On 04.10.18 14:26, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
-Original Message-
From: regext On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 9:42 AM
To: Gould, James
Cc: hr...@irtf.org; h...@irtf.org; regext@ietf.org; gurshabad@cis-
india.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Human Rights
On 10/04/2018 08:34 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Niels ten Oever
>> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 8:36 AM
>> To: Hollenbeck, Scott ;
>> 'jgould=40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org'
>>
>> Cc: 'hr...@irtf.org' ; 'h...@irtf.org' ;
>> 'regext@ietf.org' ; 'gursha...
Scott, all,
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 12:26:25PM +, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > context of technical issues with the draft. The registration of domain
> > names in some jurisdictions may be subject to various requirements that
> > involve verification by a party other than the registry.
> >
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Niels ten Oever
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 4:20 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott ;
> 'jgould=40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org'
>
> Cc: 'hr...@irtf.org' ; 'h...@irtf.org' ;
> 'regext@ietf.org' ; 'gursha...@cis-india.org'
>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Human
I take no position on the HR issues of this draft. However:
> If there is only one instance in which this MAY be useful, perhaps there
> is no need for standardization of this extension?
>
Not the way we do business. We ask this question on the front end of
the process, not the back end. That
> -Original Message-
> From: Klaus Malorny
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 3:39 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott ;
> 'li...@digitaldissidents.org' ; Gould, James
>
> Cc: 'hr...@irtf.org' ; 'h...@irtf.org' ;
> 'regext@ietf.org' ; 'gursha...@cis-india.org'
>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] H
On 10/05/2018 01:55 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I take no position on the HR issues of this draft. However:
>
>
>> If there is only one instance in which this MAY be useful, perhaps there
>> is no need for standardization of this extension?
>>
>
> Not the way we do business. We ask this question o
On 10/05/2018 01:14 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Niels ten Oever
>> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 4:20 AM
>> To: Hollenbeck, Scott ;
>> 'jgould=40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org'
>>
>> Cc: 'hr...@irtf.org' ; 'h...@irtf.org' ;
>> 'regext@ietf.org' ; 'gursha...@c
I will attend this meeting. Thanks Roger.
Jim
On 1 Oct 2018, at 12:57, Roger D Carney wrote:
Good Morning,
I would like to invite everyone to an interim meeting Tuesday October
16th at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
We plan to focus the discussion around two topics:
Agenda
1. Vali
> -Original Message-
> From: Niels ten Oever
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 8:09 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott ;
> 'jgould=40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org'
>
> Cc: 'hr...@irtf.org' ; 'h...@irtf.org' ;
> 'regext@ietf.org' ; 'gursha...@cis-india.org'
>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Human
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 02:08:38PM +0200, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> We might disagree here. If there is one place in which this extension
> might be useful, I am not sure whether standardization is appropriate
> because there is only one (potential) implementation. That leads me to
> the question:
On 10/05/2018 02:48 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 02:08:38PM +0200, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>
>> We might disagree here. If there is one place in which this extension
>> might be useful, I am not sure whether standardization is appropriate
>> because there is only one (pot
Hello,
On 10/5/18 15:01, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> If this would be a standard in response to a demand, that would be fine.
> But I am rather afraid this is a standard that will create policy and
> practice. Namely the practice of 3rd party identity verification
> providers. Since there is legisla
On 10/05/2018 03:17 PM, Thomas Corte wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 10/5/18 15:01, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>
>> If this would be a standard in response to a demand, that would be fine.
>> But I am rather afraid this is a standard that will create policy and
>> practice. Namely the practice of 3rd party id
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 03:24:08PM +0200, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> We cannot simply wish political implications of our work away.
Right, but I don't believe the HRPC work has suggested that things
that have HR implications should _not be done_. They should be noted,
and I'm all in favour of that.
On 10/05/2018 03:59 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 03:24:08PM +0200, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>> We cannot simply wish political implications of our work away.
>
> Right, but I don't believe the HRPC work has suggested that things
> that have HR implications should _not be done
On 05.10.18 14:05, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> On 10/05/2018 01:55 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> I take no position on the HR issues of this draft. However:
>>
>>
>>> If there is only one instance in which this MAY be useful, perhaps there
>>> is no need for standardization of this extension?
>>>
>> Not
On 05.10.18 14:08, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> We might disagree here. If there is one place in which this extension
> might be useful, I am not sure whether standardization is appropriate
> because there is only one (potential) implementation.
Again, not required (albeit desirable). RFC 2026 st
The Registration Protocols Extensions (regext) Working Group will hold
a virtual interim meeting on 2018-10-16 from 12:00 to 13:00 America/New_York.
Agenda:
1. Validate draft (comments, concerns, implementations) – New version to be
posted this week.
2. Registry Mapping
a. Continue the lively
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 09:59:43AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> and I'm all in favour of that. What you are arguing, however, is in
> line with the way the IETF ended up doing the BEHAVE WG: we wouldn't
this case is probably more related to the discussion around RFC 2804.
> I think it would
In article <9ab8441b-8f37-8edb-17ae-0a102447b...@digitaldissidents.org> you
write:
>> Right, but I don't believe the HRPC work has suggested that things
>> that have HR implications should _not be done_. They should be noted,
>> and I'm all in favour of that. What you are arguing, however, is in
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 04:16:04PM +0200, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> The difference between NAT and 3rd party verification is that there was
> a significant demand for the former, and not for the latter.
It seems to me that the WG is a place where a bunch of people who work
on registries and registr
[as an individual]
On 10/5/18 8:17 AM, Thomas Corte wrote:
Generally, technical standards are IMHO not the appropriate place for
fighting political or societal issues.
At the IETF 98 plenary in Chicago, David Clark said something on the
topic of human rights that's really resonated with me e
Peter,
I agree that the sentence "The data verified by the VSP MUST be stored by the
VSP along with the generated verification code to address any compliance
issues." should be changed. The proposal that I posted
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/UWdcY2q-9JkSlASV0UJcUGPJJyQ) to
th
On 10/05/2018 04:18 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
<>
> He gave *an* example.
There were several examples mentioned earlier, all of which turned out
not be planning to implement 3rd party verification.
> You implied then that it was the only use case.
No other has been mentioned to date. So am curious
25 matches
Mail list logo
