Jari,
But back to the proposal. In particular, I would like to know how
people feel about this work being ready for an (Experimental) IETF WG,
what the scope should be, whether the charter is reasonable. And if
not, what would make it so.
There are reasonably stable specs that people can
So the question - that is not administrative - boils down imho to: can
we exclusively concentrate on the LISP protocol(s) specifics leaving the
issue of our confidence on the Loc/ID split and associated challenges
open. That question deserves imho a specific discussion that should
happen in the
On 1/21/09 2:12 PM, PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri wrote:
All items in the charter - see below - are exclusively oriented toward
LISP protocols implementation specifics, and interworking:
Right. This is a LISP WG. There is nothing stopping anyone from
creating another WG, assuming the work
On 1/22/09 12:48 AM, PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri wrote:
Your question is: does one size (of approach) fits all and the answer is
no. Indeed, these situations can not be compared (SHIM6 is a WG whereas
HIP is a WG and a RG) but none did intend to address the Internet
routing system scalability.
It's
Brian,
I am interested in participating in discussions, on or off list ;-) One
comment now:
On 11/11/10 8:55 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
- Should we focus entirely on IPv6? That is probably easier in several
ways (new deployment for most sites, not constrained by a shortage
of prefixes)
Hi Stephen,
On 6/7/14, 3:20 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I'm frankly amazed that that's not crystal clear to anyone who
has read all 2.5 non-boilerplate pages of the BCP. Or even just
the last two words of the 1-line abstract (hint: those say where
possible.)
Yes, source addresses leak
/9/14, 10:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 10/06/2014 04:43, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jun 9, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote:
But does adding a header solve the problem? Not unless it is signed AND I
believe the signature. And then I had better be willing to spend
Paul,
This seems like a fine and modular approach that doesn't boil the ocean.
Eliot
On 7/5/14, 5:04 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i've now seen a number of proposals reaction to the snowden
disclosures, seeking channel encryption for dns transactions. i have
some thoughts on the matter which are
Hi Hannes,
On 7/7/14, 8:23 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Just a minor note on this paragraph:
On 07/07/2014 06:48 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
because HTTPS currently depends on X.509 keys, other
I didn't write the above, Paul did. But to your point below...
groups in the IETF world are already
On 7/7/14, 1:14 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
I also struggle to see the significant improvement for the cases that
had been discussed on the list. I would say that they go close to zero
when one uses DNS servers provided by the local network operator.
That's a matter of service selection
Hi Rolf,
On 9/2/16 2:38 PM, Rolf Winter wrote:
> Hi Eliot,
>
> I though a bit more about what you said. I think the suggestions to
> developers were clear in my mind but maybe aren't all that clearly
> formulated. Here are the most important suggestions that I read from
> the text:
>
> - Use
Rolf,
Thanks. Please see below.
On 8/29/16 8:57 PM, Rolf Winter wrote:
>
>> What is needed are specific recommendations or even the strengthening of
>> a generalized mechanism, the obvious candidate being mDNS/DNS-SD. What
>> specific recommendations would the authors make when using
Juan Carlos,
I like the idea of this document being published as an informational
document, but I wonder if the document needs another rev or two first.
While it is important to have privacy considerations for discovery
protocols, this document needs to go further than that to be useful to
Hi Rolf,
I apologize. I had entirely forgotten about this draft. I've put out
very much a -00 of my own draft-lear-network-helps-01.txt. The key
point of my draft, to expropriate from Ecclesiastes, is simply this:
there is a time for sharing. But when doing so, (a) do so by design,
(b) use
Lawful Intercept.
On 08.07.21 19:52, Lin Han wrote:
What does “LI” stand for?
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Hi Andrew,
On 03.08.21 21:11, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 02:43:10AM -0700, John Gilmore wrote:
lowest-address draft is the first of a set of upcoming drafts that
propose small, easy improvements in IPv4.
I think I recalled an (int area?) meeting something like a decade
Hi Dirk,
On 25.01.22 08:19, Dirk Trossen wrote:
Hence, I would suggest that any answers to the question above ought to
be guided by what we (as users) want from the network, e.g., in terms
of reachability, privacy, security, exposure of desired capabilities
and possibly more.
The
[copy architecture-discuss]
Geoff,
This is a pretty good characterization. In fact, it's exactly where we
went in the NSRG nearly 20 years ago, just after MO first kicked out
8+8. For people's reference, we looked at naming at different levels,
including at L3, in DNS, URNs (which were
They seem ok.
Eliot
On 09.11.2023 13:22, Sabrina Tanamal via RT wrote:
Hi Eliot and Dan (cc: intarea wg),
Can one of you review the LLDP TLV Subtype changes in this newly approved
document draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis for us?
Please see
19 matches
Mail list logo
