RE: Chinese IPv9
So, it's almost identical to IPv6. It's very interesting indication. Can you show me several clues why you think so. - Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park) - Mobile Platform Lab. Samsung Electronics. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Masataka Ohta Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 12:37 PM To: Tony Hain Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Bill Manning' Subject: Re: Chinese IPv9 Tony Hain wrote: There is technical content, but no business content and the service providers are ignoring it as a waste of time. Masataka Ohta ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Email account utilization warning.
Title: Message You would think this crowd is used to Joe Jobs and Phishing. Of course I knew the internet was coming to an end when Steve B. put up the Code Red statistics in London... You would think at least this crowd would learn Bill -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Trang NguyenSent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:57 PMTo: Sean Weekes; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: Email account utilization warning. Same with me. Please don't cut us off without reasonable explanation. Regards, Trang Nguyen -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Sean WeekesSent: July 6, 2004 2:58 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: Email account utilization warning. Please can you reinstate my account or at least explain in more detail the reason for your actions here. I'm not happy that you arbitrarily undertake this course of action without prior notification or discussion. I also am at a loss as to why you have done this. Please can you elaborate. Regards.Sean Weekes General Manager, ICONZ www.iconz.co.nz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, 6 July 2004 7:08 p.m.To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Email account utilization warning. Dear user of Ietf.org,Your e-mail account has been temporary disabled because of unauthorized access.For more information see the attached file.Kind regards, The Ietf.org team http://www.ietf.org ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Email account utilization warning.
Given the recent unreasonable behavior by IETF staff where they really are blocking blocking of email from members, it is not very unreasonable to be fooled by such a thing. People have come to expect this from the IETF. Dean Anderson Av8 Internet, Inc P.S. I am still blocked from emailing DNS WG chair, and prevented from registering complaint about improper DNS WG RFC process activity by ISC and DNS WG chair Austein, because the IETF chairman Alvestrand demands that such complaints be made offlist, yet chairman Alvestrand refuses to require the WG Chairs to accept email from participants. Under chairman Alvestrand's leadership, the IETF can choose to ignore complaints based on the participant, rather than the merit of the complaint. And Although this runs contrary to every stated principle of the IETF, contrary to many suggestions of many other participants, contrary to civil courtesy, and contrary to lawful behavior, chairman Alvestrand is not moved from his course. He leaves us no choice but to engage lawyers against the IETF. This is very sad. On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Michel Py wrote: Darn Jasen, you just stopped the entertainment. It's a lot of fun watching how many could be caught by phishing. Michel. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jasen Strutt Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 7:02 PM To: 'Trang Nguyen'; 'Sean Weekes'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Email account utilization warning. Did anyone take mention of the virus infected file that was attached to the email? Did anyone take mention that the header information is junk? I hope spam and phishing are not foreign terms to you. Please perform 20 seconds of due diligence prior to jumping to conclusions and blasting the IETF list. Regards- Jasen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Trang Nguyen Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:57 PM To: Sean Weekes; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Email account utilization warning. Same with me. Please don't cut us off without reasonable explanation. Regards, Trang Nguyen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sean Weekes Sent: July 6, 2004 2:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Email account utilization warning. Please can you reinstate my account or at least explain in more detail the reason for your actions here. I'm not happy that you arbitrarily undertake this course of action without prior notification or discussion. I also am at a loss as to why you have done this. Please can you elaborate. Regards. Sean Weekes General Manager, ICONZ www.iconz.co.nz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 6 July 2004 7:08 p.m. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Email account utilization warning. Dear user of Ietf.org, Your e-mail account has been temporary disabled because of unauthorized access. For more information see the attached file. Kind regards, The Ietf.org team http://www.ietf.org ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
xml2rfc and new RFC3667 requirements
I guess many people will use these tools already, but I thought I'd just post that the excellent xml2rfc tool now supports the RFC3667 requirements as per ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt See http://xml.resource.org/, v1.24. You just need to select the full3667 ipr option, e.g. rfc ipr=full3667 category=... in your XML, where you probably had full2026 beforehand. In other words, you must upgrade your xml2rfc before the I-D cutoff rush next week :) Tim ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: xml2rfc and new RFC3667 requirements
On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 14:34, Tim Chown wrote: I guess many people will use these tools already, but I thought I'd just post that the excellent xml2rfc tool now supports the RFC3667 requirements as per ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt See http://xml.resource.org/, v1.24. You just need to select the full3667 ipr option, e.g. rfc ipr=full3667 category=... in your XML, where you probably had full2026 beforehand. In other words, you must upgrade your xml2rfc before the I-D cutoff rush next week :) They are already complaining about that since monday with a 'read that url about the new guidelines', while they might just mention that you could turn the ipr option on to the new RFC. You can actually just set the ipr option to 99 and xml2rfc will be compliant for ever as it just checks if it is lower than a certain version when including some text. Quite odd actually, one can't send internet-drafts@ pgp-signed email because their pegasus mua's can't read it but they do dare to complain about some legal crap in a technical document. Submitting .xml's is not an option either apparently, which I would think would be much easier for them to be checked ah they have ipr= wrong. xml2rfc could/should warn about this btw, but then again how many times does this change. Greets, Jeroen PS: For debian users, it is not in there (yet) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Email account utilization warning.
Could we try to keep our narcissistic eye on the ball here? I realize that the only thing on this list that matters to you is you, and normally I do what I imagine most of the list is doing: I suffer your rants in silence. But recognizing this stuff is actually important, and if there are people on the IETF list who don't, that's a situation that cries out for attention. Please, for once, let's assume that you are *not* the topic, and stay on whatever the topic actually is. You can trot out your personal demons (or daemons, for that matter) under some other subject line ... and, by all evidence, you certainly will. In the meantime, let's not treat every message on this list as your personal song cue. Is this really too much to ask? Dean Anderson wrote: Given the recent unreasonable behavior by IETF staff where they really are blocking blocking of email from members, it is not very unreasonable to be fooled by such a thing. People have come to expect this from the IETF. Dean Anderson Av8 Internet, Inc P.S. I am still blocked from emailing DNS WG chair, and prevented from registering complaint about improper DNS WG RFC process activity by ISC and DNS WG chair Austein, because the IETF chairman Alvestrand demands that such complaints be made offlist, yet chairman Alvestrand refuses to require the WG Chairs to accept email from participants. Under chairman Alvestrand's leadership, the IETF can choose to ignore complaints based on the participant, rather than the merit of the complaint. And Although this runs contrary to every stated principle of the IETF, contrary to many suggestions of many other participants, contrary to civil courtesy, and contrary to lawful behavior, chairman Alvestrand is not moved from his course. He leaves us no choice but to engage lawyers against the IETF. This is very sad. On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Michel Py wrote: Darn Jasen, you just stopped the entertainment. It's a lot of fun watching how many could be caught by phishing. Michel. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jasen Strutt Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 7:02 PM To: 'Trang Nguyen'; 'Sean Weekes'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Email account utilization warning. Did anyone take mention of the virus infected file that was attached to the email? Did anyone take mention that the header information is junk? I hope spam and phishing are not foreign terms to you. Please perform 20 seconds of due diligence prior to jumping to conclusions and blasting the IETF list. Regards- Jasen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Trang Nguyen Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:57 PM To: Sean Weekes; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Email account utilization warning. Same with me. Please don't cut us off without reasonable explanation. Regards, Trang Nguyen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sean Weekes Sent: July 6, 2004 2:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Email account utilization warning. Please can you reinstate my account or at least explain in more detail the reason for your actions here. I'm not happy that you arbitrarily undertake this course of action without prior notification or discussion. I also am at a loss as to why you have done this. Please can you elaborate. Regards. Sean Weekes General Manager, ICONZ www.iconz.co.nz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 6 July 2004 7:08 p.m. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Email account utilization warning. Dear user of Ietf.org, Your e-mail account has been temporary disabled because of unauthorized access. For more information see the attached file. Kind regards, The Ietf.org team http://www.ietf.org ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Email account utilization warning.
Bill wrote: You would think this crowd is used to Joe Jobs and Phishing. Nah. Even if the scheme is crude and/or rudimentary and almost nobody (except secretariat/staff) actually has an IETF e-mail account, it still works. This is interesting, as it goes against the current phishing trends that tend to produce ultra-realistic baits; maybe it's not necessary to spend all the time copying the target's logos and mimicking their fonts and style after all. Good ol' tricks still work. You would think at least this crowd would learn. Indeed this is not encouraging in terms of grandma being able to detect phishing :-( Maybe I'll put a disguised Paypal donate button on my web site and start a new career as a joe-jobber; looks like it could work. Michel. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Email account utilization warning. (Final)
Dean Anderson Would you give it a rest already? Take your issue(s) up with the appropriate person(s) in a separate, mutually exclusive thread, and stop blasting the IETF list. I'm sure you'll be unable to contain yourself and blast yet, another message out, about how everyone else is wrong, and you have the ideas which lead us to the wonderland of end all. Therein lies the problem. Your continued replies are a surefire way to test my poignant 'stuff' from Dean Anderson to ignore rule. Cheers- Jasen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Anderson Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 10:34 AM To: Mark Durham Cc: Michel Py; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Email account utilization warning. Mark, To fool people, the phish has to be plausible. In this case, people have come to expect capricious behavior from the IETF and so the phishing claim of turning off email capriciously isn't out of the realm of the expected behavior. People saw the IETF do it before, and expect it might might happen again. Dean Anderson is not the topic: The IETF principles are the topic; The IETF rules are the topic; The misbehavior by people including the IETF leadership is the topic. Those who don't want to address the problems try to portray this as about Dean Anderson, or about Dan Bernstein, or about whoever else is being abused at the moment. It's not about Dean Anderson; It's not about Dan Bernstein; Its not those other innocent people defamed and disparaged by a select few abusers. Its about abusive behavior by a select group, and the willfull, repeated, and perfidious failure of the leadership to address the abuse, and the participation by the leadership in the abuse. It should not be too much to ask that the IETF Leadership follow the IETF rules and the IETF principles. Is that too much to ask? When the leadership acts capriciously, frivolously, perfidiously and acts contrary to the rules and principles of the IETF, this behavior is observed by others. These things don't happen in a vacuum. The complaints of Dean Anderson, or Dan Bernstein, or of anyone else do not bring dishonor to the IETF. Only the behavior by the leadership brings disrespect and dishonor to the IETF. And we see the effects of that: People come to expect capricious behavior from the IETF and so the phishing premise isn't out of the realm of the expected behavior. People saw the IETF do it before, and expect it might might happen again. Solve the problem: Obey the IETF principles and rules. Then such phishes will be out of character, and people would be more suspicious of such a phish. As I said offlist to Mark Smith: From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mark Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Email account utilization warning. Because I have respect for the IETF, and its principles. It is the IETF leadership that is disgraceful. But it has been the desire of the leadership to run the IETF like a private club, and many people would be (and have been) driven off by their behavior. Someone, sometime has to stand up to them. --Dean On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Mark Smith wrote: If you have such low respect for the IETF, why don't you just remove yourself from all associated IETF mailing lists, and stop contributing too them? On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Mark Durham wrote: Could we try to keep our narcissistic eye on the ball here? I realize that the only thing on this list that matters to you is you, and normally I do what I imagine most of the list is doing: I suffer your rants in silence. But recognizing this stuff is actually important, and if there are people on the IETF list who don't, that's a situation that cries out for attention. Please, for once, let's assume that you are *not* the topic, and stay on whatever the topic actually is. You can trot out your personal demons (or daemons, for that matter) under some other subject line ... and, by all evidence, you certainly will. In the meantime, let's not treat every message on this list as your personal song cue. Is this really too much to ask? ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Email account utilization warning.
I wonder how hard it would be to set my mail server to drop your mail too? Since, obviously, Email account utilization warning has nothing to do with your rants. . . -Dave On Wednesday, 07 Jul 2004, Dean Anderson wrote: Mark, To fool people, the phish has to be plausible. In this case, people have come to expect capricious behavior from the IETF and so the phishing claim of turning off email capriciously isn't out of the realm of the expected behavior. People saw the IETF do it before, and expect it might might happen again. Dean Anderson is not the topic: The IETF principles are the topic; The IETF rules are the topic; The misbehavior by people including the IETF leadership is the topic. Those who don't want to address the problems try to portray this as about Dean Anderson, or about Dan Bernstein, or about whoever else is being abused at the moment. It's not about Dean Anderson; It's not about Dan Bernstein; Its not those other innocent people defamed and disparaged by a select few abusers. Its about abusive behavior by a select group, and the willfull, repeated, and perfidious failure of the leadership to address the abuse, and the participation by the leadership in the abuse. It should not be too much to ask that the IETF Leadership follow the IETF rules and the IETF principles. Is that too much to ask? When the leadership acts capriciously, frivolously, perfidiously and acts contrary to the rules and principles of the IETF, this behavior is observed by others. These things don't happen in a vacuum. The complaints of Dean Anderson, or Dan Bernstein, or of anyone else do not bring dishonor to the IETF. Only the behavior by the leadership brings disrespect and dishonor to the IETF. And we see the effects of that: People come to expect capricious behavior from the IETF and so the phishing premise isn't out of the realm of the expected behavior. People saw the IETF do it before, and expect it might might happen again. Solve the problem: Obey the IETF principles and rules. Then such phishes will be out of character, and people would be more suspicious of such a phish. As I said offlist to Mark Smith: From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mark Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Email account utilization warning. Because I have respect for the IETF, and its principles. It is the IETF leadership that is disgraceful. But it has been the desire of the leadership to run the IETF like a private club, and many people would be (and have been) driven off by their behavior. Someone, sometime has to stand up to them. --Dean On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Mark Smith wrote: If you have such low respect for the IETF, why don't you just remove yourself from all associated IETF mailing lists, and stop contributing too them? On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Mark Durham wrote: Could we try to keep our narcissistic eye on the ball here? I realize that the only thing on this list that matters to you is you, and normally I do what I imagine most of the list is doing: I suffer your rants in silence. But recognizing this stuff is actually important, and if there are people on the IETF list who don't, that's a situation that cries out for attention. Please, for once, let's assume that you are *not* the topic, and stay on whatever the topic actually is. You can trot out your personal demons (or daemons, for that matter) under some other subject line ... and, by all evidence, you certainly will. In the meantime, let's not treat every message on this list as your personal song cue. Is this really too much to ask? ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- David Frascone Hindsight is always 20/20. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Email account utilization warning.
As Freud remarked, Denial is avowal. Q.E.D. Dean Anderson wrote: Mark, To fool people, the phish has to be plausible. In this case, people have come to expect capricious behavior from the IETF and so the phishing claim of turning off email capriciously isn't out of the realm of the expected behavior. People saw the IETF do it before, and expect it might might happen again. Dean Anderson is not the topic: The IETF principles are the topic; The IETF rules are the topic; The misbehavior by people including the IETF leadership is the topic. Those who don't want to address the problems try to portray this as about Dean Anderson, or about Dan Bernstein, or about whoever else is being abused at the moment. It's not about Dean Anderson; It's not about Dan Bernstein; Its not those other innocent people defamed and disparaged by a select few abusers. Its about abusive behavior by a select group, and the willfull, repeated, and perfidious failure of the leadership to address the abuse, and the participation by the leadership in the abuse. It should not be too much to ask that the IETF Leadership follow the IETF rules and the IETF principles. Is that too much to ask? When the leadership acts capriciously, frivolously, perfidiously and acts contrary to the rules and principles of the IETF, this behavior is observed by others. These things don't happen in a vacuum. The complaints of Dean Anderson, or Dan Bernstein, or of anyone else do not bring dishonor to the IETF. Only the behavior by the leadership brings disrespect and dishonor to the IETF. And we see the effects of that: People come to expect capricious behavior from the IETF and so the phishing premise isn't out of the realm of the expected behavior. People saw the IETF do it before, and expect it might might happen again. Solve the problem: Obey the IETF principles and rules. Then such phishes will be out of character, and people would be more suspicious of such a phish. As I said offlist to Mark Smith: From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mark Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Email account utilization warning. Because I have respect for the IETF, and its principles. It is the IETF leadership that is disgraceful. But it has been the desire of the leadership to run the IETF like a private club, and many people would be (and have been) driven off by their behavior. Someone, sometime has to stand up to them. --Dean On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Mark Smith wrote: If you have such low respect for the IETF, why don't you just remove yourself from all associated IETF mailing lists, and stop contributing too them? On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Mark Durham wrote: Could we try to keep our narcissistic eye on the ball here? I realize that the only thing on this list that matters to you is you, and normally I do what I imagine most of the list is doing: I suffer your rants in silence. But recognizing this stuff is actually important, and if there are people on the IETF list who don't, that's a situation that cries out for attention. Please, for once, let's assume that you are *not* the topic, and stay on whatever the topic actually is. You can trot out your personal demons (or daemons, for that matter) under some other subject line ... and, by all evidence, you certainly will. In the meantime, let's not treat every message on this list as your personal song cue. Is this really too much to ask? ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Email account utilization warning.
Dean, On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:19:20AM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: P.S. I am still blocked from emailing DNS WG chair, and prevented from registering complaint about improper DNS WG RFC process activity by ISC and DNS WG chair Austein, because the IETF chairman Alvestrand demands that such complaints be made offlist, yet chairman Alvestrand refuses to require the WG Chairs to accept email from participants. Can you please keep the facts straight: - there is no such thing as the DNS WG do you mean the dnsop working group by any chance ? - the dnsop working group has two chairpeople, not just Rob Austein - you are not blocked by Rob Austein or prevented from registering a complaint. it has been pointed out to you that you have the ability to communicate with Rob Austein using the mail address that is posted on the ietf dnsop charter web page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsop-charter.html Thanks, David Kessens --- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Email account utilization warning. (Final)
I would agree. Perhaps an inquiry as to the motives behind this continual attack that the IETF has endured would help mitigate the situation. On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Jasen Strutt wrote: Dean Anderson Would you give it a rest already? Take your issue(s) up with the appropriate person(s) in a separate, mutually exclusive thread, and stop blasting the IETF list. I'm sure you'll be unable to contain yourself and blast yet, another message out, about how everyone else is wrong, and you have the ideas which lead us to the wonderland of end all. Therein lies the problem. Your continued replies are a surefire way to test my poignant 'stuff' from Dean Anderson to ignore rule. Cheers- Jasen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Anderson Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 10:34 AM To: Mark Durham Cc: Michel Py; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Email account utilization warning. Mark, To fool people, the phish has to be plausible. In this case, people have come to expect capricious behavior from the IETF and so the phishing claim of turning off email capriciously isn't out of the realm of the expected behavior. People saw the IETF do it before, and expect it might might happen again. Dean Anderson is not the topic: The IETF principles are the topic; The IETF rules are the topic; The misbehavior by people including the IETF leadership is the topic. Those who don't want to address the problems try to portray this as about Dean Anderson, or about Dan Bernstein, or about whoever else is being abused at the moment. It's not about Dean Anderson; It's not about Dan Bernstein; Its not those other innocent people defamed and disparaged by a select few abusers. Its about abusive behavior by a select group, and the willfull, repeated, and perfidious failure of the leadership to address the abuse, and the participation by the leadership in the abuse. It should not be too much to ask that the IETF Leadership follow the IETF rules and the IETF principles. Is that too much to ask? When the leadership acts capriciously, frivolously, perfidiously and acts contrary to the rules and principles of the IETF, this behavior is observed by others. These things don't happen in a vacuum. The complaints of Dean Anderson, or Dan Bernstein, or of anyone else do not bring dishonor to the IETF. Only the behavior by the leadership brings disrespect and dishonor to the IETF. And we see the effects of that: People come to expect capricious behavior from the IETF and so the phishing premise isn't out of the realm of the expected behavior. People saw the IETF do it before, and expect it might might happen again. Solve the problem: Obey the IETF principles and rules. Then such phishes will be out of character, and people would be more suspicious of such a phish. As I said offlist to Mark Smith: From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mark Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Email account utilization warning. Because I have respect for the IETF, and its principles. It is the IETF leadership that is disgraceful. But it has been the desire of the leadership to run the IETF like a private club, and many people would be (and have been) driven off by their behavior. Someone, sometime has to stand up to them. --Dean On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Mark Smith wrote: If you have such low respect for the IETF, why don't you just remove yourself from all associated IETF mailing lists, and stop contributing too them? On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Mark Durham wrote: Could we try to keep our narcissistic eye on the ball here? I realize that the only thing on this list that matters to you is you, and normally I do what I imagine most of the list is doing: I suffer your rants in silence. But recognizing this stuff is actually important, and if there are people on the IETF list who don't, that's a situation that cries out for attention. Please, for once, let's assume that you are *not* the topic, and stay on whatever the topic actually is. You can trot out your personal demons (or daemons, for that matter) under some other subject line ... and, by all evidence, you certainly will. In the meantime, let's not treat every message on this list as your personal song cue. Is this really too much to ask? ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf sleekfreak pirate broadcast http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Email account utilization warning. (Final)
From: Jasen Strutt Would you give it a rest already? Take your issue(s) up with the appropriate person(s) in a separate, mutually exclusive thread, and stop blasting the IETF list. I would rather not offend you, but please consider that good advice. Please do not respond to those whose only interest is provoking a response, any response from anyone and so being reassured they exist and that people care about them, even if those concerns are negative. Many of us know of their messages only when people respond to them, and would rather not have that particular clipping service. The differences among trolling, trollbaiting, countering trolls, and everything else related to trolling are almost entirely in the minds of the players. To the rest of the world it is all useless, costly noise. As for the Internet experts who still don't recognize phishing or Microsoft worm noise when it hits their mailboxes, the Secretariat should interpret complaints sent to the thousands of readers of this list as requests to be unsubscribed with prejudice from all IETF mailing lists, particularly when their complaints are double-encrypted in base64 and HTML. Such people are better served reading IETF mailing lists through archives such as http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/ I promise to try to apply that policy to the minor, non-IETF lists that I run. I don't intend any criticism of those who choose on their own to use archives instead of subscribing. That's how I follow some mailing lists that for various reasons I choose to not give my address. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What exactly is an internet (service) provider? (FWD: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-03.txt)
At 23:22 06/07/04, John C Klensin wrote: Vendors who are going to do these things will -- based on the fact that they are being done already -- do them, with or without this document. And that includes providers who are doing very little that we would recognize as internet service characterizing themselves as ISPs. If this document can accomplish anything, it is, as several people have pointed out, provide a definitional basis for claiming that a vendor is lying about what is being provided. Put differently, the theory behind it is to give operators/providers an opportunity to disclose what they are doing in a more or less clear way. If they choose to exaggerate what they are offering, or to lie about their services, that is a problem that this document cannot solve and is not intended to try. John, This is quite ambitious to say lying. Let say that it permits to say that a word is not used in John Klensin's way - may be not in an IETF ways. This permits to understand why, what is different, what are the con and pros. To have a reference is always a good point. We are starting AFRAC as an experimental national Common Reference Center. The target is to understand how such center may support interapplications, contain metastructural risks, support dedicated governance and intergovernance relations, etc. Masataka Otha's remark is quite interesting, since it shows that he doubts that non-IETF community members, while members of the Internet Gobal community may not use some words in the same way, or should not ne encouraged to use them. Obviously not sharing the same referential creates confusion. (IMHO we are at the core of the networking notion - thank you for the initaitive I called for for years). I am going to use your draft as an IETF reference lexicon. We will see if someone wants to translate it as several concept may differ in French or in other latin languages (I do not know about other langages). Is that label agreeable to you? Are you interested in continuing building on it when new words are questionned? jfc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Chinese IPv9
At 17:48 06/07/04, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tony Hain writes: Sitting here in Seoul, Janet Sun (BII) said this is self-promotion of a single researcher looking to improve his funding. There is technical content, but no business content and the service providers are ignoring it as a waste of time. Think of it as E-164 on steroids. Right. Dear Steven, This looks as a well planned, polite and intelligent warning. About possible other ways to use/plan the DNS, IPv6, VoIP etc. We probably have to get used to Chinese ways. I read this as are you sure IPv6.001 numbering plan, IDNA, VoIP and ENUM are Internet Gospel?. The surprisingly agressive mail of Vint Cerf seems to show he read it that way - at least in part. But is not IANA now an ICANN function? I am sure reading comments from IETF and other mailing lists taught a lot to the IPv9's team (BTW, hello to them!) jfc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Email account utilization warning.
Oh, you can filter out any sender easily enough. The snag is you see all the replies people send to their mailings :( Tim On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:58:47PM -0500, David Frascone wrote: I wonder how hard it would be to set my mail server to drop your mail too? Since, obviously, Email account utilization warning has nothing to do with your rants. . . -Dave On Wednesday, 07 Jul 2004, Dean Anderson wrote: Mark, To fool people, the phish has to be plausible. In this case, people have come to expect capricious behavior from the IETF and so the phishing claim of turning off email capriciously isn't out of the realm of the expected behavior. People saw the IETF do it before, and expect it might might happen again. Dean Anderson is not the topic: The IETF principles are the topic; The IETF rules are the topic; The misbehavior by people including the IETF leadership is the topic. Those who don't want to address the problems try to portray this as about Dean Anderson, or about Dan Bernstein, or about whoever else is being abused at the moment. It's not about Dean Anderson; It's not about Dan Bernstein; Its not those other innocent people defamed and disparaged by a select few abusers. Its about abusive behavior by a select group, and the willfull, repeated, and perfidious failure of the leadership to address the abuse, and the participation by the leadership in the abuse. It should not be too much to ask that the IETF Leadership follow the IETF rules and the IETF principles. Is that too much to ask? When the leadership acts capriciously, frivolously, perfidiously and acts contrary to the rules and principles of the IETF, this behavior is observed by others. These things don't happen in a vacuum. The complaints of Dean Anderson, or Dan Bernstein, or of anyone else do not bring dishonor to the IETF. Only the behavior by the leadership brings disrespect and dishonor to the IETF. And we see the effects of that: People come to expect capricious behavior from the IETF and so the phishing premise isn't out of the realm of the expected behavior. People saw the IETF do it before, and expect it might might happen again. Solve the problem: Obey the IETF principles and rules. Then such phishes will be out of character, and people would be more suspicious of such a phish. As I said offlist to Mark Smith: From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mark Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Email account utilization warning. Because I have respect for the IETF, and its principles. It is the IETF leadership that is disgraceful. But it has been the desire of the leadership to run the IETF like a private club, and many people would be (and have been) driven off by their behavior. Someone, sometime has to stand up to them. --Dean On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Mark Smith wrote: If you have such low respect for the IETF, why don't you just remove yourself from all associated IETF mailing lists, and stop contributing too them? On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Mark Durham wrote: Could we try to keep our narcissistic eye on the ball here? I realize that the only thing on this list that matters to you is you, and normally I do what I imagine most of the list is doing: I suffer your rants in silence. But recognizing this stuff is actually important, and if there are people on the IETF list who don't, that's a situation that cries out for attention. Please, for once, let's assume that you are *not* the topic, and stay on whatever the topic actually is. You can trot out your personal demons (or daemons, for that matter) under some other subject line ... and, by all evidence, you certainly will. In the meantime, let's not treat every message on this list as your personal song cue. Is this really too much to ask? ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- David Frascone Hindsight is always 20/20. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What exactly is an internet (service) provider? (FWD: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-03.txt)
--On Wednesday, 07 July, 2004 21:47 +0200 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 23:22 06/07/04, John C Klensin wrote: Vendors who are going to do these things will -- based on the fact that they are being done already -- do them, with or without this document. And that includes providers who are doing very little that we would recognize as internet service characterizing themselves as ISPs. If this document can accomplish anything, it is, as several people have pointed out, provide a definitional basis for claiming that a vendor is lying about what is being provided. Put differently, the theory behind it is to give operators/providers an opportunity to disclose what they are doing in a more or less clear way. If they choose to exaggerate what they are offering, or to lie about their services, that is a problem that this document cannot solve and is not intended to try. John, This is quite ambitious to say lying. Let say that it permits to say that a word is not used in John Klensin's way - may be not in an IETF ways. No, I actually had a different case in mind, and the clarification may be useful. I used lying above to described an intentional act, e.g., we know the definitions say we a doing 'A', but we will advertise 'B' in the hope of tricking people. Those who are not aware of the definitions, or decide to ignore them entirely, are in other categories. As I have said before, only a government --typically a regulator or legislature-- can make _any_ terminology mandatory, so there is no question here of forcing (to repeat Ohta-san's term) anyone to do (or not do) anything. Definitions can also be written into contracts by saying things like X will be supplied, where 'X' is as defined in...; such definitions may be more or less useful depending on circumstances that are of more interest to lawyers than to an engineering group. This permits to understand why, what is different, what are the con and pros. To have a reference is always a good point. If I correctly understand your comment, we are in agreement. We are starting AFRAC as an experimental national Common Reference Center. The target is to understand how such center may support interapplications, contain metastructural risks, support dedicated governance and intergovernance relations, etc. Masataka Otha's remark is quite interesting, since it shows that he doubts that non-IETF community members, while members of the Internet Gobal community may not use some words in the same way, or should not ne encouraged to use them. Obviously not sharing the same referential creates confusion. (IMHO we are at the core of the networking notion - thank you for the initaitive I called for for years). I am going to use your draft as an IETF reference lexicon. Please do not. While you are welcome to use it, it is, at the moment, only _my_ reference lexicon. Not even the people who contributed significantly to the document are responsible for it. And, indeed, I'm not completely happy with all of the definitions and categorizations: they are just the best I could do with a limited amount of time and effort. Characterizing it as an IETF reference anything requires some evidence of IETF community consensus. That may or may not exist, but, under IETF principles, only the IESG can reach a conclusion on that subject. We will see if someone wants to translate it as several concept may differ in French or in other latin languages (I do not know about other langages). This might be very useful. Is that label agreeable to you? See above. Are you interested in continuing building on it when new words are questionned? To an extremely limited extent, yes. The limits are imposed by my conviction that something like this is not going to be useful unless it is quite stable. So addition or modification of basic terms should be completed quickly or not at all. One could even make a case for trimming everything but the basic categories out of this document and then producing a second, more informational one, that identified the two collections of additional terms. Personally, I don't think that is worth the effort and the added confusion it would cause -- anyone actually using these definitions can divide them up as they find useful. regards, john ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
