Well RFC1149 was sort of superseded by RFC2549: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2549 And of course RFC6214 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6214.txt is worth considering -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon Date: Tuesday 29 September 2015 17:04 To: Don Blumenthal, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Correction I’m happy to consider RFC1149 https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt for our purposes here, however even carrier pidgeons recommend encryption Security Considerations Security is not generally a problem in normal operation, but special measures must be taken (such as data encryption) when avian carriers are used in a tactical environment [cid:CFFF89B3-BF80-4605-B46A-725B0D20E6A4] Always willing to come to a compromise =) -James Gannon From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Don M. Blumenthal" Date: Tuesday 29 September 2015 16:24 To: PPSAI Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Correction For this morning’s callers. Passenger pigeons are extinct. Carrier pigeon still is a viable option. I originally wrote that carrier pigeons still are on the table. I’m glad that I reread.
