Re: IETF 83 Venue

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Jan 21, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> GMT still exists as a legal construct and could well prove useful since it is 
> ultimately under control of HMG, quite possibly it can be modified by as 
> little as an order in council.
> 
> So if HMG would eliminate the inanity of leap seconds in GMT we could 
> probably move most computer systems back to GMT rather than UTC as a 
> reference point.
> 
> 
> The idea that there is utility in leap seconds is ridiculous. Most 
> astronomers I have talked to tell me that UTC is useless for their purposes 
> anyway and the time of mid-day varies at Greenwich by 5 minutes over the 
> course of a year so what does it matter which two days are right?
> 

UTC is kept close to UT1 for celestial navigation, not astronomy, and is indeed 
somewhat archaic. (The idea was that you could use UTC, i.e., civil time, as 
reported by a simple radio, and then do celestial navigation to get within 
about 1 km of your true location. You still can, but that is of
less and less utility as navigation moves to GPS and time keeping becomes ever 
better.) 

The time of mid-day is solar time, which does vary in a periodic fashion during 
the year, driven by the Earth's orbital motion. These variations are not shared 
by mean solar time, which is now-a-days really an atomic time. 

Regards
Marshall

> 
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Marshall Eubanks  wrote:
> 
> On Jan 21, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Clint Chaplin wrote:
> 
> > Hey, Paris lobbied heavily to have the Prime Meridian be fixed in Paris.  
> > That would have really made them the center of the navigational world.
> >
> 
> Yes, and then they got the BIH, which got them the power to change GMT to 
> UTC. (GMT no longer has any official existence.)
> 
> Marshall
> 
> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:37 PM, todd glassey  
> > wrote:
> > On 1/21/2011 10:22 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Ole Jacobsen  wrote:
> >>
> >> Does anyone see the irony of us even discussing concerns about, of all
> >> things, FOOD when it comes to Paris?
> >>
> >> What else is there to discuss in Paris?
> >>
> > Making Paris the center of the world - ever look at French Navigation 
> > Charts - relative to Admiralty charts from any other nation?
> >
> > Todd
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Ietf mailing list
> >>
> >> Ietf@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >>
> >>
> >> No virus found in this message.
> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >> Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3394 - Release Date: 01/21/11
> >>
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
> > Principal Engineer
> > Corporate Standardization (US)
> > SISA
> > ___
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF 83 Venue

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Jan 21, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:

> I had the impression that it was the International Earth Rotation
> Service (www.iers.org), also headquartered in Paris, that was in
> charge of leap seconds, as stated here
> http://www.iers.org/nn_11252/IERS/EN/DataProducts/EarthOrientationData/bulC__MD.html
> 

It is now. However, it was the BIH (Bureau International de l'Heure) when the 
GMT was changed to UTC.

Regards
Marshall


> Thanks,
> Donald
> =
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street
>  Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  d3e...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Marshall Eubanks  wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 21, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Clint Chaplin wrote:
>> 
>>> Hey, Paris lobbied heavily to have the Prime Meridian be fixed in Paris.  
>>> That would have really made them the center of the navigational world.
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes, and then they got the BIH, which got them the power to change GMT to 
>> UTC. (GMT no longer has any official existence.)
>> 
>> Marshall
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:37 PM, todd glassey  
>>> wrote:
>>> On 1/21/2011 10:22 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
 On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Ole Jacobsen  wrote:
 
 Does anyone see the irony of us even discussing concerns about, of all
 things, FOOD when it comes to Paris?
 
 What else is there to discuss in Paris?
 
>>> Making Paris the center of the world - ever look at French Navigation 
>>> Charts - relative to Admiralty charts from any other nation?
>>> 
>>> Todd
>>> 
 
 
 --
 Website: http://hallambaker.com/
 
 
 
 ___
 Ietf mailing list
 
 Ietf@ietf.org
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
 
 
 No virus found in this message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3394 - Release Date: 01/21/11
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Ietf mailing list
>>> Ietf@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
>>> Principal Engineer
>>> Corporate Standardization (US)
>>> SISA
>>> ___
>>> 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
>> 
> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: (The 'about' URI scheme) to Proposed Standard

[Ted Hardie]

Howdy,

Some further replies in-line.

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Julian Reschke  wrote:
> On 21.01.2011 17:57, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>
>> Howdy,
>> ...
>>>
>>> Reminder: the reason this was written down was so that
>>> "about:legacy-compat"
>>> can be specified as XML system identifier in HTML5
>>> ().
>>>
>>
>> This rationale isn't in the draft, nor is the token legacy-compat.
>
> ...because HTML5 defines it... (I think)
>

But the question with this how you will get interoperability.  If there is a
token registry, then these should populate that registry pretty much
as soon as the registry opens, as these are entries for which conflict
has a bad result.  The whole point of a registry is to avoid collisions in
the token portion of the identifier space.

>> Having looked
>> at the section you reference, I see it also defines about:srcdoc as
>> reserved,
>> unresolvable URI.  It should be included in this doc, if it goes forward.
>
> I don't think the goal of the registration document is to define all about
> URIs out there. (and I don't think it should).
>

It goes to significant lengths to define the behavior of about:blank,
and it mentions but does not define others.  That's a bit odd, in
IETF circles, especially when you are defining a protocol  to have
"reserved" and "unreserved" tokens.  This iis why the suggestion
of a registry is being made. That gives a place to look
for behavior definitions and confirm reserved vs. unreserved.

If that is not really wanted, this draft is  reserving a URI scheme on
what looks to me to be closer to provisional terms.

I have enough experience on the URI registration side to understand
that people mint schemes without registration pretty readily, and minting
tokens seems even easier.  If you don't  care at all about interoperability
in this behavior, a registry is not needed, but then I'm not sure why
a permanent URI registration is needed either.   The about: convention
has been around a while, and a provisional to note it seems enough.

>> That said, I note that HTML5 has a number of what it calls "willful
>> violations"
>> of the URI spec, in which it counsels the reading who actually knows what
>
> Sadly.
>
>> the spec says to pretend it was using a term other than URI.  (One of
>> these
>> is just past the fragment identifier used above).  Most uses of about
>> are outliers in the URI world by a long chalk.  Why not simply define
>> about
>> as a different identifier form that happens to have a colon in it
>> (which, broadly,
>> it is) and make its use as system identifier in HTML5 a "willful
>> violation" of
>> the XML spec?  That seems entirely consistent with the document's modus
>> operandi
>> and save IANA the trouble of setting up a registry.
>> ...
>
> :-)
>
> Browsers use "about:" where URIs are entered. So no matter what we think, it
> will be very hard to ever register a "about" URI scheme for something else.
>

I agree, and a provisional to block its registration seems sensible.  But if you
are not eventually trying to get interoperable behavior, having "reserved"
elements for this scheme seems, at best, confusing.

> Why not just accept it, and have a registration that at least enhances the
> situation (as opposed to it not being registered)?
>
The last call invites advice from the community on how to improve the document.
Why not just accept, and trust it enhances the situation?

> Also -- the spec doesn't define an IANA registry, so there won't be any
> trouble for them anyway.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

best regards,

Ted

>
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF 83 Venue

[Donald Eastlake]

I had the impression that it was the International Earth Rotation
Service (www.iers.org), also headquartered in Paris, that was in
charge of leap seconds, as stated here
http://www.iers.org/nn_11252/IERS/EN/DataProducts/EarthOrientationData/bulC__MD.html

Thanks,
Donald
=
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e...@gmail.com


On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Marshall Eubanks  wrote:
>
> On Jan 21, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Clint Chaplin wrote:
>
>> Hey, Paris lobbied heavily to have the Prime Meridian be fixed in Paris.  
>> That would have really made them the center of the navigational world.
>>
>
> Yes, and then they got the BIH, which got them the power to change GMT to 
> UTC. (GMT no longer has any official existence.)
>
> Marshall
>
>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:37 PM, todd glassey  
>> wrote:
>> On 1/21/2011 10:22 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Ole Jacobsen  wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone see the irony of us even discussing concerns about, of all
>>> things, FOOD when it comes to Paris?
>>>
>>> What else is there to discuss in Paris?
>>>
>> Making Paris the center of the world - ever look at French Navigation Charts 
>> - relative to Admiralty charts from any other nation?
>>
>> Todd
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Ietf mailing list
>>>
>>> Ietf@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3394 - Release Date: 01/21/11
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
>> Principal Engineer
>> Corporate Standardization (US)
>> SISA
>> ___
>> 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
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF 83 Venue

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

GMT still exists as a legal construct and could well prove useful since it
is ultimately under control of HMG, quite possibly it can be modified by as
little as an order in council.

So if HMG would eliminate the inanity of leap seconds in GMT we could
probably move most computer systems back to GMT rather than UTC as a
reference point.


The idea that there is utility in leap seconds is ridiculous. Most
astronomers I have talked to tell me that UTC is useless for their purposes
anyway and the time of mid-day varies at Greenwich by 5 minutes over the
course of a year so what does it matter which two days are right?


On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

>
> On Jan 21, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Clint Chaplin wrote:
>
> > Hey, Paris lobbied heavily to have the Prime Meridian be fixed in Paris.
>  That would have really made them the center of the navigational world.
> >
>
> Yes, and then they got the BIH, which got them the power to change GMT to
> UTC. (GMT no longer has any official existence.)
>
> Marshall
>
> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:37 PM, todd glassey 
> wrote:
> > On 1/21/2011 10:22 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Ole Jacobsen  wrote:
> >>
> >> Does anyone see the irony of us even discussing concerns about, of all
> >> things, FOOD when it comes to Paris?
> >>
> >> What else is there to discuss in Paris?
> >>
> > Making Paris the center of the world - ever look at French Navigation
> Charts - relative to Admiralty charts from any other nation?
> >
> > Todd
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Ietf mailing list
> >>
> >> Ietf@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >>
> >>
> >> No virus found in this message.
> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >> Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3394 - Release Date: 01/21/11
> >>
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
> > Principal Engineer
> > Corporate Standardization (US)
> > SISA
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF 83 Venue

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Jan 21, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Clint Chaplin wrote:

> Hey, Paris lobbied heavily to have the Prime Meridian be fixed in Paris.  
> That would have really made them the center of the navigational world.
> 

Yes, and then they got the BIH, which got them the power to change GMT to UTC. 
(GMT no longer has any official existence.) 

Marshall

> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:37 PM, todd glassey  wrote:
> On 1/21/2011 10:22 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Ole Jacobsen  wrote:
>> 
>> Does anyone see the irony of us even discussing concerns about, of all
>> things, FOOD when it comes to Paris?
>> 
>> What else is there to discuss in Paris?
>> 
> Making Paris the center of the world - ever look at French Navigation Charts 
> - relative to Admiralty charts from any other nation? 
> 
> Todd
> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Ietf mailing list
>> 
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>> 
>> 
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3394 - Release Date: 01/21/11
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
> Principal Engineer
> Corporate Standardization (US)
> SISA
> ___
> 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: IETF 83 Venue

[Clint Chaplin]

Hey, Paris lobbied heavily to have the Prime Meridian be fixed in Paris.
 That would have really made them the center of the navigational world.

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:37 PM, todd glassey wrote:

>  On 1/21/2011 10:22 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Ole Jacobsen  wrote:
>
>>
>> Does anyone see the irony of us even discussing concerns about, of all
>> things, FOOD when it comes to Paris?
>>
>
>  What else is there to discuss in Paris?
>
>   Making Paris the center of the world - ever look at French Navigation
> Charts - relative to Admiralty charts from any other nation?
>
> Todd
>
>
>
>  --
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>
>
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing listIetf@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3394 - Release Date: 01/21/11
>
>
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>


-- 
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Principal Engineer
Corporate Standardization (US)
SISA
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF 83 Venue

[todd glassey]

On 1/21/2011 10:22 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Ole Jacobsen > wrote:



Does anyone see the irony of us even discussing concerns about, of all
things, FOOD when it comes to Paris?


What else is there to discuss in Paris?

Making Paris the center of the world - ever look at French Navigation 
Charts - relative to Admiralty charts from any other nation?


Todd




--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3394 - Release Date: 01/21/11



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF 83 Venue

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Ole Jacobsen  wrote:

>
> Does anyone see the irony of us even discussing concerns about, of all
> things, FOOD when it comes to Paris?
>

What else is there to discuss in Paris?


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF 83 Venue

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Michal Krsek  wrote:

>  Hi Phillip,
> as a person living in Prague I have to say that if you want to have western
> style services, you need to pay western (or higher) prices.
>

No, the opposite was true.

If you wanted a good meal you had to leave the hotel and buy at local
prices. It was the combination of Western prices and Communist food inside
the hotel that was the issue for me.



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: author's address (was: Re: Fwd: [OPS-DIR] OPS-DIR Reviewofdraft-yevstifeyev-tn3270-uri-12)

[Sandy Ginoza]

Greetings,

Sorry I'm late to the discussion, but I wanted to point out our actual policy 
regarding the Author's Address:

From "RFC Document Style" (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/rfc-style)
4.9.  "Author's Address" Section

   This required section gives contact information for the author(s)
   listed in the first-page header, and perhaps those listed in a
   Contributors section.

   Contact information must include at least one, and ideally would
   include all, of a postal address, a telephone number and/or FAX
   number, and a long-lived email address.  The purpose of this section
   is to (1) unambiguously define author/contributor identity (e.g., the
   John Smith who works for FooBar Systems) and to (2) provide contact
   information for future readers who have questions or comments.  Note
   that some professional societies offer long-lived email addresses for
   their members.

Typically, we'll request an email address (at minimum) because we (RFC 
Production Center) need to be able to contact the authors via email and get 
author approval for the document.  
Please let me know if you have any questions or if this causes any concern.

Thanks!
Sandy (for the RFC Production Center)


On Jan 14, 2011, at 7:06 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> 
> On Jan 14, 2011, at 7:45 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> 
>> I believe that my personal security trumps any and all considerations that 
>> might be raised here.
>> 
>> I do not give my home address out and do not intend to change. If the RFC 
>> editor were to insist that the fields are filled they are going to get a 
>> fake address.
>> 
>> 
> 
> They should not insist on anything of the sort. 
> 
>> Corporate addresses are even less useful. Very few people in the IETF have 
>> the same employer for more than five years. And even those who have the same 
>> employer are unlikely to have the same office building very long.
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:11 AM, t.petch  wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Doug Ewell" 
>> To: "The IETF" 
>> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 6:56 AM
>> Subject: Re: author's address (was: Re: Fwd: [OPS-DIR] OPS-DIR
>> Reviewofdraft-yevstifeyev-tn3270-uri-12)
>> 
>> 
>>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> 
 For what it's worth, Section 10 of the informational RFC 2223
 ("Instructions to RFC Authors") states:
 
 Each RFC must have at the very end a section giving the author's
 address, including the name and postal address, the telephone number,
 (optional: a FAX number) and the Internet email address.
>>> 
>>> The Internet is not the type of chummy small-town environment where we
>>> can trust just anybody with our home address and phone number, or our
>>> bank account and credit card numbers, and where we can leave our front
>>> doors unlocked at night.
>> 
>> As Joel pointed out, the Last Call issue is the contact details for change
>> control
>> in the registration of a widely used URI with IANA, details which consist
>> solely of a gmail address.  Is that enough to grant change control of this
>> URI (in which a number of people from a number of organisations have
>> expressed an ongoing interest)?
>> 
> 
> What, exactly, is the issue here ? How IANA authenticates someone with change 
> control over some resource ?
> That, clearly, is a lot bigger than just this RFC. I would assume (and feel 
> sure) that IANA is not just blindly going by
> email address, but by their judgement. I am also not sure what having an 
> address will do to help with this. I doubt IANA
> will be sending inspectors to people's houses asking to see ID.
> 
> If there seems to be of particular risk of such attacks for this URI, I would 
> suggest adding 
> text in the security section (or the IANA considerations).
> 
> If impersonation attacks seem like a real threat in general, then someone who 
> feels that way 
> should write a draft specifying how IANA should authenticate people.
> 
> Regards
> Marshall
> 
>> RFC4395 appears to be silent.
>> 
>> Tom Petch
>> 
>>> I worked on two I-Ds in a WG where participant A once responded to
>>> participant B's support of an RFC 3683 P-R action against A by
>>> contacting B's employer, gleaned from his e-mail address, demanding that
>>> the employer take professional action against B.  In this type of
>>> hostile environment, I declined to state my employer's name or post to
>>> the WG list from my work address, much less divulge other personal
>>> information, and edited both RFC 4645 and 5646 as "Consultant."
>>> 
>>> The argument that personal information is necessary to distinguish the
>>> author from other people with the same name probably carries some weight
>>> for authors named "John Smith" or "Bob Miller."  There are few enough
>>> people named "Doug Ewell" in the world that the risk of ambiguity of
>>> authorship seems much more remote than the risk to personal security if
>>> too much personal information is provided.  I suspect the same is true
>>> for 

Re: Last Call: (The 'about' URI scheme) to Proposed Standard

[Julian Reschke]

On 21.01.2011 17:57, Ted Hardie wrote:

Howdy,
...

Reminder: the reason this was written down was so that "about:legacy-compat"
can be specified as XML system identifier in HTML5
().



This rationale isn't in the draft, nor is the token legacy-compat.


...because HTML5 defines it... (I think)


Having looked
at the section you reference, I see it also defines about:srcdoc as reserved,
unresolvable URI.  It should be included in this doc, if it goes forward.


I don't think the goal of the registration document is to define all 
about URIs out there. (and I don't think it should).



That said, I note that HTML5 has a number of what it calls "willful violations"
of the URI spec, in which it counsels the reading who actually knows what


Sadly.


the spec says to pretend it was using a term other than URI.  (One of these
is just past the fragment identifier used above).  Most uses of about
are outliers in the URI world by a long chalk.  Why not simply define about
as a different identifier form that happens to have a colon in it
(which, broadly,
it is) and make its use as system identifier in HTML5 a "willful violation" of
the XML spec?  That seems entirely consistent with the document's modus operandi
and save IANA the trouble of setting up a registry.
...


:-)

Browsers use "about:" where URIs are entered. So no matter what we 
think, it will be very hard to ever register a "about" URI scheme for 
something else.


Why not just accept it, and have a registration that at least enhances 
the situation (as opposed to it not being registered)?


Also -- the spec doesn't define an IANA registry, so there won't be any 
trouble for them anyway.


Best regards, Julian


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF 83 Venue

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Jan 21, 2011, at 8:21 AM, João Damas wrote:

> 
> On 21 Jan 2011, at 14:05, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> 
>> No, that was Prague '68
> 
> you mean IETF 68 in Prague. Prague '68 refers to rather different events in 
> this corner of the world.

Yes. We thankfully have yet to have tanks sent in to close down an IETF 
meeting. 

Regards
Marshall

> 
> Joao
> 
> ___
> 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: IETF 83 Venue

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Jan 21, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:

> If it's the same conference center that we were at for IETF-63, there should 
> be few complaints about food given that there is a very nice (real) food 
> market in the shopping area in the Palais de Congres - i.e., if there aren't 
> enough cookies for you at the meeting, then you can go buy a whole package at 
> the food market.
> 

It is - and  the main hotel is actually the one connected to that venue. 

Regards
Marshall


> Mary.
> 
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:51 PM, James M. Polk  wrote:
> At 03:31 PM 1/19/2011, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
> The IAOC is pleased to announce Paris as the site for IETF 83 from 25 - 30
> March 2012.  The IETF last met in the city in 2005 at IETF 63.
> 
> Paris was the number one choice for a European venue in a venue
> preference survey conducted after IETF 78.
> 
> I don't know about this... after all, the last time we had an IETF there is 
> when EKR blew a gasket at the lack of (real) cookies during the breaks. This 
> cannot be overlooked as an isolated incident, or hand-waved away.  I wouldn't 
> want to be around him if this were to occur again.
> 
> ;-)
> 
> James
> 
> 
> 2012
> IETF 83  Paris 25 - 30 MarchHost:  
> 
> 
> ___
> 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: Last Call: (The 'about' URI scheme) to Proposed Standard

[Ted Hardie]

Howdy,

Some comments in-line.

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Julian Reschke  wrote:
> On 21.01.2011 02:13, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> But the reality is that the behavior resulting from these URIs is totally
>> non-deterministic and varies from context to context.  In most contexts
>> outside of a browser location bar, they are meaningless. Inside that
>> context, the browser's definition seems to be definitive.  If the aim
>> is only to get about:blank fully specified, I'd suggest saying so
>> outright,
>> and noting clearly that all other uses are context-dependent, with
>> returning about:blank recommended practice  for those unknown.
>> ...
>
> That sounds reasonable. Let's not make it more complicated than it needs to
> be.
>

Okay.
>> As a thought experiment, would the W3C counsel against the presence
>> of an about URI in an XML namespace?
>
> Reminder: the reason this was written down was so that "about:legacy-compat"
> can be specified as XML system identifier in HTML5
> ().
>

This rationale isn't in the draft, nor is the token legacy-compat.
Having looked
at the section you reference, I see it also defines about:srcdoc as reserved,
unresolvable URI.  It should be included in this doc, if it goes forward.

That said, I note that HTML5 has a number of what it calls "willful violations"
of the URI spec, in which it counsels the reading who actually knows what
the spec says to pretend it was using a term other than URI.  (One of these
is just past the fragment identifier used above).  Most uses of about
are outliers in the URI world by a long chalk.  Why not simply define about
as a different identifier form that happens to have a colon in it
(which, broadly,
it is) and make its use as system identifier in HTML5 a "willful violation" of
the XML spec?  That seems entirely consistent with the document's modus operandi
and save IANA the trouble of setting up a registry.

best regards,

Ted


>> Additionally, naming a change controller should generally be a bit more
>> precise than an organization name.  The W3C director or TAG seems
>> more appropriate than just "W3C".
>
> I just checked an image/svg+xml has "W3C" as change controller. Why would
> the requirement be different here?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF 83 Venue

[Ole Jacobsen]

Does anyone see the irony of us even discussing concerns about, of all 
things, FOOD when it comes to Paris?

I can't wait to back to London :-)

Ole


Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF 83 Venue

[Mary Barnes]

If it's the same conference center that we were at for IETF-63, there should
be few complaints about food given that there is a very nice (real) food
market in the shopping area in the Palais de Congres - i.e., if there aren't
enough cookies for you at the meeting, then you can go buy a whole package
at the food market.

Mary.

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:51 PM, James M. Polk  wrote:

> At 03:31 PM 1/19/2011, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
>
>> The IAOC is pleased to announce Paris as the site for IETF 83 from 25 - 30
>> March 2012.  The IETF last met in the city in 2005 at IETF 63.
>>
>> Paris was the number one choice for a European venue in a venue
>> preference survey conducted after IETF 78.
>>
>
> I don't know about this... after all, the last time we had an IETF there is
> when EKR blew a gasket at the lack of (real) cookies during the breaks. This
> cannot be overlooked as an isolated incident, or hand-waved away.  I
> wouldn't want to be around him if this were to occur again.
>
> ;-)
>
> James
>
>
>  2012
>> IETF 83  Paris 25 - 30 MarchHost:  
>>
>
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF 83 Venue

[Michal Krsek]

Hi Phillip,
as a person living in Prague I have to say that if you want to have 
western style services, you need to pay western (or higher) prices.


Please be sure local community spend last time some time to crawl around 
conference hotel talking to the management about "large group of english 
speaking people is comming, please have somebody understanding basics of 
english and have english menu ready". Without this crawling, some 
services shall be somehow ... ehm ...


And ... Prague isn't one of cheapest cities in Europe. It is in middle 
tier of the european capitals and more expensive than some regions of 
Germany/France/UK.


It seems like Prague city council marketing has too much pink color :-) 
Anyway, we are trying to do our best to make next IETF even better than 
'68 (but, we have no responsibility on cookies - yet?).


Michal



No, that was Prague '68
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/68/plenaryw.html

I think the issue there was that we were in one of the cheapest cities 
in Europe to buy food outside the hotel and the prices inside the 
hotel were much higher than for other hotels in European capitals for 
Communist era quality food.




On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:51 PM, James M. Polk > wrote:


At 03:31 PM 1/19/2011, IETF Administrative Director wrote:

The IAOC is pleased to announce Paris as the site for IETF 83
from 25 - 30
March 2012.  The IETF last met in the city in 2005 at IETF 63.

Paris was the number one choice for a European venue in a venue
preference survey conducted after IETF 78.


I don't know about this... after all, the last time we had an IETF
there is when EKR blew a gasket at the lack of (real) cookies
during the breaks. This cannot be overlooked as an isolated
incident, or hand-waved away.  I wouldn't want to be around him if
this were to occur again.

;-)

James


2012
IETF 83  Paris 25 - 30 MarchHost: 





--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/


___
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: IETF 83 Venue

[João Damas]

On 21 Jan 2011, at 14:05, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> No, that was Prague '68

you mean IETF 68 in Prague. Prague '68 refers to rather different events in 
this corner of the world.

Joao

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF 83 Venue

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

No, that was Prague '68
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/68/plenaryw.html

I think the issue there was that we were in one of the cheapest cities in
Europe to buy food outside the hotel and the prices inside the hotel were
much higher than for other hotels in European capitals for Communist era
quality food.



On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:51 PM, James M. Polk  wrote:

> At 03:31 PM 1/19/2011, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
>
>> The IAOC is pleased to announce Paris as the site for IETF 83 from 25 - 30
>> March 2012.  The IETF last met in the city in 2005 at IETF 63.
>>
>> Paris was the number one choice for a European venue in a venue
>> preference survey conducted after IETF 78.
>>
>
> I don't know about this... after all, the last time we had an IETF there is
> when EKR blew a gasket at the lack of (real) cookies during the breaks. This
> cannot be overlooked as an isolated incident, or hand-waved away.  I
> wouldn't want to be around him if this were to occur again.
>
> ;-)
>
> James
>
>
>  2012
>> IETF 83  Paris 25 - 30 MarchHost:  
>>
>
>


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP

[Magnus Westerlund]

t.petch skrev 2011-01-21 12:43:
> I would like to see more clarity in 8.1
> " For assignments done through IETF-published RFCs, the Contact will be the
> IESG."
> in that I am unclear what IETF-published RFCs are; presumably that is 
> Standards
> Track, BCP
> and Individual Submissions, but not Independent Submissions  or IRTF RFC.
> 
> I think that the terminology here should follow that of RFC4844 with a 
> reference
> thereto.
> 

I guess we should use the "IETF Stream", and I do agree that a reference
for the definition of that should be included.

Cheers

Magnus

> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Magnus Westerlund" 
> To: ; "Internet Area" ;
> ; ; "SAAG" 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:30 AM
> Subject: [apps-discuss] Fwd: Last Call: 
> (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of 
> the
> Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I just want to make people aware of this IETF last call for an update of
> the IANA procedures for registration of Service Name and Transport
> protocol port numbers.
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
>  Ursprungligt meddelande 
> Ämne: Last Call:  (Internet
> Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the
> Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP
> Datum: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:26:03 +0100
> Från: The IESG 
> Till: IETF-Announce 
> Kopia: ts...@ietf.org 
> 
> 
> The IESG has received a request from the Transport Area Working Group WG
> (tsvwg) to consider the following document:
> - 'Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the
>Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number
>Registry'
>as a BCP
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-02-01. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports/
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports/
> 
> 
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> ___
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> ietf-annou...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
> 
> ___
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-disc...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> 
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

--
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
--
Ericsson AB| Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6| Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerl...@ericsson.com
--
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Last Call: (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP

[t.petch]

I would like to see more clarity in 8.1
" For assignments done through IETF-published RFCs, the Contact will be the
IESG."
in that I am unclear what IETF-published RFCs are; presumably that is Standards
Track, BCP
and Individual Submissions, but not Independent Submissions  or IRTF RFC.

I think that the terminology here should follow that of RFC4844 with a reference
thereto.

Tom Petch


- Original Message -
From: "Magnus Westerlund" 
To: ; "Internet Area" ;
; ; "SAAG" 
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:30 AM
Subject: [apps-discuss] Fwd: Last Call: 
(Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the
Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP


Hi,

I just want to make people aware of this IETF last call for an update of
the IANA procedures for registration of Service Name and Transport
protocol port numbers.

Best Regards

Magnus Westerlund

 Ursprungligt meddelande 
Ämne: Last Call:  (Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the
Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP
Datum: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:26:03 +0100
Från: The IESG 
Till: IETF-Announce 
Kopia: ts...@ietf.org 


The IESG has received a request from the Transport Area Working Group WG
(tsvwg) to consider the following document:
- 'Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the
   Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number
   Registry'
   as a BCP

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-02-01. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
___
IETF-Announce mailing list
ietf-annou...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

___
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-disc...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: (The'about' URI scheme) to Proposed Standard

[t.petch]

- Original Message -
From: "SM" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call:  (The'about' URI
scheme) to Proposed Standard


> At 07:56 14-01-11, The IESG wrote:
>
> >The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> >the following document:
> >- 'The 'about' URI scheme'
> >as a Proposed Standard
> >
> >The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> >final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>
> There is a IANA registration in Section 8.  The arguments at
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg65163.html are
> also applicable to draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme-06.

Further to that, I did ask IANA if, when carrying out the procedures of
registration in accordance with RFC4395, they performed any checks
on the contact details of the Change Controller for the URI.  So far,
I have heard no more so I am assuming that whatever the IETF and
IESG approves in the I-D is taken as gospel by IANA.

Tom Petch
>
> In Section 5.2:
>
>"Applications MAY resolve any unreserved "about" URI to any resource,
> either internal or external, or redirect to an alternative URI."
>
> What happens when the unreserved "about" URI becomes a reserved
> "about" URI in future?
>
> 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: Last Call: (The 'about' URI scheme) to Proposed Standard

[Julian Reschke]

On 21.01.2011 02:13, Ted Hardie wrote:

...
But the reality is that the behavior resulting from these URIs is totally
non-deterministic and varies from context to context.  In most contexts
outside of a browser location bar, they are meaningless. Inside that
context, the browser's definition seems to be definitive.  If the aim
is only to get about:blank fully specified, I'd suggest saying so outright,
and noting clearly that all other uses are context-dependent, with
returning about:blank recommended practice  for those unknown.
...


That sounds reasonable. Let's not make it more complicated than it needs 
to be.



As a thought experiment, would the W3C counsel against the presence
of an about URI in an XML namespace?


Reminder: the reason this was written down was so that 
"about:legacy-compat" can be specified as XML system identifier in HTML5 
().



Additionally, naming a change controller should generally be a bit more
precise than an organization name.  The W3C director or TAG seems
more appropriate than just "W3C".


I just checked an image/svg+xml has "W3C" as change controller. Why 
would the requirement be different here?


Best regards, Julian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf