On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:33:54 GMT, Misha Wolf said:
> I find statements such as this mind-boggling. Please explain what you
> mean by "much support". There have been at least as many individuals
> writing mails in favour of the document as against it. Furthermore,
> it has been made clear tha
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:04:36 PST, Asif Pathan said:
>I want to know that is it possible to transfer the fingerprint
> (converted) coding over net? If yes then which protocol we use if no then why?
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/ describes one method in common use.
You might also
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:46:52 EST, Bruce Lilly said:
> Accessibility has not been a problem for this implementor (who,
> incidentally, was unaware of this draft until the New
> Last Call). ISO 639 language code lists are readily available in
> HTML-ized English and French via
> http://www.lo
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:41:24 EST, Michael StJohns said:
> The IASA, AdminRest et al discussions appear to be proceeding well, but
> perhaps it might make sense to craft a mailing list specifically for those
> discussions ?
On the one hand, part of me says "Amen, this stuff makes my brain hurt".
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:33:54 +0100, "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" said:
> But why to spend time and money and to take risks to change something which
> is not broken. IPv6 has no problem in keeping the same host numbers if the
> used addressing plan uses a numbering scheme designed with that purpose in
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:16:58 EST, Sam Hartman said:
> Personally, I do believe that stating some details would help me
> evaluate whether IASA is seperable and would require the IETF's
> consent in order to change the details. I do think that requiring
> IASA keep separate bank accounts is probab
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:46:23 +1200, Franck Martin said:
> Well, in most Pacific Islands, there is only one operator who is nearly
> fully owned by the government, so the words "sole ISP" and "country" can
> be interchanged. The countries there are islands, physically and virtually.
While waitin
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:44:30 +0100, Jeroen Massar said:
> Ack, nicely turn that NAT box into a real router by flashing it with a
> This is unfortunately not something that most people dare to do. Then
> again, I know that quite a lot of people 'upgraded' their SpeedTouch
Argh. Flashing it with a
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:10:33 +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist said:
> I have long thought that the knowledge of having long (life-long)
> persistent, well-spread unique personal identifiers are bad was general
> knowledge. Then again, I guess the US biometric stuff has proven me
> wrong on that alrea
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:02:18 GMT, Paul Vixie said:
> given the relative ease of acquiring v6 address space and the relative
> ease of deploying v4+v6 end hosts and either v4+v6 campuses or v6 tunnels
> in v4 campuses, there is no incentive to do nat/v4 any more, and precious
> little incentive to
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 06:40:35 EST, Fred Baker said:
> That is the ISP's choice. As a percentage of total volume, SMTP/ESMTP is a
> small proportion of total traffic, or so please I can read sample
> measurements (like
> http://www.caida.org/dynamic/analysis/workload/sdnap/0_0_/ts_top_n_app_bytes
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:34:44 PST, Tim Bray said:
>
> On Nov 12, 2004, at 7:51 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
> > Believe me, I know the difference between a big rat and a squirrel
>
> Everybody knows there are lots of rats in Washington, as in any capital
> city. -T
Are there *any* cities *
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 08:39:44 EST, Stephane Bortzmeyer said:
> No, in one location :-)
> http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html
Yes, but didn't you see the "Beware of Leopard" sign on the
way down the stairs? ;)
pgp48g7cHZcQv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:23:30 EST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ said:
> And trying to be positive, I will strongly suggest that the next IETF we
> have a new type of training: "How to deploy IPv6 in your network".
This seems more appropriate for a NANOG tutorial, or many other places/times,
than an IETF m
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 22:48:16 +0100, Gert Doering said:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 04:31:46PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > So 40% isn't even *allocated* yet (saying that we're probably burning /8's
> > faster than needed, but only 36% of the available space is actually routed.
> >
>
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:38:21 PST, Tony Hain said:
> all space currently considered lost. Given that IANA allocated 9 /8's over a
> 6 month period this year, coupled with the fact that only 78 /8's remain in
> the useful part of the pool (ie: 52 month burn out),
They said that just before CIDR hap
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:40:39 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
> I do sympathize somewhat with the people who just want "someone to take
> care of this" and choose not to comment in detail on the document - we have
> to make sure they know what's going on, but we cannot force anyone to
> act
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:52:26 +0800, =?gb2312?B?dGVzdA==?= said:
> 3.The authority database guarantee all \"Email-content servers\" are related with
> legal ESPs.
This is somewhere between "highly unlikely" and "totally unworkable".
Problems:
1) Who controls the authority database? Why should I
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 07:30:24 EDT, scott bradner said:
> there seems to be an assertion of evil intent here that is not the case
The problem isn't one of current evil intent, the problem is that there's
a hole in the tent that an evilly-intented camel could get far more than just
its nose through.
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:47:52 EDT, Tony Hansen said:
> The claim in Appendix A is that there were no authoritative sources of
> documentation for the mbox formats and otherwise it's "only documented
> in anecdotal form". I'm sorry, but the the definitions ARE there, and
> ARE almost always autho
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:18:19 EDT, Tony Hansen said:
> The information about the mbox format being anecdotally defined is
> incorrect. The mbox format has traditionally been documented in the
> binmail(1) or mail.local(8) man pages (BSD UNIX derivatives) or mail(1)
> man page (UNIX System 3/5/III
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 21:27:52 EDT, Bill Sommerfeld said:
> Huh? There have been (small numbers of) clued people wearing collars
> and ties at just about every IETF I've attended..
And I'm willing to bet that at least some subset of the clued-collar-tie-IETF
group is actually a clued-tshirt-corpora
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 06:40:30 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> --
> Warning: Message delivery wasn't performed.
>
> Reason: Our virus scanner detected very suspicious code in
> the attachment of a mail addressed to a user of our sy
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 09:10:24 EDT, Sal Mangiapane said:
> > Thank you. I was also looking for an RFC - if any -which documents why.
> >
> There is RFC3552 which is the Security Considerations Best Practices but
> it doesn't answer the WHY question.
At the risk of stating the obvious
Anybody
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 06:22:54 EDT, shogunx said:
> And if we bring suit against this obvious invasion of privacy,
It's been tried.
http://freetotravel.org/
pgpi3AgZS6a1Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://ww
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:41:53 EDT, shogunx said:
> How about a city in the US which agrees to not engage in such
> behavior, and has an international airport, and several private airports?
The cities aren't given a choice in the matter - some bright bulb in the
federal bureaucracy decided that fin
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:28:37 EDT, Michael Richardson said:
> Even if they do not result in efficiencies in the routing table, I
> think they would go a long way to making people happy.
If you want to make people happy by promising technically infeasible solutions,
I suggest a career in politics
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 12:38:01 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Your e-mail account has been temporary disabled because of unauthorized access.
Our virus scanners are still nailing some 30K Bagles a week. Are there
really people net.clued enough to be subscribed to the IETF list, but
with so few
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 08:10:57 PDT, Michel Py <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Tim Chown
> > Oh, you can filter out any sender easily enough. The snag
> > is you see all the replies people send to their mailings :(
>
> Indeed.
Procmail filtering on 'From:|To:|cc:' is easy enough. There's probably
a
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 22:05:36 +0200, "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> "the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is a function performed by
> ICANN".
> http://www.iana.org/procedures/delegation-data.html
> grounds that it may not be still here in two years. The majority of
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:56:46 EDT, Sal Mangiapane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Is it the intention to always include the IPR statement and the RFC
> Editor will only "ensure" it when an IPR disclosure has been made?
I read it as "If we are aware of an IPR claim or disclosure, the RFC Editor
will i
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:46:20 EDT, Sal Mangiapane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 5.4. Copyright Notice (required for all IETF Documents)
> "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (year). This document is
> subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP
> 78, and ex
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:29:37 +0200, Hadmut Danisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> OK, there was some discussion about different
> levels of Internet services and categories.
>
> So should the IETF publish a definition?
There's discussion in progress off-list. The problem is that although it's
pro
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:39:07 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
> But that's just a detail. The real difference is that you can buy a car
> anywhere on the landmass of your choice and then bring it to whereever
> you want to use it on that same landmass. With IP service, you're
> limited to what
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:11:25 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
> With your motivation explained and with your three new categories,
> all of which are unrelated to telecommunication providers but
> related to hotels, I think I can understand your fundamental
> mistake.
More generally, Internet access is
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:43:23 EDT, Dean Anderson said:
> Mr. Vixie's obvious malice for Av8 Internet is plain to see,
As is the fact that the feelings appear to be mutual
> services to customers. However, it is unclear what Mr. Vixie's expertise
> is actually in, other than name-calling, an
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:00:29 PDT, Sally Floyd said:
> to the browser. Presumeably if the web server wanted to use something
> like QuickStart, it could have the firewall configured to allow the
> IP QuickStart Option not to be blocked on the outgoing SYN packet?
Given the number of times we've h
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:23:44 EDT, Mike S said:
> Any router configured to block ICMP packets is, quite simply,
> in violation of RFC792 (STD5), which clearly states "ICMP is actually
> an integral part of IP, and must be implemented by every IP module."
> For a router, "implemented" means forwar
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:43:50 CDT, Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> --ccjixvqhktnezunmahim
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>
>
>
>
OK, so it's content-free. At least it's buzzword-free too. ;)
Question - the Received: headers in
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:04:06 PDT, Joe Touch said:
> STD-5 is a nice choice - it actually refers to 6 different RFCs.
>
> So which one redirects to STD005.txt, and what is in it?
>
> (To see this noted in the RFCs themselves, see STD-62, which refers to a
> set of 8 different RFCs.)
>
> And wha
On Thu, 27 May 2004 18:23:17 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
> There is also the possibility of blacklisting known bad credentials.
Anybody who's had to get themselves out of 3,000 private blacklists, and
anybody who's had to fight with places that were blackholing the 69/8 address
space, knows
On Wed, 26 May 2004 15:00:00 MDT, Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I don't see any of those proposals and their competitors as sane.
Oh, I wasn't addressing whether the proposals were workable, merely listing
proposals motivated by the fact that verifying the legitimacy of a sending
ma
On Mon, 24 May 2004 10:18:28 BST, Christian de Larrinaga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm hoping that spam filters will detect the inconsistent header information
> and not blacklist me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] but I'm not hopeful.
In fact, there isn't any sane way to detect "inconsistent" header inf
(Finally back after a prolonged sabbatical - last few months have been
too weird/hectic for me to do much of anything IETF-related)..
On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:55:50 BST, Tim Chown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:05:00AM +1000, grenville armitage wrote:
> >
> > This could be
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:47:38 PST, Bob Hinden said:
> I agree and think that there should continue to be a public record of who
> attended IETF meetings. It is an important part of our open standards process.
>
> It might be a good thing to disclose this to people when they register for
> the IE
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:20:02 +0200, Haim Rochberger said:
> In this case I cannot map the IP address of the TCP session to one specific
> mobile subscriber - and the only way I can
> identify the subscriber is by "looking" on the SMPP layer (above the TCP)
> and extract the subscriber mobile numb
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:42:28 +0200, Haim Rochberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I will appreciate your help as it will help in making a better design
> decisions.
Hmm.. been a while since I've had to post this. ;)
The first thing you want to do is take a step *back* from the problem, and ask
yo
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:53:18 EST, Noel Chiappa said:
> This virus/worm is actually mildly interested in the way it operates. I'm
> seeing lots of email from people with whom I would have corresponded long ago
>From http://www.viruslist.com/eng/alert.html?id=783050:
The worm searches disk drives
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 04:13:48 GMT, Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> independent (non-series) document, then havn't we achieved gutenberg's goal,
> doesn't everybody have their own printing press, and can't we either choose
> an existing refereed forum for non-standards work, or just self-pub
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:39:51 PST, Bob Braden said:
> Yes. So let's consciously endeavor to ensure that sigificant
> non-standards documents -- responsible position papers, white papers,
> new ideas, etc. -- become RFCs. (Making Internet Drafts into an
> archival series seems like a terrible idea
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:46:17 PST, Paul Hoffman / IMC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> At 12:48 PM -0500 1/13/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:21:53 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said:
> >
> > > As I said, fascist.
> >
> >Godwin.
>
> Valdis, you have confused two protocols tha
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:21:53 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said:
> As I said, fascist.
Godwin.
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:23:10 PST, Michel Py <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> And as of the DoD requirements, those of us that are old enough will
> remember the ADA language.
GOSIP.
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:48:39 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said:
> The relevant code is relatively new, so only limited, if any, case law can be
> expected to be extant in any case.>
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1030_new.html
Title of the page is "18 USC 1030, as amended Oct 11,
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:56:04 MST, Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It's never clear to me what Keith Moore means by "RBL" when he repeats
> that claim. Those three letters are a registered service mark for a
> product that historically has been run so conservatively that claims
Unfor
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:13:50 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said:
> Use of the MAPS RBL and DUL clearly impairs the availability and integrity of
> the Internet email system and the information transferred using that system.
> MAPS RBL and DUL participants are actively participating in illegal d
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:03:19 +0100, jfcm said:
> is validated. A market standard is the desciption of what works and is
> adopted. We might find this way a fortunate compromise?
Unfortunately, "market standards" often include borken things that are adopted
via forced-feeding. More than one ven
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 15:37:18 PST, Fred Baker said:
> At 02:32 PM 1/8/2004, jfcm wrote:
> >Could it not be useful to have a "List of Comments" (LOC) for each RFC?
> >Where experience about the RFC reading, testing and implementation could
> >be listed by the authors (or a successor) from experienc
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:43:23 +0100, Julian Reschke said:
> Well, I was asking because we (the WebDAV working group) are just now
> discussing a similar issue. We've got a new spec (the BIND protocol)
> which updates parts of RFC2518 and RFC3253, and thus we'd like the RFC
> Index to have "forwa
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:38:34 +0100, Julian Reschke said:
> Not at all. IMHO the situation is as follows: RFC2396 completely
> replaces all previous definitions of URI syntax and resolution
> (including the syntax for relative URI references).
>
> However, previous documents *also* contained def
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:14:54 +0100, Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The second statement seems to be misleading. For instance, RFC2396 (URI
> syntax) updates previous RFCs that also contained specific URI scheme
> descriptions (such as "ftp"). Thus, it doesn't obsolete them. However,
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:46:59 +1030, Mark Smith said:
> What is amazing about it is that, while it looks like a plain ascii email, it
> was actually in HTML, and HTML had been used to make it look like an plain
> ascii email.
> I don't remember giving Visa any of my "nosense.org" email addresses,
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:40:57 EST, Parry Aftab said:
> It's a spoof, phished e-mail. No such credit card. I just confirmed with
> the powers that be in PayPal/eBay. The scams are good enough to confuse
> even ietf members. See the problem? How can someone tell this was a
> phishing expedition?
Damn
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:32:28 +1200, Franck Martin said:
> For example, you receive an e-mail telling you that there has been a
> security breach at PayPal, and you need to log into the site and correct
> your info, by using the bogus link they provide.
"Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:19:29 EST, Mark Allman said:
> Um, my library slaps a helpful identification tag on the spine of every
> book to help me find it. Your analogy, man ...
A quick sampling of 15 books from our local public library shows that:
a) All 15 have spine tags for on the shelves and
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:59:40 EST, Eric Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I would offer that worrying about signed signatures when we don't have signed mail
Oh?
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:39:21 +1200, Franck Martin said:
> Why such a war for just 6 characters, while all mailing lists do it?
If "all mailing lists do it" (which in itself is a dubious assertion) is sufficient
justification, why are we bothering with an IETF? Maybe we should just
disband and le
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:47:20 PST, David Morris said:
> Even so, any point of sending signed mail to a public list should be to
> allow the list to process the signed mail. If signed mail ever becomes
part of the ietf list process, let the server process the signature and
> mark the mail appropriat
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:04:21 PST, David Morris said:
>
> The point of [ietf] has little to do with programatic filters and much to
> do with human visual filtering. Seeing the list tag in the list of
> subjects provided in the index list provided by my mail client makes
> human prioritization much
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:34:35 EST, Sandy Wills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [1] Could we come up with a 512-bit flag system[2]? Would that be
> enough? I don't want dick ads, I do want breast ads, I won't read
> anything from California, I really, really want stuff from Dell.
http://www.i
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:22:24 +0100, "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> "If a host has received an ECN-setup SYN packet, then it MAY send
> an ECN-setup SYN-ACK packet. If a host has not received an ECN-setup
> SYN packet, then it MUST NOT send an ECN-setup SYN-ACK packet."
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 07:37:23 +0100, "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Microsoft knows better; apparently Linux developers and/or supporters do
> not.
Microsoft knows better than the RFC?
or
Microsoft knows better than to implement RFCs so everybody can benefit?
I'm not sure t
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 05:34:53 +0100, "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The main contention seems to be the system with the problem. If it's
> Linux, it's not a bug, it's feature. If it's Microsoft, it's not a
> feature, it's a bug.
Linux could at least stand on the claim that i
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:47:43 +1200, Franck Martin said:
> Hmmm, we talked about some of it...
>
> look in the IETF archives on "Global PKI on DNS?"
Paul, Keith, and myself have bounced a few e-mails in private back and forth,
and unless I'm totally mis-forgetting that thread, what we're discussi
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:01:02 PST, Paul Hoffman / IMC said:
> This has nearly nothing to do with the technical part of the PKI, and
> everything to do with the humans.
Right. And to quote what Keith Moore said at the start of this thread:
> I'd put this a different way. Until PKIs are able to
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:09:37 PST, Paul Hoffman / IMC said:
> All of that is describable, and many vendors have such products.
> There are no standards (or none that are significantly followed) for
> such assertions. So? Many different PKIs can handle such assertions,
> once you codify them.
I'
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:33:23 PST, Paul Hoffman / IMC said:
> At 2:14 PM -0500 12/14/03, Keith Moore wrote:
>>I trust my boss to make statements about my job.
> All of those statements, assertions, and so on can be made in simple
> signed messages. When you get a message with statements about your
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:14:56 EST, Keith Moore said:
> I trust my mother and my siblings to make statements about the
> identities of other family members.
> I trust the State of Tennessee to make statements about the identities
> of state agencies.
However, I'll bet a dinner that you most likely
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:47:03 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Bradner) said:
> > The real issue is whether an ECN bit is reserved, or not reserved.
>
> it's not "reserved" -- the ECN bits are assigned by RFC 3168
>
> i.e. ECN is a proposed standard and the bits that it uses in the IP header
> are
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:51:21 +0100, "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> ECN needs to work the same way. First you try with ECN. If the remote
> host immediately resets the connection, you disable ECN completely and
> try again. You may not have ECN if you then succeed, but at le
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:37:18 EST, shogunx said:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, vinton g. cerf wrote:
>
> > at the moment it is not well constituted to develop policy.
>
> No, but it well constituented to be. Is it only necessary that it be
> reconstituted.
The fact that cats could swim for long periods
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:17:00 GMT, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Just wondering, as I have about IPv4 anycast allocations: why can't we
> designate a block for microallocations, within which prefix length filters
> aren't applied? The number of routes in the DFZ is the same either way;
> is
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:10:16 EST, stanislav shalunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> What's a connection-time-limited environment?
One that is either pay-by-the-minute or has a MTBF low enough to be a serious
hazard to any given transaction in progress.
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:53:57 +0100, "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Maybe it's time to find a different way to route.
If you know of a better way than BGP, feel free to suggest it, Make sure you
do at least some back-of-envelope checks that it Does The Right Thing when
a sing
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:15:07 PST, Michel Py said:
> In many enterprise environments, this would be a feature not a bug.
> There are some webcams that are definitely inappropriate in a business
> setup; given the lack of good enterprise content filtering solutions for
> IM, if NAT does break IM web
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 07:55:13 CST, Spencer Dawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> no community consensus document that says what the community consensus
> appears to be, and the best thing to do is to Google "NAT end-to-end"
> and leave the result as an exercise for the reader?
You want "no consensu
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:42:18 EST, Dean Anderson said:
> The main criticism of the IETF/IANA/ICANN by the rest of the world seems
> to fall under the democratic constituencies issue. People outside the US
> seem to distrust the US, and feel that their voices are not being heard,
> and that they ar
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:17:41 GMT, Tim Chown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The "at current burn rate" assumption is far from safe though...
Oh? Have any better-than-handwaving reasons to suspect the current allocation
rate will change drastically? I don't forsee the cellphone or embedded
markets ta
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:20:20 +0100, "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> jfcm writes:
>
> > I am sure that many security officers or generals would feel unatease if
> > they known their HQ IPv6 address can be just one unknown bit different from
> > the IPv6 address of a ennemy compu
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:40:53 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
> a /48 further deminishes the available bits. The situation is most
> notable in the case of a home user, who would get a single IPv4 address
> but gets a /48 in IPv6. So we've quadrupled our address space (in bits)
> for a 50% gai
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:06:26 +0100, "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 33 bits
8,589,934,592 times as many addresses. At current burn rates, it will take
us some 20 years to go through the *current* free IPv4 space. And nobody's
proposed any killer app that will take millions o
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:52:11 +0100, "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> A 128-bit field contains 2^128 addresses. If you divide that into two
> 64-bit fields, you may get as few as 2^64*2 addresses; that's 18
> million trillion times smaller than the 128-bit field.
Exactly. And
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:32:50 MST, Jeroen Bekaert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> As such, a possible value of Y could be "text/xml; charset=utf-8"?
> As such, a possible value of Y could be: "text"
You want media-type to be "text" with a subtype of "xml" and
a parameter "charset=utf-8".
I don't s
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 14:44:09 PST, "Ole J. Jacobsen" said:
> line printers any more, but you get the idea :-) [If anyone still
> remembers how to make a line printer attached to an IBM 370 do this by
> sending just the right sort of code, you get extra points].
The IBM 1403 printer (1200 lines per
> We also had the new overly "helpful" operating systems and a variety of
> infected machines eating bandwidth.
How depressing. Does anybody have any good estimate on what % of machines were
infected with one or more of the usual standard-equipment pieces of
bandwidth-sucking malware?
It's sad
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:55:59 EST, Nathaniel Borenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> And if it's this easy to mess up maliciously, well maybe we should
> be commissioning an IETF police force that will develop the tools to
> track down the offending laptops in real time and pour diet Coke in
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 05:17:56 PST, todd glassey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> One thing that would surely help would be the merging of the IESG and the
> IETF into as seamless entity. This magic handwaving distance between the two
> entities is an issue these days.
On the other hand, one of the IESG
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:13:55 PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Forget Mongolian. Think Chinese and Hindi, plus related languages that
> use their character sets. Between the two of them you have nearly 3
> billion potential users, i.e. half the world's population. Admittedly
> not all of them are lite
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:33:31 +0800, Tan Tin Wee said:
> And if they need to send email to outsiders, then they would
> send in ASCII email address, as routinely as they would
OK.. I get that part. Now for the big question: You're there in this
Mongolian intranet, and find you need to ask me a te
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:32:46 +0800, James Seng said:
> to your opinion but please do so in other place, and not here. The group
> is suppose to work on Internationalization of Email address
> (identifiers), not debate whether we need it or not.
Any group that addresses "how" and "for which conte
1 - 100 of 572 matches
Mail list logo
