[ietf-privacy] Fwd: [Internet Policy] How a Radio Shack Robbery Could Spur a New Era in Digital Privacy

Interesting article, cross-posted from ISOC Public Policy list > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Richard Hill" > Subject: [Internet Policy] How a Radio Shack Robbery Could Spur a New Era in > Digital Privacy > Date: November 27, 2017 at 3:15:08 AM PST > To:

Re: [ietf-privacy] Checking an old protocol, RTSP

On May 20, 2014, at 11:27 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@huitema.net wrote: I am currently taking a look at RFC 2326: Real Time Streaming Protocol. The design of RTSP/1.0 is pretty close to that of HTTP/1.0, with very similar security and privacy considerations, but RTSP did not evolve as

Re: [ietf-privacy] Lawful Interception (was: In case you haven't seen it yet)

On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:55 AM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote: The end user will usually be at the losing end of the bargain in a tussle between the end user and government when Internet traffic wiretapping is a matter of national security. That depends on context. In a technology

[ietf-privacy] In case you haven't seen it yet

http://windowsitpro.com/identity-management/richard-clarke-rsa-conference-10-observations-us-intelligence-gathering signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ ietf-privacy mailing list ietf-privacy@ietf.org

Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC

On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:56 PM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote: I am not sure whether hums are for a starting point or not. It can be argued in different ways, for example, see Section 4. Humming helps to get a sense of the room without people making a decision under duress.

Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC

On Oct 8, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote: I've done a lot of work on consensus over the years and I think this is fundamentally correct, although I'd amend the last sentence to something along the lines of While we may not all agree, those who disagree can live

Re: Mentoring Electronic Participants [was Invitation to request an IETF mentor]

On Jul 20, 2013, at 5:47 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote: What generally happens when an individual I-D is submitted? Is there an overseer of the submissions and decides there is something that interest the IETF? Hmm. Define IETF. It is in some sense an organization (I call it a

Re: RSOC Appointments

Congratulations, gentlemen. On Jun 24, 2013, at 5:35 PM, IAB Chair iab-ch...@iab.org wrote: Nevil Brownlee, Tony Hansen, Joe Hildebrandt, Bob Hinden, Alexey Melnikov, Bernard Aboba (an IAB member), and Joel Halpern (an IAB member).

Re: IETF, ICANN and Whois (Was Re: Last Call: draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)

On Jun 18, 2013, at 11:25 PM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote: I think this is the correct strategy, BUT, I see as a very active participant in ICANN (chair of SSAC) that work in ICANN could be easier if some more technical standards where developed in IETF, and moved forward along

Re: Is the IETF is an international organization? (was: IETF Diversity)

On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:26 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote: At 08:02 20-06-2013, Mark Nottingham wrote: Keep in mind that you're talking to an organisation that believes that Vancouver qualifies as Asia. That should be added to the Tao. :-) At 08:24 20-06-2013, John C Klensin wrote:

Re: IETF Diversity vs. White Male ??

On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Aaron Yi DING yd...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote: Well, if the dominant ones later being replaced by other groups, do we need to revamp again? What will be the end? I'm told that white babies are now a minority of the population in the US.

Re: Time in the Air

On May 31, 2013, at 7:03 AM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: clearly, all IETF meetings should be in Cape Town, Wellington, or Perth, because more time in the air means more time without interruption where drafts can be read before the meeting. Heavens no. All meetings should be in Santa

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

On May 23, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote: I am not expecting to agree with me as I do not agree that we only contribute to standards development. I agree with the substance of Donald's comment. Let me talk for a moment about Adelaide. In March 2000, the

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

On May 23, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Mark Nottingham m...@mnot.net wrote: On 24/05/2013, at 9:06 AM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote: I took the perspective that on our 40th meeting, we could have 1/40 in a place that we had a few faithful participants that was well out of the way

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

On May 23, 2013, at 10:04 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Thu, 23 May 2013, Jorge Amodio wrote: One thing that could help is if some companies like Cisco, Google, Juniper, etc, with presence in the region start sponsoring some individuals that have been participating

Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process]

On May 16, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote: On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments during working group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm some of the WG participants and she may dominate the WG consensus. There may be

Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process]

On May 16, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote: There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs. Other concerns raised during IETF LC may lead to revised I-Ds, which the ADs will need to re-read (or at least look at the diff). I don't know how

Long review tail

I your blog, you wrote: Having been involved in the process for many years, often the bigger changes at this stage relate to cross-area issues, or the fact that the careful reviews from the IETF last call, directorates, and 15 ADs often represents a significant increase in the number of

Re: Long review tail

On May 2, 2013, at 8:12 AM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote: When asked if more could be done, (without any specific proposal for what to do) the response was that increasing the workload would maybe lead to a significant drop in that 80% figure since secdir folks are also

Re: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: draft-sheffer-running-code-04.txt (Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to Experimental RFC

On Apr 26, 2013, at 2:12 AM, Yaron Sheffer yaronf.i...@gmail.com wrote: - There should be long-term commitment to maintain the data. I think we simply don't have such processes in place, and personally I don't want to even try to deal with this problem. I suspect that we'd have to

Re: Last Call: draft-sheffer-running-code-04.txt (Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to Experimental RFC

On Apr 12, 2013, at 2:57 PM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: Abstract This document describes a simple process that allows authors of Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by including an Implementation Status section. This will allow reviewers

Re: Purpose of IESG Review

On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: On 15/04/2013 15:23, Ted Lemon wrote: ... So in practice, although I feel great sympathy for this position, I think it's mistaken. I want the other ADs to comment on anything that they notice that looks

Re: Purpose of IESG Review

On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review by the IESG does serve a

Re: Purpose of IESG Review

In my opinion, some individual ADs seem to, from their behavior, feel that they have not done their jobs unless they have raised a discuss. The one that took the cake for me personally was a discuss raised by a particular AD (who shall remain nameless) that in essence wondered what he should

Re: Mentoring

On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:03 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: I think it might also be worth encouraging working group chairs to have working group breakfast or lunch meetings (RSVP required) where newcomers are invited to come meet the chairs and chairs can strategically invite a few

Re: Consensus on the responsibility for qualifications? (Was: Re: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications)

On Mar 13, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote: Dave, all, We talked about this in the Monday plenary. Obviously people have read or understood the situation in different ways. But that should not stop us from reaching a common understanding of the situation now that

Re: Mentoring

On Mar 14, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Scott Brim s...@internet2.edu wrote: On 03/14/13 08:23, Mary Barnes allegedly wrote: One question I have is whether there isn't a list for newcomers to ask questions that some of us can be on to help them before they get to the meeting? like Yes, like One

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

On Mar 10, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote: On 3/10/2013 5:22 AM, IETF Diversity wrote: I'm listed as a signatory and agree that this is important. There are several steps that could be taken, in the short-term within our existing BCPs, to address this

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

On Mar 10, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote: On 3/10/2013 5:22 AM, IETF Diversity wrote: I'm listed as a signatory and agree that this is important. There are several steps that could be taken, in the short-term within our existing BCPs, to address this

IETF Challenges - DTN and the Internet of Stuff

From my perspective, an important technical challenge in coming years might be a variation on delay-tolerant networking. We have done a fair bit of work in this area, for some definition of we - SOAP, Saratoga, and the NASA/JPL DTNrg work. As Dave Crocker likes to point out, we actually have a

Re: IETF Challenges

On Mar 2, 2013, at 12:35 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote: If the IETF has become very international it would be apparent from the mailing list archives. A quick look would show that there weren't any messages from people from China or Japan [1]. I'd suggest you redo your analysis. It

Re: Showing support during IETF LC...

On Feb 23, 2013, at 6:41 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: First, no objection and silence by IESG members are roughly equivalent, but approval of a document with complete community silence (either outside the relevant WG or on an individual submission) makes some ADs nervous (and,

Re: IETF chair's blog

Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. could be the next steps. Let's embrace new tools to collaborate. Let's not. Collaboration based on software running on servers run by the IETF or a contractor payed by the IETF is fine. Using collaboration tools owned by the entities you listed, or similar

Re: I-D affects another or work in ietf groups

Speaking for myself, I would say that an internet draft is relevant to work in a working group if and only if it is covered by the charter of the working group. Anyone can claim anything to dodge the requirement that they ask relevant groups to review it. That doesn't make the claim true. In

Re: The RFC Acknowledgement

On Feb 8, 2013, at 7:55 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: My personal instincts as an author run somewhat closer to Melinda's criterion than to Don's but my bigger concern is that trying to make specific rules about this will result in an extended rat hole tour that ends up with

Re: WCIT outcome?

On Jan 1, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote: Was D.1 to ease wire tapping? By example, I, as a mail server operator who is not a telecom, am not required by my country's laws to provide an instrumentation whereby authorized investigators can obtain a list of a user's

Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)

On Dec 2, 2012, at 10:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: We have non-native english speakers and remote participants both working at a disadvantage to follow the discussion in the room. We should make it harder for them by removing the pretext that the discussion is structured around material

Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)

On Nov 29, 2012, at 12:03 PM, SM wrote: According to some RFC: All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before a session starts. If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submissions

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

This note is rather lighter in weight and tone than its predecessor, and seems like a good direction. One suggestion: it would be good for the reference to BCP 79 be accompanied, at least in the web page in question, with a link to the BCP (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt). I could imagine

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: This note is rather lighter in weight and tone than its predecessor, and seems like a good direction. Can you explain your reasoning why this seems like a good direction. Not being a lawyer, I

Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: I also offer my signature under the recall procedure, in case pragmatism doesn't prevail (see my other note). My offer of signature should in no way be interpreted as reflecting an opinion about Marshall's character. Ditto, and Ditto.

Re: I-D Action: draft-jaeggli-interim-observations-00.txt

On Oct 17, 2012, at 4:19 AM, Randy Bush wrote: o Co-location with RIPE appeared useful. I agree with you Joel that tighter packing would have made a difference. I met some people who noted they will not attend, but probably would have attended if it was during the week. Co-locating

Re: IETF 92 in Dallas!

On Aug 15, 2012, at 8:37 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: So Americas was actually North America. Well, it went the possibility to have one in central or south america, what at shame. At least until IETF 98 in March 2017 no IETF down the south of Rio Grande. May I ask the

Re: Proposed IETF 95 Date Change

On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote: On 7/20/12 09:06 , IETF Administrative Director wrote: 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.

Re: Proposed IETF 95 Date Change

On Jul 20, 2012, at 11:37 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: I don't understand why this issue is coming up. Maybe you don't know, IETF 84 falls in the month of Ramadan for Muslims and nobody asked to change it? Two comments, a question, and a suggestion. One, the muslims in the crowd had the

Re: Proposed IETF 95 Date Change

On Jul 20, 2012, at 6:08 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: As for the Ramadan issue: we've had IETF meetings during Jewish holidays a few times, and folks dealt with it as best they can. If there are some accommodations that can be made at any IETF meeting for different holidays of major religions,

Re: Making the Tao a web page

On May 31, 2012, at 4:04 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: Simpler than the above: make it a web page (as Brian points out, we already have a good URL), have one editor, have one leadership person who approves non-trivial changes (I think IETF Chair fits here well), have a last modified date on it,

Re: IANA [Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]

On May 31, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Thierry Moreau wrote: Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2012-05-31 09:24, SM wrote: ... In Section 3.2.3: Approves the appointment of the IANA Isn't IANA more of a U.S. Government decision? The IAB decides who acts as the IETF's IANA. RFC 2860 again. Brian

Re: Last Call: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

I don't want participants to think that they can't bring up the issue of violation without some sort of burden of proof. Hmm. I'm concerned about people bringing baseless accusations, as yet another way to DOS a WG with IPR. If a person believes that there is a violation that is worthy of

Re: a favor from the list about Jon Postel

question: would it be helpful to report or block the page? On May 8, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Joe Touch wrote: Hi, all, My apologies for contacting this list with a non-IETF issue, but since this community knew Jon well, I'm asking for its help (among others). --- There is a Facebook page

Re: IETF posting delays

On May 7, 2012, at 7:48 AM, Hector Santos wrote: Randy Bush wrote: indeed, the following line in your header was the clue. X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 May 2012 12:10:17 -0700 That is interesting, I didn't had this line in the header. Strange. that is because you posted from the

Re: 'Geek' image scares women away from tech industry ? The Register

On Apr 30, 2012, at 2:03 AM, Riccardo Bernardini wrote: I understand that this was the result of a high-level dialogue (whatever that means) among few (how many?) people. This reminds me of the the Emperor of China nose length problem http://imaginatorium.org/stuff/nose.htm I expected

Re: 'Geek' image scares women away from tech industry ? The Register

On Apr 30, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Ofer Inbar wrote: This PBS interview with Harvey Mudd president Maria Klawe, on the subject of why fewer women go into tech engineering fields, is worth watching: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/video/blog/2012/04/college_president_discusses_wo.html This is

Re: ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check Improving HTTP starts with speed.

On Mar 29, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: From the way you have posted your messages so far it seems likely that you do not able to develop a consistent story. Please don't feed the troll.

Re: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful

On Mar 19, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: I've obviously not been doing all my homework, and RFC 4007 slipped my attention. Worse, for all the communication my IPv6 nodes are doing amongst themselves using link-local addresses, it's never really been much more than a

Re: IPv6 Zone Identifiers Considered Hateful

On Mar 21, 2012, at 10:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: In other words if the IETF doesn't define the zone index, every implementor will have to do so anyway. Also, read the last clause carefully: it says the stack MUST allow OPTIONAL use of the zone index internally. Implementors generally

Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?

The question I would ask is: who are the vendors marketing to, and what are they selling? At NANOG, that's fairly clear; companies like Cisco and Juniper, and resellers like Network Hardware, are selling to their customers, who are often technical decision makers or senior staff in companies

Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?

On Mar 16, 2012, at 2:13 PM, David Meyer wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote: The question I would ask is: who are the vendors marketing to, and what are they selling? At NANOG, that's fairly clear; companies like Cisco and Juniper, and resellers like

Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?

On Mar 16, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: But these are worth pursuing only if the community is comfortable with the basic idea of doing this kind of event. I'm willing to do the experiment.

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

What specifically would you like changed in the draft? Can you suggest text? On Feb 8, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote: The IESG again decided it needed a revised draft, and that draft - in large part, a rewrite

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:57 PM, Erik Kline wrote: World IPv6 Launch changes the relevance of this document greatly, I think. Since this would be published after the announcement of World IPv6 Launch, I think the document should be updated to discuss its own applicability in a post- World IPv6

FCC Names Henning Schulzrinne Chief Technology Officer

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-names-henning-schulzrinne-chief-technology-officer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF rules and procedures - conditions to attribute credit

On Dec 9, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote: I couldn’t find any particular rule for mentioning credits (or not). I guess this might have had a relation to some rights related issues? Can anyone help here e.g. a pointer to a document? Or this is just best practices between

Re: Errata against RFC 5226 rejected

On Dec 8, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Russ Housley wrote: Errata 2684 was entered against RFC 5226, Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs. After discussion with one of the RFC authors and IANA staff, I rejected the errata. The errata author is saying that in many

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

On Nov 28, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: I don't know what an antitrust policy is... Could you explain? Is this something like a conflict of interest policy? Or is it a policy to avoid situations where we might be engaging in some sort of collusion? I'm not Russ, but

Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

In my opinion, having a designated space is better than squat space, given that we we already know that squat space is being used. The argument that it extends the life of IPv4 is, IMHO, of limited value; yes, it allows operators to keep their IPv4 service running; given the number of CPE

Re: Avian news

On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 11/17/2011 8:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Please see the reader comment by Oor Nonny-Muss on this story to understand its relevance to the IETF. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/16/salad_leaf_turns_out_to_be_dead_bird/

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

On Oct 27, 2011, at 2:54 AM, SM wrote: There isn't any requirement for a BoF to form a WG. I think you're saying that there shouldn't be; at this instant, there actually is such a requirement. What there isn't a requirement for is a Bar BOF (and I would argue that there *is* a requirement

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

Sounds like I made an error... On Oct 27, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: On Oct 27, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Fred Baker wrote: I think you're saying that there shouldn't be; at this instant, there actually is such a requirement. Either you are incorrect, or the new MILE WG was chartered

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: (e.g., the NomCom schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year). no problem. We stop having the nomcom. (he ducks) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Ping Pan wrote: the original issue remains: please make IETF meetings easier and cheaper for us to go to. ;-) I think that a lot of people would like that. There are a number of problems that need to be solved to make them cheaper to attend. One is the issue

Re: watersprings.org archive of expired Internet Drafts

To make my own mirror of such on my laptop, I rsync -avz rsync.tools.ietf.org::tools.id /Users/fred/all-drafts/id I maintain an RFC mirror, a current draft mirror, and an expired draft mirror for my own use. On Sep 30, 2011, at 10:34 AM, Tony Finch wrote: I have been using the

Re: Expiring a publication - especially standards track documents which are abandoned

On Oct 5, 2011, at 3:58 AM, Gellens, Randall wrote: I don't understand this aspect. If an RFC is deployed, even widely deployed, but no new extensions are being done, and no developers are clamoring for changes, you want to move it to Historic? Yes. He misses the point of what we do. We do

Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

On Sep 6, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: The IESG has been working to the assumption that Proposed Standards will be widely deployed into all environments for a long time. That may well be an appropriate response to the deployment practice (heck, if the internet runs on internet

Re: Discuss criteria for documents that advance on the standards track

On Aug 30, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Keith Moore wrote: My understanding was always that DISCUSS was supposed to be an indication that, at a minimum, the AD needs to understand the situation better before casting a yea or nay vote. The resolution of a DISCUSS might end up being a yes vote, a no

Re: Agenda known in advance? was Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

On Aug 23, 2011, at 6:48 AM, IETF Chair wrote: The important dates page for the meeting http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2011.html#IETF82 shows a date for the draft agenda and a date for the final agenda. We try very hard to make no changes after the final agenda date. Sometimes

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

On Aug 23, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Thomas Nadeau wrote: But surely based on that block purchasing power we could negotiate more reasonable rates than $200+ night? Well, the Cisco corporate rate at the Hyatt is also $265/night. Given that the hotel is around the corner from the Cisco

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

On Aug 23, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: Are we really committing? Yes, the IETF block in the primary hotel fills in my experience, but if it doesn't, is the IETF committing to paying the difference? yes. ___ Ietf mailing list

Re: Queen Sirikit National Convention Center

On Aug 7, 2011, at 5:25 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: In fact, the walk from the Hilton to the Quebec Conference Centre was pretty close to 1km ? It was out the lobby behind the restaurant and down two escalators. Even if you walked across the courtyard at street level and then wandered

Re: 6to4v2 (as in ripv2)?

On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long term future *by definition*. Even if someone chooses to design a v2, who is going to implement it? Actually, I think one could argue pretty effectively that 6rd is 6to4-bis.

Re: Repetitions and consensus

On Jul 11, 2011, at 10:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: We quite often discuss here how to judge rough consensus. In a completely non-IETF context, I came upon a reference to an article published in 2007 with the catchy title Inferring the Popularity of an Opinion From Its Familiarity: A

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

I think that there are three sets of proposed state changes - what the author would like to do, what the working group if any agrees to do, and what the IESG wants to instruct the RFC Editor should ultimately be done. There is no reason they all have to be the same. For example, a document

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

On May 17, 2011, at 12:49 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 5/16/2011 6:44 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: By my observation, what is being done, satisfactorily meets the dictionary definition of a whitelist. the term was uncontroversial in the dicussion The working group is what statistical research

Re: New I-D Submission Tool Installed

On Apr 12, 2011, at 11:43 AM, IETF Chair wrote: A major update to the Internet-Draft Submission Tool has just been installed. For those of you that have experienced trouble in the past, we expect this update to solve your problems. All of the I-Ds that have required manual processing by

Re: Buckets of spam coming through IETF lists

On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:28 PM, John R. Levine wrote: Some clever spambot seems to have scraped a bunch of addresses out of the archives and is sending spam with multiple addresses on the From: line through IETF and IRTF mailing lists. Surely I'm not the only one who's seeing it. DKIM is

Re: Question regarding proceedings

, Fred Baker wrote: I just went to http://www.ietf.org to review the proceedings from IETF 79. It appears that the proceedings have been reorganized. They look great. I'm puzzled. What I was looking for was the minutes from v6ops/IETF-79 and the slideware related to it. I couldn't find

Re: Thank you, IETF!

Jun: Only the Japanese would apologize for focusing their attention at home after a 9.0 earthquake and the tsunami it caused. We wish you well. Fred On Mar 27, 2011, at 6:00 PM, Jun Murai wrote: Dear IETF friends, The national police department of Japan reported on March 26th regarding

Re: Gen-ART LC/Telechat Review of draft-mrw-nat66-08

Thanks. I picked these up in -09, so that there is no issue. On Mar 1, 2011, at 3:32 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq. Please wait for

Re: Question about Prague

On Dec 30, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Robin Uyeshiro wrote: The GPS in the rental car (rented in Munich) did not have the street information for Prague. It's not unusual, or at least it wasn't in 1997, for German rental agencies to not permit driving to the Czech Republic. As stated, my information is

Re: BCP request: WiFi at High-Tech Meetings

I would suggest having it written by Austria Telecom and WIDE. On Dec 29, 2010, at 7:14 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: Time for a BCP? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/technology/29wifi.html?_r=1nl=todaysheadlinesemc=tha25 The problem is that Wi-Fi was never intended for large halls and

Re: Call for Comments: Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions

On Nov 24, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Adam Roach wrote: While section 2.3 of draft-iab-extension-recs-02 can be read as very vaguely pointing away from this kind of extension ([S]pecifications that look very similar to the original but don't interoperate with each other or with the original - are

Re: what is the problem? (was Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels)

On Oct 26, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Action We should adopt Russ's proposal: Axe the DRAFT status and automatically promote all DRAFT status documents to STANDARD status. This can be done formally by changing the process or the IESG can just agree to a convention

Re: [Full-disclosure] IPv6 security myths

I'm not a security guru, and will step aside instantly if someone with those credentials says I'm wrong. However, from my perspective, the assertion that IPv6 had any security properties that differed from IPv4 *at*all* has never made any sense. It is essentially a marketing claim, and - well,

Re: [Full-disclosure] IPv6 security myths

On Oct 25, 2010, at 5:46 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote: Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: In the interest of fair and balanced discussion. It is of course that, merely because IPv6 makes IPsec mandatory, IPv6 can not be more secure than IPv4. But, the real problem of IPsec is that it expected

Re: Extending the Datatracker to display user-specific lists of drafts

On Oct 22, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: Greetings again. There is a new draft that may be of interest to many people in the IETF: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community. The abstract is: The document gives a set of requirements for extending the

Re: can we please postpone the ipv6 post-mortem?

On Oct 14, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: On 10/11/10 7:40 AM, Rémi Després wrote: Le 9 oct. 2010 à 02:50, Fred Baker a écrit : That's not limited to Germany. Would that dtag.de would use 172.16/12 rather than 10/8 or 192.168/16, as the latter two seem to find their way into so

Re: can we please postpone the ipv6 post-mortem?

On Oct 8, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Martin Rex wrote: Huh? Hardly anyone support IPv6 these days. Well, the hardly anyone seems to include all Windows, Macosx, Linux, and Freebsd-based products, and routers from any vendor you care to name. But hardly anyone includes Canon printers like the one

Re: All these discussions about meeting venues

I think it is important for the IAOC to know when there are issues that they need to address, for example the issue with food appropriate to muslims that came up in Dublin. Personally, when I become aware of such issues, I send a note to i...@ietf.org or iaoc-m...@isoc.org, inform them of the

Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's

Please, no. The RFC Series is not a collection of standards. It is community memory, and in it we have white papers that have been seminal such as RFC 970, problem statements, requirements documents, and analyses of a wide variety, all of which are informational. Let me give you two

Re: Is this true?

On Aug 28, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: IPv6 also make IPsec mandatory, which seems a significant change over IPv4, too. I can point to IPv6 implementations that don't have it and IPv4 implementations that do. I've been using IPsec/IPv4 for roughly 15 years. That canard is a

  1   2   3   4   5   >