David
In this particular case the candidate pool would have been tiny,
because the criteria would surely have included being experienced
with both the ITU process and the IETF liaison process, including
knowing and understanding the liaison history. Therefore it
seems unlikely that there would be
--On Thursday, March 28, 2013 13:13 + Stewart Bryant
wrote:
> David
>
> In this particular case the candidate pool would have been
> tiny, because the criteria would surely have included being
> experienced with both the ITU process and the IETF liaison
> process, including knowing and und
I could.
My worry is just that this is such a contentious subject and it took us x
hundreds of emails to reach this state, that if I add more explanations,
people will start disagreeing with it and that we end up in a long debate
on how to correctly express this.
Is this important enough to do th
Stefan,
> Is this important enough to do that?
IMHO, yes - the "running code" aspects of existing responder
behavior/limitations
are definitely important enough for an RFC like this that revises a protocol
spec,
and the alternatives to "revoked" feel like an important complement to those
aspect
That would do nicely.
Thanks,
--David
> -Original Message-
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 12:30 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: Ted Lemon; McPherson, Danny; s...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; gen-
> a...@ietf.org; Jean-Michel Combes; joel.h
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the review and comments;
we'll post a new revision soon.
Dean
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 4:18 PM
> To: draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: gen-...@ietf.org Review T
I will try to come up with a way to address the MAC move topic. The challenge
is to word it in such a way that it does not imply a new protocol for
communicating such a move (Savi was/is prohibited by charter from doing
protocol development.)
Yours,
Joel
> -Original Message-
> From: Te
I have given this a go by expanding the note as follows:
NOTE: The "revoked" state for known non-issued certificate serial
numbers is allowed in order to reduce the risk of relying
parties using CRLs as a fall back mechanism, which would be
considerably higher if an "unk
Rather than guessing all of the bad things that could happen, I would offer it
would be better to say what we mean, like:
The IMAP interface MUST NOT provide any IMAP facilities that modify the
underlying message and message metadata, such as mailbox, flags, marking for
deletion, etc. If
> Does this solve you issue.
> I think this is as far as dare to go without risking a heated debate.
Yes, that suffices for me - it provides a cogent explanation of why
"revoked" is optional, and the existing text on CRLs as a fallback
mechanism suffices to illuminate a likely consequence of not u
Great,
I will issue an update shortly.
/Stefan
On 3/28/13 3:51 PM, "Black, David" wrote:
>> Does this solve you issue.
>> I think this is as far as dare to go without risking a heated debate.
>
>Yes, that suffices for me - it provides a cogent explanation of why
>"revoked" is optional, and the
Hi David,
I agree with you totally, because we discussed on the list on diversity,
however, I think we need to have meeting discussion about this as well (Was
it discussed in last meeting? I was not there), I recommend this to be
discussed and minute sent to list, meeting in open doors next f2f me
On 3/27/13 10:11 PM, "Martin Rex" wrote:
>It was the Security co-AD Russ Housley who indicated _early_ during
>the discussion of that draft (2.5 years after it had been adopted
>as a WG item) that he considered some of the suggested abuses of
>existing error codes "unacceptable"
For the record.
Stewart,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 01:13:44PM +, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
> In this particular case the candidate pool would have been tiny,
> because the criteria would surely have included being experienced
> with both the ITU process and the IETF liaison process, including
> knowing and unde
Smoke filled rooms
Irrespectively Yours,
John
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> David Kessens
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:04 AM
> To: Stewart Bryant
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield a
On 3/28/13 5:13 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Therefore it
> seems unlikely that there would be any candidate that the IAB
> did not already know about. So whilst I agree in general,
> this is not a case that should raise any concerns.
Wow.
Allow me to suggest that even if you think this is true,
g
On Mar 27, 2013, at 22:26, David Kessens wrote:
> Recently, there has been a lot of discussion in the IETF about diversity.
Is it just me or is the liaison manager for the politically tempestuous ITU-T
relationship really about the worst possible position to exercise this point on?
Choose your
On 3/28/2013 6:13 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
In this particular case the candidate pool would have been tiny,
because the criteria would surely have included being experienced
with both the ITU process and the IETF liaison process, including
knowing and understanding the liaison history. Therefo
Dear IETF,
In response to various strategies to reject IPv6 email lacking either DKIM
or SPF, the non-negotiated approach suggests far greater review is needed.
Here is a paper illustrating problems with DKIM.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jh4z407q45qc8dd/MlcUTUFUf4/Domains%20as%20a%20basis%20for%20
--On Thursday, March 28, 2013 18:28 +0100 Carsten Bormann
wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2013, at 22:26, David Kessens
> wrote:
>
>> Recently, there has been a lot of discussion in the IETF
>> about diversity.
>
> Is it just me or is the liaison manager for the politically
> tempestuous ITU-T relations
Hi Eric,
At 05:13 28-03-2013, Burger Eric wrote:
Rather than guessing all of the bad things that could happen, I
would offer it would be better to say what we mean, like:
The IMAP interface MUST NOT provide any IMAP facilities
that modify the underlying message and message metadata, such
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, SM wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> At 05:13 28-03-2013, Burger Eric wrote:
> > Rather than guessing all of the bad things that could happen, I would offer
> > it would be better to say what we mean, like:
> > The IMAP interface MUST NOT provide any IMAP facilities that modify
>
That was the British use of the term "unlikely".
Stewart
Sent from my iPad
On 28 Mar 2013, at 14:05, "Dave Crocker" wrote:
>
>
> On 3/28/2013 6:13 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>> In this particular case the candidate pool would have been tiny,
>> because the criteria would surely have included
Hi Doug,
On 3/28/2013 2:13 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
Dear IETF,
In response to various strategies to reject IPv6 email lacking either DKIM
or SPF, the non-negotiated approach suggests far greater review is needed.
Whats the difference with IPv6 connections? Should it matter? Does it
matter?
The IETF and various members occasionally break out in back seat driver's
syndrome. It's disappointing.
We need to remember that we are organized more as a republic than a democracy.
We select various folks through the Nomcom process to make decisions on various
things. E.g.. the IESG for st
Hello Hector,
On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>
> On 3/28/2013 2:13 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
>> Dear IETF,
>>
>> In response to various strategies to reject IPv6 email lacking either DKIM
>> or SPF, the non-negotiated approach suggests far greater review is needed.
Total of 159 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Mar 29 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
8.18% | 13 | 18.77% | 304221 | ste...@aaa-sec.com
6.29% | 10 | 9.61% | 155782 | david.bl...@em
On 3/28/2013 6:03 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Seriously - can we stop second guessing the IESG, IAB and IAOC on everything?
That's not what's being done, Mike, and such hyperbole doesn't
facilitate meaningful exchange.
There have been two exceptions raised -- one about diversity and this
Mike,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 09:03:25PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
> The process for selecting and appointing liaisons is the purview of the
> IAB and not currently subject to external review - and I don't find any
> problem with that.
I fully agree with this.
All I am asking for is a cal
29 matches
Mail list logo
