Re: Montevideo statement
Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote: I think that is a better approach actually. The CC TLDs are in effect members of a bridge CA and ICANN is merely the bridge administrator. It is an interesting way to say it, and put that way, I like it. One activity that I believe is an NSA attack on good crypto is the whole Certificate Signing Policy thing. Nobody has a clue what it means, or how the computer systems are supposed to interpret it anyway, but it scares the lawyers, and so they would rather having nothing. However, it the root of the trust in country X is the government of country X, then government can essentially internalize/nationalize all the liability associated with trusting them. It would be much like governments do with nuclear power: it only works out because the governments provide the insurance in the form of legislation... mcr Better they do this using good crypto, than that they do this by mcr trying to subvert the (US-controlled) crypto. Its not all US controlled, you can use GOST... That's not what I meant. I didn't mean that the algorithms will be subverted, I meant that the trust paths will be subverted. Whether this is by legislating filters against DNS(sec) that ISPs have to implement, or having an official mitm SSL cert that all desktops must trust, or just blocking port-443. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpAz3mtZ3Tgg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Montevideo statement
Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote: I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control before the vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be to ensure that no such leverage exists. There is no reason for the apex of the DNS to be a single root, it could be signed by a quorum of signers (in addition to the key k-of-n signing for the DNSSEC root was talked about by many, including Tatu Ylonen back in 1996... I have an alternate proposal: every country's ccTLD should sign the root, and/or the other TLDs. That actually hands control of the DNS root back to the legislatures in each country. True: some countries might have perverted notions of what belongs in the root, and we might get different views of the Internet. But, this happens already using a variety of wrong mechanisms that cause harm to the Internet. Better they do this using good crypto, than that they do this by trying to subvert the (US-controlled) crypto. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpPct2J5Wl83.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker
Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: While I think that individual submissions that are not the result of consensus do not belong on a WG page. Where do they belong? I prefer that they belong under the Area page, but is there an area page, not sure why was that not a good idea. 1) Please stop this discussion, or at least change the subject. I don't think that one can have an independant submission that is standards track, that is not the result of (at least IESG) consensus. 2) If you quote, please include attribution.
Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-roll-terminology-13.txt (Terms used in Ruting for Low power And Lossy Networks) to Informational RFC
Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks WG (roll) to consider the following document: - 'Terms used in Ruting for Low power And Lossy Networks' draft-ietf-roll-terminology-13.txt as Informational RFC I'd assumed that they'd misspelt rutting, and was quite disappointed in the document as a result. Well. I think that we really do not want the motes to start replicating. At least, we need to let Jack O'Neil decode the Ancient Knowledge first. (I've been rewatching SG-1...) -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[
independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker
This morning I had reason to re-read parts of RFC3777, and anything that updated it. I find the datatracker WG interface to really be useful, and so I visited http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ first. I guess I could have instead gone to: http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3777 but frankly, I'm often bad with numbers, especially when they repeat... (3777? 3737? 3733?) While http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ lists RFC3777, and in that line, it lists the things that update it, it doesn't actually list the other documents. Thinking this was an error, I asked, and Cindy kindly explained: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ lists the documents that were published by the NOMCOM Working Group. The NOMCOM Working Group was open from 2002-2004, and only produced one RFC, which is RFC 3777. The RFCs that update 3777 were all produced by individuals (that is, outside of the NOMCOM Working Group), and so aren't listed individually on the NOMCOM Working Group documents page. I wonder about this as a policy. Seeing the titles of those documents would have helped me find what I wanted quickly (RFC5680 it was)... While I think that individual submissions that are not the result of consensus do not belong on a WG page. But, if the document was the result of consensus, but did not occur in a WG because the WG had closed, I think that perhaps it should appear there anyway. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpzkqYIaK_Hk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: The place to go is definitely not the page for a closed WG. How can that be expected to track things that happened after the WG closed? Since it's a BCP, you get the lot at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp10 or http://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp10.txt. I think that you are right. We need to find ways to talk about BCP10 more frequently, rather than 3777. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[
Re: independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker
I note that neither: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ nor: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=nomcomrfcs=onsort= told me that 3777 was also BCP10 now. (Even if 3777 wasn't BCP10 anymore, I think it would be useful for the datatracker to tell me that it was part of BCP10, because I'll bet that 90% of the time, I really want the latest info) Although: http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3777 did point at BCP10, but just said BCP10. I think that perhaps on that page, if it said, BCP10 - IETF Nomination Process, that the link would stand out better.
Re: Time to dump X.400 support?
Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote: Lets kill all support for X.400 mail. +1000. We should do this because nobody new is going to use it. The other reasons you mentioned are just icing. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpYSfDNjZbDG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors
I did not know about ORCID before this thread. I think it is brilliant, and what I've read about the mandate of orcid.org, and how it is managed, I am enthusiastic. I agree with what Joel wrote: Asking for ORCID support in the tool set and asking for IETF endorsement are two very different things. Having tool support for it is a necessary first step to permitting IETF contributors to gain experience with it. We need that experience before we can talk about consensus. So, permit ORCID, but not enforce. An interesting second (or third) conversation might be about how I could insert ORCIDs into the meta-data for already published documents. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ pgp9J1CDwgZwX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Practical issues deploying DNSSEC into the home.
Paul Wouters p...@cypherpunks.ca wrote: /dev/random references into /dev/urandom. You are most likely better of giving the device a webgui and using the clients javascript to generate randomness. (yes I know, I just said to use javascript for private keys) I agree --- generate the certificates in the web UI. I don't think that this needs the private key to be created in javascript, just for a .js function to collect some entropy and push it into /dev/random. But I'm still thinking of a scheme involving insecure ntp lookups for pool.ntp.org, then using inception times of RRSIGs of TLDs to narrow down the current time. Of course, all of that is vulnerable to replay attacks. I think that the best bet is to just turn off the time part of the DNSSEC validation until the time is considered sane. That limits the replay attack that can be done to replaying previous values for pool.ntp.org. The IP addreses returned might no longer be NTP clocks, and this could be annoying for those IPs involved, if there was some kind of widespread denial of service attack. Note that the NTP transaction is not protected at all by the DNSSEC, so if the attacker is on-path and can do this replay attack, they can also just attack the NTP transaction. Also, I believe the rasberry pi's, having the same problem, have a hwclock service that saves a timestamp on shutdown to the filesystem and loads it on boot. That solves the issue for quick reboots. That also prevents going backwards in time, which is good. Storing it in config eeprom may be better than flash. Another method is the last access time of the filesystem. But I'm not sure if that's a linux/ext4+ only feature, or whether the filesystems in embedded devices have a similar value stored somewhere. In general, they want to avoid any writes to the flash, so updating that value is a not desireable. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgp6bbR419buV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pgp signing in van
Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: On Sep 8, 2013, at 5:33 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca To all the people who posted to this thread about how they don't know what a PGP key signature means, and who did not PGP or S/MIME their email: What's the upside to signing my email? I know why I want everybody I know to sign my email, but what's the upside for me if I do it? Until there's a clear win, it's not going to happen. It's what establishes the reputation of the key that signs your email. That's why having people show up to an IETF PGP signing party, when those people haven't been using the key is useless. If we think that IETF is a meritocracy, then it doesn't matter what your government ID is. It matters what you said on the mailing list. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpbgW9c4TsgE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pgp signing in van
Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote: Could we do smime as well? If we had a list of smime cert fingerprints it can be used for trust reinforcement Sure, but how does one establish any kind of web of trust in smime? I have to gather everyone's certificate, and I get no transitivity. The issue is that smime email clients are more common so I would rather teach the smime doggie pgp like tricks than vice versa I agree that they are more common, and I bemoan the fact that they aren't used. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[
Re: pgp signing in van
I have removed the attribution of this comment on purpose, because it applies to multiple people, and I want to attack a behaviour, not a person: This is what I mean by a high bar. Signing someone's PGP key should mean I know this person as X, not this person is X. Dilution of trust is a problem with PGP. I know this person as X is way too lax if you want the system to scale. Frankly, this is an example of pseudo-security “uphill and in the snow both ways” that has meant that, 20 years after S/MIME and PGP, almost nobody uses this stuff, even for the most elementary of things. Remember: better is the enemy of good enough. To all the people who posted to this thread about how they don't know what a PGP key signature means, and who did not PGP or S/MIME their email: Stop getting in the way. This is how an NSA mole would derail things: claim it needs to be better -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpYzS2nrmm9x.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bruce Schneier's Proposal to dedicate November meeting to saving the Internet from the NSA
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: I think we all knew NSA was collecting the data. Why didn't we do something about it sooner? Wasn't it an emergency when the PATRIOT act was passed? We certainly thought it was an emergency back in the days of Skipjack, but then they convinced us we'd won. Turns out they just went around us. Tell me what the IETF could be doing that it isn't already doing. 1) We could be telling the public about the protocols that we designed 10, 15, and even 20 years ago. Some of which even have rather widespread implementation, but seem to have zero use. (S/MIME is in every copy of Outlook and Thunderbird, AFAIK) What would the spam situation be like if 90% of emails were regularly signed back in 1999? Yes, and DKIM can sign message bodies now too. We should be telling people about it. 2) Use this stuff ourselves -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpmBrxgfskmQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pgp signing in van
I will be happy to participate in a pgp signing party. Organized or not. I suggest that an appropriate venue is during the last 15 minutes of the newcomer welcome and the first 15 minutes of the welcome reception. Because: 1) the WG-chairs and IESG will all be there, and a web of trust still needs some significant good connectivity, and we already know each other rather well, without needing ID (I am not interested myself in verifying anyone's NSA^WGovernment identity. I don't trust that Certification Authority...) 2) getting newbies on-board, meeting them well enough to sign their key seems like a good thing. But, Randy, of what use is my signing your key, if you never use it? I would happy to sign a key for a network personality who posts signed message regularly to @ietf.org mailing lists. I would simply give them a nonce to sign. (For awhile, I was convince s...@resistor.net, whose full name I did not know until Orlando, was a gestalt network identity...) My key is still available via finger m...@sandelman.ca, and r...@sandelman.ca is offline (I used to have a 286 in the corner), and has web of trust signatures going back to 1994. pub 1024R/B0C8713D 1994-11-08 - it's a bit weak these days. pub 2208R/FCA16F90 2006-10-10 - new modern offline key. We just put our GPG fingerprint into the MEMO part of a vcard, http://zxing.appspot.com/generator/ or using qrencode http://fukuchi.org/works/qrencode/index.html.en (in debian/ubuntu) I suggest that perhaps this might be a useful way to exchange info: http://www.sandelman.ca/tmp/IMG_20130906_125920.jpg one would take a picture of the other person with their QR code and fingerprint. It also just works to remember the names of new people! (Sadly, I can't scan the QR code with my phone from the photo displayed on my screen, but I can read the fingerprint) Patrik has a blog post: http://stupid.domain.name/node/1323 that does exactly that. ps: nice address book entry for ietf@ietf. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ pgpaR_j0ca0Jz.pgp Description: PGP signature
GST/PST and IETF 88
Mishra, Sanjay sanjay.mis...@verizon.com wrote: 1. Registration A. Early-Bird Registration - USD 650.00 Pay by Friday, Since the last Vancouver IETF, the province of BC has rescinded it's harmonization of provincial and federal sales taxes. (I think the decision is totally moronic, but, I don't live there). This change does not change the crux of my question, just the amount, and it affects the details. My question is: Is ISOC doing GST (the federal VAT) processing? Is ISOC doing PST (the provincial tax, not value-added, last I checked...)? My understanding is that attendees to Berlin received a revised statement indicating the amount of German VAT that was included in the USD650. While I wasn't there, and I'm not EC, I am in Canada, and my company does process GST, which means that I should be able to claim the GST part back. I don't know what the new BC PST is, but it was around 8% before. Will the base price be 650 / 1.15, or 650/1.05 ? -- Michael Richardson -at the cottage- pgpMa6KA0Z4dF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: procedural question with remote participation
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: In those cases, as a remote participant, I need all the help I can get. I'd rather than no one ever use a slide that has information on it in a type size that would be smaller than 20 pt on A4 paper. But 14 pt and even 12 pt happen, especially if the slides were prepared with a tool that quietly shrinks things to fit in the image area. If I'm in the room and such a slide is projected, I can walk to the front to see if if I'm not already in front and can't deduce what I need from context. If I'm remote and have such a slide in advance, I can zoom in on it or otherwise get to the information I need (assuming high enough resolution). If I'm remote and reading the slide off video, especially low resolution video, is hopeless. Also, I can't go back to the previous slide if the system is just remote projection. Good quality mumble-free audio + pre-distributed slides locally rendered beats any amount of lag-free video. I also can go ahead and find out if the speaker is going to cover an important point, or if I have to bring it *now*. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpLVRGCO4sym.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: procedural question with remote participation
If the WG/session chairs did not receive the slides at least a few days prior to the meeting, then it is really hard for the WG chairs to make sure that the slides support a discussion, rather than a presentation. Given that we have meetings on Friday morning, and some people are very busy during the week, and travel time can be 24h for some trips, asking that the chair has received the slides *a week* before the WG session, being Friday morning, seems to actually be cutting it really close. If a discussion leader can not get some slides into the WG chairs' inbox by the Friday morning before the IETF meeting, then I question whether the WG chair should give them any time. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[
Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: An entirely different approach would be to have all speakers make a 'reservation' into a single meetecho (or whatever) online queue, and then get called in order, whether local or remote and independent of what microphone they are at. This gets accurate identification into the online system, with the entry task distributed. +1. And move the microphones to the people, rather than the other way around. We can easily have three or four microphones that can play leap-frog around the room. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpbuKd5jXtF2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RPS Accessibility
Brian Rosen b...@brianrosen.net wrote: Could be an app that put you in the queue and used your laptop/tablet/ smartphone microphone to get the audio. I was thinking that too, but I didn't want to get ahead of the problem statement of mic access :-)
Re: procedural question with remote participation
Spencer Dawkins spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com quoted Hadiel really poorly, which confused me as you who said this, but I think it was Hadriel now: OK, I'll bite. Why do you and Michael believe you need to have the slides 1 week in advance? 1) As a WG chair, I'd like to see the slides from a (new) presenter in advance to make sure that the *presentation* is on topic, there aren't too many slides, and that ideally, it is a request for discussion rather than a presentation. That's where the deadline comes from. I don't suggest that 2) As a remote participate, I'd much rather have consolidate slides. That requires a bit of time/effort on the part of the chairs. 3) As an open-standards body, I believe it is hypocritical for us to be posting slides in a vendor proprietary format or one from a standards body that seems to have all of features we dislike (like pay to vote). (I'm okay with the secretariat doing conversion, but they are not instant) (And,open source tools running on open platforms sometimes do not render the slides as intended due to lack of a font or a other thing) Not getting the slides at all is a different matter - but 7 days in advance is counter-productive. They should be as up-to-date as practical, to take into account mailing list discussions. [or at least that's how I justify my same-day, ultra-fresh slides] I distinquish between rev-00 of slides and rev-09. I don't have a problem with updates to the slides, assuming you can find the Export as PDF button. It would be best if you didn't create new slides due to numbering changes. I also understand that ADs running area meeting aren't going to have status updates 7 days in advance, nor do I expect them to. I had not considered Spencer's point about translation, and frankly it is a really really really good point. None of this should be taken as disagreement with proposals to experiment with room shapes, whiteboards, , etc. that I heard last week. +1 -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpOMRsk6ml3A.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: procedural question with remote participation
I attended meetings 36 through 62 in-person, missing about 1 in 4. I've never attended a meeting in asia-pacific, as about half were paid out of my own pocket, That was in the days of multicast, and I never got an mbone tunnel working, although Joe Abley and I once *saw* them in tcpdump go past us on the ethernet at ISC, but not get relayed through our tunnels. Between 63 and 80, I managed to attend 1 in 5, and this one is the first I've missed since 80. I missed it because, my WG didn't need to meet, I had no money, and it abuts an important long weekend. (I got to walk out in 3min) I have generally good experiences with our remote participation. Some problems recently: 1) the audio feed started at exactly 9:00 on Monday A problem if you need to check your equipment. I also interrupted at exactly the start time of the session, and it took me 20-30s to realize it, and up-arrow-return. 2) Slide decks were late. PPT(x) files are annoying and inconsiderate. Consolidated slide decks are wonderful, even if the agenda order is changed. 3) audio delay makes hums via jabber meaningless. John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: We regularize remote participation [1] a bit by doing the following. At some level, if remote participants expect to be treated as serious members of the community, they (we) can reasonably be expected to behave that way. * A mechanism for remote participants should be set up and remote participants should be to register. The +1. And I would pay a fee. * Remote participants should have as much access to mic lines and the ability to participate in discussions as those who are present in the room. That includes Yes... but I think it might be worth recognizing that in badly run meetings, access to the mic is a problem to those in the meeting too! Multiple roaming wireless mics, and mic-control from the chair would help here. I.e. let's use the technology for mic-line-up for everyone, local and remote. * It is really, really, important that those speaking, even if they happen to be sitting at the chair's table, clearly and carefully identify themselves. +1 * On several occasions this week, slides were uploaded on a just-in-time basis (or an hour or so after that). Agreed. I'd like to have this as a very clear IETF-wide policy. No slides 1 week before hand, no time allocation. Or we can decide that real participation in the IETF requires that people be in the room, that remote participants are involved on a what you get is what you get basis, and we stop pretending otherwise. For many reasons, I'm not enthused about that idea, but the things that I, and others, are suggesting and asking for will cost money and require some changes in the ordinary way of doing things and it is only fair to mention the alternative and suggest that it be explicitly considered. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ pgpvdK7D_We7W.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again
Many countries let you claim VAT paid as you leave. If we organized ourselves, then the whole issue of VAT could be neutral to non-EC attendees. EC-attendees, likely can claim the VAT paid anyway. I just wish travel in the summer to Europe wasn't so expensive, and that the week didn't so often run right into the August long weekend, which for me, is a family weekend of the summer. It was the combination of the cost and the family impact that kept me from travelling. (Toronto next summer is a week earlier, and Prague in 2015 almost two weeks earlier) I'm glad to hear that the venue worked so well. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpQWYg9aYN1n.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: stability of iana.org URLs
Jeffrey Hutzelman jh...@cmu.edu wrote: On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 01:10 -0700, Amanda Baber wrote: Hi, The link in RFC3315 is actually incorrect -- it should have been http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers, without the file extension, and there's an erratum about this. HTML was generally (if not exclusively) reserved for files that needed to include links to registration forms . Nonetheless, it's an existing URL in an immutable published RFC. Once such a thing has been published, right or wrong, best practice is to make sure it remains valid. that was my point... I did not think to look at Errata for a URL mistake The Apache mod_spelling module would even have fixed the reference, I think. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgp1JU8eHClnt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense (was: Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF)
Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote: The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall conversations and side meetings So that implies to me that we should use our session time extremely efficiently, always finish sessions early (to facilitate time for ad-hoc conversations), and that the number of simultaneous sessions should be reduced so that people have more free time. We should in fact discourage discussions at the mic, because they take up time. Maybe only have presentations, and prepared written questions? (What a curious email address. Is it code, or is it just all the good ones were taken?) -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpBeZqXwkNcf.pgp Description: PGP signature
stability of iana.org URLs
I just followed http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers.html From RFC3315 (DHCPv6)'s reference section. Ten years later, the URL doesn't work. I know that things were reworked when we went to XML based storage, but I thought that the old URLs would at least have a 301 error on them. I discovered that dropping the .html gets me the right data at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers but I had to walk through the list of protocol numbers to find this. I feel relatively confident that I found the right list, but other people looking for registries that are more confusing (ikev1 vs ikev2, etc) might not wind up at the right place. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpNz2iGYWbOI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense (was: Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF)
Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: But earlier today I realized that the problem isn't just the cost of attending meetings - it's the value that we get in return for those meetings. I've been taking notes about how ineffectively we use our meeting time. Most of what I've observed won't surprise anybody, but here's a summary: Thanks for this. Rooms are set up not to facilitate discussion, but to discourage it. The lights are dim, the chairs are facing forward rather than other participants, the projector screen (not the person facilitating a discussion, even if someone is trying to facilitate a discussion) is the center of attention.The chairs are set so close together and with so few aisles that it's hard for most of the attendees to get to the mics. The microphone discipline which was intended to facilitate remote participation ends up making discussion more difficult for everybody who has paid to be on site. I think that these physical things are something that we can do some experiments about. Well, please excuse my candor, but f*ck habit. We can't be effective engineers if we let bad habits continue to dictate how we work. I agree. For 80% of most WG meetings, the lights should be bright, the participants should face each other. If there's a person facilitating the discussion that person should be the center of attention.If we're going to use microphones, the rooms should be set up to allow everyone in the room to have easy access to them. We should have several microphones, again facing each other, so that several people can have a conversation without everyone having to queue up. Can we please try this in Vancouver? This would work especially well for BOFs. Maybe we can start there. Chairs will need training as *facilitators* And maybe, in addition, we need to provide better places for people to hang out and work while trying to get an opportunity to interact with specific people. The terminal rooms are generally placed in out-of-the-way corners, but the most effective places to interact with people are in the hallways. I agree. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpU6EZ72KJc2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PS to IS question from plenary
Just to make sure we have good data, can we go back a few more years?
Specifically, did we not previously have a restriction forbidding references
FS-DS, and {FS,DS}-PS? RFC3967 was in Dec. 2004, but I thought that we
had some other work more recently (2008?) that attempted to unjam things.
What I'm wondering is if the 20 actions prior to 6410 was an anomaly,
and really the historical rate of upgrade is really lower.
I think it is also important to understand how many new PS could have been
even ready at a given point for an upgrade. I don't have a good/simple
metric for determining this, I think it takes some significant semi-expert
review. Perhaps someone has an Information Science (?!) or Economics
graduate student who wants to mine the data and write a paper :-)
--
Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works
pgp6bgZwX7Izy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility
I have not read the thread yet, on purpose. As a person who has done significant remote participation myself, and has also observed the difficulty new people have in understanding how things fit together, I can not support your specific proposal, but I support the idea. I would suggest: 2. Updated Text from RFC 3777 RFC 3777 [RFC3777], Section 5, Nominating Committee Operation, Paragraph 1 of Rule 14, is replaced as follows: Members of the IETF community become eligible for the NomCom by having attended at least 3 of the last 7 IETF meetings in person. Once a person has become eligible for NomCom, they retain their elibility to NomCom by attending at least 1 of the last 4 IETF meetings in person, and at least 3 of the last 5 meetings in person or remotely. Should a person lose eligibility for NomCom, they return to not-eligible. (We could, true to form, describe this as a state machine with three states, or even a simpler to write in Verilog one with 7-8 states) === I have raised the bar slightly over your requirements in the form of still requiring 3 meetings to be attended, but lengthening the time to 7 meetings, such that a person who attends one meeting/year, if they do it right, can become eligible easily. I feel perhaps that in the becoming eligible process, that some of the 4 meetings not-attended should be clearly attended remotely, but I'm sure how to specify that. I have lowered the bar to remain eligible such that a person who not travel for 12 months (such as someone on maternity/paternity leave. Civilized countries get at least 1 year..) could remain eligible. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpKWjiu0jsRB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility
Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote: Today it is possible to verify that somebody attended to an IETF meeting. You have to register, pay and collect your badge. However, in remote participation we do not have mechanisms to verify that somebody attended to a session. We need to have registration for remote participation, even if we charge zero. I believe that perhaps we need to provide some magic token in jabber or in the NoteWell slide, that needs to be used by remote participants to check-in. They have to do that during the meeting itself. I also ask whether remote participation on the plenary should be mandatory We also need to permit judgement calls. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgp5KQcvMoVWO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility
Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote: However, before getting into that I'd like to hear from folks who've been on or chaired nomcoms. I know a lot of it is done remotely, but how important is the f2f part that happens during meetings? Would it really be ok if say 5 voting members could never come to a meeting whilst serving? (And I think that'd not be an unlikely outcome.) Please note two things: 1) under the original proposal and my revised one, you have attend in person somewhat regularly. 2) for the November meeting, the nomcom *itself* must be present. I think it unrealistic to think that the nomcom itself could be remote for that meeting. For the summer and march meeting, the nomcom could be anywhere. so, even if you are eligible, don't volunteer for the nomcom if you can't attend the november meeting. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpytJwwtOhBM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility
Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote: I think what you're getting at is that there are different types of remote participation. If one wants to listen in, that should only require the appropriate software and a network connection. If one actually wants to participate, then one either has to get onto a WeBex or Meetecho system. The point of this is that there has should be some demonstration that someone substantially participated in an IETF event. I find that jabber+streamed mp3 is sufficient for a lot of things. I do not think that one has to actively contribute as much as be available to object to bad ideas. So, we mostly need to register for that remotely controlled hum generator. to do so. Others, on the other hand, require more bandwidth. Case and point: the httpbis working group has held two interim meetings and two more are planned. All off site. Should these people be counted? If so, how? I think that once we have a mechanism to count remote participation, we will use it. I think that an interim meeting is just part of the in-person meeting that follows it. That makes it simple and direct. An in-person interim meeting may provide substantially more indoctrination to a new person than a full blown meeting. And so, as I said, I'm fine with SM's idea, modulo John's suggested edit. But I also think it would be useful to look beyond that change as well. +1 -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ pgp5QPDQW3Gzv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote: Because of that, weakening requirements for NomCom participation greatly increases the probability that our culture will fracture, and our mission statement lose meaning, before we have a chance to agree on what they should become. I supported the proposal to require a few old-timers on every NomCom a few years ago. I'm quite against the idea of lowering requirements now. I would only entrust the future of the IETF to those who have enough experience and hard-earned wisdom to make the difficult decisions that are required. Those who participate in the process but are not really deep in the culture are already well-represented through the vehicles for contributing to the NomCom process. Just as long as you understand that you are influencing the diversity of the nomcom itself. The people involved will be older, work for bigger companies, and have a tendancy to be white, north american, male, and not have small children (or rather, not have made the choice to stay home with child). Since people tend to pick people who look like them, that means that nomcom will pick people who are less diverse. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[
Re: Accessibility of IETF Remote Participation Services
iaoc-rps == iaoc-rps iaoc-...@ietf.org writes: iaoc-rps As noted in Section 4 of the IETF Chair message, the IETF is iaoc-rps currently soliciting suggestions for improvements in its RPS iaoc-rps capabilities. As part of that, the IETF would like to solicit iaoc-rps feedback on the accessibility and usability of remote iaoc-rps participation services by IETF participants with disabilities. iaoc-rps If you would like to comment on I am unclear about the question. (I don't think AB read it through at all) I believe that you are asking about people with disabilities such as physical (eyes, hands, ears,) and mental (learning, dyslexia, etc.), but the subject talks about accessibility. They aren't exactly the same thing. Sometimes a web site is accessible if it works with any browser rather than IE5 in 1024x768. Is not being willing to run unstable browser plugins a disability? (or being unwilling to run an unstable operating system to run a less stable browser...) You have mentioned webex (which comes from a single vendor) and meetecho (which unifies a number of IETF standards into one place) as well as the underlying technologies. Are you asking for *accessibility* issues with webex (it breaks regularly for me, audio has never, ever, worked), or are you asking about usability issues that people have with it? I know two really smart people that never figured out how to find the chat window on webex, or who muted themselves and were unable to unmute -- I know that there is lots of undiagnostic austistic-spectrum people in our community. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpGC_qLn9UZl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Liaison Statement From the IESG and IAB to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on TISec
IAB == IAB Chair iab-ch...@iab.org writes: IAB The Liaison statement can be found here: IAB https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1258/ IAB The Internet Society will forward this liaison statement to IAB ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on their letterhead. This will carry more IAB weight than a statement just from the IESG and IAB because the IAB Internet Society holds a Class A liaison with SC6 on behalf of IAB the IETF. Thanks for this heads up. The ASCII art diagrams in the PDF at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2013-06-06-the-iesg-and-the-iab-isoiec-jtc1-sc6-liaison-from-the-isoc-to-isoiec-jtc1sc6-and-its-national-body-members-in-relation-to-iso-iecjtc1-sc6_n15618-attachment-1.pdf are regretably formatted with non-constant size spaces, so the diagrams are perhaps much less useful than they could be. Perhaps this document could also be made available in .txt format? IAB The TISec proponents have indicated that they believe that IAB TISec is different than IPsec. This liaison is a response this IAB statement. It points out how IPsec supports the same IAB functionality, and it encourages IAB the TISec proponents to engage in the IETF process to specify IAB the use of their national algorithms in IPsec, as has been done IAB for other national algorithms. I concur strongly with the IAB view, thank you for this. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ pgpHEwYj1bsWg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org
Andy == Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com writes: Andy So why not move the signal? Andy Put IETF Last Call mail on last-c...@ietf.org and leave this list for Andy everything else. Okay, that would work for me. Where would the reply-to: on those posts be set to? I also don't think we ever solved the problem of moderation of @ietf.org lists. Specifically, I'd like it so that once I'm subscribed to one @ietf.org list, that I could post to all of them. (Well, I wouldn't post, I'd be replying in most cases) -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ pgpT7FRkD7HwL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt (Resource R ecords for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard
Joe == Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca writes: Okay, I felt a bit embarrassed about having said this, so I went back and reviewed the justification for bringing this forth as an IETF document. The stated reason for publishing the document as an IETF document is that there is a regulatory requirement in Canada to implement something like this. Joe No, that's not right (and really, if that's how you read the Joe document at hand then clearly I need to re-write it). Let's Joe review. Joe The original motivation for requesting code-point assignments Joe for new RRTypes which would facilitate a clean encoding of Joe EUI-48 and EUI-64 addresses in the DNS resulted from my Joe distaste for the evident lack of consistency in approach taken Joe in response to the CRTC's general requirement that cable Joe operators publish this kind of data in the DNS, for internal, Joe authenticated access by resellers of their access networks in Joe Canada. okay, fair enough. Given that the CRTC mandated them, why wasn't the IETF involved earlier? The regulator really should have reached out to the IETF here. I'll be the first to swear at my government for continuing to have ISO think here. This seems like a place for the IAB to respond to this regulator, and in this case, point towards your document and ask why there isn't someone from the regulator speaking for this. Joe It's not at all certain or even likely that the CRTC-mandated Joe systems will ever use these RRTypes. That ship has surely Joe sailed. The reason for requesting the code-points was to make Joe future such situations less messy, and more likely to result in Joe DNS schemas (if that's a phrase) that were consistent and Joe parseable. Then that's even more a reason for the IAB to send the CRTC a letter. Maybe it's time for a Canadian liason (but then every country will want one...?), or maybe it is time for a regulatory liason to be created... I dunno. Joe I've had feedback from a small number of people who are already Joe in the habit of publishing MAC addresses in the DNS as part of Joe (as I understand it) inventory management and internal Joe troubleshooting. I take no position here on whether that's a Joe good idea, but I conclude that publishing such data in the DNS Joe happens today, regardless of the availability of the EUI48 or Joe EUI64 RRTypes. Did they like the scheme? Joe In my mind, this suggests publication of the spec in the RFC Joe series, where it can join other specifications for the encoding Joe of IPv4, IPv6, NSAP, E.164, X.25, ISDN, ATM, NIMROD, HIP, and Joe ILNP addresses. I may have missed some. I agree. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpTwzShflCa9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IETF Meeting in South America
The == The IAOC bob.hin...@gmail.com writes: The The venues are in Buenos Aires. They meet our requirements for the meeting The space, networking, nearby restaurants and bars, hotel room rates in the mid $200 The dollar range, nearby alternate hotels at a broad range of prices, nice area in the The city, safe, direct international flights, and accessible visas. The IAOC thinks we The could have a successful IETF meeting in Buenos Aires and that attendees would The like the venues. My question is about whether we would be there during the peak season, and when exactly is that season? I priced flights for me in July, November and March (2014). It seems that most flights go through Santiago or Sao Paulo, one went through Atlanta. The lowest cost flight for me is similiar to travel to Europe not in the summer, but the price rises quite quickly to the $4K range. The worse rise seems to be March, but that was also the furthest in the future. The Things to consider are that it will be a long trip for the majority of IETFers and the The air fares are more expensive (about 10% to 20% higher than average), though The restaurants are less expensive. This would be a case where most IETFers would The bear more travel pain and expense. What are the hotel costs? (I fund my own attendance) -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ pgpRkwqzWLTym.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process
Thomas == Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com writes: Thomas The current cycle too often seems to be more like new Thomas version posted. Wait if anyone reviews. Some reviews Thomas eventually, maybe. Oh, IETF meeting coming, time for a Thomas revision. But with meeting approaching, there are a zillion Thomas docs and cycles are limited. Rather haphazard, with too Thomas many documents effectively only being revised once per Thomas meeting cycle. I would like to suggest that the IESG Review be done in public on the WG mailing list.I've been a WG co-chair for just over a year now, and I'm truly astounded by what happens behind the scenes. It's not the substance, it's the quantity, and the lack of WG view of it. I think that this substantially and quite negatively contributes to the fix it during IESG review, and therefore to the IESG workload. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ pgpI0t3me2_sq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Do we have an estimated date for completing the IESG selection process for this year?
SM == SM s...@resistor.net writes: SM There is an open position which has not been filled. Is NomCom SM 2012 still continuing its work? SM The IETF usually has a NomCom Chair. Who is the current NomCom SM Chair [2]? The nomcom chair continues to do the work. The nomcom is in fact meeting in 28 minutes to discuss some issues resulting from an action that was taken. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpdO9RBy_lLK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process
#part sign=pgpmime Jari == Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net writes: Jari I wrote a blog article about how we do a fairly significant Jari amount of reviews and changes in the late stages of the IETF Jari process. Next week the IESG will be having a retreat in Jari Dublin, Ireland. As we brought this topic to our agenda, Pete Jari and I wanted to raise the issue here and call for feedback Jari ideas for improving the situation with all of you. Jari http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/05/balancing-the-process/ I'll repeat what has been said repeatedly in the newtrk and related discussions. The step from ID to RFC is too large because we are essentially always aiming for STD rather than PS. If we are unwilling to bring RFC back to a place were it does not equal STD, then we need to create a new category of document which amounts to fully baked ID. Things like IANA allocations could occur at that point. In the days of dot-boom it was not unusual to see widespread implementation very early in the ID process and even interop and experimental deployment. While this still occurs for quite a number of things (and sometimes it's a problem that the ID can not be changed as a result), there is an equal amount of wait for the RFC to come out. I believe that we probably need to simply do less. Or perhaps we've reached the n^2 overhead problem, and since resources are less(%), if we can't increase resources allocated to overhead, then it's time to reduce n: the IETF should fork and/or shard somehow. (%)-it's not just about $$ invested, it's also, I think, that after many years of caffeine and sugar, many of us are simply immune to their effects, and/or have given them up. (2)-by adding an intermediate step in the ID process, I haven't removed the heavy part of the process, I've just redefined the process so that it's no longer at the tail of the process. This is, I admit, akin to adjusting the definition of unemployment. But, we can all agree when an ID is baked enough for the WG to consider it deployable, then we will actually get to the running code part sooner, which frankly is the only real way to get real experience. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[
Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process
Sam == Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu writes: Michael If we are unwilling to bring RFC back to a place were it Michael does not equal STD, then we need to create a new category Michael of document which amounts to fully baked ID. Things like Michael IANA allocations could occur at that point. Sam Hi. Could you clearly articulate why you want this category and what Sam you hope it will do and not do? I tried to respond with my thoughts Sam about this but realized that I don't understand your goals well enough Sam to provide more than a poorly considered reaction. It's what Carsten said. 1) this idea is baked enough for cross-area review to make sense. 2) the protocol is not going to change significantly, one could implement. 3) any future changes need thus to take into account impact on existing implementations... BUT that doesn't mean that we can't change things. It's what PS *ought* to have been, and what RFCs were prior to 1990 or so. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ pgpSBhjNPkE0d.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process
Dave == Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net writes: Dave I think that's still too late. Dave Certainly it could be useful, but it's still very late in the Dave process. It's too late for Internet Changing Things (BGP4, TCP, IPv6 Header Options).. It's still too early for things we know little about (SPF, IPsecME AD VPN, all the LLN stuff).. just to name a few, there are lots of examples I know. The problem is partly that we apply the same process regardless of impact... The review is therefore too late for Internet Changing Things, and way to heavy for new things that are more self-contained. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ pgpt7zunNvxUk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process
Moriarty, == Moriarty, Kathleen kathleen.moria...@emc.com writes: Moriarty How about having a running list (or registry) of IETF RFCs Moriarty that have become the de-facto standards? So, the STD series is pretty exactly this. Newtrk also proposed more than one level of this. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpQ8YNAcpUG8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: last call comments for draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-06
Andrew == Andrew McGregor andrewm...@gmail.com writes: Andrew Further to that, ifindexes of tunnels and PPP sessions can change Andrew dynamically as the bearer connection goes up and down, even if the Andrew interface has the same name and authenticated identity. Andrew That raises the Andrew interesting question of whether even the interface name is Andrew stable, as on I agree that this happens, and that it is a problem. I wonder if this isn't a bug in the OSes involved that the ifindex can not be more clearly specified by a daemon, or that the order of interface bringup in the OS couldn't be more deterministic. I think that non-contiguous ifindexes are a pain in the ass (based upon my understanding of enumeration of interfaces in the interface MIB), but are they essentially forbidden? Having holes would make it easier to keep things consistent. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgp0to9JDyXXu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Purpose of IESG Review
Ted == Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com writes: Ted You could equally say that the IETF last call frustrates the WG Ted process, since a document can fail IETF last call, and this can Ted be extremely frustrating for working groups. Witness the Ted fiasco in the MIF working group when they tried to advance a Ted DHCP route option, for example. Maybe we should have an IETF first call (for objections), rather than last call. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ pgpwtWAVHlvWK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?
SM == SM s...@resistor.net writes: SM Michael Richardson commented about the apparent bias that we are SM experiencing [1]. The Area Directors, except for two of them, SM work for large vendors. Is there a bias in favor of vendors? I SM don't think so; large vendors have money and can afford to SM provide funding support. Is the problem I believe that there is a bias in favour of large vendors. It's not that the nomcom picks people from large vendors, but rather than it only gets candidates with support, and large vendors find it much easier to support people. AS A RESULT, we have 30+ years of the promotion and retention (not getting laid off..) of people from those large vendors as well. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ pgpaI05CzEsYq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?
Michael == Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca writes: Michael AS A RESULT, we have 30+ years of the promotion and Michael retention (not getting Michael laid off..) of people from those large vendors as well. I missed a few words there. As a result of the fact that we have representation mostly from large vendors, (some of which did grow from nothing, mind you), there are the various set of biases that have been inherent in the industry for 30 years in who gets support. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpwdwBULafRg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?
James == James Polk jmp...@cisco.com writes: James The nomcom isn't randomly picking hats in a crowd. They are James picking talent of those that have volunteered to serve. At Volunteered, and who have employer/funding support. The apparent bias that we are experiencing is the result of 30+ years of high-tech employment bias towards the white male. To be a qualified candidate requires a bunch of things: (and I mean qualified in both the qualities of the person, and the various supports needed to do the job) 1) working for a moderate to large company for a sufficiently long time such that the company can spare the salary. (Or being sufficiently well connected that the person can find sponsorship) 2) being able to travel for a week+ at a time. 3) having been able to do (2) for enough years to have met enough people that the person's qualifications have been recognized. and of course: 4) doing actual technical work! that's some serious hurdles. There a bias here towards older people who have been in the same company for a long time, and who either have no children, or had them at least ten years ago. Having a child (and I didn't do the hard work), restricted my ability to travel sufficiently that I wasn't nomcom eligible for 5 years True, we have had people overcome hurdles: at least one IESG baby is expected this year, and we didn't even have a parental leave policy until Lisa wrote one. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ pgpnKkUYgzP5d.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?
SM == SM s...@resistor.net writes: SM 12.5 % of IAOC voting members are female. SM 0.1% of IAB members are female SM 0 % of IESG members are female. SM Based on the above measurements the IAOC is more diverse. The SM IAOC already Stats without standard deviations are meaningless. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ pgpJqa1Q45XtB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
Loa == Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu writes: Loa thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are deployed Loa in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive Loa packets that was sent in the future already now? I for one, have always found these Crocker brothers suspicious: always seem to have been at the key points in Internet future history. I think that they are in fact a single person. One is going forward in time, and the other one backwards. (Which is which, is still open to debate) So I claim that we will have been receiving packets from the future for some time now. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ pgpgA4xVYS2Zk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Getting rid of the dot (was: Mentoring)
Jeffrey == Jeffrey Haas jh...@pfrc.org writes: Jeffrey Such an exercise would probably generate a lot less Jeffrey controversy than my unsanctioned badge experiment. Jeffrey http://pfrc.org/~jhaas/pictures/badge.jpg nice. Instead of getting a new badge every meeting, maybe we should just get an IETF86 dot on a badge we keep from meeting to meeting. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[
Re: Getting rid of the dot
Doug == Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us writes: In article 51489888.6050...@internet2.edu you write: I want my badge to have my name and a small screen showing the room I just came from. I want the screen to show the room I'm going to next. And it should be upside down so I can read it. Doug And a map so I can get there. With GPS. And real-time traffic data. *AND* a count-down until cookies, and a Blood-Glucose indicator, so I know if I'm allowed to have a cookie. Actually, I'd just settle for a badge that wasn't always backwards. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpJPNYg1dNI1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is there a Git repository of RFCs? Or of Internet-Drafts?
https://github.com/credil/ietf-drafts-sorted is the result of my draftmirror script which basically does s,-,/, in a selective way. Each author and group gets its own directory. Previously I have just run draftmirror on each of my devices, but now, I think I'll just use git pull, so I saved the world some bandwidth. https://github.com/credil/ietf-drafts is the unsorted rsync. I probably have to sort out what ssh key I use to push. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgp4bKX0sVf11.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is there a Git repository of RFCs? Or of Internet-Drafts?
Andrew == Andrew Chi a...@bbn.com writes:
Andrew On 3/15/13 12:45 PM, Francis Galiegue wrote:
* rsync doesn't prevent corruption of data, git does; * git show,
git log, git bisect; * git format-patch, git send-email etc.
Andrew I like the proposal, though in my experience it's not a
Andrew perfect match. I use git for version control on my own
Andrew drafts, but renames are awkward when going from -02 to -03,
Andrew etc. And git's built-in diff can't compare to the IETF diff
Andrew tool. Of course, I'd be happy to be corrected, since it
Andrew would improve my own workflow!
I don't store my drafts as -00.txt, but just .txt.
I git add the -XX.txt as is (sometimes), or just ignore it.
=== % cat Makefile
VERSION=00
draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-${VERSION}.txt:
draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template.txt
cp draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template.txt
draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-${VERSION}.txt
%.txt: %.xml
XML_LIBRARY=$(XML_LIBRARY):./src xml2rfc $? $@
Re: Is there a Git repository of RFCs? Or of Internet-Drafts?
Dale == Dale R Worley wor...@ariadne.com writes: Dale Is there a publicly-available Git repository of RFCs or of Dale Internet-Drafts? Dale The reason I ask about a Git repository is that regular Git Dale pulls from such a repository seems like a straightforward Dale and well-supported way to maintain a local copy of the Dale document collection. I could push to github from the nightly rsync on my desktop if you like. rsync is also pretty good. You'd get all the history in your git repo. That's either a feature or a bug. -- Michael Richardson -on the road- pgpJmqRtgmOwj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mentoring
Ted == Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com writes: Ted I think it might also be worth encouraging working group chairs Ted to have working group breakfast or lunch meetings (RSVP Ted required) where newcomers are invited to come meet the chairs Ted and chairs can strategically invite a few return attendees (but Ted fewer than newcomers so they don't get crowded out) to Ted establish a connection with the newcomers. If this became Ted common it would probably require tool work, but what do folks Ted think of the idea in principle? I like it in principal, but there are only 4 effective breakfasts and 4 effective lunches. (Mon,Tue,Wed,Thu). Given Side Meetings, lunch speaking series, WG chair training, and that if your number comes up for nomcom, you lose all of those... I think that there just isn't time. (ps: I've now had the IEEE 802 presentation three times) -- Michael Richardson -on the road- pgpLl8C8AYorC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mentoring
Ted == Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com writes: I personally believe that while strongly recommending to the WG chairs to adopt the concept we should leave the implementation up to each of them without much formalization and process building. Let us not forget that we will have a variety of WGs from large WGs meeting the first time with a lot of new participants to small WGs at their 20th or 40th meeting with a handful of new participants and anything in the middle. Ted They will need a mechanism for addressing newcomers, unless we Ted think that we can just rely on the working group mailing lists. Let's assume for a moment that we do that. First, WG chairs can receive a message when people subscribe. They can also set some welcome text that go to new users. If we leverage that part, then we can perhaps build a kind of FAQ/Checklist for new people. Given that I also said that I wanted additional semi-official hats that can be delegated out, the roles of: 1) list manager 2) newcomer greeter come to mind. As to the newcomer meet and greet... I actually think we got it a bit backwards. I think that WG chairs should be uninvited. (as much as I like free beer). Rather, I think that the newcomer meet and greet (and free beer) should follow the newcomer orientation session. Instead, I think that newcomers need to meet other newcomers. If they are going to meet with a mentor/greeter person, then a slot just before the reception would be good... I'd say just open the reception doors to newcomers and the mentors 20 minutes early. -- Michael Richardson -on the road- pgpoNwERWRtIW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mentoring
Spencer == Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org writes: As to the newcomer meet and greet... I actually think we got it a bit backwards. I think that WG chairs should be uninvited. (as much as I like free beer). Rather, I think that the newcomer meet and greet (and free beer) should follow the newcomer orientation session. Instead, I think that newcomers need to meet other newcomers. If they are going to meet with a mentor/greeter person, then a slot just before the reception would be good... I'd say just open the reception doors to newcomers and the mentors 20 minutes early. Spencer Wait ... did I understand that you're offering MENTORS free Spencer beer before everyone (except the newcomers) gets in? The beer at the reception isn't always free, but yes, that's what I said. Spencer If so, I congratulate you for solving the problem of Spencer recruiting mentors! it's because I write so much open source that I understand the power of free beer. -- Michael Richardson -on the road- pgpRNqUwiB8Gl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership
Randall == Randall Gellens ra...@qti.qualcomm.com writes: Randall selection bias. But, as several people have noted, if we Randall grow the IETF pool Randall as a whole, that helps, and if we remove barriers to Randall serving on I* that helps Randall as well. I think that finding ways to remove employer support as a limit would give us the biggest bang towards increasing and diversifying the pool of candidates. There are significant risks towards funding ADs directly: specifically with avoiding a move towards professional non-technical standards people, but if we a source for such funds, I think that we are smart enough as a community to set up/formalize certain things like term limits, so that it wouldn't have to be a problem. -- Michael Richardson -on the road- pgp0HT0z7mtdU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: side meetings and BarBOFs.
Hannes == Hannes Tschofenig hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net writes: Hannes a Bar BOF is an discussion among interested people that is Hannes open for others. Since we like transparency and openness we Hannes invite others to join these discussions. Hannes Would you rather like to have meetings where you are not Hannes invited? The reason for the bar bof being in a bar, restaurant, bike shed, or pool-side margarita stand, where yes, you can not hear people more than a few meters away, is so that there can be lots of high bandwidth discussion among a small group of peers. (And, btw, this is one reason I like the social events we have had in museums, because they tend to be quiet enough to talk, yet not boring) A reason for the DoFood method is so that people who are not talking have something to do with their mouth :-) As the size of the group grows, we get instantly into n^2 communications problems, and we then fail to actually hear anyone due to congestion collapse. We then impose slideware and micrphones on the 'discussion', and the result is that we are not actually any more open than we were before (because there now isn't time to hear everyone in the room), just less effective. -- Michael Richardson -on the road- pgpUXwFd82uhH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: side meetings and BarBOFs.
Burger == Burger Eric ebur...@cs.georgetown.edu writes: Burger I think Michael's point is that because a BOF only has two Burger shots, people trying again do NOT go through the open, Burger advertised process and thus end up with closed meetings Burger where people are (almost always INADVERTENTLY) not Burger invited. It would be more open and transparent to have these Burger meetings on the calendar, or at least the BOF wiki. Yes, I agree with you. What I observe is that because people think that the two shots are a very hard limit, that they are instead very shy about asking for a BOF until they are completely ready. Really what used to happen in BOFs, is now happening in a hodge-podge of BarBOFs that actually happen in bars (I was in one last night, and another was immediately behind me), and other things like the 6tsch side-meeting which asked for, and got two 1.5 hour lunch time slots. The 6tsch has a list, and is busy submitting individual drafts, and could easily have been turned into a BOF with proper datatracker support. Perhaps we could call some a Pre-BOF, with the understanding that this means that ADs need not be present, and that we can have more than one Pre-BOF in a timeslot. There was also a SSH Key management side meeting... was it yesterday? I dunno, it was announced very late, and of course, I can't look it up on the schedule either. BTW: I think both the ITS BarBOF and the mdnsext BarBOF made progress on something that likely can be chartered. The mdnsext had a BOF last time, but it was clear that it needed some significant amount of agenda bashing, and so it did not choose to meet this time, because a big meeting was not justified. What they did was ENTIRELY reasonable. What I'm objecting to is BarBOFs that are so formal that they are getting AV support. Those should just be BOFs or if we like, Pre-BOFs, and they should be on the schedule. (Whether we schedule through lunch or not, is a seperable discussion) -- Michael Richardson -on the road- pgp_sBypVWhaR.pgp Description: PGP signature
side meetings and BarBOFs.
The number of side meetings is simply overwhelming. I would like to propose either repealing the 2 BOF rule, or reminding ADs that they can authorize more than 2 BOFs, and they should do that. If we have time/place and people have free cycles for these side meetings, etc. can we just put them in the schedule and be done with? (And no more BAR BOFs that aren't in the bar) -- Michael Richardson -on the road- pgpgYt_8cqyi7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership
IETF == IETF Diversity ietf.divers...@gmail.com writes: IETF The letter below was sent to the IESG, the IAB, the IAOC and IETF the ISOC Board this morning, in an attempt to open a IETF discussion of how to increase the diversity of the IETF IETF Leadership. We are sharing the letter here to encourage IETF community discussion of this important topic. Thank you for this. IETF For example, ten years ago, in February of 2003, there were 25 IETF members of the IETF leadership (12 IAB members and 13 IESG IETF members). Of those 25 members, there was one member of IETF non-European descent, there was one member from a country IETF outside of North America or Europe, and there were four women. IETF There were 23 companies represented in the IETF leadership IETF (out of a total of 25 seats). IETF In February of 2013, there were 32 members of the IETF IETF leadership (12 IAB members, 15 IESG members and 5 IAOC IETF members). Of those 32 members, there was one member of IETF non-European descent, there were no members from countries IETF outside of North America or Europe, and there was only one IETF woman. There were only 19 companies represented (out of a IETF total of 32 seats). For nomcoms that had a open list of willing candidates, I wonder if this analysis could be repeated for the list of candidates for each year. I would also like to know what the diversity of the attendance is over the years, and of ID authorship. Given the time commitments involved and the need for support from employers, I do not believe the IETF will be able to achieve significantly more diversity in it's leadership than we have in our participants. As an over-represented white male north american, I am upset about this. -- Michael Richardson -on the road- pgpuXrRnLkRaX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: congestion control? - (was Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director)
rgensen == rgensen Roger writes: rgensen I'll ask a rather basic question and hope someone will rgensen answer in an educational way - Why is congestion control so rgensen important? And where does it apply? ... :-) The Transport Area has all of the groups that deal with transport protocols that need to do congestion control. Further, the (current) split of work means that all of the groups that need congestion oversight would be cared for by the position that is currently becoming empty as Wes leaves. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgp_x2V_NHXrF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Eric == Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com writes: Eric There are two other interpretations of this situation, neither Eric of which I think is true, but we should consider the Eric possibility. The first is the TSV is too narrow a field to Eric support an area director and as such should be folded in with Eric another area. The second is if all of the qualified people Eric have moved on and no one is interested in building the Eric expertise the IESG feels is lacking, then industry and Eric academia have voted with their feet: the TSV is irrelevant and Eric should be closed. To be considered qualified the candidate needed to: a) have demonstrated subject matter expertise (congestion in this case) b) have demonstrated IETF management expertise (current/former WG chair) c) have time available Generally speaking, people who can not satisfy (c) do not show up on the list of nominees, as they have to decline the nomination. There definitely are many people who have (a) and (b), but not (c). Were money not an issue, filing this position would be easy. The nomcom then needs to look at the remaining candidates and along with the confirming body (the IAB) determine if they can compromise on (a) or (b). Brian has suggested that (b) is more important than (a). === Of course, this HHGG quote might apply. (I seem to be listening to the radio play this afternoon...) To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpyJGDchO700.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IETF Challenges
joel == joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com writes: joel http://www.arkko.com/tools/rfcstats/countrydistrhist.html joel blue = china grey = japan joel http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/countrydistr.html The colours are alas confusing, as they are repeated. I think the thickness is different, but I can't track to the graph. What happened between 1972 and 1986? :-) I'm unclear on the countrydistr.html if this is RFCs or IDs. I'm guessing it is the same data, so it's RFCs. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpPrCH0D8iv1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-barnes-healthy-food-06.txt
Mary == Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com writes: In Section 5: For cases of first time attendees for a specific location, relevant information can be gathered from attendees that have previously visited the city. There are recurrent discussions as nobody volunteered to gather that information in one place. [WEG] Perhaps a model similar to RFC 6640 would be appropriate - having this draft explicitly recommend use of a wiki or other semi-permanent method to store and share information collaboratively about specific locations' healthy/restricted diet options based on past experience. It could probably be a persistent subsection of the IETF meeting wiki, or it could just as easily be a pointer to a non-IETF-specific external website that is set up with precisely this goal (helping travelers with special dietary needs meet their requirements in strange cities) in mind. Mary [MB] That's an excellent suggestion in terms of information Mary sharing. We have been doing that on the IETF food list, but Mary for the cities that we re-visit on a regular basis, having Mary this more widely available on a wiki would be helpful. Mary Perhaps, we could add something to the tools page and do it by Mary meeting location to include all the logistics (including the Mary food) and have it more permanent. [/MB] That's one of the best arguments as to why we should revisit cities we have bene to before ... (a recent Type-II diabetic. I booked a place in Orlando with a kitchen...) -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpIDOUC9FPnK.pgp Description: PGP signature
proceedings not in archival format
I could not recall the name of a vendor who was at the Bits'n'Bites in Atlanta. So I went to https://www.ietf.org/meeting/85/bits-n-bites.html, but the list wasn't there. Since it said that they'd get an ackledgement in the plenary, I went to: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/technical-plenary.html looking for the right slide. Why are there .pptx files there? a) It's not an archival quality format (HTML or PDF/A) b) According to our openstand principles it's hardly a standard. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ pgpZyYhoeEEqk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Remote Participation Services
Keith == Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com writes: Keith Can we *please* discourage the habit of treating IETF WG Keith meetings as one series of PowerPoint presentations after Keith another? This makes the meetings much less productive. Keith The notion that there are supposed to be slides for each Keith presentation, is IMO, a huge error. It's not the slides that are the problem. It's the presentation itself. If we could, I would organize the rooms in circular style, but it doesn't scale to several hundred people. (If there are slides, we need to make sure that they are received early, in a vendor-neutral archival happy format, and can be distributed in advance.) -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpy19nxeLD76.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Remote Participation Services
Thomas == Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com writes: Thomas IMO, what is missing is operational Best Practices. We seem Thomas to be lacking them (are any written down?) And we don't Thomas follow them consistently, especially from one WG to Thomas another. Many of the problems I see with remote Thomas participation facilties have to do not with the technology Thomas per se, but with lack of proper training and advance Thomas testing. I get the general sense that getting the remote +5. I am setting a deadline for slides for IETF86 for my WG, and I will be doing a unified slide deck. I might allow text on a slide to be updated the day before... but no slides, no speak. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpw6CEV5CsKY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Remote Participation Services
For the question at the end, I'd like to suggest that making an effort to normalize some of the use of the tools that we have would be most helpful. It's not just a technology problem. IETF == IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org writes: IETF 2.4. Slide Sharing IETFAnyone can use a web browser to fetch the session slides. IETF WG Chairs are responsible for posting the slides prior to the IETF session, and the slides (in PDF format) become part of the IETF session proceedings. Slides are regularly late, and regularly not in PDF format. They get updated at the last minute, so slide numbers fail. I think that this presents too rosy a picture of getting slides. IETF 2.6. Shared Text Document Editing IETFIn some sessions, there is an attempt to edit a text IETF document with input from the local and remote attendees. This IETF is most often done for minutes and proposed WG charter I wish we would do this more often, particularly for HUMs -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgp5MJxATgSpt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A modest proposal
Tony == Tony Finch d...@dotat.at writes: My, what a bunch of parvenus. SIP got it from SMTP, SMTP got it from Telnet. Back in the 1960s we all used CRLF because on a mechanical model 33 or 35 Teletype, CR really returned the carriage, LF really advanced the platen, and you needed both. I first ran into CR/LF on a PDP-6 in about 1968, but I know it wasn't new then. Tony Dates back to 1930s teleprinters, I think. Since they were tele-printers, it seems obvious why *SIP* must retain it for tele-phony :-)
Re: Standards-essential patents under RAND licensing
tglassey == tglassey tglas...@earthlink.net writes: tglassey What do you do where a patent predates any standards use of the IP. I tglassey understand the issues of developing IP but what about IP that already existed tglassey before the standards processes incorporated it into their work product? I think that it depends upon whether the owner of the patent was involved in producing the standard. If not, and nobody knew of the patent, there is certainly a problem. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[
Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
Ole == Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com writes: Ole This location was dictated (if that's the right word) by a Ole desire to Ole co-locate (back-to-back) with the IEEE. yeah, I know, but I gotta say to the IEEE SERIOUSLY? Ole As for transportation to restaurants etc, I believe shuttle options ar Ole being explored. Thank you. Do you know when this might be announced? -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[
Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
Dave == Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net writes: Dave Quick, name five reasons to go to Orlando. Here are mine: Dave Puerto Rican Dave delicacies, alternative cinema, craft beer, African-American Dave history and Dave psychic readings... Good... but how to get there? We appear to be stuck in the middle of a monster hotel with a single boulevard and nothing at all nearby (except that there is a shuttle to Disney) Shoping around for places to stay, there are some 3-star places for $50/night.
Re: in-person vs remote participation (was: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF])
George == George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com writes: George First and foremost, the act of getting away from the office George and the financial and time commitments involved in traveling George to a physical meeting a few times a year tends to reinforce George the need to prepare for the meeting by reading drafts, George catching up on IETF work that has languished, etc. The +1 I don't see how we will reproduce this online. also, we talk about cross-area review, and sometimes this is faciliated by WG tourists... When participating remotely when there were 12 hours TZ differences, a really really really hard part was explaining to my kid, that really, I wasn't home. George The other things that become important are the hallway George track and the many fine lunches and dinners. Those come George up when talking about attending IETF in person, but often George it's meant to imply that those involved are there for the George wrong reasons (i.e. IETF as company-sponsored tourism or job George search) rather than to acknowledge its value in ensuring +1 -- Michael Richardson -on the road- pgptLiE0bnBTD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Format=flowed quoting (was Re: IETF...the unconference of SDOs) In-reply-to: p06240600cca730fbf54c@[99.111.97.136]
Randall Gellens ra...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote: Warning: this message was generated by Apple Mail. RG But not using Format=Flowed. RG This reflects a misunderstanding of Format=Flowed. Properly RG generated F=F has lines of no more than 78 characters. One of RG the primary goals of F=F is good interoperability between RG clients that support F=F and those that support traditional pure RG plain text email. What you're describing is a symptom of HTML RG quoting (or a surprisingly poor F=F implementation): so, really, what you are saying is that my complaint is not about a poor F=F implementation, but in fact, not even being attempted. It's just a really poor text/plain part generated to go along with an (often absent) text/html part, combined with a forced upgrade from text/plain to text/html on the display side. That's why they aren't marking, or paying attention to format=, because they didn't even know about it. -- Michael Richardson -on the road- pgpZoV2ZPukaf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Format=flowed quoting (was Re: IETF...the unconference of SDOs)
Sabahattin Gucukoglu listse...@me.com wrote: SG Let's clear up the confusion. I made two mistakes, firstly by SG calling this F/F semantics when what I mean is some sort of SG long-line-aware reflowing and quoting. We'll have to find a name SG for it. The other mistake was to call plain text plain text of any SG description, irrespective of the definition of text/plain. SG So we are talking about three formats: SG * text/plain, 78 characters wide SG * format=flowed, text/plain with soft breaks signalled by trailing whitespace, 78 characters SG * text/paragraphs (or whatever), a completely different identity that violates the length limits SG Apple Mail and Microsoft use this text/paragraphs. It's not Do you think it would be worth writing a specification for text/paragraphs? Heuristically, it's not that hard to identify, and a small patch for mailman would at least mark email as being in that format, so that at least, IETF lists could have email that complies to some standard. (Whether or not we then drop email that doesn't have a text/plain part is a second conversation) -- Michael Richardson -on the road- pgpkeg9IwKRw8.pgp Description: PGP signature
IETF...the unconference of SDOs
When I started attending IETF meetings in 1996, it was after about 6 years of reading mailing lists, at a time when netetiquette or Internet 101 was actively taught. We (because I taught others after learning it) taught people enough about how email worked so that they would understand basic things like quoting intelligently. Further, in 1996, the IETF had not entered the endless September (even though the Internet might have as a whole), and had time to actually guide people, and I am thankful to have learned what I did. The newcomer's orientation were simpler (because there was less to learn), but they occurred, and having attended Scott's orientation again this year (in Paris), I think they continue to do a very good job for the person who is attending. They don't work at all for the person who has yet to attend a meeting. We have a slow influx of very smart people who can and do read all of rules, but like all organizations, not all of our rules are equally applied. It's also possible that some grey beards who have only remote attended for years (Yes, I thinking about you Melinda, Keith...) might have missed some subtle change in process. The IETF's endless september mostly ended after the bust, leaving us, I think, in a summer session with few new people; I'd put us in January now. Few freshmen joining. What I am writing about is that I think that we a problem with transfer students... those who did their september elsewhere, and have now switched schools for the winter semester. It doesn't occur to them that they don't know how the IETF works... it must work like other SDOs, they think. Worse of all, I think, many of these people have doing what they thought was email for around a decade, (yes, using Outlook), they have no idea how email works, nor do they even know there is another interface. They simply do not know what happens to their mis-formatted emails, and why often this results in people being unable to listens to them in the mailing list. I don't have an answer to this; I'm not even sure there is a problem; I have a problem of writing too long emails. I got thinking about this while reading this blog entry about structureless-ness: http://eaves.ca/2009/07/06/structurelessness-feminism-and-open/ In particular he notes the way that Elites form/exist. I would quote it here, but it's hard to take it out context, so please read it. Let me suggest that at the IETF, where the mailing list is king, you can't join the Elite if you can't quote email properly. Maybe we should *state* this. Maybe I'm also concerned because many in the former elite have moved to Apple Mail, and it seems that it is bug compatible with Outlook in it's assumption that format=flowed is the default, an act which destroys email quoting, and therefore discussion. -- Sent from my android transformer, running CM9
Re: IETF 92 in Dallas!
Randy == Randy Bush ra...@psg.com writes: Randy sorry, but enough is enough. I still do not understand visiting a tourist destination (Orlando) during it's peak (March). I also don't understand two meetings in a row on the US east coast.
Re: IETF 92 in Dallas!
Randy == Randy Bush ra...@psg.com writes: Randy sorry, but enough is enough. I still do not understand visiting a tourist destination (Orlando) during it's peak (March). I also don't understand two meetings in a row on the US east coast. -- Michael Richardson -at the cottage- pgppQXEKg7OlE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
jean-michel == jean-michel bernier de portzamparc jma...@gmail.com
writes:
jean-michel Dear Mr. Carpenter,
jean-michel I do not understand this.
jean-michel Would you want to examplify the ITU supposed good manners?
jean-michel I am lost.
So am I.
You process to represent open source developers.
Yes, many of us are concerned about USG control over ICANN, but
I don't know where/how you pretend to represent us, when we can't even
agree on much at all on a good day.
It's funny though, I* pattern matches ITU as well.
{And.. why is some kind of open standards/open source person posting
messages that are in:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
(noticed the smart-quotes which do not render for me)... okay, 2
points for actually announcing that your message is in a non-standard
character set, but minus 10 for using that.}
--
Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works
pgpEAwPvF5qlV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: So, where to repeat?
Michael == Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca writes: Michael but please, not Paris in the summer... nor Orlando on Michael spring break) ps: I'm really upset about Orlando in March. We did that in back in December 1998, and it seemed a failure to me. Maybe this will be a remote meeting for me. (go rps WG, go!!) The hallways were WAY WAY too small for the people, thank god they didn't serve the cookies there, and the social event... nice band, but so loud, one couldn't talk to each other. I understand that perhaps we won't be in the same conference centre, and maybe NBC Universal will do a better job... but. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpNKYCx7u144.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting
Phillip == Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com writes: Phillip Allocating a /16 for national RIRs independent of IANA and Phillip the US Can we give them ULA-C space? ;-)
Re: So, where to repeat? (was: Re: management granularity)
Ole == Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com writes: Ole On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Geoff Mulligan wrote: So I'm confused... We're we talking about the possibility of sticking to one European city, one north American city and one Asian city and not picking various cities throughout the world. Ole Oh, I see. My reading was that we would focus on small number of Ole cities in each region, especially since we cannot depend on ONE Ole being always available for our dates, host and sponsorship Ole notwithstanding. I understood what Ole did. I think that over a decade, the small number would go from ~7 to perhaps 2 in each region. That's because we'd wind up signing multi-year contracts with hotels that we liked. (which is, I understand, why we repeated in Minneapolis)
Re: So, where to repeat?
Simon == Simon Perreault simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca writes: Simon Le 2012-08-08 12:34, Geoff Mulligan a écrit : I also would vote to return to Minneapolis again and again even permanently. Simon Does nobody care about going to new places so that new people Simon are exposed to the IETF and may start getting involved? Simon We've seen this positive effect many times when we went Simon outside our comfort zone... Simon, it *is* important. But, we don't have to go to a new place every meeting. If 1/3 meetings are in North America, I see no reason why we can't return to places that work. I think the same mostly applies to Europe as well. (We don't have to go back to the *same* place every year, although there are advantages of that. So a Paris/Prague would be fine, but please, not Paris in the summer... nor Orlando on spring break) Let's innovate for that third meeting, realizing that we do not yet have a preferred place in Asia, or any place in Africa or South America, but maybe we should. -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE then sign the petition.
Re: Proposed IETF 95 date change
John == John William Atwood william.atw...@concordia.ca writes: John It's not clear to me which is less desirable, starting on John Easter day, or finishing on Good Friday. Both are important John from the Christian perspective. However, for a significant John part of the IETF membership, neither Easter nor Good Friday is John important. My vote would be to leave it where it is. It's not the holiday that is important, it's the congestion at the airport that concerns me. Either week accomodates travelling on the Saturday of easter weekend, as being the possible out. I am not clear if we even know where it will be. -- Michael Richardson -on the airplane- pgpH6gS3LdtNr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)
I've never been to an IETF meeting where the plane fare has exceeded the hotel cost for a week. note: I pay my own way, and make all my own arrangements. The only meetings where my hotel costs exceeded my transporation costs were the Montreal IETFs (I live in Ottawa). When I've flown I have seldom ever been on direct flights. I *do* avoid the main hotel if the price is poor. I did get the Sheraton Wall (backup hotel IETF84), via hotwire.com, which surprised me. I find staying over saturday night no longer has any affect on my travel costs. I do prefer returning to the same places, and I do like Minneapolis. (Yes, even in March and November) I am more concerned that we have three north-american IETFs in a row (Vancouver, Atlanta, Orlando), and 4 of the next 6 are in North America. (Not counting Hawaii as North America for the purposes of travel budgets, or it's be 5/7) I'm also concerned about going popular places (Quebec, Orlando) during peak tourist season. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpmbgWROqvNf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Meeting lounges at IETF meetings
Mary == Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com writes: Mary [MB] Yes, I know it's not at all a popular idea (to reduce Mary cookies), BUT we have had adequate space at previous meetings Mary for which we paid the same meeting fee, so it seems possible Mary to get space without increasing meeting fees (and I thought Actually, we were over supplied with cookies, as there were always some left over, I observed. Perhaps it was the inability to move around meant that people couldn't find the cookies. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpwGXi6jv4fe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Meeting lounges at IETF meetings
I agree with having the terminal room... let's get some signs on the stairs to the fourth floor when we return. When we return fall 2013, can we move all the break food into the space at the top of the escalator, away from the doors in/out of Regency. Let's also get a few more couches around the place... the Quebec 2011 big room was awesome, in hindsight. -- Sent from my Android tablet. Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote: Greetings again. Some meeting venues have had insufficient places where five or so people could comfortably gather for informal meetings, while other venues did this just fine. One proposal has been that the Secretariat reserve large rooms for this. Unfortunately, that adds significant cost to the meetings. Instead, I propose that we simply designate the terminal room (which is already reserved for future meetings) be designated as meeting areas where talking is allowed / encouraged. Earplugs could be provided for people who really want a quiet Ethernet connection; the cost of those for the Secretariat will be about $25/meeting. --Paul Hoffman
Re: Is the IETF aging?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Phillip == Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com writes: Phillip A question arose on the RFC-interest list, I observed that Phillip 20 years ago I was one of the youngest IETF participants Phillip and 20 years later that still seems to be the case. Phillip I see some grad students and some postdocs in their 20s but Phillip not as many as I think there should be. By now at least a Phillip third of the organization should be younger than me, Phillip preferably half. That is certainly not what I see when I Phillip attend IETFs. And yes, the lack of women is also highly Phillip noticeable. I suspect your observation is correct, but the real question is: Is the IETF aging faster than - the population at large - the IT population in general - the network engineering population in general I also think that more and more IETF related work is now done at much larger companies than 20 years ago. The companies are more mainstream in their culture, are not startups. They run by older people who ignore the contributions of younger people, and in particular, do not feel a need to encourage their people to contribute to IETF. With money being less plentiful, and there being less low hanging fruit at the IETF, it simply takes more of a business case for a younger person, earlier in their career to argue for the time and money expensse of their participation. Finally, layer-5+ things are now way more cool. So, given a choice of IETF or RubyConf, a lot of younger people pick RubyConf... - -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE then sign the petition. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQEVAwUBT5q4N4CLcPvd0N1lAQLbKwf8DeXPPU/eQdpkZw5vSQOccirk20CExZZL eil8AQV1hAZP1zp8rMeJ2O4yYl6Xxjvj2ByPKk14yYQLU85pZIsb0/h1txwONwNg KOtd9L1OsAr18O/977Mzqqw7UKHb5rwSOQ3hhqB3dU9Px3fPyoUNw02ABwp32GjR ZyfxP0ThC1o3u3SMciOfR7IX01fZlgIzfyrB2MIg5D0W+PH7dsx39R/KeMw0cAL1 2I3vcid2dgYGW4M/MEZLEUgRRs/a2kWL9/+6FRsMzUB6I3j/D2UHXlXRKg7hgV0x IsAZsigOSu7ybYNwH469cjYBMKkxjoLZh7TyuvjbvPKshLhXjJd70Q== =KOa/ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: IETF attendees reengineer their hotel's Wi-Fi network
Wes == Wes George George writes: Wes I had recommended separately on the attendees list that perhaps Wes Chelliot and his merry band of supernerds need to write an Wes informational or BCP draft, accompanied by a round of *NOG Wes presentations to share the wealth, as documentation in this Wes area appears a bit sparse -- I've been to plenty of other Wes conferences where the wireless network melted down in the Wes hotel, conference itself or both. In response, Joel Jaeggli Wes pointed to a NANOG presentation that is so old that it's still It's a lot of work for someone who isn't getting paid for it. I'd like to see some hotel chains commission this. -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE then sign the petition.
Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
Wes == Wes George George writes: Wes That said, I don't think that this potential experiment Wes requires a *separate* night. I'd much prefer to replace the Wes current overpriced hotel cash bar arrangement at the welcome Wes reception with something more like beer-n-gear. I'm also Wes willing to try it in lieu of a social event, since those are Wes typically hit or miss in terms of whether the environment is Wes conducive to socializing, whether they're worth the additional +1. If it's really the social, or better, the Sunday night event, then great. I've been at two NANOGs for beer-n-gear, and while I found it a bit weak in gear, and not that well attended, I actually enjoyed it. pgpwC4EmV4N9j.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
Pete == Pete Resnick presn...@qualcomm.com writes: Pete (*mumble*) Folks, let's please not try to engineer around user Pete silliness. User silliness will occur no matter what tools we Pete provide. Pete Anybody can get a place on Dropbox or elsewhere and put a URL Pete to their stuff into an email message. The problem is not that Pete the tool isn't there. The problem is that people don't use Pete it. They attach dumb things instead of pointing to them. Or Pete worse they paste them inline, making it even harder for people Pete who use tools that can avoid attachments from having to deal Pete with them. What we need is better decisions and a bit more Pete considerateness by senders of email, not more things to let Pete them continue being dumb. +1000. If they can't figure out to produce a URL, then *I* say, they aren't tall enough to post to an IETF mailing list. -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE then sign the petition.
Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
ned == ned ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com writes: ned Is this really a big enough problem to be worth solving? I ned can't recall a single instance where I received IETF list with ned a problematic attachment. OTOH, I routinely get IETF messages ned with useful attachements - typically a critical revision to a ned draft which for whatever reason can't be posted as an I-D - ned that I really need to be able see without having to bother with I regard those situation as a violation of process. If that ID can't go on an HTTP site, then something is missing. -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE then sign the petition. pgpvsOkDUIcj4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
Russ == Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com writes: Russ Some suggestions have been made about the IETF mail lists. Russ There is a way for mailman to strip attachments and put them Russ in a place for downloading with a web browser. This would be Russ a significant change to current practice, so the community Russ needs to consider this potential policy change. I like it. Russ What do you think? Is text/html an attachment? What about text/plain that hasn't got format=flowed, but has lines longer than 77 lines? -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE then sign the petition.
Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...
Cyrus == Cyrus Daboo cy...@daboo.name writes: Cyrus Along those lines how about setting up an IETF IMAP server Cyrus with mailboxes for each mailing list hosted by the IETF? That Cyrus way anyone with a capable IMAP client (one that can How about we use the protocol that was designed for this... NNTP? pgpV0lQnalwrG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
Barry == Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org writes: Barry OAuth is an authorization framework, not an authentication Barry one. Please be careful to make the distinction. Barry What we're looking at here is the need for an HTTP Barry authentication system that (for example) doesn't send Barry reusable credentials, is less susceptible to spoofing Barry attacks, and so on. and is implemented in HTTP, not in terms of HTML forms, yet has all the flexibility of the HTML form method? Or is that still out of scope? -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE then sign the petition. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Second Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard
Pete == Pete Resnick presn...@qualcomm.com writes: Pete decision about what ought to be done here. The community needs Pete to come to a consensus about the right outcome and the Pete leadership folks will judge that consensus and instantiate Pete whatever actions need to be taken. It's certainly OK if you At this point, I do not have a clear idea of what the set of outcomes could be. I think that they can include: 1) not publishing the document. 2) revising the document to remove/work-around the encumbered work 3) some legal action to attend to anul the patent (which might or might not succeed). 4) go ahead and publish things as they are. I am concerned that the individual may be scapegoated here, but I also do not buy that they didn't understand things. The company spent money to file a patent, and they hired someone to do this, and they certainly knew where the invention was documented. There is a need for a consequence for not following the IPR. I read the document, but not the patent, so I don't see what's so novel about it all, and I also don't know how hard it would be to work around. My preference is to some method to remove any value the patent might have. -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE then sign the petition. pgpWsUjvBMutQ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
