Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474
Idiots Martin C. Dolly Sent to you by ATT... America's Fastest Mobile Broadband Network. Rethink Possible. +1.609.903.3360 - Original Message - From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org ietf-boun...@ietf.org To: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Sent: Fri Sep 03 12:20:35 2010 Subject: Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: So in my view the problem here is that when I pay for an X Mb/sec connection at the moment I have no real way of knowing whether that is really X Mb/sec all the time or X/n Mb/sec when I am using a service that competes with my carrier. This sounds like there is potential for crowd sourcing here. For example, I can tell you nothing about Vonage, but a fair amount about Cox Cable Internet. What you want to know is known, just not (yet) in a way you can easily access. Would a Yelp type model be appropriate ? It might tell you something about customer service and might tell you if there is a pattern of promising more than is delivered, but the last mile of the connection is highly variable. Depending on the carrier technologies, there may be distance issues and/or issues re. folks the link is shared with, etc. The only way to know is to make parallel installations and test them using carefully constructed methodologies to try to factor out other variables like origin server load, backbone load, etc. Then there is all the automatic stuff most users aren't aware of which uses up bandwidth and is almost impossible to identify. Close to a no win situation for consumer class services. I know from repeated experience that my installed speed will be downrated from the promised speed. It has never not happened with multiple providers and locations. ___ 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 Attendance by continent
Though interesting, what is the intent of the use of this data Martin Martin C. Dolly Sent to you by ATT... America's Fastest Mobile Broadband Network. Rethink Possible. +1.609.903.3360 - Original Message - From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org ietf-boun...@ietf.org To: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net Cc: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com; IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org Sent: Fri Aug 06 18:37:15 2010 Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent Mike, On Aug 6, 2010, at 2:18 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: Bob - Would it be possible to get two additional version of this chart? 1) Including only those who were nomcom eligible (3 of 5 of the last meetings) at each meeting. 2) Including only those who were one of WG chair, document editor or author for a an active document at that meeting (e.g. WG met and there were active IDs), IESG/IAB Its unclear to me whether the raw numbers are actually useful as they tend to be fairly skewed by local attendees. That in itself isn't bad, but what I think what we're looking for are long-term contributors/collaborators. I know it may be difficult to assemble the above lists, but I believe the data does exist electronically. I don't know how much of this is possible or how hard it would be. I will investigate. I do note that it seems clear that registration is related to where we meet. That show up pretty clearly the current data. So judging where to have future meetings based on past participation will tend to keep us where we used to meet. Nomcom is, as you point out, 3 of 5 meetings. WG chair and authors might have a longer history. I think an important part of the meeting rotation is to equalize the travel cost/pain for most attendees. This would point to actual current attendance more than say w.g. chairs. Bob Bob Thanks - Mike At 04:44 PM 8/6/2010, Bob Hinden wrote: During my IAOC chair plenary talk at IETF78 (slides are in the proceedings) I asked a question about continuing the current meeting policy (3 in North America, 2 in Europe, 1 in Asia in two year period (3-2-1) ) or changing to a 1-1-1 policy based on current meeting attendance. The talk included a graph of attendance by continent for IETF72-IETF78. I was asked to provide this data to the community. It is attached. It includes the raw data and a new graph that shows attendance by percentage. It appears to me that a 1-1-1 meeting policy is justified by current overall IETF meeting attendance. Your comments are appreciated. Bob ___ 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: WG Review: Call Control UUI for SIP (cuss)
Cullen the answer to your question is No. -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 10:06 AM To: Gonzalo Camarillo Cc: DISPATCH list; IESG IESG; IETF-Discussion list Subject: Re: WG Review: Call Control UUI for SIP (cuss) I don't think this resolves the issue. The issue is if this information is used for a call control. Basically do proxies need to be able to look at this to make decision about what they are going to do. We at least need a Yes/No answer to this question from the proponents of this work and the charter to make that clear. On Jul 14, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: Hi, thanks for your comments on the charter proposal. Per the comments received, we will modify bullet 5 as follows so that it is clearer: OLD: 5. SIP elements may need to apply policy about passing and screening the information. NEW: 5. SIP elements may need to apply policy about passing and filtering UUI. The included application, encoding, semantics, and content information will allow endpoint or intermediary SIP elements to allow or block UUI based on the type and originator, not based on the actual UUI data, which may be end-to-end encrypted by the application. Further discussions on this topic should happen on the mailing list of this WG. Cheers, Gonzalo ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Cullen Jennings For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html ___ 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: [77all] No Host for IETF 77
Guess you are not that street smart, look at the corporation names on the name tags... IETF is bought -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 9:19 PM To: Thomson, Martin Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: [77all] No Host for IETF 77 On 3/22/2010 5:59 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote: This working group brought to you byDave Crocker Just after note well. Right, but some working groups will have multiple offers for sponsorship. Should there be a premium charge for the more popular working groups? There also might be some spoofing, where someone pays to have /you/ listed as sponsor of the wg. That leads to the possibility of your paying for a de-listing... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ 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: Internet Society joins Liberty Alliance Management Board: Why?
What does this mean? What documents are formative? Informative? Many others? - Original Message - From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org ietf-boun...@ietf.org To: Hannes Tschofenig hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net Cc: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Sent: Sat Feb 28 17:26:43 2009 Subject: Re: Internet Society joins Liberty Alliance Management Board: Why? Hannes Tschofenig wrote: I would like to hear a bit more background about these activities, see https://www.projectliberty.org/news_events/press_releases/internet_society_j oins_liberty_alliance_management_board Hannes, that is a very good question. I look forward to clarification from the appropriate authorities. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist (resend)
Do you all have a life. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bert Wijnen (IETF) Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 4:12 PM To: Pete Resnick; IETF Discussion; IESG Subject: Fw: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist (resend) Oops, used wrong from address - Original Message - From: Bert Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 9:25 PM Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist Pete, I am not sure how this helps. I thought that ID authors/editors DO know what MUST/SHOULD means. If not, then as far as I am concerned, we can change the capitalized words into lower case. The front of the document shows (into with notes) clearly waht the intent is. And is states that ADs will not accept a request for publication and will not put it on the IESG agenda. Is that not clear enough? See also my response to Klensin and Crocker about the intent of the document. That said, if Russ agrees, I can certainly add more boilerplate text as you suggest below. I doubt it will make the document any more useful. Bert Editor of ID_Checklist - Original Message - From: Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ietf@ietf.org Cc: IETF Chair [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; IETF Announcement list [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:17 PM Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-ChecklistOn 7/8/08 at 11:44 AM -0700, IETF Chair wrote: The IESG solicits comments on this proposed update. The IESG plans to make a decision on this proposed text on 2008-07-17. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2008-07-16. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Insert in the Introduction, before or at the beginning of Notes: - This memo uses the terms MUST, REQUIRED, SHOULD, and RECOMMENDED, similarly to the use of these terms in RFC 2119. In particular, when they appear in ALL CAPS in this memo: -MUST or REQUIRED means that if you do not do this in your I-D, the IESG will not accept the I-D for any review until the item is complete. - SHOULD or RECOMMENDED means that there may be valid reasons to ignore the item, but an explanation must be given, either in the text of the document or as part of the submission to the IESG, as to why the item is being ignored. Otherwise, the IESG may not accept the I-D for review. - This text both (a) puts draft authors on notice as to what the hard requirements are in order to avoid late surprises, and (b) puts reviewers of this memo on notice so that consensus can be reached on what are or are not real showstoppers for IESG review. pr -- Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 ___ 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
