Re: IAB Statement on Dotless Domains
On 12/07/2013 14:16, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: The DNS is going to go dotless. That is inevitable when people are paying a quarter million dollars to get a dotless domain from ICANN. Trying to control the situation with contractual language assumes that ICANN is going to forgo large amounts of revenue over a technical concern. Not without a fight with at least one of its advisory committees. http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2013/003232.html IMO, given the Advice, it would be unwise for ICANN to move forward with dotless domains as it stands today. Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair
Re: IETF, ICANN and Whois (Was Re: Last Call: draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)
On 21/05/2013 10:42, Steve Crocker wrote: As I said above, I invite anyone who is interested to participate. The IETF, ICANN, the RIRs, ISOC, W3C and other organizations have all arisen within the ecosystem that accompanies the growth and prevalence of the Internet. It is natural for there to be some tension, competition and rivalry among our institutions, but we have all been part of the same grand enterprise, we all share the same core values, and we all work toward the same goal of an open, innovative, expanding Internet. +1 to everything Steve has said. And I take this opportunity to remind you that you can directly influence the outcome of *all* the work at ICANN by taking part in it. There are several avenues for this. One of them is through the ALAC: the At-Large Advisory Committee's (ALAC) role is to facilitate input from Internet users into the ICANN policy processes. It does not purport to represent Internet users, but it tries as much as it can to act in the *best interests* of Internet users. But without your input and particularly on technical issues where we need as much help as we can get, the ALAC cannot issue Statements that adhere to the general point of view of Internet users. How can you take part? The North American region allows for individual membership. Other regions require that you are part of an At-Large Structure (ALS) to participate - but if you see the list, you'll notice there are a LOT of ALSes, many of which are ISOC Chapters. And you do NOT need to be part of an At-Large Structure to participate in the At-Large Working Groups. Membership is only needed for matters of voting - and since we operate by consensus, that's a rare occurrence, usually only kept to selection of leadership. A few links: ALAC Correspondence: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence ALAC Policy Development: https://community.icann.org/x/bwFO ALAC Working Groups: https://community.icann.org/x/loIi I know this is a shameless plug but in the face of the threat posed by non-multi-stakeholder systems of governance, I felt a follow-up on Steve's post was necessary. As Steve says so eloquently, we need to all work toward the goal of an open, innovative, expanding Internet. Warm regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair https://community.icann.org/x/ppEi
Re: IETF, ICANN and Whois (Was Re: Last Call: draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)
Dear Randy, On 21/05/2013 11:58, Randy Bush wrote: dear emperor, despite the braggadocio, there seems to be a shortage of attire. icann is notorious for pretending to be open but being effectively closed. it solicits public comment and ignores it. i could go on and on, but i am far less wordy. randy Quite frankly, I used to have the same feeling... until very recently. With Steve at the wheel, things have improved a lot. Whilst as recently as 3 years ago, we often used to feel that ALAC advice was tossed over the wall and we'd never hear any feedback be blatantly ignored, things have improved and we are heard and more importantly listened to a lot more. Credit for this is due to the new Leadership Teams, both on the volunteer Staff parts of ICANN. Today, it's still not perfect, but you cannot fix a bus by shooting it - work on it instead, to fix it. I believe it's fixable. Start here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-02apr13-en.htm Kind regards, Olivier (not wearing any hat) -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Re: The point is to change it: Was: IPv4 depletion makes CNN
On 30/05/2010 23:52, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote : People are not going to use IPv6 if it takes the slightest effort on their part. People are not going to switch their home networks over to IPv6 if it means a single device on the network is going to stop working. In my case it would cost me $4K to upgrade my 48 plotter to an IPv6 capable system. No way is that going to happen till there are $50 IPv6 plotters on EBay. Sorry, but that's a red herring. You're speaking about IPv4 decommissioning, not IPv6 implementation. Implementing IPv6 will do nothing to your local plotter.Your computer will keep addressing IPv4 to it. Nothing stops you from always running dual stack at home, with your IPv4 behind your NAT/PAT. Have you tried implementing IPv6 at home? Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Most bogus news story of the week
Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com wrote: (except it's not a joke) As someone who has confronted some of these gentle people at IGF, let me tell you it is not a joke. I am always flabbergasted about what I hear, and never understand whom they get their information from. It is often full of inaccuracies, cognitive biaises, generalisations, misunderstandings and old world thinking, which, would you believe it, actually makes up for a rather amusing view of the Internet. Kind regards, -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [recipe] Smart Grid Bar BOF Slides
Fred: your email seems to have been delayed for 24h within the IETF mailers so Iam only replying now - too late for the meeting itself. (although a clash of previously arranged conference calls also made it impossible to follow the meeting remotely :- ( ) I find the fact that NIST has asked IETF about its opinion great and am really thrilled by it. This is bound to produce great advance. I've studied all presentation material this morning and one thing which struck me was the question of IPv4 vs. IPv6. We can rule IPv4 out right away. As you know, there was a recent flurry of activity on ARIN's public policy mailing list (PPML) regarding the use of IPv4 addressing for Smart Grid. In particular, any mass allocation of IPv4 addresses on the scale of Smart Grid, would exhaust the remaining ARIN IPv4 address space within a few months. There ensured a debate about the fairness of banning IPv4 use for certain categories of organisation. IMHO, Smart Grid on IPv4 is a non starter. Technically policy-wise. Indeed, perhaps can we use Smart Grid to be an enabler for IPv6 implementation? In the meantime, I look forward to feedback/minutes about the meeting I missed. Warm regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html - Original Message - From: Fred Baker f...@cisco.com To: Polk, William T. william.p...@nist.gov Cc: IETF-Discussion list ietf@ietf.org; Golmie,Nada T. nada.gol...@nist.gov; pe...@peter-dambier.de; Phil Roberts robe...@isoc.org; IESG IESG i...@ietf.org; ietf-smart-g...@googlegroups.com; Hiroshi Esaki hiro...@wide.ad.jp; rec...@ietf.org; Dodson,Donna F. donna.dod...@nist.gov; r...@ietf.org; Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com; Richard Shockey rich...@shockey.us; IAB IAB i...@iab.org; Michael Dillon wavetos...@googlemail.com; Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org; Su,David H. david...@nist.gov; St. Pierre,James A. james.st.pie...@nist.gov; Leslie Daigle dai...@isoc.org; Sean Turner turn...@ieca.com; 76attend...@ietf.org; Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com; Dave CROCKER dcroc...@bbiw.net Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 9:44 AM Subject: [recipe] Smart Grid Bar BOF Slides FYI - the slide decks in use for the Smart Grid Bar BOF are available at: ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/fred/IETF-SG/ We will be running webex tonight, and slides are of course visible there as well. On Nov 11, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Polk, William T. wrote: [As before, my apologies for the shotgun nature of this email.] Folks, I would like to provide an update to the logistics and agenda for tonight's Smart Grid Bar BOF. The Bar BOF will begin at 8:30 so that folks attending the plenary have a chance to grab dinner. Note that the meeting room will be Acacia West (prior announcements indicated Acacia 1). Here is the current agenda.. Smart Grid Bar BOF Agenda 8:30PM - ?, Acacia West November 11, 2009 I. Agenda Bashing (5 minutes) Tim Polk II. Smart Grid Overview (15 minutes) Jim St. Pierre/Tim Polk III. Japanese Interest in Smart Grid (15 minutes) Hiroshi Esaki IV. Introduction to the IP Priority Action Plan (15 minutes) Tim Polk V. Discussion of draft-baker-ietf-core (15 minutes) Fred Baker see http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-baker-ietf-core-04.txt VI. Is the IETF the right place to do this work? Russ Housley VII. How should the work be organized? (contingent on V.) Ralph Droms Slides will be available via webex for remote participants, but we will be using the IETF streaming audio feed for sound. The URLs for webex access have been appended to this message. The audio feed for this session will be streamed at the following URL: http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/ietf762.m3u Remote participants will not be able to speak, but can send comments and questions in the webex chat room. Thanks, Tim Polk - webex access details - Frederick Baker invites you to attend this online meeting. Topic: Smart Grid Bar BOF in Hiroshima Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009 Time: 8:00 pm, Japan Time (Tokyo, GMT+09:00) Meeting Number: 205 017 176 Meeting Password: smartgrid --- To join the online meeting (Now from iPhones too!) --- 1. Go to https://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?ED=128776942UID=1209736217PW=NYTMxMDcxYzMwRT=MiM0OQ%3D%3D 2. Enter your name and email address. 3. Enter the meeting password: smartgrid 4. Click Join Now. To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: https://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?ED=128776942UID=1209736217PW=NYTMxMDcxYzMwORT=MiM0OQ%3D%3D ___ recipe mailing list rec...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recipe ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 standard?
Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote: trej...@gmail.com wrote: We obviously disagree here, on a fundamental basis. I (and many others) disagree that IPv6 'has failed' and are in fact aggressively deploying it *right now* It has been so for more than these 10 years. So, maybe, within next 100 years, IPv6 maybe fully deployed. History will tell. For the sake of saving IETF list readers from another 100 (repetitive) posts on the subject, shall we mutually agree to continue this discussion 10 years from now? Kind regards, -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 standard?
Steve et al. thank you for your interesting comments. Being some kind of IPv6 evangelist, I'll admit it, I do need to gain a feeling of points of view from people who are in the know, and the range of replies in this short thread has been interesting indeed. Steve Crocker st...@shinkuro.com wrote: The main point I wanted to make is that bringing IPv6 into full use and advancing the associated specifications along the standards track did not, at least for me, imply deprecating IPv4 standards. In practice, the two technologies are going to co-exist for quite a while. The matter came up in an IPv6 discussion ISOC Chapters teleconference call last night. We reached a burning question which nobody could answer factually: Is a dual stack IPv4-IPv6 likely to be more unstable than pure IPv4 or pure IPv6? The rationale behind this comes from the consumer's point of view. If a consumer has problems using Internet services after turning on IPv6 on their computer, they are likely to blame IPv6 for the fault and to turn off IPv6 altogether, thus slowing down adoption. I've heard countless anecdotal stories of that happening, and I wonder whether anybody could point me to a source of information, some kind of repository of anectodal or researched evidence of problems encountered when turning to dual stack IPv4/IPv6. With such problems being encountered with dual stack, would it make sense to deprecating IPv4 standards ASAP in order to shorten the time for use of dual stack and this shorten the likelyhood of consumers being turned off IPv6? Or on the other hand, do you think that the dual stack problems are only small quirks which will be ironed out in time and a stable dual stack IPv4/IPv6 system will soon be possible across all devices? Kindest regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 standard?
Steve Crocker st...@shinkuro.com wrote: We're some distance away from deprecating IPv4. Maybe 20 years, maybe 50 years. For a very long time, IPv6 and IPv4 will co-exist. I know you wrote those figures to be provocative, Steve. :-) I mean, 50 years? That's like saying computers will still run on valves in 50 years' time in 1950. Of course this is a matter of appreciation, and frankly, does it really matter how long IPv4 will be around? Let's worry at the future, not the past. Kindest regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: designate an email address for testing at any provider
Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: Nick Levinson wrote: I think you didn't mean domain. In that case, the catchall address encourages delivery. I'm looking for a guaranteed bounce, for test purposes, at any email service provider. Well know addresses tend to create opportunities for DOS. Two other issues, such an approach would make it easier to evaluate what criterion a system is using to accept mail, which many people obviously are reluctant to do. Secondly forging to sender produces the opportunity to DOS a third-party. +1. Very very very bad idea to have a guaranteed bounce address. Back in the days, we could send email loops out by relaying via third parties. That feature was taken out when spammers started using it. There were also bounce servers which you could use to test out your email. There are only a handful remaining (several DKIM test, for example) , and I believe even these are being abused. Any properly set-up email system will now outright reject email to an unknown recipient. Some don't and are immediately used for back-scattering, and soon enough, end up on the anti-spam block lists. Many places not break the RFCs and do not bounce email back: incorrect recipient goes to a black hole. Last but not least, many bounces now also get caught by anti-spam filters which means that even though your email has bounced, the bounce gets weeded out by the filters. Email's already become unreliable enough without opening new doors to spammers to make it even worse. If you want to bounce emails back to you, send to a random 12 alphanumeric characters to the left of the address, so no need to a standard bounce address. This is already used by spammers. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The folks to contact are the IAOC. The IETF Chair is on the IAOC. As to visa issues, as Randy opines, the issue tends to be visa processing. Depending on country pair, there are interesting issues around the globe. You're absolutely right! This is an issue which has come up time and time again. At IETF Dublin, some attendants did not manage to get an Irish Visa in time. At ICANN Cairo, some attendants from some other middle eastern country got their visa application refused. Wherever you stage the next IETF meeting, there will be Visa issues for somebody, such is the international reach of IETF and such is life. O. -- Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D Global Information Highway Ltd http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6 traffic stats (was: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl(DNS Blacklists and Whitelists))
Danny McPherson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To be clear, our attempt with this study was to measure observable IPv6 traffic in production networks across a large number of production ISP networks. It was not to discredit IPv6 in any way, quite the contrary. That's great and it will be even better when this study is repeated in a few months using the same data set and methodology. This way, you can start tracking growth. Comparing this set of results with other sets obtained using different methodologies data sets would be like comparing apples and oranges. Warm regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D Global Information Highway Ltd http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: About IETF communication skills
From: Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:52 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Some considered that part of the delay of the IPv6 deployment was due to the lack of communication effort from IETF. I'm not really sure about that, however I agree that everything helps, of course. To be honest, I think IPv6 has been overmarketed. and But IPv6 was heavily marketed. That leaves people saying, now that the problem is materializing, yeah, yeah, yeah, been hearing about that for years. Permit me to say that IMHO you are both right and wrong. Yes, IPv6 was heavily marketed as immediate death of the IPv4 net predicted for so many years that I heard this kind of reply for many years. Uninformed people just don't believe the hype that IPv4 addresses are running out. After all, this is indeed the same stuff we used to feed them 10 years ago. But overmarketed, I disagree. Mis-marketed might be the term to use. IPv6 needs to be marketed to a vast variety of stakeholders: - end individual users - corporate commercial users - ISPs - Governments - Organisations The mistake that might have been committed in the past is to hold the same kind of talk to each one of those stakeholders. This doesn't work. Each group is going to need specific, targeted marketing, ranging from how do I connect to IPv6 to why should we run IPv6, to what is IPv6 - in this day and age, the message needs to be targeted to each group for it to be effective. This has, so far, not been done. Easy wins could be making IPv6 trendy with users by having a v6 logo (clearly like super-charge your Internet with v6), à la Intel Inside or Designed for Vista kinds of logo. Industry has to be convinced. This is another marketing stream. You do not speak to a banker with the same language as you speak to an engineer. running out of IPv4 addresses means nothing to a banker. On the other hand IPv6 will be cheaper than IPv4 makes sense to a lot of people. Instead, the current image of IPv6 is that it is expensive, you get deteriorated service, it is unsafe, it is complex, etc. etc. IPv6 is really suffering from an image problem. Marketing of IPv6 is only beginning and the task ahead is huge because all of those years of mis-marketing by having the single slogan we are running out of IPv4 addresses just doesn't quite hit the target anymore. I attended ICANN Paris 2 days at IETF Dublin. Two different worlds. One is beginning to understand that we need to act now. The other is still gallavanting around other subjects. It will take time and energy to make everybody know that it is their concern and that if they don't start putting their act together today, the costs in the near future (4 years) will amount to more than they've ever imagined. Required IPv6 reading: La Fontaine's La Cigale et la Fourmi http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue209/cigale.html Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D. E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.gih.com/ocl.html http://www.nsrc.org/codes/country-codes.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Will IPv4 be turned off at IETF 72?
I just wanted to know whether there was any plan to turn off the IPv4 stack for an hour at IETF 72 just like it happened @ 71 ? http://wiki.tools.isoc.org/IETF71_IPv4_Outage See: IPv4 off at the IETF 71 plenary for 1 hour. http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/ietf-ipv6-switchoff.ars Looks like this was well received by everybody and my own opinion is that it would be good to have such an experiment at every future IETF meeting for the following reasons: * publicity about IPv4 addresses running out * pressure on operating system vendors to be IPv6 compliant * a measure of improvement in the number of people that are able to connect. As an international subset of the Internet Community, I'd say it would be interesting to see how, as years go by, problems in connecting using IPv6 will (hopefully) fade away. Again - great publicity. * bringing awareness What I'm particularly interested in, is looking positively at creating a synergy to make everybody feel that IPv6 is for everyone, just like The Internet is for everyone. Feedback welcome, O. -- Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D. E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.gih.com/ocl.html http://www.nsrc.org/codes/country-codes.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2606)
In an earlier message, John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Part of the problem in that case was that, because JANET used little-endian names internally, the big-endian foo.ucl.ac.uk (in DNS order) had to be be mapped into uk.ac.uck.foo (in JANET order) and vice versa. That mapping was trivial as long as one could run a simplistic whichever end the TLD was on had to be the big side test. When CS was introduced, blew up that simple test. In the JANET case, it failed since there were strings that could be TLDs at both ends of the string, i.e., in principle, cs.ucl.ac.uk could have been a string that was already in JANET order and that would appear in the DNS order as uk.ac.ucl.cs. I tried getting Peter Kirstein to comment on this, but he's unfortunately currently away, so I'll voice my own opinions here and please bear with me because Peter's knowledge far exceeds mine. After all, I was only a terrible teenager at the time. IMHO you cannot compare today's challenges with the way things were handled in 1989 or so... JANET was using NRS, not DNS. NRS was a static mapping of UK computer addresses in NRS format, ie. UK.AC.SOMEPLACE.SOMECOMPUTER to X.3 PAD numbers accessed over X.25. NRS pre-dated the DNS. Getting e-mail in and out of the UK made use of several gateways that on the UK side we need to know, and on the other end of the line people either needed to know, or you'd send to a gateway that would know. There were several gateways in the UK: EARN RELAY - located at Rutherford Appleton Labs as a path to BITNET (UKACRL node) EAN RELAY - to X.400 other European Networks UK.AC.UCL.CS.NSS - the precursor to nsfnet-relay.ac.uk - satellite link to the Internet UK.AC.UKC - University of Kent at Canterbury's UUCP service Back in those days, you could route your email specifically - something which very few mailers allow today. For example, I could send email to an Internet address [EMAIL PROTECTED] as: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (this one crossing the pond via BITNET bridging to the Internet via cuny) Note that the NSS Relay used to reverse the addressing automatically. In the early days, it used to try and check which way the addressing was. Then came CS and you are correct in saying that it caused problems. But the problems were not nearly as serious as you say. Rules were changed that you simply needed to write the address in the correct order for your email to be delivered. For those that have a historical interest (and would perhaps like to get inspired technically to resolve possible future problems with gTLDs), I suggest you read the excellent document written by Tim Clark of Warwick University back in those days. It used to be my email bible for quite a while and a few copies still float around the net. You can find a dusty copy here: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/soft/help/old/email-gateways.txt Last but not least, IMHO the issue of [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a non issue. I think we need to come to terms that the age of a resolver trying out every known local domain/sub-domain is dying out. From now on, you'll need to provide an exact host/domain name. It is not the first and not the last habit to die on the Internet. Take bang! paths, for example: dead. hostname.uucp - dead. And I also think that what web browsers try to do by suggesting a page when you just type somefooplace - opens somefooplace.com is also a feature that will need to die to ensure stability. There are simply too many somefooplace on the internet, and now somefooplace might even be .somefooplace Or ISPs might even resolve locally somefooplace to somefoobarplace - clearly there is no limit to foo. Warm regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D. E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.gih.com/ocl.html http://www.nsrc.org/codes/country-codes.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
