Re: OpenDNS today announced it has adopted DNSCurve to secure DNS

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:44:10 -0500 Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > The problem here is not that you might infringe the patent, the > problem is that if a patent suit is brought against you, it will cost > a minimum of about $5 million to defend. Just to get to the point of > having an opinion on th

Re: RIM patents using a mime body in a message (and ignores IETF IPR rules)

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:16:49 -0500 Scott Brim wrote: > Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/23/2009 5:03 AM: > > John-Luc said he is bound by confidentiality obligations from his > > company, and I think the same applies to most employees of larger > > organizations. There is nothing explicit i

Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:12:59 -0500 Matt Crawford wrote: > On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > We are therefore asking for input from the community by two means - > > by commenting on the IETF discussion list, ... > > I'm trying to imagine the thought police remaining calm d

Re: Some more background on the RFID experiment in Hiroshima

I'm with Eric on this. Part of our dog food is a decent regard for security and privacy; we shouldn't neglect in the name of experimentation. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Stockholm airport

By chance (I assume it was chance), CNN's travel section just ran a piece on Stockholm: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/getaways/07/21/stockholm.travel/index.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: draft-harkins-emu-eap-pwd (EAP Authentication UsingOnly A Password) to Informational RFC

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:54:23 -0700 (PDT) "Dan Harkins" wrote: > If specification of patented algorithms and drafts subject to IPR > disclosure is not enough to knock a draft of the Standards Track then > I don't know why FUD about a possible patent _maybe_ existing that > _might_ apply is. I'm n

Re: Steve Coya

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 14:53:36 -0400 Steve Crocker wrote: > This is indeed sad news. Steve was energetic and dedicated, and we > all benefitted greatly from his contributions. > Indeed. He will be missed. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb __

Re: Security of BGP Re: Status of the 16-bit AS Number space

On Tue, 12 May 2009 15:42:26 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > We can all agree on the fact there is a problem. That does nothing. > What matters to me is if we plan to do something about it before > crunch time comes. > > As for adding IPSEC to BGP, I would not want to comment on the > compet

Re: Security of BGP Re: Status of the 16-bit AS Number space

On Tue, 12 May 2009 09:25:07 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > Looks to me that we have an obscurity based 'security' system going > on there. Everyone in the business understands that there is a routing security problem. There is some disagreement about the magnitude of the threat, and hence

Re: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:35:35 -0400 Melinda Shore wrote: > I was auto-subscribed to Dean's "ietf-honest" mailing > list, and I'm unhappy about it. I don't know what his > current status is with regard to the ietf@ietf.org > mailing list but I think he's pretty clearly abusing > this mailing list

Re: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:21:00 -0400 Richard M Stallman wrote: > Steve Bellovin wrote: > > Other than giving up the RFC label for Experimental documents, > it's hard to see what the IETF can do. > > Another thing the IETF could do is stop publishing this sort of > document. Anyone that might

Re: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:35:31 -0700 Stephan Wenger wrote: > The IETF might view it this way. Large parts of the > (standardization) world does not. One example in my field of work is > FLUTE, and the surrounding infrastructure of frameworks and FEC > codes. To the best of my recollection, these

Re: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:07:10 -0700 SM wrote: > > As the draft was not approved by the IESG as a "Proposed Standard", > the fact is that most people in the IETF community would not consider > it as a proposed standard. > >"The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification >

Re: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 17:49:54 -1000 David Conrad wrote: > Hi, > > On Mar 7, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Christian Huitema wrote: > > I agree with Ned. The main purpose of the registry should be to > > document what is out there, not to act as a gatekeeper. Even when > > a protocol is not a full standard,

Re: Terminal room at IETF74

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:58:14 -0500 Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Based on the address used in the message that kicked off this thread, > the individual that started this thread works for a company that has > a significantly greater reason for concern than an average traveller. > Indeed. In the p

Re: Terminal room at IETF74

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 13:16:19 -0500 John C Klensin wrote: > This should go on ISOC's list of things to whine to the new US > administration about, along with visa request rejections because > "attending the IETF isn't a good enough reason". > It's not just the US; other governments -- including th

Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:54:49 -0800 Christian Huitema wrote: > This discussion of IPR seems to be running in circle. Can't we switch > to something else, e.g. whether RFC could be written in some other > format than ASCII text? > Sorry, that idea is patented or something. No, I've got it -- it's

Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:17:39 -0800 "Lawrence Rosen" wrote: > > Rather than a standing board (which was what I thought you had > > intended), > > [LR:] I had indeed intended a standing board, and still do. Why have > to agitate and recruit an expert team over every question, when a > simple que

Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:24:20 -0800 "Lawrence Rosen" wrote: > Ted Ts'o wrote: > > So you've done the equivalent of submit Windows source code and > > assume that it can be ported to a Unix system "left as an exercise > > to the reader" care to give a detailed suggestion about *how* > > it cou

Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:42:17 -0500 (EST) j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote: > > From: John Levine > > > We're looking forward to the draft > > I hope you're only partially ironic here. If there's no chance > whatsoever of such a draft going anywhere, I'd hate to see people,

Re: IETF and open source license compatibility

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:48:08 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote: > "Steven M. Bellovin" writes: > > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:38:44 +0100 > > Simon Josefsson wrote: > > > >> The discussion started by Stephan suggesting that free software > >> auth

Re: IETF and open source license compatibility

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:38:44 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote: > The discussion started by Stephan suggesting that free software > authors publish their work as free standards in the IETF. My point > was that since the IETF disallow publishing standards under a license > that is compatible with free

Re: TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:29:05 -0800 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: > Could I just point out here the real risk that this relevant > objection might get lost in the sea of irrelevant aggitation from the > FSF supporters? > I agree. Let's move the substantive discussion to the TLS WG mailing list

Re: why to contact the IETF

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:59:52 -0800 "Lawrence Rosen" wrote: > The result of the FSF campaign has been to raise a legal concern No, they didn't raise the concern. The concern had been raised previously by people who are obviously IETF participants, including Simon Josefsson. (I don't recall if y

Re: meeting attendance & nomcom

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 11:37:18 -0500 "Steven M. Bellovin" wrote: Folks -- I hit 'send' too soon; it was supposed to be a private message. > > Meanwhile, you might be interested in the draft paper at > http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papes/codebooks.pdf -- even i

Re: meeting attendance & nomcom

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:11:15 -0500 John C Klensin wrote: > though one might > reasonably require that any volunteer have a firm expectation of > being able to attend f2f Nomcom meetings, participate in f2f > interviews, etc. (i.e., attend several meetings in succession > even if their earlier par

Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:41:37 -0800 Christian Huitema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, rather than tunneling, have we seriously consider flat host > based routing in a corporate network? A combination of DHT and > caching technologies ought to make that quite scalable. I've used large, flat n

Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:07:35 -0800 Christian Huitema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > GSE/8+8 also does not achieve topology hiding, not if the mapping > between internal and external /64 is a one-one. Of course, you could > smash multiple internal subnets to a single /64 external view, but > then you

Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)

On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:40:43 -0500 Tony Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm personally very interested in getting the format for querying DNS > *white* lists standardized. I want to be able to use DNSWLs as part of > *positive reputation* checking: given an *authenticated* domain name > (say,

Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)

On 8 Nov 2008 17:05:00 - John Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > standardizing them and formally recommending their use > > I'm not aware of any language in the current draft that recommends > that people use DNSBLs. What it does say is that if you use or > publish DNSBLs, here's how they

Re: [secdir] Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:57:12 -0400 Michael StJohns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > Classified documents have this thing called paragraph marking. Each > paragraph within a document is marked with the highest level of data > within the paragraph. A page is marked with the highest level of > da

Re: NTIA request for feedback on DNSSEC deployment at the root zone

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 10:03:32 -0400 Tim Polk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Folks, > > The National Telecommunications and Information Administration > published a "Notice of Inquiry" entitled > "Enhancing the Security and Stability of the Internet's Domain Name > and Addressing System" in to

Re: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:11:07 -0700 Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > > On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:48:07 -0700 > > Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> The point I'm making is that there seems like there sho

Re: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:48:07 -0700 Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The point I'm making is that there seems like there should be a way to > prevent the covert channel without mucking up TCP's definition of what > an endpoint is. I think this belongs elsewhere than either the secdir list

Re: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 22:12:17 -0400 "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Steven> Note 7.3.1 on > > Steven> TCP considerations. (Also note that 7.3.1 disagrees > > Steven> with 793 on the treatment of security labels in sectio

Re: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:44:45 -0400 Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> "Steven" == Steven M Bellovin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Steven> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:20:23 -0400 > Steven> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:20:23 -0400 Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Section 8 proposes that AH is the mandatory-to-implement security > mechanism for this option. Do we still believe that is > appropriate given RFC 4301's move away from AH as a > mandatory-to-implement service? As dis

Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:48:43 -0400 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It occurs to me that people may have been saying "could be > resolved in AUTH48" when they really meant "could be resolved in > an RFC Editor note". While, like Paul, I tend to prefer that > the RFC Editor get clean c

Re: Failing of IPR Filing Page when makling updates in re LTANS and other filings.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:48:07 -0400 (EDT) Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Scott Brim wrote: > > > On 8/12/08 12:02 PM, TS Glassey allegedly wrote: > > > As to the IPR Page - it does not > > > allow for updates of already filed IPR Statement's to include new > > > IE

Re: Be aware when traveling to the USA.

Be aware when traveling *from* the US, too -- according to the policy at http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/travel/admissability/search_authority.ctt/search_authority.pdf they worry about exports as well... In fairness, though, many countries reserve the right to search laptops. See http://news.

Re: About IETF communication skills

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 07:38:27 +0100 Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Folks: please review all of the IETF-related articles in the IT trade > press from the past five years. Discard the articles that say "the > IETF is considering Foo" when in fact someone had submitted a -00 > draft. The

Re: About IETF communication skills

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:08:57 +0100 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Maybe IETF should be thinking about what actions and > > policies, uniformly applied, will result in the most accurate > > representation of its work to the community. > > In my experience, the best action to take would be to adv

Re: About IETF communication skills

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:24:07 -0700 Ted Faber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 02:11:48PM -0400, Daniel Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Or you know not consenting to interviews with someone who's > > > pr

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:13:42 +0200 "Frank Ellermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > you appears to be complaining that the definition given > > in this RFC in fact agrees with yours, perhaps modulo > > emphasizing that the intent is to hurt the person whose > > addr

Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:42:08 -0700 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Russ Housley wrote: > > When all of the Internet-Drafts were processed by Secretariat > > staff, there was a huge workload concern. > ,,, > > I also agree that an AD should be able to get an I-D posted after > > t

Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:44:33 -0400 Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I fully agree with Debbie here. > > Human experience teaches us that examples will > be used, over time. Foo.com is a commercial site. If the IETF uses > foo.com in email examples, > it is reasonable to assume that

Re: Meeting Network Requirements ION Published

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:03:22 -0700 Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Does this also disallow (rather typical) filtering of "Windows > > ports" (at least 137-139, 445)? > > I understand it to mean that yes, the advisability of using SMB > across the public internet notwithstanding.

Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:44:49 -0700 Christian Huitema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > And in order to make the confidentiality issue more concrete > > > (ie, real) would folks offer some examples of what falls under > > > it. > > > > "I accept the nomination of area director. The current area > >

Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:31:24 -0700 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Spencer Dawkins wrote: > > I have misunderstood before, but one point of view I've heard > > expressed was that > > > > - NomCom is supposed to choose the best candidate, while > > > > - the confirming body is sup

Re: Eating our own dog food and using SIP for telephony... (was Re: My view of the IAOC Meeting Selection Guidelines)

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:21:48 +0200 Lars Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-2-11, at 18:55, ext Dan York wrote: > > Can we move some of this conversation in the bill below onto the > > Internet using systems where our costs essentially go to $0? > > (Obviously we still need to communi

Re: My view of the IAOC Meeting Selection Guidelines

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:17:25 -0500 Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Having thought about this a little, I think that the real question > is, what is the cost of a failed IESG meeting. > (Or IAB or IAOC or...) > > It is not just a question of doing it cheaper. It is a question

Re: Last Call Comments on draft-ietf-shim6-hba-04

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:44:53 -0800 Eric Rescorla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Premature optimization is one of the most common tropes > in cryptographic protocol engineering. > s/cryptographic protocol// and probably s/tropes/mistakes/ -- unless I misunderstand you, you're using an unusual and n

Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: Performance Metrics atOther Layers (pmol)]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:43:01 -0800 Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sam Hartman wrote: > ... > > Yes, Steve almost certanily did slow down any heavy CPU use during > > the time when he was doing the backup. > > > > Our point--Steve, Steve and I--is that for a lot of uses and a lot > > of us

Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: Performance Metrics atOther Layers (pmol)]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:22:48 -0500 Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Joe> By essentially shutting your machine down for over an hour. No, not at all; not even close. > > I'm only going to send this one message, but then I'll drop out of the > thread. We've drifted far from Lesli

Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: Performance Metrics atOther Layers (pmol)]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:39:50 -0500 Stephen Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joe, > > I disagree with your suggestion "The software performance of security > protocols has been the more substantial issue, and is likely to > continue to be for the forseeable future." > > I suspect that most deskt

Re: Reminder: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:44:33 -0800 "Lawrence Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Harald Alvestrand wrote: > > The outcomes I see possible of such a discussion are: > > > I can't be in Vancouver for this meeting. Probably few of the others > who have been vocal on these issues on these email lists

Re: Daily Dose version 2 launched

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:00:03 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I second John's note. When I saw Pasi's note, I had assumed that he > was referring to a link off of the tools page. Replacing the tools > page with an activity summary is quite surprising. Joel > Indeed. I sugges

Re: Patents can be for good, not only evil

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:38:45 -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How many Working Group participants who vent on patent issues have > read RFC 3669? > Of those who have read it, how many consider it to be binding? > It's not binding because it's Informational. However, t

Re: Patents can be for good, not only evil

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:53:35 -0700 "Lawrence Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steven Bellovin wrote: > > We've all seen far too many really bad > > patents issued, ones where prior art is legion. The (U.S.) patent > > office seems to do a far better job of searching its own databases > > than

Re: Patents can be for good, not only evil

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:02:10 -0700 "Lawrence Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric Burger wrote: > > I specifically applied for patents underlying the technology behind > > RFC 4722/RFC 5022 and RFC 4730 specifically to prevent third > > parties, who are not part of the IETF process, from extra

Re: When is using patented technology appropriate?

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:15:55 +1300 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2007-10-25 04:30, Sam Hartman wrote: > > ... > > Simon> If you replace IBM with 'A Patent Troll', do you think > > Simon> the same holds? > > I think that such behavior should > > Simon> be presumed

Re: A priori IPR choices

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:42:06 -0400 Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 01:05:39PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > > "Frank Ellermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > . > > > > I noticed that the

Re: IETF / UN

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:41:40 -0400 Matt Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote: > > "But the UN is a government--" > > "No it isn't," Martin insisted, "It's a talking shop. > > Started out as a treaty organization, turned into a bureaucrac

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:32:21 -0700 "Lawrence Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I respectfully disagree with Steven Bellovin and Scott Brim, and ask > that we NOT turn this issue back to the IPR-WG unless and until its > charter is revised to allow it to *completely revise* IETF's IPR > polici

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:47:46 + Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > in , > we see: > > Letters of Assurance are requested from all parties > holding patents which may be applicable to any IEEE >

Re: New models for email (Re: e2e)

Anyone who thinks that a new mail protocol that relies on users seeing some "secure" or "trustworthy" indicator should read: An Evaluation of Extended Validation and Picture-in-Picture Phishing Attacks Collin Jackson, Daniel R. Simon, Desney S. Tan, and Adam Barth, Proc. USEC '07. http://usables

Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 05:04:54 -0400 Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I'm not sure what your point is -- I took Keith's comment to mean > >> that home NATs with v6 were completely unacceptable. > > > > > > /64's do NOT imply that there's NAT functionality involved, just > > that there'

Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:01:39 -0700 Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Keith Moore wrote: > >> It seems likely that cable mso's similar will dole out /64's to > >> customers one at a time, I suppose that's acceptable if not > >> necessarily desirable and will probably still result in the use

Re: the curse of the S(imple) protocols, was: Re: e2e

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:31:51 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 17-aug-2007, at 17:54, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > > S/MIME would be a fine start. It also won't solve the problem until > > someone develops a user interface that DTRT for

Re: the curse of the S(imple) protocols, was: Re: e2e

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:50:48 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Then again, misspelled fishing would be an order of magnitude harder > if banks and retailers started using S/MIME, which is widely > implemented today, S/MIME would be a fine start. It also won't solve the

Re: e2e

But I should point people at RFC 4924. (No, I won't try to summarize it.) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: In support of symbolic references

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:00:24 +0200 Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > Use the line > > > > > > > > to get symbolic references. > > Neat. Maybe we can lobby for it to become the default. Is there some > IDNit rule that suggest or imply that references should be numeric?

Re: In support of symbolic references

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:19:11 +0200 Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi. I'm sitting here reviewing changes to a document to see if I > > can last call it. > > > > As part of a response to AD review comments, one of the references > > were

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:12:18 +0200 Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The community needs to evaluate patent claims, and preferably reach > conservative agreement (rough consensus is not good enough) on whether > we should care about a particular patent or not. Input to that > communit

Re: RFID (was: identifying yourself at the mic)

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:27:29 -0500 "Schliesser, Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric- > > It sounds like your argument is: "We're too incompetent to say our > names at the mic, so we're probably too incompetent to use a RFID > system." Did I get that right? > > While I'm certainly not goi

Re: [CONTENT] Re: identifying yourself at the mic

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:49:23 -0400 Henning Schulzrinne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We built a prototype for ACM Multimedia 2004, using credit-card sized > RFID badges and SIP event notification, shown on a separate > projector. It worked reasonably well. I'm hoping to improve on the > prototype a

Re: Pingsta Invitation

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:20:28 +0100 Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, Carsten and others. > > The general sense I arrive at is: > - nobody that I recognize has said "it's me, and here's what I'm > doing". > - clearly someone wants to make a business based on my (and > presumably

Re: Warning - risk of duty free stuff being confiscated on the way to Prague

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:55:06 -0400 Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know for a fact (because it happened to me Friday) that > liquids are confiscated on the security check required to transit at > London Heathrow. 100 milliliters is the limit, and this includes > duty-free purchased

Re: References to prior work (was: Re: Last call comments about draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07)

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:39:35 -0500 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > How does adding a downref to a dead document add more > > integrity to the RFC process? > > Independent of the merits in this particular case, it provides > history and context. We have learned, or should ha

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic (Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status) to Informational RFC

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:42:04 -0500 Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Hallam-Baker," == Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > writes: > > >> From: Fred Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> On Feb 28, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >

Re: ietf-moms

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:06:51 -0500 Michael Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Further, as the "technology" matures, one can't tell a 14-year old > anything. (I've noticed the latter only second hand. > Okay, I saw it on TV.) > That gets worse, too, as the teenager "progresses". I'm speak

Re: Request for input (patchwork RFCs)

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:40:12 -0800 (PST) Lucy Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sign me up! Is there a secret handshake? Do I get to wear a fez? > We use public key handshakes these days. And it's f(e)^z. All of this is spelled out in the Security Considerations section of that club.

Re: Last Call: draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines (Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents) to Informational RFC

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 21:57:58 +0200 Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In any case, at the end of the day there is going to be someone > who has to decide whether a particular proposal fits the purpose > of the WG, the IETF or the RFC series. This someone can be the > people in the WG, the spo

Re: [secdir] Secdir review comments for draft-ietf-pim-bidir-08

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 21:14:35 -0800 "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to understand better why ... > no automated key management > is specified. > Do they cite any of the reasons listed in RFC 4107? --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.e

Re: ietf-moms

And think of the Security Considerations section. (And do we need IANA considerations, too?) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Referencing BCPs [Re: ion-procdocs open for public comment]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:54:26 -0500 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Except for the fact that the material being cited contains the > specifics of license and IPR releases, and promises to abide by > certain rules, by the authors. Authors can't reasonably be > asked to agree to somet

CNN Travel discovers Prague

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/DESTINATIONS/01/29/prague/index.html --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: MUST implement AES-CBC for IPsec ESP

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 13:34:54 -0800 Lakshminath Dondeti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What are the export implications due to this? A compliant ESP > implementation MUST include the DES cipher due to this change. With > status quo, a compliant ESP implementation can be used for integrity > protec

Re: MUST implement AES-CBC for IPsec ESP

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:45:26 -0800 "Lawrence Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > For ESP encryption algorithms, the document that was sent out for > > > Last Call contains the following table: > > > > > > RequirementEncryption Algorithm (notes) > > > ---

Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:26:33 -0500 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps we should make it a requirement that any document that > is Last Called must be associated with a mailing list, perhaps > one whose duration is limited to the Last Call period and any > follow-ups until the doc

Re: Last Call: draft-legg-xed-asd (Abstract Syntax Notation X (ASN.X)) to Proposed Standard

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:47:06 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 10:05:35PM -0500, > Steven M. Bellovin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > a message of 34 lines which said: > > > And as you very well know, the IPR working g

Re: Last Call: draft-legg-xed-asd (Abstract Syntax Notation X (ASN.X)) to Proposed Standard

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:38:16 +0100 Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Joel M. Halpern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Simon, you are mixing several issues in your note, including > > strictly legal issues and personal preferences. > > I bring up only one issue here: Can implementer

Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 05:03:57 -0800 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have had the same experience. > > The tracker is not mentioned in any of the process documents or the > desription of ietf process or the web site (which continues to be > useless). > > The impression is of

Re: Intermediate wg summaries

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 10:24:23 -0800 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hope no one doubts the basic truth of Brian's observation. My own > feeling, in fact, is that expecting all ADs to read even the final > draft is an excessive burden. Either way, it leads to the basic > question of h

Re: IESG Success Stories

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 17:17:33 -0800 Cullen Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: > > > My gripe is when an outside AD takes an > > interest in the work, goes to the f2f meetings, maybe reads the > > drafts but then waits to IESG evaluation time

Re: "Discuss" criteria

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:11:33 -0800 Lisa Dusseault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 31, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > > > There is perhaps one more aspect to "Can somebody explain ..." that > > > is worth considering. In some cases, the AD simply does not have > > > > the e

Re: IESG Success Stories (was: "Discuss" criteria)

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 07:09:21 -0800 Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The other thing that occurs to me -- and I know this has been brought > up in many different forms -- is that if an AD _was_ following the > working group to some degree, why is it legitimate for them to wait > for

Re: "Discuss" criteria

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:05:12 -0800 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is another problem to do with consensus and the status quo. > > Say we have a situation where a clear majority of a working group > believes that a spec is unworkable unless a particular change is > made

Re: Review of draft-manral-ipsec-rfc4305-bis-errata-02.txt

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:55:33 -0600 Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, I'm not sure that the use of "MUST-" and "SHOULD+" is actually > useful. In this update no algorithms previously classified as MUST- > have been downgraded, and no algorithms previously classified as > SHOULD+

Re: DNS Choices: Was: [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:43:10 -0800 (PST) David Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure, but that then becomes an actual crime in most juristictions. > Given that most spam is fraudulent anyway, and is sent using stolen resources, it's already two different crimes. That doesn't seem to have stop

  1   2   3   4   >