Re: Enough was enough
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JFC (Jefsey) Morfin) wrote on 30.08.05 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Dear Brian and all, This mail of Harald Alvestrand positively concludes a long, difficult and boring effort of mine started at the WG-IDNA. I apologise to all for the inconveniences it created all over these years. My Franglish and my lack of talents left me with a tested method: the style you suffered, to pass ideas to who is interested or concerned; home work to demonstrate and implement them. It avoids conflicts and obtains results, at the cost of some ad-hominems instead of major conflicts (like on the spam issue). The Draft has considerably improved since I started partly opposing it in December. Harald Alvestrand expressed several times that the IETF is neither interested nor competent in multilingualism, an area which is necessarily, by its complexity, the size of its financial figures and the involved industrial, political and cultural interests, the engine of the development of the future Internet (RFC 3869 unfortunately did not considered). So, he managed or sponsored himself that policy with real talent. I was first confronted to that IETF situation through the WG-IDNA: it shown me the rightness of his evaluation. Frankly, your analysis is about as wrong as possible. This is NOT about language problems, or about centralization, or whatever. My sadness is the very very small number of non-English mother tongue participants: the alternative SDO Harald found is no really better in that area. When addressing multilingualism, this should be very concerning for us all. Well, I'm certainly a non-English mother tongue participant. In fact, I seem to recall so is Harald Alvestrand. And I side with Harald in this. Your messages are often so full of jargon they are nearly impossible to understand. Furthermore, they often assert a large number of facts that certainly aren't true in the universe I see around me. And lastly, their connection with the threads you post them in is often hard to understand, too. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hallam-Baker, Phillip) wrote on 28.04.05 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In every other forum I simply make up the SRV prefixes myself and stick them in the draft. The chance of accidental collision is insignificant. There are far more Windows applications than Internet communication protocols yet people seem to be able to cope with a 3 letter filetype extension astonishingly well. Bad example. Very bad example. The number of collisions with 3 letter filetypes is high enough that I'll call copes well flat out false. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Voting (again)
moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) wrote on 27.04.05 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I am not saying that ADs will never misuse their power. That's what the appeals process is for. I'm saying that under the current situation the vast majority of AD edicts (as opposed to directed feedback) are the result of WGs reaching the point of exhaustion without producing good designs. Fix that problem and it becomes reasonable to expect fewer and less onerous AD edicts and to push back on those edicts more often. WG exhaustion isn't always a WG problem, either. ISTR a case of a WG that got replaced its chair by the IESG, and told to do its work differently, two or three times - and *every* time, the new chair stopped posting to the list after a short time. (The last time, I think he came back after a significant timeout.) That's a recipe for exhaustion if ever I saw one. I might even call it active sabotage. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) wrote on 09.02.05 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: !7. As bestween, the IETF, IASA and ISOC, the IETF, through the IASA, Huh?! I can't parse that. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Suggested resolution - #826: Section 4 - Removal of the IAOC Chair
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) wrote on 28.01.05 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: --On fredag, januar 28, 2005 08:19:03 -0500 Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harald suggests The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from that position at any time by a vote of five of the IAOC voting members. I don't think its a good idea to use absolute numbers - its better to use fractions '4/5ths of the voting members' for example - in case you have a situation where some IAOC members have dropped off for some reason - using absolute numbers can get into a situation where the action can not be taken even though all existing members of the IAOC want to do so But that slides us straight back into the situation where we must make rules for whether or not people who are on holiday are counted or not, what constitutes a quorum, and so on. How do you say that 2/3 of a meeting that had only 4 of the IAOC members present is not acceptable? The phrase all existing members sort of suggests that we're talking about formal membership here, so people on holiday would definitely count - as in, you can't remove the chair just because most of his supporters are on vacation. And given that, there's also no question of quorum I can see - the question isn't 2/3 of a meeting but 2/3 of the members - including absent members. That is, you need enough votes to make it even if everyone who could vote was actually there. That way, it doesn't matter how many people actually did show up. It was the fraction 2/3 that Russ objected to in the first place, pointing out that this means 6 out of 8 if everyone's present - which he thought was too much of a required majority. Which just points to a lower fraction, not to absolute numbers. In the case where the IAOC is short 3 members (required for the situation you describe), I think we can live with a chair not being removed until the selecting bodies have named replacements for members who are no longer willing or able to serve (if that is the situation you are worried about). That surely depends on the reason for removing that chair. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The gaps that NAT is filling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeroen Massar) wrote on 23.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This really isn't a problem of the IETF. The problems is at the ISP's who should charge for bandwidth usage and not for IP's. Actually, they do - with some qualifications - at least over here, in Germany. That is, if you still use dialin over the phone network, I believe at least some still charge by time as that is what they are charged by other phone companies for transport. That's what non-packet networks are like. Then, private end users - or others who behave like them - can opt for flat rates. Pretty much everything else is by bandwidth. The unfortunate problem here is that you usually only get static or multiple IPs with bandwidth accounting, and full use of a flat rate is typically vastly cheaper than the same amount of bandwidth via bandwidth accounting. Which means there's a premium to *enter* the static IP market. Once you're there, additional IP space is often free of any cost. (Well, you need to fill out the RIPE forms so your ISP has something to point at if they get audited.) MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The gaps that NAT is filling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Margaret Wasserman) wrote on 23.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The average Internet user (home user or enterprise administrator) does not care about the end-to-end principle or the architectural purity of the Internet. Maybe not the average usr, but a pretty large subset *does* care - because it makes it extremely hard to do what they want: to make a connection to their small business network (behind a dynamic IP) from somewhere else (also behind a dynamic IP). It's possible (using one of a large number of dynamic DNS providers), but it is neither obvious nor trivial - in fact, it is hard for them to understand even what the problem is. I just yesterday talked someone through this - a (small) business net admin wanting to access that net from home. This was someone who does database programming and at least sometimes creates networks for customers. And he *still* had a hard time with the consequences of dynamic IP and NAT. No, it's not the majority - but yes, it *is* a pretty significant subset. You don't need to be all that far apart from average to bloody your nose on this. (2) One-way connectivity could be provided via stateful firewalls instead of via NAT. You don't need all that much state for most of the protection. Just looking at TCP SYN does cover about 75% of the problem, I'd say, and that's completely stateless. (Not to say that the other 25% aren't important.) MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why people by NATs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Johansson) wrote on 27.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jeroen Massar wrote: On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 10:11 +0100, Leif Johansson wrote: For somebody administering a network of 100 machines, the hassle cost of IP renumbering would be twenty times larger. Given this, how could anyone wonder why NAT is popular? Wrong. If you administer 100's or 1000s of machines you build or buy a system for doing address management. Renumbering is only difficult if your system is called vi :-) Wrong ;) Well at least, up to 1000 is probably doable. But what if you are talking about 100s or 1000s of organizations with each a 100 or 1000 machines. My site is 10k+ addresses. Seems easy enough to manage to me :-) If you have servers on your segment, they get addresses from the X..Y pool. Otherwise, you use DHCP, or you get fired. Something like that? Seems a fairly obvious solution. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why people by NATs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 22.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I submit that if your environment is at all like mine, you don't actually configure 192.168.whatever addresses on the equipment in your house. You run DHCP within the home and it assigns such. That being the case, you actually don't know or care what the addresses are on your equipment. You care that your SIP Proxy and etc know the relationships, and they derive them directly without your intervention. Actually, I do set up static addresses. I'd use DHCP, but if I did that I would not be able to refer to the machines on my local net by name. Until my DHCP client can update my DNS tables with name information on the fly, I'll keep doing doing it this way. Apple's zeroconf technology solves this problem, albeit in a slightly different way, but Linux doesn't deploy it yet. It doesn't? Then pray, what is it I use at the job that does exactly this? (Hint: ISC DHCP 3 ISC BIND 9, running on a Debian woody/sarge hybrid install.) Oh, sorry. Not *exactly*. It's the DHCP *server* which does the DNS update. I don't think my situation is unique. It's at least rather strange. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JFC (Jefsey) Morfin) wrote on 21.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: packet-switch networks. The internet (small i) is not even defined in the French law where the word is broadly used and understood as the generic support of the on-line public communications and the digital ecosystem of the nation. I suppose the German legal understanding is equivalent since the French law applies the European directive. I'm not aware of any German law talking specifically about the Internet (needs to be capital I in German). The RegTP (the regulators, regtp.de) talk quite a bit, and IIRC once so did the Kartellamt (our version of the Monopolies and Merger Commission), but no laws that I know of. And of course our politicians like to talk about it just as much as the US ones. I can't make much sense of the rest of your message. I see that you're passionate for *something*, but what is very unclear; you seem opposed to the IETF, but for no sensible reason I can determine. Oh, and you seem to trust the market far more than I do - you sound positively US in that respect. Do not think that Yankees will understand us ... I'm beginning to think it's the French who understand differently. (The US just often plain do not know what happens outside their borders.) Can you have an IP address associate with your ISDN? That doesn't even make sense! Can you use X.25 on your ISDN? With whom? X.25 seems to be dead as a doornail. OSI is too rigid for them In fact, *OSI* is mostly dead as a doornail. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Sprunk) wrote on 21.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thus spake Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Sprunk) wrote on 20.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ISTR that the local competition (the one who's laying down cables like crazy, pretty much every time a street is dug up) That's also a major difference; our local competition re-uses the cable plant of the incumbent carrier. Streets being torn up is largely due to long-haul carriers (which mostly lay their own fiber, or swap strands on different routes) putting new fiber down; nobody here lays new copper when there's old copper still available. No, the people I talk of (citykom.de) seem to lay down lines when the street is dug up for some other reason, so as to already have it when customers show up. Back from when they were started owned by city services, it seems they still have good contacts. *Other* carriers indeed tend to simply rent the last mile from the ex- monopoly (at regulated prices). (Or when we're talking DSL, just connect to the DSL endpoints customers rent from the ex-monopoly with their ciscos or whatever, and go on from there.) Caller ID, Call Waiting, Three-Way and other extra services were added to POTS lines here quickly after ISDN was available or even at the same time, so there was little incentive for non-data users to switch to ISDN at all. I have the impression some of that got added to POTS, but there was very little consumer interest (apart from being able to suppress CallerID). The general impression seems to be that people who want that want ISDN. And anyway, S2M (30 channels on one pair) means big business definitely wants ISDN. Well, ours aren't toll-free either way. Or to expand, there seem to be a few tariff experiments with free calls on weekends and stuff like that, but IIRC those aren't limited to local calls. regulates differently) across entire cities. ISDN subscribers pay tolls for data calls and sometimes even voice calls regardless of distance, though Another differentation that over here only exists in the mobile market. It was originally designed as an add-on to POTS here, and I'm not sure it's even possible to add ADSL onto an ISDN line. The latter seems pointless, as I heard - don't know if it's correct - that Deutsche Telekom actually drove the development of whatever changes were necessary to do ADSL together with ISDN. Something about frequency differences? Very few sources for DSL modems when they started, and not able to cope with demand for quite a while (both not enough modems and not enough line cards) - which sounds compatible with the previous paragraph. the only advantage of ISDN over POTS is data rate, and DSL blows both of them away. But DSL does not work (at least pre-VoIP) for end-to-end phone connections. ISDN does. Anyway, the point was that many people - mostly exactly those who would be interested in DSL - *already had* ISDN. And thus a digitally-capable copper pair. Incidentally, I suspect a lot of the drive behind ISDN was that (a) we had lots of copper pairs in use (perfectly fine to do ISDN on), and (b) using ISDN meant more channels without more copper pairs - laying new pairs is expensive. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa) wrote on 20.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) I know B-ISDN types said the same Funny thing you should mention B-ISDN. Another group of people who thought that because a major standards organization wrote specs, and a whole bunch of manufacturers poured a ton of money into building the gear, it would necessarily take over the world. I don't know about the world, but it's certainly taken over the nation. Everytime someone comes up and says but just look at how ISDN failed, I go Huh?! That's a strange way of spelling was wildly successful! B-ISDN != ISDN. B-ISDN == ATM (more or less). Not really, from what Google tells me. ATM is just one possible transport. Anyway, ATM is the other input into my first so-called DSL modem, the one next to the ethernet input (and typically used for non-dynamic connections). I'm also told it's what happens on the outgoing line until it hits the other side of the ethernet bridge of which that modem is one endpoint. (I hear people are really happy the last mile is still copper.) Or to put it differently, I gather that at least the ex-monopoly does ATM for at least most of their non-IP internal infrastructure - don't know what their IP backbone is based on. And for larger IP customer connects, IIRC, unless that's recently changed. (I probably ought to mention that they built one of the better IP backbones after they stopped being the monopoly (putting pressure on Cisco to make their routers come up to their marketing). Maybe it's just a company culture of at least sometimes being able to take the long view? They're also running their own Usenet news (binary-free) and high-quality Usenet helpdesk - quite unlike I hear of big ISPs elsewhere (XX000 groups! uncensored binary groups!).) MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Sprunk) wrote on 20.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thus spake Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michel Py) wrote on 16.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED] a.us: I think you missed the point. As of today, IPv6 is in the same situation ISDN has always been: I Still Don't Need. ^ ^ ^ ^ Whereas I have used ISDN for over a decade now, and so have enough Germans that it's been very many years that pretty much every BBS switched to support ISDN. State-supported monopolies have an advantage in rolling out technologies widely before there's enough demand to justify them, solving the chicken-and-egg problem. We choose to put the cost of new technology where (in our opinion) it belongs: on the people that are using it. Different deployment rates (and subsidy rates) result which are appropriate for each culture. But the monopoly ended long ago; the pricing continues pretty much unchanged. So it seems to me there's something wrong with your analysis. ISTR that the local competition (the one who's laying down cables like crazy, pretty much every time a street is dug up) started with offering ISDN *only* (not sure if they ever changed). Anyway, back when ISDN was rolled out, I was under the impression that the US generally had digital exchanges, and Germany still had lots of pre- digital ones - tone dialling was only just becoming available and certainly not everywhere, whereas from what I heard pulse dialling in the US was essentially dead for a good while. (I have never heard that you can do Caller ID on analog lines over here, either. People who want that use ISDN.) So this says to me that the rollout of the basics here was *later* than in the US - not earlier. But I also remember many tales of woe about battling ISDN standards in the US, and every phone company having their incompatible own. Possibly that had quite a bit to do with the differing results ... No, I don't think it was a question of monopoly. Rather, it looks a lot like the good old OS/2 marketing problem - you *can* market a technology to death. Over here, a standard ISDN line (two channels, three numbers) costs pretty much exactly the same as two analog lines (two channels, two numbers), and always has. Makes for a slightly different cost equation. Whereas here an ISDN line still costs at least twice as much as two analog lines, plus often carries per-minute tolls even for local calls which are toll-free with analog. Well, ours aren't toll-free either way. My general impression is that nobody in the phone company business here likes providing POTS. I should perhaps add that as far as I can tell, the vast majority of DSL is via phone (pretty much none per tv cable - for some reason, that business never got off the ground here despite regulatory pressure to do so), and the first offers I can recall were as add-on to ISDN. I believe it was quite a while before it was offered as add-on to POTS, too. the majority of phones and dial-up still are analog and now ISDN costs _more_ than DSL or cable for low-end data. That's just ridiculous. But that's the situation in the US... DSL/Cable are significantly cheaper and faster than ISDN, often by a factor of 10x or more per kbps. Sure - but over here the standard save EUR XXX packet is DSL+ISDN-for- phone, or at least that's my impression. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa) wrote on 16.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: From: grenville armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED] The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the network that's really out there, not the network some of us wish were there. I know B-ISDN types said the same Funny thing you should mention B-ISDN. Another group of people who thought that because a major standards organization wrote specs, and a whole bunch of manufacturers poured a ton of money into building the gear, it would necessarily take over the world. I don't know about the world, but it's certainly taken over the nation. Everytime someone comes up and says but just look at how ISDN failed, I go Huh?! That's a strange way of spelling was wildly successful! Just because *you* still use stone-age technology ... MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michel Py) wrote on 16.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Noel Chiappa wrote: The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the network that's really out there, not the network some of us wish were there. grenville armitage wrote: I imagine any number of circuit-switching Telco-types said much the same thing to the emerging packet-switching fanatics 30+ years ago. And I know B-ISDN types said the same to Internet fanatics 15+ years ago. I think you missed the point. As of today, IPv6 is in the same situation ISDN has always been: I Still Don't Need. ^ ^ ^ ^ Whereas I have used ISDN for over a decade now, and so have enough Germans that it's been very many years that pretty much every BBS switched to support ISDN. I hear you still use 56k Modems in the US. When people switched to ISDN 64k over here, fast typically was 14.4k. It's been quite a while since I last used a modem ... 80's tech. ISDN which 10 years ago was supposed to be the digital miracle that would save us from the analog crap and take over the world ... well, over here that is pretty much exactly what happened ... never took off because the price was not worth the gain, Aah. Capitalism at work, eh? Over here, a standard ISDN line (two channels, three numbers) costs pretty much exactly the same as two analog lines (two channels, two numbers), and always has. Makes for a slightly different cost equation. the majority of phones and dial-up still are analog and now ISDN costs _more_ than DSL or cable for low-end data. That's just ridiculous. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa) wrote on 16.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: To put it another way (and mangle a well-known phrase in the process), if life gives you lemons, you can either sit around with a sour look on your face, or make lemonade. NAT's make me look sour too, but I'd rather make lemonade. Except I cannot see a way to make lemonade from NATs. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Vixie) wrote on 18.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: therefore after a middle state of perhaps five more years, the majority of services that anybody will want to access will be v4+v6 reachable, and it will be realistic to consider provisioning first nat/v6 and then nonat/v6 endhosts. For example ... # host -a ftp.ipv6.debian.org Trying ftp.ipv6.debian.org ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 50401 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 7, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;ftp.ipv6.debian.org. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: ftp.ipv6.debian.org.10800 IN 3ffe:1001:210:16::5 ftp.ipv6.debian.org.10800 IN 3ffe:8171:10:16::5 ftp.ipv6.debian.org.10800 IN 2001:708:310:54::99 ftp.ipv6.debian.org.10800 IN 2001:718:1:1:2d0:b7ff:fe46:fbb8 ftp.ipv6.debian.org.10800 IN 2001:760:202:103::4 ftp.ipv6.debian.org.10800 IN 2001:770:18:2::1:1 ftp.ipv6.debian.org.10800 IN 2001:b68:e207::3 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: ipv6.debian.org.10800 IN NS klecker.debian.org. ipv6.debian.org.10800 IN NS newsamosa.debian.org. ipv6.debian.org.10800 IN NS saens.debian.org. ipv6.debian.org.10800 IN NS spohr.debian.org. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: newsamosa.debian.org. 370 IN A 208.185.25.35 Received 335 bytes from 127.0.0.1#53 in 2162 ms # host -a www.ipv6.microsoft.com Trying www.ipv6.microsoft.com ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 62026 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 5, ADDITIONAL: 5 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;www.ipv6.microsoft.com.IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.ipv6.microsoft.com. 3600IN 2002:836b:9820::836b:9886 www.ipv6.microsoft.com. 3600IN A 131.107.152.134 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: microsoft.com. 24633 IN NS ns3.msft.net. microsoft.com. 24633 IN NS ns4.msft.net. microsoft.com. 24633 IN NS ns5.msft.net. microsoft.com. 24633 IN NS ns1.msft.net. microsoft.com. 24633 IN NS ns2.msft.net. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns1.msft.net. 41483 IN A 207.46.245.230 ns2.msft.net. 41483 IN A 64.4.25.30 ns3.msft.net. 41483 IN A 213.199.144.151 ns4.msft.net. 41483 IN A 207.46.66.75 ns5.msft.net. 41483 IN A 207.46.138.20 Received 262 bytes from 127.0.0.1#53 in 101 ms # MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 15.10.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This is one of the many reasons why I think the free software community needs to get together and decide what it wants *before* coming to the IETF. Your two people to go to on this would be RMS (representing the FSF) or me (representing the OSI); between us I believe we can speak for over 95% of the community. Well, quite obviously neither of you speaks for Debian. I believe that's not an insignificant part of the community, and there seem to be serious differences in legal opinion to either of you two. (And note that the OSI ideas about what is free software started life as the DFSG, the Debian Free Software Guidelines; so it seems rather relevant if these two players have a difference of opinion.) (Some FSF partisans deny this, insisting there are deep philosophical issues dividing FSF from OSI. OSI does not reciprocate this belief, and in any case the imputed differences are not relevant to the IETF's concerns.) Note that one such FSF partisan claiming deep differences is RMS himself. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian E Carpenter) wrote on 21.10.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Patent holders who choose to stay outside the standards setting process are not in the least impressed by the IPR policy of the standards body, whether it is the W3C, the IETF, or anywhere else. Those are the patent holders you need to worry about, not the ones who play nice by helping to set open standards. You're shooting at the wrong target by shooting at the IETF and its participants. I believe the Sender-ID case to be a counter example to your claim. The patent holder in this case has, IMO, made it sufficiently clear that he *is* one of those we need to worry about. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 20.10.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Between us (and especially if we agree), I believe we can speak *with regard to this question* for 95% of the open-source community. This does not make either of us power-mad dictators intent on domination, just most peoples' recognized experts on what constitutes an acceptable open-source license. I think this is a serious overestimate, and that something like 60% would be significantly closer to the right figure. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 23.10.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: shogunx [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In what way? Microsoft now knows that with the mere threat of a patent it either can shut down IETF standards work it dislikes or seize control of the results through the patent system. The IETF has dignaled that it will do nothing to oppose or prevent these outcomes. How so Eric? Could you give an example of potential weakness in the IETF process that could be exploited? So perhaps we could start patching? How would such a patent based denial of service attack scenario play out? Watch what happens with anti-spam standards in the next nine months. I fear it's not going to be pretty. So ... do we actually need one in the first place? I'm certainly unconvinced of that. And from all I heard, SPF is certainly *not* something I like; the basic idea seems fundamentally flawed to me, and AFAICT that is the same idea as is behind SenderID. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl Malamud) wrote on 20.10.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Eric - I said this: if IETF wants to know what form of patent license will be acceptable to the open-source community, the people to ask are Richard Stallman (representing FSF) and myself (representing OSI). Between us (and especially if we agree), I believe we can speak *with regard to this question* for 95% of the open-source community. This does not make either of us power-mad dictators intent on domination, just most peoples' recognized experts on what constitutes an acceptable open-source license. If either Mr. Schryer or yourself chooses not to be considered part of that most people, fine -- the fact remains there are an awful damn lot of developers expecting RMS and myself to *do* *this* *job* so they don't have to. That works fine for the membership of your organization. It is great they have entrusted this job to you. Congratulations. Uh, it seems you're misunderstanding what esr says. Of the people he claims to represent, I'd expect less than 1% to actually be members of either OSI or the FSF. He is not talking about representing any organization. He is talking about representing the community. You may be missing a fundamental thing, however. The IETF has *no members* and, despite an impressive org chart and lots of titles, *participants* in the process tend to bristle when anybody presumes to speak on behalf of *the IETF.* We deliverately have a long, slow process based on group consensus and working code. By working code I mean every idea gets implemented so we can see how they work. That's the ideal anyway. And in that way, it is slightly *more* organized than the people esr claims to represent. Well, yes, perhaps we are a gang of baboons. You've got a church model of open source with you as pope. *esr*?! The very guy who wrote The Cathedral and the Bazaar? You *must* be joking. But, why don't you head over to the bazaar and see how the rest of us live? That is pretty much what he's made his life mission, you really ought to know. I may disagree with him on various things, but your attack misses the point so far, where he is and where you hit don't even seem to be on the same planet. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vernon Schryver) wrote on 19.10.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Someone wrote me privately: ] For an open source guy he ] has some pretty funny legal language: ] ] http://www.catb.org/~esr/copying.html That page includes this restriction: } You may not make or redistribute static copies (whether print or } online) without my express permission. This is an interesting point in case. He shares this idea with rms, who uses the GFDL for a similar goal. *Huge* parts of the community do not share that idea. There's a reason Debian, for example, sees the GFDL as a non-free license. A number of more and less prominent *gcc developers* (people who assign their copyrights to rms' FSF) share this particular concern and think that text *should* be under the same kind of free licenses as software. So be careful with statements about representing these people! MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 11.10.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Why is that bad? There were, actually, two bad parts: 1. Two major open-source development groups felt it was both necessary and appropriate to state that they would not implement SenderID regardless of IETF's decision. This is specifically what I meant by routing around the IETF. You are confusing will not with cannot here. It's not we don't want SenderID, it's we cannot use SenderID even if we want to. Thus, it is about (legal) facts, not about refusing cooperation. 2. IETF failed to take any position opposing the patent in spite of both prior art and the belief of key participants that Microsoft deliberately lied about its position and intentions. By doing so, IETF signaled that there will be no downside to even the most blatant patent raid on a development standard, and invited future raids by Microsoft and others. Given that the WG was shutdown with no ratified standard, this also seems like a serious misrepresentation. The raid *failed* - thanks to the IETF doing the right thing. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reminder: Poll about restructuring options
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) wrote on 29.09.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sigh, Dave. It is very unlikely that there is any language on this planet that would equate No, I do not wish to state an opinion with I wish to state an opinion but you have no provided a category that covers my opinion. What about English? Doesn't support your position. If I ask you do you prefer A or B, and you say I don't wish to say whether I prefer A or B, because you have not provided a category that covers my opinion, in what way have you said something where I do not wish to state an opinion is an inappropriate description? Come on, Harald, that's really lame. You resort to putting words in your opponent's mouth to create a strawman. They don't want to say I don't wish to say whether I prefer A or B, because you have not provided a category that covers my opinion. Probably *nobody* wants to say something silly like that. They want to say I do wish to say that I prefer a different option from A or C. I could have written the option in the poll as I do not wish to state an opinion on whether I prefer Scenario C or Scenario O, but I thought this was so obvious from context that I did not. Frankly, I don't see the difference - this fails in exactly the same way. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reminder: Poll about restructuring options
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian E Carpenter) wrote on 30.09.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: A poll that asks for choice between X, Y and Neither seems like the only rational way forward in that situation. Only Harald disagrees with that, because that is certainly not the question his poll asked - there was no neither option. Now, I don't expect such an option to collect any significant number of votes - but extremely lame arguments as to why an entirely different question is the correct alternative certainly don't impress me. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa) wrote on 25.09.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It's not at all clear to me that this was the wrong engineering choice on their part. If they didn't GC dead connections after some sort of timeout (and would it make any significant different whether it was 5 minutes, or 1 hour) Oh yes, it would make a BIG difference. 5 minutes idle in a ssh session is probably more common by a factor of 100 or so than 1 hour idle. Not that killing 1 hour idle connections is all that excusable, but at least it's a *far* rarer problem. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gene Gaines) wrote on 22.09.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It appears to me that IETF qualifies for this status easily as But we're not interested in this status for the IETF. We don't want to incorporate the IETF. What is under discussion is incorporating a separate organization whose mission is supporting the IETF. a technical, memberhhip organization, not operated for private Neither the IETF, nor this possible new organization, has any (formal) membership. I spoke briefly with a U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) expert who told me informally that IETF appears to qualify easily for non-profit, tax-exempt status. Well, given how far your model seems from the one discussed here, that seens worth nothing whatsoever. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ted Hardie) wrote on 21.09.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: creating the appropriate corporate realities. A major disagreement that we seem to have is whether any additional work that may be required to create the appropriate corporate realities is worth the options it buys now and options it allows us to buy in the future. Right now, it seems to me the relevant point is not so much additional work as additional serious risk, as has already been pointed out by others. As for the benefits, most of them seem to be purely theoretical to me; the development of ISOC one is, IMO, pure fantasy - if ISOC decides that a split would be beneficial, this could certainly be arranged at any time after doing scenario O; there's really nothing in there to prevent that, and the timing on that would be much more realistic. Given how long it took the German finance authorities to decide that the supporting organization for westfalen.de didn't meet tax exempt status, and given how closely this matches predictions for the US case, I'd rather the IETF didn't start out on this particular reckless adventure, especially as I really don't see any actual benefits. At least we didn't have an alternative back then. The IETF has scenario O. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Scenario C (was: Scenario O)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John C Klensin) wrote on 21.09.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: (time to change the subject line enough to do some differentiation) ... but presumably this was the wrong change? MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Braden) wrote on 13.09.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have yet to see a coherent argument for keeping the ID series if it's archived publicly. Why do we need to see the entire process - in public - of editing and revision? And if we do, why do we need two separate series to do this? It's not a document series, it's preserving history - exactly the same way that the mailing list archives do, using the exact same arguments. (And incidentally, the exact same situation wrt. getting published.) If you argue that you want to abolish the mailing list archives, I think you'll find strong opposition; I certainly do not see why the I-D situation is any different. This preserving history notion is an obfuscation. If there is a stable reference to each particular I-D, then the set of I-Ds with those stable references necessarily form an archival document series. You might as well claim that the mailing list archives create an archival document series. That is nothing but a red herring. The Original Intent of the IETF founding fathers was that the RFCs should form the stable, archival document series for the Internet technology, containing its entire intellectual history (to use Scott's term), while I-Ds were to be ephemeral. This is analogous to academic publication; we archive only the finished papers, not the 17 drafts that go into the production of each paper. But neither are those 17 drafts published, while the 17 I-Ds are. So, for that matter, is all the mailing list discussion around those drafts. The situation is not even remotely parallel. Publication in a conference or journal is a filter that keeps us from hopelessly garbaging up the intellectual record. The FFs believed that preserving I-Ds would lead to such a garbage pile with piles of chaff for every grain of wheat. How on earth do I-Ds hopelessly garbage up the intellectual record when mailing list archives don't?! That doesn't even begin to make any sense. Of course, the IETF has drifted far away from this OI. But then, you knew all that. [T]hat the RFCs should form the stable, archival document series for the Internet technology is certainly still true. The containing its entire intellectual history part was never true, as far as I can tell, nor does that claim seem at all sensible. You cannot get the entire intellectual history from only looking at the end results. That much certainly should be obvious. It seems to me your definition of entire must be really strange. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Touch) wrote on 12.09.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Kai Henningsen wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Touch) wrote on 11.09.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Spencer Dawkins wrote: Dear Harald-the-General-AD, Can we PLEASE do as Melinda says - change the policy now for new drafts? That may have a chilling effect on new drafts. I.e., this isn't as simple as let's just change it now for future stuff. Chilling effect - from *publishing* already-published material that's already copied all over the net? Authors might wait longer to publish IDs, since they'd be officially citable (once they're public, despite any instructions to the contrary in the body). Huh? Nothing changes in that regard. *Real* official citing is absolutely untouched, and the other works via the unofficial repositories now. They'd wait longer to submit, to collect sections, etc., rather than turning in half-written things with calls for additional material. I cannot see why. The other, attractive alternative is to bury the ISOC in ID versions, such that previous versions are individually basically useless. Nor can I see the motivation, or even the mechanism, here. How would that effect work on material meant for RFCs, or for working group work (where the list archives are already public forever)? See above - that's exactly the point. It puts a 'wait, this is going to be published - is it ready for that?' hurdle in the loop, one that the ID process was designed to avoid. Except it doesn't, really. And if it works on some other kind of draft, would we actually care? IMO, changing the policy would indeed be making the problem worse. I have yet to see a coherent argument for that. I have yet to see a coherent argument for keeping the ID series if it's archived publicly. Why do we need to see the entire process - in public - of editing and revision? And if we do, why do we need two separate series to do this? It's not a document series, it's preserving history - exactly the same way that the mailing list archives do, using the exact same arguments. (And incidentally, the exact same situation wrt. getting published.) If you argue that you want to abolish the mailing list archives, I think you'll find strong opposition; I certainly do not see why the I-D situation is any different. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Touch) wrote on 11.09.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Spencer Dawkins wrote: Dear Harald-the-General-AD, Can we PLEASE do as Melinda says - change the policy now for new drafts? That may have a chilling effect on new drafts. I.e., this isn't as simple as let's just change it now for future stuff. Chilling effect - from *publishing* already-published material that's already copied all over the net? That sounds rather ridiculous. How would that effect work on material meant for RFCs, or for working group work (where the list archives are already public forever)? And if it works on some other kind of draft, would we actually care? IMO, changing the policy would indeed be making the problem worse. I have yet to see a coherent argument for that. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'The APPLICATION/MBOX Media-Type' to Proposed Standard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric A. Hall) wrote on 13.08.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:45:24 -0400: this is an application for a media-type. it's not trying to define the mbox format, it's just trying to define a label for the mbox format that can be used in contexts where MIME media-type labels are required. That's correct; this is a tag definition, not a format specification. That is not the problem. The problem is that the tag is not specific enough to be useful. There are a few places where this tag is necessary or useful. Online downloadable archives of mailing lists would be easier to import, search and otherwise manipulate if a media-type were defined and which allowed a transfer agent to bridge the data to a local content agent ... but absent specification of *which* mbox format it is, this can only work by luck. A definitive authoritative specification for all variations of the mbox database format is explicitly not the objective, for several reasons. Note that I never asked for that. (Unless you think the variant of mbox in use could only specified if we had that specification, that is ... which would only underscore the gaping hole in the current document.) (Note also that I didn't ask for any specific way of specifying the mbox variant - the regular expression proposal was someone else, and I'm not convinced it actually solves the problem.) Suggestions about parameters has come up before (John Klensin suggested it to me a couple of months ago). Unfortunately, these kind of helper tags attempt to define content rules rather than transfer rules, and therefore represent a non-trivial layer violation. That seems nonsensical. They're no more or less defining content rules than the media type itself is. They are analogous to using a version= tag for app/postscript and relying on that meta-information instead of embedded clue data. It seems well established that embedded clue data for mbox is not reliable, unless you involve a full AI. In any case, I really don't see the qualitative difference between claiming this is XHTML text and this is HTML 4.1 text, to pick a different example. I think claims of layer violation are clearly - and obviously - wrong. There *is* no non-artificial layer boundary here. The boundary in question is completely arbitrary. Obviously, content agents should be aware of the content formatting rules. [what happens when the helper meta-tags are lost? should the content agent NOT look at the content to make a determination? Not without asking a human, it probably shouldn't. It's far too easy to get it wrong. that's where the logic belongs in the first place, so putting it into the transfer layer is not only irrelevant it is possibly harmful.] Attempting to automatically figure this out is the harmful version. Telling what it is is most certainly *NOT* harmful. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Mailing list identification, e.g., [IETF], in subject lines
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) wrote on 15.07.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Short answer: No. Long answer: This item has been discussed to death once every 3 months on this very list. We have never found a consensus to add these tags. List-Id: IETF-Discussion ietf.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Post: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If that's not enough for sorting, nothing is. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Deja Vu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 28.03.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2. Have you tried getting a direct flight to Minneapolis from outside the USA ? or San Diego ? It's not easy. My trusty timetable lookup offers "Napoli" when I ask for "Minneapolis". Though it might not cover flights, I've never tried. MfG Kai Smilies? What smilies?
Re: Deja Vu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Day) wrote on 20.03.01 in v04220801b6dd4a484c1a@[208.192.102.20]: sorry, but this is a US centric comment. IETF is international, so centrally located is an interesting question: center of the earth (probably enough hot...;-))). I'm not so sure. From what I hear from the EU and Pacific Rim countries, the Internet is a US plot intended at further imposing US imperialism on the rest of the world. How can that many people be wrong? I was just going with the majority opinion. Looking at ICANN voting turnout, maybe it's a plot by the EU to take over the US? MfG Kai
Re: internet voting -- ICANN, SmartInitiatives, etc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gerck) wrote on 12.01.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [long, but worth every megabyte] From: "Stephen Sprunk" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Throwing encryption at voting is not enough to solve algorithmic problems. Digital signatures violate ballot secrecy and provide no protection against most forms of fraud. No. Digital signatures such as X.509/PKIX do violate voter privacy, but never ballot secrecy. In all fairness to you, maybe there is a confusion with the word "privacy". In this case, maybe you write "secrecy" above but you mean "privacy". BIG DIFFERENCE, though. Indeed. The way you have it defined, both are one half of what must be achieved (impossible to identify voters, and impossible to identify votes), with both halves completely meaningless in isolation (which is why a traditional paper vote does achieve the combination, but neither half in isolation). Whereas the way most people define this, the two terms are two names for the same thing, which is the whole (it must be impossible to determine who voted what). The correlation is the problem, not the isolated facts. There is more obfuscation like that in your "16 requirements". Not what I'd consider a recommendation. Safevote's open attack test described at www.safevote.com/tech.htm showed that the following attacks were 100% forestalled during the entire test for 24 hours a day in 5 days: (1) Denial-of-Service; (2) Large Packet Ping; (3) Buffer Overrun; (4) TCP SYN Flood; (5) IP Spoofing; (6) TCP Sequence Number; (7) IP Fragmentation; (8) Network Penetration; and other network-based attacks. Grand. It withstood network level attacks. That's about the most meaningless test possible - all it proves is the quality of the TCP stack, it tells absolutely bloody nothing about the voting system itself. Which in itself tells us something, and it's not a compliment. MfG Kai
