Re: Last Call: (Security Implications of IPv6 on IPv4 Networks) to Informational RFC

On 04/02/2013 10:25 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Apr 2, 2013, at 7:30 PM, Fernando Gont wrote: >>> I agree with the last sentence. Happy Eyeballs is about the HTTP. >>> There are other applications protocols too. :-) >> >> Happy eyeballs is about HTTP. But part of the approach predates "Happy >> E

Re: Missing requirement in draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch? (was Re: New Version Notification - draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-05.txt)

Hi Eric, I am sorry if I sound pedantic below, but I think your suggestion can be misinterpreted and thus needs improving: On 28/03/2013 12:13, 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:

Re: Missing requirement in draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch? (was Re: New Version Notification - draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-05.txt)

On 27 Mar 2013, at 20:31, Robert Sparks wrote: > While looking at it, I noticed we don't explicitly say that this IMAP > interface MUST NOT > allow messages in the archive to be deleted I would actually allow administrative users to delete messages (e.g. spam), but such actions should be recor

Re: Missing requirement in draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch?

On 4/1/13 6:49 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: May I suggest that the specific details of this be left to the implementation effort. What is easy to implement in this area depends significantly on what platform (and here I mean more imap libraries and imap server technology than say python vs ruby vs .ne

Re: Missing requirement in draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch? (was Re: New Version Notification - draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-05.txt)

On 4/2/13 4:54 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: Hi Eric, I am sorry if I sound pedantic below, but I think your suggestion can be misinterpreted and thus needs improving: On 28/03/2013 12:13, Burger Eric wrote: Rather than guessing all of the bad things that could happen, I would offer it would be

Re: Missing requirement in draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch? (was Re: New Version Notification - draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-05.txt)

On 4/3/13 9:46 AM, Robert Sparks wrote: I think I found a way to say this that strikes a good balance in -06. Let me know what you think. Excellent. Ship it. pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

Re: Missing requirement in draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch? (was Re: New Version Notification - draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-05.txt)

Alexey: Of course we want to be able to delete spam, but this is being used to access an archive, so only the administrator should be able to delete the spam. Russ On Apr 1, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > On 27 Mar 2013, at 20:31, Robert Sparks wrote: > >> While looking at it, I

Re: Missing requirement in draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch? (was Re: New Version Notification - draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-05.txt)

On 4/3/2013 9:10 AM, Russ Housley wrote: Alexey: Of course we want to be able to delete spam, but this is being used to access an archive, so only the administrator should be able to delete the spam. Russ On Apr 1, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: On 27 Mar 2013, at 20:31, Robert S

Re: Missing requirement in draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch? (was Re: New Version Notification - draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-05.txt)

Dave: >> Alexey: >> >> Of course we want to be able to delete spam, but this is being used >> to access an archive, so only the administrator should be able to >> delete the spam. >> >> Russ >> >> >> On Apr 1, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> >>> On 27 Mar 2013, at 20:31, Robert Sp

Re: Missing requirement in draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch? (was Re: New Version Notification - draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-05.txt)

On 4/3/2013 9:23 AM, Russ Housley wrote: Of course we want to be able to delete spam, but this is being used to access an archive, so only the administrator should be able to delete the spam. ... On Apr 1, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: On 27 Mar 2013, at 20:31, Robert Sparks wro

Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6

On Mar 30, 2013, at 10:43 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > It sometimes feels as if anti-spam efforts are trending in the > direction of its being acceptable to accidentally discard a few > dozen legitimate messages if doing so allows blocking a few > thousand unsolicited/undesired ones. I hop

Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6

On Apr 3, 2013, at 6:16 PM, Dean Willis wrote: > I've tried to imagine using Facebook-like system for IETF work, and it is > strangely compelling ... It would, however, be nice if it were peer-to-peer rather than monolithic.

Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6

On 04/03/2013 05:01 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Apr 3, 2013, at 6:16 PM, Dean Willis wrote: I've tried to imagine using Facebook-like system for IETF work, and it is strangely compelling ... It would, however, be nice if it were peer-to-peer rather than monolithic. XMPP (aka Jabber) already ha

Re: [nfsv4] Last Call: (Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Protocol) to Proposed Standard

On Apr 1, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > I have not yet completed a full review of this (320-page) document, and I > worry that I may not finish before the deadline, so I am bringing this > concern to your attention now. > > Section 3.2.1.1 of this document ("Kerberos V5 as a secu