Re: Deployment of standards compliant nameservers
On 21 May 2013, at 02:44, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: p.s. I wonder if the problem you describe might at least partially be caused by DNS proxies and interception proxies, including but not limited to those incorporated in consumer-grade routers. Those are already addressed in RFC 5625. kind regards, Ray
Re: [IETF] back by popular demand - a DNS calculator
On 21 Feb 2013, at 02:46, Carlos M. martinez carlosm3...@gmail.commailto:carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote: Wasn't the 'evil bit' able to hold the value 2 ? Use all evil bits for IP addresses and we'll soon have no need for IPv6. Geoff Huston and I wrote a draft to use the evil bit to indicate the presence of IPv4 NATs. It could be used as a tie-breaker for Happy Eyeballs. It's expired, though. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bellis-behave-natpresent-00 Ray
Re: ITC copped out on UTC again
Just curious, but I've often used the formulation: day = (now - now % 86400) where now is the output of gmtime() of equivalent to calculate the number of days since the epoch. How is this affected (or not) by the presence of leap seconds, and/or any proposal to remove them. Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus Call (Update): draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request
On 5 Dec 2011, at 18:08, Noel Chiappa wrote: I hear you. However, after thinking about it for a while, I still think we ought to include a chunk of 240/ space _as well as_ some 'general use' space (be it a /10 of that, or whatever). +1 Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 15 Nov 2011, at 20:46, Barry Leiba wrote: By suipport it, you mean accept it and convert it to something else, a meaning of support with which I'm unfamiliar. I'd say tolerate. Well, support may have been a little strong - specifically the meeting materials page says: You can only upload a presentation file in txt, pdf, doc, or ppt/pptx. System will not accept presentation files in any other format. What's worse is that if you post PPT/X, it gets converted not to PDF, but to HTML, which I find awkward for slides (it's harder to download a presentation as a whole in a convenient form). That's why I do the PDF conversion up front. Yes, that _is_ a good reason to convert to PDF up front, ligature problems notwithstanding. Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Plagued by PPTX again
On 15 Nov 2011, at 10:24, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Please can everybody who doesn't upload PDF to the meeting materials page at least take care to upload PPT instead of PPTX? Noted - we'll ask for PDF next time. Please do note that the final proceedings will be in PDF format, though. Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 27 Oct 2011, at 12:03, Richard Kulawiec wrote: I support this concept, although I would go much further and eliminate ALL face-to-face meetings. I absolutely wouldn't. Travel (for meetings) is expensive, time-consuming, energy-inefficient, and increasingly difficult. Your assertions above are all true, but that does not mean that people should be denied the opportunity to meet. Being mostly social animals, I believe it's essential that we *do* get to actually meet our IETF colleagues. Do not underestimate how important it is to actually establish a rapport with other people, and that can really only be achieved face-to-face. This is simple psychology. You simply can't get to know people and work with them effectively if all they are is faceless email accounts or a voice on a crowded conf call. I've met loads of people at my four years of IETF, and many of those I now consider friends. I know what their competences are, and I know which ones I trust and distrust. You just don't get that from remote participation. Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: whine, whine, whine
On 21 Jun 2011, at 14:44, Klaas Wierenga wrote: otoh, not having to go through US immigrations saves you about as much time as you would have saved with a direct flight, not to mention the terrorist until proven innocent treatment. ;-) Thus far I've been lucky with the TSA and found them courteous and reasonably efficient. The longest queue by far I've ever had for immigration was at Vancouver for IETF70, where the shape of the queueing system coincidentally resembled the Hilbert space-filling curves we were playing with at the time. I am slightly concerned about the relatively short time for my connection at YUL, though - I've only got 1h05 between scheduled landing from LHR and the hop out to YQB. Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: My Internet experience in the West at times is comparable to female foeticide
On 22 Jun 2011, at 09:59, Krishna Birth wrote: Some not all internet forums/mailing list organisers need some educating and need to educate others for example by having some by-laws and rules so that I am treated without these problems. Oh, but they do! The most common rule being that postings are *ON TOPIC* Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: whine, whine, whine
On 21 Jun 2011, at 14:02, Simon Perreault wrote: Not going to argue about San Diego vs Québec, but just going to point out that multiple carriers do serve Québec. Among them are Air Canada, United, Continental, Delta, and US Airways. The only European operator into YBQ appears to be Air Transat (whoever the heck they are) and they only fly from Marseille and Paris. I'm flying BA to Montreal and taking the short city hopper flight to YBQ from there. Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: whine, whine, whine
On 21 Jun 2011, at 14:37, Tim Chown wrote: For a single operator trip from the UK to Quebec City, there's Air Canada out of Heathrow. You can go via Montreal or other cities. I seem to recall that it was actually somewhat cheaper to fly BA. Although I didn't check economy class... Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-iab-dns-applications - clarification re: Send-N
On 21 Oct 2010, at 23:42, John Levine wrote: I dunno about you, but it seems utterly unreasonable to demand that we change the way we've been placing calls for the better part of a century merely to avoid a few DNS lookups. I thought computers were supposed to make life easier for people, not the other way around. Indeed, and it's not just DNS lookups - per my original message it's also a potentially significant saving in the number of SIP transactions. Those are _much_ more resource intensive than a DNS lookup. Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
draft-iab-dns-applications - clarification re: Send-N
Gentlemen, Re: §4.2 of your IAB Draft draft-iab-dns-applications-00: (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-dns-applications-00.txt) Send-N is not only intended for open number plans, it's intended for use in _any_ plan with variable length telephone numbers. It came out of the proposed specifications for the UK local number portability database, where E.164 numbers vary from 8 to 12 digits in length. A typical application for Send-N might be where an analogue phone is attached to a CP-managed SIP ATA - this will be a common setup in Next Generation Networks. It is a solution to the problem of gatewaying between the 100s of millions of dumb handsets that use overlapped dialling[*] and the SIP world where overlapped dialling is not currently feasible. As an analogue phone has no dial button the ATA must listen for DTMF digits, and somehow figure out for itself when the user has finished dialling before initiating the SIP call over the ATA's SIP trunk. A common (but unreliable) method is to use inter-digit timeouts, but the end user experience is poor - it might take the ATA a few seconds to start the SIP session after the last digit is dialled. Assuming that the ATA doesn't do ENUM dips itself, the existing alternative would be for the ATA to establish a brand new SIP session after each digit is dialled, receiving a 484 Address Incomplete error from the CP switch until the number is complete. With Send-N metadata available, the definition of the SIP 484 Address Incomplete could be extended to return the Send-N data so that an ATA can benefit from this information and omit unnecessary SIP session establishments. Regarding this sentence: Maintaining that synchronization, however, requires that the DNS have semi-real time updates that may conflict with scale and caching mechanisms. As Jon pointed out during the ENUM session at Maastricht there is indeed a need to synchronise the metadata with the underlying data. However number plans are not generally prone to sudden unexpected changes. In any event with Send-N the only identified synchronisation issue is when a Send-N record indicates that _more_ digits are required than is actually the case. Since it is very rare (if not unheard of) for number blocks to get smaller I don't consider this a significant risk. The assertion therefore appears to be unjustified. And finally, regarding: It is unclear why this data is better maintained by the DNS than in an unrelated application protocol. If a device is performing an ENUM dip hoping to find a contactable SIP URI, it is simply most efficient for the ENUM response to directly include the Send-N metadata when needed rather than have separate queries using a different network protocol. Also, the hierarchical and distributed nature of the DNS protocol makes it an _ideal_ structural fit for this meta data. I believe the onus should be on your draft to explicitly identify valid technical reasons why the DNS protocol should _not_ be used, rather than make vague hand-waving assertions which appear to have little or no justification. kind regards, Ray [*] the draft misdescribes overlapped dialling - it's the practise of sending digits to the network as they're received rather than en bloc at the end of dialling. It's what analogue phones do, and is completely separate from open number plans. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-iab-dns-applications - clarification re: Send-N
Such a mechanism simply does not work when: draft-iab-dns-applications-00 In these plans, a telephone switch ordinarily cannot anticipate when a dialed number is complete, as only the terminating customer premise equipment (typically a private branch exchange) knows how long a telephone number needs to be. where even telephone switches (thus, telephone operators) do not have any knowledge on how many numbers should be dialed. It is for this reason that Send-N specifies the _minimum_ number of required digits, not the exact number. Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 9 Aug 2010, at 16:12, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Since we're providing anecdotal data, I'll mention that for me the big central room in Maastrict turned out to provide far greater cross-fertilization than I got in Anaheim. +1 I actually thought the Anaheim venue was really poor for this, and liked having that large _seated_ communal area full of IETFers at the MECC. Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
