Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:25:00PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: IETF volunteer staff are employees of the ISOC. That they aren't paid may make them gratuitous employees (see below). Gratuitous employees are still employees with just about the same obligations and duties of paid employees. I just happen to have the Restatement of the Law of Agency open: Dean, Neither of us are lawyers, and even if we were, the application of the facts to law is not within the scope of the IETF mailing list. I'm also confused what point you are trying to make, but I suggest this particular thread be moved off of the IETF list, as it is not in scope of the list charter. Regards, - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Fw: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some
I am forwarding this on behalf of Dean Anderson. Thanks --Dean On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why cant the IETF and IESG Embrace open elections Because the members are generally happy with the system we have now. It's called democracy - and you're outvoted. I think that in fact, members aren't very happy with the system that we have now. If they were happy, they wouldn't be changing it. I think that the system has created a very closed, and very unfair management selection process that is not benefiting the members are large, but benefiting a few private interests. Remember, we had this system for quite a while before the last major rework of the process (i.e. we'd all seen it in action for some years, and were able to judge how well was working), and the outcome of that rework was a standards document - i.e. something suject to community approval, i.e. democracy - which made adjustments, but retained the basic framework. If people weren't generally happy with that basic framework, it would have been obvious at the Last Call of the document. IMO, the IETF has some significant problems, but the process for selecting people for leadership positions isn't one of them. I think the IETF and ISOC do have some very significant problems, and that those problems are primarilly mismanagement, disloyalty, and improper use of the ISOC/IETF/IESG/IAB to benefit the personal and adverse interests of the management. The ISOC/IETF employees have accrued some torts against the organization for defamation and defamatory false reports of member misconduct. There is plenty of documentation now of disloyalty, fraudulent misrepresentation, collusion, and bad faith. To see a little bit, look at the Appeal submitted recently to the IAB: http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/Appeal_of_IESG_decision_of_July_10_2006-v4.pdf or http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/Appeal_of_IESG_decision_of_July_10_2006-v4.html -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Fw: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some
Isn't he barred from posting here? On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:51:27PM -0700, todd glassey wrote: I am forwarding this on behalf of Dean Anderson. Thanks --Dean On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why cant the IETF and IESG Embrace open elections Because the members are generally happy with the system we have now. It's called democracy - and you're outvoted. I think that in fact, members aren't very happy with the system that we have now. If they were happy, they wouldn't be changing it. I think that the system has created a very closed, and very unfair management selection process that is not benefiting the members are large, but benefiting a few private interests. Remember, we had this system for quite a while before the last major rework of the process (i.e. we'd all seen it in action for some years, and were able to judge how well was working), and the outcome of that rework was a standards document - i.e. something suject to community approval, i.e. democracy - which made adjustments, but retained the basic framework. If people weren't generally happy with that basic framework, it would have been obvious at the Last Call of the document. IMO, the IETF has some significant problems, but the process for selecting people for leadership positions isn't one of them. I think the IETF and ISOC do have some very significant problems, and that those problems are primarilly mismanagement, disloyalty, and improper use of the ISOC/IETF/IESG/IAB to benefit the personal and adverse interests of the management. The ISOC/IETF employees have accrued some torts against the organization for defamation and defamatory false reports of member misconduct. There is plenty of documentation now of disloyalty, fraudulent misrepresentation, collusion, and bad faith. To see a little bit, look at the Appeal submitted recently to the IAB: http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/Appeal_of_IESG_decision_of_July_10_2006-v4.pdf or http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/Appeal_of_IESG_decision_of_July_10_2006-v4.html -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Tim/::1 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Fw: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some
Tim Chown wrote: Isn't he barred from posting here? If by he you mean Dean Anderson, yes. As I observed, the delete key is handy. Brian On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:51:27PM -0700, todd glassey wrote: I am forwarding this on behalf of Dean Anderson. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
Thanks Dean - Which brings up the issues of liability and agency... Especially since there is no HOLD HARMLESS component of the Boilerplate. Todd - Original Message - From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:25 PM Subject: Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process IETF volunteer staff are employees of the ISOC. That they aren't paid may make them gratuitous employees (see below). Gratuitous employees are still employees with just about the same obligations and duties of paid employees. I just happen to have the Restatement of the Law of Agency open: == § 16 Consideration The relation of principal and agent can be created although neither party receives consideration. § 16 Comment b. Gratuitous agents [...] However, during the existence of the relation a gratuitous agent has the same power to affect the principal.s relations with third persons as if he were paid, and his liabilities to and rights against third persons are the same. Further, he may be liable to the principal for failing to perform a promise on which the principal has relied (see § 378), or for harm caused by his careless performance (see § 379), and he is subject to all the paid agent.s duties of loyalty. See § 387, Comment c. Likewise a gratuitous agent has the same rights of indemnity against the principal as has the paid agent. See §§ 438-440. == IETF employees also receive benefits such as insurance, educational benefits, and sometimes travel benefits. This makes them paid employees == § 441 comment d. Non-gratuitous services not paid for in money. A person may act for compensation and not gratuitously although he receives no money or other thing for his services, as where one learning a trade or profession renders services in consideration of the opportunity offered him to gain skill. Likewise, the services of an agent whose compensation is contingent upon a condition which does not occur are not given gratuitously. In both cases the one acting has the duties and rights of an agent acting for compensation, either in an action of contract, if the principal commits a breach of contract, or, under some circumstances, in an action for restitution. == On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Theodore Tso wrote: On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 09:44:12AM -0700, todd glassey wrote: BRIAN - you have totally missed the point - No offense meant, but your personal word nor any other IETF/IESG staff member is what is not to be relied on - whether you are telling the truth or not is irrelevant - the process has a hole in it large enough to drive a Mack truck through. Todd, it's clear you don't have any faith in anyone on the IESG (they aren't staff, by the way, they are volunteers), but at the same time, the vast majority of those who have spoken on this thread have clearly expressed that they believe that all concerned were acting in good faith, and that no harm was done. You may not believe that, but as a suggestion, your constant and strident attacks quite frankly weaken your own credibility. So if you do have a particular goal of changing how the IETF works, being a bit more thoughtful about suggesting changes will tend to probably serve your goals better than your current style of attacking people like Brian and other IESG members. Regards, - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
Ted not being a lawyer doesn't mean the IESG or the IETF gets to erect processes or methods which are contrary to the Public Policies of the United States since ISOC is a US Corporation, or likewise which violates any US Laws or Treaties that the US has with other Countries; Likewise this probably also pertains to state laws as well. Additional to US Law, it may also require compliance with the EU Data Integrity, Privacy, and Security Requirements since so many of our participants are from Europe and the Email-Hosting services for many of the IETF's WG's are here in the US. Not being a lawyer means a lawyer needs to do a legal analysis on the process and issue an opinion as to whether the contract's and their components make sense. Todd Glassey - Original Message - From: Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:51 PM Subject: Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:25:00PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: IETF volunteer staff are employees of the ISOC. That they aren't paid may make them gratuitous employees (see below). Gratuitous employees are still employees with just about the same obligations and duties of paid employees. I just happen to have the Restatement of the Law of Agency open: Dean, Neither of us are lawyers, and even if we were, the application of the facts to law is not within the scope of the IETF mailing list. I'm also confused what point you are trying to make, but I suggest this particular thread be moved off of the IETF list, as it is not in scope of the list charter. Regards, - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Fw: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthan some
Really - so where is the magic list of all barred members? Todd - Original Message - From: Tim Chown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:37 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthan some Isn't he barred from posting here? On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:51:27PM -0700, todd glassey wrote: I am forwarding this on behalf of Dean Anderson. Thanks --Dean On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why cant the IETF and IESG Embrace open elections Because the members are generally happy with the system we have now. It's called democracy - and you're outvoted. I think that in fact, members aren't very happy with the system that we have now. If they were happy, they wouldn't be changing it. I think that the system has created a very closed, and very unfair management selection process that is not benefiting the members are large, but benefiting a few private interests. Remember, we had this system for quite a while before the last major rework of the process (i.e. we'd all seen it in action for some years, and were able to judge how well was working), and the outcome of that rework was a standards document - i.e. something suject to community approval, i.e. democracy - which made adjustments, but retained the basic framework. If people weren't generally happy with that basic framework, it would have been obvious at the Last Call of the document. IMO, the IETF has some significant problems, but the process for selecting people for leadership positions isn't one of them. I think the IETF and ISOC do have some very significant problems, and that those problems are primarilly mismanagement, disloyalty, and improper use of the ISOC/IETF/IESG/IAB to benefit the personal and adverse interests of the management. The ISOC/IETF employees have accrued some torts against the organization for defamation and defamatory false reports of member misconduct. There is plenty of documentation now of disloyalty, fraudulent misrepresentation, collusion, and bad faith. To see a little bit, look at the Appeal submitted recently to the IAB: http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/Appeal_of_IESG_decision_of_July_10_2006-v4.pdf or http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/Appeal_of_IESG_decision_of_July_10_2006-v4.html -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Tim/::1 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Fw: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some
On Thursday, September 14, 2006 01:37:11 PM +0100 Tim Chown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't he barred from posting here? Perhaps, but one of the checks against abuse of the ability to bar posters is that they can still get a point across if they can convince someone else to forward their comments. -- Jeff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Specifying a state machine: ASCII-based languages
Stewart Bryant wrote: invent our own from scratch? Stephane's draft has 22 pages, including two non-trivial examples. SDL has abstract data types and other features. For something that's better than ASCII art or some ad-hoc table formats squeezed into RFCs his format is okay. It should be fairly simple to tranform this into whatever you like better (because you have tools for it). Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some
todd, you never did answer my question. when do you think the IETF aquired the attribute of members? open elections kind of presupose a defined electorate. what would be the criteria for some entity to cast a vote in such an election? --bill On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 07:52:03AM -0700, todd glassey wrote: Why cant the IETF and IESG Embrace open elections rather than the technological version of the Electoral College its tried to put in place with NOMCOM Todd ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:36:38AM -0700, todd glassey wrote: Bill - I think the IETF has tried to for years claim it has no members and that simply isn't true - and I can arrange to have a Judge tell you and the IETF that if you like. great... i'd appreciate that. i stand by my claim that i am not a member of the IETF. I have attended IETF meetings, participated in discussion and debate, proposed work, developed code ... all of which were done in consultation with like-minded individuals. i've -never- signed up as a member, paid membership dues, nor am i aware of a process for becoming a member. The fact is that this WG has a membership and is constructing IETF process er, does the WG have membership or is it an email list that has members? are you asserting that an email address on a list constitutes membership? More inline below. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:11 AM Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some todd, you never did answer my question. when do you think the IETF aquired the attribute of members? It has members when it needs to claim it voted on something to approve its deployment but that the term MEMBERS is not generally accepted by those who want the system to stay as it is today. the rabble don't vote. there is the occasional hum (thanks Marshall) to have the WG chairs guage consesus. the IESG and IAB vote... so the term members may apply there. but as to the occasional passerby whom may make a random comment or two, i posit that the case is not so clear. open elections kind of presupose a defined electorate. what would be the criteria for some entity to cast a vote in such an election? Being an active member of a WG - i.e. someone who's actions within the IETF were constrained by what this WG does.. and how, pray tell would there be an emperical, unbiased definition of active member ... thanks for your comments. --bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather thansome
Hi - Strangely absent from this discussion are any examples of standards bodies that satisfy the critics' criteria. Perhaps some examples of standards organizations successfully using processes meeting those criteria would be helpful to focus this dicussion. Randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
There is no need to define the concept of membership. The term 'membership' is essentially a legal term and the courts will define it according to their convenience. One can be a member without having a vote and can have a vote without being a member. Under English Common Law saying that a thing is so does not make it so. If a an agreement that meets the legal definition of a partnership agreement explicitly states that it is not a partnership agreement that does not make it any less a partnership nor does it extinguish the liabilities, ct. of such. All that is needed to hold an election is to define the franchise. The franchise in this case would be defined in the same manner as the NOMCON is at present. -Original Message- From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 2:53 PM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome Hi - Strangely absent from this discussion are any examples of standards bodies that satisfy the critics' criteria. Perhaps some examples of standards organizations successfully using processes meeting those criteria would be helpful to focus this dicussion. Randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
Clearly, we could choose to do that. There are several drawbacks. Firstly, the rough consensus, to the degree it is observable, favors the current approach. Secondly, there is a significant and important portion of the IETF which does not meet the NOMCOM criteria. This was consider an unfortunate but inevitable effect selecting some criteria. To counterbalance this, the NOMCOM itself is supposed to consider the needs of the entire IETF, not just that portion which attends meetings. Thirdly, voting itself has many drawbacks, and as Fred Baker observed recently, is liable to focus on popularity rather than on effectiveness for the job. I doubt that in the brief consideration based on your note I have found all of the problems. If there were a serious problem with the NOMCOM process, it would probably be sensible to evaluate whether the drawbacks of an election mode would be worth whatever problems it solved. However, without a clear statement of problems with the NOMCOM process, I can not see any point in trying to evaluate an alternative. Elections are not in and of themselves good. For civil governments, they seem to be the best choice we can find. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 08:09 PM 9/14/2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: There is no need to define the concept of membership. The term 'membership' is essentially a legal term and the courts will define it according to their convenience. One can be a member without having a vote and can have a vote without being a member. Under English Common Law saying that a thing is so does not make it so. If a an agreement that meets the legal definition of a partnership agreement explicitly states that it is not a partnership agreement that does not make it any less a partnership nor does it extinguish the liabilities, ct. of such. All that is needed to hold an election is to define the franchise. The franchise in this case would be defined in the same manner as the NOMCON is at present. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I doubt that in the brief consideration based on your note I have found all of the problems. Obviously. As Winston Churchill once remarked, Democracy is the worst possible system of government, except for all the others. The problem with the current scheme is precisely when people use the power of incumbency to advance arguments like the one you just gave. In particular a certain individual made essentially the same argument to trump a technical discussion and as a result DNSSEC was put back by five years. Either argue your case or don't. Asserting that you believe you could find an argument but are too lazy to do so is hardly persuasive. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
At 09:28 PM 9/14/2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I doubt that in the brief consideration based on your note I have found all of the problems. Obviously. As Winston Churchill once remarked, Democracy is the worst possible system of government, except for all the others. The problem with the current scheme is precisely when people use the power of incumbency to advance arguments like the one you just gave. In particular a certain individual made essentially the same argument to trump a technical discussion and as a result DNSSEC was put back by five years. Either argue your case or don't. Asserting that you believe you could find an argument but are too lazy to do so is hardly persuasive. I raised several specific objections to your view, which you have chosen not to respond to here. The comment you quote was not intended as an argument you should (or as you observe could) respond to, but rather as an indication taht I would not be surprised if there were additional issues beyond the ones I raised that would also need to be discussed. Yours, Joel M. Halpern ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] The problem with the current scheme is precisely when people use the power of incumbency to advance arguments like the one you just gave. After studying this statement for a while, I am unable to find any semantic content in it; frankly, all I can find is vaporous rhetoric. The more I try and understand what it's trying to say, the less sense I can make of it. How the power of incumbency has any ability to influence the value of a particular line of reasoning is utterly beyond me. An incumbent can say something, but that doesn't mean anyone has to put much weight on it, any more than we have to put any weight on things you say. Let me make a few points that come to mind when I consider what you might possibly have been trying to say. First, the existing I* management personnel have minimal influence on the personnel decisions made by the NomComm (other than liaisons, who don't get a vote in the decisions). So is there any way in which the incumbents are using the power of incumbency to decide who gets appointed? Furthermore, the NomComm is a randomly selected subset of the people who would get to vote (in the most recent proposal), if we in fact had voting. It's not like it's a whole different group of people, or a carefully selected biased set, or something. So what makes you think the personnel decisions made by the larger group would be significantly different from those made by the subset? If randomly selected subsets were not reasonably representative, the whole concept of statistical polling would not work. Either argue your case or don't. Asserting that you believe you could find an argument but are too lazy to do so is hardly persuasive. The irony level in this statement would stun a blue whale, let alone an ox. (And my apologies to everyone on the list for wasting bandwidth, and space in all your in-boxes, on this, but sometimes things are said which need a reply, even though the reply is likely an utter waste of time.) Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org
Total of 80 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Sep 15 00:03:01 EDT 2006 Messages | Bytes| Who +--++--+ 18.75% | 15 | 20.69% |97613 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8.75% |7 | 9.14% |43139 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8.75% |7 | 7.62% |35966 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7.50% |6 | 6.43% |30341 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5.00% |4 | 7.81% |36834 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3.75% |3 | 4.93% |23286 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3.75% |3 | 3.30% |15567 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3.75% |3 | 2.79% |13173 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.50% |2 | 2.64% |12434 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.50% |2 | 2.54% |11996 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.50% |2 | 2.38% |11247 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.50% |2 | 2.14% |10089 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.50% |2 | 2.13% |10064 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.50% |2 | 2.08% | 9813 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.50% |2 | 2.00% | 9459 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.50% |2 | 1.95% | 9190 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.50% |2 | 1.88% | 8890 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.25% |1 | 1.67% | 7884 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.25% |1 | 1.62% | 7643 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.25% |1 | 1.55% | 7297 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.25% |1 | 1.53% | 7228 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.25% |1 | 1.41% | 6650 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.25% |1 | 1.40% | 6596 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.25% |1 | 1.36% | 6420 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.25% |1 | 1.30% | 6112 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.25% |1 | 1.18% | 5546 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.25% |1 | 1.05% | 4977 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.25% |1 | 1.01% | 4770 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.25% |1 | 0.92% | 4356 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.25% |1 | 0.79% | 3709 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.25% |1 | 0.76% | 3568 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--++--+ 100.00% | 80 |100.00% | 471857 | Total ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Last Call: 'Softwire Problem Statement' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-softwire-problem-statement)
The IESG has received a request from the Softwires WG to consider the following document: - 'Softwire Problem Statement ' draft-ietf-softwire-problem-statement-02.txt as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2006-09-28. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-softwire-problem-statement-02.txt ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Protocol Action: 'Specifying Alternate Semantics for the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Field' to BCP
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Specifying Alternate Semantics for the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Field ' draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-alternates-02.txt as a BCP This document is the product of the Transport Area Working Group Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Lars Eggert and Magnus Westerlund. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-alternates-02.txt Technical Summary This document discusses how alternate semantics of the ECN field can co-exist where not all routers in a network are configured for a single interpretation of codepoints. Also discussed are the issues raised by nodes, including endsystems, configured for alternate-ECN usages. This document can be used as a means of migration from one alternate-ECN to another, where not all nodes can be configured to change at the same time. Additionally, means for a node (router) to determine which alternate to use with which packet is specified. And finally, this document discusses how well alternate-ECN traffic performs where it co-exists with competing traffic on a path. Working Group Summary There is strong consensus in the WG to publish this document. It has been reviewed by several people prior to the WG last call. Comments raised earlier have all been addressed. There are no outstanding open issues wrt this document. Protocol Quality This document has been well reviewed in the WG and comments raised have been addressed. James Polk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has acted as PROTO Document Shepherd for this document. Lars Eggert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has reviewed this document for the IESG. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
RFC 4641 on DNSSEC Operational Practices
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 4641 Title: DNSSEC Operational Practices Author: O. Kolkman, R. Gieben Status: Standards Track Date: September 2006 Mailbox:[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pages: 35 Characters: 79894 Obsoletes: RFC2541 See-Also: I-D Tag:draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-08.txt URL:http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4641.txt This document describes a set of practices for operating the DNS with security extensions (DNSSEC). The target audience is zone administrators deploying DNSSEC. The document discusses operational aspects of using keys and signatures in the DNS. It discusses issues of key generation, key storage, signature generation, key rollover, and related policies. This document obsoletes RFC 2541, as it covers more operational ground and gives more up-to-date requirements with respect to key sizes and the new DNSSEC specification. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza USC/Information Sciences Institute ... ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
