In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "J. Noel Chiappa" typed:
>>> right, noels wrong.
>>Noel is happy to wait, and see who's right. (I've been through this exact
>>same experience before, with CLNP, so I understand the life-cycle.) So far,
>>I've been waiting for quite a few years with IPv6
Ok,
I will stop being a lurker and chime in since our draft was
mentioned :->
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> draft-xie-stewart-sigtran-ddp-00 addresses redundancy and failover of
> sessions within a server pool, where uncoordinated failover of sessions from
> one endpoint to another is a requirement
> From: Masataka Ohta [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> "good *if* and only if"?
>
> With cookies, a network is as secure as a telephone or fax network, which
> is *GOOD* enough for credit card companies.
Not exactly. It's pretty easy to intercept any packet on the Internet,
that's not
the case for reg
This may be a divergence from the topic, so I'll apologize in advance, but
Vernon's point about bounced emails struck a cord with me. I made the
mistake of leaving a couple of options on my MS Outlook which causes a
receipt to be sent back to me when an email is delivered and when it's read.
At th
> From: "BookIII, Robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> save for a couple of auto-responses from NTMail in the name of
> ...
> but have started up again. Does anyone know how I could go about addressing
> this? Thanks for your time and consideration.
You can expect at least 3 and usually several
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> You appear to be saying that because historically people screwed up
>> configuring their DNS that it is impossible to rely on the DNS for
>> critical infrastructure.
> I wouldn't say 'impossible'. My point is that it is more difficul
Jon -
Keep in mind that there is no standards track document - the document you have
is merely a proposal by one set of parties. This effort is pre-WG (chairs,
charters, and final approvals are not complete to my knowledge). There are a
number of parties that would like to see a proposed stan
