l for "phishing" attacks, particularly in the context
of ubiquitous wireless access points.
Because of the foregoing, I do not believe LLMNR, in its current
form, should be adopted as a Proposed Standard.
Regards,
Andrew Sullivan
--
Andrew Sullivan 20
ng IDNA-aware applications.
At least in the IDNA case, the social problems could be worked around
with techno-social solutions. Not so in the case of LLMNR: if we
start to have this problem, everyone will have to live with it,
because the protocol is designed that way.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
s solved, the features of Word that other
like are not really available in most of the XML tools, AFAIK.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias CanadaToronto, Ontario Canada
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P
the pdfs. It
just struck me as odd that people were grousing about ASCII's
appearance when PDF is available. But I'm keeping the worm-can
closed.)
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias CanadaToronto, Ontario Canad
that there isn't enough time for the needed
meetings.
A
[1] This one opens a can of worms, since we'd have to operationalise
"effective session".
--
Andrew Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/
___
a list of claims, including bogus ones, then the
IETF has taken no position at all. As soon as some of them have been
evaluated, we're at the top of a slippery slope, I think.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/
perfectly-formatted output acceptable to id-nits. (And id-nits was
quite a bit less rigorous the last time I tried this.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
a WG to
live in?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 05:23:12PM +, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >
> > In addition, the document proposes to continue using the existing
> > mechanism in order to support IPv6 hosts. There is little evidence of
> > a widesp
is standardized.
There are probably other positions I haven't covered here.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ting the other day, the problem _I_
have with DNSBLs is that they're doing fairly serious damage to the
DNS protocol. That's a fact of life given the deployed software, but
I don't think it's a good thing.
I refuse to state an opinion on how DNSBLs ought to be operated so
t
web/ietf/current/msg53776.html
For the impatient, one fundamental problem is that the current
behaviour uses A records that do not contain host addresses, which is
contrary to the definition of an A record.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shinkuro, Inc.
instead document the existing (bad) use for everyone's
information, and suggest an alternative that accomplishes the same
goal without causing the same harm. If that's not the point of an
interoperability-focussed network standards organization, I guess I
also don'
ules for look-aside
> databases
My personal reading of the current specifications is that, if you have
at least one path to validation, then validation is supposed to work.
So search rules ought not to be needed. What the implementations
actually do is currently at variance with my interpretation, however.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
perfectly clear on how this is supposed to work. As it happens, they
don't have a feature that many people seem to want. Pity that feature
request didn't come in sooner, but I guess we'll have to come up with
something to accommodate it.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shinkuro
amples to analyse and for which we could suggest
repairs so that there would be a convenient cookbook-style reference
for the perplexed.
If you have a cache of these examples, I'd be delighted to see them.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shinkuro, Inc.
_
rd. We should fix that, too (and dnsext is
trying).
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
proof of the necessary rights
having been granted if there's a repository that makes available the
names of those who have granted the rights once and for all.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ie
rights in the Contribution, including, but not limited to,
the Contributor's sponsor or employer.
If the other party has explicitly grantd such rights to the Trust,
then it seems to me the Contributor can assert that the necessary
permissions have been obtained. Insert usual non-lawyer disclaimer
h
tual legal decisions of the past to be hard to believe, too.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
a nasty
sight (I am tempted to think that it's how we got into this mess). I
don't personally feel comfortable taking the say-so of the IETF Trust
counsel, though, since the IETF Trust is an interested party in this
discussion.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a.
the IETF, which (as an SDO) always has the risk of some jerk
coming along. What's unusual in this case is that every contributor,
by virtue of having to assert that he or she has obtained the relevant
permssions, is _also_ subject to those lawsuits.
A
--
the list. If we don't like that, we need
to change IETF rules so that we have club membership and better
screening of participants for qualification. I won't speculate on
whether that would represent an improvement over the way the IETF has
worked so far.
A
--
onsidered as relevant. (There are those
who suggest we've already arrived at that eventuality, but I don't
think we have, and I'd like it not to happen.)
A
(*) I'm sure some of us can think of a counter-example or two.
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
s that involves asking follow-up questions to the
person who posts. (Like, for instance, "Have you read this draft?")
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
t. All I'm suggesting is that there's no _a
priori_ way of knowing whether someone is participating, except by
looking at the lists. Therefore, we can't dismiss postings from
people we don't know on the grounds we don't know them. This means
that those "driving by
lready not allowed to post to IETF lists, even
though he sometimes manages to do so anyway. If I'm right, I can't see
how banning him for longer, we mean it this time, neener neener, is
any help. We just need better sieve rules, not better ietf ones.
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
ing to them how we have all the bureaucratic
agility of the ITU-T or ICANN and all the legal and political
sophistication of the Occupy Wall Street committees.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
much worse trouble than I
thought.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
ion. I am
Nomcom eligible.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
ppeal mechanism work. These are changes
too, even if they're just the result of gradual accretion, and they
are bad for the mission.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
hold full-on meetings as a matter of
outreach. There may be ways to fix that, and I understand the IAOC is
investigating options. Note that the IETF is always looking for
sponsors for meetings!)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
y hold again) a meeting in China. I'll be delighted when we
observe such involvement.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
aps it is time to
> close the WG, which is probably about right.
Even more with this. It's a _working_ group, not a _meeting_ group.
If the work isn't getting done, shut it down.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
dity.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
't think so. ISO (ISO 8601) seems to think that "24:00" refers
to the very end of the day, and "00:00" refers to the very beginning
of the next day. So there's a conceptual distinction involved.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 09:42:22AM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> long-term health of Internet. If that leads to fewer working groups
> producing higher-quality output, so be it.
I'd go further and say, "That's a bonus."
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
ity of a small file, not an overall
limitation on the size of files. No?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
t just realign
to what the text says?
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 01:32:08PM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> That this thread is still being pursued made me double-check that it is in
> fact not still April 1st.
It's always April 1st somewhere on the Net?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
us anything remotely like
hard data, but it would be a result that could suggest further
inquiry. And it oughta be cheap to generate. As long as we use it
carefully, such a result could be useful.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
ttentive to the problem all the time. That's why I'd like us to have
an idea of roughly how badly we're doing: then we can pay attention to
our weaknesses in an effort to turn such attention into a strength.
[1] In this case, but I actually think this generalizes to other
groups pretty well.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
e: I have no idea what
the experiences of any of these were like, but I don't think
it's relevant that we can name some successful superstars. My
point was that it is _difficult_, not that it's impossible.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
lic data we could just find
this out using the data we already have. I agree it would be useful.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
argument that leads to the
conclusion that an arrangement we would all like better has any chance
of deployment. This is just a plain fact of the Internet, I think,
and if you think it's not I would like some evidence, please.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
in our standards development.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
mer in the use of DISCUSS, and
I've observed some DISCUSSes cleared without any change at all to the
document in question.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
ence that we have a population
interested enough to do the work.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
Rather than saying "someone should do this" on the list, you could, you know,
do the work.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
On 2013-05-27, at 9:31, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> On 5/27/13, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>> On May 27, 2013, at 12:10, Abdussal
policy for DNS RRTYPEs, then they are free to spin up a new
DNSTASTE WG and get the policy changed. I will attend the BoF and
blow raspberries. But I look forward to the bright future in which
the DNS contains only TXT records, which we retrieve via port 80 or
(if lucky) port 443.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
wledge there are potential privacy issues, and suggests
how to avoid them. What more would you ask?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
procedures a little arcane.
My view is that we need to be more pragmatic.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
lace to try out proposals, so people can in fact
do that today.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 05:10:20PM +, Ted Lemon wrote:
> You mean like "namedroppers"?
If only we still had that list. Alas, it was the victim of politics.
Perhaps Randy Bush will bring it back to life.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
the discussion.
Many thanks for your indulgence of this long message.
Olafur Gudmundsson and Andrew Sullivan
DNSEXT co-chairs
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ust ask anyone whose draft has
failed the increasingly stringent and lengthy list of IDNits tests due
to bad pagination in their I-D.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
without a disclaimer is
harmful: anything that is a good foundation for additional work
cannot, by definition, be itself bad for the Internet.
Given all of the above, I believe the IESG should reject the appeal.
Best regards,
Andrew
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
__
lists. One almost anticipates
the day when each addition to the RFC series is actually just new
boilerplate, and nothing else.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
too. I'd find it really nice if, in future when this topic comes
up, we at least stop making demonstrably false claims that the RFC
format is "plain ASCII". I'm not so optimistic as to imagine we'll
really address the different issues and find a way forward, but not
misr
aul is asking for
(conformance with RFCs, not registries).
Does anyone else think that the distinctions we're talking about are
indeed worth indicating somehow in a registry? If so, I think the
current draft is a good basis for that work, even if we determine that
the current text is not
nt of whether
> the particular choices of words, etc., are correct.
Just to be clear, I'm responding to all of this without a hat. I had
no input to the writing of the draft, though I've read it. I do have
a problem in the WG I co-chair with Olafur, though, so I'm primarily
in
ready for publication. It's absurd, given the
tools available, that document authors need to worry as much about
line lengths and number of pages (!) in initial submissions as they
need to worry about completeness and clarity of their text.
A
--
Andrew
t to send in
their contributions.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
t how simplistic the walk-up
rate:conference rate comparison is anyway.)
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ge it a couple years ago,
I think because the chip-and-pin system was on its way. So at least
RBC won't let you create PINs longer than 4 digits any more.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
h
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:16:41AM -0700, Mark Atwood wrote:
> Only individual people can be "members" of the IETF.
I thought we didn't have members? I've always liked to refer to
people doing work here as "participants" for exactly that reason.
A
--
Andrew Su
(It is not
relevant that someone "would have" used a day pass had it previously
been available: we do not make rules for every possible world, only
for the one we're in.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing
ll
only complete slowly, so in the meantime we need some rule and for
everyone to know what it is.
[1] This situation also surely provides some indication of the care
that needs to be taken with future design of experiments of this sort.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
ight qualify for the NomCom _this year_. We
need to separate the issues because the latter is an immediate
practical concern, and it's really just more important that we have
some rule than that we have a perfect one. Please let us not conflate
these two matters.
A
--
ds,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
document".
I agree with Paul on this.
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
regard, though I have
doubts.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ate a particular human
with one or more MAC addresses, it would seem that the status of such
logging might be more important.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ng the new policy less than a month before it is to be
implemented, and after people have already made travel plans, paid
meeting fees, and so on.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
either directly to us (the DNSEXT chairs:
dnsext-cha...@tools.ietf.org) or to the namedroppers mailing list will
also be welcome.
Best regards,
Olafur Gudmundsson
Andrew Sullivan
(DNSEXT co-chairs)
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
t's simply an empirical observation about whether associated costs
are near-zero.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
d idea crops
up, it can be dealt with on its own (de)merits without dragging in a
meta-issue about whether the proposal is consistent with some holy
policy document.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@iet
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 03:16:44PM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
> Only if a NOTEWELL commentary was publicly posted at the meeting and
> notice was given at the time the person registered.
WG chairs are required to post the NOTE WELL notice at the beginning
of sessions.
A
--
Andrew Sull
ood to keep saying,
"Everyone else has one." Everyone else is also incorporated.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
rg/root-anchors/root-anchors.xml. It seems to me
that if you have vi (or any other favourite text editor), you have the
tools to use that. What am I missing?
> And pulling down the key from the root servers doesn't give me something that
> works.
Define "works"?
A
--
Andrew
DS record in the root zone, but
it is signed. They determined that they did not want to put their DS
into the root prior to the production signing of the root.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ie
. Getting consensus on such
a definitive document strikes me as more like trying to herd
Schrödinger's cats.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
st place; but
having uncovered that the arguments for more rules are weak, we should
conclude that more work is not needed and stop doing the work, in
exactly the way we would if we discovered that more protocol work
would not help.
Best regards,
Andrew
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
e". The latter seems to be another thing the draft is aiming at
preventing, and this plan will make the aim even harder to achieve.
More rules -- even simple ones -- are always a greater favour to
bureaucrats and professional wonks than to everyone else. Sometimes
(even often), that cost is wo
y-policy-having organizations weaker.
So if you think having a privacy policy is a good idea, and you think
so because other organizations have such a policy, you'll need to show
why the analogy between the IETF and other organizations is strong in
relevant ways.
A
--
Andrew
I think it's a bad idea. I'd just like clearer
arguments as justifications. One thing that would help me a lot is
for those justifications to be part of an introduction in the I-D.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
__
ve,
given that "the IETF" is a sort of hydra in which different policies
might apply depending on the head with which one interacted.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
differentiation
is not based on being the product (either direct or indirect) of
previous Nomcoms. This is a change I would support.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
to provide far greater
cross-fertilization than I got in Anaheim.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
was not a great deal
more convenient for me than was travelling to Maastricht. (I live in
south-central Ontario, Canada.)
Or put this another way: if you live in Montreal, the difference
between direct flights to LHR and LAX is at most an hour, according to
OAG.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shi
t
otherwise defined that I can see.)
So it's perhaps not quite true that anything that anyone says in a
hallway discussion is a contribution; but something like that must be
pretty close. The definition of "contribution" is extremely broad, I
th
survey. (One way of reading some remarks about Quebec is
that this has already happened.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
dn't
achieve the desired gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, he'd
try again on the IETF list.
I believe the IAOC has heard the complaints. We can stop now.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
reference. (I wonder in fact whether the
decision to go to Québec will turn out this way.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
rience, but I didn't arrive
late due to a delayed flight and I didn't have to get back to the MECC
area in the evening.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
subject line, as
near as I can tell. There is no effort in IDNA2008 to prevent
"confusable" characters in domain names. That's not even a goal
consistent, at the protocol level, with expanding the available
character repertoire, t
will mostly continue to stick at PS for want of
energy to move them along the track. Sometimes, some people will have
the energy to move things along, and then they will.
Best regards,
Andrew
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
_
If
_that_ is what the problem is, I want to know why. I agree that two
maturity levels might help if it is the problem to solve.
Supposing it is a problem, why do you think that two maturity levels
won't just cause everything to stick at Proposed Standard?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shink
hat and introduce something
after I-D (which is formally only on the _way_ to some consensus, and
not actually the product of it), the blockage might be removed.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
1 - 100 of 269 matches
Mail list logo
