I find this document utterly bizarre and think it would seriously damage the
Internet to publish it.
The idea that ipv6 should be regarded as normal, as of equal standing to ipv4 is
fine, the sort of statement that the IAB should make, or have made, as an RFC or
in some other form.
But this I-D
Nothing is wrong in BCP 104, it needs no updated by moving the definition
of the term version support from one of its sections to another section.
-Frank
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
From: Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt (IPv6 Support
Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard
I support publication of some document like this one. Suggestions for
clarification to this
I don't believe any of my desirements justifies holding up publication.
Practically speaking, I'm most interested in the disconnected case. It
should also be the easiest to test thoroughly. I also believe the draft is
good enough for this case. I would very much like to see client code
John,
I would like to let applications decide how they design the use of the gal.
So I would propose a simple change , that will move any discussions to
the specific applications:
The next text would be as follows:
- Section 4.2. (GAL Applicability and Usage) in [RFC5586], the
Luca,
So, you are considering weighted ECMP, with FAT and entropy label, to be an
application? We are also releasing the GAL to float until it finds its proper
level within the MPLS label stack?
Thanks,
John
Sent from my iPhone
-Original Message-
From: Luca Martini
On 08/19/11 14:53, John E Drake wrote:
Luca,
So, you are considering weighted ECMP, with FAT and entropy label, to be an
application? We are also releasing the GAL to float until it finds its
proper level within the MPLS label stack?
Yes. It certainly addresses a specific problem that is
On Aug 19, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Luca Martini wrote:
On 08/19/11 14:53, John E Drake wrote:
Luca,
So, you are considering weighted ECMP, with FAT and entropy label, to be an
application? We are also releasing the GAL to float until it finds its
proper level within the MPLS label stack?
Hi,
I don't see any TLVs defined for performing the on-demand CV operation
on MPLS -TP Sections. Is this intentional?
and
Co-routed bidirectional tunnel identifier:
A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::Z9-{Global_ID::
Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::LSP_Num
Associated bidirectional tunnel
Eric,
Don't you feel that uniformity should be maintained on AGI field
representation for on-demand and proactive OAM operations?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AGI Type| AGI Length | AGI Value|
Would a general access policy lookup tool protocol be viable here? It
could bolt-on to both DHCP and NEA but seems like the same additions
would be good in both. The same is true with many other protocols.
Especially (from my perspective) those being used in automation and
testimony
Not commenting of the legal stuff, I have to admit I like the idea of
the Glossary web site with the consolidation of divest material. I
thought it had some awkward reading injection of material that
probably was not necessary, maybe little unprofessional, but overall
for such a divest
From: Andrew Sullivan
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 01:08:29AM +0200, jefsey wrote:
However, the Internet MUST be supported by a
network/human oriented universal semiotic system.
I would like a defence of that claim. Speaking entirely personally, I
don't believe it.
Hmmm, my opinion is
Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
But in my social context, when someone argues for a universal
communication system, they usually continue with a demand that
everybody speaks English. And I don't think that's what we intend.
(-- this is a joke)
You are confusing characters and languages.
Plain
From: SM s...@resistor.net
To: ietf@ietf.org
Reply-to: s...@resistor.net
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt (IPv6 Support
Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard
X-RSN: 1/0/933/10475/58528
From Section 1:
However, due to the success of the Internet
From: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Reply-to: daedu...@btconnect.com
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt (IPv6Support
Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard
I find this document utterly bizarre and think it would seriously damage
Hi folks -
I just reserved with the hotel and was quite surprised at the cancellation
policy.
Could you please confirm - Cancel before 1 Nov - no charge, 1-7 Nov 1 night,
after 7 Nov full amount?
Seriously? This is extreme. I can understand a 1 day fee up to the date of the
reservation and
From: SM s...@resistor.net
To: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
Reply-to: s...@resistor.net
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt (IPv6 Support
Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard
Section 2 of RFC 4084 lists the primary IP service terms:
On Aug 22, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Hi folks -
I just reserved with the hotel and was quite surprised at the cancellation
policy.
Could you please confirm - Cancel before 1 Nov - no charge, 1-7 Nov 1 night,
after 7 Nov full amount?
Seriously? This is extreme. I
Hi George,
At 10:11 22-08-2011, George, Wesley wrote:
WEG] You're reading too much into this. It's a statement of the
current situation, not a discussion about whether unique addresses
are good or bad.
Ok.
WEG] As an operator (consumer ISP) who happens to spend a lot of
time talking about
I find this document utterly bizarre and think it would seriously damage the
Internet to publish it.
This seems a little ... extreme. The document appears to me to be Mostly
Harmless, with all that implies.
The idea that ipv6 should be regarded as normal, as of equal standing to ipv4
is
The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82. The
IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this schedule:
9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session I
11:00 AM - 11:20 AM - Room Change and Cookie Break
On 8/19/11 3:42 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 09:10 19-08-2011, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space'
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt as
+1 to Ned. I can't see why this draft seems to make some people
go defensive - it isn't saying IPv4 is evil or anything silly
like that, it's just saying IPv6 is the future.
RFC1122v6 is another matter entirely. We clearly aren't ready
for it yet, but draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis is a step on the
At 04:24 PM 8/22/2011, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF
82. The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using
this schedule:
9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session I
11:00
Frank,
On 2011-08-23 00:09, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Nothing is wrong in BCP 104, it needs no updated by moving the definition
of the term version support from one of its sections to another section.
But there *is* something wrong with it - it makes IPv6 sound
like an optional add-on to basic IP
At 5:24 PM -0400 8/22/11, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF
82. The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using
this schedule:
9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session
On Aug 22, 2011, at 7:28 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
At 5:24 PM -0400 8/22/11, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82. The
IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday,
On Aug 22, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Hi folks -
I just reserved with the hotel and was quite surprised at the cancellation
policy.
Could you please confirm - Cancel before 1 Nov - no charge, 1-7 Nov 1 night,
after 7 Nov full amount?
As stated on the meeting site:
On Aug 22, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Lixia Zhang wrote:
Since you brought up the subject of hotel: up to now IETF hotel prices have
been within the federal per diem allowance, but IETF82 seems an exception by
a pretty big gap (see
On 8/22/2011 5:16 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote:
The Hyatt knew that foreign visitors needed to use the Hyatt as headquarters
Folks,
For reference, I found the AT Boutique Hotel, near the Convention Center.
Tripadvisor comments are generally positive and the facilities are claimed to be
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org wrote:
On Aug 22, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Hi folks -
I just reserved with the hotel and was quite surprised at the
cancellation policy.
Could you please confirm - Cancel before 1 Nov - no charge, 1-7
Am 2011-08-23 01:03, schrieb Brian E Carpenter:
Nothing is wrong in BCP 104, it needs no updated by moving the definition
of the term version support from one of its sections to another section.
But there *is* something wrong with it - it makes IPv6 sound
like an optional add-on to basic IP
Clarification:
The special rate is listed as the Early Bird Package on the website. That part
/is/ available. It's the actual booking that doesn't seem to handle it.
d/
On 8/22/2011 5:29 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
For reference, I found the AT Boutique Hotel, near the Convention Center.
Hi Ray -
See below
At 08:15 PM 8/22/2011, Ray Pelletier wrote:
On Aug 22, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Hi folks -
I just reserved with the hotel and was quite surprised at the cancellation
policy.
Could you please confirm - Cancel before 1 Nov - no charge, 1-7 Nov 1
At 08:30 PM 8/22/2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Guest Substitution: Guests may substitute names for reserved rooms without
penalty up to the event.
This sounds like a good use of the Attendees list. Anyone with reservations
who can't come should publicize it - I am sure that there will be
At 14:56 22-08-2011, Chris Donley wrote:
This proposal reached ARIN consensus (2011-5), and has been recommended
for adoption to the ARIN board. The ARIN BoD has indicated that it is
willing to reserve a /10 if asked to do so by the IETF/IANA.
[snip]
This will be supplied by IANA in
--On Monday, August 22, 2011 20:16 -0400 Ray Pelletier
rpellet...@isoc.org wrote:
...
As for the rates, they are high. Taiwan is expensive,
particularly given that the hotels know what our options are
when we book the TICC. The Hyatt knew that foreign visitors
needed to use the Hyatt as
On 8/22/11 11:24 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82. The
IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this
schedule:
9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session I
Hi All,
The 2011-2012 Nominating committee is seeking nominations from now
until October 2, 2011. The list of open positions can be found at:
https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2011/
Nominations may be made directly on the NomCom 2011-2012 pages by
selecting the Nominate link at the top of the
40 matches
Mail list logo
