On Wednesday, March 3, 2004, at 04:18 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
In the past the answer has been "you don't", often coupled with
enthusiastic statements about the mbone being in full production, and
tunnels no longer being necessary.
I contacted my ISP last week about getting multicast routing configur
On Monday, March 29, 2004, at 12:20 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
This I-D does not even mention IPv6 -- any particular reason for not
to? :-)
Several, but I'm not sure any of them are any good.
The first is ignorance on my part - I'm not sure I have a sufficient
grasp on the scenarios in which it would
On Saturday, May 8, 2004, at 11:31 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Yes, this is good stuff. But I don't think distributed firewalling on
its own is the full answer.
I think it's pretty clear at this point that there is no full
answer, or that if there is it's multi-component and situation-
depende
On Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 05:56 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
We should also remember that the people don't comes just from US. When
I called they (not very kindly) suggested me if I can call back in 6
hours (!) because registration services doesn't work so early.
Incredible, this is ha
On Wednesday, August 11, 2004, at 04:28 PM, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
Even mediumly-constructed canvas bags can be more useful than a
t-shirt.
That varies by human. One thing that I would love to bits would
be a t-shirt made out of coolmax or some other high-techie fabric,
instead of cotton. Fo
On Thursday, August 12, 2004, at 10:49 AM, David R Oran wrote:
What about discovery of the furthest point. Do you not find that a
persuasive use case?
There are actually a number of instances in which some kind of topology
exposure is necessary for some widely-used functions to work properly.
Cert
On Thursday, September 2, 2004, at 06:04 AM, George Michaelson wrote:
I call again for meetings run over the weekend. midweek to midweek.
While I'd certainly prefer to travel midweek, there are a couple
of problems with running midweek to midweek. One is that some
people can't work on Saturday for
On Thursday, September 2, 2004, at 09:48 AM, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)
wrote:
The same applies to Sunday and Friday but this hasn't caused any
problem
so-far. Why would Saturday be different?
"Fridays" is actually Friday night. The proscriptions against
work on Saturday are for the entire day,
On Friday, September 10, 2004, at 09:30 AM, scott bradner wrote:
but, to me, its quite silly to pretend that IDs actually disapear
from the net just because teh IETF takes it off of our web site
I don't think anybody's pretending that, but if there's an agreement
between the IETF and people who sub
On Sunday, September 12, 2004, at 04:02 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
It's still unclear - the document contains required wording about its
expiration, under the same document. The two statements are in
conflict in that regard.
I have some problems with retroactively changing agreements, but
your concern
On Sunday, September 12, 2004, at 06:03 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Even the IETF distinguishes between normative refs and non-normative
(though it has a penchant for wanting to redefine those words too).
Private correspondence is not citable as a normative ref, nor are
(currently) IDs.
IDs aren't cita
On Monday, September 20, 2004, at 08:16 AM, jamal wrote:
So Mineapolis (the mother of all IETF venues) is less bloodier to get
to? I am shocked. I would claim Ottawa is more accessible, colder,
cheaper and doesnt have wimpy tunnels - which makes it a perfect
choice.
I think Minneapolis is a terrif
On Monday, September 20, 2004, at 06:09 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
I think this ship has left port a long time ago and the likelihood
that the IETF can now effect enough change to make it possible to
write new applications that work consistently in the presence of NATs
is very low. The installed ba
On Thursday, October 7, 2004, at 09:29 AM, Winkler, Arnold F wrote:
Just a few more:
Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th St. NW, 202-737-2200
Grand Hyatt, 1000 H Street NW, 202-582-1234
The Jefferson, 1200 16th Street NW, 202-347-2200
Washington Renaissance, 999 9th Street NW, 202-898-9000
Those are
On Friday, November 5, 2004, at 09:43 PM, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
Slightly related, be aware that the hotel is about four long blocks
from the Metro, some up a hill. Not that difficult, but not "at"
Dupont Circle.
For those interested in a distance/effort tradeoff, if you go to
the next stop b
On Tuesday, November 23, 2004, at 08:11 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Did you ever think of the fact that many participants in the IETF
earned
a lot of money selling:
- NAT "solutions"
- VPN "solutions" to overcome the NAT problem
- Consulting in many ways
- Services to 'merge multiple enterprise n
On Monday, March 14, 2005, at 08:34 AM, Carl Malamud wrote:
Edward Tufte makes a very convincing case that in the case of
powerpoint, the medium certainly influences the message:
The NY Times ran an article on PowerPoint and the deterioration of
public speaking a few years ago, before Tufte started
On Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 09:44 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think this is why we chartered MIDCOM in the first place.
Yes, and midcom as currently specified does support firewall attributes.
To get back to the broader questions, when we set out to do midcom and
to address the general proble
On Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
What we need is an architecture for multilayered defense that allows
centralized policy specification (which is merged with host policy)
and which is application-aware.
You mean like midcom?
Melinda
__
I'm actually not particularly convinced that publicizing the list
of names would narrow the candidate pool particularly, but it does
seem to me that by making electioneering a more pressing piece of
the process (there's electioneering now, but it's not significant)
and moving the process closer to
On May 9, 2005, at 1:42 PM, Scott W Brim wrote:
I don't understand why making names public would increase
electioneering over what we already have.
"Electioneering" is perhaps the wrong word, since it implies
behavior on the part of the candidates. What I'm thinking about
is pressure from interest
Scott W Brim wrote:
There are occasions when limiting the number of deployed solutions is
very good for the future of the Internet, and in those cases, pushing
for Foo even when Bar is just as good is quite legitimate.
Sure, but I think some of these things ("good", "legitimate")
are unknowable
Brian Rosen wrote:
We still do operate with rough consensus.
Probably only in the sense that some decisions are made
by a consensus process, but I'd guess that there's more
voting going on than not. The lack of both rough
consensus and running code is something I've been wondering
about, too.
grenville armitage wrote:
I wonder if absence of running code, and the apparently weakened
impact of running code on WG debate when there is some, is contributing
to drawn-out document development?
That's an excellent point. To a great extent
we suffer from what the FreeBSD community calls
"b
Scott W Brim wrote:
Hi Melinda. Are you saying that people shouldn't comment on an idea
unless they are implementing it?
No, clearly (I hope) not. Just that it seems likely
that maybe if we did more implementation it could
help end some of those round-and-round we go discussions
that can ofte
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
More of his measurements concluded that at least 56% of hosts are
behind a firewall that blocks by default.
It should be pointed out here that the problems
introduced by NATs are not quite the same as
problems introduced by firewalls. While they
both impair reachabili
On 9/19/05 4:23 PM, "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think all areas in the IETF are more-or-less defined as "core of the
> area" + "what is closely linked to the core" + "what fits less badly there
> than elsewhere" - ECRIT would come under "closely linked", since its
> sub
On 9/21/05 1:25 AM, "David Kessens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would have a lot less trouble with the proposal of adding an area if
> we would be able to find another one that could be abolished, or
> reorganize ourselves in some way or form that would result in no net
> addition of Area Direct
On 9/21/05 3:14 PM, "David Kessens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I notice that nobody has really responded with suggestions on how this
> could be achieved or with alternatives for my suggestion as there are
> obviously many possible variants.
That's not true - I raised the possibility of eliminat
On 9/22/05 1:14 AM, "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The term
> "real-time" tends to mean sub-second, and often much faster than that.
That seems to be the vernacular use, but strictly speaking "real-time"
is about robust assurances of delivery within a constrained time period,
whether
On 9/23/05 5:38 PM, "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For the proposed area, that does not seem to explain the inclusion of ENUM,
> instant messaging or presence. (This area is going to take over xmpp, too?)
ENUM is ancillary to telephony and not really to much else.
But anyway, you'll
On 9/28/05 6:50 PM, "Fleischman, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe that Keith's first paragraph below is widely accepted by the
> IETF. However, after re-reading RFC 3234, RFC 3303, and others I did not
> find any text within any RFC to explain our consensus opinion concerning
> correct
On 9/29/05 1:24 PM, "Bill Sommerfeld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> except that I don't believe there's a single type of middlebox ...
There certainly isn't. RFC 3234 created a middlebox taxonomy
based on what we knew at the time, and I think it's held up
pretty well over the past three years. Pe
On 9/30/05 3:07 PM, "Michael Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what about:
>
> - killfile the person and encourage others to do the same?
Unfortunately that no longer works all that well on Usenet,
either. The participant pool grows to the point where there's
always somebody new, or somebody
Messages like "I'm for this" or "I'm against this" seem to be taking
the form of a vote, when it seems to me that what's probably more
appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.
Melinda
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailm
On 10/7/05 12:42 AM, "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unless the allegedly abusive poster is engaging in a technical denial
> of service or other action unrelated to the actual substance of what
> he is posting, there is never any reason to exclude him. Censorship
> is disguised
On 10/14/05 11:58 AM, "Avri Doria" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - MUST NOT be held in a country whose visa requirements are so
> stringent as to make it impossible or even extremely difficult for
> some participant to attend.
>
> - MUST NOT be held in a country with restrictions on freedom of
> ex
On 10/17/05 1:25 PM, "Scott W Brim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm done.
Ever the optimist, I like to think that the fact that the
leadership's energy is increasingly going into stuff like
this indicates that the IETF has reached a new level of
organizational maturity.
Melinda
Many, many thanks to the Jabber scribes - there've been some
excellent note-takers and it's made it possible to follow along
well from home. The audio has also been excellent, although
it would be a help if more attention were paid to making sure
that folks with mobile mikes (that is to say, the s
On 1/2/06 11:32 PM, "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we're doing better on this front than we have in many
> years.
The technical support for remote participation really has become
terrific. Some sessions are run with great sensitivity to remote
participation, others are n
On 1/6/06 11:11 PM, "Sandy Wills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately, there seems to be a religious dogma among the
> long-time IETF participants that they never take votes. All they
> do is judge rough or smooth concensus, and that reduces our options
> to simple binary choices. Thus
On 1/10/06 12:55 PM, "Burger, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Normally, I would agree, but in one area in particular where I'm active,
> RAI, I've seen it all. There has been a ton of work that was
> "interesting" and "nice to have."
I'm going to hazard a guess here and suggest that that area
On 3/16/08 3:56 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I recall, this was discussed extensively before 3777 (and before
> 2727) and opinions were so evenly split that the only possible
> conclusion was "no consensus for change". So we'll need to see if
> opinions have changed...
R
On 3/25/08 11:57 AM, "Michael Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I've never met you, Noel. And I certainly don't have any reason to
> believe that this email I'm responding to wasn't forged. How do I know
> that you're not a dog?
Reputation system.
Melinda
__
On 3/25/08 12:12 PM, "Simon Josefsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think decisions should be based on technically sound arguments.
> Whether someone wants to reveal their real identity is not necessarily
> correlated to the same person providing useful contributions.
In practice I don't think t
On 3/25/08 12:56 PM, "Edward Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where I lose interest in this conversation is when I ask "what does
> it matter who made the point?"
I suppose that's the ideal. We know some voices carry more
weight and some carry less, but I think what's actually under
discussion
On 5/21/08 2:06 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Great idea, and I don't see a downside.
The only possible disadvantage I can see is if they're then
cataloged as a serial rather than having individual call numbers
and individual catalog entries, but since the Library of Congres
On 5/21/08 2:19 PM, "Randy Presuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What would it take to get them cataloged individually?
Interest in having them cataloged individually. I believe LC
catalogs everything it receives. I've been out of librarianship
long enough not to know how they receive electronic
On 5/21/08 3:36 PM, "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The benefit of the new number requires that folk know about it,
I actually don't think that's the case. I mean, I think
it should be on the documents (otherwise there's some small
point to having one, but not a lot) but I think it's
On 5/21/08 5:39 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Possibly not, but there is still a crusty old world of academic
> publications with traditional reference styles out there, and an ISSN
> will make it much more straightforward to cite RFCs in peer-reviewed
> publications. +1 that
On 5/21/08 5:49 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So we have reinvented STUN?
This is probably closer to Paul Francis's NUTSS stuff without
the cool crankback and especially without resolving the location
problem.
Melinda
___
IETF ma
On 5/22/08 2:01 AM, "Ed Juskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe that getting each RFC cataloged individually would not
> be possible using an ISSN, so we would need to employ ISBNs.
No, not necessarily. A serial published as a serial
("The Bulletin of the Singapore Guppy Society") is
On 5/22/08 8:51 AM, "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, another way of looking at this question is that deciding
> to register an ISSN for the RFC series really does not preclude
> anything else (including, were we so inclined, putting DOIs on
> each RFC) and we should therefore b
On 6/23/08 8:48 AM, "Hannes Tschofenig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The description is too short to judge your proposal in a reasonable way.
> I would have todo a lot of guessing.
> Additionally, I have doubts that there is a need for a new protocol
> given that we are not short on solutions.
I t
On 6/23/08 12:58 PM, "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you think that there are more proposals compared to other areas?
I think so, if you go back to RSIP, etc. I think that the
issue here is that on the one hand it's really a very pressing
problem, but on the
On 6/25/08 11:44 AM, "Lakshminath Dondeti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to hear others' opinions (I was going to put together a
> draft with some ideas on how we might define these roles, but I want to
> hear others' thoughts before I do that) on this topic.
I think your points are va
On 11/18/08 2:16 PM, "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How would you solve the problem?
> hold the meetings in non-terrorist countries. i.e. not the united states.
I don't know what that means. Canada, for example, is a peacekeeper
nation that requires visas for entry from countries fro
On 12/5/08 9:59 AM, "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you are citing BSD because you think that they made a bad design decision,
> then you are faulting them for something that was common in the networking
> culture at the time.
Not to go too far afield, but I think there's consensus
On 12/5/08 10:18 AM, "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's possible that this represents insight worth sharing broadly,
I doubt that very much, since it's really about API
design and ideological purity and I think has had only
a negligible impact on deployability, but
> It isn't immed
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
10.1.2.3 is simply a string litteral that may be used in place of a
DNS name. In neither case should the application require knowledge of
the IP address itself. In fact you don't want that as at some point in
the distant future, 10.1.2.3 is actually going to map to
On 2/10/09 7:20 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree with that claim. It's true that decisions are
> not made by counting votes. Decisions _are_ supposed to be made,
> during consensus call, by weighing the arguments and the apparent
> support for the document.
Under classical co
On 2/10/09 9:27 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote:
> Sure. But under such classical consensus decision-making, one knows
> who's in "the group" for the consensus. The IETF doesn't, because the
> answer to "Who's in the group?" is supposed to be "Who replied on the
> mailing list?"
Well, no, I don't a
On 2/10/09 11:34 AM, "Ed Juskevicius" wrote:
> I am not trying to pour cold water on your idea here, but rather I am
> wondering how something like this could be formalized, versus handled as an
> exceptional case when and if it occurs.
I don't really how understand "count against" would
work in
On 2/10/09 4:12 PM, "Alex Loret de Mola" wrote:
> It assumes that I feel that the individuals posting here were
> clueless.
*I* feel that the individuals posting here were
largely clueless. What, the "Reject TLS!" post
didn't raise your eyebrows?
I think the problem here is that the FSF issued
On 2/10/09 4:48 PM, "Alex Loret de Mola" wrote:
> What I don't want to see, however, is intelligent and reasonable
> people turned away by the abruptness of the backlash here.
I have no idea what you mean by "reasonable and
intelligent." It seems to me that if they want
to participate in the pro
On 2/11/09 9:47 AM, "Powers Chuck-RXCP20" wrote:
> I am curious - is this a commitment by the TLS chairs to actually work
> on this document? Or simply an attempt to prevent the IESG from
> advancing a document that the WG previously declined to work on, and
> could easily do so again?
I have no
On 2/12/09 1:16 PM, "Hannes Tschofenig" wrote:
> The main issue I have been struggeling with these authorization extensions
> inside TLS is that they happen at the wrong layer.
I don't know about that - I think it really depends on
how the TLS session is being used, etc. I think that
the more ab
On 3/25/06 7:47 PM, "Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So my point was, I'd really like to take a chance on some IAB statements
> about things that need to be stated about our architecture. They might be
> ignored. Would the result be any worse?
This is a somewhat bothersome case, beca
On 3/27/06 6:45 AM, "Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My apologies for not being clearer - my intention was not to criticize WG or
> IAB actions in the past, but to point out that we are now in an escalating
> game of whack-a-mole with our applications as the moles that NATs and FWs
>
On 6/26/06 1:18 PM, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know that there are plenty of people in the IETF woul wish to preserve the
> current pervceived status of the Internet as a consequence free environment
> and are absolutely opposed to my attempts to introduce the accountabi
No Jabber rooms for BOFs!
Thanks,
Melinda
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 7/10/06 6:10 PM, "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can borrow a room from an old WG/BOF (e.g.,
> ldup) in a pinch.
Right, but there's a rendezvous problem that particularly affects
those of us who are off-site.
However, midcom will not be meeting in Montreal, and if a BOF
fin
On 7/17/06 10:11 AM, "Jeffrey Altman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking as a working group chair, what is important to me is the
> ability to make progress on the milestones the working group is
> committed to achieve.
Sure, but you don't want to risk insularity, which I think
clearly has been
On 7/17/06 10:51 AM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do you need a jabber _scribe_ for input?
To allow remote participants to provide input.
> Although I did jabber scribing for a couple of sessions the past week
> I don't see all that much value in doing that: the audio f
On 7/17/06 11:17 AM, "Dave Cridland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon Jul 17 16:10:49 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> Did I say it should become less important? I don't see how the
>> meetings are growing in significance, though.
> I think Melinda's intention was to suggest that they ought
On 7/17/06 11:26 AM, "Dave Cridland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Melinda's intention was to suggest that the meetings ought to
> be growing in significance.
> Is that better?
The wording is better, but it's still the case that I'd rather that
we made a better effort to conduct the bulk of
On 7/19/06 1:47 PM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All in all, San Diego seems like a pretty bad choice for a meeting
> place: it's even hard to get to from inside the US, and it's as far
> as you can get from Europe without leaving the continental US.
I'm not crazy about it e
On 5/31/07 2:49 PM, "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this is more evidence that we need more flexibility and
> good sense, not more rigid rules.
Well, what's under description really isn't consensus
decision-making processes - what's being argued is a sort
of voting. Rather t
On 5/31/07 3:21 PM, "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i.e. interferring with others initiatives... this is a serious issue since
> this is Tortuous Interferrence per se.
Actually, Todd, what was I thinking of was people who aren't
capable of graciously moving out of the way after they've
On 6/12/07 3:17 PM, "Lakshminath Dondeti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They are judges of consensus when
> appropriate and the consensus better be independently verifiable. In
> the end, the entire process works with the IETF Community's consensus
> where the IAB and the IESG get to prioritize the
On 7/2/07 11:14 AM, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is no other device that can provide me with a lightweight firewall for
> $50.
Of course there is - the same device that's providing the NAT.
NAT by itself is intrinsically policy-free, although it implements
policy as
On 7/2/07 12:40 PM, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The $50 includes the cost of administration. I get the NAT effect for free
> when I plug the box in. Turning it off on the other hand requires rather a lot
> of thinking for the average user.
There's no reason that a default
On 7/2/07 9:14 PM, "David Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As the administrator of several small networks, it is quite simple. By
> re-writing the address, the NAT is a defacto default deny.
A lot of administrators feel that way, and I undersatnd
why (NAT is basically configuration-free, for t
On 7/13/07 5:43 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe that we need a more general protocol for hosts inside a site
> perimeter to communicate with the perimeter gateways and request
> services from them.
We've actually got several of them, starting with SOCKS (which
could
On 7/16/07 4:13 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe by a lack of simplicity?
Midcom and SIMCO are very simple. I think that there are a few problems,
which taken in aggregate make NAT "control" a hard sell. One is that
in even modestly complex networks either the applicati
On 7/16/07 6:29 AM, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The way I look at the problem we have a gateway issue similar to those that we
> used to have with smtp in the days of decnet sna etc.
Maybe, but there are differences that make it harder. Chief
among these is that there wer
On 7/16/07 10:43 AM, "Joel Jaeggli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Widespread deployment of ALG's as mediators means you have to upgrade
> the network to support new applications. or applications are built on
> top of hostile tunnels over your alg infrastructure (sound familiar?).
> While some enterp
On 7/31/07 4:09 AM, "Aki Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Continuing on something heard at the technical plenary last week. There
> were people complaining that while protocols like STUN/TURN and ICE are
> traversing NAT, they are in fact bypassing firewall policies, which they
> should not be d
On 7/31/07 10:51 AM, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If an I-D is reviewed by several persons in the WG, one AD, two
> members of IESG, etc, then, yes, it costs money but such an in-depth
> review does not happen for random student-published I-D.
There is still no cost to the IE
On 7/31/07 1:01 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Expected result of charging per I-D: bigger I-Ds.
Library science research in the early 1980s
found that the number of authors was highly
correlated with title length, so one might
reasonably expect that charging for internet
dra
On 10/12/07 3:31 PM, "Eric Gray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Time out for station identification; this is the "Internet
> Engineering Task Force."
I tend to think of it as at least in part an engineering question.
Obvious questions about tradeoffs and whatnot, and then the question
of engineering
On 10/26/07 2:04 PM, "Randy Presuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given the unfortunate
> history of this work, publication of draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
> as experimental seems to be the most sensible path out of this mess.
Hear, hear.
Melinda
___
On 2/14/08 9:58 AM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Disagree. There is no reason why a stateful firewall would have an
> easier time tracking UDP state than any other non-TCP state when there
> is no address translation.
There's just a lot more experience with UDP than there
is
I'm not sure which is more impressive - that you chose to
forward private email to several mailing lists, or that you
chose to insult someone by referring to him as a woman.
Melinda
In that environment, anybody can get around what you're
proposing by setting up their own first hop mail server.
Or hop mail server, for that matter.
Melinda
> It's great to have guarenteed lifetime employment for
> software developers, but are we sure spam plus spam
> supression is making the world a better place?
This is a tremendous problem in firewall-land, where there's
a continuing arms race that's moving firewall functionality
further and furthe
> My guess is that going to two would hurt income, unless we raise fees by
> 50% - the same people would come, I think.
> Going to four would be damaging to my sanity, at least - don't know about
> others' we whould expect slightly lower per-meeting attendance, but
> many would indeed feel o
> I think this statement gives dangerously wide latitude for intermediate
> systems to damage end-to-end-ness. It seems to me that a router should
> only do something outside fundamental routing behaviour when this has
> been explicitly approved, either through protocol negotiation or through
> ma
> We're doing it.
That's an "uh-oh" comment. It's very common to hear people
say that the IETF doesn't know how to say "no" to new work.
I think the real problem is that many people bringing new
work to the IETF don't know how to accept being told "no"
and it leads to harass-a-thons of the IESG o
> The difference between denial of service and policy enforcement
> is primarily a question of authorization. Since the people who
> install NAT generally own the networks in question, characterizing
> NAT as a DoS attack doesn't really seem right.
Well, yeah, but ... NAT is far too crude in its
1 - 100 of 466 matches
Mail list logo
