Doug Otis wrote:
> [SPF/Sender ID debate omitted]
The draft points out in its Security Considerations (section 7.7) that issues
which may exist in the message evaluation methods it covers apply here as
well, and admonishes implementors to be aware of them. The context of
this draft is not the pla
[Apologies for the double-send; the headers got munged by my editor. -MSK]
Doug Otis wrote:
> [SPF/Sender ID debate omitted]
The draft points out in its Security Considerations (section 7.7) that issues
which may exist in the message evaluation methods it covers apply here as
well, and admonishes
I also support pushing back in those circumstances, but I do (or would, as
an AD) accept the minutes as a record of WG discussion. Minutes are, or at
least are supposed to be, posted to the list for discussion and informal
approval by the WG. This just means the minutes, especially about
document
I apologize for being absent for this thread until now. Vacation and
medical matters interfered with me keeping current.
First, with my participant hat on:
I've been occasionally comparing this work to conventional UNIX "patch" to
try to maintain a point of reference as these works developed. A
These are some cool ideas, and I think we need to try some or all of them.
I'm happy to support a newcomers list if we do that, as well as the
development of the informational packet for newcomers. I also like the
"billeting" notion; if I were to be paired up with a newcomer, something
like meetin
I haven't observed that many newcomers at the newcomer meet-and-greet.
They seem to be overwhelmed (numerically) by the ADs+chairs that go, which
is reinforced by ADs+chairs using it as a taking-care-of-business
opportunity as John observed.
So, also along the "much as I like free beer", maybe it
That this thread is still being pursued made me double-check that it is in
fact not still April 1st.
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 4/6/13 1:33 PM, Ulrich Herberg wrote:
> > Indeed. The wikipedia entry is somewhat misleading though:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apr
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <
abdussalambar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How can a memebr of staff in a company argue with the manager about the
> manager's decisions or performance? Only Owners/shareholders can question
> managers and staff. IMO, the meeting/list discussions on
Doug,
Aren't you tired of repeatedly pointing out your half of the argument? I
am of ours. The Monty Python argument clinic sketch comes to mind.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> The discussion about this on the spfbis list all revolved around the fact
> that TXT is wide
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:52 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> SPF using TXT and hence, SPFBIS forces the uniquification of the DNS
> response into the application instead of in the DNS library. Given the
> ordering of individual TXT RRs within an RRset is not guaranteed, I suspect
> the chances that ev
What he said, except that I don't run the perl thing. :-)
+1.
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:52 AM, John Levine wrote:
> I use DKIM via two independent implementations, perl Mail::DKIM to
> sign outgoing mail, and C language opendkim to check incoming mail in
> the SMTP daemon. It is a mature pro
Dave has already commented on the confusing and rambling nature of this
document, so I'll focus only on the core claim.
In this document, Doug is re-raising an objection that was discussed long
and hard in the DKIM working group during the development of RFC6376. The
archives are still available
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> p.s. I wonder if the problem you describe might at least partially be
> caused by DNS proxies and interception proxies, including but not limited
> to those incorporated in consumer-grade routers.
>
>
>
Given the funny things some firewalls use
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> Simply publishing this draft appears to have already increase
the level of multiple FROM header field abuse seen where it is
now at 21% of signed DKIM messages.
>>>
>>> Sounds pretty scary. No doubt the assertion is publicly
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:
> In its current form, DKIM simply attaches a domain name in an unseen
> message fragment, not a message. The ease in which the only assured
> visible fragment of the message signed by the domain being forged makes it
> impossible for appropria
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> Procedurally speaking, what path do you anticipate your draft following?
>
>
> To require messages with invalidly repeated header fields to not return a
> "pass" for DKIM signature validation.
>
>
That's a technical response. What I asked
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 2:46 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-kucherawy-authres-header-b
> (Authentication-Results Registration For Differentiating
> -Original Message-
> From: SM [mailto:s...@resistor.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 5:21 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-kucherawy-authres-header-b
> (Authentication-Results Registration For Differentiating Among
&g
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-
> boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of IETF Chair
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 4:36 PM
> To: IETF; IETF Announce
> Subject: DNSSEC Contributors
>
> We are collecting names of individuals from the IETF community w
To be honest, I'm not even clear on what the issue is.
If an organization creates a BCP in its own context based on the experiences of
its constituents, and then the IETF uses that material to inform its own BCP on
the same subject, and reasonable permission and attribution are given, what
cons
t;RFC" label without any
substantive changes to the material. But that strikes me as a failure of due
diligence more than anything.
Caveat emptor.
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker [mailto:hal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 1:16 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Su
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel
> M. Halpern
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:41 AM
> To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> Cc: IETF Discussion; Scott O. Bradner
> Subject: Re: Request for review of draft-yevstifeyev-genarea-historic
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of The IESG
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 5:32 AM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Subject: Last Call: (IANA
> Procedures for Maintaining the Timezone Database) to BCP
>
> The IESG has r
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave
> CROCKER
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:39 AM
> To: Olaf Kolkman; Jon Peterson; Hannes Tschofenig; Bernard Aboba
> Cc: IETF Discussion
> Subject: Review of: draft-iab-dns-applications-
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John
> Levine
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 5:39 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: (DKIM And
> Mailing Lists) to BCP
>
> [...]
> I'd suggest publishing it as Informational or E
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of SM
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 12:16 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: ietf-d...@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: (DKIM And
> Mailing Lists) to BCP
>
Hi SM,
By my read, the bulk of your com
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 5:14 AM
> To: ietf-d...@mipassoc.org
> Cc: IETF General Discussion Mailing List; Alessandro Vesely
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 5:00 PM
> To: ietf-d...@mipassoc.org
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last Call:
> (DKIM And Mailing Lists) to BCP
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Hector Santos
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 10:42 PM
> To: IETF General Discussion Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLM and C14N
>
> But as a MLM vendor/developer, noting the existence o
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of J.D.
> Falk
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 5:35 AM
> To: IETF list; DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last Call:
> (DKIM And Mailing Lists) to BCP
>
> > I don't see that "automated mail robot
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sam
> Hartman
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 12:47 PM
> To: Sean Turner
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; The IESG
> Subject: Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status
>
> I'd prefer that we no
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John
> Levine
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:34 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Second Last Call:
> (DKIM And Mailing Lists) to BCP
>
> This problem with this document is that it does n
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Alexey Melnikov
> Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 2:00 PM
> To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; The IESG
> Subject: Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status
>
> > First, fo
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry
> Leiba
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:01 PM
> To: Andrew Sullivan
> Cc: draft-holsten-about-uri-sch...@tools.ietf.org; IETF Discussion;
> Julian Reschke; Boris Zbarsky; Alexey Melnikov
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave
> CROCKER
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 2:57 PM
> To: Andrew Sullivan
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: location preferences
>
> In any event, if crime statistics are to become a factor in
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John
> C Klensin
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 11:56 AM
> To: Michael Richardson; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?
>
> > What's a non-
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Randall Gellens
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 6:25 PM
> To: Henk Uijterwaal; ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: Dave Crocker
> Subject: Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ray
> Bellis
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:29 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: whine, whine, whine
>
> The only European operator into YBQ appears to be Air Transat (whoever
> the heck t
> -Original Message-
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 7:58 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?
>
> For better or worse,
I'm pretty amazed at the angry tone in this thread.
Are you sound-and-fury types willing to roll up your sleeves and actually help
the IAOC do a better job, or perhaps join the NomCom to ensure selection of
people that can, or is this just capitalizing on the fact that's easy to be
antagonistic
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Douglas Otis
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:51 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org; Barry Leiba; iesg-secret...@ietf.org; Sean Turner
> Subject: Last Call: (DomainKeys
> Identified Mail (DKIM) Signature
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith
> Moore
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 4:48 AM
> To: Stephen Farrell
> Cc: IETF-Discussion list; Paul Hoffman; The IESG
> Subject: Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?
>
> It's
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 10:05 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 09
I shudder to think that this is a prerequisite for declaring something Historic.
If some RFC meant to solve some problem turns out not only to be a bad idea but
also shows that the problem itself is essentially intractable, I don't think
it's practical at all to require a replacement before decl
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John
> C Klensin
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 11:39 AM
> To: Randall Gellens; Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Cc: IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: Confidentiality notices on email messages
>
> If on
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John
> C Klensin
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 2:02 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: v6...@ietf.org; IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: Another look at 6to4 (and other IPv6 transition issues)
>
> Po
I think the IESG, or its various delegates, do need to review everything,
especially keeping in mind that "review" doesn't have to be some big
heavyweight thing each time. I share the same view as others that sometimes
some really broken stuff manages to get up to that level.
And, although it
I've been encouraged to say this to a wider audience, so here I am.
A BoF is the IETF's tool for gauging interest in a new topic and a potential
working group charter. This doesn't just mean a showing of people that would
track this work if it were to begin, but really the main purpose is to
d
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> t.petch
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 5:22 AM
> To: dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf
> Subject: Re: DKIM Signatures now being applied to IETF Email
>
> It functions, but does not work, in that it tells
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> t.petch
> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2011 3:26 AM
> To: Barry Leiba
> Cc: ietf
> Subject: Re: DKIM Signatures now being applied to IETF Email
>
> Sadly, I do not see it being used in the mailing
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Richard Shockey
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 7:19 AM
> To: 'IETF Discussion'
> Subject: RE: Review of: draft-ietf-iab-draft-iab-dns-applications-02
>
> I would like to add my support here to
My own recollection is that the working group originally had policy ideas in
its charter, but as we went through the work it became evident that doing DKIM
policy was increasingly hard to get right without creating something unreliable
or even damaging to the current infrastructure. Thus, I thi
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 6:28 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: DKIM Signatures now being applied to IETF Email
>
> > It was not a difficult problem. [...] how t
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Hector Santos
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 2:33 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: DKIM Signatures now being applied to IETF Email
>
> We are perfectly aware you never believed in polic
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith
> Moore
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 4:33 PM
> To: IETF list
> Subject: Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?
>
> My preference is to not have these prefixes. I have all of my list
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter
> Koch
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:04 AM
> To: IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: I-D Working groups and mailing list
>
> I-D announcements are already copied to the relevant WG for WG
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Hector Santos
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 8:10 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: I-D Working groups and mailing list
>
> I don't know if there is a need for "temp
> -Original Message-
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 9:19 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: I-D Working groups and mailing list
>
> (4) Others (probably a partially overlapping group with
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tony
> Hansen
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:02 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: (Message
> Submission for Mail) to Full Standard
>
> I support publication of this RFC.
+
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark
> Nottingham
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 5:08 PM
> To: Peter Saint-Andre
> Cc: IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: 2119bis
>
> Thanks for starting this, Peter. A few comments / topics f
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of HLS
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:00 AM
> To: IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: 2119bis
>
> > I had never thought of this before. I kind of like the idea, especially
> > since SHOULD
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith
> Moore
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:35 AM
> To: Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Cc: IETF discussion list; Eric Burger
> Subject: Re: 2119bis
>
> To the extent that SHOULD is causing interoper
It seems to me RFC2119bis might benefit from some consensus text on what proper
use of each is, beyond defining their respective meanings. From the
discussion, this is obviously true for SHOULD at least. The discussion around
use of MAY in RFC2119 is fairly thorough, so maybe SHOULD needs to b
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:19 AM
> To: IETF Discussion
> Subject: Limitations in RFC Errata mechanism
>
> First, we have only two types of errata - Technical or Edit
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:05 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Limitations in RFC Errata mechanism
>
> > I think given the current mechanism I would just submit
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric
> Burger
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:37 AM
> To: hector
> Cc: IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: 2119bis
>
> I would offer this highlights the problem with today's SHOULD. Some
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith
> Moore
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:03 AM
> To: Hector
> Cc: IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: 2119bis
>
> Because of long experience that indicates that implementors often fail
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hector
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:57 AM
> Cc: IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: 2119bis
>
> > But I don't think there's anything wrong with the definitions as we have
> > them;
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy
> Presuhn
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:31 AM
> To: IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: 2119bis
>
> > This sentence is self-contradictory. "SHOULD" is, by definition, not
> > "OP
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith
> Moore
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:51 PM
> To: Hector
> Cc: IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: 2119bis
>
> On Aug 31, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Hector wrote:
>
> > I'm having a hard t
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Melinda Shore
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:45 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Minimum Implementation Requirements (Was: 2119bis)
>
> Can anybody point to an incident in which
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hector
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 5:56 PM
> To: Michael StJohns
> Cc: IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: 2119bis
>
> Good points, but the subtleties are too wide spread to generalize,
> esp
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alan
> Barrett
> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 12:20 AM
> To: IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: 2119bis
>
> It's really simple. If an interoperability problem arises
> from your failure to im
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John
> C Klensin
> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 6:00 AM
> To: Sam Hartman; Eric Burger
> Cc: IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: 2119bis
>
> Note that this loops back to the the discussion
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry
> Leiba
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:14 PM
> To: IETF discussion list
> Cc: IETF WG Chairs
> Subject: Re: Last Call:
> (Requirements for a Working Group Milestones Tool) to Info
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel
> jaeggli
> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 10:18 AM
> To: Keith Moore
> Cc: hector; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Wikis for RFCs
>
> One of the assumptions here is that discussion withou
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith
> Moore
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:20 AM
> To: Peter Saint-Andre
> Cc: Paul Hoffman; IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: Wikis for RFCs
>
> On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-
Hi Roni, thanks for your comments.
Two things in reply:
First, this is not an Informational document, it's Standards Track. I don't
know if that changes anything in your review, however.
Second, Section 1 does describe the change being made between RFC3462 and this
document, and the rationale fo
From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 10:51 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy; draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis@tools.ietf.org
Cc: gen-...@ietf.org; 'IETF-Discussion list'
Subject: RE: GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01
Hi,
My mistake abo
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of SM
> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 2:38 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: (Complaint
> Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations) to Informational RFC
>
> The short title of the
> -Original Message-
> From: J.D. Falk [mailto:jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:09 AM
> To: Barry Leiba
> Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: (Complaint
> Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations)
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John
> Levine
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:19 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: s...@resistor.net
> Subject: Re: Last Call: (Complaint
> Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations) to Inform
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave
> CROCKER
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 11:27 PM
> To: Melinda Shore
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Requirement to go to meetings (was: Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF
> community input)
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marc
> Petit-Huguenin
> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 9:51 AM
> To: Melinda Shore
> Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings
>
> > In all honesty I'd sa
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:31:23 -0800 (PST), The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received an appeal regarding the previously approved
> draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-20. The appeal text can be
> found here:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/appeal-otis-2009-02-16.txt
> [...]
I am the author o
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:11:26 -0800, Doug Otis wrote:
> > This appeal boils down to "someone might misuse it so don't
> > standardize it." Is there any standard to which someone couldn't
> > have made a similar objection?
>
> The appeal is in regard to offering recipients potentially misleadin
Doug,
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:10:21 -0800, Doug Otis wrote:
> The Sender-Header-Auth draft clouds what should be clear and concise
> concepts. Organizations like Google have already remedied many of the
> security concerns through inclusion of free form comments.
For the sake of being thorough, I
ARF, or Abuse Report Format, is an email message format similar to DSNs
developed by ESPs and ISPs outside of the IETF. It is intended to be used by
service providers to automate the reporting of various kinds of messaging
abuse. Interested parties are seeking to create an IETF working group t
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Cullen Jennings
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 7:12 AM
> To: SM
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Adequate time to review all WG documents
>
>
> +1
>
> I also wonder how the ADs manage
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> John Levine
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 2:16 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Plagued by PPTX again
>
> >Adding a new tool/process is absurd. If you have a solution that
> >actuall
> -Original Message-
> From: apps-discuss-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Peoples, Cathryn
> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 2:09 AM
> To: apps-disc...@ietf.org
> Subject: [apps-discuss] [CfP] IEEE/IFIP International Workshop on
> Management of the Fu
Hi, SM. Thanks for your comments.
In reply to the stuff Barry hasn't already covered:
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of SM
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:35 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: (DKIM Autho
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 2:21 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Last Call: (DKIM Authorized
> Third-Party Signers) to Experimenta
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John
> Levine
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 6:04 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: (DKIM Authorized
> Third-Party Signers) to Experimental RFC
>
> I'm one of the authors
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:d...@dcrocker.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:16 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: (DKIM Authorized
> Third-Party Signers) to Experimental RFC
>
> > I&#
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> t.petch
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 2:51 AM
> To: Mark Nottingham
> Cc: IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: Last Call: (URI Template)
>
> The examples are rather complicated. If I have a
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Dave CROCKER
> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 3:59 PM
> To: SM
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: (DKIM Authorized
> Third-Party Signers) to Experimental RFC
>
> On 11/30/2011 12:
> -Original Message-
> From: Rolf E. Sonneveld [mailto:r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl]
> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 4:49 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: (DKIM Authorized
> Third-Party Signers) to Experimental RFC
>
&
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:d...@dcrocker.net]
> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 10:38 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: (DKIM Authorized
> Third-Party Signers) to Experimental RFC
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John
> Levine
> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 1:28 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net
> Subject: Re: Last Call: (DKIM Authorized
> Third-Party Signers) to Experimental RFC
>
> AD
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
