http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/535 <pre>The Yet Another Mail (yam) working group in the Applications Area has concluded. The IESG contact persons are Pete Resnick and Peter Saint-Andre. The mailing list will remain active. </pre> IESG Secretary 2011-11-28T17:57:44 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/534 <pre>Hi Leonidas, As one of the YAM mailing list moderators, I consider the content you posted as inappropriate as it is unrelated to the work described in the YAM working group charter. Your messages to the mailing list will be moderated. Regards, S. Moonesamy </pre> S Moonesamy 2011-11-25T13:40:21 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/533 <pre>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CfP ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IEEE/IFIP International Workshop on Management of the Future Internet (ManFI 2012) ================================================================================== 16 April 2012 Maui, Hawaii, USA http://www.manfi.org CALL FOR PAPERS --------------- The Fourth IEEE/IFIP International Workshop on Management of the Future Internet (ManFI 2012) will be held in conjunction with IEEE/IFIP NOMS 2012 in Maui, Hawaii, USA, from April 16-20, 2012. The workshop is sponsored by the IEEE Communications Society (ComSoc) and supported by POSTECH ITCE, Ghent University-IBBT, NEC, and Ericsson LM. The workshop is endorsed by the Technical Committee on Network Operations and Management (CNOM). It is widely agreed that, despite its many successes</pre> Leonidas Lymberopoulos 2011-11-25T11:18:07 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/532 <pre> Yes, just closing the loop. I think this is OK. I'll be sure to ask the secretariat. I think you mean "Dead". "Expired" is based entirely on the date of the draft, whereas "Dead" in the DataTracker means that it is no longer a watched item. I will do so. pr </pre> Pete Resnick 2011-11-22T12:07:52 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/531 <pre>Hi Pete, At 22:03 21-11-2011, Pete Resnick wrote: In a message posted on August 12 [1], the YAM WG co-chairs determined that there was consensus on shutting down the working group. I suggest leaving the issues in the tracker open as they may be of use to people working on these RFCs in future. Could you please change the status of draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-05 to Expired? Regards, S. Moonesamy YAM WG co-chair 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00737.html </pre> S Moonesamy 2011-11-22T07:45:55 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/530 <pre>I plan to send the message in approximately 24 hours to shutdown YAM, leaving the mailing list open. Speak now or forever hold your peace. pr </pre> Pete Resnick 2011-11-22T06:03:49 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/529 <pre>Yes, I wrote the message during that conversation of the plenary. :-) On 11/16/2011 5:23 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: </pre> Tony Hansen 2011-11-16T16:19:50 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/528 <pre> The last classic STD. -Frank </pre> Frank Ellermann 2011-11-16T10:33:36 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/527 <pre> That's funny. Are you listening to the plenary? </pre> Murray S. Kucherawy 2011-11-16T10:23:05 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/526 <pre>With the publication of 6409, I believe that YAM's business is concluded. I expect to see the official wheels cranking through soon for us to shut down. Thank you everyone for playing. Tony Hansen tony-60p5jsuXm+c&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org On 11/16/2011 4:35 AM, rfc-editor-i4YTrOVFbXmRpAAqCnN02g&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org wrote: </pre> Tony Hansen 2011-11-16T10:18:26 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/525 <pre> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. STD 72 RFC 6409 Title: Message Submission for Mail Author: R. Gellens, J. Klensin Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: November 2011 Mailbox: rg+ietf-zC7DfRvBq/JWk0Htik3J/w&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org, john-ietf-ompsCg6JJTw&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org Pages: 20 Characters: 40153 Obsoletes: RFC4409 See Also: STD0072 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6409.txt This memo splits message submission from message relay, allowing each service to operate according to its own rules (for security, policy, etc.), and specifies what actions are to be taken by a submission server. Message relay is unaffected, and continues to use SMTP over port 25. When conforming to this document, message submission uses the protocol specified here, n</pre> rfc-editor-i4YTrOVFbXmRpAAqCnN02g< at >public.gmane.org 2011-11-16T09:35:58 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/524 <pre>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CfP ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IEEE/IFIP International Workshop on Management of the Future Internet (ManFI 2012) ================================================================================== 16 April 2012 Maui, Hawaii, USA http://www.manfi.org CALL FOR PAPERS --------------- The Fourth IEEE/IFIP International Workshop on Management of the Future Internet (ManFI 2012) will be held in conjunction with IEEE/IFIP NOMS 2012 in Maui, Hawaii, USA, from April 16-20, 2012. The workshop is sponsored by the IEEE Communications Society (ComSoc) and supported by POSTECH ITCE, Ghent University-IBBT, NEC, and Ericsson LM. The workshop is endorsed by the Technical Committee on Network Operations and Management (CNOM). It is widely agreed that, despite its many</pre> Leonidas Lymberopoulos 2011-11-07T11:49:26 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/523 <pre>The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Message Submission for Mail' (draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03.txt) as a Full Standard This document is the product of the Yet Another Mail Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Pete Resnick and Peter Saint-Andre. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis/ Technical Summary This document splits message submission from message relay, allowing each service to operate according to its own rules (for security, policy, etc.) and specifies what actions are to be taken by a submission server. Working Group Summary The YAM WG adopted a two-step approach to move this document to Full Standard. The first step was a pre-evaluation of the existing specification to identify changes and non-changes. The second step was to incorporate the changes into the document and ensure that any implementation that conforms to the Draft Standard version of the specification remains compliant with this document. There was no </pre> The IESG 2011-09-06T14:39:10 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/522 <pre>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Yet Another Mail Working Group of the IETF. Title : Message Submission for Mail Author(s) : Randall Gellens John C Klensin Filename : draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2011-09-02 This memo splits message submission from message relay, allowing each service to operate according to its own rules (for security, policy, etc.), and specifies what actions are to be taken by a submission server. Message relay is unaffected, and continues to use SMTP over port 25. When conforming to this document, message submission uses the protocol specified here, normally over port 587. This separation of function offers a number of benefits, including the ability to apply specific security or policy requirements. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-y</pre> internet-drafts-EgrivxUAwEY< at >public.gmane.org 2011-09-02T18:37:00 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/521 <pre>The text in the fourth paragraph of Section 8 of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 will be replaced with the following text: "Message modification can affect the validity of an existing message signature, such as by DKIM [DKIM], PGP [RFC4880], S/MIME [RFC5751] and can render the signature invalid. This, in turn, can affect message handling by later receivers, such as filtering engines that consider the presence or absence of a valid signature." Regards, S. Moonesamy, Tony Hansen co-chairs, YAM </pre> S Moonesamy 2011-08-27T04:24:13 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/520 <pre> I like the above text. :-) Regards, -sm </pre> SM 2011-08-27T04:39:18 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/519 <pre>And everybody said together: "there be dragons". :-) Consequently, I think we should go with the following text: Incantation modifications can affect the efficacy of spells, such as those introduced by the presence of various species of dragons, both big, small and purple, some of which can even render the spell useless. This in turn can affect secondary applications of the spells, such as those applied by certain minor mages who cannot handle the violet spectrum. Sorry, I was feeling a bit of whimsey. I think it's all this prepping for hurricanes. Tony Hansen On 8/26/2011 1:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: </pre> Tony Hansen 2011-08-27T04:00:32 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/518 <pre> You beat me to it. +1 to Barry's last post. -MSK </pre> Murray S. Kucherawy 2011-08-26T17:45:35 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/517 <pre> Same here, better than my current text. R's, John </pre> John Levine 2011-08-26T16:27:02 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/516 <pre>Barry said exactly what I was going to say here. +1 on all points, including the preference for Dave's text. Ned </pre> Ned Freed 2011-08-26T16:08:11 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/515 <pre> I'll repeat that my very strong preference is what's above. Well, it certainly *is* a substantive comment, but put it in perspective. "Dave thinks Russ is wrong," is not enough to have Russ clear his DISCUSS ballot. "The working group considered Russ's comments, and its consensus is that he's wrong," may well be a part of convincing him to clear. I don't think it's a secondary argument, to be held back because the "primary" argument is more compelling. I think it's an important adjunct to *any* argument, to say that the WG as a whole is behind what's being said. I'm not sure what "this last issue" is, because the last thing you mention is a comment by John that doesn't raise an issue. But assuming that's what you want comments on: I think a primary goal is to make implementors aware of the fact that modifications can affect digital signatures, in general terms. Dave's text does that, and gives references to some of the most common signature mechanisms that MSAs are likely to encounter. So I rep</pre> Barry Leiba 2011-08-26T13:07:42 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.ietf.yam