I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any
Comment to the draft received from Tim Polk during review:
> I thought I might follow up on the first unaddressed comment:
>
> I notice that the phrase "the Initial Archive Timestamp" frequently
> appears in the text with a capitalized 'I' in word "initial". This
seems
> to indicate that there
evaluation.
And at the discretion of the AD: #2 and #4 could/should be seen as a DISCUSS.
Best regards, Tobias
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tobias Gondrom
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 3:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL
> -Original Message-
> From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:15 PM
> To: Tobias Gondrom
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMA
as they differ dramatically in the regard of role and
acceptance by the IETF community. If they both look similar this might be
misunderstood by people outside or new to the IETF.
Greeting, Tobias
______
Tobias Gondrom
Head of Open Text Security Team
Di
hat an experiment is for, so I will be fine to try it.
Again as a summary: I think it's a great idea and would hum for progressing the
draft and the experiment.
- Tobias
> -Original Message-
> From: Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, Octobe
e North American Continent,
it might also be a good idea to pursue via independent expert reviews the
question whether there exist potential namespace conflicts with other
international organizations in this area (Motion Picture and Television) like
e.g. ARIB (Association of Radio Ind
ditional levels of security, the
solutions may be required to deploy encryption and/or authentication of OAM
frames inside an OAM domain, however solutions are out of the scope of this
draft.
5. Question: as the draft is heavily based on RFC4664 and 4665, I wonder
whether they should not better be
Comment: For some implementors only peripherally involved with IETF
standards and process but looking at the new RFCs as "news" on standards
it is well a difference whether its an RFC at the time they look or not.
They just wouldn't know about an informal status as "being approved to
be released sh
a “DISCUSS” during the LC to halt the document
process until the issues have been resolved).
Best regards, Tobias
Ps.: Please note: my main email address changed to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
From: Tobias Gondrom
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 12:02 AM
raise a "DISCUSS" during the LC to halt the document process until the
issues have been resolved).
Best regards, Tobias
Ps.: Please note: my main email address changed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_____
From: Tobias Gondrom
Sent: Saturday, Novembe
frames inside an OAM domain however
> solutions are out of the scope of this draft./For additional levels of
> security, the solutions may be required to encrypt and/or authenticate OAM
> frames inside an OAM domain, however solutions are out of the scope of
> this draft.
Ok.
>
>
Thank you Russ for the clarification and info.
I am Nomcom-eligible and you can add me to the signature list, i.e. I
support the recall.
Best regards, Tobias
On 04/11/12 09:15, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
Thanks for extra info.
You can add me to the list who sign the request for recall.
B
wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01
Title: The Internet Numbers Registry System
Reviewer: Tobias Gondrom
Review Date: May-16
Status: Informational
Summary: I believe the draft is ready for
To add my 5 cents as well:
In some ways the continued discussion of this topic reflects the fact
that we are moving from one equilibrium to an other. I still remember
the discussions we saw before we moved to 3:2:1.
Although it may soften the argument to start with my personal
conclusion, but it
On 09/01/2010 07:35 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2010, at 4:56 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
>>> Consider that contributors
>>> usually start as newcomers, attend several meetings, then write a draft,
>> I don't know about you, but I wrote drafts before my first meeting.
> Me too. I actual
Personally I am ok with the badge checking (as form of access control to a
non-public resource (meeting, terminal rooms)) but I can understand some of
related questions regarding who modifies ietf operation.
Regarding freeriders: agree that would be a big deal. But I am not aware of any
inciden
Bob,
agree with James request for more detail on the used day passes, if
possible.
Personally, I believe the risen cost for day passes probably knocked out
some of the demand (basic supply-demand curve from economics ;-) ).
Probably day passes are more attractive to local participants who want
to
Although Prague (Czech Republic) and Munich (Germany) are both in the European
Union they are different countries. So when renting a car in Munich you need to
make sure (as usual) that you are allowed to take it across the border and that
the GPS has the maps of the country you travel to.
Btw.
Dear Ben,
thank you very much for your thorough review of xmlers.
I corrected nearly all of the items you raised and sent the revised
version to my co-authors for approval and publication as version -10. On
a note of further language style improvement beyond your comments, the
AD advised us at the
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Simon Josefsson writes:
>> Arnt Gulbrandsen writes:
>>> Simon Josefsson writes:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people participate, and disclose p
Hi Russ,
from a privacy perspective: may I ask for what purpose you propose to
publish the blue sheets (with the names of all WG session attendees)
with the proceedings?
AFAIK, at the moment the blue sheets are basically available on request
especially in case of IP questions. What would lead
On 23/04/12 12:14, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 4/22/12 20:44 , Tobias Gondrom wrote:
Hi Russ,
from a privacy perspective: may I ask for what purpose you propose to
publish the blue sheets (with the names of all WG session attendees)
with the proceedings?
AFAIK, at the moment the blue sheets are
ghts about the RFID experiment. Last
time we investigated a system for IETF meetings, it was quite expensive. I'll
ask again to see if this has changed.
Russ
On Apr 22, 2012, at 11:44 PM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
Hi Russ,
from a privacy perspective: may I ask for what purpose you propose
On 23/04/12 13:41, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 4/22/12 22:12 , Tobias Gondrom wrote:
Hi Russ,
thank you for the information.
In this case, my preference would be not to publish the blue sheets with
the proceedings.
Reasoning:
The blue sheet data can at some point be used to determine movement
Brian,
On 23/04/12 14:59, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2012-04-23 06:12, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
Hi Russ,
thank you for the information.
In this case, my preference would be not to publish the blue sheets with
the proceedings.
Reasoning:
The blue sheet data can at some point be used to
Dear Russ,
please forgive me for adding one more comment on that after you judged
on rough consensus.
As you said this rough consensus is quite rough (if we may call it
"rough consensus").
I would like to point out two things:
1. the statement "(1) Rough consensus: an open and transparent st
such thing but, again, as far as I know, no one
proposed it.
john
--On Thursday, May 10, 2012 14:23 +0800 Tobias Gondrom
wrote:
Dear Russ,
please forgive me for adding one more comment on that after
you judged on rough consensus.
As you said this rough consensus is quite rough (if w
On 10/05/12 16:35, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, May 10, 2012 15:59 +0800 Tobias Gondrom
wrote:
John,
sorry, maybe I did not articulate myself precisely enough. I
did not intend to say it would be published in real-time. What
I wanted to communicate is that we would collect that
ing is ok in most IP jurisdictions,
but handling the scanned data must use well documented procedures and
access controls to keep the same level of non-repudiation of integrity
and authenticity later in court.
On 10/05/12 17:10, Doug Barton wrote:
On 5/10/2012 1:48 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
W
+1
Agree with Yoav.
BR, Tobias
On 10/05/12 17:35, Yoav Nir wrote:
On May 10, 2012, at 12:10 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 5/10/2012 1:48 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
What I dispute is that "make available to those who are interested"
necessarily leads to the need to broadcast the data (i.
On 10/08/12 00:03, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
On 02/08/2012 10:46, Ben Campbell wrote:
Hi, thanks for the response. Comments inline:
On Jul 29, 2012, at 10:29 PM, =JeffH
wrote:
[...]
-- section 7.2:
Am I correct to assume that the server must never just serve the
content over
a non-secure c
no brainer.
Even with a brain, the document is obviously good. Please sign it.
--Paul Hoffman
Agree and support.
Please sign it.
- Tobias Gondrom
I would support the call to use our defined recall procedures, even if
it takes a few weeks longer.
And not unnecessarily set a precedent. If you feel the rules are not
suitable, than we should think about adjusting them. And be careful, it
may take "only" a hum to change a procedure, but the di
+1
Tobias Gondrom
Paul Hoffman wrote:
>On Aug 5, 2013, at 4:08 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>
>>> Does the community feel these are reasonable reasons to update the
>trust agreement?
>>
>> The answer to that question is: yes. It seems reasonable to open up
>the
On 09/09/13 09:29, Eliot Lear wrote:
> We're talking.
>
> Eliot
>
>
> On 9/9/13 10:20 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> So, has Bruce Schneier actually been invited to speak at the Technical
>> Plenary (or elsewhere) during the Vancouver IETF? I recall him giving an
>> informative talk at least one p
On 06/09/13 14:45, Scott Brim wrote:
> I wouldn't focus on government surveillance per se. The IETF should
> consider that breaking privacy is much easier than it used to be,
> particularly given consolidation of services at all layers, and take
> that into account in our engineering best practice
On 09/10/13 07:44, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:55:08PM -0700, SM wrote:
>> This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement
> Speaking only (empahtically only) for myself, I quite strongly
> disagree. The IAB has issued no statement in this c
On 09/10/13 14:14, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
>> But I support SM's proposal that it would be good
>> to do a few days comment period for such important statements in the
>> future - if timing is not critical. There is no harm
40 matches
Mail list logo
