RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-pce-pcep (Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)) to Proposed Standard

Yes this is well written document, I find it scary how many flags fields the document defines in message types with no flags defined and NO GUIDANCE on the scope of these flags. Are they per "object Class +object type" or per message type. Are these needed or just nice to have? What is the harm to

Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73

At 17:33 17/07/2008, IETF Chair wrote: The IESG is considering an experiment for IETF 73 in Minneapolis, and we would like community comments before we proceed. Face-to-face meeting time is very precious, especially with about 120 IETF WGs competing for meeting slots. Several WGs are not able

Re: Daily Dose version 2 launched

I go to the tools site most of the time to look at Internet drafts as I like the multiple ways I can view the drafts in text, with HTML links, diffs etc. I like the new news version of the page as I can see that helps people see what is happening, I can just as easily live with news.ietf.org for

Re: houston.rr.com MX fubar?

At 06:29 17/01/2008, Tony Finch wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Mark Andrews wrote: > > a) when RFC 2821 was written IPv6 existed and RFC 2821 acknowledged > its existance. It did DID NOT say synthesize from . RFC 2821 only talks about IPv6 domain literals. The MX resolution algo

Re: draft-hoffman-additional-key-words-00.txt

At 12:49 16/01/2008, Paul Hoffman wrote: At 1:43 PM -0500 1/15/08, John C Klensin wrote: A different version of the same thinking would suggest that any document needing these extended keywords is not ready for standardization and should be published as Experimental and left there until the com

Attention wireless lan congestion issues

Please stop downloading alt.binary. newsgroups windowsupdate and other large data junk and also please verify that your wireless clients is NOT (repeat NOT) in "Ad Hoc Network" mode and that your personal system is NOT configured to be an "access point" or "base stati

Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued

On 27 Nov 2002, D. J. Bernstein wrote: > [ post by non-subscriber. with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to > miss and therefore delete mis-posts. your subscription address is > [EMAIL PROTECTED], please post from it or > fix subscription your subscription address! ] > > Once again

Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Dean Anderson wrote: > I am not on the ietf or iesg list. I don't know if this will go through to > those lists. > > While DJB may also have some subscription issue, that is not the > fundamental problem. > > It seems from your comments below, that you think that Randy isn't

Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

n from more than 20 other NomCom eligible IETF participants. Thanks Olafur Gudmundsson [1] https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=11277&tid=1351092666 [2] https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=65510&tid=1351272565

Re: [IETF] Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

On 01/11/2012 14:08, Dave Crocker wrote: On 11/1/2012 10:52 AM, Michael StJohns wrote: Per Olafur's email, I submitted my signature directly to him, along with my Nomcom eligibility status. I'm sure other's did as well, so you shouldn't take the absence of emails on this list as lack of suppo

Recall Petition Submission

NomCom criteria as well as the diversity of organizations set forth in RFC3777, furthermore none is a current member of IETF/IAB/IRTF/IAOC/ISOC board. Thanks Olafur Gudmundsson [1] https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=11277&tid=1351092666 [2]

Re: Recall Petition Submission

they support the recall decreases the pool of candidates to sit on the recall committee. thanks Olafur On 05/11/2012 15:15, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: Lynn St. Amour ISOC president, In accordance with the rules in RFC 3777 Section 7, I request that you start recall proceedings against

Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")

I guess that a better question is: "What are the expectations if a draft becomes an WG document?" The opinions ranges from: a) It is something that some members of the WG consider inside the scope of the charter. z) This is a contract that the IESG will bless this document! Not all

Re: Last Call: (A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code) to Experimental RFC

On 11/01/2013 10:14, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code' as Experimental RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this a

Re: Last Call: (A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code) to Experimental RFC

Hi Stephen, On 14/01/2013 13:02, Stephen Farrell wrote: Hi Olafur, On 01/14/2013 04:39 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: I have experience in process like this, as my WG DNSEXT has required multiple implementations and inter-op testing before advancing before advancing documents that make

Re: Proposed Standards and Expert Review (was: Re: Last Call (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard))

On May 21, 2013, at 1:32 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > (Changing Subject lines -- this is about a set of general > principles that might affect this document, not about the > document) > > --On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 22:23 +0700 Randy Bush > wrote: > >> joe, >> >> i have read the draft. if pub

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

On Jun 19, 2013, at 9:29 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > Given that this document was revved twice and had it's requested status > change during IETF last call in response to discussion criticism and new > contribution I am going to rerun the last call. I reviewed this version and I think this is

Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility

On Jun 27, 2013, at 5:50 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hello, > > RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet Architecture > Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF Administrative Oversight > Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled. > > draft-moonesamy-nomc

Re: Last Call: draft-ogud-iana-protocol-maintenance-words (Definitions for expressing standards requirements in IANA registries.) to BCP

On 18/03/2010 12:31 PM, Christian Huitema wrote: If the real reason for this draft is to set conformance levels for DNSSEC (something that I strongly support), then it should be a one-page RFC that says "This document defines DNSSEC as these RFCs, and implementations MUST support these elements o

Re: Last Call: draft-ogud-iana-protocol-maintenance-words (Definitions for expressing standards requirements in IANA registries.) to BCP

On 19/03/2010 12:14 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: At 10:33 AM -0400 3/19/10, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: Well here a proposed problem statement for the requirement: How does an implementer of a protocol X, find which ones of the many features listed in registry Y, he/she needs to implement and

Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-00

Russ I strongly support this approach. In particular I think the downward ref relaxation is of great value as chair of WG with with 30+ RFC's at PS and advancing them in order or RFC's up the standards track vs. advancing the ones that are important will hopefully be the happy consequence of a

Re: extra room avail IETF hotel at IETF rate

I also have one I'm not going to use. Olafur On 05/07/2011 5:32 PM, Geoff Mulligan wrote: I found that I have an extra reservation at the IETF rate ($229/night)for Sunday to Friday at the Hilton. If anyone is interested I can transfer the reservation. geoff

Re: Abstract on Page 1?

At 14:02 07/03/2009, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: On 2009-03-04 16:33 Margaret Wasserman said the following: > I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that > the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the > draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1. > > I d

Re: DNS Additional Section Processing Globally Wrong

At 02:06 04/06/2009, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: On 4 Jun 2009, at 04:06, Mark Andrews wrote: In message , Sabahattin Gucukoglu writes: The problem is this: the authoritative servers for a domain can easily never be consulted for DNS data if the resource being looked up happens to be available

Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meetingof the IETF

At 23:45 23/09/2009, Cullen Jennings wrote: IAOC, I'm trying to understand what is political speech in China. The Geopriv WG deals with protecting users' location privacy. The policies of more than one country have come up in geopriv meetings in very derogatory terms. There have been very derog

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-sink-arpa (The Eternal Non-Existence of SINK.ARPA (and other stories)) to BCP

At 14:16 21/12/2009, Ted Hardie wrote: I have not objection to the creation of sink.arpa, but I will repeat comments I made on the NANOG list that there are ways of accomplishing the same thing which do not require the creation of this registry. One example method would be to create MX records w

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-sink-arpa (The Eternal Non-Existence of SINK.ARPA (and other stories)) to BCP

At 15:38 21/12/2009, Ted Hardie wrote: On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: > At 14:16 21/12/2009, Ted Hardie wrote: >> >> I have not objection to the creation of sink.arpa, but >> I will repeat comments I made on the NANOG list >> that there ar

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-sink-arpa (The Eternal Non-Existence of SINK.ARPA (and other stories)) to BCP

John, SM do the changes that Ted Hardie asked for address your concern(s)? see: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg59759.html All we want sink-arpa to do is to create a domain name with known characteristics and create a mechanism to define other such domain names that may have

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-sink-arpa (The Eternal Non-Existence of SINK.ARPA (and other stories)) to BCP

Correction the message should have been: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg59761.html Olafur At 00:18 22/12/2009, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: John, SM do the changes that Ted Hardie asked for address your concern(s)? see: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current

Re: Defining the existence of non-existent domains

At 05:38 28/12/2009, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: John Levine writes: If other people agree that it's a good idea to have a place that IANA can point to for the reserved names, I'd be happy to move this ahead. Or if we think the situation is OK as it is, we can forget about it. I'd be happier with

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-reverse-servers (Nameservers for IPv4 and IPv6 Reverse Zones) to Proposed Standard

At 00:50 05/01/2010, John R. Levine wrote: For the sink.arpa, it would be good to explain why we want this name to exist. We *don't* want the name to exist; that's the point of the draft. I presume that's what you meant? It would still be nice to put in an explanation of the motivation for

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-reverse-servers (Nameservers for IPv4 and IPv6 Reverse Zones) to Proposed Standard

At 00:40 05/01/2010, John C Klensin wrote: Ok, Joe, a few questions since, as indicated in another note, you are generating these documents in your ICANN capacity: John, for the record, sink.arpa document was my idea and Joe volunteered to help it has nothing to do with his day time job but is

Re: draft-jabley-sink-arpa, was Last Call: draft-jabley-reverse-servers ...

At 04:36 11/01/2010, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: Shane Kerr writes: Various top-level domains are reserved by [RFC2606], including"INVALID". The use of "INVALID" as a codified, non-existent domainwas considered. However: o INVALID is poorly characterised from a DNS perspective in

Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost

On 11/02/2010 12:57 PM, Stephen Kent wrote: I recommend that the document not be approved by the IESG in its current form. Section 6.1 states: 6.1. Support for GOST signatures DNSSEC aware implementations SHOULD be able to support RRSIG and DNSKEY resource records created with the GOST algorit

Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost

On 12/02/2010 2:18 PM, Edward Lewis wrote: At 10:57 -0500 2/12/10, Stephen Kent wrote: PS - I think Olafur meant "private algorithms" not personal algorithms. See http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml, registrations for 253 and 254. No I meant exaclty w

Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost

On 15/02/2010 6:37 PM, Martin Rex wrote: Mark Andrews wrote: In message<201002151420.o1fekcmx024...@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>, Martin Rex writes : OK, I'm sorry. For the DNSsec GOST signature I-D, the default/prefered (?) parameter sets are explicitly listed in last paragraph of section 2 of draft

Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost

On 15/02/2010 7:43 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: On 15/02/2010 6:37 PM, Martin Rex wrote: Mark Andrews wrote: In message<201002151420.o1fekcmx024...@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>, Martin Rex writes : OK, I'm sorry. For the DNSsec GOST signature I-D, the default/prefered (?) paramet

Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost

On 15/02/2010 7:43 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: On 15/02/2010 6:37 PM, Martin Rex wrote: Mark Andrews wrote: In message<201002151420.o1fekcmx024...@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>, Martin Rex writes : OK, I'm sorry. For the DNSsec GOST signature I-D, the default/prefered (?) paramet

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-dnsext-ecdsa-04

On 29/01/2012 11:12, Roni Even wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: d

Re: [dnsext] Last Call: (Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))) to Internet Standard

My original message was not copied to ietf mailing list. John quoted all of my text so I'm sending this follow-up to ietf as well as dnsext mailing lists. On 02/10/2012 12:38, John C Klensin wrote: --On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:01 -0400 Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: ... The IES

Re: [dnsext] Last Call: (Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))) to Internet Standard

On 02/10/2012 21:15, Mark Andrews wrote: Labels only work when all the severs for a zone that has a new label type, in ADDITION sufficient fraction servers in all zones above that zone MUST understand the new label type. Not true. Binary labels could have been made to work by removing the left

Re: [dnsext] Last Call: (Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))) to Internet Standard

On 16/10/2012 17:43, SM wrote: Hi Olafur, I posted the following question about the draft about two weeks ago [1]: "On publication of draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-09, will it be part of STD 13?" I did not see any comments from the WG about that. I had an off-list exchange with the

Re: IAOC Request for community feedback

On 23/10/2012 13:16, Michael StJohns wrote: Wait just one minute. Marshal has neither resigned nor died (both of which would vacate the position). He apparently *has* abrogated his responsibilities. In even stronger terms: if a person after many years of involvement and understanding of

Re: [spfbis] Last Call: (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard

On Aug 19, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > I'm not going to copy the spfbis WG list on this, because this is part > of the IETF last call. No hat. > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:04:10PM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > >>>

Re: [spfbis] Last Call: (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard

On Aug 22, 2013, at 4:36 AM, Jelte Jansen wrote: > On 08/21/2013 08:44 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: >> >> Most of the recent arguments against SPF type have come down to the >> following (as far as I can tell): >> a) I can not add SPF RRtype via my prov

Re: Practical issues deploying DNSSEC into the home.

[cc'ed to a more approriate IETF wg] On Sep 10, 2013, at 11:55 AM, Jim Gettys wrote: > Ted T'so referred to a conversation we had last week. Let me give the > background. > > Dave Taht has been doing an advanced version of OpenWrt for our bufferbloat > work (called CeroWrt http://www.bufferbl

Re: [DNSOP] Practical issues deploying DNSSEC into the home.

On Sep 10, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Evan Hunt wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 05:59:52PM -0400, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: >> My colleagues and I worked on OpenWrt routers to get Unbound to work >> there, what you need to do is to start DNS up in non-validating mode wait >> for

Re: Practical issues deploying DNSSEC into the home.

On Sep 10, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 11/09/2013 09:59, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: > ... >> My colleagues and I worked on OpenWrt routers to get Unbound to work there, >> what you need to do is to start DNS up in non-validating mode >> wait for NTP

Re: [DNSOP] Practical issues deploying DNSSEC into the home.

On Sep 10, 2013, at 8:17 PM, David Morris wrote: > > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> On 11/09/2013 09:59, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: >> ... >>> My colleagues and I worked on OpenWrt routers to get Unbound to work there, >>> wha