Hi
At first when I read the terms posted by Marshall Eubanks I sort of wanted to
react with my reptile brain and boycott the whole thing.
Looking in perspective however the idealistic part of me wants to believe that
the Chinese people gains a lot more than they lose if the IETF visits China,
On Wed Sep 23 04:14:26 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Indeed, our own meetings are scoped and moderated,
You clearly weren't at the Codec BoF.
Well, heavy weaponry was declared out of scope. As was reaching any
kind of useful decision.
and disruptive
influences can be, and are,
On Wed Sep 23 04:45:39 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Sigh, I will get a high Narten score this week
It's worse if you digitally sign your messages...
I always wondered why you did that.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net
-
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
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:05:02AM +0200, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
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
Thanks for the review Ben. Couple of comments below.
Ben Campbell wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from
Thanks for the quick response. Your responses address all of my
comments.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Sep 23, 2009, at 5:52 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Thanks for the review Ben. Couple of comments below.
Ben Campbell wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond o...@gih.com wrote:
Is a dual stack IPv4-IPv6 likely to be more unstable than pure IPv4 or pure
IPv6?
Just from a pure software-engineering standpoint, with no reference to
the stability of current stacks nor the exact tasks at hand, it seems
quite likely. More code,
On 9/22/09 22:42, Sep 22, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I see absolutely NOTHING in the transcript of the IETF 75 session on
net neutrality that I would consider disrespectful or demfamatory of
any government.
The problem is that you're looking for a needle in the portion of a
haystack that happens to
At Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:22:31 -0500,
Pete Resnick wrote:
On 9/22/09 at 2:50 PM -0400, Ray Pelletier wrote:
The language in the contract is a statement of the law and is
intended to put the Host and group on notice of such. If the
language were not in the contract, it would still be the law.
At Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:01:22 -0700 (PDT),
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
I'm not really following you here. I've read the stated contract
terms and I'm concerned that they prohibit activities which may
reasonably occur during IETF. Are you saying:
In message 3f4922c70909230624p6653f9dckbac05e0465ea9...@mail.gmail.com, IETF M
ember Dave Aronson writes:
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond o...@gih.com wrote:
Is a dual stack IPv4-IPv6 likely to be more unstable than pure IPv4 or pure
IPv6?
Just from a pure software-engineering standpoint,
On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I'm not talking about incitement to riot, advocacy of terrorism,
expressions of racial hatred, or anything of the kind. As I have
expressed several times in this thread, I'm talking about discussion
of
technical topics that impinge on
Adam Roach allegedly wrote on 09/23/2009 9:28 AM:
In my recollection, there is a semi-regular IETF participant who travels
with a MacBook that has a Tibetan flag sticker prominently visible on
the lid.
Assuming you are correct, that is an individual statement. It will not
be part of
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Ben Campbell wrote:
Concrete example:
Would a presentation on how tor was used to bypass state controls on
news during the recent election protests in Iran be acceptable under
the terms of the agreement?
That would sound like a perfectly appropriate and timely
Speaking just for myself.
On Sep 23, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I'm not talking about incitement to riot, advocacy of terrorism,
expressions of racial hatred, or anything of the kind. As I have
expressed several times in this
--On Wednesday, September 23, 2009 08:02 +0300 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
...
I came up with some ways of changing the text, e.g., just
saying work done in the IETF and dropping the word
community. However, is not clear to me that any other words
couldn't be misunderstood in the
I am aware that the IETF-wide last call has ended, but Daniel Black
provided a suggestion (posted on the gnutls-devel list) for the Security
Considerations that I agree with and believe can be important. Quoting
him, slightly reworded:
also maybe 11.1. could say, in response to the last
I have asked Osamu and Kato to answer. Stay tuned.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Samuel Weiler wrote:
I'm
Hiroshima IETF Codesprint
When: November 7, 2009, begining at 9:30 AM
Where: IETF Hotel
What: A bunch of hackers get together to work on code for the IETF.
Some people may be porting of existing functionality to the
new framework; some people may be adding exciting new
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't see the difference between (a) and (c). Either our
activities violate the language of the contract or they don't. You say
that you don't agree that our activities violate the language. If so,
that's good news, but it would help if
At Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:15:05 -0700 (PDT),
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't see the difference between (a) and (c). Either our
activities violate the language of the contract or they don't. You say
that you don't agree that our activities
I have noticed an additional problem related to additional data in
SCRAM. RFC 4422 section 5 item 2b says:
b) An indication of whether the server is expected to provide
additional data when indicating a successful outcome. If so,
if the server sends the additional data
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
So, this isn't really that useful context for the rest of the
paragraph. To take the example of encryption, I think people
were arguing that it was a topic regarding human rights.
With that said, it's not clear to me that saying China's policy
of
At Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:17:04 -0700 (PDT),
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
So, this isn't really that useful context for the rest of the
paragraph. To take the example of encryption, I think people
were arguing that it was a topic regarding human rights.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/23/09 12:17 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
So, this isn't really that useful context for the rest of the
paragraph. To take the example of encryption, I think people
were arguing that it was a topic
At 02:17 PM 9/23/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
BUT I am at a loss
to understand why such a statement would be a required part of our
technical discussion.
And I'm at a loss to understand why censoring such a statement (or ejecting an
individual who says it, or terminating the IETF meeting in
At Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:04:00 -0400 (EDT),
Dean Anderson wrote:
Is that insecure?
If the client is authorized by certificate, then it seems that it has
that identity in addition to any application level identities.
The only insecurity is if the certifiate private key has been
Mike,
My answer is that this is a judgement call and it forms part of the
decision making tree that the IAOC has to make when selecting any
venue. We have asked for community feedback in this case, and we've
received it (or we are receiving it I should say).
Personally, yes, I see the
On Sep 23, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:17:04 -0700 (PDT),
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
So, this isn't really that useful context for the rest of the
paragraph. To take the example of encryption, I think people
were
I am going to assume that such a presentation would be largerly
technical, a case study with some political overtones, but technical
nonetheless. I would not expect this to get you in trouble, no.
A very basic problem with these sorts of assurances is that they are being made
by people
That I can pretty much guarantee, plus a whole bunch of tasty
alternatives to cookies and of course many variants of tea.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL:
the japanese equivalent of the OMROM V600-D23P71
--bill
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 09:16:37AM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I have asked Osamu and Kato to answer. Stay tuned.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
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.
Given that IPv4 address space can be extended with
Just for the record, I continue to object to / humbly disagree with Mssr.
Ohta's position.
While the case for transparent NAT may be valid, I believe IPv6 to also be a
valid and valuable technology for the continued growth and expansion of the
Internet.
(Even eliding the amount of change
On 2009-09-23 21:05, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
...
Is a dual stack IPv4-IPv6 likely to be more unstable than pure IPv4 or
pure IPv6?
Apart from the software engineering principle that more of almost
anything is less reliable, there is a specific problem that if your
computer believes
IAOC,
I'm trying to understand what is political speech in China. The
Geopriv WG deals with protecting users' location privacy. The policies
of more than one country have come up in geopriv meetings in very
derogatory terms. There have been very derogatory comments made by
people about
On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Should the contents of the Group's activities, visual or audio
presentations at the conference,or printed materials used at the
conference (which are within the control of the Client)
On Sep 23, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Ben Campbell wrote:
Concrete example:
Would a presentation on how tor was used to bypass state controls on
news during the recent election protests in Iran be acceptable under
the terms of the agreement?
That would
Pete Resnick wrote:
And I'll also note again that this contract is between the hotel and the
host. The IAOC contract with either should explicitly include words
indicating that the discussion of technical topics that touch on human
rights issues are excluded from this clause.
Pete,
Hiroshima IETF Codesprint
When: November 7, 2009, begining at 9:30 AM
Where: IETF Hotel
What: A bunch of hackers get together to work on code for the IETF.
Some people may be porting of existing functionality to the
new framework; some people may be adding exciting new
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5638
Title: Simple SIP Usage Scenario for
Applications in the Endpoints
Author: H. Sinnreich, Ed.,
A. Johnston, E. Shim,
42 matches
Mail list logo
