On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 03:03:02PM -0700, 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.
>
> P
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 10:33:37AM -0800, Glen Zorn (gwz) wrote:
> > BTW, how much worse are the Minneapolis temperatures in march vs
> > those in november?
>
> Let's not go there: for some reason the powers-that-be have decided
> that it's a great idea to gather at least once if not twice a year
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:37:29AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> I'm not sure they're the same people in both cases. but here's a
> litmus test - if there's not a token for any host A that host B can
> hand to host C at some arbitrary location in the network and have C use
> that token to quickly
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 03:43:25PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >(1) It is hard to "fire" WG chairs - they are often friends and
> >colleagues. Unfortunately, many stay on when their job responsibilities
> >have changed and they can no longer dedicate the necessary time.
> >
> >Solution:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 09:08:44AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >I read it as a statment of fact. I could reasonably
> >rule it irrelevant and ask Harald not to repeat it.
>
> I thought we also had a mechanism for taking action against posters who
> violate list policy
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 11:32:15AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >As one of the IETF list's "sargent at arms", I certainly don't see
> >Harald's one-time, single line posting as being egregious in any shape
> >or form. I also didn't see it as a personal attack.
>
> sorry for the badly written note
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:48:03AM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> Since when are _true_ facts about liars on a subject (open relays)
> discussed in an IETF RFC, egregious? Is it against list policy to assert
> that the IETF should be honest, and not associate with liars? I missed
> that part. Pe
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 01:02:29AM -0400, Ken Carlberg wrote:
> My view is that your impression of the reaction is incorrect. in
> taking the position that respondents can be classified as either:
> a) being satisfied with the IESG *decision*, b) dissatisfied or
> uncomfortable with the decision
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:20:37PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
>
> I do not agree. To me, everything in 2434 is talking about what level
> of documentation should be required to register a parameter (code point,
> whatever you want to call it) via the IANA. The "IESG approval"
> section contains
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 01:18:31AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:39:05 -0400
> From:Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> No, I didn't say that at all, ever. What I said was that the IESG should
> have determined whether there was adequate docume
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:07:47PM +0200, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> The list of "satisfied" is of ne real interest. The list of "disatistied"
> seem important enough to say there is no consensus.
No IETF consensus is required to accept or deny a registration for the
registry in question under
I agree with all of Joel's points, below, and add the following comments.
The fundamental philosophical assumption made by
draft-klensin-iana-reg-policy-00.txt goes too far is that registration
of code points is always a good thing, and it is never bad thing to
reserve a code point in the interest
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 07:02:11AM -0500, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Oh, great...
>
> As Harald noted, draft-klensin-iana-reg-policy is pretty prescriptive
> about saying that if we're in conservation mode for a registry, we
> also need to be in evasive-action mode ("how do we get more room in
>
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:42:30PM -0400, Eric Rosen wrote:
>
> > the normal process for AD replacement involved choosing which of the
> > people who had worked with the AD for a long time could do the job this
> > time,
>
> In American vernacular, this procedure is known as "cronyism".
Dave,
Your proposal presuppose an assumption that the best use of
our AD resource is as procedural and process assistant. Certainly we
don't select for that in our current nomcom process --- and I would
argue that if what we are looking for is more assistance at the
working group level fo
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:41:42PM -0500, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Hi, Ted,
>
> (offlist) - the current NOMCOM chair posted to the IETF list that for
> two AD positions this cycle, there were only two candidates, and for a
> third position, there were only three.
>
> Are you saying that we may
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 02:00:04PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> So, Ted, please forgive me for using your posting to note a pattern,
> but I'm sufficiently tired of the very regular and usually
> hyperbole-filled pattern of misreading that happens in this realm,
> so that I feel the need to take e
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:25:29PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> If the IESG were to refuse to publish the Sender-ID document as it is,
> it would not "police" everything: anyone can still do what he wants on
> the Internet.
>
> The only thing than the IETF can do is to "bless" or not the do
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 06:47:36PM -0700, Nick Staff wrote:
> > 2. An IETF "netiquette" committee, to offload list banning
> > procedures from the IESG.
>
> I'm a big fan of the netiquette committee. I'd like to suggest that
> volunteers be allowed to "throw their names into the hat" and that mem
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:00:18PM -0700, Nick Staff wrote:
> > 2) Unless discussion of the decisions of the netiquette
> > committee, during the committee is considering a request, and
> > after the committee has rendered a decision, is ruled out of
> > scope, it's not going to help the very lo
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 12:52:29PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> We have in my opinion had a consistently low operator turnout. I wonder
> if it would be possible for us to align our conference dates in such a
> way as to overlap with NANOG, RIPE, USENIX, LISA, and other appropriate
> conferenc
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:53:39PM -0800, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
> Ten years ago, MCI hosted the IETF in Dallas. Someone thought it would
> be a nice idea to give every attendee an MCI card that would be good for
> free calls to anywhere in the world during the IETF week.
>
> Of course, the IETF c
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 02:59:34PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
> (2) Development of a converter between the MS-XML output
> of Word Pro 2003 and the XML input of RFC 2629bis so
> that xml2rfc and its friends could take responsibility
> for final formatting. Note that, if t
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:45:40PM -0500, Gray, Eric wrote:
> Ted,
>
> If that happens, don't you think that we would be
> obliged to object to their claims?
>
> IMO, such claims would be easily defeated on the
> same basis as most "look & feel" claims have been beaten
> in the past.
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 12:57:56PM -0500, Gray, Eric wrote:
>
> Usually, before you can actually seek consensus, you must have an
> essentially "binary" choice. It is hard enough to reach consensus
> on simple choices without turning up the process noise by having a
> plethora of possible choices
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 03:18:08PM -0500, Brian Rosen wrote:
> Any format can be used for any purpose, but it might be time to fully stand
> up to requirements to harvest data, and to recognize (as I did on another
> side thread), that reading is getting harder and harder for ASCII. It may
> be a
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 08:09:10AM -0500, Brian Rosen wrote:
> It's trivial for a human, but not for a computer.
> Many things trivial for humans are not trivial for computers.
>
> The kind of harvesting you are talking about is trivial for a human from any
> format as long as your editor can past
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 04:36:11PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> > Filtering him out individually, as I do, is insufficient: one still must
> > read the polite or exasperated responses of others. I am almost at the
> > point where I will filter any posting that so much as *mentions* him.
>
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:10:04PM -0500, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> As do I. Of course, agreeing that the net should stay up the rest of
> Friday is the easy part. The hard part is getting the volunteers who do
> the work to commit to staying around that long...
... not to mention the cost of
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 05:16:59PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter writes:
>
> > Exactly. If a WG group is discussing a dozen separate issues in parallel,
> > an active participant can easily send several dozen *constructive*
> > messages in a day. Our problem with disruptiv
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:31:08PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Harald> I do not want the IETF to craft rules for "X", and then
> Harald> re-craft them for "Y", "Z" and "W" because hastily crafted
> Harald> rules did not fit the next situation to come along. I want
> Harald> the rule
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 11:44:37AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> >However, we need to keep something else in mind, which Iljitsch's note
> >hints at. If I'm an ISP trying to sell a low-end service to low-end
> >customers at a low (but still profitable) price, I need to cut customer
> >support co
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 05:36:30AM +0200, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> More bogus math. Every time someone tries to compute capacity, he
> looks at the address space in terms of powers of two. Every time
> someone tries to allocate address space, he looks as the address space
> in terms of a str
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 11:42:27AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > It smells remarkably like pathalias to me ;-)
>
> except that I'm not proposing that border routers do source routing,
> just that they map from PI identifiers to PA locators and prepend a
> header that causes the payload to be route
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 03:45:17PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> not in my recollection. It's been awhile, but I recall pathalias being
> used to do source routing - given a hostname, to specify a complete
> path to that host. (I also recall it sometimes being used to do
> rerouting - discarding
For those of you who are in the Boston area, the following
presentation might be of interest, given recent discussions about
methods of compating SPAM. It is hosted by the MIT Laboratory for
Computer Science's Applied Security Reading Group.
- Ted
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 07:12:44PM -0500, Michael StJohns wrote:
> a) Sunset the area with a final decision point as 12/31/2003 and a closing
> date of 03/01/2004. No further WGs will be chartered in this area.
> b) Ask the Nomcom to appoint 1 area director not from the current set of
> ADs for
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:33:58PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> i have used jabber in ietf meetings and similarcontexts. it works
> to coordinate stuff in real-time. but that was not my application
> this time. i really was after the as much content of the meeting
> as possible. to do that wel
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 07:49:15PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Other widely deployed but similarly misguided anti-spam mechanisms
> include blanket blocks on incoming or outgoing TCP connections to port
> 25. I've even encountered on ISP that transparently and silently
> redirected my outboun
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 12:41:41AM -0600, RL 'Bob' Morgan wrote:
> Many sites, including my university, support STARTTLS+AUTH on the
> Submission port (587, RFC 2476), which I believe is the recommended
> service for clients to use to submit mail in any case (though not
> well-supported among MUAs,
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 11:46:12AM -0800, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> We usually expect higher costs outside North America - London was even more
> expensive than Yokohama.
Speaking from a purely extremely selfish point of view, as a North
American, how much would it help if we were to cut b
Once again, we will be holding a PGP Key signing party at the IETF
meeting in San Francisco. We have been scheduled to meet at 10:30pm
on the evening of Wednesday, March 19, 2003 in Continental 8/9. (Note
that if the IESG Open Plenary runs over, we will start approximately 5
minutes *after* the
On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 11:56:53AM -0700, Peter Deutsch wrote:
> Concepts such as Hashcash or other payment-oriented systems, in which
> you try to impose a cost on the sender to screen out bulk mailers, are
> interesting enough, but I think they're addressing the wrong problem.
> I've personally c
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 09:02:57AM +0300, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> Without trust roots, webs of trust, or additional
> mailing list daemon features, signed e-mail doesn't
> really add anything, at least not now.
>
> Signed e-mail could help ensure that e-mail
> sent to a list comes from the same per
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 02:55:29PM +0300, Jari Arkko wrote:
> I don't have a good suggestion on how to resolve this, however.
> Perhaps the lowest common denominator is still a big enough
> deterrent? Note that help from a network entity is not likely
> solve this problem. Think about it: the avera
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 07:28:12AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Tony,
>
>
> TH> I would like to see the outcome of a bof be identification of an
> TH> approach to globally verifiable authenticated email. I have no doubt
> TH> there will be many gaps in our current tool set (starting with a
> TH>
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 07:29:32AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Theodore Ts'o") writes:
>
> > Bare keys will do; consider a system where people keep a list of those
> > keys that they will accept mail. If someone tries to send mail and
> &
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 07:49:14AM -0400, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
> My take is that NAT's respond to several flaws in the IPv4 architecture:
>
> - 1) Not enough addresses - this being the one that brought them into
> existence.
> - 1a) Local allocation of addresses - a variant of the prece
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 11:10:03AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Users aren't physically handcuffed to their Internet connections.
> They have choices as to who to purchase connectivity from. Those
> users, if they chose, could purchase connectivity with static IP
> addresses and no NAT. They by an
Once again, we will be holding a PGP Key signing party at the IETF
meeting in Minneapolis. We have been scheduled to meet at 10:30pm on
the evening of Wednesday, November 12, 2003 in the Rochester room.
(Note that if the IETF Administration Plenary runs over, we will start
approximately 5 minutes
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 09:33:30PM -0500, Andrew Partan wrote:
>
> Another suggestion - it would have been real useful if the software
> on my laptop could have been told to ignore some APs (or some other
> laptops pretending to be APs), or to only listen to this other set
> of APs. White/black l
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 03:51:34PM +0100, Roland Bless wrote:
> You're lucky that your driver and card support this.
>
> > I don't know if there's a way to make this work for those cards where
> > the ap selection is done in firmware.
>
> Unfortunately, the driver for my Lucent card doesn't supp
Just as a whimsical notion would it be possible to, ah, invite
some of the 802.11* wireless committees to have a colocated meeting
with the IETF at some point in the future? We could dangle the offer
of "free" wireless networking, plus an offer for them to see what a
real-life, large-scale dep
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:26:30AM -0500, Brett Thorson wrote:
>
> 10% of the community using a wireless NIC was operating in ad-hoc or AP mode
> at some point during the meeting.
Would it be possible to publish a list of MAC addresses that were
operating in ad-hoc or AP mode? If all of the hap
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 08:22:16AM +1200, Franck Martin wrote:
> I cannot believe it !
>
> I raised this thing to ISOC more than a year ago!!! I told them in
> person at INET in Washington too...
>
> They haven't done a dam thing since...
>
> If you look on the Internet there is a list of or
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:06:06PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> I also don't see why a firewall would drop packets just because reserved
> bits are set, although I can see why it might be a configurable option
> for the most paranoid users.
There are a lot of really dumb, dumb, dumb firewa
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 10:10:44PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> The dumb authors, I think, are those who built Linux implementations
> that doggedly attempt to negotiate ECN and are unprepared for cases
> where it does not work, even though it's unreasonable to assume that the
> entire worl
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 01:05:15PM -0800, Sally Floyd wrote:
>A work-around for maintaining connectivity in the face of the broken
>equipment was described in [Floyd00], and has been specified in RFC
>3168 as a procedure that may be included in TCP implementations.
>...
>Some TC
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 09:01:09PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> The problem is that RFC 3168 postdates all the RFCs that came before it,
> and when something needs to be compatible with real-world systems that
> are not all instantly and simultaneously upgraded, it needs to behave in
> a wa
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:14:43PM -0500, shogunx wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > I find this more frustrating. I have a dynamic IP address, because fixed IP
> > address ADSL isn't very common here in Australia. So I use DYNDNS to map my domain
> > MX records. I can't get m
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 06:45:57PM -, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
> On 9 Jan 2004 at 9:18, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke, thus:
>
> > Why doesn't your friend use ETRN to trigger delivery of his queued mail
> > from his mate whenever he gets online?
>
> He doesn't want his
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:57:45PM -0500, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
> Pardon me if I'm missing something obvious here, but couldn't one just
> use either XMPP or Simple for presence, associate your "server name"
> with a Jabber/Simple ID, and automatically have your "server" findable
> via the
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 08:43:58AM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> It seems to me that there is a better approach to the above, at least in
> the context of the above. If the "tombstone" is literally as described, it
> would be far more space/search/etc efficient for us to have the tombstone
> con
]>
Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Radia Perlman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Non-voting members:
Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (nomcom chair)
Bernard Aboba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (previous nomcom chair)
Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (I
Once again, we will be holding a PGP Key signing party at the IETF
meeting in Minneapolis. We have been scheduled to meet at 10:30pm on
the evening of Wednesday, December 12, 2001. (Note that if the IAB/IESG
Open Plenary runs over, we will start approximately 5 minutes *after*
the IAB/IESG Open
]>
Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Radia Perlman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Non-voting members:
Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (nomcom chair)
Bernard Aboba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (previous nomcom chair)
Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (I
Once again, we will be holding a PGP Key signing party at the IETF
meeting in Minneapolis. We have been scheduled to meet at 10:30pm on
the evening of Wednesday, March 20, 2002. The procedure we will use is
the following:
o People who wish to participate should email an ASCII extract of their
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 11:13:24PM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
> To underscore the point that Marshall has been making:
>
> The IETF has a strong preference to use unencumbered technologies. When
> there is a choice between encumbered and unencumbered, the working group
> includes encumbrance i
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 10:32:22AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> The issue here is that there is a MAY in RFC 3168 that IMHO should
> be a SHOULD. That's the first MAY in section 6.1.1.1. If your ECN
> code implemented that MAY, you would not have seen a problem.
>
Nope, not true. The pr
Once again, we will be holding a PGP Key signing party at the IETF
meeting in Atlanta. We have been scheduled to meet at 10:30pm on the
evening of Wednesday, November 20, 2002. (Note that if the IAB Open
Plenary runs over, we will start approximately 5 minutes *after* the
IAB Open Plenary finish
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:19:26PM -0700, Tony Hain wrote:
>
> Clearly the IAOC is inadequately staffed if one person missing for an
> extended period is inhibiting their activities.
This is the part which really confuses me. Why is this such an urgent
matter?
The stated reason in the IAOC
A while back, someone shared (I think on the IETF list) a little quick
javascript hack that when loaded into the browser, would display a
countdown timer of the remaining amount of time that the speaker had to
speak, and and when the speaker started to go over, the mm:ss numbers
started counting u
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 01:14:07PM -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > If this memorial wiki page could be open to anyone who ever contributed
> > to any I* and for whom there was at least one person who wanted to
> > contribute the information, then fine.
>
> Then it turns into (effectivel
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 03:03:58PM -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
> But I still feel a mild level of need for a IETF HoF to recognize, and keep
> prominent (for new members) the memory of past IETFers whose contributions
> are worthy of recognition, but who probably don't rise to the level needed
>
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 03:26:42PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> > Speaking of which, Jim Gettys was trying to tell me yesterday that
> > BIND refuses to do DNSSEC lookups until the endpoint client has
> > generated a certificate.
>
&g
One thing that would be helpful is to encourage the use of
Diffie-Hellman everywhere. Even without certificates that can be
trusted, we can eliminate the ability of casual, dragnet-style
surveillance. Sure, an attacker can still do a MITM attack. But (a)
people who are more clueful can do certif
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 06:20:48AM -0700, Pete Resnick wrote:
>
> In email,
> we insist that you authenticate the recipient's certificate before
> we allow you to install it and to start encrypting, and prefer to
> send things in the clear until that is done. That's silly and is
> based on the ass
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 11:39:59PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> For purposes of email security it is not about the keys at all. It is the
> email addresses that are the real killer.
>
> I can be very sure that I have the right key for ted.le...@nominum.com but
> is that who I know as Ted L
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 05:47:55PM -0400, John R Levine wrote:
>
> I think we're entering the tinfoil zone here. Comodo is one of the
> largest CAs around, with their entire income depending on people
> paying them to sign web and code certs because they are seen as
> trustworthy.
You might want
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 03:38:21PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > I disagree. DNSSEC is not just DNS: its the only available, deployed, and
> > (mostly) accessible global PKI currently in existence which also includes a
> > constrained path of trust which follows already established busine
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:22:10AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> Any co-ercing that happens has to be globally visible, if the target
> ensures he is using "random" nameservers to query for data.
Not necessarily. First of all, an active attacker located close to
the target can simply replace th
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 04:46:01PM +, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> The model for this sort of validation is really not on a per-client
> basis, but rather depends on routine cross-validation by various
> DNSSEC operators throughout the network. This will not necessarily
> catch a really focused attac
82 matches
Mail list logo
