Folks -
As a result of the Internet's growing social and economic importance, the
underlying
Internet structures are receiving an increasing level of attention by both
governments
and civil society. The recent revelations regarding US government surveillance
of
the Internet are now
On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to start, there is no clear consensus of what Internet Governance
means and entails.
You are correct. The term Internet Governance is a term of art, and a poor
one
at that. It is the term that governments like to use,
On Aug 4, 2013, at 2:20 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
I also note that the 1 week cutoff that Michael suggests would,
in most cases, eliminate had no choice without impeding WG
progress as an excuse. A week in advance of the meeting, there
should be time, if necessary to find
On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:11 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
That's true, but cool URIs don't change:
http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html
Even cooler would have been URN's (e.g. urn:ietf:enterprise-numbers),
which was designed specifically as a persistent handle to
Jari -
Thanks for the excellent writeup of the situation; the hypothesis
regarding the problem and the experiment to address look to be a
an appropriate response.
Thanks!
/John
On Jul 29, 2013, at 5:07 AM, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote:
I would like to report an experiment that the
On Jun 27, 2013, at 5:50 AM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
Hello,
RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet Architecture
Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF Administrative Oversight
Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled.
On Jun 27, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
Why not just say directly that 'to prevent capture, no more than X% of
the NomCom may work for a single organization' (where X is 15% or so, so
that even if a couple collude, they still can't get control).
There are
On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:43 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
...
The point, Warren (and others) is that all of these are ICANN
doing technical stuff and even technical standards in a broad
sense of that term. Some of it is stuff that the IETF really
should not want to do (I'm
On Jun 21, 2013, at 2:56 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
While I agree with the above (and am still trying to avoid
carrying this conversation very far on the IETF list), I think
another part of the puzzle is that there are also situations in
which technical considerations imply
On Jun 1, 2013, at 2:52 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
On the technical side, I believe that there was a general belief
in 1993 that we would be able to map out a unified, clear, transition
strategy for IPv6 and give simple advice about it.
John is correct in terms of belief
On Jun 2, 2013, at 10:15 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Saturday, June 01, 2013 11:28 -0400 Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net
wrote:
...
It turns out that as soon as you envisage a network in which
some nodes only support 32 bit addresses and other nodes
can't get a globally
On May 15, 2013, at 7:50 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
So lets play a little hypothetical here; What if an RIR or ICANN through a
global policy decided Whois Data no longer should be public for overriding
privacy reasons. My read of Section 5, is that would be proper path for such
On Apr 8, 2013, at 9:06 AM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
3. Regarding Public WHOIS in section 4; The constituencies and stakeholders
for Public WHOIS are much broader than just the technical community, a number
of constituencies in civil society have legitimate interests in Public
On Mar 29, 2013, at 4:13 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
My belief is that IP address reputation has always been flakey, it's just
vastly more so with IPv6.
What we need is a way to identify a entity subnet size. This work is
probably wasted on IPv4, but it's definitely
On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
My habit is to have the document source (and rendered copy) open on my screen
as I read and digest comments. If I make a change to the document following
someone's comment, I add them to the Acknowledgements section (and
On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:42 AM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
You mean the editors of this draft (I will note them as not
acknowledging participants, for my future review). I am a MANET WG
participants, but if you mention the names that made efforts it is
more true because
On Mar 21, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
...
Another result is that the Internet architecture has gone to hell, and we're
now spending a huge amount of effort building kludges to fix the problems
associated with other kludges and the new kludges will
On Mar 22, 2013, at 2:49 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
I don't think we're in disagreement. I think that more diversity in IETF
would help minimize the risk that some interests were shortchanged, but I
certainly agree that another factor is a lack of understanding of,
On Mar 19, 2013, at 9:30 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
I wonder if it wouldn't be appropriate to at least provide some suggestions
for how this is to be accomplished. Maybe request that future RFCs related
to these technical and operational considerations include an applicability
On Mar 20, 2013, at 3:25 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
xxx is obligated to ... wasn't intended as a suggestions for text, but like
I paraphrased the text from the draft above, and I intended it to paraphrase
the the text that needs to be added. The text above quoted from the draft
On Mar 20, 2013, at 4:04 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
I might as well comment quickly about draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00. The draft
is a good effort but it might need more work in my humble opinion.
The intended status is Informational. Is there a reason for that?
The RFC is not
On Mar 20, 2013, at 8:45 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Ok. I'll defer to the learned individuals of the IETF in respect
to the intended status. It is my understanding that the document
also aims to replace BCP 12.
Excellent question; it's my belief that obsoleting RFC2050 would
do that,
22 matches
Mail list logo
