed elements of this exchange. I must confess that when I
read through the draft previously, I didn't really pay attention to the
nih: parts.
I guess part of my reaction to Martin's comments
From: Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com
I've started working on draft-nir-ipv6-were-finally-deploying-it but
I'm not sure what format would be an appropriate submission format in
the 23rd century.
The Emperor finds your lack of faith... disturbing.
Noel
Maybe, in the interest of interplanetaryization (i19n ?) and
multigalacticism (m13m ?) we should start using FoPSCII and
Galicode references in our documents and noting that ASCII and
Unicode are temporary substitutes.
It hardly seems worth the effort, since the only difference between
ASCII and
On 6/15/2012 12:58 PM, John Levine wrote:
It hardly seems worth the effort, since the only difference between
ASCII and FoPSCII is that the ASCII # is replaced by the modern
currency symbol, and, of course, they put the little gap back in the
vertical bar to resolve the concerns about religious
--On Friday, June 15, 2012 19:58 + John Levine
jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Maybe, in the interest of interplanetaryization (i19n ?) and
multigalacticism (m13m ?) we should start using FoPSCII and
Galicode references in our documents and noting that ASCII and
Unicode are temporary substitutes.
On Jun 15, 2012, at 2:03 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
One possible oversight is that this I-D does not describe how the editor
will work on the tao-possible-revision.html file (e.g., will only the
editor have permissions to work on that, might there be multiple
committers, will it be under
On 6/15/12 3:27 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jun 15, 2012, at 2:03 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
One possible oversight is that this I-D does not describe how the editor
will work on the tao-possible-revision.html file (e.g., will only the
editor have permissions to work on that, might there be
Do we have guidelines as to what is an organization affiliation?
On Jun 14, 2012, at 5:26 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
Two things have occurred since the message below as sent to the IETF mail
list. First, we got a lawyer in Europe to do some investigation, and the
inclusion of the email address
I presume it is the same data that people input into the Organization field
when they register for the meeting.
Regards,
Ed J.
-Original Message-
From: Eric Burger eburge...@standardstrack.com
Sender: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:37:50
To: IETF Chairch...@ietf.org
Do we have to rehash all of this stuff AGAIN?
R's,
John
Huh? ISO/IEC 646 IRV (another candidate for a FoPSCII
precursor) replaces the ASCII $, not #, with that universal
currency symbol. As for that vertical bar, sufficiently elderly
practitioners of the art of Character Confusion and
A number of IETF-related mailing lists in the Applications Area have
for some years been hosted by Paul Hoffman at imc.org. Most of them
belonged to working groups at one time, and have remained active since
the working groups closed, holding discussions of related activities
and technology.
Joe Touch wrote:
After thinking more about the draft, I think it is
purposelessly hostile against innocent operators and
end users who are suffering between people filtering
ICMP and people insisting on PMTUD.
Today, innocent operators often clear DF bit and
end users are happy with it,
I've always found that term in that context highly presumptuous and slightly
offensive.
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
edj@gmail.com
Sent: 15 June 2012 22:43
To: Eric Burger; ietf-boun...@ietf.org; IETF Chair
Masataka,
On 6/15/2012 6:54 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Joe Touch wrote:
After thinking more about the draft, I think it is
purposelessly hostile against innocent operators and
end users who are suffering between people filtering
ICMP and people insisting on PMTUD.
Today, innocent operators
On 6/15/12 14:42 , edj@gmail.com wrote:
I presume it is the same data that people input into the Organization field
when they register for the meeting.
I do change mine based on what capacity I'm attending a particular
meeting in. That goes for email address on existing blue sheets as
Joe Touch wrote:
That is not an innocent action.
It is a fair action by innocent providers.
It is a violation of standards. They may do it innocently, but it's
still a violation.
You misunderstand standardization processes.
That innocent operators must violate some standard means
the
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer
Security (TLS) Protocol: TLSA'
(draft-ietf-dane-protocol-23.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the DNS-based Authentication of Named
Entities Working
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Publishing the Tao of the IETF as a Web Page'
draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02.txt as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on
29 matches
Mail list logo
