I've posted my thoughts on starting document shepherding at the time a
document first starts its life in a working group, and on the tasks a
shepherd might perform at each stage in the document's life. I intend
to pursue having this published as an Informational document, not a
BCP, reflecting my
Hi SM,
Thanks for your comments, I will note your feedback and follow to read
into these issues as you advise, thanking you,
Best Regards
AB
==
On 8/1/12, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 11:19 AM 8/1/2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Yes my concern is how/when use terms not meaning of terms.
- Original Message -
From: Samuel Weiler wei...@watson.org
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 11:59 PM
Sorting that list by affiliation and counting the number of names from
each affiliation, the volunteer list as of Monday included:
16 Huawai
15 Cisco
13 Ericsson
9
Hi Barry,
Could you refer to a RFC that states your below information or
procedure, if there is not, I recommend some one doing procedure
drafts to take it over. Please note that ALL reports from any
participant should be useful for IETF community and system. Even if
he/she misunderstood, this
Hi,
In general this seem like a Good Thing. However, I have a slight confusion
caused by these two extracts:
Openness. Standards processes are open to all interested and informed
parties.
...
4. Availability. Standards are made accessible to all for implementation and
deployment under fair
Hello Barry,
Thanks for explanation about errata, which must have been caused at
least in part by an erratum that I submitted recently.
Just for the record, I want to mention that the errata report form at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_report.php has a type field with two
categories,
Greetings again. At the plenary last night, Russ said that the expected
signatories are those three organizations and hopefully other SDOs. People
active in SDOs other than those three were encouraged to try to get those
additional SDOs to sign the final wording.
However, it seems like many
Thanks for explanation about errata, which must have been caused at least in
part by an erratum that I submitted recently.
Yours was one of many. Yours was actually one that I'd like to find a
way to fix -- a URL that needs to be updated.
In particular, the errata system is NOT meant to be
On 8/1/12 10:48 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
It is solving the problem of specifications that don't specify
conditions in a easy manner that implementers/users need. Please note
that IF THEN is reducing the number of
What is the position of the IRTF on this?
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) droma...@avaya.com
Cc: IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 11:53 PM
Dan:
Only protocol specifications make use of Ethertypes. The
A Change to the interpretation of normative language does not
retroactively apply to existing documents.
welcome to the 21st century. the ietf has become a shiny thing (thanks
jc) which attracts. many do not understand the technology, computer
science, engineering, ... but they do understand
Probably nothing can be perfect when defining affiliation, but I
think some definition can help reducing hidden conflict of interests.
Here is an example in other standards body:
http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliation.html
Yoshihiro Ohba
(2012/08/02 14:37), Samuel Weiler wrote:
On Thu, 2
Here is an example in other standards body:
http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliation.html
thank you for reminding me of where i do not want to go.
the ietf culture presumes the players are adults. yes, this has
occasional failures, perhaps i am one. but better that than massive
rules which
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
I written this draft starting a RFC2119 update for the reasons of
discussion threads in [1] and [2]. Please check draft and feedback,
thanking you.
I agree with what Paul and Melinda have said. This document is
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.orgwrote:
I've posted my thoughts on starting document shepherding at the time a
document first starts its life in a working group, and on the tasks a
shepherd might perform at each stage in the document's life. I intend
to
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Glen Zorn glenz...@gmail.com wrote:
**
Do you think that corporate domination of open standards development is
OK?
Do you think that's actually what we do around here? I can think of
counterexamples if you need some.
-MSK
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:21 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi Hannes,
At 12:19 PM 7/29/2012, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
The IETF allows open participation and, as such, everyone, including
companies that develop enterprise software, are free to participate in the
discussions.
Do you
All,
IETF documents have number of mandatory sections .. IANA Actions,
Security Considerations, Refs, etc ...
Does anyone have a good reason why any new protocol definition or
enhancement does not have a build in mandatory XML schema section
which would allow to actually use such standards
hi robert
Does anyone have a good reason why any new protocol definition or
enhancement does not have a build in mandatory XML schema section
which would allow to actually use such standards based enhancement in
vendor agnostic way ?
xml is just a way to package the incompatibilities.
A reminder of the 6 August deadline for input.
Thanks
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change for IETF 95
scheduled for March 2016.
Currently IETF 95 is scheduled for 27 March to 1 April 2016. 27 March is
Easter.
The IAOC is proposing IETF 95 be rescheduled for 20 -
A reminder of the deadline of 6 August for input.
Thanks
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed policy by the IAOC to
impose
fees to produce information and authenticate documents in response to subpoenas
and
other legal requests.
The IETF receives requests for information,
On Aug 2, 2012, at 9:45 AM, IETF Administrative Director i...@ietf.org wrote:
The IAOC is proposing IETF 95 be rescheduled for 20 - 25 March 2016 and would
like
feedback on those dates before making a decision.
Support.
--Olaf
Hi,
The OPSAWG/OPSAREA open meeting this afternoon has an item on the agenda
concerning the revision of RFC1052 and discussing a new architecture for
management protocols.
My personal take is that no one protocol, or one data modeling language
can match the operational requirements to
Hi Dan,
We should be talking
nowadays about a toolset rather than one tool that fits all.
Just to clarify what I asked about .. I am not looking for a single tool
or single protocol to be used to configure everything.
I am asking for small building block like xml schema (or something
From: Yoshihiro Ohba yoshihiro.o...@toshiba.co.jp
Probably nothing can be perfect when defining affiliation, but I
think some definition can help reducing hidden conflict of interests.
I suspect that unless it is done very carefully, any more extensive definition
is simply going
Yes. The question is whether a basic information model written in XML can be a
useful starting point (trying to interpret the proposal made by Robert).
Dan
-Original Message-
From: Andy Bierman [mailto:a...@yumaworks.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 8:14 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan
I am discussing this very topic in the Ops meeting today at 3. Please
come by to discuss.
--Tom
On Aug 2, 2012:9:25 AM, at 9:25 AM, Robert Raszuk rob...@raszuk.net wrote:
All,
IETF documents have number of mandatory sections .. IANA Actions, Security
Considerations,
Hi Murray,
At 09:13 AM 8/2/2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I think it's impossible to determine with certainty whether someone
standing at the mic and asserting a position is doing so based on
what an employer is insisting on doing, or that person's opinion.
Yes.
We purport to participate
Hi, thanks for the response. Comments inline:
On Jul 29, 2012, at 10:29 PM, =JeffH jeff.hod...@kingsmountain.com wrote:
-- Does this draft update any other RFCs (e.g. 2616 or 2818)? If so, that
should be explicitly flagged and mentioned in the abstract.
Good question, I don't believe
Looks good to me, but I agree with whoever suggested to increase the fees. I
think you could easily double or triple them.
On Aug 2, 2012, at 9:47, IETF Administrative Director i...@ietf.org wrote:
A reminder of the deadline of 6 August for input.
Thanks
The IAOC is seeking community
I think anyone with intimate experience of the Web Services standards
experiment (trying to use XML as if it was a Turing machine) would have
extreme doubts about any proposal to impose such a requirement.
It was not for no reason that many people came to refer to the Web
Services family of
Those of us who went through the crypto-wars will see a lot of
similarities between the situation we faced then and now. The main
difference being that in the mid 1990s very few people understood what
the net was really capable of, it was seen as merely a way to make
money. Those who were paying
Hi Brian,
Perhaps we understand a different thing by xml schema As example what
I had in mind when asking this question was the example from Appendix
A of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-marques-l3vpn-schema-00 where
while perhaps not yet complete it does provide decent representation of
On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Hi, thanks for the response. Comments inline:
On Jul 29, 2012, at 10:29 PM, =JeffH jeff.hod...@kingsmountain.com wrote:
-- I did not find any guidance on how to handle UAs that do not understand
this extension. I don't know if this needs
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com
to stop such things as 'Information terrorism' which is their term for
freedom of speech.
:-)
The current governance structure of the Internet does more than merely
prevent other governments from gaining control of the
Hi Phillip,
At 11:16 AM 8/2/2012, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
But there is also another side to the complaints made by Russia, China
and others, a complaint that US dominated organizations like ICANN and
the IETF do not allow sufficient credit for in my view. The current
Is the above about the
On Aug 2, 2012, at 11:44 AM, j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote:
we should instead focus on the ways that the technical architecture of
the Internet creates control points that are vulnerable to capture and
consider ways in which those control points can be made capture-proof.
Our current totals as of noon today, the Open Internet Endowment has received
$19,245 from 54 donors. Thanks to all.
It would be great to reach $25,000 (or more) from 75 donors (or more) by lunch
tomorrow. Please help if you can.
There will be a table at the Bits-N-Bites tonight. People
On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:24 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 11:44 AM, j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote:
we should instead focus on the ways that the technical architecture of
the Internet creates control points that are vulnerable to capture and
consider ways in which
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com
to stop such things as 'Information terrorism' which is their term for
freedom of speech.
:-)
The term comes up in their treaty.
If the WCIT
From: Murray S. Kucherawy [superu...@gmail.com]
I think it's impossible to determine with certainty whether someone
standing at the mic and asserting a position is doing so based on what
an employer is insisting on doing, or that person's opinion.
But it is possible, over a period of time,
On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 16:58 -0400, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
From: Murray S. Kucherawy [superu...@gmail.com]
I think it's impossible to determine with certainty whether someone
standing at the mic and asserting a position is doing so based on what
an employer is insisting on doing,
On 8/2/2012 1:24 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 11:44 AM, j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote:
we should instead focus on the ways that the technical architecture of
the Internet creates control points that are vulnerable to capture and
consider ways in which those
In the identity management case we are not necessarily talking about solutions
that are good or bad. The issue is that certain people care about one use
case and other people care about other use cases. I use the term use case in
a generic sense to also include certain deployment assumptions
Both the original and the proposed new dates are fine with me. Note
that anyone planning on traveling on 26 March (the day before Easter)
should probably make their reservations well ahead of time. On the
other hand, travel on 27 March should be relatively easy.
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012
Hi Joe,
Many thx for your comments.
Perhaps my intentions were not very well described. Personally I am not
that much stuck on plain XML schema .. it could be expressed in any
language IETF would choose to use. The point is not how to do it .. but
to do it at the moment of bringing new
Hi SM,
On Jul 30, 2012, at 10:21 AM, SM wrote:
Hi Hannes,
At 12:19 PM 7/29/2012, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
The IETF allows open participation and, as such, everyone, including
companies that develop enterprise software, are free to participate in the
discussions.
Do you think open
On Aug 2, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
The whole concept of a global network, with no centralized control, that
permits (nay, encourages) the free flow of information is anathema to
many national governments. They are desperate to choke that off, by any
means necessary.
From
On 8/2/2012 2:53 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
The whole concept of a global network, with no centralized control, that
permits (nay, encourages) the free flow of information is anathema to
many national governments. They are desperate to choke that
From: Glen Zorn [glenz...@gmail.com]
I suppose that that may be one reason why my experiences with
corporate manipulation (or domination, if you prefer) of the IETF have
been of people with those very reputations blocking good ideas that
threatened the interests of their employer. It's
Jeff and I spoke f2f. Pending actual text, I believe we have resolutions to all
of my comments save those about an extension registry, which Jeff will discuss
with other interested parties.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com wrote:
Hi, thanks for the
On Aug 2, 2012, at 11:07 AM 8/2/12, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Looks good to me, but I agree with whoever suggested to increase the fees. I
think you could easily double or triple them.
I agree with Lars and the suggestion that the fees could be higher.
- Ralph
On Aug 2, 2012, at 9:47, IETF
On Aug 2, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 11:07 AM 8/2/12, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Looks good to me, but I agree with whoever suggested to increase the fees. I
think you could easily double or triple them.
I agree with Lars and the suggestion that the fees could be
On Aug 2, 2012, at 16:29, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
I don't think this can be a profit center; as I understand it, the judge in
any case will rule on the reasonableness of any fees.
Agreed. My intent is not to create a profit center. But I do also avoid this
remaining a loss
Whose library? (rhetorical question).
In my experience, the issue is pretty straight forward and its what
this OAUTH fellow exemplified - technology leaders taking control of a
standard for their strategic benefit. This is not a phenomenon, its
par for the course and its a principle reason
Total of 160 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Aug 3 00:53:03 EDT 2012
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
5.00% |8 | 4.27% |52331 | abdussalambar...@gmail.com
5.00% |8 | 4.05% |49608 |
On 02.08.2012, at 22:41, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
... That depends on whether the registry in question is dealing with a
scarce resource or a plentiful one. Having two registries handing out
IPv4 addresses at this point would be very very bad. Having more than
one place you can get an
A reminder of the 6 August deadline for input.
Thanks
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change for IETF 95
scheduled for March 2016.
Currently IETF 95 is scheduled for 27 March to 1 April 2016. 27 March is
Easter.
The IAOC is proposing IETF 95 be rescheduled for 20 -
A reminder of the deadline of 6 August for input.
Thanks
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed policy by the IAOC to
impose
fees to produce information and authenticate documents in response to subpoenas
and
other legal requests.
The IETF receives requests for information,
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6679
Title: Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) for
RTP over UDP
Author: M. Westerlund, I. Johansson,
C. Perkins, P. O'Hanlon,
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC
Title: A Discard Prefix for IPv6
Author: N. Hilliard, D. Freedman
Status: Informational
Stream: IETF
Date: August 2012
Mailbox:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6695
Title: Methods to Convey Forward Error
Correction (FEC) Framework Configuration Information
Author: R. Asati
Status: Informational
62 matches
Mail list logo
