[e2e] 64-bit timestamps?

[Joe Touch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi, all,

David P. Reed wrote:
> List moderator - please suspend Simpson's privileges; the rules suggest
> that his obnoxious behavior towards a helpful comment demand moderation
> until he stops behaving this way.

Posts directed at the list moderator need to be sent to one of the
following addresses:
	end2end-interest-owner at postel.org
	touch at isi.edu (even better)

Requests sent to the list itself may be detected late (as in this case)
or not at all (I don't check every post for such requests).

I do appreciate the efforts of all involved to try to get back to the
discussion at hand.

Joe (as list admin)


> On 09/08/2009 06:42 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>> David P. Reed wrote:
>>> In regard to DNS security issues, ...  But PAWS may not be useful,
>>> since DNS itself might be made to maintain state across connections,
>>> moving the problem out of TCP and into the app (DNS) layer where it
>>> probably belongs.
>>>
>> This has no relation to the question that I asked, which has no mention
>> what-so-ever about DNS security.  Nor did I find the cut and paste of an
>> old familiar RFC appendix particularly informative, not even in fancy
>> multi-part alternative html (instead of the native format)....
>>
>> In any case, I've been paying attention to the more recent 1323bis.
>>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAkqujswACgkQE5f5cImnZrvNwACeLJScAqT8BvEKI3cfP/NHjN3n
c0YAnjJtpHvCqCXeE4HTS/F5vBpHz4YE
=zCmz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----