Hi,
I think asking attendees during registration which sessions they
intend to attend and building a conflict matrix would be the simplest
approach. Of course, attendee conflicts matter less than ADs, chairs,
and presenter conflicts.
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
ofing, and encryption
and digital signatures.
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Samuel Weiler
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 6:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PR
think this is something the SEC ADs should be considering as well.
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hi,
I read this document. On a quick read, this seemed very reasonable.
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The IESG
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16,
proposed direction, and the
proposed charter, and have committed to working on the documents
identified in the proposed charter.
>
> Rather than "perspectives" where are the technical concerns
> that Bert asked about?
>
> d/
> --
>
>Dave Crocker
>
s over the past few
years as the NM community did comparisons of the suitability of SMIv2,
SPPI, SMING, XSD, RNG, YANG and others for purposes of configurastion
data modeling. But the community that has attended such discussions of
the suitability of different languages for the task at hand has
reache
The
design team proposal is of course no better than any other proposal,
so it was posted to NGO for further community discussion.
Apr08: The IESG secretary announced a WG review for Netconf Data
Modeling Language to the IETF mailing list.
I hope this is helpful. Let me kniw if I can help fur
Hi,
The Trust has analyzed the advantages, and you included the advantages
in your post.
Has the Trust also analyzed any potential disadvantages? Can you tell
us those as well?
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From:
Hi,
I support this experiment. Why short sessions? Why not longer
sessions?
In my experience, Friday sessions are invaluable for having "working"
sessions rather than status sessions, and Friday sessions have been
preferred in some WGs as a way to get real f2f time for engineerin
ilerplate forces onto the
IETF process.
I would rather continue to use RFC2026/3978 rules.
David Harrington
dbharring...@comcast.net
ietf...@comcast.net
dharring...@huawei.com
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I'd like to second that. Great job!
dbh
> -Original Message-
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:58 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: An absolutely fantastic wireless IETF
>
>
> Just wanted to state what's obvious to all of us by now:
If I remember correctly, we only limit the number of suthors on the
first page of the document.
It is perfectly acceptable to list a longer set of names inside the
document in an contributors section.
I also have concerns about who should be listed as an "author" and
have copyrights when a work
CA-2000-06 Multiple Buffer Overflows in Kerberos
Authenticated Services
Vulnerability Note VU#836088 Multiple vendors' email content/virus
scanners do not adequately check "message/partial" MIME entities
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
vin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 8:21 PM
> To: David Harrington
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Best practice for data encoding?
>
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 20:07:24 -0400, "David Harrington"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
rtant to the authors and contributors and to others who
want to ask those authors for permissions to do non-IETF things, or if
the IETF decides it needs the rights to transfer rights to others for
non-IETF purposes.
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
e Internet on a timely basis. I
do not see those listed as "particular criteria" for measuring
effectiveness. The criteria seem to miss the whole point of our
working on standards.
I do not believe it would be a worthwhile use of community resources
to run this experiment as design
of the design, than for a reader not involved in working on the
design.
I fully agree that, for the reasons you give, using such
pretty diagrams as normative would generally be a problem.
David
Harrington[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Stewart Bryant
Hi,
I believe the rule was applied to the Entity MIB and the RMONMIB work,
IIRC.
dbh
> -Original Message-
> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:02 AM
> To: Joel M. Halpern
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-carpenter-n
And what happens if somebody responds with a +2?
Is there anything useful this mailing list could discuss?
dbh
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 7:13 AM
> To: IETF Discussion
> Subject: +1
>
>
> Is it just in my part
r the
mailing list to see what was discussed and "decided". I do not think
the chair should be allowed to evade this responsibility by simply
posting a quick summary and the raw jabber logs to the mailing list as
the official minutes.
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[
Why not start everything at Experimental, and if it gains market
success then it moves to Full.
dbh
> -Original Message-
> From: Nelson, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 10:03 AM
> To: IETF Discussion
> Subject: RE: netwrk stuff
>
> Dave Crocker writes...
>
Is there any IPR that needs to be disclosed related to such a list?
dbh
> -Original Message-
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 10:55 AM
> To: Steven M. Bellovin; Dave Cridland
> Cc: Dave Aronson; IETF-Discussion
> Subject: Re: i
Hi,
Yup.
Trying to figure out how to publish this in an internet-draft has been
challenging to say the least.
(publishing the xml2rfc template in an xml2rfc document is even more
challenging!)
The template, in both text and xml2rfc format, has been available on
the OPS website since July.
Than
many interesting things to see. I rate
it as one of my favorite cities in Europe.
So I agree that Prague is very survivable.
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wedne
Maybe they should sell the liquor in small transparent baggies.
dbh
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 7:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: Warning - risk of duty free stuff being
>
not look acceptable
please identify your objections, preferably with suggested text that
would make it acceptable.
Thanks,
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
co-chair, Syslog WG
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1
hat p=? or p=unknown means.
8) section 5.4 bullet#1 sounds like something to write in the charter,
not the protocol requiremnets document.
9) section 5.4 bullet#2 - are there already existing
discovery/transport/practices to be backwards compatible with? Or is
this saying the future extensions to the
tly in the document
claiming consistency with RFC2828(bis). It is already hard to verify
that MUST/SHOULD/MAY are used correctly per RFC2119, and RFC2828bis
has 300 pages of definitions, re-definitions, and phrases.
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
ld be a MUST.
3) Section three uses "must" where MUST would seem appropriate.
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
the open source community, and it is the licensing terms
of open source implementations that place limitations on implementing
our worldwide specifications in products of all types.
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing
Hi,
I do not think there is consensus that what you want is what the IETF
wants.
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 6:46 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
>
gt; strongly support publication.
>
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
>
+1
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I think the complaints would simply be slurred more, and we might have
to worry about lynch mobs (which would remind me of the reasonableness
of this discussion so far).
dbh
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Dave Crocker
> Sent: Thur
rate not very responsive, but that's volunteerism. I think the TSV
area lost out on steering advice (goal #1) by discontinuing the dinners,
since many chose not to attend the lunch work sessions. I see that Wes and
Martin re-established the dinners. That's a good thing.
Hope this helps,
David Harrington
dbharring...@comcast.net
+1-603-828-1401
ll IF-MIB objects are reflected in
ietf-interfaces; it might be helpful to show which IF-MIB objects are not
mapped to ietf-interfaces, and discuss why, and whether comparable info
can be derived using other YANG approaches.
17) The copyright in the module description clause needs updating.
Hope this
_
From: syslog-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:syslog-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Tim Evens
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 4:02 PM
To: cfi...@dial.pipex.com; jsalo...@cisco.com; turn...@ieca.com;
clonv...@cisco.com
Cc: sys...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Syslog] AD review comments for draft-ietf-s
Hi,
part of the justification is to have the BOF early in the week so
people can discuss it during the week.
dbh
> -Original Message-
> From: iesg-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Richard L. Barnes
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 10:29 AM
> To: ietf@ietf
been,
but it is my understanding that IETF consensus is to have the industry
transition from IPv4 to IPv6.
If your core protocol ONLY works with an IPv4 NAT'd transport, I
believe you will get pushback.
The solution should also be able to work in other environments, such
as an un-NAT'd IPv
Hi,
This review did not get copied to IESG or IETF lists.
David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
ietf...@comcast.net (preferred for ietf)
dbharring...@huaweisymantec.com
+1 603 828 1401 (cell)
-Original Message-
From: Woundy, Richard [mailto:richard_wou...@cable.comcast.com
hange to the relative
priority of a managed technology's sessions warrants a similar
consideration of the sensitivity of the specific AVPs.
David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
Member of SECDIR, OPSDIR, and MIB Doctors directorates
ietf...@comcast.net (preferred for ietf)
urity concerns.
David Harrington
dbharring...@comcast.net
ietf...@comcast.net
dharring...@huawei.com
___
secdir mailing list
sec...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
___
Ietf mailing list
Hi Douglas,
For the most part, I really like the new security considerations
section in 09. I found it far more enlightening (and even
interesting). Thanks.
I usually look for security considerations in a form that points out
the threats and how they are mitigated (or can be mitigated by
configur
equirement
[dbh: no action required.]
15) Tom Petch - Thinks abstract should be changed. I do not understand
his point well enough to take action, and, as he points out, the
document says it is not trying to solve the problem he raises.
[dbh: no action taken.]
draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and
Hi,
Personally, I would like to see deltas kept for updated charters,
especially the milestone information, so we can go back and find out
how timely a WG has achieved its completed objectives.
When I try to determine whether participating in a WG seems justified,
one thing I want to know is whe
Hi,
We are running multiple experiments.
One is automated registration.
One is RFID.
Another is charging for subsets of attendance.
Maybe we should have an RFID reader/recorder at the door to each
session, and to send bills to people based on what they actually
attend (plus a base fee). Attendee
Hi,
Some social events have attendance limits. Are day-pass holders
allowed to attend the social? Do full-week registrants get preference
for social tickets?
dbh
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
If part of the purpose of the one-day pass is to let new attendees
understand how the IETF works, why don't we make attendance in the
newcomers' tutorial free - no paid attendance required, just
registration (for planning purposes).
I would rather have newcomers learn from the newcomers' training
Looks good to me.
I have concerns about #6, since it is fairly common that we run light
on food during the reception. And if there are limits on the
reception, then I think it reaosnable to favor those who paid for the
full week. But I can support the experiment.
Will One Day Pass first-timers be
een considered; that licensing issues for the contained code have
been considered. None of this has been documented, so a reader cannot
know whether these have been considered and not documented, or simply
overlooked.
I do not think this document is ready for publication as an RFC.
David Harrington
Hi,
As part of declaring IPv6 a full standard, would we also declare IPv4
obsolete or Historic?
dbh
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 11:25 AM
> To: IETF Discussion
>
ems
in a conference center and major international hotels would mitigate
this while indoors.
I think the level of poluution in Beijing is a valid concern when
evaluating venues.
David Harrington
dbharring...@comcast.net
ietf...@comcast.net
dharring...@huawei.com
>
> --
> Randall Gel
Can a return message contain multiple VSS options? If I read
the document correctly,
multiple relays can add their own VSS options, and a server
typically copies all the
options. If a client is expected to include the VSS option
information in subsequent
messages, does it
risk. So
I suggest you COULD design the web security standard first, and then
design HTTP 2.0 to take the updated web security standards into
consideration. Web security will be easier if it doesn't need to somehow
fit into an HTTP 2.0 that didn't consider a viable security approach
Point taken.
--
David Harrington
Director, Transport Area
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
ietf...@comcast.net
+1-603-828-1401
On 2/22/12 12:31 PM, "Paul Hoffman" wrote:
>The earnest calls for better authentication on this thread appear to
>ignore the fact that the
d yet).
I have similar expectations regarding ipfix IEs.
--
David Harrington
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
ietf...@comcast.net
+1-603-828-1401
On 5/25/12 6:30 PM, "Cullen Jennings" wrote:
>
>WIll the IPFIX and MIB work also be usable by v4 to v4 NATs?
>
>
>On M
e should NOT require it just because we want to see vendors use
our protocols; that is a market-driven decision to be made by vendors
based on customer demand.
--
David Harrington
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
ietf...@comcast.net
+1-603-828-1401
On 7/19/12 8:51 AM, "Simon Perre
current
implementations - that would represent best CURRENT practices.
--
David Harrington
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
ietf...@comcast.net
+1-603-828-1401
On 7/19/12 8:51 AM, "Simon Perreault" wrote:
>Behaviers, PCPers,
>
>During IESG review of draft-ietf-behave-
my provider.
>
>The claim that PCP is the IETF's only protocol in this space does seem a
>little bit on the wishful thinking side of things. So, I could
>understand if the IESG wanted to ask behave to spend a little more time
>on the question.
+1 (or ask sunset4 to spend a little more time on the question).
David Harrington
ietf...@comcast.net
+1-603-828-1401
+1
--
David Harrington
ietf...@comcast.net
+1-603-828-1401
On 8/2/12 12:59 PM, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>The OPSAWG/OPSAREA open meeting this afternoon has an item on the agenda
>concerning the revision of RFC1052 and discussing a new architecture for
3 could be done at some future date.)
So s/ASN.1/SMI/ or s/ASN.1/SMIv2/
ASN.1 has moved on since the 1988 subset used for SMI.
There are tools to validate against the more current ASN.1 standard.
I'm not sure how much current ASN.1 is used in IETF documents, but if it
is, then you might want to
60 matches
Mail list logo
