Re: Last Call: (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC

On Oct 8, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > I've done a lot of work on consensus over the years and I think > this is fundamentally correct, although I'd amend the last sentence > to something along the lines of "While we may not all agree, those > who disagree can live with it." That is

Re: Last Call: (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC

On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:56 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > I am not sure whether hums are for a starting point or not. It can be argued > in different ways, for example, see Section 4. Humming helps to get a sense > of the room without people making a decision under duress. Personally, I think focus

Re: Last Call: (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC

On Oct 7, 2013, at 12:03 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: > Lastly, I think Pete has failed to capture that one reason for using humming > or hands is that it is easy for very active participants to dominate a > conversation > but much less easy for them to pretend to be a large group. Particularly in

Re: Mentoring Electronic Participants [was Invitation to request an IETF mentor]

On Jul 20, 2013, at 5:47 PM, Hector Santos wrote: > What generally happens when an individual I-D is submitted? Is there an > overseer of the submissions and decides there is something that interest the > IETF? Hmm. Define "IETF". It is in some sense an organization (I call it a "disorgani

Re: RSOC Appointments

Congratulations, gentlemen. On Jun 24, 2013, at 5:35 PM, IAB Chair wrote: > Nevil Brownlee, > Tony Hansen, > Joe Hildebrandt, > Bob Hinden, > Alexey Melnikov, > Bernard Aboba (an IAB member), and > Joel Halpern (an IAB member).

Re: IETF, ICANN and Whois (Was Re: Last Call: (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)

On Jun 18, 2013, at 11:25 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > I think this is the correct strategy, BUT, I see as a very active participant > in ICANN (chair of SSAC) that work in ICANN could be easier if some "more" > technical standards where developed in IETF, and moved forward along > standards

Re: Is the IETF is an international organization? (was: IETF Diversity)

On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:26 AM, SM wrote: > At 08:02 20-06-2013, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Keep in mind that you're talking to an organisation that believes that >> Vancouver qualifies as "Asia." > > That should be added to the Tao. :-) > > At 08:24 20-06-2013, John C Klensin wrote: >> Politica

Re: IETF Diversity vs. White Male ??

On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Aaron Yi DING wrote: > Well, if the dominant ones later being replaced by other groups, do we need > to revamp again? What will be the end? I'm told that white babies are now a minority of the population in the US. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341066/W

Re: Time in the Air

On May 31, 2013, at 7:03 AM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: > clearly, all IETF meetings should be in Cape Town, Wellington, or Perth, > because more time in the air means more time without interruption where > drafts can be read before the meeting. Heavens no. All meetings should be in Santa Barb

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

On May 23, 2013, at 10:04 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Thu, 23 May 2013, Jorge Amodio wrote: > >> One thing that could help is if some companies like Cisco, Google, Juniper, >> etc, with presence in the region start sponsoring some individuals that have >> been participating or are int

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

On May 23, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 24/05/2013, at 9:06 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > >> I took the perspective that on our 40th meeting, we could have 1/40 in a >> place that we had a few faithful participants that was well out of the way. >

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

On May 23, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: > I am not expecting to agree with me as I do not agree that we only contribute > to standards development. I agree with the substance of Donald's comment. Let me talk for a moment about Adelaide. In March 2000, the IETF met in Adelaide. I w

Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process]

On May 16, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: > There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs. Other > concerns raised during IETF LC may lead to revised I-Ds, which the ADs will > need to re-read (or at least look at the diff). I don't know how significant > this extra w

Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process]

On May 16, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments during > working > group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm some of the WG > participants and she may dominate the WG consensus. There may be places where that h

Re: Long review tail

On May 2, 2013, at 8:12 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > When asked if more could be done, (without any specific proposal > for what to do) the response was that increasing the workload > would maybe lead to a significant drop in that 80% figure since > secdir folks are also busy with their day-job

Long review tail

I your blog, you wrote: > Having been involved in the process for many years, often the bigger changes > at this stage relate to cross-area issues, or the fact that the careful > reviews from the IETF last call, directorates, and 15 ADs often represents a > significant increase in the number of

Re: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: (Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to Experimental RFC

On Apr 26, 2013, at 2:12 AM, Yaron Sheffer wrote: > - There should be long-term commitment to maintain the data. I think we > simply don't have such processes in place, and personally I don't want to > even try to deal with this problem. I suspect that we'd have to eventually > use paid help

Re: Last Call: (Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to Experimental RFC

On Apr 12, 2013, at 2:57 PM, The IESG wrote: > Abstract > > > This document describes a simple process that allows authors of > Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by > including an Implementation Status section. This will allow > reviewers and working groups

Re: Purpose of IESG Review

On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 15/04/2013 15:23, Ted Lemon wrote: > > ... >> So in practice, although I feel great sympathy for this position, I think >> it's mistaken. I want the other ADs to comment on anything that they >> notice that looks like a problem. >

Re: Purpose of IESG Review

On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can > say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and > sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review > by the IESG does serve a purpose. I'm not saying i

Re: Purpose of IESG Review

In my opinion, some individual ADs seem to, from their behavior, feel that they have not done their jobs unless they have raised a "discuss". The one that took the cake for me personally was a "discuss" raised by a particular AD (who shall remain nameless) that in essence wondered what he should

Re: Mentoring

On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:03 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > I think it might also be worth encouraging working group chairs to have > working group breakfast or lunch meetings (RSVP required) where newcomers are > invited to come meet the chairs and chairs can strategically invite a few > return attendee

Re: Consensus on the responsibility for qualifications? (Was: Re: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications)

On Mar 13, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Dave, all, > > We talked about this in the Monday plenary. Obviously people have read or > understood the situation in different ways. But that should not stop us from > reaching a common understanding of the situation now that we realised we

Re: Mentoring

On Mar 14, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Scott Brim wrote: > On 03/14/13 08:23, Mary Barnes allegedly wrote: >> One question I have is whether there isn't a list for newcomers to ask >> questions that some of us can be on to help them before they get to >> the meeting? > > Yes, One thing that I suspe

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

On Mar 10, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > On 3/10/2013 5:22 AM, IETF Diversity wrote: > > I'm listed as a signatory and agree that this is important. > >> There are several steps that could be taken, in the short-term within >> our existing BCPs, to address this problem: >> >>

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

On Mar 10, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > On 3/10/2013 5:22 AM, IETF Diversity wrote: > > I'm listed as a signatory and agree that this is important. > >> There are several steps that could be taken, in the short-term within >> our existing BCPs, to address this problem: >> >>

Re: IETF Challenges

On Mar 2, 2013, at 12:35 PM, SM wrote: > If the IETF has become very international it would be apparent from the > mailing list archives. A quick look would show that there weren't any > messages from people from China or Japan [1]. I'd suggest you redo your analysis. It doesn't have a lot t

IETF Challenges - DTN and the Internet of Stuff

>From my perspective, an important technical challenge in coming years might be >a variation on delay-tolerant networking. We have done a fair bit of work in >this area, for some definition of "we" - SOAP, Saratoga, and the NASA/JPL >DTNrg work. As Dave Crocker likes to point out, we actually ha

Re: Showing support during IETF LC...

On Feb 23, 2013, at 6:41 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > First, "no objection" and silence by IESG members are roughly > equivalent, but approval of a document with complete community > silence (either outside the relevant WG or on an individual > submission) makes some ADs nervous (and, IMO, should

Re: IETF chair's blog

>> Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. could be the next steps. Let's embrace new >> tools to collaborate. > > Let's not. Collaboration based on software running on servers run by the IETF > or a contractor payed by the IETF is fine. Using collaboration tools owned by > the entities you listed, or

Re: The RFC Acknowledgement

On Feb 8, 2013, at 7:55 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > My personal instincts as an author run somewhat closer to > Melinda's criterion than to Don's but my bigger concern is that > trying to make specific rules about this will result in an > extended rat hole tour that ends up with rules that don't

Re: I-D affects another or work in ietf groups

Speaking for myself, I would say that an internet draft is relevant to work in a working group if and only if it is covered by the charter of the working group. Anyone can claim anything to dodge the requirement that they ask relevant groups to review it. That doesn't make the claim true. In th

Re: WCIT outcome?

On Jan 1, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Was D.1 to ease wire tapping? By example, I, as a mail server operator > who is not a telecom, am not required by my country's laws to provide an > instrumentation whereby authorized investigators can obtain a list of a > user's correspond

Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")

On Nov 29, 2012, at 12:03 PM, SM wrote: > According to some RFC: > > "All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published > and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before > a session starts." > > If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submiss

Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)

On Dec 2, 2012, at 10:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > We have non-native english speakers and remote participants both working at a > disadvantage to follow the discussion in the room. We should make it harder > for them by removing the pretext that the discussion is structured around > material

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > >> This note is rather lighter in weight and tone than its predecessor, and >> seems like a good direction. > > Can you explain your reasoning why this seems like "a

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

This note is rather lighter in weight and tone than its predecessor, and seems like a good direction. One suggestion: it would be good for the reference to BCP 79 be accompanied, at least in the web page in question, with a link to the BCP (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt). I could imagine

Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: I also offer my signature under the recall procedure, in case pragmatism doesn't prevail (see my other note). My offer of signature should in no way be interpreted as reflecting an opinion about Marshall's character. Ditto, and Ditto.

Re: I-D Action: draft-jaeggli-interim-observations-00.txt

On Oct 17, 2012, at 4:19 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> o Co-location with RIPE appeared useful. I agree with you Joel that >> tighter packing would have made a difference. I met some people who >> noted they will not attend, but probably would have attended if it >> was during the week. Co-locating

Re: IETF 92 in Dallas!

On Aug 15, 2012, at 8:37 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: > So "Americas" was actually "North America". > > Well, it went the possibility to have one in central or south america, > what at shame. At least until IETF 98 in March 2017 no IETF down the south of > Rio Grande. > > May I a

Re: Proposed IETF 95 Date Change

On Jul 20, 2012, at 6:08 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > As for the Ramadan issue: we've had IETF meetings during Jewish holidays a > few times, and folks dealt with it as best they can. If there are some > accommodations that can be made at any IETF meeting for different holidays of > major religio

Re: Proposed IETF 95 Date Change

On Jul 20, 2012, at 11:37 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > I don't understand why this issue is coming up. > Maybe you don't know, IETF 84 falls in the month of Ramadan for > Muslims and nobody asked to change it? Two comments, a question, and a suggestion. One, the muslims in the crowd had the op

Re: Proposed IETF 95 Date Change

On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote: > On 7/20/12 09:06 , IETF Administrative Director wrote: >> The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change for IETF 95 >> scheduled for March 2016. >> >> Currently IETF 95 is scheduled for 27 March to 1 April 2016. 27 March is

Re: IANA [Re: Last Call: (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]

On May 31, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Thierry Moreau wrote: > Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> On 2012-05-31 09:24, SM wrote: >> ... >>> In Section 3.2.3: >>> >>> "Approves the appointment of the IANA" >>> >>> Isn't IANA more of a U.S. Government decision? >> The IAB decides who acts as the IETF's IANA. RF

Re: Making the Tao a web page

On May 31, 2012, at 4:04 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Simpler than the above: make it a web page (as Brian points out, we already > have a good URL), have one editor, have one leadership person who approves > non-trivial changes (I think "IETF Chair" fits here well), have a "last > modified" date

Re: Last Call: (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

> I don't want participants to think that they can't bring up the issue of > violation without some sort of "burden of proof". Hmm. I'm concerned about people bringing baseless accusations, as yet another way to DOS a WG with IPR. If a person believes that there is a violation that is worthy

Re: a favor from the list about Jon Postel

question: would it be helpful to report or block the page? On May 8, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > Hi, all, > > My apologies for contacting this list with a non-IETF issue, but since this > community knew Jon well, I'm asking for its help (among others). > > --- > > There is a Faceboo

Re: IETF posting delays

On May 7, 2012, at 7:48 AM, Hector Santos wrote: > Randy Bush wrote: >>>indeed, the following line in your header was the clue. >>>X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 May 2012 12:10:17 -0700 >>> That is interesting, I didn't had this line in the header. Strange. >> that is because you posted f

Re: 'Geek' image scares women away from tech industry ? The Register

On Apr 30, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Ofer Inbar wrote: > This PBS interview with Harvey Mudd president Maria Klawe, on the > subject of why fewer women go into tech & engineering fields, is > worth watching: > > http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/video/blog/2012/04/college_president_discusses_wo.html Th

Re: 'Geek' image scares women away from tech industry ? The Register

On Apr 30, 2012, at 2:03 AM, Riccardo Bernardini wrote: > I understand that this was the result of a "high-level dialogue" > (whatever that means) among few (how many?) people. This reminds me > of the "the Emperor of China nose length" problem > > http://imaginatorium.org/stuff/nose.htm I ex

Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments

On Apr 19, 2012, at 11:17 PM, David Conrad wrote: > I'd argue that you want to deallocate as soon as an experiment is over. But the point is that experiments don't necessarily become "over". Some of them in effect become standards, and it would probably be good if there were an easy way to rec

Re: IPv6 networking: Bad news for small biz

On Apr 4, 2012, at 12:39 AM, Greg Daley wrote: > Renumbering in small organizations _is_ a big deal, especially when they > don't have in-house skills to manage systems. I tried to look at that in RFC 4192. The question isn't whether it's a pain or not; it's what makes it painful. If building

Re: IPv6 networking: Bad news for small biz

On Apr 3, 2012, at 11:29 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > Total hogwash. Add a bit of source address based routing within the > enterprise so that you hit the right exit routers for the source address > being used. Tag route entries with valid source prefixes. Add redirect based > on source address

Re: ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check "Improving HTTP starts with speed."

On Mar 29, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > From the way you have posted your messages so far it seems likely that you do > not able to develop a consistent story. Please don't feed the troll.

Re: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful

On Mar 21, 2012, at 10:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > In other words if the IETF doesn't define the zone index, every > implementor will have to do so anyway. Also, read the last clause > carefully: it says the stack MUST allow OPTIONAL use of the zone > index internally. Implementors generall

Re: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful

On Mar 19, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: > I've obviously not been doing all my homework, and RFC 4007 slipped my > attention. Worse, for all the communication my IPv6 nodes are doing amongst > themselves using link-local addresses, it's never really been much more than > a h

Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?

On Mar 16, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > But these are worth pursuing only if the community is comfortable with the > basic idea of doing this kind of event. I'm willing to do the experiment.

Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?

On Mar 16, 2012, at 2:13 PM, David Meyer wrote: > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Fred Baker wrote: >> The question I would ask is: "who are the vendors marketing to, and what are >> they selling?" At NANOG, that's fairly clear; companies like Cisco and >>

Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?

The question I would ask is: "who are the vendors marketing to, and what are they selling?" At NANOG, that's fairly clear; companies like Cisco and Juniper, and resellers like Network Hardware, are selling to their customers, who are often technical decision makers or senior staff in companies t

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

What specifically would you like changed in the draft? Can you suggest text? On Feb 8, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker wrote: > The IESG again decided it needed a revised draft, and that draft - in large > part, a rewrite - a

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:57 PM, Erik Kline wrote: > World IPv6 Launch changes the relevance of this document greatly, I > think. Since this would be published after the announcement of World > IPv6 Launch, I think the document should be updated to discuss its own > applicability in a post- World IPv

FCC Names Henning Schulzrinne Chief Technology Officer

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-names-henning-schulzrinne-chief-technology-officer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF rules and procedures - conditions to attribute credit

On Dec 9, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote: > I couldn’t find any particular rule for mentioning credits (or not). I guess > this might have had a relation to some rights related issues? > > Can anyone help here e.g. a pointer to a document? Or this is just best > practices between c

Re: Errata against RFC 5226 rejected

On Dec 8, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > Errata 2684 was entered against RFC 5226, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA > Considerations Section in RFCs". After discussion with one of the RFC > authors and IANA staff, I rejected the errata. > > The errata author is saying that in many re

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

On Nov 28, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > I don't know what an antitrust policy is... Could you explain? > > Is this something like a conflict of interest policy? Or is it a policy to > avoid situations where we might be engaging in some sort of collusion? I'm not Russ, but

Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

In my opinion, having a designated space is better than "squat" space, given that we we already know that squat space is being used. The argument that it extends the life of IPv4 is, IMHO, of limited value; yes, it allows operators to keep their IPv4 service running; given the number of CPE Rout

Re: Avian news

On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 11/17/2011 8:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Please see the reader comment by Oor Nonny-Muss on this story to understand >> its relevance to the IETF. >> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/16/salad_leaf_turns_out_to_be_dead_bi

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

Sounds like I made an error... On Oct 27, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Oct 27, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Fred Baker wrote: > >> I think you're saying that there shouldn't be; at this instant, there >> actually is such a requirement. > > Either you are

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

On Oct 27, 2011, at 2:54 AM, SM wrote: > There isn't any requirement for a BoF to form a WG. I think you're saying that there shouldn't be; at this instant, there actually is such a requirement. What there isn't a requirement for is a Bar BOF (and I would argue that there *is* a requirement th

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > (e.g., the NomCom > schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year). no problem. We stop having the nomcom. (he ducks) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/list

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Ping Pan wrote: > the original issue remains: please make IETF meetings easier and cheaper for > us to go to. ;-) I think that a lot of people would like that. There are a number of problems that need to be solved to make them cheaper to attend. One is the issue

Re: watersprings.org archive of expired Internet Drafts

To make my own mirror of such on my laptop, I rsync -avz rsync.tools.ietf.org::tools.id /Users/fred/all-drafts/id I maintain an RFC mirror, a "current draft" mirror, and an "expired draft" mirror for my own use. On Sep 30, 2011, at 10:34 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > I have been using the watersp

Re: Expiring a publication - especially standards track documents which are abandoned

On Oct 5, 2011, at 3:58 AM, Gellens, Randall wrote: > I don't understand this aspect. If an RFC is deployed, even widely > deployed, but no new extensions are being done, and no developers are > clamoring for changes, you want to move it to Historic? Yes. He misses the point of what we do. We

Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

On Sep 6, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: > The IESG has been working to the assumption that Proposed Standards will be > widely deployed into all environments for a long time. That may well be an > appropriate response to the deployment practice (heck, if "the internet runs > on internet

Re: Discuss criteria for documents that advance on the standards track

On Aug 30, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > My understanding was always that DISCUSS was supposed to be an indication > that, at a minimum, the AD needs to understand the situation better before > casting a yea or nay vote. The resolution of a DISCUSS might end up being a > yes vote, a

Re: Agenda known in advance? was Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

On Aug 23, 2011, at 6:48 AM, IETF Chair wrote: > The important dates page for the meeting > shows a date for > the draft agenda and a date for the final agenda. We try very hard to make > no changes after the final agenda date. Some

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

On Aug 23, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: > Are we really committing? Yes, the IETF block in the primary hotel > fills in my experience, but if it doesn't, is the IETF committing to > paying the difference? yes. ___ Ietf mailing list

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

On Aug 23, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Thomas Nadeau wrote: > > But surely based on that block purchasing power we could negotiate more > reasonable rates than $200+ night? Well, the Cisco corporate rate at the Hyatt is also $265/night. Given that the hotel is around the corner from the Cisco of

Re: Queen Sirikit National Convention Center

On Aug 7, 2011, at 5:25 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > In fact, the walk from the Hilton to the Quebec Conference Centre was > pretty close to 1km ? It was out the lobby behind the restaurant and down two escalators. Even if you walked across the courtyard at street level and then wandered ba

Re: 6to4v2 (as in ripv2)?

On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long term future *by > definition*. Even if someone chooses to design a v2, who is going to > implement it? Actually, I think one could argue pretty effectively that 6rd is 6to4-bis. ___

Re: Repetitions and consensus

On Jul 11, 2011, at 10:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > We quite often discuss here how to judge rough consensus. In a completely > non-IETF context, I came upon a reference to an article published in 2007 > with the catchy title "Inferring the Popularity of an Opinion From Its > Familiarity:

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

I think that there are three sets of proposed state changes - what the author would like to do, what the working group if any agrees to do, and what the IESG wants to instruct the RFC Editor should ultimately be done. There is no reason they all have to be the same. For example, a document autho

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

On May 17, 2011, at 12:49 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 5/16/2011 6:44 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: By my observation, what is being done, satisfactorily meets the dictionary definition of a whitelist. the term was uncontroversial in the dicussion >>> The working group is what statistic

Re: New I-D Submission Tool Installed

On Apr 12, 2011, at 11:43 AM, IETF Chair wrote: > A major update to the Internet-Draft Submission Tool has just been installed. > For those of you that have experienced trouble in the past, we expect this > update to solve your problems. All of the I-Ds that have required manual > processing

Re: Buckets of spam coming through IETF lists

On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:28 PM, John R. Levine wrote: > Some clever spambot seems to have scraped a bunch of addresses out of the > archives and is sending spam with multiple addresses on the From: line > through IETF and IRTF mailing lists. Surely I'm not the only one who's > seeing it. DKIM i

Re: Question regarding proceedings

gt; > Alexa > > On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Fred Baker wrote: > >> I just went to http://www.ietf.org to review the proceedings from IETF 79. >> It appears that the proceedings have been reorganized. They look great. I'm >> puzzled. >> >> What I

Question regarding proceedings

I just went to http://www.ietf.org to review the proceedings from IETF 79. It appears that the proceedings have been reorganized. They look great. I'm puzzled. What I was looking for was the minutes from v6ops/IETF-79 and the slideware related to it. I couldn't find it. Where should I be lookin

Re: Thank you, IETF!

Jun: Only the Japanese would apologize for focusing their attention at home after a 9.0 earthquake and the tsunami it caused. We wish you well. Fred On Mar 27, 2011, at 6:00 PM, Jun Murai wrote: > Dear IETF friends, > > The national police department of Japan reported on March 26th > regard

Re: Gen-ART LC/Telechat Review of draft-mrw-nat66-08

Thanks. I picked these up in -09, so that there is no issue. On Mar 1, 2011, at 3:32 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please wait for d

Re: Question about Prague

On Dec 30, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Robin Uyeshiro wrote: > The GPS in the rental car (rented in Munich) did not have the street > information for Prague. It's not unusual, or at least it wasn't in 1997, for German rental agencies to not permit driving to the Czech Republic. As stated, my information i

Re: BCP request: WiFi at High-Tech Meetings

I would suggest having it written by Austria Telecom and WIDE. On Dec 29, 2010, at 7:14 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > Time for a BCP? > > > > >> The problem is that Wi-Fi was never intended for large hall

Re: Call for Comments: "Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions"

On Nov 24, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Adam Roach wrote: > While section 2.3 of draft-iab-extension-recs-02 can be read as very vaguely > pointing away from this kind of extension ("[S]pecifications that look very > similar to the original but don't interoperate with each other or with the > original -

Re: [Full-disclosure] IPv6 security myths

On Oct 25, 2010, at 5:46 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: > >> In the interest of fair and balanced discussion. > > It is of course that, merely because IPv6 makes IPsec mandatory, > IPv6 can not be more secure than IPv4. > > But, the real problem of IPsec is that it expe

Re: [Full-disclosure] IPv6 security myths

I'm not a security guru, and will step aside instantly if someone with those credentials says I'm wrong. However, from my perspective, the assertion that IPv6 had any security properties that differed from IPv4 *at*all* has never made any sense. It is essentially a marketing claim, and - well, w

Re: what is the problem? (was Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels)

On Oct 26, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > Action > > We should adopt Russ's proposal: Axe the DRAFT status and automatically > promote all DRAFT status documents to STANDARD status. This can be done > formally by changing the process or the IESG can just agree to a convention

Re: Extending the Datatracker to display user-specific lists of drafts

On Oct 22, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Greetings again. There is a new draft that may be of interest to many people > in the IETF: > . The > abstract is: > > The document gives a set of requirements for extendi

Re: can we please postpone the ipv6 post-mortem?

On Oct 14, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > On 10/11/10 7:40 AM, Rémi Després wrote: >> >> Le 9 oct. 2010 à 02:50, Fred Baker a écrit : >>>> That's not limited to Germany. Would that dtag.de would use 172.16/12 >>>> rather than 10/8 or 192.

Re: can we please postpone the ipv6 post-mortem?

On Oct 8, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Peter Dambier wrote: > Martin Rex wrote: > >> >> most home users in Germany can not even get IPv6 from their ISP, >> even when they had an IPv6-capable DSL-router. >> > > Curiously enough, our biggest and almost monopoly because most > others depend on them - dtag.

Re: can we please postpone the ipv6 post-mortem?

On Oct 8, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Martin Rex wrote: > Huh? Hardly anyone support IPv6 these days. Well, the "hardly anyone" seems to include all Windows, Macosx, Linux, and Freebsd-based products, and routers from any vendor you care to name. But "hardly anyone" includes Canon printers like the one

Re: All these discussions about meeting venues

I think it is important for the IAOC to know when there are issues that they need to address, for example the issue with food appropriate to muslims that came up in Dublin. Personally, when I become aware of such issues, I send a note to i...@ietf.org or iaoc-m...@isoc.org, inform them of the is

  1   2   3   4   5   >