Re: Trust membership [Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility]
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011-09-21 05:44, Olaf Kolkman wrote: snip The Trust would need to commit to allowing these advisors to join their meetings too. But that can be done in other ways than the Trust Agreement. (so yes, I agree with this line of thought) Obviously this all assumes there is a consensus for changing the I* chairs role ...exactly. I'm far from convinced about that. I think the real need is to figure out how to make the IAOC an Oversight committee rather than it getting involved in executive decisions, and to figure out how to make the IAB an Architecture board instead of getting involved in administrative matters. I'm new to this level of innerworking in the IETF, and a bit more confused after this thread. I did ask what was the core problem sort of and got two excellent answers but none of the convinced me that the draft/proposal at hand are the right answer to an obvious problem. However, Brian's suggestion above looks like a better road ahead since it get closer to the core of the problem, the workload and address that. -- Roger Jorgensen | rog...@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | ro...@jorgensen.no ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Fwd: [81all] Quick Meeting Survey
Interesting too that the questions about future attendance mention the sponsor, as if our decision should be predicated upon who is sponsoring the event. And, in the reasons for non-attendance, it is a shame, in the light of recent discussions on this list, that 'cost' is not broken down into - cost of meeting - cost of hotel - cost of travel Tom Petch - Original Message - From: Wes Hardaker wjh...@hardakers.net To: Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com Cc: IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 1:03 AM On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:09:52 -0800, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com said: MS So, I'm looking at the results and see that -9 people skipped MS the birth year question. It was worded poorly too. It should have read: Do you have a Gray Beard? A) Yes B) No -- Wes Hardaker SPARTA, Inc. ___ 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
Evolutionary culture change (was: Trust membership [Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility])
At 22:47 20-09-2011, Olaf Kolkman wrote: For the IAOC and IAB these will be difficult challenges that cannot be enforced externally but also need an evolutionary culture change. Not only in the I* bodies themselves but also how the NOMCOM. The IAOC has been around for six years. The IESG has been around for 25 years and the IAB for 27 years. Half of IESG and IAB are picked by the community each year. As this is the IETF, it's a bit more complicated than that (see NomCom). The community only have a say on one quarter of the IAOC. The current NomCom looks like an inverted image of NomCom from a cultural perspective. NomCom will make a safe bet this year. If the community wants to force an IAOC change, it would have to be done by BCP. In a way, the draft is attempting to do that. The comments posted by Roger Jørgensen are more interesting than the politics surrounding the change. He mentioned being a bit more confused after this thread. It took 20 years for the IETF to take control over its administrative operations. The functions cover setting meeting fees, deciding how far you should fly to attend a meeting, deciding on how to prevent the IETF from being sued, etc. It is unlikely that an evolutionary culture change will come from within the IAOC. Being kicked by the ARSE is not an evolutionary change. :-) Regards, -sm ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Fwd: [81all] Quick Meeting Survey
2011/9/21 Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:03:21PM -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote: Do you have a Gray Beard? [Ob.SpelThrd] That's spelled Grey Beard! Oh... I believed it was a beard of Frank Gray ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gray_(researcher) ) :-) Sorry, could not resist A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.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: Grey Beards (was [81all] Quick Meeting Survey)
You all are just bragging you still have hair :-( On Sep 21, 2011, at 12:55 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 9/20/11 6:26 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: This reminds me that it has been a while since we took the last IETF grey beard photo. A few more of us have gone grey since then. Maybe we should plan on another photo to be taken after the next Administrative Plenary. Beardless, but back when I started participating in the IETF my hair was nearly black. Now I've gone completely grey. Not trying to imply causality, of course. Count me in. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
Jari, On Sep 19, 2011, at 4:10 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: Bob, I appreciate your view on this, particularly when you are day-to-day seeing how the current system works with IAOC. Thanks. I also note that several past IAOC chairs have expressed concern about this proposal as well. That should be given some weight. That being said, I do think it is important to give some flexibility to chairs on organizing their work. And it is important to provide tools for them to manage their time, including ability to delegate some tasks. For sure, but why only address this aspect of their jobs? We should be talking about the general problem before evaluating a point solution. We don't normally take this approach when chartering working groups, their usually has to be a discussion of the problems before proposing specific solutions. I understand the point about chairs being involved. But I'm also sure there will never be an IAB/IETF chair who would ignore important IAOC business. This draft is about the ability (but not a requirement) of the chairs to delegate most of the day-to-day business and just stay on for the important stuff. One practical issue is that if the chairs under today's rules would stay out of the day-to-day business, that would mean missing one voting member. I'm not sure that is desirable either, and I really don't think you want to force them to be in every meeting. I don't think it so easy to distinguish between important IAOC business vs. day to day. Day to day decisions can have unexpected consequences. It's just not that black and white. Also, different chairs get involved in different things. The IETF chair is very involved in tools, secretariat related issues, venues, the IAB chair is involved in RFC editor related issues, the ISOC CEO is very involved in the budget. It's not all the same. Their involvement varies a lot depending on the topic and their role. The proposal treats them all the same. I also understand the point about chairs sharing the responsibility for decisions. I just don't think the suggested new scheme would affect that. The IAOC would for sure still listen to a message from the chairs very carefully. And if you are in any board with multiple people having voting power, if the rest of the board ignores your opinion it really doesn't matter if you lost by 1-9 or by 0-9... (and again, any of the chairs would for sure still be behind the decisions anyway.) Having a vote is very different from just being an advisor. I also think that over time, the chairs will become less involved in the IAOC because they are busy. It doesn't make sense to me to say on one hand that the chairs are too busy to be voting members of the IAOC, but at the same time they will have enough time to effect important decisions. It doesn't work that way in practice. Bob ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
Jari, A few comments on your email to Jonne. On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: Jonne, First, I want to thank you for the clear expression in Finnish. (Maheeta! Vaikka näiden muutosten läpivienti alkaa kyllä tuntua siltä kuin jäitä polttelisi, saa odottaa perse ruvella että kukaan olisi samaa mieltä mistään, 'kele!) Too bad the English version was not as graphic. Goggle translate was helpful here :-) Anyway, I like your description of the issue and it helps me understand the concerns. That being said, I could probably construct a similar argument for all of the bodies that an IETF chair, for instance, has to attend. Are we really saying that under all circumstances, the chairs have to attend everything that IAOC deals with? And be voting members? And if that is too much then the entire IAOC has to delegate more of its work? Really? And if the chairs have to be voting members in IAOC, why aren't they voting members in IAB and IESG? I have some trust in the chairs ability to prioritize, delegate and engage in the important discussions. They do that today. I do like your idea that IAOC itself needs to work smarter though. It should really be just a board, not the guys doing the actual work. As an outsider, it sometimes feels like you guys are doing too much. In any case, if you and Bob think this would be a good direction for the IAOC to take, can you comment how feasible it is? Has it been tried, could it be tried? (And shouldn't it already be done if it was easy?) I am not sure what you mean by the members of the IAOC doing the actual work. The IAD does most of the work behind the scenes. That includes writing RFPs, motions, budgets, SOWs, agendas, works with the volunteer minute takers to produce the minutes, organizes contractor reviews, negotiates with contractors, works with ISOC finance department, works with legal council, organizes conference calls and meetings, etc., etc. The secretariat does the leg work to collect information on venues, costs, hotels, etc. The IAOC voting members review, comment, approve/disapprove things, but that's not where most of the real work is. The voting members are responsible for the decisions and actions. I want to make it clear that most of the actual work is not done by the voting members. Given the source of our members, we do tend to get involved in details for better or worse. The IAOC (and Trust chairs) have a bigger load than the rest of the voting members. Bob Jari On 19.09.2011 15:35, jonne.soini...@renesasmobile.com wrote: Hi Olaf, I went through the draft just now, and I have some quite strong feelings about it. I'm sorry I'm sending my comments so late in the game. A disclaimer first: I was the chairman of the IAOC some years back, but I haven't been actively involved with IETF administration after that. Therefore, my reactions are based on the history, and I don't necessarily have the up-to-date information of today, anymore. Anyways, I thank Olaf of bringing up this real problem: the IAOC is a lot of work measured in time, and effort. At least, when I was there, I think it was too much work for people who were already busy in so many other ways. However, I think the solution is a bit menemistä perse edellä puuhun (== putting the cart before the horse): The IAOC should be a _strategic_ body that gives a direction for the administration of the IETF. Basically IAOC is the closest you have to the board of the IETF (financial management, asset management, management of the operations). Therefore, by design, you have the stakeholders represented in the body (the main chairs, the president and CEO of ISOC). The Trust on the other hand is everything the IETF has (as ownership - the biggest asset the IETF has is of course the community). It owns the fruits of the labour of the whole community - the intellectual property that the community creates. I think it is very clear that the main stakeholders (the I* chairs) and the main responsible for the administrator of the trust (the president/CEO of ISOC) have to be trustees and show ownership of the trust - you just cannot delegate that. Like said, I understand the problem: The IAOC is a lot of work for people who already have a lot to do. However, I think that problem should be managed without reducing the oversight of the IETF leadership over the IETF financials, assents, and other important activities. Perhaps, the IAOC should think how to reorganize, and strengthen the operational part of the IETF to reduce the burden of the IAOC. This might mean increasing the level of investment to the operations of the IETF to make sure the IAOC members do not have to be part of the operational stuff, but can concentrate on making just the strategic decisions and doing the oversight. If I would have to summarize this all into one sentence: The workload problem is a problem only
RE: Grey Beards (was [81all] Quick Meeting Survey)
Clearly, this photo needs to include the wise women of the Internet! Ron -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 12:56 AM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Grey Beards (was [81all] Quick Meeting Survey) On 9/20/11 6:26 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: This reminds me that it has been a while since we took the last IETF grey beard photo. A few more of us have gone grey since then. Maybe we should plan on another photo to be taken after the next Administrative Plenary. Beardless, but back when I started participating in the IETF my hair was nearly black. Now I've gone completely grey. Not trying to imply causality, of course. Count me in. Melinda ___ 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: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
Olaf, On Sep 20, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: Thanks Bob, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter! Thanks. Dear Colleagues, Based on the discussion I've updated the draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-iasa-ex-officio-membership Essentially I incorporated Dave Crocker's proposal to 1) replace the 'chairs' by voting members appointed by the respective bodies. 2) allow the chairs to participate in all meetings and provide (unsolicited) advice. There were many comments on your earlier draft and I don't see how these changes resolve all of issues raised. The new draft is different, but I think the main issues remain. Could you show how the issues raised are solved by the current draft? For example, there seemed to me to be a rough consensus in the discussion on the earlier draft that the IETF Chair should not be included in the proposal. Why did you not remove the IETF chair from the proposal? I did not see that rough consensus, but let us not argue that, I believe it is up for Jari to say were the consensus is. To repeat what I said, I didn't see the new draft resolving issues that I and other raised on the list. The new draft is a different approach, but as Leslie pointed out, it might be worse. In the old draft, the I* chairs were allowed to appoint someone to represent them, in the new one they are non-voting advisors. Busy people being busy, will tend to not follow or attend the meetings. Many small decisions can have unintended consequences. To the substance of that point: there is an argument to be made that if the IETF Chair has full voting power than the IAB chair should so to. I believe that it is beneficial for the organization if there is some symmetry there. For completeness, and in relation to that symmetry argument. Jari wrote in another mail: And if the chairs have to be voting members in IAOC, why aren't they voting members in IAB and IESG? The IETF Chair is voting (full) member of the IAB (see section 1.1 of RFC 2850) The IAB Chair is ex-officio member of the IESG (see RFC3710 section 2) but for Decision making the IAB chair is excluded from the consensus process (RFC3710 section 3.1 2nd paragraph). The obvious reason for that is that the IAB is in the appeal chain. I am not sure I understand the point here. Further, isn't this cross membership another cause of I* chair overload? Why not eliminate that too? Why are you only considering the IAOC roles? Why is the IETF chair a member of the IAB and why does the IAB chair attend IESG meetings? Wouldn't the reduce their load too? They could appoint a liaison? Same for the ISOC CEO. I believe that allows chairs to exercise their responsibilities of keeping a coherent perspective of the organization an allow them to steer outcomes if needed, but doesn't require the day-to-day involvement that is required from a diligent voting member. As I said earlier, I continue to think this is a bad idea. We now have a system that works well. Certainly not perfect, but I am concerned your proposed changes will make it work worse. At some point I'd be perfectly happy to agree to disagree on the merit of the idea. But I want to understand the motivation and make sure there is nothing actionable on my side. Other than dropping the proposal :-) I agree there is a problem with I* chair overload, but you have proposed a point solution without having the general discussion. It would be better if the community had that discussion before evaluating solutions. In my time as IAOC chair, the I* chairs have been actively involved in the most significant decisions the IAOC makes, they tend to be less active in many of the day to day operational issues. For example, there are weekly calls in the months before an IETF meeting that the host, NOC team, IAD, host, and other people attend. I don't think an I* chair has been involved at this level. Also, the IAOC has several subcommittees (e.g., meetings, budget, specific RFPs, and Tools). I* chair attendance in these varies. The IETF chair is very active in the RFP subcommittee and Tools. The ISOC chair has reduced her attendance in the subcommittees. There is no requirement that members of committees are IAOC members, is there? It's usually a mix of IAOC members and invited members. The subcommittees make recommendations to the IAOC, the IAOC make the decision. I think the I* chairs bring a broad view of the community and operational needs based on what's involved in doing their jobs than other appointees would not have. In order for the I* chairs to be effective, they will need to be involved. If they are involved, then they might as well be voting members. With the changes you propose we could end up with an IAOC that none of the I* chairs participate. As you point out, they are all busy and will have a
Re: Grey Beards (was [81all] Quick Meeting Survey)
On 9/20/2011 7:26 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: This reminds me that it has been a while since we took the last IETF grey beard photo. A few more of us have gone grey since then. Maybe we should plan on another photo to be taken after the next Administrative Plenary. By the way, if there's interest in an online home for such an historical record, one is available: http://graybeards.net/ d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
Bob, Goggle translate was helpful here :-) Good... and next time when we meet over beer I can reveal the correct translation :-) I do like your idea that IAOC itself needs to work smarter though. It should really be just a board, not the guys doing the actual work. As an outsider, it sometimes feels like you guys are doing too much. In any case, if you and Bob think this would be a good direction for the IAOC to take, can you comment how feasible it is? Has it been tried, could it be tried? (And shouldn't it already be done if it was easy?) I am not sure what you mean by the members of the IAOC doing the actual work. The IAD does most of the work behind the scenes. That includes writing RFPs, motions, budgets, SOWs, agendas, works with the volunteer minute takers to produce the minutes, organizes contractor reviews, negotiates with contractors, works with ISOC finance department, works with legal council, organizes conference calls and meetings, etc., etc. The secretariat does the leg work to collect information on venues, costs, hotels, etc. The IAOC voting members review, comment, approve/disapprove things, but that's not where most of the real work is. The voting members are responsible for the decisions and actions. I want to make it clear that most of the actual work is not done by the voting members. Given the source of our members, we do tend to get involved in details for better or worse. The IAOC (and Trust chairs) have a bigger load than the rest of the voting members. This all sounds good. But do you agree that workload for the chairs is an issue? Because I thought Jonne was saying that it is an issue and the solutions should come from a better organization within the IAOC rather than from Olaf's proposal. But if I read the above, it almost sounds like you think everything is done pretty much as well as it can be done, and there's little to change. Up-leveling the discussion: I guess we need to agree about the problem statement before we can talk about the solutions. Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
Dear Jari; On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote: Bob, Goggle translate was helpful here :-) Good... and next time when we meet over beer I can reveal the correct translation :-) I fear it might be too much information. I do like your idea that IAOC itself needs to work smarter though. It should really be just a board, not the guys doing the actual work. As an outsider, it sometimes feels like you guys are doing too much. In any case, if you and Bob think this would be a good direction for the IAOC to take, can you comment how feasible it is? Has it been tried, could it be tried? (And shouldn't it already be done if it was easy?) I am not sure what you mean by the members of the IAOC doing the actual work. The IAD does most of the work behind the scenes. That includes writing RFPs, motions, budgets, SOWs, agendas, works with the volunteer minute takers to produce the minutes, organizes contractor reviews, negotiates with contractors, works with ISOC finance department, works with legal council, organizes conference calls and meetings, etc., etc. The secretariat does the leg work to collect information on venues, costs, hotels, etc. The IAOC voting members review, comment, approve/disapprove things, but that's not where most of the real work is. The voting members are responsible for the decisions and actions. I want to make it clear that most of the actual work is not done by the voting members. Given the source of our members, we do tend to get involved in details for better or worse. The IAOC (and Trust chairs) have a bigger load than the rest of the voting members. This all sounds good. But do you agree that workload for the chairs is an issue? The Chairs think that is it, which is enough evidence for me. Because I thought Jonne was saying that it is an issue and the solutions should come from a better organization within the IAOC rather than from Olaf's proposal. But if I read the above, it almost sounds like you think everything is done pretty much as well as it can be done, and there's little to change. Up-leveling the discussion: I guess we need to agree about the problem statement before we can talk about the solutions. Here is the problem as I see it. It is all well and good to say that the IAOC should be more oversight and less administrative, but there is 5 years of running code to the contrary. (I seem to remember a certain IETF Chair predicting the withering away of the IAOC's workload as soon as the CNRI transition was worked through.) I frankly just don't see that changing with the IETF structured the way it is, and I do not see a fundamental reorganization coming soon. In addition, the work of the IAOC (and Trust) is greatly improved by the input of the Chairs. Yes, they represent bodies with multiple members, but while each member may have equal status, they do not all have equal interest in operational matters. (I know, for example, that some ADs are not that interested in hotel contracts.) Plus, a lot of that benefit comes from immersion in the issues and (to be blunt) immersion is motivated by responsibility. So, how to reduce the load on the Chairs ? This in my opinion a governance issue, and, as it happens, we have some 5000 years of governance experience to draw from. This problem is very common in governments (or companies) as they grow - positions that formerly took one person become impossible for one person to do. The typical way to deal with that is to grant responsibility to another person or persons, in other words, to delegate the responsibility. That was more the approach of the first draft of this I-D, and so I like that part of it better. My chief reaction to the first draft was that it wasn't followed through. It created basically new positions, but had little to make sure that their holders would have the knowledge, responsibility and authority for the job. So, to be specific, here is a proposal. Create a second Area Director in the General Area. Have this second AD be primarily responsible for operational matters, and be the IESG ex-officio member of the IAOC / Trustee of the Trust. This could be a new person, or the IESG could have a tradition that an outgoing AD from another area serve in the post. (The IETF Chair should be able to offload more responsibilities than just IAOC meetings to this person, but that is an IESG / IETF Chair matter.) The IAB is not so usefully subdivided, but it could likewise create a vice-chair, which it could call something different. The point is that, if the Chair is not going to undertake the role, there should be someone who agrees that, not only will they serve on some committee, but also that they will take responsibility for that service with their sponsoring organization. I don't think that just having a new IAB or IESG nominated member, by itself, is going to accomplish that. Regards Marshall Jari
Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-genarea-milestones-tool-05
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-genarea-milestones-tool-05 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2011-09-29 IETF LC End Date: 2011-09-21 Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: -- Abstract: The abstract should mention that this updates 6292. -- section 3, last paragraph, last sentence: A WG chair also needs to be able to delete one or more existing milestones. That sentence seems redundant with the last sentence of the previous paragraph -- section 4, last paragraph: After this tool is launched, the IETF Secretariat will no longer need to post a change to the database: the tool will do this without intervention by the Secretariat. Except in the aforementioned case of the secretariat doing this to fix a problem or in an emergency. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Applied Networking Research Prize awards for IETF-82
Hi, we are extremely pleased to report that for this award period of the Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP), 13 eligible nominations were received. Each submission was reviewed by 4-7 members of the selection committee according to a diverse set of criteria, including scientific excellence and substance, timeliness, relevance, and potential impact on the Internet. Based on this review, two submissions were awarded an Applied Networking Research Prize: *** Michio Honda *** for his research into determining the future extensibility of TCP: Michio Honda, Yoshifumi Nishida, Costin Raiciu, Adam Greenhalgh, Mark Handley and Hideyuki Tokuda. Is it Still Possible to Extend TCP? To appear: Proc. ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC), November 2011, Berlin, Germany. *** Nasif Ekiz *** for his analysis of misbehaving TCP receivers: Nasif Ekiz, Abuthahir Habeeb Rahman and Paul D. Amer. Misbehaviors in TCP SACK Generation. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Volume 41, Issue 2, April 2011. Both researchers have been invited to present their findings in the IRTF Open Meeting during IETF-82, November 13-18, 2011 in Taipei, Taiwan. Join them there! There will be a call for ANRP nominations after IETF-82 that targets 2012. Read more about the ANRP at http://irtf.org/anrp. Please subscribe to the IRTF-Announce mailing list in order to receive future calls for ANRP nominations and join ISOC to stay informed of other networking research initiatives: http://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/irtf-announce http://isoc.org/join Regards, Lars Eggert, IRTF Chair Mat Ford, Internet Society http://irtf.org/anrp http://isoc.org/research -- ANRP Selection Committee Mark Allman, ICIR Marcelo Bagnulo, UC3M Lou Berger, LabN Olivier Bonaventure, UCL Louvain Ross Callon, Juniper Lars Eggert, Nokia Research Center Olivier Festor, INRIA Mat Ford, ISOC Andrei Gurtov, HIIT Dan Massey, Colorado State Al Morton, ATT Laboratories Bruce Nordman, LBL Jörg Ott, Aalto University Colin Perkins, University of Glasgow Stefano Previdi, Cisco Jürgen Schönwälder, Jacobs University Bremen Martin Stiemerling, NEC Laboratories Richard Yang, Yale Lixia Zhang, UCLA smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Grey Beards (was [81all] Quick Meeting Survey)
Time for the facial hair standard and ensuring that there is a proper three stage progression from provisional salt and pepper to full blown white out. /Elwyn Eric Burger wrote: You all are just bragging you still have hair :-( On Sep 21, 2011, at 12:55 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 9/20/11 6:26 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: This reminds me that it has been a while since we took the last IETF grey beard photo. A few more of us have gone grey since then. Maybe we should plan on another photo to be taken after the next Administrative Plenary. Beardless, but back when I started participating in the IETF my hair was nearly black. Now I've gone completely grey. Not trying to imply causality, of course. Count me in. Melinda ___ 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: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
On Sep 21, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: It is important for the I* chairs to be connected with the community. It is important for the IAOC to be connected with the community. It is important for the I* chairs to be informed about what is happening in the IAOC It is important for the IAOC to be informed about what the I* chairs find important. Yes, but I don't understand your point. We get that today with the current makeup. Your proposal breaks these links. Oops..I did not finish the paragraph. Retry: It is important for the I* chairs to be connected with the community. It is important for the IAOC to be connected with the community. It is important for the I* chairs to be informed about what is happening in the IAOC It is important for the IAOC to be informed about what the I* chairs find important. I claim that the first two items are independent of I* chairs being voting members of the IAOC. I also claim that for the third item there is no necessity for the I* chairs to be a voting member, nor for the fourth. That said, I am sensitive to the argument that if I* chairs are members they may actually pay more attention (human nature and such) and that being effective at those item without being a member is tough. --Olaf Olaf M. KolkmanNLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
Bob, Olaf, On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 05:27:11PM +0300, Bob Hinden wrote: To repeat what I said, I didn't see the new draft resolving issues that I and other raised on the list. The new draft is a different approach, but as Leslie pointed out, it might be worse. In the old draft, the I* chairs were allowed to appoint someone to represent them, in the new one they are non-voting advisors. Busy people being busy, will tend to not follow or attend the meetings. Many small decisions can have unintended consequences. I reviewed the new draft and I agree with Leslie and Bob that the new draft seems to be a step in the wrong direction. The critical thing is that we don't loose the participation of the IETF chair, IAB chair and ISOC President/CEO while at the same time finding a way to lighten their workload. From the discussion we had on the previous draft, it seemed to me that a differentation between these positions is actually very important. There was very little support to have the IETF chair delegating the full job of his/her IAOC membership. At the same time, there were much less strong feelings about this for the IAB chair and ISOC CEO/president. I agree with the sentiment that the IETF chair should remain a full voting member of the IAOC. However, I don't object if the IETF chair would have a designated backup for the voting role when he/she cannot attend to IAOC business. I believe it would be useful for the designated backup to be a non voting permanent IAOC member in order to make sure the backup understands what is going on. However, the important thing is that the vote is still a vote that the IETF chair is responsible for. Furthermore, I am not sure whether there is a real need to do a similar setup for the Trust as well. And finally, for full disclosure, I have been present myself at IAOC meetings as a guest from the IAB. This allowed for an IAB perspective to be present when the IAB chair couldn't make it to the IAOC meetings but of course I had no voting power etc. I'll leave it up to the current IAOC members and the IAB chair to comment on that experience. David Kessens --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
On 21/09/2011 21:03, David Kessens wrote: The critical thing is that we don't loose the participation of the IETF chair, IAB chair and ISOC President/CEO while at the same time finding a way to lighten their workload. I think one of the questions to be answered is: do we want participation of the I* chair or do we want participation of the related I* group. If I look back at my years on the IAOC, then I think that it is very important that the opinions of the I* groups is known in the IAOC and it is equally important that the I* groups have a vote when decisions are to be made. I'm not at all convinced though that the person doing this needs to be the chair. A model where the I* selects one of them to represent the I* on the IAOC (with full voting rights for that person) would work equally well, of course, assuming that the representative talks to the other members of the I* group. A model where the I* can send 1 person, rather than just the chair, will make it easier for the I* to distribute the work amongst the people. That is an improvement. However, I don't object if the IETF chair would have a designated backup for the voting role when he/she cannot attend to IAOC business. I believe it would be useful for the designated backup to be a non voting permanent IAOC member in order to make sure the backup understands what is going on. Well, I have been on committees with designated backups and it just does not work: if a backup only looks at the ongoing issues when it is clear that the first person cannot attend, he will miss a lot of background and cannot sensibly participate. If the backup follows everything that is going on, then the amount of work to be done doubles. Again, from personal experience, I'd much rather see that the unavailable person comments by mail beforehand or even asks for a discussion to be postponend, than having a backup for a single meeting. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
On 21/09/2011 16:50, Jari Arkko wrote: But do you agree that workload for the chairs is an issue? Yes, at least all the chairs I know say so, that makes it an issue for me. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
Henk, If I look back at my years on the IAOC, then I think that it is very important that the opinions of the I* groups is known in the IAOC and it is equally important that the I* groups have a vote when decisions are to be made. I'm not at all convinced though that the person doing this needs to be the chair. A model where the I* selects one of them to represent the I* on the IAOC (with full voting rights for that person) would work equally well, of course, assuming that the representative talks to the other members of the I* group. A model where the I* can send 1 person, rather than just the chair, will make it easier for the I* to distribute the work amongst the people. That is an improvement. Yes. Also, there is some experience from the other direction: sometimes it has happened that the chair talks with the IAOC and they come up with some conclusion, but when he talks to the rest of us in an IESG meeting we bring up additional points that may change the conclusion. So whether or not it is the chair that is in the IAOC meeting, it is important that there is a discussion with the rest of the body. Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
A or B [was Trust membership]
I think this disagreement between two ex-IAB Chairs deserves its own thread. On 2011-09-21 17:47, Olaf Kolkman wrote: On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: ...exactly. I'm far from convinced about that. I think the real need is to figure out how to make the IAOC an Oversight committee rather than it getting involved in executive decisions, and to figure out how to make the IAB an Architecture board instead of getting involved in administrative matters. On the IAB: I do not agree that the focus needs to be on the A of architecture. There is not a lot that the IAB does that is not in its charter. I believe that the focus needs to be on the B of board. In other words, just as in the IAOC more oversight. During my tenure we took a number of steps to move the handy work into programs and initiatives in which the execution of projects could take place so that the IAB members themselves could oversee but that journey was far from complete. The tension between Architecture and Board has existed to my personal knowledge since 1994, and probably longer. Let's not forget that the IAB has had three names: 1984 Internet Advisory Board 1986 Internet Activities Board 1992 Internet Architecture Board Maybe it's time to discuss whether the A and the B shouldn't simply be split apart? For the IAOC and IAB these will be difficult challenges that cannot be enforced externally but also need an evolutionary culture change . Not only in the I* bodies themselves but also how the NOMCOM. Indeed, and I think that is a more profound issue than just the Chairs' workloads (which, in case it isn't clear, I definitely agree is a problem that needs solving). Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A or B [was Trust membership]
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: I think this disagreement between two ex-IAB Chairs deserves its own thread. On 2011-09-21 17:47, Olaf Kolkman wrote: On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: ...exactly. I'm far from convinced about that. I think the real need is to figure out how to make the IAOC an Oversight committee rather than it getting involved in executive decisions, and to figure out how to make the IAB an Architecture board instead of getting involved in administrative matters. On the IAB: I do not agree that the focus needs to be on the A of architecture. There is not a lot that the IAB does that is not in its charter. I believe that the focus needs to be on the B of board. In other words, just as in the IAOC more oversight. During my tenure we took a number of steps to move the handy work into programs and initiatives in which the execution of projects could take place so that the IAB members themselves could oversee but that journey was far from complete. The tension between Architecture and Board has existed to my personal knowledge since 1994, and probably longer. Let's not forget that the IAB has had three names: 1984 Internet Advisory Board There was at least one Internet Architecture Task Force meeting, in May 1986, as the Trust holds proceedings for it (Box C118340 of the Trust Archives). Regards Marshall 1986 Internet Activities Board 1992 Internet Architecture Board Maybe it's time to discuss whether the A and the B shouldn't simply be split apart? For the IAOC and IAB these will be difficult challenges that cannot be enforced externally but also need an evolutionary culture change . Not only in the I* bodies themselves but also how the NOMCOM. Indeed, and I think that is a more profound issue than just the Chairs' workloads (which, in case it isn't clear, I definitely agree is a problem that needs solving). Brian ___ 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: A or B [was Trust membership]
The INARC - Internet Architecture Task Force and the IAB were never the same thing. The INARC was what was left of the Gateway Algorithms and Data Structures group after the IETF (actually the INENG at the time) was created halfway through the GADS meeting. Both GADS and INARC were chaired by Dave Mills. The IAB at the time was composed of the chairs of the various task forces. Mike At 06:01 PM 9/21/2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote: The tension between Architecture and Board has existed to my personal knowledge since 1994, and probably longer. Let's not forget that the IAB has had three names: 1984 Internet Advisory Board There was at least one Internet Architecture Task Force meeting, in May 1986, as the Trust holds proceedings for it (Box C118340 of the Trust Archives). Regards Marshall ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations-00.txt (Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifier for Proxy Mobile IPv6) to Informational RFC
Hi Jari, On 11-09-19 02:35 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: Following up with a personal comment. The draft allocates an interface ID and an EUI-64 MAC identifier from the IANA block. These are two separate, unrelated allocations. The main criticism in RFC 5453 for making additional interface ID allocations is that old implementations do not know about them and may collide when making an allocation. I'm wondering if it would be better to allocate an interface ID that is based on the allocated EUI-64 identifier per RFC 2464? Then we would at least use the same format as other interface IDs and a collision would likely mean inappropriate use of the IANA EUI-64 identifiers. Note that privacy and cryptographic addresses set the u/l bit to zero, whereas EUI-64 interface IDs usually have it at one. Sri's draft is silent on what kind of number should be allocated for the interface ID, perhaps some guidance here would be useful. This sounds like a great idea. I am not sure that IANA has a reserved EUI-64 block like you suggested, but they certainly have a ethernet address block (MAC-48). We can instruct the IANA to assign a MAC address that maps straight into the IID. e.g. 00-00-5E-00-03-00 and the IID 0200:5eff:fe00:0300 Thanks Suresh ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations-00.txt (Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifier for Proxy Mobile IPv6) to Informational RFC
Hi Sri, On 11-09-19 01:29 PM, Sri Gundavelli wrote: Hi Jari: In case of PMIPv6, we need the interface ID allocation for PMIv6 domain-wide usage. We may not be able tie this to a specific EUI-64 identifier derived from a MAC identifier of any individual MAG hosting this configuration. But, if your recommendation is to tie the IPv6 interface identifier to the reserved link-layer identifier (the other IANA action), that should be fine. But, the reserved block that Suresh has in his spec is not tied to any EUI-64 block ? That implies, we need an interface ID allocation from a new block ? Or, recommend the node to generate the interface ID based on the reserved Mac address and not allocate from the block Suresh created ? There are two ways by which you can get a stable reserved IID. One by reserving an IID block using an IANA registry and the other by getting a stable MAC48 that can be used to create an IID. The only danger with getting a stable MAC48 is that if you happen to have 2 MAGs in the same broadcast domain, it will lead to issues. Thanks Suresh ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
--On Thursday, September 22, 2011 00:12 +0300 Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote: ... Also, there is some experience from the other direction: sometimes it has happened that the chair talks with the IAOC and they come up with some conclusion, but when he talks to the rest of us in an IESG meeting we bring up additional points that may change the conclusion. So whether or not it is the chair that is in the IAOC meeting, it is important that there is a discussion with the rest of the body. Yes. And while how much will differ with the individuals involved and the dynamics of the IAOC, the claims that the Chairs someone have exclusive knowledge, exclusive perspective, and/or exclusive understanding are essentially arguments that the kind of consultation Jari describes is really unnecessary. I, for one, believe that have IESG and IAB insight (and input) into what is going on in the IAOC/Trust is at least as important as having IAOC/Trust insight into what is going on in the IESG and IAB. And I believe that an appointed member --who might be the Chair but need not be-- is actually likely to help facilitate that two-way communication by making it more clear that the IAB and IESG are expected to maintain some visibility and insight. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
I've been watching this with interest. I'm especially in agreement with Leslie's comments about chair load. Because of the legal issues with respect to the IETF trust and the implementing documents for the IAOC, its going to be pretty difficult to come up with a way to remove some of the responsibilities from the Chairs (meeting attendance, voting, etc) without also removing the authority. We're arguing somewhat in circles. I agree with Bob's comments below that the leadership of the IESG and the IAB need to be involved in the operation of the IAOC, but I no longer think there are enough hours in the day for the IETF and IAB chairs to be able to do everything they need to do. I hesitate to suggest this, but its probably time: Let's add a position to the IESG - Executive Vice-Chair or Co-Adjutor Chair. Basically, either the chair's personal representative (Executive Vice-Chair) or their replacement in waiting (Co-Adjutor Chair). Have the IAB select a vice-chair when they select the chair. Modify the various documents to describe the various responsibilities for the Vice-chairs - suggestions for the IETF co-chair would be to stick him/her with the IAOC, the Trust and at least half of the Administrivia.. For the IAB - ditto plus liaison and appeals. Modify the IAOC documents to permit either of the two co-chairs to be designated for a year at a time as IAOC members by the respective chairs choice (but can't be pulled off once on). No modificiations to the Trust legal document, but probably modify the administrative document to require the chair and co-chair for the IAB and IETF be invited to all non-closed meetings. Job description to the Nomcom - for the IETF, the co-chair is a chair-in-training with the expectation they may make a decent Chair when and if the time comes. Maybe rotate that job every two years regardless to ensure a couple of people with some of the chair experience are in the pool. Maybe even every year. Mike At 10:27 AM 9/21/2011, Bob Hinden wrote: I think it's very important for the I* chairs to share the responsibility for IAOC decisions by being voting members. Why? So we don't have the IESG and IAB having disputes with the IAOC. Having the IETF and IAB chairs share the decisions avoids a lot of this. I think you are aware of a few times where we got close to this and I think the current structure helped avoid it. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.netwrote: I've been watching this with interest. I'm especially in agreement with Leslie's comments about chair load. Because of the legal issues with respect to the IETF trust and the implementing documents for the IAOC, its going to be pretty difficult to come up with a way to remove some of the responsibilities from the Chairs (meeting attendance, voting, etc) without also removing the authority. We're arguing somewhat in circles. I agree with Bob's comments below that the leadership of the IESG and the IAB need to be involved in the operation of the IAOC, but I no longer think there are enough hours in the day for the IETF and IAB chairs to be able to do everything they need to do. I hesitate to suggest this, but its probably time: Let's add a position to the IESG - Executive Vice-Chair or Co-Adjutor Chair. Basically, either the chair's personal representative (Executive Vice-Chair) or their replacement in waiting (Co-Adjutor Chair). Have the IAB select a vice-chair when they select the chair. Modify the various documents to describe the various responsibilities for the Vice-chairs - suggestions for the IETF co-chair would be to stick him/her with the IAOC, the Trust and at least half of the Administrivia.. For the IAB - ditto plus liaison and appeals. Modify the IAOC documents to permit either of the two co-chairs to be designated for a year at a time as IAOC members by the respective chairs choice (but can't be pulled off once on). No modificiations to the Trust legal document, but probably modify the administrative document to require the chair and co-chair for the IAB and IETF be invited to all non-closed meetings. Job description to the Nomcom - for the IETF, the co-chair is a chair-in-training with the expectation they may make a decent Chair when and if the time comes. Maybe rotate that job every two years regardless to ensure a couple of people with some of the chair experience are in the pool. Maybe even every year. I have suggested this verbally several times, and so would support it, but each time it has gotten shot down as not the IETF/IESG/IAB way. Regards Marshall Mike At 10:27 AM 9/21/2011, Bob Hinden wrote: I think it's very important for the I* chairs to share the responsibility for IAOC decisions by being voting members. Why? So we don't have the IESG and IAB having disputes with the IAOC. Having the IETF and IAB chairs share the decisions avoids a lot of this. I think you are aware of a few times where we got close to this and I think the current structure helped avoid it. ___ 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
Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-05.txt (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from the Sieve Mail Filtering Language WG (sieve) to consider the following document: - 'Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE' draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-05.txt 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 i...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-10-05. 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. Abstract This document describes a profile of the Sieve extension for notifications, to allow notifications to be sent over SIP MESSAGE. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Last Call: draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-07.txt (Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires) to Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge WG (pwe3) to consider the following document: - 'Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires' draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-07.txt 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 i...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-10-05. 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. Abstract This document specifies a mechanism to signal Pseudowire (PW) status messages using an PW associated channel (ACh). Such a mechanism is suitable for use where no PW dynamic control plane exits, known as static PWs, or where a Terminating Provider Edge (T-PE) needs to send a PW status message directly to a far end T-PE. The mechanism allows PW OAM message mapping and PW redundancy to operate on static PWs. This document also updates rfc5885 in the case when BFD is used to convey PW status signaling information. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Protocol Action: 'Mechanism for performing LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnels' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-11.txt)
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Mechanism for performing LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnels' (draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-11.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap/ Technical Summary This documents describes methods for performing lsp-ping traceroute over mpls tunnels. The techniques specified in [RFC4379] outline a traceroute mechanism that includes FEC validation and ECMP path discovery. Those mechanisms are insufficient and do not provide details in case the FEC being traced traverses one or more mpls tunnels and in case where LSP stitching is in use. This document defines enhancements to the downstream-mapping TLV [RFC4379] to make it more extensible and to enable retrieval of detailed information. Using the enhanced TLV format along with the existing definitions of [RFC4379], this document describes procedures by which a traceroute request can correctly traverse mpls tunnels with proper FEC and label validations. Working Group Summary The document has been reviewed by the MPLS working and has been progressed in parallel with draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp through the working group last call process. Document Quality The document is well reviewed by the MPLS working groups. Personnel Ross Callon is the Document Shepherd for this document. Stewart Bryant is the Responsible Area Director. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
RFC 6372 on MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability Framework
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6372 Title: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability Framework Author: N. Sprecher, Ed., A. Farrel, Ed. Status: Informational Stream: IETF Date: September 2011 Mailbox:nurit.sprec...@nsn.com, adr...@olddog.co.uk Pages: 56 Characters: 142437 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag:draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-06.txt URL:http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6372.txt Network survivability is the ability of a network to recover traffic delivery following failure or degradation of network resources. Survivability is critical for the delivery of guaranteed network services, such as those subject to strict Service Level Agreements (SLAs) that place maximum bounds on the length of time that services may be degraded or unavailable. The Transport Profile of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP) is a packet-based transport technology based on the MPLS data plane that reuses many aspects of the MPLS management and control planes. This document comprises a framework for the provision of survivability in an MPLS-TP network; it describes recovery elements, types, methods, and topological considerations. To enable data-plane recovery, survivability may be supported by the control plane, management plane, and by Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) functions. This document describes mechanisms for recovering MPLS-TP Label Switched Paths (LSPs). A detailed description of pseudowire recovery in MPLS-TP networks is beyond the scope of this document. This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet-based transport network as defined by the ITU-T. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. This document is a product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group of the IETF. INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
RFC 6376 on DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6376 Title: DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures Author: D. Crocker, Ed., T. Hansen, Ed., M. Kucherawy, Ed. Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: September 2011 Mailbox:dcroc...@bbiw.net, tony+dki...@maillennium.att.com, m...@cloudmark.com Pages: 76 Characters: 176999 Obsoletes: RFC4871, RFC5672 I-D Tag:draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-15.txt URL:http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6376.txt DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) permits a person, role, or organization that owns the signing domain to claim some responsibility for a message by associating the domain with the message. This can be an author's organization, an operational relay, or one of their agents. DKIM separates the question of the identity of the Signer of the message from the purported author of the message. Assertion of responsibility is validated through a cryptographic signature and by querying the Signer's domain directly to retrieve the appropriate public key. Message transit from author to recipient is through relays that typically make no substantive change to the message content and thus preserve the DKIM signature. This memo obsoletes RFC 4871 and RFC 5672. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Domain Keys Identified Mail Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Draft Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
BCP 167, RFC 6377 on DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) and Mailing Lists
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. BCP 167 RFC 6377 Title: DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) and Mailing Lists Author: M. Kucherawy Status: Best Current Practice Stream: IETF Date: September 2011 Mailbox:m...@cloudmark.com Pages: 26 Characters: 61792 See Also: BCP0167 I-D Tag:draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-12.txt URL:http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6377.txt DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) allows an ADministrative Management Domain (ADMD) to assume some responsibility for a message. Based on deployment experience with DKIM, this document provides guidance for the use of DKIM with scenarios that include Mailing List Managers (MLMs). This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice. This document is a product of the Domain Keys Identified Mail Working Group of the IETF. BCP: This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
