Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: rfc.net

Stories and comments across the archive that link to rfc.net.

Comments · 60

  1. Not a new problem by scotfl · · Score: 3, Interesting · on TCP/IP Sequence Number Analysis
    The idea of predicting Initial Sequence Numbers isn't exactly new, RFC1948: Defending Against Sequence Number Attacks was issued in 1996. Heck, even RFC793: Transmission Control Protocol from 1981 states:
    When new connections are created, an initial sequence number (ISN) generator is employed which selects a new 32 bit ISN. The generator is bound to a (possibly fictitious) 32 bit clock whose low order bit is incremented roughly every 4 microseconds.

    Which would provide somewhat random ISNs. What we are seeing here is the fact that compuers today are faster than they where twenty years ago, and thus better random (or psuedo-random) ISN generators are needed. Still it's nice to see vendors getting called out on bad implementations.

  2. Re:IBM for rfc-ignorant.org by Rik+van+Riel · · Score: 2 · on ORBZ Shuts Down
    RFC 2142 requires every domain (with email) to have the abuse@domain.tld and postmaster@domain.tld addresses. IBM.com is a domain, so it is supposed to follow the rules in RFC 2142.

    If they don't follow the RFC that's fine with me. However, I believe listing them at rfc-ignorant.org is a good thing so people who have chosen not to exchange email with domains who do not play by the rules have a chance to block IBM's mail automatically.

  3. Re:And...? by Wyrds · · Score: 1 · on Apache Server Nears 2.0

    http://rfc.net/rfc2324.html

    Apache 2.0 is supposed to be multiprotocol, no?

  4. May '98 attempt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on The Google Effect And Domain Name Speculation

    This article jogged my memory about an RFC I read along similar lines. After a bit of digging it is RFC2345.

    Basically it laments the same DNS name explosion, and goes on to suggest that web browsers instead first search the WHOIS databases using a custom protocol.

    The key difference to this approach and google is explained as follows:

    4.2 And why not use a Web search engine?
    Web search engines are immensely effective and powerful, but address a different problem than this protocol. The protocol model here does involve a directory lookup, using a presumed company name as a key. The quality of the result will depend on the quality of the underlying directory and the editorial and research work that goes into its construction (neither of which are matters for the protocol itself -- we trust that marketplace pressures will separate good servers from poor ones). Web search engines are often more effective at locating information about companies than the specific company- designated web pages.

    Obviously, the "marketplace pressures" failed.

  5. Re:Uhh.... what's LDAP? by crowke · · Score: 2, Informative · on LDAP Tools - Where are they?

    RFC 2251:
    Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)

    This protocol is specifically targeted at management applications and browser applications that provide read/write interactive access to directories.

  6. But what about .EDU? by roozbeh · · Score: 4 · on Update On Efforts To Block .us Giveaway

    I wonder what will happen to .edu: As outlined in the RFC 1591, the TLD belongs to the global community of educational insitutes, and not only Americans:

    EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools, educational service organizations, and educational consortia have registered here. More recently a decision has been taken to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered in the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC, below).

    But according to this Slashdot article, the US Department of Commerce gave it away to something named EDUCAUSE, that doesn't let universities outside USA to get a .EDU.

    As a user of a .edu here in Iran, that really aches...

    --

  7. Re:Obvious Solution - by damiam · · Score: 1 · on Afghanistan Bans Internet

    For those who don't know, RFC1149 describes an implementation of TCP/IP using carrier pigeons.

  8. RFC822's Epitaph by Phil+Gregory · · Score: 1 · on New Mail RFCs Released

    The people at RFC.net have a link to An epitaph for RFC822 that turned up on their discussion mailing list.


    --Phil (Sure it's MLP, but it's interesting MLP.)
  9. Holy knee-jerk reaction, bathead by image · · Score: 1 · on Updates from the Free Standards Group

    In a word, "what?" As in, what are people thinking when the write tirades *against* open standards bodies for computing technology?

    Here are some that have worked, and made your lives a whole lot better:

    RFCs
    POSIX/IEEE
    HTTP/HTML
    ASCII/ISO 8859
    ANSI C

    And that's just to name a few that immediately came to mind. Note that some of them had coporate sponsorship, some are truly community reviewed, and some are a mixture. But standards are essential for ever moving *beyond* the technology of today. If we didn't have a standard C, then people will still be arguing over how to improve C, rather than creating new languages.

    Really, standards shouldn't evolve that much. And people shouldn't wait to get them perfect. Agree on something that mostly works, use it, and move on.

  10. WTF?!? by TWX_the_Linux_Zealot · · Score: 1 · on Publishing On Internet Patented

    Okay, between this, Amazon, and that NAT patent attempt that is in the works, WHAT THE FUCK is wrong at the patent office? Don't they like, LOOK into technologies to see where they are being used already and to see if standards documents are published to be accessible? Are they issuing patents based on buzzwords that corporate entities are slipping in, or are they being bought off by corporations, or are they just so stupid that they can't say "no" to a computing technology patent request anymore?