Re: IETF 88 - Hotel Reservations: REMINDER
Hi Marcia, On 9/18/13 11:54 AM, IETF Agenda wrote: You can still use the main reservation links provided on the meeting web page at http://www.ietf.org/meeting/88/hotel.html for both the Hyatt and Fairmont, but please let me know once you have made your reservation. I have already made my reservation. Regards, Brian
Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials
Hi Dave, I am not Jari, but I do have an opinion on your thoughts below... On 7/29/13 1:25 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: I've been finding discussion and actions about newcomers far more interesting this year, than most previous ones. So I think it's worth pressing on several fronts, to see how we can both accommodate such folk better, as well as be clear about when and where and how such accommodation is /and is not/ appropriate. Your reply to me, above, lists different types of new folk -- and of course the list is reasonable and might be useful -- but I didn't see the actual clarification of what you felt was wrong in the target text or how you agreed with me an others. So, now you've got me curious for that detail... And while I've got the floor I'll offer a thought I had after a brief conversation with Jari at last night's reception: Warning: This calls for working groups to do a little more work. The working group home page and the working group wiki have become excellent tools for assembling relevant documents. For someone trying to get started in the wg, these are incredibly helpful. My suggestion is for a 'status' page that gives a brief summary about the current state of the working group, ideally listing the current, near-term vector of the work -- what's the current focus of effort -- and major open issues. I'll suggest that it be updated after every meeting. Arguably, this sort of status statement is good to have even without newcomers, since it forces working groups to face the question of what progress they are and are not making. An exercise like this can be cast as onerous or helpful, depending upon the surrounding organizational 'tone' we use. In a supportive environment, the exercise is helpful. In a hostile one, not so much. Basically, if a wg is being diligent and candid in summarizing its problems (as well as progress) the rest of us have an obligation to be helpful. One of the things that I ask the Internet Area chairs to do is send in a summary of their WG after each IETF meeting. Those summaries generally give folks a good idea of the current state of each WG. I post those summaries on the Internet Area wiki. An alternative that would work as well is to have each WG post summaries to their own wikis. Each WG has a wiki available via their Tools page (e.g., http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/trac/wiki). I like seeing the summaries from my chairs and I have gotten feedback from participants that they find them quite useful for keeping up with WGs that are tangential to their primary focus. I would encourage every WG chair to periodically summarize the state of their WG/drafts. Regards, Brian
Re: IETF Diversity
On 6/19/13 11:08 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: My point, poorly expressed though it was, is that it's not productive for us all to wait from word on high before taking positive action. Members of the IESG, IAB, IOAC, or any other official body are just folks who are temporarily serving the community in a defined role. If we want to change the culture of our community with respect to diversity, it's better for us to work to encourage, nurture, and mentor particular individuals. To help facilitate the mentoring aspect, there will be a call soon for volunteers to act as mentors for newcomers (starting with IETF 87). Once the web page for the mentoring program with all the information is up, you should be seeing a call for mentors. We hope that this type of program will aid in assisting newer members of the IETF community become more involved and productive in our activities. Regards, Brian
Re: IETF Diversity
On 6/19/13 11:31 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 6/19/13 9:26 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: On 6/19/13 11:08 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: My point, poorly expressed though it was, is that it's not productive for us all to wait from word on high before taking positive action. Members of the IESG, IAB, IOAC, or any other official body are just folks who are temporarily serving the community in a defined role. If we want to change the culture of our community with respect to diversity, it's better for us to work to encourage, nurture, and mentor particular individuals. To help facilitate the mentoring aspect, there will be a call soon for volunteers to act as mentors for newcomers (starting with IETF 87). Once the web page for the mentoring program with all the information is up, you should be seeing a call for mentors. We hope that this type of program will aid in assisting newer members of the IETF community become more involved and productive in our activities. That's great! However, why do we need to wait for a program? Can't we simply be human, introduce ourselves to new participants, reach out to individual contributors about becoming document shepherds, document editors, WG secretaries, WG chairs, BoF chairs, etc.? That's what I've been doing, and so far the results have been positive. I would highly encourage people taking that initiative and appreciate folks who do that of their own accord. I'm not saying that's the only way to make progress, but I see it as very much worth the effort. Absolutely agree. The goal of this experimental mentoring program is to provide people who may not be sure *how* to be mentors a framework to work within. Regards, Brian
Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process]
Dave, On 5/17/13 11:37 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote: But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing - what problem they're trying to solve, what approach they're taking, what technologies they're using, what major decisions they've made, what the current sticking points seem to be, what problems are as yet unresolved, what potential for cross-group and cross-area effects have been identified, and what efforts have been made to get the affected parties in the loop. For most groups that summary should be maybe 2-3 pages. The ADs should be able to verify that those summaries are accurate and reasonably complete, or appoint a trusted WG observer other than the chair to review each summary. ADs and other members of the community should be able to view those summaries and comment on their accuracy. The idea that working groups should be required to issue periodic project progress reports seems strikingly reasonable and useful. This makes the folks who are the most knowledgeable responsible for assessing their work, and should facilitate public review. Recording the sequence of reports into the wg datatracker could nicely allow evaluating progress over time. It also, of course, nicely distributes the work. d/ We (the INT ADs) have been trying to do that for the past year. See http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/int/trac/wiki/IETF86 as an example. The goal is to provide a place for INT area WGs to summarize what they have been doing so that others within INT can get an idea of what is going on. It is not to the level of a progress report, but it does provide a useful summation (at least based on the feedback that I have received to date). Regards, Brian
Re: Mentoring
On 3/14/13 4:31 PM, Eggert, Lars wrote: Hi, On Mar 14, 2013, at 16:26, Murray S. Kucherawy superu...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't observed that many newcomers at the newcomer meet-and-greet. They seem to be overwhelmed (numerically) by the ADs+chairs that go, which is reinforced by ADs+chairs using it as a taking-care-of-business opportunity as John observed. So, also along the much as I like free beer, maybe it should be just the ADs, unless the number of newcomers that go increases. if we do the newcomer-mentor-mailing-list-syncup proposal I described, you could restrict attendance to the beer to mentors that have been chosen by a mentoree... This may also widen the mentor pool. After making a statement in the plenary about mentors, I was asked to make something happen. I have been talking to a few people about putting together an experimental approach to matching newcomers (not just first-timers) and volunteer (non-I* participants) mentors. Stay tuned for more details. Regards, Brian
Re: IPv6 update for BCP5?
On 1/27/13 10:07 AM, tglassey wrote: So... we probably need a IPv6 update for BCP5 (RFC1918), doesnt that make sense? My understanding is people have been using ULAs (RFC 4193) for this type of functionality. Todd
Re: [lisp] Last Call: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
I want to thank everyone who has provided feedback on this draft. Given the issues raised, I am sending the draft back to the LISP WG for additional work. I encourage folks interested in this draft to participate on the LISP mailing list. Regards, Brian On 11/13/12 9:45 AM, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG (lisp) to consider the following document: - 'LISP EID Block' draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt as Informational RFC 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 2012-11-27. 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 is a direction to IANA to allocate a /16 IPv6 prefix for use with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). The prefix will be used for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint identification, by sites deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier) addressing space. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. ___ lisp mailing list l...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
IETF63 Network and IPv6
IETF'ers, I would like to raise an issue with everyone in Paris using the IPv6 support provided by France Telecom and the volunteer NOC squad. There are a few rogue client nodes advertising themselves as IPv6 routers. Here is a list of the guilty parties: 1. MAC = 00:05:4E:43:51:AA IPv4 = 86.255.24.98 Advertising (as IPv6 Router): - FEC0:0:0:6::/64 - 2002:56FF:1862:6::/64 2. MAC = 00:04:23:7A:FB:3E IPv4 = 86.255.28.28 Advertising (as IPv6 Router): - FEC0:0:0:8::/64 - 2002:56FF:1C1C:8::/64 3. MAC = 00:0D:93:EA:38:B2 Advertising (as IPv6 Router): - 2002:56FF:1862:6::/64 - 2002:56FF:1C1C:8::/64 - FEC0:0:0:8::/64 - 2002:56FF:1CB8:6::/64 - FEC0:0:0:6::/64 - 2001:0688::24::/64 4. MAC = 00:04:23:78:82:7E IPv4 = 86.255.28.176 Advertising (as IPv6 Router): - FEC0:0:0:6::/64 - 2002:56FF:1CB8:6::/64 The impact of these nodes' behaviors directly impacts the ability of other attendee's trying to use IPv6. There has been more than several cases where these rogue advertisements have caused blackholes for other clients. So, if you are the owner of ANY of the MAC addresses listed above, PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU DISABLE THE SENDING OF ROUTER ADVERTISEMENTS. Of course, much of this could be avoided if we had router and client support for SEND... Regards, Brian Just a poor IPv6 WG co-chair trying to use IPv6 to phone home smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 1918bis
My understanding is that the IESG (or some part of it) is having the DNS text looked at by the DNS directorate. Regards, Brian On Feb 4, 2005, at 15:29, Sam Hartman wrote: Tony == Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tony and now the replacement ULA space is unable to be published Tony as it is dragging out in an interminable discuss state. I see no discusses on draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr. I have not been following the document though since I cleared my discuss on Jan 24. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
