On Sep 6, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote:
On 9/6/13 3:04 PM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
So, what if an NSA guys comes in and proposes backdoor to be added to
a protocol? Is it even a valid interest? Does IETF as an organisation
have anything to say about that or does it
On Sep 6, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
In other words, the IETF needs to assume that we don't know what will work
for end users and we need to therefore focus more on processing by end
/systems/ rather than end /users/.
But we are also end users. I recall being
a meeting planned for early November in Vancouver.
This group needs dedicate its next meeting to this task. This is an emergency,
and demands an emergency response.
The gauntlet is in our face. What are we going to do about it?
--
Dean Willis
Some of you may recall me ranting several years ago about the importance of
including anti-surveillance features as mandatory aspects of our protocols.
I seem to recall getting (mostly) politely laughed at ...
Anyhow, there's an article on the topic in Wired right now that hints at
the commercial
On Mar 30, 2013, at 10:43 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
It sometimes feels as if anti-spam efforts are trending in the
direction of its being acceptable to accidentally discard a few
dozen legitimate messages if doing so allows blocking a few
thousand unsolicited/undesired
cool.
--
Dean Willis
of the draft is to know who to blame for the
content, which helps in predicting the value of their future contributions.
Anonymity can actually boost one's credibility in such circumstances.
--
Dean Willis
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:57 PM, William Jordan wjordan...@gmail.com wrote:
Whoever thought it was a good idea to allow multiple ways of doing the same
exact thing would hopefully be deterred by actually writing code to do it.
I think a suitable punishment for those people would be to write
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:11 AM, William Jordan wjordan...@gmail.com wrote:
Continuing my discussion about how badly SIP is designed, I'm gonna talk
about the via line. First of all each via line can be expressed as via: OR
v: OR you can have multiple via entries on the same line separated by
On Jan 5, 2013, at 3:13 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Hi Mikael
Also what it means following things in it that is not RFC2119 language.
It will mean, you should understand me/english/ietf/procedure even if
I don't have to
On Jan 5, 2013, at 10:03 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
And, again, that is further complicated by the observation that
IETF Standards are used for procurement and even for litigation
about product quality. We either need to accept that fact and,
where necessary, adjust our
On Jan 7, 2013, at 4:53 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
Speaking as both a reviewer and an author, I would like
to ground this thread to some form of reality.
Can anyone point to specific cases where absence or over
use of an RFC2119 key word caused an interoperability
On Jan 8, 2013, at 12:57 PM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
but the question of
error in process is; does the RFC lack communication requirement with
the community?
Sorry if not clear. I mean that as some participant are requesting a
scientific approach to
On Jan 4, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
Looking in Google Earth, you'll still need a car. Even with those hotels that
are within walking distance, there are big stretches of road without any
sidewalks.
Having a car won't do any good. There is, as far as I can
Well, I've learned some things here, and shall attempt to summarize:
1) First. the 1 key is really close to the 2 key, and my spell-checker
doesn't care. Apparently, I'm not alone in this problem.
2) We're all over the map in our use of 2119 language, and it is creating many
headaches beyond
I've always held to the idea that RFC 2119 language is for defining levels of
compliance to requirements, and is best used very sparingly (as recommended in
RFC 2119 itself). To me, RFC 2119 language doesn't make behavior normative --
rather, it describes the implications of doing something
On Dec 9, 2012, at 11:46 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi Dean,
At 08:55 09-12-2012, Dean Willis wrote:
A couple of years back we had some discussion about the need to design IETF
protocols to be DPI resistant. One principle that I think should guide our
efforts is that not only should
something we're still working on its bis, would be a full standard
(which might be revised by a proposed standard replacement as we make
more progress on it).
--
Dean Willis
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
box) for signing us up to this venue. And I want a
travel budget no larger than mine for the people we send to future meetings.
If we can't find a reasonably inexpensive place to have a meeting, DON'T
HAVE THE MEETING!
--
Dean Willis
___
Ietf
On 8/30/11 2:08 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
Because the current suggestion -- which turns RFC writing into the game
Taboo [1], but with incredibly common English words [2] as the
forbidden list -- is ridiculous on its face.
Don't use requirements language unless you absolutely have to.
Otherwise,
On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:00 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
On 8/8/2011 2:56 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Nothing is a reasonable walk when the average temperature is 32 C.
At least not for the average IETF attendee.
Just to add a little perspective for the Celsius-challenged ;-), 32C =
89.6F. Warm, but
the
limitations of DNS (some people still want requester-variant answers), it works
pretty well now.
But yes, there's more to effective target resolution than just saying Use SRV
records. Especially if you have multiple protocol choices, proxies, aliases,
and TLS in the mix.
--
Dean Willis
On Mar 22, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
I'm sorry I'm late, this thread was in my backlog.
We now have an obscurity-inter...@ietf.org list for further discussion if you
wish to join us there.
On 12.03.2011 19:48, Dean Willis wrote:
On a related note, we've developed what
spamming here.
--
Dean Willis
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
We've set up a mailing list obscurity-inter...@ietf.org.
You can sign up at:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/obscurity-interest
or the usual way, by sending an email with subscribe in the body to
obscurity-interest-requ...@ietf.org
We'll be trying to get together in Prague. According
On Mar 14, 2011, at 5:17 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Privacy and obscurity are tools that cut both ways. It can protect legitimate
communications from evil regimes, but it can also shield illegal behavior
from the law, or privacy violations commited by applications, or services
Several people suggested i throw a Doodle poll together for gauging the best
time to get together. I'm not a big Doodle user, but here's a first try:
http://www.doodle.com/ikbeihxb2ny539wr
And yeah, Doodle is probably leaking ostensibly private information. Sometimes,
its worth it; that's
statement, into the very fabric of our belief system,
just as Liberté, égalité, fraternité became the driving motto of the Third
Republic of France, ending much of the abuse of Privilege that preceded the
revolution.
--
Dean Willis
___
Ietf mailing list
On Mar 11, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I'm also okay with air-dropping satellite terminals and television receivers
to their victims, and with beaming high-power wireless signals across their
borders in order to speed things up.
And how likely are those things to actually
On Mar 11, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
1) WPA/WPA2 is not an end to end protocol by any stretch of imagination.
It is link layer security.
It is a 100% end-to-end security protocol.
I'm reminded of those signs saying Repent! The end is closer
mailing list. This
will be announced on ietf@ietf.org when complete. In the interim, if you're
interested in participating, please let me know and I can administratively
pre-load you on the list.
--
Dean Willis
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf
On Mar 10, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
This will have the effect of isolating some companies and countries from the
Internet. Is that a good outcome?
You mean some third-world (or soon to be) junta-dictator might officially and
deliberately cut their economy off from the
Marc suggested:
I any case, may I suggest a Bar BOF in Prague? Plotting revolutions in
coffeehouses is a very old tradition.
Excellent idea. Perhaps this should be plotted over jasmine tea instead of
coffee...
The point I really want to stress is that we must stop deliberately
designing
the goal is
worthwhile. And it's probably safer than standing in front of a tank or a
camel-cavalry charge, although less likely to get you remembered. Yet others
may ask why this proposal is made now, rather than the first of
next month. To them, I say that timing is everything.
--
Dean Willis
patents.
--
Dean Willis
--- Original message ---
From: Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve) steve.trowbri...@alcatel-lucent.com
Cc: ietf-...@ietf.org, p...@ietf.org, adrian.far...@huawei.com,
i...@core3.amsl.com, andrew.g.ma...@verizon.com, stbry...@cisco.com
Sent: 14.4.'10, 8:47
Hi all,
In IEEE
, not because somebody
paid me to cheat on the idea I thought was right.
--
Dean Willis
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Apr 8, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
Hi Fred,
Would you really expect me not to throw my weight (assuming there
were one) behind the proposal I fought teeth and claws before—and
damage my relationship with my new employer during the first days on
the job?
Yep. If you
On Apr 6, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 6 apr 2010, at 18:16, Mark Atwood wrote:
Cisco, IBM, MCI, or Linden Lab are not a members of the IETF. No
agency of the US government, or of any other government, is a
member of the IETF. No university, non-profit, PIRG, PAC, or
On Apr 2, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
So, with all this discussion, I'm still not clear what to expect.
When I walk up to a train ticket kiosk in Schiphol, should I expect
to be able to use my US-issued, non-chip credit card (AMEX, VISA - I
don't care as long as *one* of them
On Mar 30, 2010, at 4:55 AM, Robert Kisteleki wrote:
On 2010.03.30. 11:41, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'll prepare information about all of this as soon as I know the
transition status during the IETF week. And in any event, there are
no
early booking / online booking discounts for Dutch
Greg Daley wrote:
I would actually not encourage IETF to work on such a technology as this,
particularly in the lead-up to IETF Beijing. That would be a serious affront
to our hosts. It is quite important to ensure that the IETF particularly is
not
subject to any external party's agenda
On Jan 21, 2010, at 7:51 PM, Greg Daley wrote:
I think that whetever the reason, documents submitted to the IETF
are less likely to become standards track RFCs if there is critical
IPR which must be licensed in order to construct the protocol.
As somebody who makes a living explaining
On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 10:32 PM -0600 1/10/10, Dean Willis wrote:
Very interesting, from an IETF-hosting perspective.
snarkI cannot imagine going to an IETF meeting and not being able
to read Wired magazine while I am there./snark
So, are there likely
On Jan 11, 2010, at 12:41 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Many of us have been to China multiple times. I am not aware of
anyone who has been granted a business or professional visa, and
who has gone and behaved professionally, having nearly the
problems with entry or exit that have been typical of
On Jan 11, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Dean,
Get real. When have you EVER had any reading material inspected by ANY
authority ANYWHERE in the world? OK, so I am not aware of your
particular reading habits and yes, I *can* imagine that *some*
material *might* attract the attention of
On Jan 11, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Methinks you are implicitly suggesting that the IETF's pages for a
site should include some getting along in the site's country
guidance as an on-going requirement. Methinks this is an excellent
idea.
Happily, Doing Business in...
According to this article (links to Wired):
http://snurl.com/u1gr0
Wired Magazine was or is being blocked by the Chinese national
firewall, and they don't know why.
Very interesting, from an IETF-hosting perspective.
--
Dean
___
Ietf mailing
On Jan 5, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:
At this point an audio codec is going to have to save a huge amount
ot
bandwidth to be worth the hassle, let alone the cost of using
encumbered technology.
Its not about the bandwidth. Its about the quality of the voice in
occasionally
On Oct 25, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
Not in the IPv6 address space, anyway. And if it is, there's
something wrong and we should put it right.
Just been reading IAB's commentary on IPv6 NAT. It seems to me that
we are perpetuating the worst technology in existence
On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
...
Perhaps the latter suggests a way for the IAOC to think about
this. Assume that, however unlikely it is, the meeting were
called off mid-way and that every IETF participant who attended
sued the IASA to recover the costs of leaving China
On Fri, October 2, 2009 3:55 pm, Noel Chiappa wrote:
It's not clear that (self-)censorship is going to be the worst problem
from
an IETF in the PRC. One of the things I would be most concerned about is
the
PRC government using this meeting for propoganda purposes (either
internal,
or
On Sep 28, 2009, at 8:07 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
A number of people have indicated that they believe the draft
contract language is standard, and required by the government.
It occurs to me that we should try to obtain copies of the exact
language used for meetings by other
On Sep 28, 2009, at 2:19 AM, Health wrote:
I have enjoy many IETF meetings, I have no discussion viloations of
Chinese law.
I'm tempted to ask Are you sure? Or have they just not arrested you
yet? but that would be far too melodramatic, so I'll let it stand
without comment.
many
On Sep 28, 2009, at 8:44 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net
wrote:
A number of people have indicated that they believe the draft
contract
language is standard, and required by the government.
It occurs to me that we should try to obtain
Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
I propose an experiment, lets have a meeting if it gets shut down
we will never return to China.
Unfortunately, if my math is right, if the meeting were shut down and
the IETF paid out the damages that such a contract would appear to
require, we'd be bankrupt and
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009, Dean Willis wrote:
Because China's policy on censoring the Internet sucks, and we have
a moral and ethical responsibility to make the Internet available
despite that policy. If this requires technology changes, then that
technology is within our
On Sep 27, 2009, at 9:17 PM, Health wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Dean Willis dean.wil...@softarmor.com
To: Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com
Cc: IETF-Discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning
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.
With that said, it's not clear to me that
On Sep 22, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
On 9/18/09 14:02, Sep 18, Paul Wouters wrote:
Pre-emptively excluding countries based on culture, (perceived) bias,
or other non-technical and non-organisation arguments is wrong. So
if the
visa issues are not much worse then for other
On Sep 22, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
You said:
Because in the free world, defaming the government, disrespecting a
culture, discussing human rights, and discussing religion might be
rude, or they might be the subjects of perfectly appropriate academic
discussions, but they are not
On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Disruptive as defined by whom? It seems to me that the contract we
might
sign cedes the definition of disruptive to a government about whose
laws
we know very little. Do correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know
the IETF has never
as a political target than a
meeting of the full IETF would be.
--
Dean Willis
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Finally, do you think that, in this group of people, there won't be
at least one who cannot resist stating their opinions about some
political hot button? Or for that matter, figure out they can DoS
the entire IETF by throwing up a
we feel
about it.
--
Dean Willis
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Sep 13, 2009, at 11:22 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
How is any of this relevant to an EXPERIMENT ???
A maxim about experimentation: If the design of and data resulting
from any experiment are made available, people may use these results
to test hypotheses that were not necessarily
On Sep 14, 2009, at 12:41 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
It means that the data will be deleted at the end of the expiriment
once the analysis is done. Educated guess: within 30 days of the end
of the meeting, I know how busy the folkds running the meeting are.
The bluesheets, on the other hand, are
On Sep 12, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Ole Jacobsen ole at cisco dot com wrote:
I am also not sure what value there is in knowing that
3478273983421 spent 10 minutes in trill and then moved on to behave
(pun intended).
To amplify, I'm not sure why the security risks of being
On Sep 11, 2009, at 10:24 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Hi,
It occurs to me that a small but potentially meaningful thing that
the IETF could do to push IPv6 adoption is move RFC 2460 from draft
standard to standard.
But it's not obsolete yet. How can we possibly make something that
On Sep 4, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 07:43:15AM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
Yes. I checked Sept 14-18. Try it yourself, I expect you'll get the
same results...
I don't understand why the rate during another period is relevant to
the rate we might get.
to the
world's tyrants just because they're the only ones who can be bothered
to show up at meetings.
Perhaps there is a principle here that should be coded into noncom
procedures, althoug I'm not sure how to state it explicitly.
--
Dean Willis
___
Ietf
On Jun 4, 2009, at 9:24 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Thanks for review ... just wanted to respond to one point in this.
On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:47 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
C5. User Identity Protection: The location URI MUST NOT contain
information that identifies the user or device.
On May 25, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
The Hague, largest room: 2161 (30 min by train from Schiphol + tram
or taxi)
http://www.worldforumcc.com/wfcc/uk/factsfigures_uk/capaciteitenov_uk.html
The Hague is easy to get to. I attended an ISOC meeting there last
fall, and
as native
and non-native SIP is better expressed in terms of whether or not the
originating party can be strongly authenticated. We know this is a
problem for PSTN cases, and we don't have a good general answer.
--
Dean Willis
former SIP WG chair
___
Ietf
services, name defaults, and so on to
consider as options).
Even with this sort of model, I am not confident at our ability to
achieve success, at least without even more substantive reductions in
the scope of the effort.
Can we narrow it down some more?
--
Dean Willis
aspect of every RFC would just shut the organization down.
--
Dean Willis
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Mar 4, 2009, at 3:43 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
Putting aside whether I could buy such a machine, and assuming
taking it out of the US would be OK policy-wise (that I'd have
to check, I suspect it's within the letter but not the spirit
of the policy) as soon as it's outside the
by software erasing, beating them with a sledgehammer,
degaussing, baking in a ceramics kiln, degaussing again, and then
beating with a sledgehammer again. Worried about what might be
recoverable from those drives?
--
Dean Willis
___
Ietf mailing
them from claiming that you had a
writable device in your possession, then planting one there. Given
sufficient paranoia in one's threat model, there's just no way to
justify waking up in the morning.
--
Dean Willis
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf
On Jan 21, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
At 11:58 PM 1/20/2009, Dean Willis wrote:
Given that we've historically weeded out the contributor-list on a
document to four or less, even if there were really dozens of
contributors at the alleged insistence of the RFC Editor, I don't
see
On Jan 23, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Given the wide nature of what is a contributor, I would think that
*any* cautious document editor would want this boilerplate in their
document for *any* effort that has any contributions that might have
been made before 2008-11-10. Is
On Jan 24, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 10:39 AM -0700 1/24/09, Doug Ewell wrote:
John Levine johnl at iecc dot com wrote:
Nonetheless, I can't help but seeing angels dancing on pins here.
We're worrying about situations in which someone contributes
material to the IETF that
On Jan 12, 2009, at 4:15 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
The RFC Editor is asking the authors. That is the list of people
that is readily available. If the authors cannot speak for all
Contributors, then the document will have to wait until a work-
around is found.
Given that we've
On Jul 24, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
As I have done for previous IETFs I just ran getdrafts
(http://tools.ietf.org/tools/getdrafts/) on the entire agenda
and what follows is the output. As you can see, a pretty substantial
number of WGs are without agendas, about 10% of the drafts
On Jun 25, 2008, at 7:46 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
I was about to write something like that to Scott; thanks for making
it unnecessary.
My additional comment is that if there is some case I can think of
that leads me to say should, there might also be another that I
didn't think of. Asking
On May 21, 2008, at 4:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So we have reinvented STUN?
No, we've moved the state of STUN into each of the routers between the
two hosts, and have to hope we don't have a route flap somewhere.
It's sort of like RSVP.
--
Dean
On Feb 1, 2008, at 2:18 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
Ok, hands up (off-list) everyone who's interested in an IETF golf
competition or just casual golf :-) ?
Ok, if IETFers are playing golf en-masse, I'm bringing a video camera
to the first hole to film tee-off bloopers.
I was traumatized for
On Jan 31, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote:
The venue will be the beautiful Citywest Hotel, Ireland’s premier
Conference, Leisure Golf Resort and one of Europe’s most popular
International Conference destinations. The four star Citywest Hotel
is only 20km from Dublin airport and
87 matches
Mail list logo
