If these statements are both true, they might explain the lack of
success of S/MIME as a tool for general (rather than balkanized)
communication.
and they might not.
Since you and we have no empirical basis for asserting the association between
poor adoption and any particular characteristic
It does not matter how many people can read MSWord.
The only supported formats should be the ones where you know
what the format is (and not the ones that depend on particular
program).
Why ?
If you take that as an axiom, then indeed it is easy to rule
lots of formats out.
But, what is
Dave, if you have any facts to contribute to the discussion, it would be
nice if you included them. I've chosen to interpret your note as some
questions and comments on the hypothesis I advanced in my previous message,
and have tried to supply some additional information below.
--On mandag,
Yaakov Stein wrote:
It does not matter how many people can read MSWord.
The only supported formats should be the ones where you know
what the format is (and not the ones that depend on particular
program).
They are written to be readable by everybody.
Sun-cenrtic, IBM-centric and real
Julian Reschke wrote:
If you're concerned with the limitations of ASCII, I'd advise
pushing for something that doesn't have these limitations,
yet is open, stable and really widely available. Such as HTML
4 (strict).
dreaming
I love the new tools.ietf.org/html rfcmarkup magic. I also
love
Harald,
Dave, if you have any facts to contribute to the discussion, it would be
nice if you included them.
Yes, it is always nice to include facts. That is why I noted their absence from
your assertions.
I've chosen to interpret your note as some
questions and comments on the
Dave,
I seem to have managed to provoke you to anger.
You, by continuing to attack the validity of my arguments without even
attempting to address their substance, and attempting to chastise me for my
logic while failing to apply any standards of rigor to your own, have
managed to provoke
william(at)elan.net wrote:
[..]
Lets go ahead and ask then -
Does anyone else think that IETF should allow documents which
format/structure is not publicly known as one of the ways to
distribute IETF specifications?
No.
cheers,
gja
* william elan net:
BTW - PDF also still rather fluid format with multiple versions
and not always clear if PDF you create could be read by all readers
in the same way you intended. So if PDF is as format, then exact
version must be specified as well.
I fear that PDF shares a very obnoxious
Hi all,
Just out of curiosity, when browsing www.ietf.org, I noticed that the Neustar
logo on www.ietf.org is larger than the ISOC logo. Any particular reason why?
It just kind of jumps out at you
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Hi, Yaakov,
Just FYI, I am actually fairly sympathetic to the idea that ASCII documents,
including ASCII artwork, do not represent the highest possible evolution of
protocol specification technology - my concern in this thread is only about
how the IESG gauges IETF concensus.
*In the IETF*,
Actually I believe that it should not be there any logo fro Neustar. Is a
paid service, right ?
I think if we agree, as a community to have a logo, then it will be fine,
but we can then consider having a logo for each of the contributors and the
companies that pay for their salaries and traveling
Lets go ahead and ask then -
Does anyone else think that IETF should allow documents which
format/structure is not publicly known as one of the ways to
distribute IETF specifications?
Not me (or not I, whichever)
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 4:25 PM +0200 1/2/06, John Loughney wrote:
Just out of curiosity, when browsing www.ietf.org, I noticed that
the Neustar logo on www.ietf.org is larger than the ISOC logo. Any
particular reason why? It just kind of jumps out at you
Eeeew. Fully agree.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN
--On mandag, januar 02, 2006 16:25:59 +0200 John Loughney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Just out of curiosity, when browsing www.ietf.org, I noticed that the
Neustar logo on www.ietf.org is larger than the ISOC logo. Any
particular reason why? It just kind of jumps out at you
Let's see if I can boil this argument down to the nub.
This started with a claim that there is something unusually dangerous
about DKIM so it needs warning labels or hazmat suits to prevent
people from using it to chop the net into pieces.
The first question is: is this problem unique to DKIM
David B Harrington wrote:
Lets go ahead and ask then -
Does anyone else think that IETF should allow documents which
format/structure is not publicly known as one of the ways to
distribute IETF specifications?
Not me (or not I, whichever)
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not
This thread was begun by the last call on the chartering of DKIM.
The thread of messages has wandered, with some people remembering its
roots (and others not), with some people taking into consideration the
history of the thread (and others not), and with some people trying to
keep the thread
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On mandag, januar 02, 2006 16:25:59 +0200 John Loughney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Just out of curiosity, when browsing www.ietf.org, I noticed that the
Neustar logo on www.ietf.org is larger than the ISOC logo. Any
particular reason why? It just
snip
We could certainly base declared consensus on other things. My point is
that doing so likely requires a fundamental rethink of IETF process -
simply encouraging the IESG to disregard the current IETF process BCPs
on a case-by-case basis does not point me in any direction I'm
comfortable
Hello All ,
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, David B Harrington wrote:
Lets go ahead and ask then -
Does anyone else think that IETF should allow documents which
format/structure is not publicly known as one of the ways to
distribute IETF specifications?
Not me (or not I, whichever)
David
I have been listening to this discussion. As the area advisor for
this proposed working group, I have made a few changes to the
paragraph that has caused so much debate. The revised text is
largely based on the XMPP charter text posted by Tony
Hansen. However, we know that some changes are
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 10:58 -0500, Tony Hansen wrote:
This thread was begun by the last call on the chartering of DKIM.
Can we please get back to the question of chartering DKIM?
The concern raised was not specifically in regard to the base DKIM
draft. There was concern with respect to the
Brian,
I have no problem with it being there. I just thought the scale was a bit off
... The main page is a bit spartan by design, so I think we should keep it
simple.
John
- original message -
Subject:Re: Question about the Neustar logo on www.ietf.org
From: Brian E Carpenter
Brian,
I have no problem with it being there. I just thought the scale was a bit off
... The main page is a bit spartan by design, so I think we should keep it
simple.
John
- original message -
Subject:Re: Question about the Neustar logo on www.ietf.org
From: Brian E Carpenter
Brian sed
It's traditional, and I think fair.
fwiw - it took a bit of adjusting when the ISOC logo was 1st put on
the home page (as I recall) - I also think its fine but should be
about the same scale as the ISOC one
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main page is a bit spartan by design,
so I think we should keep it simple.
I'd put it as is on the IETF secretariat page,
align=right next to the c/o Neustar address.
Matter of taste, probably
___
Ietf
Has an email list been set up for this effort yet?
On 12/22/05, Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, The IESG wrote:
- An update to RFC 2716 to bring EAP-TLS into standards track, clarify
specification, interoperability, and implementation issues gathered over the
Can we also conclude that SSL/TLS has failed as a tool for general
communication?
I think the issue here is whether we're talking about user-machine or
machine-machine interaction. When I bring up an https:// URL, very often
I will encounter a cert-related error. The certificate will be
--On Monday, 02 January, 2006 11:39 +0200 Yaakov Stein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And why do all the other SDOs get along with non-ASCII formats?
On my intranet I have a list of 120+ SDOs in the communications
and computer-science fields, and although I haven't gone
through them all (I have
Harald,
I seem to have managed to provoke you to anger.
Not at all. Were you trying to?
You, by continuing to attack the validity of my arguments without even
attempting to address their substance,
Interesting assessment. Your assertions lacked substance and relevance and my
Title: Re: Question about the Neustar logo on www.ietf.org
Would that this be the biggest transition
issue we have to deal with ;-)
Our offices are closed today, but well
address shortly thereafter.
R, Mark
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
--On Sunday, 01 January, 2006 19:20 -0800 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If such agreement cannot be reached, then I think
DKIM has much more serious problems about applicability and
the definition of the problems being solved than whether or
not this is required.
John,
--On Monday, 02 January, 2006 17:07 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On mandag, januar 02, 2006 16:25:59 +0200 John Loughney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Just out of curiosity, when browsing www.ietf.org, I noticed
that the
From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the state of online collaboration and editing that we have been at for
20 or 30 years.
Finally, there is a longstanding and more or less explicit decision in
the IETF community to keep the costs of participation as low as possible
Dear Noel et al;
I trust that the whole IETF community will have a Happy New Year.
On Jan 2, 2006, at 3:24 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the state of online collaboration and editing that we have been at
for
20 or 30 years.
Finally, there is a
Can we also conclude that SSL/TLS has failed as a tool for general
communication?
If we were holding it to the same requirements that some appear to be
asking for DKIM, I think we'd have to.
There is a certain amount of SMTP over TLS, an entirely automated
application, and the net hasn't
Marshall,
--On Monday, 02 January, 2006 16:03 -0500 Marshall Eubanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
The project, currently referred to as PDF/A, will address
the growing need to electronically
archive documents in a way that will ensure preservation of
their contents over an extended
I have always thought that ASCII had much to commend it - ease of use,
compactness, open standard - which outweighed its limited functionality.
But while we debate this, have events already overtaken us? I was surprised to
find, when reading
draft-fu-nsis-qos-nslp-statemachine-02.txt
repeated
It's traditional, and I think fair. I'll ask the IAD to see if we can
get the scale
adjusted.
John Klensin's note does a very nice job of suggesting why it is not
*automatically* the right thing to do.
In particular, his line of analysis points out the need to a) have an
appropriate
Lets go ahead and ask then -
Does anyone else think that IETF should allow documents which
format/structure is not publicly known as one of the ways to
distribute IETF specifications?
For the record, my answer is absolutely not.
And why do all the other SDOs get along with non-ASCII
Now PDF does qualify but it is basicly an extended version of
PostScript. Since IETF already accepts postscript, the question
should be is there a need for features in PDF that are not
in standard postscript. If there is then we can talk about it.
There is, actually. Postscript is well specified
At 22:50 02/01/2006, Dave Crocker wrote:
It's traditional, and I think fair. I'll ask the IAD to see if we
can get the scale
adjusted.
John Klensin's note does a very nice job of suggesting why it is not
*automatically* the right thing to do.
In particular, his line of analysis points out
They seem to have it in place of the word Neustar CNRI
used to have their name there, and no logo. CNRI's had its
name there at least since 1996, so it's kind of traditional
to name the operator.
It's traditional, and I think fair. I'll ask the IAD to see if
we can get the
NeuStar is the .us Registy and has entered into an open root
agreement with the GSMA, supporting the .gprs TLD. That the IETF
pays to host a link to them may certainly be perceived as a
political signal.
Oh, no, not this again. Neustar's .gprs TLD exists only on a special
purpose private
Can we also conclude that SSL/TLS has failed as a tool for general
communication?
If we were holding it to the same requirements that some appear to be
asking for DKIM, I think we'd have to.
Right.
There is a certain amount of SMTP over TLS, an entirely automated
application, and the net
I'm not sure I understand this, Bernard. The client doesn't need
to know anything about the ticket format or get to decide
anything about the mac. It's just the server talking to itself.
In WLAN environments, the client has no way to restrict ticket submission
to a given server. Rather,
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 06:41 +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
AFAIK it's a way to check if mail claiming to be from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was originally sent from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - if that's correct nothing is
wrong with the idea so far, domain y only needs a name server
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 22:27 +, John Levine wrote:
PDF is a fine display format, but it is a rather poor editing format
since it's hard to do any more with PDF (even PDF/A) than either to
print it or to extract the text from it. XML on the other hand is a
putrid display format but it is
Title: Re: Alternative formats for IDs
As such, it is (IMO, barely) possible that PDF/A would
be areasonable format for storing archival documents such as RFCs.But it
would be a terrible format for working documents such asI-Ds, for the
reasons discussed in my earlier note.
[YJS] Which is
Title: RE: Alternative formats for IDs
That sensitivity to costs of participation is not as
importantto most of the SDOs on my list and, I would assume, on
yours.Instead, their norm is participation or membership fees that,
inmany cases, I consider high enough to be barriers,
We seem to have reached a fundamental disconnect about how we
think consensus decisions are reached in the IETF ...
John, that's not the disconnect.
I think we find consensus around the IETF by giving plausible
objections the benefit of the doubt and trying to find middle
grounds to
Here is the revised proposed charter text:
Thanks for pulling this together.
If I had unlimited time to waste, I might niggle about a word or two,
but it's fine as is, and I look forward to moving ahead and getting
some work done.
R's,
John
___
Ietf
Title: RE: Alternative formats for IDs
Second, your assumption that other SDOs have been able
to blissfully make useof private formats like MS Word without incident is
simply untrue. One obviouscounterexample I know of is the CCITT/ITU, which
has in the past used MS Wordas a distribution
Yaakov Stein wrote:
Word is of course out of the question since it is proprietary,
undocumented, and unstable. I hope we have consensus on that.
Sorry, no such consensus.
I don't see why the editor you use needs to be open-standard.
The document format needs to be documented. (I
Yaakov Stein wrote:
I... And please do not write any IETF documents
while using a mouse from a certain proprietary company who holds
dozens of patents on mouse technology.
I would complain about that also, if I had to buy that mouse
in order to read a free ID.
More seriously, Word is the
Hi -
In http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-alt-formats-00.txt
section 3 says:
| Furthermore, the authors propose that the IESG carefully consider
| declaring consensus in support of the change even if a large number
| of 'nays' are posted to the IESG discussion list.
I object
On Monday, January 02, 2006 02:42:41 PM -0500 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Finally, there is a longstanding and more or less explicit
decision in the IETF community to keep the costs of
participation as low as possible and, in particular, to not have
costs imposed by the SDO
On Monday, January 02, 2006 04:03:54 PM -0500 Marshall Eubanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that the library community has settled on PDF as its long term
storage choice, and is
moving to standardize this.
From Harvard University's Report to the Digital Library Federation,
October,
On Monday, January 02, 2006 08:51:20 PM -0800 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't
believe we have ever turned winning by exhaustion or winning
by intimidation into virtues, even though those techniques are
Actually we have.
It is used with some regularity by various folk in
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 07:04:23 +0200 Yaakov Stein wrote:
Word is of course out of the question since it is proprietary,
undocumented, and unstable. I hope we have consensus on that.
Sorry, no such consensus.
Well, you certainly don't have agreement/concensus that MS Word
should be used
On Monday, January 02, 2006 09:36:20 PM +0100 Tom.Petch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have always thought that ASCII had much to commend it - ease of use,
compactness, open standard - which outweighed its limited functionality.
But while we debate this, have events already overtaken us? I
Hi -
I, too, have participated in other SDOs where, to a greater or lesser extent,
Word documents were used. The experience was often bad; the shortcomings
of that particular tool for editing large or complex specifications (e.g., some
of those related to CMIP and GDMO) caused much grief.
On Monday, January 02, 2006 09:56:15 PM -0800 Randy Presuhn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi -
In http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-alt-formats-00.txt
section 3 says:
| Furthermore, the authors propose that the IESG carefully consider
| declaring consensus in support of the
Try CVS or SVN and diff - works for everyone.
Sorry, although I have such toys on my home computer
I am not allowed to install such unsupported SW
on my work computer.
Also, please do not tell me that there is C code available.
C was a proprietary language designed by ATT in order to
help
The IETF has thrived for many years using a document format which is
easy to produce, view, and edit on virtually any platform, and easy to
distribute via virtually any means. I'm not saying there is no room for
change, but any new format needs to do reasonably well with respect to
both of
Yaakov,
Try CVS or SVN and diff - works for everyone.
Sorry, although I have such toys on my home computer
I am not allowed to install such unsupported SW
on my work computer.
Fortunately, there's still a solution for you.
You can run the diff tools even in the web, e.g.,
--On mandag, januar 02, 2006 18:10:15 +0200 Yaakov Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The only thing I am sure about is
that
consensus on this list is for keeping everything exactly as it is.
I'm pretty sure there's no such consensus.
I do, however, see a rather strong
undocumented, and unstable. I hope we have consensus on that.
Sorry, no such consensus.
No problem. We've taken your tip and redefined consensus to exclude
anyone who disagrees with us.
I don't see why the editor you use needs to be open-standard.
Actually, I don't care what editor you
--On tirsdag, januar 03, 2006 08:21:07 +0200 Yaakov Stein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try CVS or SVN and diff - works for everyone.
Sorry, although I have such toys on my home computer
I am not allowed to install such unsupported SW
on my work computer.
http://www.march-hare.com/cvspro/
Yaakov Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alternatively, it can be created using nroff, (nroff: noun an obscure
outdated mark-up language) or by XML which was never meant to be a
typesetting language and requires installing a medley of tools that
don't work well together and also does not
Yaakov,
Word is of course out of the question since it is proprietary,
undocumented, and unstable. I hope we have consensus on that.
Sorry, no such consensus.
If you truly want to improve the IETF document format,
may I suggest that we drop the fighting on formats
that are known to be
72 matches
Mail list logo
