Re: WG Review: Call Control UUI for SIP (cuss)

Hi, let's not start discussing (again) whether this information in carried in a header field or in a body part. Let's discuss the requirement below instead, which seems to be what needs to be clarified in the charter (the details on how to encode this will be largely determined by the

Re: [dispatch] Fwd: Re: WG Review: Call Control UUI for SIP (cuss)

In the PSTN, we use the UUI field to transmit information between the Intelligent Network (IN) system and call center agents for the directory enquires service. Everybody in Germany who wants to ask for the phone number of another person dials DT's directory enquires service and is connected to a

Re: [dispatch] Fwd: Re: WG Review: Call Control UUI for SIP (cuss)

Can you tell us about the misuse? It might be relevant to the expected usage of the cuss feature. I was relevant for that time, when communication was expensive and telephony was billed per minute... In Germany's PSTN, carriers are not allowed to bill for signalling, only for the voice

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

Hello, At 14:55 30-06-10, IETF Chair wrote: I am writing to let you know about a change in the IETF meeting network. At IETF 79 in Beijing, the IETF network will be connected to the open Internet with absolutely no filtering. However, we have agreed with our hosts that only IETF meeting

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

While it is new in IETF meetings, it is far from unusual in WiFi networks to find some form of authentication. This happens at coffee shops, college campuses, corporate campuses, and people's apartments. I think I would need some more data before I concluded this was unreasonable. On Jul 1,

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 08:26:35AM -0700, Fred Baker wrote: While it is new in IETF meetings, it is far from unusual in WiFi networks to find some form of authentication. This happens at coffee shops, college campuses, corporate campuses, and people's apartments. I'd hate to think that the

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

There's a difference, however, between ticking a box and having individual user-attributable credentials. The two techniques are focused on different goals, generically binding users to an AUP, without caring who they are, versus being able to identify individual users on the network

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

You wrote: It is clear to people unfamiliar with the IETF that IETF meeting participants means people who have registered for the IETF meeting. Correct. I have been told that an IETF meeting does not have security guards at the door to verify who has a badge to determine whether the person

Errata [was on yam] Referencing 1652bis and update to RFC 5321/5322

On 30/Jun/10 17:52, Jari Arkko wrote: John [Klensin], and I'm keenly aware of the fact that errata, even approved errata, do not constitute community consensus documents, but, I am with you on that. IMHO, this is a point that may be worth enhancing. From a functional POV, it is not

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

It has been the documented practice of the ietf meeting network operations to limit the amount of pii data collected in operation or experimentation and to destroy logs containing pii data if they exist (example data collected by the IDS or formerly http proxy back when we ran one) after the

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: You wrote: It is clear to people unfamiliar with the IETF that IETF meeting participants means people who have registered for the IETF meeting. Correct. ... and their accompanying persons (who can also get a slip). Regards Marshall I

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 09:42:16AM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote: It has been the documented practice of the ietf meeting network operations to limit the amount of pii data collected in operation or experimentation and to destroy logs containing pii data if they exist (example data collected by

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

On 1 jul 2010, at 19:07, Andrew Sullivan wrote: This is useful, but not quite what I was asking. Clearly, the above means that the logs exist during the meeting, while we are at the host venue. I think it is safe to say that under some legal regimes, a government could require the delivery

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Richard L. Barnes rbar...@bbn.com wrote: There's a difference, however, between ticking a box and having individual user-attributable credentials.  The two techniques are focused on different goals, generically binding users to an AUP, without caring who they

Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3

Hi Dan, The term peer to peer is intended to exclude mechanisms that would use a central repository for the information: This was discussed in an earlier thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg02027.html In one sense it is a solution, however, in another sense it is

Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3

Agreed - I will make that change in the version 4 of the charter. Thanks, Mary. 2010/6/30 Romascanu, Dan (Dan) droma...@avaya.com: Hi Mary, I also think that listing the deliverables should be independent from mentioning the existing initial contributions. The existing contributions could

Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3

Hi Dan, One of the starting points for this work is that more centralized solutions to this problem have been defined (and implemented), yet they have not been successful. Per one of Christer's earllier comments, we will add some text with reference to such and thus substantiate why this group

Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3

Hi Roni, Comments inline below and some snipping of the thread. Thanks, Mary. On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Roni Even ron.even@gmail.com wrote: Mary, When I read the charter it is not clear why from the first paragraph you deduct the second paragraph. If the first paragraph will say

RE: [dispatch] Fwd: Re: WG Review: Call Control UUI for SIP (cuss)

Hi, My company has had the experience of deploying the pre-standard version of this PSTN to SIP UUI mechanism during the past 2 years. As noted in the draft charter, UUI information is widely used on the PSTN for applications such as offering input data into call centers and then preserving

Re: [dispatch] Fwd: Re: WG Review: Call Control UUI for SIP (cuss)

James, Can you shed some light on *how* this is used, given the lack of any standards on the content/formatting of this information? Do you use content=isdn-uui and some particular Q.931 protocol discriminator for which there are formatting standards? Or is this only used between a caller

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

Russ, Couple of quick questions: -- Are the anonymous IDs truly anonymous (show existence of badge [not necessarily name on badge] and get one) or are they tied to a user identity? -- Will users be allowed to request multiple anonymous IDs? -- Will these policies be identical for both

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

Richard: There's a difference, however, between ticking a box and having individual user-attributable credentials. The two techniques are focused on different goals, generically binding users to an AUP, without caring who they are, versus being able to identify individual users on the

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

Not totally right. The person with a badge can get one or more slips with anonymous registration ID/passwords. The badge-holder can then share the slip with accompanying persons (such as spouse or kids or let's not go there ;-) ). Russ On 7/1/2010 1:01 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Jul

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

Iljitsch: This is useful, but not quite what I was asking. Clearly, the above means that the logs exist during the meeting, while we are at the host venue. I think it is safe to say that under some legal regimes, a government could require the delivery of such existing logs to them. I

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

Is there a reason that the anonymous IDs are opt-in? Why not have all the IDs be anonymous? On Jul 1, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Russ Housley wrote: Iljitsch: This is useful, but not quite what I was asking. Clearly, the above means that the logs exist during the meeting, while we are at the

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

Ole Jacobsen wrote: I have been told that an IETF meeting does not have security guards at the door to verify who has a badge to determine whether the person is registered for the meeting. The fashion in the IETF is to have an open network. There isn't any admission control and

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

Richard: Yes, the slips obtained from the IETF registration desk and the network help desk are anonymous. You show your badge, and then you can pick one or more slips from the container. The people at the desk will not know which registration ID you got. We will use this same approach for IETF

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

On Jul 1, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: I'm concerned about the correlation between my MAC address and the hosts I communicate with. Change your MAC address. Regards, -drc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

I do remember the guarded terminal rooms in 1995-1998. the terminals themselves were being guarded, not their use. they were expensive. now there are no terminals in the terninal room. so the name was apt. :) The use of WLAN started out with a small group of early adopters somewhere around

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

Russ Housley wrote: Yes, the slips obtained from the IETF registration desk and the network help desk are anonymous. You show your badge, and then you can pick one or more slips from the container. The people at the desk will not know which registration ID you got. Thank your for the

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

the only hard issue i have heard is log access and retention. it is clear radius logs, the only logs being used (aside from landings and take-offs of black helicopters), should be destroyed at the end of the meeting. but should they be wiped more frequently? their intended use is solely for

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

--On Friday, July 02, 2010 05:09 +0900 Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: The use of WLAN started out with a small group of early adopters somewhere around 1996/1997. earler, i believe. i think i had wlan in s'hoim in 95, and ran the dhcp server experimaent on my laptop in the corner. but

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

We even had AppleTalk at IETF's for a while... Much hair loss and greying since then. Yikes. 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

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

Richard: Is there a reason that the anonymous IDs are opt-in? Why not have all the IDs be anonymous? Asked and answered. I previously said: : One reason for using the registration ID was to allow people to : use the network before they check-in at the IETF registration desk. : Another

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

At 02:52 PM 7/1/2010, Russ Housley wrote: No matter where a meeting is held, we are subject to the laws of that location. Nothing new there. Hi Russ - I agree with the above statement, but its really beside the point. The issue is not that the IETF and IETF attendees are required to obey the

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

The issue is not that the IETF and IETF attendees are required to obey the laws of the venue, but rather whether or not the IETF chooses to hold a meeting in a venue where the law is sufficiently ... restrictive, draconian, capricious, ?? ... to require the IETF to change its model of

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

Ted: There's a difference, however, between ticking a box and having individual user-attributable credentials. The two techniques are focused on different goals, generically binding users to an AUP, without caring who they are, versus being able to identify individual users on the network

Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

Mike: Going back to the IAOC, I would ask whether this requirement was known at the time of the previous Beijing discussion? If so, why wasn't it brought up at that point in time and as part of the discussion on venue acceptability. If it was added later, when was it added, and why wasn't

free internet for ieters only

- Original Message - From: Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com To: IETF ietf@ietf.org Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 9:41 AM Subject: Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks In my view, the host is working diligently to ensure that the IETF meeting participants have

Protocol Action: 'YANG Module for NETCONF Monitoring' to Proposed Standard

The IESG has approved the following document: - 'YANG Module for NETCONF Monitoring ' draft-ietf-netconf-monitoring-15.txt as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Network Configuration Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Dan Romascanu and Ron Bonica. A URL of

Protocol Action: 'MPLS Transport Profile Data Plane Architecture' to Proposed Standard

The IESG has approved the following document: - 'MPLS Transport Profile Data Plane Architecture ' draft-ietf-mpls-tp-data-plane-04.txt as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and

IETF 78 - Meeting Information

78th IETF Meeting Maastricht, Netherlands July 25-30, 2010 1. Sponsorship Opportunities 2. Social Event 3. Accommodations Breakfast Information; Guest room Internet is NOT included in hotel rates. 1) Sponsorship Opportunities There are still sponsorship opportunities available for the

Nomcom 2010-2011: Timeline and Selection Seeds

Hi All, Timeline: The following is the current timeline for the 2010-11 Nomcom: * Nomcom Chair Announcement made: June 2, 2010; * First Call for Volunteers issued: June 8, 2010; * Second Call for Volunteers issued: June 21, 2010; * Third Call for Volunteers issued: June 28, 2010;