Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
IMHO, running code gets more credit than is warranted. While it is
certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of implementability,
mere existence of running code says nothing about the quality of the
design, its security, scalability, breadth of
Oddly enough there used to be a mechanism that was exactly what internet drafts
have become, they were titled requests for comment or something of the sort.
Anyone remember what happened to them?
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
-Original Message-
From:
ext Melinda Shore wrote:
On 7/31/07 4:09 AM, Aki Niemi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Continuing on something heard at the technical plenary last week. There
were people complaining that while protocols like STUN/TURN and ICE are
traversing NAT, they are in fact bypassing firewall policies, which
I always used to say that corporate memberships would be the worst means I
could imagine to fund the ietf.
It is gratifying to find that others have suceeded where I have failed.
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
-Original Message-
From: Peter Sherbin
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 17:24 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
IMHO, running code gets more credit than is warranted. While it is
certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of
implementability, mere existence of running code says nothing about
the quality of the design, its security,
Keith Moore wrote:
The danger here is that when people bring work to IETF, they might
refuse to change protocols which are already deployed.
This already happens to far too great a degree. People keep arguing
that because they have running/deployed code, IETF has to standardize
exactly
Hello
On draft-drage-sipping-service-identification-01 I would like to ask
wheter it would be more beneficial to leave out the registration
URN-namespace registration and only point to e.g. RFC 2141.
This would make the draft focusing on the usage of the P-headers, which
I think is fine. The
Hi Itojun,
How would you write documents which warn against people doing funny
things? I wrote a draft about the issues with hop-by-hop options in IPv6
and cautioning against their use. I see that there are still proposals
coming out which depend on new hbh options? What should I do instead
Suresh Krishnan writes:
How would you write documents which warn against people doing funny
things? I wrote a draft about the issues with hop-by-hop options in
IPv6 and cautioning against their use. I see that there are still
proposals coming out which depend on new hbh options? What
Eric Gray The discussion is essentially inane
I think this is an excellent observation. It suggests to me though that
perhaps the best way to get more funding for the IETF is to impose a
surcharge on inane messages to the ietf mailing list. The surcharge can be
based on the degree
If we simply charged a high fee for the I-Ds and a very high meeting fee
($10k) we wouldn't have all these documents to read. The attendance would
drop so the meeting could be held in a small inexpensive room. The IETF
could also charge for the email lists, cutting back on all the messages we
A excellent start...
You forgot $500 for messages on the use of ASCII in RFC's.
-Original Message-
From: Eric Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:50 AM
To: Eric Gray (LO/EUS)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Charging I-Ds
Eric Gray The discussion is
How would you write documents which warn against people doing funny
things? I wrote a draft about the issues with hop-by-hop options in IPv6
and cautioning against their use. I see that there are still proposals
coming out which depend on new hbh options? What should I do instead of
writing
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 06:59:58PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
Almost independent of the IPv6 autoconfig issues, I find it
deeply troubling that we seem to be unable to both
* get the ducks lined up to run IPv6 fully and smoothly,
with and without local/auto config.
I seem to remember that the idea of a postmortem was discussed at
some point. I don't know that anything came of that discussion.
Having some facts and data to examine probably beats anecdotal
observations about network behavior.
I think David is wise to observe that experience like DHCP
David W. Hankins wrote:
as recently as the IETF 69 tech plenary,
where we were told that firewalls were becoming obsolete, evidenced by
their lack of use at IETF meetings.
There's only one word for it: Astounding.
Told by whom? I was one of the people at the the microphone. I work for
a
On Jul 31, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Peter Sherbin wrote:
The current business model does not bring in enough cash. How do
we bring in more in a way that furthers ietf goals?
E.g. other standards setting bodies have paid memberships and/or
sellable standards.
IETF unique way could be to charge
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:12:14AM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Told by whom?
Hain...something like that? I can't remember. You'll have to check
whatever minutes or recordings are up.
Start by asking the contractor, the volunteers and the IAD for a
postmortem on the operation of the network.
My faulty recollection is that in our game of rock-paper-scissors, Running
Code beats Untested Idea, but Well Reviewed Architecture and Protocol beats
Running Code.
On 7/31/07 11:34 PM, Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
IMHO, running code gets more credit
* From: Richard Shockey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* A excellent start...
*
* You forgot $500 for messages on the use of ASCII in RFC's.
*
Actually, I believe such messages are useful. They occur infrequently,
in short storms at least a year apart, and they
David W. Hankins wrote:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:12:14AM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Told by whom?
Hain...something like that? I can't remember. You'll have to check
whatever minutes or recordings are up.
Start by asking the contractor, the volunteers and the IAD for a
postmortem on
The problem here does not appear to be the DHCP protocol, it is the binding
into the WiFi stack and in particular the specific software implementations.
I know all about layering, but no, DHCP does not seem to be right for wifi.
Where you have an explicit gateway device and a link level session
On Jul 31, 2007, at 6:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
And, while I'm picking on DHCP because I personally had more
problems with it, I see IPv6 authconfig as being exactly the same
issue: we are telling the world that these things work and they
should be using them; if we can't make them
In keeping with Eric Rosen's excellent thread ..
The simple solution is to charge 500 .. UK POUNDS!! for Internet Access
during the IETF meetings. This is clearly in keeping with standard
hotel/airport practices around the world.
This would clearly solve the budget problem as well as discourage
As a vendor this is precisely the information I would most want. Code is free,
QA costs the money.
What I would not want is to have the result taken as a product review.
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
-Original Message-
From: David W. Hankins [mailto:[EMAIL
--On Wednesday, 01 August, 2007 09:03 -0700 David W. Hankins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and have both of those working seamlessly no later than Sunday
afternoon of the meeting.
If we can't do that, we should be very seriously reviewing our
protocols and specifications: that sort of thing
A better title for this e-mail is, P-Preferred-Service Considered Harmful.
The mechanisms described in the draft for the P-Asserted-Service makes sense
and is useful. My only comment with P-Asserted-Service is I would STRONGLY
RECOMMEND an IESG note on the cover of the draft warning of the dire
Richard Shockey wrote:
In keeping with Eric Rosen's excellent thread ..
The simple solution is to charge 500 .. UK POUNDS!! for Internet Access
during the IETF meetings. This is clearly in keeping with standard
hotel/airport practices around the world.
GBP 500 for using a laptop in a WG
A good start would be explaining what exactly went wrong with the
DHCP server(s) this time. We have a problem and we're working on it
is not all that helpful.
I wasn't directly involved in debugging this, but this is what I gathered
from later discussions: The bottom line seemed to be a
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 11:11:18AM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
I'm one of those volunteers, operating that part of the service was not
my responsibility... My point is to both you and the people complaining
about the network, Drawing conclusions from an incomplete picture is
fraught with peril.
I'd offer that the OSI protocol stack was probably significantly more
reviewed than the TCP/IP stack.
At the very least, running code is an empirical proof that an
architecture _can_ work.
Rgds,
-drc
On Aug 1, 2007, at 8:35 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
My faulty recollection is that in our game
On 1-aug-2007, at 22:48, Keith Moore wrote:
Charge for every PowerPoint slide used in a presentation - GBP 2
for the
first one, and the rate doubles for each additional slide.
Right, the letters on the average powerpoint slide are way too
comfortable to read from the back of the room the
On 1-aug-2007, at 19:34, David W. Hankins wrote:
Start by asking the contractor, the volunteers and the IAD for a
postmortem on the operation of the network. anything else is just
speculation.
Why?
So we can do better in the future.
It berates our volunteers and sponsors who provide us
IETF unique way could be to charge a fee for an address
allocation to
RIRs. On their side RIRs would charge for assignments as
they do now
and return a fair share back to IANA/IETF.
A IP address use fee might help solve two problems. When based upon
relative scarcities, IPv4
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Board of Trustees of ARIN .. has just released an official
statement
There are, however, those who propose that the democratically
established governance principles now be abandoned ...
The purpose of this memorandum is to assure the
35 matches
Mail list logo
