When should a new IANA registry be created

There is the beginning of yet another debate on the SIMPLE mailing list about do we need an IANA registry from some fields in a specific draft. There does not seem to be a clear opinion on when to create a registry or not and past activities are not 100% consistent. I'm sure this has come up many

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML (Was: Faux Pas -- web publi cation in proprietary formats at ietf.org

Many ietf folks use a "open source" source code control repository at sipfoundry.org to edit drafts. The folks at sipfoundry have been happy to give accounts to any IETF folks (and given sipfoundry is littered with IETF folks, I'd be surprised to see this change :-). There are already about 160 IE

Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified Mail (dkim)

We have had three proposal for some text on changes to prior work, the current proposed charter, the text from the XMPP charter, and the text Keith provided below. The question that I think IESG should be asking themselves is how is this similar and/or different from other groups the have charter

Re: I-D Action:draft-rosenberg-internet-waist-hourglass-00.txt]

On Feb 14, 2008, at 1:24 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: >> >> >> In essence, something like this would increase the address lenght by >> 16 bits. > > Well, as I am sure you know, the reason NAT is so successful is that > it > basically does extend the IP address space by 16 bits, but in a > back

Re: Eating our own dog food and using SIP for telephony... (was Re: My view of the IAOC Meeting Selection Guidelines)

There are free conference bridges that only use the PSTN - they make money by reverse termination charges (for example /www.freeconference.com ). There are very expensive conference bridges that do cool tricks SS7 technology. There are free confernce bridges that use SIP/H.323/IAX/ Skype (bu

Re: Hasty attempt to create an IDN WG (Was: WG Review: Internationalized Domain Name (idn)

Harald, I'm lost, what BOF are you talking about? Cullen On Mar 4, 2008, at 6:19 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 04:32:08PM +0200, >> Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote >> a message of 21 lines which said: >> >> >>> But it is quite common

Re: IONs & discuss criteria

Ted, Speaking for myself here but I suspect that other ADs are in the same boat ... I'm keen to make sure my Discusses are within the parameters of the discuss criteria ION regardless of the official status of this document. Agree we need to sort out what we the end result is of several e

Re: IONs & discuss criteria

aps I am naive or my understanding of the > English language is poor (they are both probably true), but could > you explain how one of your most recent DISCUSSes: > > "Cullen Jennings: > > Discuss [2008-03-05]: > There has been a lot of discussion about keying modes

Re: IONs & discuss criteria

I believe Sam's discuss cover the issues I was concerned about and I have removed my discuss. On Mar 6, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > Sam, > > There is no need to prolong this particular side of the discussion > now that Cullen clarified his position. But, I have to say th

Re: IONs & discuss criteria

t; At 2:23 PM -0800 3/6/08, Cullen Jennings wrote: > >Part of the reason I replied so quickly on this thread is that I > >think I currently have two discuss that do not meet the discuss > >criteria (this being one of them the other being on Lost). Totally > >fair to pick on

Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal

On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:14 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > I would say not. > > If people want to harvest our email addresses, they are readily > available from IETF mail archives, which have > the advantage of actually being machine readable. > > I do not see that any change is required in the blue

Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists

Hi Henrik, Seems this email about email still needs some more discussion - I have not been involved much with this much but I suspect that Chris Newman would probably be the best person on the IESG to work with on both clarifications and changes. Cullen On Apr 15, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Henri

Re: ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration

Seems like a good idea to me. On May 21, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote: > The IETF Trust is considering applying to the U.S. Library of Congress > to obtain an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) for the RFC > Series and would like community input to inform its decision. The

Re: IESG Statement on Revised guidance for interim meetings

On Sep 2, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> 7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as >> agreement. Well that's and interesting point to consider when looking at the average IETF Last Call. ___ Ietf mailing list Iet

Re: Last Call: draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd (DNS-Based Service Discovery) to Informational RFC

Great document I really like it but I think there are a few things that need to be done to improve it on the administrative side (technically looks great).. First of all, it seems to me that there are lots of standards track stuff that will want to use this, it is well defined, works, wid

Please move this thread to BEHAVE mailing list ... Was Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact toapplicationdevelopers

I'm sure that the IAB and IESG is keenly interested in this topic but everyone that cares is subscribed to behave. Getting several copies of every message does not make the thread any easier to follow. It's no big deal one way or the other, I am good at hitting the delete key, but if it w

Re: Please move this thread to BEHAVE mailing list ... Was Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact toapplicationdevelopers

Fair Enough. I was not thinking of the behave mailing list as presuming the answer but I see your point. On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:30 , Tony Hain wrote: Cullen Jennings wrote: I'm sure that the IAB and IESG is keenly interested in this topic but everyone that cares is subscribed to b

Re: Friday experiment

On Nov 29, 2008, at 5:15 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: I think it would be good to finally enforce the rules for agenda submissions. For instance, if no agenda for a meeting is published in time, the meeting shouldn't take place. +1 But in practice, every time something is late, an exceptio

Re: Last Call: draft-raj-dhc-tftp-addr-option (VoIP Configuration Server Address Option) to Informational RFC

Say a client gets the an single address in the response. Now what protocol does it use? Does it just randomly try protocols seeing if one will work? It seems like it needs to say use TFTP. Or say something like try HTTP then TFTP or something. Just providing a random address does not seem

Re: secdir review of draft-raj-dhc-tftp-addr-option-04

I find the claim that attacks are easier to do with "VoIP Configuration Server Address" than the "TFTP Server Name" to be pretty dubious. All the devices I am aware of that use either option also get the DNS server from DHCP. If I can attack the DHCP response, I can probably get a DNS ser

Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary

On Dec 12, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Russ Housley wrote: This was the consensus of the IPR WG and the IETF, I doubt the IPR WG really fully thought about this or understood it. If someone who was deeply involved can provide definitive evidence of this one way or the other that would be great. I a

Re: RFC5378 alternate procedure (was: Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary)

John, I like the draft. It looks like a fairly pragmatic approach to solve the problem. I believe it would allow us to continue work where the text had been provided under the 3978 rules. Without something like this, I don't know how I can submit new versions of the WG internet drafts t

Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary

Larry, your email sounded dangerously close to suggesting that it might be ok to break the copyright law because no one would object to it. Is that what you are suggesting? On Dec 17, 2008, at 5:56 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Dave Crocker wrote: That was the culture. Law often follows cu

Re: RFC 5378 representation

On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Fred Baker wrote: So, having just cleared this note with the Trustees, sending it in, and forwarding the note to the IETF list, I observe http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/Contributor_Non-Exclusive_License_RFC5378.pdf . By all means, folks, use the form. That link

Re: RFC 5378 representation

Just as FYI for others, the link is now up and points to a doc that is a placeholder while some fixes get made to it. On Dec 22, 2008, at 10:34 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote: On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Fred Baker wrote: So, having just cleared this note with the Trustees, sending it in

Re: It's time for some new steps (was: [Welcome to the "Ietf-honest" mailing list])

On Feb 9, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Scott Brim wrote: Dean's mail does not hurt any of us. OK, it does take a minute of our time to unsubscribe but that's it. In my opinion it is not alright for someone to harvest email address off and IETF list then subscribe all those people to some list they

Re: how to contact the IETF

In fairness, the posts resulting from the FSF, uh, call to action, of this issue have been polite and tried to make a point. Some of them may be more or less informed about the facts at hand but they have been on topic and do express an opinion. I'm sure we can all think of examples of fa

Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to thePre-5378 Problem

I've gotten a bit lost on all the changes. Would it be possible to send to the list a single email that summarizes the current proposed changes to the document published on the web sight? or just a new copy of the document? On Feb 9, 2009, at 5:41 PM, Contreras, Jorge wrote: -Ori

Re: Last Call: draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes (Diameter Command Code Registration for Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)) to Informational RFC

My understanding is that this registry requires "IETF Consensus" as defined in 2434. However, theses registration are being defined by 3GPP TS 29.272 which does not have IETF Consensus. If the DIME community wishes to allow registrations like this, why not update the IANA registration pro

Re: Last Call: draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes (DiameterCommand Code Registration for Third Generation PartnershipProject (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)) to Informational RFC

IANA registration process. Dan -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 5:28 AM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes (DiameterCommand Code

Re: Last Call: 'The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings' to Proposed Standard

There seems to be two (or more) common base 64 encoding alphabets. Could we enumerate the alphabets used in at least standards track RFCs and give each one a more specific name so that specification could specify which one the forms was used. This might help implementers understand there were mult

Re: Last Call: 'The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings' to Proposed Standard

On 4/10/06 4:31 PM, "Mark Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Did the base32 extended hex version get used in the SASL work? Can we update >> the reference or if it is not needed not just remove it. > > base32 extended hex is being / will be used for NSEC3 as it > preserves the sort order. Gr

Re: Last Call: 'The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings' to Proposed Standard

On 4/10/06 6:34 PM, "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --On Tuesday, 11 April, 2006 11:26 +1000 Mark Andrews > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> On 4/10/06 4:31 PM, "Mark Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> > Did the base32 extended hex version get used in the SASL > wo

Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.

On 4/11/06 12:33 AM, "John Loughney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In practice, I've needed to power-cycle these NAT boxes every few weeks, to > clear out the garbage. I'm curios to understand more of what you mean by this? Are you running out of ports? Do you have any ideas what is causing this?

Re: Last Call: 'NAT Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP' to BCP (draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp)

On May 15, 2006, at 6:23 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: "Keith" == Keith Moore writes: REQ-8: If application transparency is most important, it is RECOMMENDED that a NAT have an "Endpoint independent filtering" behavior. If a more stringent filtering behavior is most important, it is RECOMMENDED

Re: Last Call: 'NAT Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP' to BCP (draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp)

On May 18, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Keith Moore wrote: If we change this to "address independent", close to 100% of NATs produced will be non behave compliant. At this point applications will have nothing they can rely on and we will be at the same point we are now and the BEHAVE WG will have bee

Re: Last Call: 'Proposed Experiment: Normative Format in Addition to ASCII Text' to Experimental RFC (draft-ash-alt-formats)

On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:13 AM, Keith Moore wrote: PDF used to be a free (as in beer), well-documented, relatively unencumbered, reasonably portable format. Nowadays there are a number of compatibility problems between generators and viewers, which appear to be mostly due to Adobe's introduc

Re: Call for Nominations - NomCom06

Sam - sorry - we should have tested this.Andrew -  my feeling is that we need to provide a solution to this soon. It's seems to me that just accepting email nominations would be one of the easiest ways to do it. For this nomcom could we switch to accepting either web or email nominations and in the

Re: Call for Nominations - NomCom06

Wow - that was fast. Thanks. On Oct 20, 2006, at 3:28 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: Hi Cullen, on 2006-10-20 21:21 Cullen Jennings said the following: Sam - sorry - we should have tested this. Andrew - my feeling is that we need to provide a solution to this soon. It's seems to me that

Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)

On Nov 14, 2006, at 11:03 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: At 4:17 PM +0100 11/14/06, Joe Abley wrote: For the benefit of those who do not follow dnsext closely, what friction do you expect? As Eric stated in his message, we should not rehash old arguments. This has been beaten to death on the DK

Re: IESG Success Stories

On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: My gripe is when an outside AD takes an interest in the work, goes to the f2f meetings, maybe reads the drafts but then waits to IESG evaluation time to DISCUSS their issues. If they know they have a problem(s), it would be *far* better to air

Re: Identifying mailing list for discussion (Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes)

On Jan 15, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: I have argued for years that an I-D that doesn't say in its "status of this memo" section which mailing list it is to be discussed on is incomplete, but I don't seem to have achieved much success for that. 100% agree. On many of my dr

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

WIth my WebDAV WG Chair hat on I would like to make a few comments. On Jan 15, 2007, at 8:42 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: ... snip... (4) Examples for open issues (4a) One of the things RFC2518bis was supposed to fix was the confusion around locking. Right now, it fails big time. For instanc

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

Julian's draft has been around for a very long time and I think that you have suggested we just adopt it before so the WG certainly has been aware of this option. The bulk of this draft has been available to the WG for many months if not years and the WG did choose to use text out of part

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

On Jan 19, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: Cullen, I was tempted to finish that mail with "and thanks for the fish", in honor of Douglas Adams, but I resisted. lol :-) Anyway, please understand that I don't want to make your or Ted's life harder than it needs to be. I just fee

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

I certainly consider Geoff and Manfred part of the WG. I don't think any of these were ignored my Lisa or me, I've read everyone one of them several times. I think that for WG did not come to consensus to adopt these into the WG draft. Cullen On Jan 19, 2007, at 12:58 PM, Julian Resc

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

On Jan 22, 2007, at 4:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: Hi, RFC2518bis updates parts of RFC3253 (DAV:error below DAV:response) in an incompatible way, and thus should note it in the front matter ("Updates: 3253") and mention it as a change near the Changes Appendix. (see

Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

proceed. We resorted to this step because the room felt (based on a previous hum) that it was important to walk away from the meeting with a resolution. To one particular point: Cullen Jennings both called the consensus and cast the last and tie-breaking vote in the room. We feel it is i

Re: Last Call: draft-shacham-sipping-session-mobility (Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Session Mobility) to Informational RFC

As far as I can tell, there are three people that have posted an email abut this document in and some of theses got back to early 2005. I don't think this document has received adequate review from the SIP community. It seems like the SH mode is preferable to the MMC mode in general bec

Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? (Re: [saag] Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)

On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:17 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: The idea that somehow the ADs and the IAB are above the rest of the contributors is just wrong. They are judges of consensus when appropriate and the consensus better be independently verifiable I would be very interested in hearing

Re: tsv-dir review of draft-ietf-xcon-bfcp-connection-04

David - I put this tracker as a note so we are sure the appropriate ADs don't miss it in IESG review. On Jul 5, 2007, at 6:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gonzalo, The -05 draft looks fine, and I have no problem with leaving comment (1) [whether to say something applicable beyond BFCP on t

Re: Last Call: draft-saintandre-jabberid (The Jabber-ID Header Field) to Proposed Standard

I think a much better design would be one that supported many protocols and took advantage of the flexibility or URIs instead of just jabber - for example a header that looked like IMPP: xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The way we did vcard might be a good thing to look at, or heck, just attach a

Re: Last Call: draft-saintandre-jabberid (The Jabber-ID Header Field) to Proposed Standard

Making this experimental not make much sense to me - there is no real experiment here other than "will anyone use it" and that could be said about a large percentage of PS documents. When I read 2026, this looks like PS. On Aug 24, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Eric Allma

Re: Last Call: draft-saintandre-jabberid (The Jabber-ID Header Field) to Proposed Standard

On Aug 24, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Cullen Jennings wrote: I think a much better design would be one that supported many protocols and took advantage of the flexibility or URIs instead of just jabber - for example a header that looked like IMPP: xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: Last Call: draft-saintandre-jabberid (The Jabber-ID Header Field) to Proposed Standard

On Aug 24, 2007, at 11:23 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Alexey Melnikov wrote: Cullen Jennings wrote: Making this experimental not make much sense to me - there is no real experiment here other than "will anyone use it" and that could be said abo

Re: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-03.txt

Would you see them being above or below BOFs? On Oct 11, 2007, at 4:38 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: I have one additional concern about this proposal. If a study group is intended to meet at an IETF, it will compete with slot requests both from IETF working groups and IRTF research groups. I woul

Re: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-03.txt

ctors, the problem seems controllable, particularly since a fair number of WGs are on the verge of concluding. On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > Would you see them being above or below BOFs? > > On Oct 11, 2007, at 4:38 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > > >I have on

Re: Daily Dose version 2 launched

I like it - thanks. And please continue a practice of "Release early, Release often", I'm willing to bet it will work better for this type of software than a waterfall mode. On Nov 5, 2007, at 1:37 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: Thanks to everyone who provided input regarding the front page

Re: Last Call: draft-wilde-sms-uri (URI Scheme for GSM Short Message Service) to Proposed Standard

There are a wide variety of problems with this draft. I think the two big topics are 1) as far as I understand the needs to defining an address for sending SMS, I would want to understand why it would not be better to a tel URI than define a new type. Defining new types that have the

Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Re: I-DAction:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt

On Nov 11, 2007, at 12:57 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: I also don't see any particular reason for prohibiting direct use of XMPP or SIP URIs here. There is no need in extra resolution step if an email author only supports one type of IM application. +1 (thought I am fine either way - this d

Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out

On Nov 27, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: Ray, I think you need to comment on this. Part of the secretariat booking hotels is to avoid nonsense like this. Why are they not kicking out other guests instead of us? Actually, I'm interested in a more basic thing. We usually put a larg

Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out

ov 27, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: Cullen Jennings wrote: > > On Nov 27, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: > >> Ray, I think you need to comment on this. Part of the secretariat >> booking hotels is to avoid nonsense like this. Why are they not >> kickin

Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

What happens if the appeal is claiming that changes made in Auth 48 should have been reviewed by the working group and go against WG consensus? Given some of the changes I have seen between IESG approval and published RFC, this seems like a reasonable plausible scenario. On Nov 28, 200

Re: Westin Vancouver Update

Wow. That greatly exceeded my expectations for a resolution. Thanks to everyone who made that happen. On Nov 28, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote: All; Some background as regards the Westin moving people to other hotels as a result of renovations. We executed a contract with the W

Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Re: I-DAction:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt

doing on this. Cullen On Nov 26, 2007, at 3:11 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Cullen Jennings wrote: On Nov 11, 2007, at 12:57 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: I also don't see any particular reason for prohibiting direct use of XMPP or SIP URIs here. There is no need in extra resolution step

Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

On Dec 18, 2007, at 10:32 AM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Tuesday, 18 December, 2007 09:17 -0800 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: P.S. I don't really understand how you envision this working. Are you thinking that people will be speaking during this period? It's hard to imagine anythi

Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

On Dec 19, 2007, at 11:39 AM, Tony Hain wrote: If we could only get the IESG to get serious about killing off working groups that are still focused on IPv4 ... ;) Suggestions of WGs? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mail

Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment

I'd like to comment as an individual on one part of our process for doing IONs. The process for publishing them has many bottlenecks and delays and we need a better way of doing it. If we decide to continue with IONs, I will provide detailed comments on issues with how we are doing them.

Re: Internet Draft Submission cutoff dates

Inline On Jan 18, 2008, at 10:56 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > Hi. > > The current cutoff schedule for Internet Drafts dates from my > time on the IESG (i.e., is ancient history). It was conditioned > on the pre-IETF rush and the observation that the Secretariat, > at the time, required a su

Re: Internet Draft Submission cutoff dates

On Feb 1, 2008, at 12:51 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > (3) Cullen's note emphasized the reading problems faced by ADs > who are trying to stay on top of all of the documents in their > areas. I think we need to be very careful about that, balancing > permitting the ADs to function/manage effective

Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment

100% agree with all your points. I think we should focus on if the IONs are needed. If we determine they are, then we can discuss things we learned about the tooling and how to do it better. Cullen On Feb 6, 2008, at 6:34 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > > - that one should be able to tell

Re: IPR view (Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today )

On Mar 10, 2013, at 10:15 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 10/03/2013 14:35, Scott Brim wrote: >> On 03/10/13 09:12, Brian Trammell allegedly wrote: Solve it with better management, not artificial barriers that are imposed on everyone and that can be trivially routed around, albeit >

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

I am glad to see the IETF beginning to have this conversation about diversity. I am concerned that, as an organization, we avoid becoming locked into entrenched, polarizing positions, though. Some of us will take the view that qualified people may not be taking on, or may not be selected to fil

Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility

I have attended some IETF meetings remotely and I am not in favor of this change. On Jun 27, 2013, at 5:50 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hello, > > RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet Architecture > Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF Administrative Ov

Re: REVISED Last Call: draft-turner-asymmetrickeyformat (Asymmetric Key Packages) to Proposed Standard

command=view_id&dTag=17799&rfc_flag=0 > > ___ > IETF-Announce mailing list > ietf-annou...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce Cullen Jennings For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/we

Re: REVISED Last Call: draft-turner-asymmetrickeyformat

On Mar 4, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Alfred HÎnes wrote: > Sean, please follow the spirit of BCP 13, RFC 4288, and use the > updated registration template from that RFC; in particular drop the > use of "mime type" or "MIME media type" in favor of the more general > "media type". Thanks! > > Kind regards

Re: What day is 2010-01-02

Wow - I never imagined such a rapid response to this question. Thanks. I've replied with roughly "Yep, they might be a bit confusing but everything else is worse so that's what we use". On Mar 13, 2010, at 8:06 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > > On Mar 13, 2010

What day is 2010-01-02

I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.i

Re: What day is 2010-01-02

On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, John C Klensin wrote: > > > > there really is an international standard that specifies dates in strict > > little-endian order (e.g., MMDD) > > That's big endian :-) And it's stored in octets, not bytes (UTF-8 with a lan

Re: What day is 2010-01-02

On Mar 17, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Michael Edward McNeil wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:29, Bob Hinden wrote: > > On Mar 17, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Michael Edward McNeil wrote: > > Since Americans habitually use month-day order anyway, why would -MM-DD > > be especially difficult for them? It's

Re: [Sip] Last Call: draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix (Essential correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI comparison in RFC3261) to Proposed Standard

//www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business. > Use sip-implement...@cs.columbia.edu for questions on how to develop a SIP > implementation. > Use dispa...@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip. >

Re: Last Call: draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config (Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration) to Informational RFC

On Apr 1, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Hardier Kaplan wrote: > > 1) The mechanism does not scale, for large SSP's. (is this only meant for > small deployments?) Why is this any worse that say a registration? I don't buy this assertion that it does not scale. __

Re: Last Call: draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config (Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration) to Informational RFC

to not do Foo". In effect, any and all UA's in the Universe > can meet the former, but only some can meet the latter. > > What I mean is, with this language, ALL UA's automatically comply with the > RFC, but only *some* will actually use their config without waiting for a > subscription. > > -hadriel > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Cullen Jennings For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config (Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration) to Informational RFC

On Apr 6, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:flu...@cisco.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:53 AM > > To: Hadriel Kaplan > > > > However,I did want to comment

Re: Ok .. I want my IETF app for my iPad ..

_ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Cullen Jennings For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config (Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration) to Informational RFC

On Apr 8, 2010, at 13:51 , Scott Lawrence wrote: > > Perhaps our fundamental disagreement is whether or not having a prompt > way to reconfigure a UA is a requirement. When the SIP Forum chartered > this work, it was agreed that that was requirement (and I certainly > think it is). I think tha

Re: Last Call: draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config (Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration) to Informational RFC

On Apr 6, 2010, at 16:47 , Bernard Aboba wrote: > Hadriel Kaplan said: > > “Howdy, > This may not be within the normal rules of etiquette, but I will re-iterate > my issues with this draft which I raised when it was discussed in RAI. > > 1) The mechanism does not scale, for large SSP's. (i

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

icipants must have attended at least 3 of the last 5 >IETF meetings in order to volunteer, and that use of a day pass >does not count as IETF meeting attendance. > _______ > IETF-Announce mailing list > ietf-annou...@ietf.org >

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

gt; > > 14. Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of > > the last 5 IETF meetings in order to volunteer. > > > > In the context of the day pass experiment, this is interpreted to mean: > > > > 14. IETF participants must have attende

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch (Session Matching Update for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)) to Proposed Standard

-Announce mailing list > ietf-annou...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce Cullen Jennings For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Simple] Last Call: draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm (An Alternative Connection Model for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)) to Proposed Standard

tatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=18161&rfc_flag=0 > > ___ > Simple mailing list > sim...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple Cullen Jennings For corporate l

Re: Last Call: draft-daboo-srv-caldav (Use of SRV records for locating CalDAV and CardDAV services) to Proposed Standard

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=18589&rfc_flag=0 > > ___ > IETF-Announce mailing list > ietf-annou...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce Cullen Jennings For

Re: WG Review: Call Control UUI for SIP (cuss)

nd requirements document for implementing a SIP > call control UUI mechanism > > - A specification of the SIP extension to best meet those requirements. > > Goals and Milestones > > > Sep 10 - Problem statement and requirements documen

Re: WG Review: Call Control UUI for SIP (cuss)

On Jun 29, 2010, at 3:25 AM, Elwell, John wrote: > Cullen, > > Whilst neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the charter, I did not find > anything in the charter that said the information had to be in the SIP header > rather than in the body. On what basis do you make that deduction? > > John

Re: [dispatch] Fwd: Re: WG Review: Call Control UUI for SIP (cuss)

dispa...@ietf.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [dispatch] Fwd: Re: WG Review: Call Control UUI >>>>>> for SIP (cuss) >>>>>> >>>>>> Hum, I'm a bit surprised by the comment about SIP-T. RFC3372 >>>>>> does state t

Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3

requent video call setup failures would be okay > -- I doubt it's a viable video solution in a business environment. To run a > business, you need something better than "random failure surprise". > > /a > > ___ &g

Re: IETF privacy policy - update

On Jul 5, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > A few months ago I drew up a strawman proposal for a public-facing IETF > privacy policy (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cooper-privacy-policy-00.txt). > I've submitted an update based on feedback received: > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cooper

Re: WG Review: Call Control UUI for SIP (cuss)

On Jul 3, 2010, at 7:33 AM, Alan Johnston wrote: > Many of us have worked hard on this approach over many years, and you have > been involved in this at every step of the way, in both SIPPING and DISPATCH. > For you to just try to block even the formation of a working group to > address this

Re: web security happenings

On Jul 13, 2010, at 22:26 , Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 13 jul 2010, at 18:49, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> fun technologies like AJAX but also opens up the possibility for >> new attacks (cross-site scripting, cross-site request forgery, >> malvertising, clickjacking, and all the rest). >

Re: WG Review: Call Control UUI for SIP (cuss)

t; ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Cullen Jennings For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html ___

  1   2   3   >