1) A message that was in response to my "From Leslie Daigle:" message got sent to
ietf-announce by mistake. This should not have happened - ietf-announce is not a
discussion list. Bug reported.
2) However, responding to the point asked - what is being hired now is a consultant to
help with the
"staging area" server:
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/chair/
This includes:
- Mid-June version of "status of change efforts"
- 2003 financials
- 2004 budget
Happy reading!
Harald Alvestrand
___
Ietf mailing l
The IESG has emitted new versions of the following guideline documents:
"Guidelines to authors of Internet-Drafts"
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
which has been updated to reflect the new IPR policy RFCs (3667 and 3668):
Note that in this process, we discovered a bug in one of the RF
The IAB and IESG have considered the input and feedback of the IETF community to
date, including discussions on the IETF mailing and the results of the straw
poll conducted in mid-October. Based on this input, the IAB and IESG have
written a specific recommendation about how to go forward with thi
Mark Andrews skrev:
>>
>
> You also don't want to do it as you would also need massive churn in
> the DNS.
>
> Microsoft gets this wrong as they don't register the privacy addresses
> in the DNS which in turn causes services to be blocked because there
> is no address in the DNS.
perhaps the advent
Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> Mark Andrews skrev:
>>> You also don't want to do it as you would also need massive churn in
>>> the DNS.
>>>
>>> Microsoft gets this wrong as they don't register the privacy addresses
>
Rémi Després wrote:
> Harald Alvestrand a écrit :
>> Mark Andrews skrev:
>>
>>> You also don't want to do it as you would also need massive churn in
>>> the DNS.
>>>
>>> Microsoft gets this wrong as they don't register the privacy
Rémi Després wrote:
>> My desire to have privacy is, in itself, something I may want to keep
>> private.
> I am not sure I see the practical consequences.
> If my source address says "I am someone but you will not know who I
> am", isn't this sufficient?
You're not thinking this through.
Think
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 21 feb 2008, at 16:34, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>
>> Think of the case where there are 1000 users on a LAN, and one of them
>> desires to use the address privacy option for all the normal reasons.
>
>> Then think about the policem
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 when we revise a specification that we have
>> only an incomplete defect list. Or we may not have determined if a
>>
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> On 3/6/2008 10:44 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>> Lakshminath Dondeti skrev:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> A report on the nomcom's activities is available at
>>> https://www.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/07/nomcom-report. Please
>>> direct any comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ray Pelletier wrote:
> All,
>
> We are considering changing the meeting Blue Sheet by eliminating the
> need to enter an email address to avoid spam concerns.
>
> Is there any good reason to retain that info bit?
I think you should ask Jorge whether the disambiguation factor matters -
he's the la
After considering the comments so far, I think I disagree with having a
separate Trust chair.
The idea behind making the IAOC be the Trustees was, among other things,
to make sure that we didn't create yet another nexus of control in the
labyrinth of committees; I understood the legal existence
Ray Pelletier wrote:
>
> 12. The Trustees are the current members of the IAOC. When a member
> leaves the IAOC for whatever reason, he or she ceases to be a Trustee.
> When a new member joins the IAOC, he or she becomes a Trustee [ADD -
> upon their acceptance in writing].
This is already covere
I too like Ted's comments.
If the job is really to preside over the Trust meetings, the title
"convener" might be useful; if the job is to make sure Trust work gets
followed up, call it an "executive director".
But I can live with the current proposal (although dropping #12 entirely
would make
Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> I would personally find this more useful if it were measured by
> subject line rather than by sender.
>
>
At the time when these summaries started, it was obvious from some
summaries that some participants seemed to be spending more time typing
answers than
Eric Rescorla wrote:
> At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:17:47 -0600,
> Randy Presuhn wrote:
>
>> Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology
>> choices at the CANMOD BOF. Our original proposal for consensus
>> hums included getting a of sense of preferences among the various
>> p
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Brian Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>> Here's my suggestion:
>>
>> List 2606 in the informative references, and footnote the examples used
>> to indicate
>> that they are "grandfathered" non-2606 examples.
>>
>> So, in text that previously read "not-example.co
Eric Rescorla wrote:
As I have done for previous IETFs I just ran getdrafts
(http://tools.ietf.org/tools/getdrafts/) on the entire agenda
and what follows is the output. As you can see, a pretty substantial
number of WGs are without agendas, about 10% of the drafts listed
are wrong, and about ha
The IESG (by way of Russ Housley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
The attached describes the manner in which the IESG will be
processing RFC Errata for the IETF Stream. The current tools on the
RFC Editor site support "approved" and "rejected", but they need to
be updated to also permit "hold for docu
Russ Housley wrote:
Harald:
I'd like to see this discussed on the rfc-interest mail list.
Previously, you suggested that all errata and their disposition be
available for historical review, regardless of the state that the
errata is put into. I think that this is the plan, but these details
Julian Reschke wrote:
Well. There's definitively a total disconnect between that IESG
recommendation, and the W3C TAG's point of view (see ongoing
discussion on the TAG mailing list about the "xri" scheme).
It would be good when both organizations could come up with consistent
answers.
If
it's surprising how much we agree on :-)
Julian Reschke wrote:
Certain usages of HTTP (in particular, the use of HTTP URLs for XML
schemas) have tended to denigrate this implication, and say "you
should regard this as an identifier". Still, the usage is prevalent
enough that people have comp
You can't change your earlier public statement; that would be tampering
with the historical record.
You can, however, file a new statement that updates the old one, as you
have already done by filing #954, listed as an update of #201, and #955,
#956, #957, #958, #959, #960, #961, #962 and #963
IETF Chair wrote:
From the discussion just prior to the recent appeal by John Klensin, it
was clear that the guidance regarding example domain names in IETF
documents provided in the ID-Checklist needed to be updated. This point
was emphasized further during the discussion of the Klensin appeal.
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
You can't change your earlier public statement; that would be
tampering with the historical record.
The IETF appears to permit patent disclosures to be removed at the
request of submitters. Search for
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
At least one of the removed patent licenses promises to make available
patent licenses on fair, reasonable, reciprocal and non-discriminatory
terms. It seems unfortunate that IETF allows organizations to file such
SM wrote:
At 05:37 20-10-2008, The IESG wrote:
This is a second last call for consideration of the following document
from the S/MIME Mail Security WG (smime):
- 'Using the Boneh-Franklin and Boneh-Boyen identity-based Encryption
Algorithms with the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) '
a
Stephen Farrell wrote:
So while I don't strongly object to these as informational RFCs,
I do wonder why, if only one implementation is ever likely, we
need any RFC at all. Its not like these docs describe something
one couldn't easily figure out were there a need, given that
the (elegant but not
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 04:51:23PM +0200,
Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
(That said, the RFC Editor's work on these will cost the IETF a
known amount of dollars.
Known by who? How an or
David Kessens wrote:
Joe,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:20:11AM -0800, Joe St Sauver wrote:
I'm not aware of DNS block lists which cover IPv6 address spaces at
this time, probably in part because IPv6 traffic remains de minimis
(see http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/8/the-end-is-near-but-is-
"start" for a real revolution.
The question is: where is any similar movement to those pushed the web
development in the early nineties?
Best,
Géza
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Kessens wrote:
Joe,
On Tue, No
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
The correct number from the presentation is 0.238% - only Russia,
Ukraine and France have more than 0.5% IPv6.
Presentation available from
http://rosie.ripe.net/presentations-detail/Thursday/Plenary%2014:00/index.html
Material comments:
- Section 3: RFC 5378 expected the date on which 5378 was effective to
be set by the Trust (section 2.1), and explicitly did not want to cast
into RFC stone the procedure by which the changeover date was determined.
- I disagree with the decision to allow *all* of a submiss
Contreras, Jorge wrote:
Who owns the oft-repeated
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
I'm referring to the bits
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes:
Simon Josefsson skrev:
Ray Pelletier writes:
On Dec 18, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Why do we need to send these license forms in at all?
I thought the requirement was that the authors get th
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 1:38 PM +1300 1/15/09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
IANAL, but it seems to me that we should proceed on the assumption
that this would fall under fair use provisions. Anything else
would seem unreasonable to me.
IANAL, and I'm only following about 10% of this thread,
Two concerns.
1) As the chair of a WG that many will consider to be a prime example of
OBE, I am a bit worried about the "MUST NOT publish" statements.
A traditional antidote to long-running WGs has been to kill them and
tell the editors "if you really want to finish up, you can always do
in
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I also was resubscribed. I received the usual totally clarifying
message one has come to expect from Mr Anderson.
None of this suggests to me, however, that we ought to do something.
My understanding (and I'd appreciate being disabused if I'm wrong) is
that Mr Anderson
Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Jari Arkko wrote:
I agree that there are problematic case, but I believe I hope everyone
realizes this is only the case if the RFC in question has code.
Otherwise it really does not matter. Only some RFCs have code.
Except that it prevents using t
Ran,
RJ Atkinson wrote:
There was an understanding then that the
RFC Editor's role extends far beyond just publishing IETF-sponsored
documents. I am concerned that this is not being acknowledged now.
I would feel a lot better if there were more public acknowledgement
that the RFC Editor's rol
Carl Malamud wrote:
Hi Brian -
I agree with the first part ("seek multiple proposals when possible
and appropriate"). However, we may disagree on the last part ("transparent
as possible"). My formulation would be "transparent" without the
qualifier. Transparent with a qualifier == opaque.
Th
Mohsen BANAN wrote:
As an alternative to allowing IETF to decide and
control the future of the RFC Publication Service,
we propose a model of independent services (RFC
Publication, IANA, patent-free declarations, ...)
creating an environment for a market of protocols
with inherent checks and ba
Mohsen BANAN wrote:
Complaints Against The IESG
and The RFC-Editor
About Publication of RFC-2188 (ESRO)
Mohsen Banan
mohsen at neda.com
November 5, 1998
I suppose I should make a note to t
This therefore leads to two questions for the community:
1. Are well known ports archaic? If so, can we request that the IANA
do away with the distinction?
2. If they are not archaic, under what circumstances should they be
allocated?
My opinion:
they are archaic and should
Dave> RFC2068, HTTP/1.1, was published a little over half a year later,
Dave> which would appear to be "relatively soon".
The primary author of Informational RFC1945 with
the negative IESG note is Tim Berners-Lee.
He then pulled out of the IETF/IESG and formed
W3C.
Why do you think that
Eduardo,
I'll take the word of anyone
Eduardo Mendez wrote:
Dear Mr. Chair,
I never hidden I am involved in cultural policy.
Actually, I represent a group of specialised colleagues.
>From EU Governments, EU Parliament, and International Organisations.
Name them, if you can. If they exist, they
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
It is true that the IESG Notes in RFC 1945 and RFC 1630 are quite
embarassing for the IETF today but you are not Tim Berners-Lee. For
one genius who had trouble being recognized at the beginning, there
are thousands of monkeys-with-keyboards who are rightly ignored.
Ned Freed wrote:
But does that student have access to the root account on servers which
are part of the networking infrastructure? Who cares if Joe User
blows up his own config. on a PC that nobody else depends on but Joe?
But if nobody has local access to these servers, why is it is
neces
Stephen Casner wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006, Susan Estrada wrote:
[snip]
**Tuesday's Trivia**
1. One IETF attendee appeared on more than a
dozen IETF name badges at the Stanford IETF -- name him or her.
Milo Medin. I have no idea why.
This was a small revolt against pressure to wear a
Sam,
in the gen-art meeting today, you asked me to read and reply to the long
note you wrote to Elwyn.
I'm assuming you mean this one.
The discussion in the genarea meeting clarified quite a bit what you are
trying to achieve with the draft, and was a very useful background to
writing this n
Just wanted to state what's obvious to all of us by now:
This time the wireless WORKED, and Just Went On Working.
That hasn't happened for a while. THANK YOU!
Harald
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailm
Tim Chown wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:48:19PM -0600, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
The results is also better for all (even participants), because the
logistics and local-planning is done more coherently.
I think there's some unfair handwaving in this thread.
One option however wo
Andy Bierman wrote:
Ray Pelletier wrote:
Andy Bierman wrote:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I don't think the meeting fees could actually go down, may be more
in the
other way around if we are realistic with the cost figures.
Actually the cost is already high for a sponsor, and I believe
t
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The current funding model makes the IETF disproportionately reliant on one
single company that currently employs far more ADs and working group chairs
than any other. It also has a habit of recruiting through the IETF. If that
company were to have an unexpected earni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
not being the RFC editor, the IAB (or member thereof), or even the
(as yet undefinable) IETF, I am not sure I am qualified to render
a value judgement here. That said, I am in posession of two bound
volumes of the collected RFC series as of the date of publication of
Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 07:28 -0700, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
not being the RFC editor, the IAB (or member thereof), or even the
(as yet undefinable) IETF, I am not sure I am qualified to render
a value judgement here. That said, I am in
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
However, it seems that rather than having each individual chase after
authors, at least one of whom is unfortunately no longer with us,
wouldn't it make sense to have the Trust sent a release form to the
authors so that they can grant retroactive permission equivalen
I don't know of a status change to IMA in this time interval.
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Please provide more data (off-list) as this seems odd.
Will do (ordinary moderation bounce), but on list I should fix
the bogus URLs I've posted here (I forgot one "gmane", s
Brian,
before asking for volunteers, you should state clearly whether you want
people who will:
- DOCUMENT the EXISTING way the IESG works, and seek approval for that
- PROPOSE a NEW way the IESG can work, that fits the needs of the
community better
The last one is what draft-davies-pesci-n
The tracker tracks
the RFC Editor note was modified (by me) on July 24, 2004. The reason
was a comment from Ted Hardie on July 21, augumenting a DISCUSS from
Steve Bellovin:
Steve (DISCUSS):
>he last paragraph of Section 2 should explain the relationship of this
document to RFC 3683.
Sam,
we have some differences of opinion on how these things work, and how
they are supposed to work.
But I'll try to be constructive.
I think that in any experiment that involves giving someone the power to
set procedures, there MUST be some words on how those procedures are set
(the metapr
Since Joe has identified a calendar (even an ISOC-sponsored one!) that
seems to be updated with less work from the secretariat than the current
meeting-planning list/calendar, perhaps the IAD should evaluate whether
the IETF should switch to using this calendar for coordination, and
retire its
Good to see some debate on this!
As author, I should try to indicate where I come from in my thinking
but it's up to the IESG to judge whether this could be an useful
experiment to run, and up to those who run the experiment to determine
the details as they go along. That's by design.
Jo
John C Klensin wrote:
Dave,
I think one can like, or dislike, this proposal. My first
objective was to make sure we were complaining about what was
there/ intended, rather than what wasn't. It is not the best
document I've ever seen wrt specifics and explanation
(including, I imagine, some of
Just one note on this long thread:
At present, the IETF secretariat does *not* attempt to track who has
copyright rights on what parts of the text.
Neither, as far as I know, does anyone else (WG chair or editors), apart
from following the RFC 2026 rule that "significant contributions should
b
Bob Braden wrote:
*>
*> I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that limits the
*> number of authors is in conflict with the IETF IPR policies. The RFC
*> Editor currently limits the author count to five people. Recent IPR
*> WG discussions make it clear to me that auth
Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
Let me try re-stating my question. Is there a one-to-one relationship
between the listed authors on an IETF document and ownership of the
given document's Intellectual Property?
I can answer that one...
No.
___
Ietf mailing lis
Note:
The IPOD draft says that these notes can be approved by multiple
entities - I did not see any reason to insist that the mechanism impose
a further burden on the IESG for *every* document that needs to be
issued in the course of IETF operations.
So the reason for the "IETF" in "IETF Ope
Note - I did not intend to advocate starting off by moving all BCPs into
IONs.
Some pieces of some BCPs may be better off as IONs. But I think that
having the "basic rules" as BCPs that are published as RFCs is something
that we shouldn't be too quick to change.
Harald
Ted Faber wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 02:11:19PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
The problem with text is that you have to walk through memory and
compare characters. A LOT.
That's not where your code spends its time.
Run gprof(1). The majority of time your code spends is spe
I hereby formally add my voice to the list of people who think that
draft-ash-alt-formats should not be published in its present form as the
basis for an RFC 3933 experiment.
I would change this opinion if:
- The description of the evaluation of the experiment was extended to
include:
- Abi
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The format is straight mime with one added feature, a content header
to specify the url of the segment so that links in the document can be
disambiguated.
It should be an rfc, just need someone to get round to writing it up.
I may do that soon because I am looki
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ray Pelletier wrote:
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
Who does or will pay for the IANA function? Does funding come from
IASA, ICANN, or some other source?
To my knowledge, it's ICANN, not the IETF.
Ray
Yes, this has been an ICANN contribution to the community since
th
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
If we are going to do anything about the pedophile predators lurking in
Internet chat rooms we have to create the understanding that there is
accountability. The perverts would not approach a minor in a public area with
the type of advance they use in a chat room,
Ken Raeburn wrote:
On Jul 12, 2006, at 06:03, Dave Crocker wrote:
4. Having a per-meeting special list has an obvious and reasonable
basis.
However it makes each meeting's list a special case for IETF
administration and
for attendees. Possible variations to consider:
a. Have the list name
Yaakov Stein wrote:
According to RFC 2026 historic RFCs are those whose
specification has been superceded by a more recent specification.
RFC 4612 is labeled historic, and defines a MIME type
for T.38 over RTP, a practice that is just now being adopted
and to be encouraged.
Indeed, the RFC d
I regard a 6-month ritual of:
1) Unsuspending Jefsey from ietf-languages
2) Waiting until Jefsey discovers his unsuspension
3) Wading through Jefsey posts until everyone's sure he's still as
incomprehensible as before
4) Convincing my then-current AD that it's time for another 6-month
suspensio
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Don't throw away the umbrella because you're buying a
raincoat next week. It's still raining.
If the "umbrella" is Sam's experiment, and the "raincoat"
Brian's draft, then the latter didn&
Sam Hartman wrote:
"Harald" == Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald> I regard a 6-month ritual of: 1) Unsuspending Jefsey from
Harald> ietf-languages 2) Waiting until Jefsey discovers his
Harald> unsuspension 3) Wading t
Paul E. Jones wrote:
Brian,
The problem with using "image" is that it would mean that a gateway would
have to do one of:
1) Close the audio session and open an image session
2) Open a second "image" session during mid-call
3) Open both an audio session and image session at the outset
The real un
Andrew Newton wrote:
3 - Why is LWZ limited to UDP, desperately trying to solve
various size issues with delated XML and other tricks ?
TCP is handled by XPC and BEEP. But for very short and quick answers
(and lots of them, such as domain availability checks) UDP is better.
Don't know w
william(at)elan.net wrote:
my congestion control alarm went off.
after reviewing the document, it's still ringing.
There's nothing in the document that says "if you want to send 4000
requests, and 70 out of the first 100 get lost, you should slow down
your sending rate to that server".
The
Doug Ewell wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:23:54 -0400, IESG Secretary secretary at ietf dot org> wrote:
A modified charter has been submitted for the Language Tag Registry
Update (ltru) working group in the Applications Area of the IETF.
The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The modi
Just to say "me too"...
I think that Andrew as Nomcom chair needs to have the authority to make
the decision in this case and make it stick, no matter how many people
think that he could have done better.
I've got no problem with the community having opinions about his
decisions, and even so
Robert Sayre wrote:
On 9/19/06, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thankfully, the complete failure known as HTTP 1.1 would never make it
> to Proposed Standard under the unwritten process we have now. For
> example, it doesn't contain a mandato
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I think the question starts with a false premise, that the security layer
should be in HTTP. Since HTTP is the new IP this makes no more sense than
having authentication at the IPSEC layer.
I think the concept of "THE security layer" is a false premise. There's
John C Klensin wrote:
>From my place in the galleries, it appears to me that there have
been a very small number of attempts to assert the 3683
mechanism. Each has resulted in a firestorm of debate that has
arguably caused far more traffic, noise, and disruption to the
relevant mailing lists
I've got a "very liberal" comparator in production at the Linux Counter
project.
It mostly works, because the people who assign names tend to not assign
names that collide under the comparator.
But the strings that result from the comparator are quite distant from
"expected" strings in many c
FWIW, "domain suffix" is used in RFC 3263, 3588, 4183 and 4620. In none
of these documents does it seem that the author has seen a requirement
for a definition; "a domain name that is intended to be used as a suffix
of a complete domain name" seems to be the implied definition.
A pity that Ver
Ted Hardie wrote:
Note that the information below pertains to a meeting which is not sponsored
by or endorsed by the IETF. Participants should understand that the discussion
of an Internet-Draft or a potential proposal for a later IETF working group does
not imply that the IETF IPR policies, No
The reason we left it open is to allow the working group to spend more
> time exploring the range of use cases in this area to better determine
> requirements and applicability. For example, it may be useful to
> classify endpoints as network-managed versus user-managed versus
> 3rd-party managed
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
At 01:42 AM 10/7/2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Many universities require their students to buy their own laptops,
but prohibit certain types of activity from those laptops (like
spamming, DDOS-attacks and the like). They would love to have the
ability to run some
Just FTR (and changing the subject, since this is not about NEA at all):
I agree with the principle that the sergeants-at-arms are obliged to
make up their own minds about whether or not a posting is inappropriate,
and that they are responsible for their own decisions.
Complaints are a means
dust off the IAB wildcard statement, and say "it's not any better when
YOU do it"?
http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-09-20-dns-wildcards.html
While we're at it, let's say "blocking SRV records in your DNS proxy is
harmful too".
Keith Moore wrote:
In the past month or so I've run across
One thought:
every time we encounter one of those problems, we should report an issue
to the ISP's helpdesk.
If the opex of the "feature" is high enough, even accountants may get
the point
Stephen Casner wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
In the past month or so I've r
todd glassey wrote:
Thats what I thought John but when Verisign's Corporate-Government Liaison,
who is a very reputable attorney, pops up and says there is one I have to
ask.
Google searching seems to indicate that this role belongs to Michael
Aisenberg. I suggest that anyone who cares to pur
A typical NEA case (taken out of what Cisco's NAC is supposed to be good
for):
- Worker goes on holiday, takes laptop
- New attack is discovered that exploits a newly discovered Windows
vulnerability
- Patch is created, distributed and installed
- NEA posture requirement is increased to "must
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Perhaps he could be also convinced to trash his draft. I've
trashed an "3710-obsolete" draft (before publication - luck).
9/10 of all drafts are trashed by the quite effective mechanism of
waiting 6 months... no need for dramatic action.
that said, I'd be happy
> - supporters are willing to offer proof of identity to a
> secretariat function of the IETF
...difficult, it reminds me of Usenet CSVs. What do you have
in mind, a phone number offered for a verification call ? They
would need to support different plausibility checks wrt WP:SOCK
1 - 100 of 285 matches
Mail list logo
