On 09/09/13 09:29, Eliot Lear wrote:
> We're talking.
>
> Eliot
>
>
> On 9/9/13 10:20 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> So, has Bruce Schneier actually been invited to speak at the Technical
>> Plenary (or elsewhere) during the Vancouver IETF? I recall him giving an
>> informative talk at least one p
On 06/09/13 14:45, Scott Brim wrote:
> I wouldn't focus on government surveillance per se. The IETF should
> consider that breaking privacy is much easier than it used to be,
> particularly given consolidation of services at all layers, and take
> that into account in our engineering best practice
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Tobias Gondrom
wrote:
> On 09/09/13 09:29, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> We're talking.
>
> Eliot
>
>
> On 9/9/13 10:20 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
> So, has Bruce Schneier actually been invited to speak at the Technical
> Plenary (or elsewhere) during the Vancouver IET
On Sep 14, 2013, at 1:57 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Doug,
> At 20:56 13-09-2013, Douglas Otis wrote:
>> If I have said something offensive, allow me once again to assure you this
>> was never my intent.
>
> There isn't anything in your message which was offensive. I'll try to
> explain the
Hi Doug,
At 15:58 15-09-2013, Douglas Otis wrote:
This view is fully reasonable using the paradigm SPFbis is just
another protocol using DNS. If so, a reference to RFC4033 would be
logical and my response would seem off-topic. To clarify, the
strong response was aimed specifically at the sugg
I don't have that spec in front of me, but if it is used directly, that would
reveal personally identifiable information. I would hope it is used as input
into a hash out something.
The solution spec we're developing would certainly not use such a value
directly or allow it to be derived.
Paul
