Re: Final IPv4 Unicast Address Allocations
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 14:44, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote: There is no crisis, but there is a need for action so that the Internet can continue to grow. The transition to IPv6 requires the attention of many actors. However, our parents, spouses, and children will be largely unaware of the transition. They will continue to be amazed of the endless possibilities offered by the growing Internet. For them, this milestone will remain insignificant. Until they see a documentary on newfound evidence recovered from ancient Internet archives, including your very message, Russ, and a disaster-science-fiction-movie producer creates a film called IPv4: The Unpredicted Eighth Seal. -- /Daniel P. Brown Network Infrastructure Manager http://www.php.net/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Subscriptions to ietf-honest
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 17:46, Steven M. Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote: It's happened to me twice, with two different lists of his. I've complained to him, but to no avail. I wonder if the CAN SPAM act applies. Unfortunately, no, thanks to (deliberate?) loopholes and shortfalls of the bill. The bill actually does not require prior permission, only a way out and some other ridiculous minimums. When it was written and passed, Congress told the FTC to report within 24 months on the effectiveness; in their report, they recommended no changes. Makes you wonder if they even paid any attention, or just clicked a box on a Congress intranet website poll. There was a decent article in Wired(1) shortly after the bill came through. Just looked it up for your reference now. Interesting read, just over five years later, to see how things have actually gotten worse since this took effect. [1] http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2004/01/62020 -- /Daniel P. Brown daniel.br...@parasane.net || danbr...@php.net http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/ 50% Off All Shared Hosting Plans at PilotPig: Use Coupon DOW1 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plenary Online Experiment
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Stephane H Maes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It may be an artifact of email or I may have missed some earlier relevant exchanges, but I am a bit surprised that it is announced for the first time ~ 10 minutes before the event... Of course some of us can't attend in such cases... I hadn't noticed any announcements about it prior to the one at about 3:50p EST today, but chalked it up to the experimental nature. I'm looking forward to the day when there's full remote attendance capability for the plenaries. -- /Daniel P. Brown http://www.parasane.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Re: Plenary Online Experiment
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Stephane H Maes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It may be an artifact of email or I may have missed some earlier relevant exchanges, but I am a bit surprised that it is announced for the first time ~ 10 minutes before the event... Of course some of us can't attend in such cases... I hadn't noticed any announcements about it prior to the one at about 3:50p EST today, but chalked it up to the experimental nature. I'm looking forward to the day when there's full remote attendance capability for the plenaries. -- /Daniel P. Brown http://www.parasane.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: About IETF communication skills
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Lixia Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I questioned the reporter why she ignored my request, the reply was that it was the magazine's policy not allowing preview --- something they never told me beforehand. One lesson learned. Indeed. It may be worth making a point in the future to ask if previews and pre-publishing amendments are allowed before consenting to an interview. -- /Daniel P. Brown Better prices on dedicated servers: Intel 2.4GHz/60GB/512MB/2TB $49.99/mo. Intel 3.06GHz/80GB/1GB/2TB $59.99/mo. Dedicated servers, VPS, and hosting from $2.50/mo. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: About IETF communication skills
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or you know not consenting to interviews with someone who's professionalism you don't respect. Why you would expect someone engaged in serious journalism or otherwise to offer you the opportunity to modulate your own statements post facto is beyond me. To change what was said, no. To ensure that it's taken in the proper context, yes. It's done in the media every day. -- /Daniel P. Brown Better prices on dedicated servers: Intel 2.4GHz/60GB/512MB/2TB $49.99/mo. Intel 3.06GHz/80GB/1GB/2TB $59.99/mo. Dedicated servers, VPS, and hosting from $2.50/mo. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 24, 2008, at 6:18 AM, Marc Manthey wrote: marratech was aquired by google in 2005 , so i guess its not available anymore ( was java by the way and a bit slow ) I keep hearing this, and I use it every week. Someday I'll figure out why people say this. The same Marratech client available here? (http://www.marratech.com/download/) Good thing someone mirrored it last year. ;-P -- /Daniel P. Brown Better prices on dedicated servers: Intel 2.4GHz/60GB/512MB/2TB $49.99/mo. Intel 3.06GHz/80GB/1GB/2TB $59.99/mo. Dedicated servers, VPS, and hosting from $2.50/mo. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: left mailing list
2008/7/23 Huntak Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi. I'd like not to receive ietf mail any more in this e-mail address. please don't send mail to this e-mail([EMAIL PROTECTED]) The link appended to the bottom of every message distributed by this list is what you want. Go to https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf and, at the bottom of the page, enter your email address to unsubscribe. It should take effect immediately, but if not, definitely by the end of today. -- /Daniel P. Brown Better prices on dedicated servers: Intel 2.4GHz/60GB/512MB/2TB $49.99/mo. Intel 3.06GHz/80GB/1GB/2TB $59.99/mo. Dedicated servers, VPS, and hosting from $2.50/mo. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Andrew G. Malis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thomas, I would personally find this more useful if it were measured by subject line rather than by sender. Thread metrics can be found all around the web if you're interested. GMANE and MARC are just two such services. I took from Tom's idea and wrote a list metrics system for the PHP community earlier this year (running on the highest-traffic PHP list, php-general), which includes total traffic, total posters, messages and bytes by poster, and also total lines of code and code per poster. The theory behind that is to see how much useful data is passed per message (like SNR, basically), but it's become more of a competition there than anything. It's interesting to see who's contributed what during what period, and to develop patterns based on high-traffic weeks compared to advancement of the language. Measuring by subject would be difficult, as subject lines change frequently (e.g. - WAS: Old Subject) and subjects also sometimes include RE:, FWD:, et cetera. GMANE, MARC, et al, I believe organize by ThreadID. -- /Daniel P. Brown Internet Operations Director EASE Simulation, Inc. (888-) 366-EASE Ext. 272 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would suggest that the IESG also think about hosting all IETF lists in house in the future. The main reason for this is legal, a list that is maintained by the IETF is much more satisfactory in a patent dispute than one run by a third party. Last thing we want is to have patent trolls dragging a third party list maintainer into a dispute while they try to argue that the list somehow does not count. The question I'd have in response to that point though, Phillip, is how the cost vs. benefit of hosting all data in-house with consideration to changing privacy and data retention laws weighs out. Apologies for the run-on sentence. -- /Daniel P. Brown Ask me about: Dedicated servers starting @ $59.99/mo., VPS starting @ $19.99/mo., and shared hosting starting @ $2.50/mo. Unmanaged, managed, and fully-managed! ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 only Plenary Makes the News
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Ofer Inbar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject: IPv6 only Plenary Makes the News
Isn't that just a press release from ISOC, being distributed by wire
services online?
-- Cos
Yes, that's correct. Still interesting to see it picked up by
other publishers, though, to get others interested in the daily work
of the IETF.
--
/Dan
Daniel P. Brown
Senior Unix Geek
? while(1) { $me = $mind--; sleep(86400); } ?
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ISO 3166 mandatory?
On Feb 20, 2008 12:23 PM, lconroy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Folks,
WTF - why am I REQUIRED to enter the ISO-3166 code for my country
of residence.
[snip!]
This is (if nothing else) a Fenian ploy.
[snip!]
add United Kingdom (UK), you *[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not sure where in your rant you mentioned where this occurs. I
must've missed it. In any case, some enjoyable literature pertinent
to your inquiry:
(Citing http://www.ietf.org/maillist-new2.html)
Inappropriate Postings to Discussion Lists
Inappropriate postings to discussion lists include:
* Unsolicited bulk e-mail
* Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings,
activities, or technical concerns
* Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject
--
/Dan
Daniel P. Brown
Senior Unix Geek
? while(1) { $me = $mind--; sleep(86400); } ?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: amsl.com certificate?
On Feb 20, 2008 12:04 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip!]
My browser (the latest version of Safari on the Mac) complains that
the issuer of the certificate is untrusted. That would be Starfield
Secure Certification Authority.
Is this a CA in good standing that we should trust?
Starfield Tech is the company from whom the certificate is issued
if you purchase an SSL certificate through GoDaddy.
--
/Dan
Daniel P. Brown
Senior Unix Geek
? while(1) { $me = $mind--; sleep(86400); } ?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 Outage
Ray,
Which services will be affected by this (all, Tools EDU, email)?
On Feb 20, 2008 12:52 PM, Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ATT, the IPv6 service provider for the IETF, is planning a major
change in their IPv6 network on Thursday, 21 February, at 8am
Eastern for one hour duration.
All services are anticipated to be back up and running at 9am Eastern.
We are sorry for this temporary IPv6 service interruption and for
any inconvenience this may cause you.
Ray Pelletier
IAD
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
/Dan
Daniel P. Brown
Senior Unix Geek
? while(1) { $me = $mind--; sleep(86400); } ?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Presentation on IP address shortage
On Feb 13, 2008 2:05 PM, Henning Schulzrinne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking for a reasonably recent presentation on the state of IP
address allocation that would be suitable for a class I'm teaching.
Thanks.
Henning
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Presumably you're talking about IPv4 (and the imminent need to
adopt IPv6). Some decent articles and papers - some of which I've
cited in my own work - are as follows:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html
http://www.apnic.net/news/2007/0626.html
http://lacnic.net/en/anuncios/2007_agotamiento_ipv4.html
http://www.arin.net/announcements/20070521.html
--
/Dan
Daniel P. Brown
Senior Unix Geek
? while(1) { $me = $mind--; sleep(86400); } ?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 -- Dublin!
On Feb 6, 2008 1:29 PM, Edward Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:37 -0800 2/6/08, $someone wrote:
The descriptions of the venue make clear that, once again, the IETF is
meeting
in a ghetto. Periodic bus service doesn't counteract that.
I really have a hard time being sympathetic to this complaint. If
the purpose of the IETF is open discussion and cross-pollination,
what does it matter where we are so long as there's comfortable
access to the expertise needed? Is there an unwritten requirement
that IETFs are placed to afford us sightseeing? To afford us access
to restaurants?
I'd like to chime in and remind everyone of one of the basic
principles of the IETF in this regard, as well. Just yesterday I was
evangelizing the group to an individual from whom I think the
organization can benefit greatly, but who had little knowledge of the
group as a whole. Thus, I pointed him to the Tao of the IETF[1].
As directly-relevant to this issue, I think it's important to remember
that we *should not* limit conventions to nice areas. Safe, of
course, but we don't need to always spoil ourselves with full
amenities, golfing, water parks, casinos, and the like.
The points I refer to within the Tao are twofold. My apologies
for sounding preachy, as I know it will look to some like I'm quoting
scripture.
First, from Section 3:
In many ways, the IETF runs on the beliefs of its
participants. One of the 'founding beliefs' is embodied in an early
quote about the IETF from David Clark: 'We reject kings, presidents
and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code'.
The IETF is really about its participants. Because of the
unrestrictive membership policies, IETF particpants come from all over
the world and from many different parts of the Internet industry.
To me, that says that we need the input of EVERYONE, not just
the select few who can afford to attend conferences in ritzy areas.
It also means that the conferences should (as they do) be held at
various locations around the world - including ghetto-like places.
Secondly, from 4.11:
There are many people who have been very active in the IETF
who have never attended an IETF meeting.
The issue may not be money for a majority of the participants,
but why preclude those for whom it actually is? If we choose to hold
meetings only in places that offer entertainment and vacation-like
distractions, not only will the price likely be higher and more
out-of-reach for lower-income participants, but then it seems to me as
though we're getting out of the scope and goal of the gathering
itself: to teach, learn, and share ideas not to go on vacation
with geek buddies. ;-P
Bottom line: I think if we limit venues to places where generally
only the privileged congregate to spend money on food and wine, while
the largest complaint is having to walk a block to the hall, we're
outwardly stating that we don't value the talents of those who were
born into poverty - or who are even considered lower-middle-class.
If what goes on outside of the convention we're there to attend is
more important than what's inside those walls, I'd rather stay home.
And that's all I have to say about that. - Forest Gump
--
/Dan
Daniel P. Brown
Senior Unix Geek
? while(1) { $me = $mind--; sleep(86400); } ?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FYI - ZDNet and the Birth of IPv6 referring to the BBC article
2008/2/4 Dan York [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
FYI, Richard Stiennon at ZDNet noticed that the root servers will be
IPv6-accessible and refers to it as the Birth of IPv6:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=527
He was pointing over to the BBC article about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7221758.stm
(I thought the records had gone up into the root servers a few weeks
ago so I was surprised to read that it was only today (assuming the articles
are accurate, of course).)
Dan
Coincidentally, there was another ZDNet article I had read earlier
today entitled ICANN turns on next-gen IP addresses.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6229218.html
--
/Dan
Daniel P. Brown
Senior Unix Geek
? while(1) { $me = $mind--; sleep(86400); } ?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Forbidden RFC (Was: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?
On Dec 14, 2007 9:19 AM, Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know that there is work going on today with the transfer of services from NSS to AMS, and I suspect that these errors may be connected to this. It may be, but according to Ray Pelletier (Administrative Director), the DNS changes wouldn't be started until about noon Eastern (1700 UTC). With a 404 error, it sounds like someone may have been doing some cleanup on the server. In any case, it'll be interesting to see how smoothly the transitions go, starting in about an hour and a half. -- Daniel P. Brown [Phone Numbers Go Here!] [They're Hidden From View!] If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Transitioning IETF DNS services
On Dec 13, 2007 10:48 AM, Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You need both physical (power, hardware, location) and operational (different global prefixes, preferably different AS's) diversity for reliable DNS. We knew about this problem, but choose to make the announcement anyway. We are in the process of working out a secondary. I got a verbal agreement last night, and I expect that it will all be worked out by Friday. We just did not want to hold up the announcement while this was sorted out. Russ I'm guilty of posting without reading everything right now (since I deleted the thread up to now), but if it's a simple matter of physical DNS diversity, I'm certainly willing to offer the aid of several of my servers (in various global locations, which just sounds cool to say) to answer DNS requests during the transition. If I missed out on something bigger, feel free to ignore and/or scold me for speaking out of turn. -- Daniel P. Brown [office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272 [mobile] (570-) 766-8107 If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Eurasia
On Dec 6, 2007 8:59 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Only part of the meeting fee is profit for the IETF and an even smaller part of the attendee costs. It cost my employer roughly $2,000 for me to attend the Vancouver IETF for two days. That is $6,000 for the IETF to make $1000. Unfortunately, this is why I haven't made it to nearly as many meetings as I'd like to have over the years. I'm self-employed, with a very small firm, and it's nearly impossible for me to afford it. However, I'm looking forward to this coming March. With the event being only two hours from my home, it'll be a lot easier well, except that gas prices will probably cost me almost as much as a cheap hotel. -- Daniel P. Brown [Phone Numbers Go Here!] [They're Hidden From View!] If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?
On Dec 2, 2007 4:55 PM, Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lixia Zhang wrote: The remedy here may also include the cost to those people who acted on a published RFC in its first 2 months. Yes, or months earlier, for the case I have in mind more than two years, millions of users, and a bunch of implementations. Most happily ignoring the eventual opt-out remedy, I guess. Conversely, why not allow a Draft to be published as an RFC in that six-week period if there are no arguments or appeals, whereas an appeal could potentially (a) restart the six-week clock, or (b) extend the period from 42 to the full sixty days? Though again, it would be changing the rule for less than a 50% gain in minimum time to publication. I just thought I'd toss the idea out there. -- Daniel P. Brown [office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272 [mobile] (570-) 766-8107 If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
