Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
At 07:04 p.m. 18/11/2008, Nicholas Weaver wrote: I would bet (but have no evidence) that the visa problem is almost specifically a chinese issue. It is NOT a chinese issue. I have got my USA visa, but it IS an issue to get it. Fernando Gont (from Argentina) -- Fernando Gont e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] IsUSA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
- Original Message - From: Dave CROCKER [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:03 PM Subject: Re: [73attendees] IsUSA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria? Surely there is enough choice in venue to permit a global organization like the IETF to select ones that put some effort into being friendly about participation by people from a wider set of countries? I find the USA a friendly country to visit for work. Homeland Security and its predecessors have requirements that I must meet, and these change with time. But I always know what there are (only sometimes lacking a precise date of introduction) so I can be prepared, going right back to B1 and B2 visas. I have never had any surprises when I arrive in Atlanta. And when things go wrong, eg forgetting to hand in the second part of the green card, then the solution is available, eg the web site to contact is in the national press every six months or so. There is no other country in the world where it is so easy to find out what to do, you just need to allow time to let it happen (eg don't have a connecting flight out of Atlanta one hour later). The USA is also incredibly well served by flights making it cheaper for me to travel from Europe to Minneapolis than it is to travel to eg Vienna or Estonia. The USA also shares a language - well, sort of - with that of the I-Ds so there is only one language to learn. Currency? Mmm could do with a weaker dollar right now, but that will change. By contrast, I have found Canada (Toronto) the most unfriendly place to arrive at, with the unexpected checks before I was (eventually) allowed in. Incidentally, what has Malta got going for it, that it should be the location of a Mega-Interim in less than two months time? Could it be the winter sunshine? Tom Petch Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FTP to HISTORIC? RE: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?
Not sure how wide this net is being cast but there has also been draft-ietf-secsh-scp-sftp-ssh-uri draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-extensions draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer Tom Petch - Original Message - From: SM [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Behave WG [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 6:51 PM Subject: Re: FTP to HISTORIC? RE: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion? At 08:43 14-11-2008, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: I propose that we either move FTP to historic or start a revision effort if there is sufficient interest in continuing it as a separate protocol from HTTP. There are a few I-D about FTP that have been submitted: FTP Extension Registry http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-ftp-registry-00.txt FTP Extension for Internationalized Text http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-ftp-typeu-00.txt Streamlined FTP Command Extensions http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-exten sions-06.txt FTP EXTENSION ALLOWING IP FORWARDING (NATs) http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenau-ftp-single-port-05.txt There were some discussion about one of the above I-Ds in Dublin. Regards, -sm ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73all] Google, Open Source Android
Hi, On 08-11-17 13:18, ext All IETF 73 Attendees [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IETF 73 Host Google will be holding a discussion of open source and the Android operating system on Thursday in Salon G from 1300 to 1400. I do believe that it is appropriate to let the sponsor or other external parties schedule the occasional session during an IETF week, but I find it very problematic if such non-IETF meetings are scheduled to conflict with our WG sessions. Lars smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73all] Google, Open Source Android
especially that particular slot... d/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, On 08-11-17 13:18, ext All IETF 73 Attendees [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IETF 73 Host Google will be holding a discussion of open source and the Android operating system on Thursday in Salon G from 1300 to 1400. I do believe that it is appropriate to let the sponsor or other external parties schedule the occasional session during an IETF week, but I find it very problematic if such non-IETF meetings are scheduled to conflict with our WG sessions. Lars ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3 of draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
No good can come of this thread. How about we wait a few months and see what happens after the fourth branch of government becomes part of the executive branch again on Jan 20th? On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:24 AM, YAO [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: according to IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04#section-2.3 which said 2.3. Freedom of Participation Meetings should not be held in countries where some attendees could be disallowed entry or where freedom of speech is not guaranteed for all participants. My question is : Is USA qualified for 2.3 of draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria as IETF Meeting Venue ? It seems that many IETFer are disallowed to enter USA for ietf meeting when ietf is held in USA this time or other times ___ 73attendees mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees -- Author: The dotCrime Manifesto: How to Stop Internet Crime http://dotcrimemanifesto.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
How would you solve the problem? hold the meetings in non-terrorist countries. i.e. not the united states. randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
On Nov 18, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Scott Brim wrote: Excerpts from Randy Bush on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 10:39:57AM -0600: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there will be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year alone. thank you for demonstrating so clearly the jingoistic prejudice at the us government level that should preclude ietf being held in the united states. How would you solve the problem? Let 100 million people in on false pretenses? I'm not going to defend the behavior of the US government, but I want you to admit that US immigration has a difficult problem. Slinging labels around doesn't help. Remember, the IETF is NOT special. There are tens of thousands of conferences, and they are all pretty much need-to-be-treated equal. If the US gave effectively carte blanch to conference attendees, you would have no immigration controls, period, as this would be a big enough loophole to fly an A380 through. The Visa issue in the US is serious, but how many people are really affected by this? We need hard data, because the notion of simply not holding IETF meetings in a terrorist country is not effective. And if you want to do Visa issues as a criteria, you can strongly argue that all IETF meeting SHOULD be in a country where a visa is not required for travel for EU, US, Japanese, and Canadian citizens. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Based on my knowledge, for Chinese citizens there is no any problem to get the visa to other countries except US. _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Quigley Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:56 PM To: Nicholas Weaver Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria? Disclaimer: What I say here are my words and don't represent the views of my employer. From what I see here the issues are mostly experienced by Chinese citizens. Most of the other countries have reciprocal visa agreements with the US. China however doesn't have that agreement with Ireland, Sweden, Japan, or the US. Were there similar problems with gaining entrance into Ireland? Will there be similar issues with gaining entrance into Sweden or Japan? Dave On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Nicholas Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 18, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Scott Brim wrote: Excerpts from Randy Bush on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 10:39:57AM -0600: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there will be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year alone. thank you for demonstrating so clearly the jingoistic prejudice at the us government level that should preclude ietf being held in the united states. How would you solve the problem? Let 100 million people in on false pretenses? I'm not going to defend the behavior of the US government, but I want you to admit that US immigration has a difficult problem. Slinging labels around doesn't help. Remember, the IETF is NOT special. There are tens of thousands of conferences, and they are all pretty much need-to-be-treated equal. If the US gave effectively carte blanch to conference attendees, you would have no immigration controls, period, as this would be a big enough loophole to fly an A380 through. The Visa issue in the US is serious, but how many people are really affected by this? We need hard data, because the notion of simply not holding IETF meetings in a terrorist country is not effective. And if you want to do Visa issues as a criteria, you can strongly argue that all IETF meeting SHOULD be in a country where a visa is not required for travel for EU, US, Japanese, and Canadian citizens. ___ 73attendees mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
There might be few cases due to mishandling of the visa application (such as late submission or document missing). In general, there shouldn't be a problem to get a visa to other countries especially for a business visa to attend conference. -Original Message- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:09 PM To: Yi Zhao Cc: 'David Quigley'; 'Nicholas Weaver'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria? Yi Zhao wrote: Based on my knowledge, for Chinese citizens there is no any problem to get the visa to other countries except US. I know for a fact that several of your countrymen have had trouble obtaining visas for other recent IETF destinations. *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *David Quigley *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:56 PM *To:* Nicholas Weaver *Cc:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria? Disclaimer: What I say here are my words and don't represent the views of my employer. From what I see here the issues are mostly experienced by Chinese citizens. Most of the other countries have reciprocal visa agreements with the US. China however doesn't have that agreement with Ireland, Sweden, Japan, or the US. Were there similar problems with gaining entrance into Ireland? Will there be similar issues with gaining entrance into Sweden or Japan? Dave On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Nicholas Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 18, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Scott Brim wrote: Excerpts from Randy Bush on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 10:39:57AM -0600: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there will be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year alone. thank you for demonstrating so clearly the jingoistic prejudice at the us government level that should preclude ietf being held in the united states. How would you solve the problem? Let 100 million people in on false pretenses? I'm not going to defend the behavior of the US government, but I want you to admit that US immigration has a difficult problem. Slinging labels around doesn't help. Remember, the IETF is NOT special. There are tens of thousands of conferences, and they are all pretty much need-to-be-treated equal. If the US gave effectively carte blanch to conference attendees, you would have no immigration controls, period, as this would be a big enough loophole to fly an A380 through. The Visa issue in the US is serious, but how many people are really affected by this? We need hard data, because the notion of simply not holding IETF meetings in a terrorist country is not effective. And if you want to do Visa issues as a criteria, you can strongly argue that all IETF meeting SHOULD be in a country where a visa is not required for travel for EU, US, Japanese, and Canadian citizens. ___ 73attendees mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees ___ 73attendees mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Melinda Shore wrote: Is the issue the visa requirement itself or is it how visas are processed? from my pov, the latter. is it easy for folk from all countries to get to the ietf meetings? for example, that chinese have problems getting to this meeting is a major and embarrassing disaster. randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [73attendees] Is USAqualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
You can find document statistics here which detail where the authors of our life and blood come from: http://www.arkko.com/tools/docstats Take a look at the one for authors of current drafts here: http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/d-countryeudistr.html Could not find the meeting participation statistics, although I am sure they are lurking somewhere. regards Keith -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Livingood, Jason Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:56 PM To: Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo); ext Joel Jaeggli; Yi Zhao Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USAqualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria? I recall stats from IETF 71 (which may be out of date). I believe at that time, 48% of attendees were from the U.S. Next was Japan with 9%, then China with 5.7%. If I recall correctly, this was a good number of attendees from China, but I do not know how that compared to IETF 72 or to IETF 73. Is the visa issue for visitors from all countries coming to the U.S., or is this specific to Chinese citizens coming to the U.S. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo) Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 3:28 PM To: ext Joel Jaeggli; Yi Zhao Cc: 'David Quigley'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Nicholas Weaver'; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria? Hi everybody, In the IAOC, we have followed the visa situation for different nations closely. It is obviously in the benefit for the IETF to have all the participants that want and need to come to the IETF could also come. Historically, the IETF community has indicated the preference of having a big part of the meetings in the North American region. This makes us often come to the USA. Traditionally a major part of the participation is from the North American region. Of course, we should periodically check this policy, and also follow the visa situation very carefully. I think it would be good for people that were trying to come to the IETF and couldn't to tell the IAD or me what happened. Accurate data is very important. Cheers, Jonne. On 11/18/08 10:08 PM, ext Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yi Zhao wrote: Based on my knowledge, for Chinese citizens there is no any problem to get the visa to other countries except US. I know for a fact that several of your countrymen have had trouble obtaining visas for other recent IETF destinations. - --- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *David Quigley *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:56 PM *To:* Nicholas Weaver *Cc:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria? Disclaimer: What I say here are my words and don't represent the views of my employer. From what I see here the issues are mostly experienced by Chinese citizens. Most of the other countries have reciprocal visa agreements with the US. China however doesn't have that agreement with Ireland, Sweden, Japan, or the US. Were there similar problems with gaining entrance into Ireland? Will there be similar issues with gaining entrance into Sweden or Japan? Dave On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Nicholas Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 18, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Scott Brim wrote: Excerpts from Randy Bush on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 10:39:57AM -0600: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there will be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year alone. thank you for demonstrating so clearly the jingoistic prejudice at the us government level that should preclude ietf being held in the united states. How would you solve the problem? Let 100 million people in on false pretenses? I'm not going to defend the behavior of the US government, but I want you to admit that US immigration has a difficult problem. Slinging labels around doesn't help. Remember, the IETF is NOT special. There are tens of thousands of conferences, and they are all pretty much need-to-be-treated equal. If the US gave effectively carte
Re: [73attendees] Is USAqualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
- Original Message - From: Nicholas Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Livingood, Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Nicholas Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo) [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 6:04 AM Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USAqualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria? On Nov 18, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote: I recall stats from IETF 71 (which may be out of date). I believe at that time, 48% of attendees were from the U.S. Next was Japan with 9%, then China with 5.7%. If I recall correctly, this was a good number of attendees from China, but I do not know how that compared to IETF 72 or to IETF 73. Is the visa issue for visitors from all countries coming to the U.S., or is this specific to Chinese citizens coming to the U.S. Jason The US offers a large number in the Visa Waiver program: http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html Which is basically EU + Japan + australia, yes, sure. all these countries are developed countries. IETFers from developing countries are not easy to get a visa to USA. Plus Canada under a different category. I would bet (but have no evidence) that the visa problem is almost specifically a chinese issue. ___ 73attendees mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Excerpts from Randy Bush on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 10:39:57AM -0600: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there will be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year alone. thank you for demonstrating so clearly the jingoistic prejudice at the us government level that should preclude ietf being held in the united states. How would you solve the problem? Let 100 million people in on false pretenses? I'm not going to defend the behavior of the US government, but I want you to admit that US immigration has a difficult problem. Slinging labels around doesn't help. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3 of draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
On Nov 18, 2008, at 00:24, YAO wrote: It seems that many IETFer are disallowed to enter USA for ietf meeting when ietf is held in USA this time or other times Has anyone been denied entry to the USA for IETF 73, without official explanation, despite their including an IETF invitation with their timely visa application to U.S. authorities? If so, then that might be something worth investigating. -- james woodyatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] member of technical staff, communications engineering ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Disclaimer: What I say here are my words and don't represent the views of my employer. From what I see here the issues are mostly experienced by Chinese citizens. Most of the other countries have reciprocal visa agreements with the US. China however doesn't have that agreement with Ireland, Sweden, Japan, or the US. Were there similar problems with gaining entrance into Ireland? Will there be similar issues with gaining entrance into Sweden or Japan? Dave On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Nicholas Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Nov 18, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Scott Brim wrote: Excerpts from Randy Bush on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 10:39:57AM -0600: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe our US government would like to grant visas to as many people as they can. However, if anyone wants to attend a meeting in the US is granted a visa to come here, then I can imagine there will be 100 million visa applications for the IETF meeting in CA next year alone. thank you for demonstrating so clearly the jingoistic prejudice at the us government level that should preclude ietf being held in the united states. How would you solve the problem? Let 100 million people in on false pretenses? I'm not going to defend the behavior of the US government, but I want you to admit that US immigration has a difficult problem. Slinging labels around doesn't help. Remember, the IETF is NOT special. There are tens of thousands of conferences, and they are all pretty much need-to-be-treated equal. If the US gave effectively carte blanch to conference attendees, you would have no immigration controls, period, as this would be a big enough loophole to fly an A380 through. The Visa issue in the US is serious, but how many people are really affected by this? We need hard data, because the notion of simply not holding IETF meetings in a terrorist country is not effective. And if you want to do Visa issues as a criteria, you can strongly argue that all IETF meeting SHOULD be in a country where a visa is not required for travel for EU, US, Japanese, and Canadian citizens. ___ 73attendees mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/73attendees ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [73attendees] Is USAqualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Let's also not forget that Mexico is also part of North America. The percentage of IETF meetings targeted for North America could actually theoretically be hosted in any of those three countries (USA, Canada, Mexico) and still benefit from excellent worldwide air travel support. From: James Seng [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Holding meeting in Canada may not sound like a bad idea actually. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
On Nov 18, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo) wrote: I think it would be good for people that were trying to come to the IETF and couldn't to tell the IAD or me what happened. Accurate data is very important. I spoke with colleagues at Tsinghua last night. Apparently some 30 people that had intended to come from China were unable to for visa reasons. The issue is basically the US Embassy; they have historically gone out of their way in what appears to be a concerted effort to make Chinese travel to the US difficult. Last year I brought a post-doc from Xian to give a talk, and the embassy process took a couple of months including rewriting the letter of support to include a specific sequence of words that appeared to be important to someone. That of course goes both ways; going to China is never trivial for me, and last summer it was a real issue. And we could discuss Russia; last year when I spoke on a panel chaired by the head of Department K of the Interior Ministry (Cybercrime), the FSB decided they additionally needed to review the application, and told me that they would reach a decision on the day I was scheduled to speak at RANS. If we discount US locations, we may also be forced to discount those. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
On Nov 18, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote: Is the visa issue for visitors from all countries coming to the U.S., or is this specific to Chinese citizens coming to the U.S. My understanding, which others should corroborate, is that it relates to specific countries. China is the one I hear about, and I know Russia to be on the list. I wouldn't be too surprised to find middle- eastern countries to have some issues; a few months ago the customs people asked me about a 2005 visa to Afghanistan in my passport, and my son was asked some questions following a month-long study tour in Cairo, and we are US citizens. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
On Nov 18, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote: I recall stats from IETF 71 (which may be out of date). I believe at that time, 48% of attendees were from the U.S. Next was Japan with 9%, then China with 5.7%. If I recall correctly, this was a good number of attendees from China, but I do not know how that compared to IETF 72 or to IETF 73. Is the visa issue for visitors from all countries coming to the U.S., or is this specific to Chinese citizens coming to the U.S. Jason The US offers a large number in the Visa Waiver program: http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html Which is basically EU + Japan + australia, Plus Canada under a different category. I would bet (but have no evidence) that the visa problem is almost specifically a chinese issue. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
That of course goes both ways; going to China is never trivial for me, and last summer it was a real issue. I think YMMV. Over the summer my wife got a Chinese visa in 24 hour turn-around from a Visa office 190 miles from our home without having to visit. But then we live in the UK. Adrian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Fred Baker wrote: I would be hesitant to drag the IETF into world politics; the law of Unintended Consequences was invented to describe politics, I think. It's not a matter of being dragged into politics. (Or at least, it shouldn't be.) It's essentially an engineering task of working to maximize the ability of people to attend IETF meetings, by looking for venues where visa processing is the least problematic. That does not mean no visas or anything else simplistic, except that border controls do not impose undue and unpredictable barriers. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The folks to contact are the IAOC. The IETF Chair is on the IAOC. As to visa issues, as Randy opines, the issue tends to be visa processing. Depending on country pair, there are interesting issues around the globe. You're absolutely right! This is an issue which has come up time and time again. At IETF Dublin, some attendants did not manage to get an Irish Visa in time. At ICANN Cairo, some attendants from some other middle eastern country got their visa application refused. Wherever you stage the next IETF meeting, there will be Visa issues for somebody, such is the international reach of IETF and such is life. O. -- Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D Global Information Highway Ltd http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Dave, The IAOC is aware of the situation with respect to visas for visitors from mainland China at this particular IETF meeting. Generally speaking, applicants are NOT refused visas, they just don't get a reply (or a visa) in time and they may never get a reply at all. We are not sure what happened this time, but we believe the no reply rate was much higher than normal and we will be working with various parties to try to make this easier in the future. It's worth noting that the visa situation for most countries in the world is by no means static so it's not just as simple as picking a list of venues with the most favorable visa situation, as this may have changed by the time we get round to having the meeting --- which, as you know, we try to schedule as far in advance as possible, in the 1 - 2 year range. As for being dragged into politics, this is unfortunately not easy to avoid either. I probably don't need to mention the three^H^H^H^H^Hone China issue for example. Ole (IAOC Meetings subcommittee chair) Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Dave CROCKER wrote: It's not a matter of being dragged into politics. (Or at least, it shouldn't be.) It's essentially an engineering task of working to maximize the ability of people to attend IETF meetings, by looking for venues where visa processing is the least problematic. That does not mean no visas or anything else simplistic, except that border controls do not impose undue and unpredictable barriers. d/ -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Dave CROCKER wrote: It's not a matter of being dragged into politics. (Or at least, it shouldn't be.) It's essentially an engineering task of working to maximize the ability of people to attend IETF meetings, by looking for venues where visa processing is the least problematic. That does not mean no visas or anything else simplistic, except that border controls do not impose undue and unpredictable barriers. That is a one dimensional view of a multiple dimensional problem. The object should be to maximize the ability of people to attend IETF meetings. Ignoring the point made that contextual issues often change between when a meeting is scheduled and when it actually happens, predictable visa process has to share the stage with travel costs, perception of personal safety, etc. Finding a venue with no visa issues may also be a venue where average travel cost is doubled or more. I submit that is not a solution. Finding a venue with no visa issues and no local sponsor is not optimal. Etc. I think it will be much more productive to focus on how to minimize the visa process instability associated with travel to an already selected venue then to try and select a venue whose current visa rules are very tolerant. Having seen this subject many times over the past few years, it is clear to me that starting the process early to obtain a clear set of procedures from the venue country and making sure all of the steps are known and in place well in advance is the best way to mitigate the problem. I suspect that travel industry professionals know the 3sigma processing time for visa applications to other countries from their country. Use that expertise to plan timelines for encouraging attendees to start the process. Etc. David Morris ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Plenary Online Experiment
It is my pleasure to announce another experiment. People are invited to join the IETF 73 online Plenary meeting. Topic: IETF73 Plenary Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 Time: 3:00 pm, Central Standard Time (GMT -06:00, Chicago) Meeting Number: 925 685 107 Meeting Password: IETF73 Please use the link below to see more information, or to join the meeting. --- To join the online meeting --- 1. Go to h t t p s : / / c i s c o s ales.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?ED=110978912UID=0PW=0e56c038797c65750507 2. Enter your name and email address. 3. Enter the meeting password: IETF73 4. Click Join Now. 5. A 'Join Teleconference' dialogue box will be presented, select your country code, then enter your local number and click OK from the Web Conference to join the Voice Conference portion of the meeting. --- To join the teleconference only --- 1. Dial into Cisco WebEx (view all Global Access Numbers at http://cisco.com/en/US/about/doing_business/conferencing/index.html 2. Press 3 to attend the meeting. 3. Follow the prompts to enter the Meeting Number (listed above) or Access Code followed by the # sign. US/Canada: +1.866.432.9903 United Kingdom: +44.20.8824.0117 India: +91.80.4103.3979 Germany: +49.619.6773.9002 Japan: +81.3.5763.9394 China: +86.10.8515.5666 Toll-free dialing restrictions: http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf --- For assistance --- 1. Go to https://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/mc 2. On the left navigation bar, click Support. You can contact me at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (+32) 476 476 022 To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: h t t p s : / / c i s c o s a l e s ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plenary Online Experiment
Am 19.11.2008 um 21:48 schrieb IETF Chair: 1. Dial into Cisco WebEx (view all Global Access Numbers at http://cisco.com/en/US/about/doing_business/conferencing/index.html Hello ? http://www.dimdim.com does the same and is opensource thanks Marc -- If you're not confused, You're not paying attention Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment Marc Manthey - head of research and innovation Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 Köln - Germany Tel.:0049-221-3558032 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 jabber :[EMAIL PROTECTED] blog : http://www.let.de ipv6 http://stattfernsehen.com xing : https://www.xing.com/profile/Marc_Manthey ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Plenary Online Experiment
It may be an artifact of email or I may have missed some earlier relevant exchanges, but I am a bit surprised that it is announced for the first time ~ 10 minutes before the event... Of course some of us can't attend in such cases... Stephane -Original Message- From: IETF Chair [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:48 PM To: IETF Announcement list Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Plenary Online Experiment It is my pleasure to announce another experiment. People are invited to join the IETF 73 online Plenary meeting. Topic: IETF73 Plenary Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 Time: 3:00 pm, Central Standard Time (GMT -06:00, Chicago) Meeting Number: 925 685 107 Meeting Password: IETF73 Please use the link below to see more information, or to join the meeting. --- To join the online meeting --- 1. Go to h t t p s : / / c i s c o s ales.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?ED=110978912UID=0PW=0e56c038797c65750507 2. Enter your name and email address. 3. Enter the meeting password: IETF73 4. Click Join Now. 5. A 'Join Teleconference' dialogue box will be presented, select your country code, then enter your local number and click OK from the Web Conference to join the Voice Conference portion of the meeting. --- To join the teleconference only --- 1. Dial into Cisco WebEx (view all Global Access Numbers at http://cisco.com/en/US/about/doing_business/conferencing/index.html 2. Press 3 to attend the meeting. 3. Follow the prompts to enter the Meeting Number (listed above) or Access Code followed by the # sign. US/Canada: +1.866.432.9903 United Kingdom: +44.20.8824.0117 India: +91.80.4103.3979 Germany: +49.619.6773.9002 Japan: +81.3.5763.9394 China: +86.10.8515.5666 Toll-free dialing restrictions: http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf --- For assistance --- 1. Go to https://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/mc 2. On the left navigation bar, click Support. You can contact me at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (+32) 476 476 022 To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: h t t p s : / / c i s c o s a l e s ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plenary Online Experiment
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Stephane H Maes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It may be an artifact of email or I may have missed some earlier relevant exchanges, but I am a bit surprised that it is announced for the first time ~ 10 minutes before the event... Of course some of us can't attend in such cases... I hadn't noticed any announcements about it prior to the one at about 3:50p EST today, but chalked it up to the experimental nature. I'm looking forward to the day when there's full remote attendance capability for the plenaries. -- /Daniel P. Brown http://www.parasane.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plenary Online Experiment
Are you volunteering to set this up next time ? I think that such an offer would be gladly accepted. Regards Marshall On Nov 19, 2008, at 3:55 PM, Marc Manthey wrote: Am 19.11.2008 um 21:48 schrieb IETF Chair: 1. Dial into Cisco WebEx (view all Global Access Numbers at http://cisco.com/en/US/about/doing_business/conferencing/index.html Hello ? http://www.dimdim.com does the same and is opensource thanks Marc -- If you're not confused, You're not paying attention Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment Marc Manthey - head of research and innovation Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 Köln - Germany Tel.:0049-221-3558032 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 jabber :[EMAIL PROTECTED] blog : http://www.let.de ipv6 http://stattfernsehen.com xing : https://www.xing.com/profile/Marc_Manthey ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
I was trying not to comment on this thread but frankly, I think it is important to offer a different perspective regarding the prioritization to consider. I am not judging adequacy of a particular location. I am sure other locations may pose problems. I do understand the frustration felt with US locations and I have seen this problem take place with other standard meetings than IETF (e.g. OMA in Chicago in August had many delegates (mostly from China but not only from China) unable to attend also for the same reasons and despite OMA having a much more formal company level membership based approach...). But reading the below, I have heard too often attendance #s and sponsorship considerations used to justify overlooking disenfranchisement, and it is simply not OK... I think that if we aim at being an open standard organization, the highest priority must always be to not disenfranchise any IETF participants. While IETF offer safeguards and other mechanisms (e.g. email discussions) to reflect different views, being unable to attend meetings can be considered as severely impairing participation. o knowingly have locations that would prevent the participation of some should be treated as a major issue as it disenfranchises and it could be construed as a way to favor certain agendas. Other considerations like sponsorship, amount of attendees may matter but they are second order considerations that do not compare to the need to address disenfranchisement first... In fact a fairer view could be that if IETF can't address it for a specific meeting, may be IETF should simply not hold the meeting instead of justifying moving ahead because others can attend... If some can't attend, none should be given the advantage to attend and have their agenda pushed forward. That is imply not OK not matter where, why it happens etc... I am sure that view may be controversial for some. That's not my intention and I am not that inclined to argue it further... But I wanted to make sure that if this discussion is continued, such a point of view is also captured and documented... I hope it help. Thanks Stephane -Original Message- From: David Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:21 PM Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria? On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Dave CROCKER wrote: It's not a matter of being dragged into politics. (Or at least, it shouldn't be.) It's essentially an engineering task of working to maximize the ability of people to attend IETF meetings, by looking for venues where visa processing is the least problematic. That does not mean no visas or anything else simplistic, except that border controls do not impose undue and unpredictable barriers. That is a one dimensional view of a multiple dimensional problem. The object should be to maximize the ability of people to attend IETF meetings. Ignoring the point made that contextual issues often change between when a meeting is scheduled and when it actually happens, predictable visa process has to share the stage with travel costs, perception of personal safety, etc. Finding a venue with no visa issues may also be a venue where average travel cost is doubled or more. I submit that is not a solution. Finding a venue with no visa issues and no local sponsor is not optimal. Etc. I think it will be much more productive to focus on how to minimize the visa process instability associated with travel to an already selected venue then to try and select a venue whose current visa rules are very tolerant. Having seen this subject many times over the past few years, it is clear to me that starting the process early to obtain a clear set of procedures from the venue country and making sure all of the steps are known and in place well in advance is the best way to mitigate the problem. I suspect that travel industry professionals know the 3sigma processing time for visa applications to other countries from their country. Use that expertise to plan timelines for encouraging attendees to start the process. Etc. David Morris ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Ole Jacobsen wrote: speaking, applicants are NOT refused visas, they just don't get a reply (or a visa) in time and they may never get a reply at all. The key point is that there was a pattern of failure to get a visa. To me, the remaining details are purely secondary. We are not sure what happened this time, but we believe the no reply rate was much higher than normal and we will be working with various parties to try to make this easier in the future. My concern is with hearing about a pattern of problems over the last several years, for people from a range of countries. The issue is not specific to this meeting or a single country. Added to this, of course, is that in the last few years, the U.S. has lost its Most Favored Nation status as a travel destination No venue will be perfect, but among the complex mix of factors affecting choice of IETF meeting sites, travel hassles that include government bureaucracy and social (dis)favor ought to be included, to the extent that we have evidence they affect attendance. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd (DNS-Based Service Discovery) to Informational RFC
--On November 4, 2008 6:28:19 -0800 The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'DNS-Based Service Discovery ' draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-05.txt as an Informational RFC As a technical contributor and end user, I strongly support publication of this document, although I would prefer it was on the standards track. I very much appreciate the text discussing why certain design decisions were made, as well as mentioning implementation/UI issues where people made mistakes in the past. Other comments: Section 4: The Instance portion of the Service Instance Name is a single DNS label, containing arbitrary precomposed (Unicode Normalization Form C [UAX15]) UTF-8-encoded text [RFC 3629]. Have you considered referencing RFC 5198 instead? It's based on the same normalization form, but has some minor restrictions/clarifications that are likely to improve interoperability. As your current text allows line breaks (was that intentional?) it would be helpful to have a canonical form for line breaks that 5198 defines. If you didn't intend to allow line breaks you might want to recommend against their use as well. intended to ever be typed in by a user accessing a service; the user accesses a service by selecting its name from a list of choices presented on the screen. Since this list may also be presented by a screen reader to the blind, and selection from the list is a mandatory part of the user experience, have you considered adding a way to include a language tag to assist screen readers in their translation to voice? BCP 18 has some discussion of this. Is there implementation experience that a language tag is not necessary for this situation? Section 19: What is the title of the registry that will be listed on IANA's web page? Do you believe it would be possible to merge the new service registry with this one: http://www.iana.org/assignments/gssapi-service-names creating a single service-name registry shared by these protocols? Thanks, - Chris ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plenary Online Experiment
Am 19.11.2008 um 23:47 schrieb Marshall Eubanks: Are you volunteering to set this up next time ? I think that such an offer would be gladly accepted. as you know i am a flash_hater ;) but seriously I ´ve meet a very talented motivated young C ++ programmer and we started implementing our_own_crossplattform _opensource_software_project. Its in a very early stage but hopefully at the 74 meeting we could have something in our hands. Would it be possible when we give it to the IETF , that we get an invitation for attending to the next meeting when we would make a presentation out of it ? regards Marc -- web : http://dev.let.de PGP/GnuPG: 0x1ac02f3296b12b4d jabber :[EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards Marshall http://www.dimdim.com does the same and is opensource ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plenary Online Experiment
On Nov 19, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Marc Manthey wrote: Am 19.11.2008 um 23:47 schrieb Marshall Eubanks: Are you volunteering to set this up next time ? I think that such an offer would be gladly accepted. as you know i am a flash_hater ;) but seriously I ´ve meet a very talented motivated young C ++ programmer and we started implementing our_own_crossplattform _opensource_software_project. Its in a very early stage but hopefully at the 74 meeting we could have something in our hands. There have been a number of lists circulating of various sorts of audio / video / data conferencing and collaborating technologies that we might consider. I think that a BOF on this topic in San Francisco, with support of multiple protocols as a test, might be very useful here. Regards Would it be possible when we give it to the IETF , that we get an invitation for attending to the next meeting when we would make a presentation out of it ? regards Marc -- web : http://dev.let.de PGP/GnuPG: 0x1ac02f3296b12b4d jabber :[EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards Marshall http://www.dimdim.com does the same and is opensource ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] IsUSA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
I think we could easily replay responses from similar threads involving previous IETFs, and no one would notice. Let me try to suggest a conclusion that should be generally easy to support: 1. We have problems, severe problems in people's ability to participate 2. The problems vary in place and quantity 3. We have zero effect on politics 4. Canada is nice country 5. Rotation spreads the pain With this in mind, I think my input to the IAOC is that you should pay attention to #4 and #5; four out of the six meetings on the meeting list are in the U.S. Of course, you also need to think about other things, such as getting sponsors or finding hotels. The combined optimization problem is not trivial and I don't envy your task... Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plenary Online Experiment
Am 20.11.2008 um 00:14 schrieb Marshall Eubanks: On Nov 19, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Marc Manthey wrote: Am 19.11.2008 um 23:47 schrieb Marshall Eubanks: Are you volunteering to set this up next time ? I think that such an offer would be gladly accepted. as you know i am a flash_hater ;) but seriously I ´ve meet a very talented motivated young C ++ programmer and we started implementing our_own_crossplattform _opensource_software_project. Its in a very early stage but hopefully at the 74 meeting we could have something in our hands. There have been a number of lists circulating of various sorts of audio / video / data conferencing and collaborating technologies that we might consider. I think that a BOF on this topic in San Francisco, with support of multiple protocols as a test, might be very useful here. 1. ) we are on the other side of the world, 2. ) we look like terrorists ;) 3. ) we dont like aiplanes that much, ( thats the reason why we like to accomplish something like this by the way ; )) Is there any specific lists that i migh join to get information about votings or pro and cons for a specific system thats the IEFT might choose , so i could catch up and we could improve things while we work on it. Guess i will use the jabber / streaming stuff anyway to get informed greetings marc Regards Would it be possible when we give it to the IETF , that we get an invitation for attending to the next meeting when we would make a presentation out of it ? regards Marc -- web : http://dev.let.de PGP/GnuPG: 0x1ac02f3296b12b4d jabber :[EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards Marshall http://www.dimdim.com does the same and is opensource ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plenary Online Experiment
Guess i will use the jabber / streaming stuff anyway to get informed As long as people upload their slides to the meeting materials page, I find this works very well. But I think the idea of experimenting with a variety of more recent tools is a good one. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plenary Online Experiment
Am 20.11.2008 um 00:43 schrieb Brian E Carpenter: Guess i will use the jabber / streaming stuff anyway to get informed As long as people upload their slides to the meeting materials page, I find this works very well. But I think the idea of experimenting with a variety of more recent tools is a good one. yes deffinitly i was looking at http://farsight.freedesktop.org/apidoc/farsight2/ aswell , but there is several discussion , because its a bit blown up An opensource_skype_alternative is on the FSF TOP priority list aswell !! http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority.html#skypereplacement and this is worth to have a look at too http://sip-communicator.org/ greetings Marc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Stephane H Maes wrote: I think that if we aim at being an open standard organization, the highest priority must always be to not disenfranchise any IETF participants. If you really believe that, it follows that meeting fees (and meeting expenses in general) need to be drastically reduced. Otherwise we are disenfranchising those who cannot afford to attend with the current fee structure. It also follows that we need to find another model of funding the Secretariat. For those reasons I think it's hard to defend the notion that not disenfranchising participants is the highest priority. We're supposed to be an engineering organization. Engineering is supposed to be an exercise in pragmatism. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plenary Online Experiment
On Nov 19, 2008, at 2:48 PM, IETF Chair wrote: It is my pleasure to announce another experiment. People are invited to join the IETF 73 online Plenary meeting. Having been a remote participant for multiple past IETF meetings, I definitely applaud any experiments like this that provide more methods to include people who cannot travel to the actual meeting.[1] I would encourage more such experiments for future meetings including such things as streaming video. As others have noted, there are a great number of new services available that make providing these services much easier than it has been before. However, can we *please* put out notice of such experiments with more than 30 minutes notice? It's great that today's plenaries are going out through a web collaboration tool, but it's tough to get that information out to people without much notice. Thanks, Dan [1] And MANY thanks to the teams that provide the audio streaming and Jabber server as they are a huge benefit to remote participants. -- Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology Office of the CTOVoxeo Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com Build voice applications based on open standards. Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plenary Online Experiment
Am 19.11.2008 um 21:48 schrieb IETF Chair: --- To join the online meeting --- 1. Go to https://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?ED=110978912UID=0PW=0e56c038797c65750507 dear chairs, i would recoment using the up to date techniques to annouce future meetings, http://twitter.com/ieft is available see how much people you can reach here http://twitter.com/BarackObama To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: https//ciscosaes regards Marc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plenary Online Experiment
Am 20.11.2008 um 06:30 schrieb Marc Manthey: Am 19.11.2008 um 21:48 schrieb IETF Chair: --- To join the online meeting --- 1. Go to https://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?ED=110978912UID=0PW=0e56c038797c65750507 dear chairs, i would recoment using the up to date techniques to annouce future meetings, http://twitter.com/ieft is available ops sorry stupid typo, had no coffee :( account created http://twitter.com/IETF and password send to ietf@ietf.org regards Marc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Protocol Action: 'Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions' to Proposed Standard
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions ' draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-09.txt as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Sieve Mail Filtering Language Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Lisa Dusseault and Chris Newman. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-09.txt Technical Summary This memo updates the definition of the Sieve mail filtering language reject extension, originally defined in RFC 3028. The original Sieve reject action defined in RFC 3028 required use of MDNs for rejecting messages, thus contributing to the spam to victims of certain spoofing attacks. This memo allows messages to be refused during the SMTP transaction, and defines the ereject action to require messages to be refused during the SMTP transaction, if possible. Working Group Summary There is controversy, because the original author of the document, Matthew Elvey, objected during IETF Last Call, and does not like some of the decisions made by the WG. Elvey asked until the beginning of September to explain his objections and we are still waiting for these explanations. The WG chairs feel they have rough WG consensus on the document, particularly around the choices that Elvey disapproves of. Document Quality This is a revision to an existing standard, based on implementation and deployment experience. Thus, the quality of the document reflects that actual experience and feedback. Personnel Lisa Dusseault reviewed this document for the IESG. RFC Editor Note (Insert RFC Editor Note here or remove section) IESG Note (Insert IESG Note here or remove section) IANA Note (Insert IANA Note here or remove section) ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Protocol Action: 'Quality of Service (QoS) Mechanism Selection in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)' to Proposed Standard
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Quality of Service (QoS) Mechanism Selection in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) ' draft-ietf-mmusic-qos-identification-03.txt as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Cullen Jennings and Jon Peterson. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-qos-identification-03.txt Technical Summary This document defines SDP extensions for endpoints to indicate explicitly which QoS mechanisms they support end-to-end. Working Group Summary The MMUSIC Working Group has consensus to publish this document as a Proposed Standard. Document Quality The document received reviews from Dave Oran and Flemming Andreasen. Personnel The Document Shepherd is Jean-Francois Mule, and the Responsible Area Director is Cullen Jennings. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Document Action: 'Improved Extensible Authentication Protocol Method for 3rd Generation Authentication and Key Agreement (EAP-AKA')' to Informational RFC
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Improved Extensible Authentication Protocol Method for 3rd Generation Authentication and Key Agreement (EAP-AKA') ' draft-arkko-eap-aka-kdf-10.txt as an Informational RFC This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG contact person is Russ Housley. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-arkko-eap-aka-kdf-10.txt Technical Summary This specification defines a new EAP method, EAP-AKA', a small revision of the EAP-AKA method. The change is a new key derivation function that binds the keys derived within the method to the name of the access network. The new key derivation mechanism has been defined in 3GPP. This specification allows its use in EAP in an interoperable manner. In addition, EAP-AKA' employs SHA-256 instead of SHA-1. Working Group Summary This document is not the product of any IETF WG. However, it has been discussed in 3GPP SA3 group. Protocol Quality Several reviews have been obtained. The document was reviewed by Russ Housley for the IESG. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Plenary Online Experiment
It is my pleasure to announce another experiment. People are invited to join the IETF 73 online Plenary meeting. Topic: IETF73 Plenary Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 Time: 3:00 pm, Central Standard Time (GMT -06:00, Chicago) Meeting Number: 925 685 107 Meeting Password: IETF73 Please use the link below to see more information, or to join the meeting. --- To join the online meeting --- 1. Go to h t t p s : / / c i s c o s ales.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?ED=110978912UID=0PW=0e56c038797c65750507 2. Enter your name and email address. 3. Enter the meeting password: IETF73 4. Click Join Now. 5. A 'Join Teleconference' dialogue box will be presented, select your country code, then enter your local number and click OK from the Web Conference to join the Voice Conference portion of the meeting. --- To join the teleconference only --- 1. Dial into Cisco WebEx (view all Global Access Numbers at http://cisco.com/en/US/about/doing_business/conferencing/index.html 2. Press 3 to attend the meeting. 3. Follow the prompts to enter the Meeting Number (listed above) or Access Code followed by the # sign. US/Canada: +1.866.432.9903 United Kingdom: +44.20.8824.0117 India: +91.80.4103.3979 Germany: +49.619.6773.9002 Japan: +81.3.5763.9394 China: +86.10.8515.5666 Toll-free dialing restrictions: http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf --- For assistance --- 1. Go to https://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/mc 2. On the left navigation bar, click Support. You can contact me at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (+32) 476 476 022 To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: h t t p s : / / c i s c o s a l e s ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
