+1
Very productive venue, easy to access city, several hotels near the venue
for alternatives, walkable area around the venue, lots of options for
restaurants, good public transit system, etc. And I enjoyed the social
social venue as well (thanks DENIC)!
I really do hope we return in the
There must be something similar to Godwin's Law whereby any IETF discussion can
devolve into a debate over NAT. ;-)
Jason
On 7/12/13 10:13 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
hal...@gmail.commailto:hal...@gmail.com wrote:
Keith, read my words, I choose them more carefully than you imagine.
solves their
On 7/12/13 12:24 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
hal...@gmail.commailto:hal...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately the IAB is not going to give that advice. They seem to have
passed on advising ICANN not to issue .corp which is going to be a total
security meltdown.
The report at
On 3/29/13 12:58 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
As a result, it is questionable whether any IPv6 address-based
reputation system can be successful (at least those based on voluntary
principles.)
It can probably work for whitelisting well behaved senders, give or take
the DNS cache
On 1/2/13 1:44 PM, Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
Good... but how to get there?
We appear to be stuck in the middle of a monster hotel with a single
boulevard and nothing at all nearby (except that there is a shuttle
to Disney)
There are some things on the other side of World
Same here. I'm noncom-eligible and suppose the recall.
Jason Livingood
On 11/4/12 11:45 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the information to have a better decision.
I am Nomcom-eligible and you can add me to the signature list.
/Arturo Servin
On
suppose = support (if you were an auto-correct program)
G...
On 11/4/12 5:59 PM, Livingood, Jason jason_living...@cable.comcast.com
wrote:
Same here. I'm noncom-eligible and suppose the recall.
Jason Livingood
On 11/4/12 11:45 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote
BTW, if anyone finds the venue question extremely compelling / interesting
-- consider seeking a spot on the IAOC during the next nominating period.
- Jason
On 8/4/12 1:31 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
However the tendency of the community has been to express preference for
the tourism of going to new places.
If we really want venues to function towards some ideal, we need the
benefit of a multi-visit learning curve.
And it means we
On behalf of the Internet Society¹s Election Committee, I wish to extend
our appreciation and thanks to all of the nominees and final candidates
for the Board of Trustees. We are quite honoured to have such
well-qualified people so interested in serving the Internet Society!
The election results
On 5/10/12 2:30 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
There are times when it is difficult to keep assuming that people are
acting in a responsible fashion given the high levels of
unpleasantness. The situation can be such that simple gentle paths
are ignored.
This is IMO perhaps more a reflection of
On 2/21/12 2:54 AM, Lorenzo Colitti
lore...@google.commailto:lore...@google.com wrote:
I think the suggested change does not go far enough. The high-service-level
domains that prompted this draft to be written, and all the implementers I'm
currently aware of, are decommissioning the practice.
To be more specific, at least section 5.5 (it is unclear how implementers will
judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify
turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing will
be for discontinuing this practice) is now incorrect. It *is*
On 8/23/11 3:09 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
I wouldn't discount the effect of the value of the dollar on hotel rates
as measured in US dollars.
I suspect Fred is spot on -- current exchange rate fluctuation is
undoubtedly a huge issue. I would speculate that most hotels would
negotiate
On 5/31/11 2:48 AM, Lorenzo Colitti
lore...@google.commailto:lore...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Joel Jaeggli
joe...@bogus.commailto:joe...@bogus.com wrote:
But you've contributed to this document, so have others from that list.
I don't want to contribute to the
On 5/31/11 12:00 PM, Tony Finch d...@dotat.atmailto:d...@dotat.at wrote:
Speaking of confusing, the first sentence of the abstract and introduction
in the current revision of the draft is an abomination that should be
taken out and shot.
[JL] Great feedback – I just did it. Here's the updated
/29/2011 7:54 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
[JL] Duly noted in my previous emails. I'm keeping the naming as an open issue
in the –04 and will be seeking WG and WG co-chair guidance one way or the other.
One of the reasons for cross-area review is to look for cross-area problems.
Separate from
Hi Bernard – I've finally found the time to close out the last bits of feedback
in this version of the draft. Your comments will be incorporated shortly into a
–04 version of the document. Please see specific replies inline below.
Thanks!
Jason
On 4/18/11 2:08 PM, Bernard Aboba
Thank you for your review, and a –04 revision is coming soon. Other comments
inline below.
Thanks!
Jason
On 4/26/11 5:51 AM, Pekka Savola
pek...@netcore.fimailto:pek...@netcore.fi wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops)
In the case at hand, the list does not contain RRs as the abstract
suggests, it contains IPv6-capable resolvers. The whitelist isn't
published in the DNS, so it doesn't match the existing use of the phrase
DNS whitelist.
[JL] Oops! Thanks for noticing this – I have corrected it in the
Thank you for your thorough review, Dave. Changes will be made in an upcoming
–04 revision. Some more specific comments can be found inline below.
Thanks!
JL
PS – I have at least one other email from you in my queue for this I-D – I've
not forgotten about it. :-)
On 4/29/11 7:32 PM, Dave
Hi John - Thanks for the detailed review. I'm planning a -04 update soon, FWIW.
Specific responses inline below.
Thx,
Jason
On 5/2/11 7:44 PM, John Leslie j...@jlc.netmailto:j...@jlc.net wrote:
Livingood, Jason
jason_living...@cable.comcast.commailto:jason_living...@cable.comcast.com
wrote
Hi – Thanks for the feedback and see a few selected responses inline below. A
–04 update is coming soon.
Thanks
JL
On 5/3/11 4:43 AM, SM s...@resistor.netmailto:s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi Jason,
At 11:48 02-05-2011, Livingood, Jason wrote:
In any of the various IPv6 fora (including v6ops
Hi Joe – Thank you for your thorough review and detailed response. Your
feedback will be incorporated into a –04 update with other changes received in
last call and from the IESG. (I'm still working through all of the changes
though.)
In any case, see my detailed responses inline below. I
In any of the various IPv6 fora (including v6ops at the IETF) DNS
Whitelisting is how this practice is typically labeled. When writing the
draft I felt this could be confusing outside of IPv6 circles and so
lengthened it to IPv6 DNS Whitelisting in the title.
In any case, I don't like what
As I read it, this says that certain DNS servers will be configured
to _not_ return records to queries by default.
This strikes me as a really-strange transition mechanism.
Depends on a number of factors for a content provider. The more traffic a
domain receives the more likely
Perhaps the document could include the arguments for and against this
practice? That way, someone who is new to IPv6
deployment theory can quickly get up to speed.
I'm very much in favor of documents which say don't do this -- but if
you have to, here's how. But they have to include enough
Parts of the challenge here is that turning on IPv6 (publishing a )
can also cause brokenness for users that have no IPv6 connectivity, e.g.,
those relying on broken 6to4 relays. This has been documented all over
the place, for example here:
http://ripe61.ripe.net/presentations/162-ripe61.pdf
+1
On 10/8/10 1:02 PM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
everyone--
IPv6 may have been born with a developmental disability, but we're not
dealing with a corpse yet. The patient is still alive, getting better,
and with a bit of love and proper care, might yet grow up to make better
and
c) draft-livingood-dns-redirect and draft-livingood-dns-malwareprotect
draft-livingood-dns-malwareprotect concerns what is primarily an opt-in
service to block known malware sites for end users. Hopefully that is
less controversial than the redirect one, but who knows.
He's not saying that. He's effectively saying what I'm saying: payment
models are outside the scope of the standards, which don't require any
particular payment model in order to perform their job.
+1 to that. It seems the press struggles to understand that the IETF does
technical standards and
This sounds like there is potential for crowd sourcing here.
For example, I can tell you nothing about Vonage, but a fair
amount about Cox Cable Internet. What you want to know is
known, just not (yet) in a way you can easily access.
Would a Yelp type model be appropriate ?
With the
I¹m looking for direct comments on an updated document, Recommendations for
the Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks, available at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-oreirdan-mody-bot-remediation-03.
I¹m asking here as this doesn¹t really fit neatly into any existing WGs.
(Though we¹ll be posting
Is there a standard interval for such deadlines before an IETF meeting? As
you noted, this one seems particularly early this time.
Jason
On 8/24/09 12:16 PM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote:
I just wanted to bring to people's attention this (fairly early) cut
off date for
My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the
silent majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine
that the vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no problems
with XML2RFC. So I'm assuming they've been ignoring the thread,
hopefully the new subject
This is an open call for participation in the new ³homegate² mailing list,
which is dedicated to discussing issues relating to broadband home gateway
devices. There has been a BoF request submitted relating to this, which you
can find at
Thanks for the detailed review, Spencer! I'll set aside some time next week
to review your comments and then make necessary changes as needed in the
draft to address this in a -08 version.
Regards
Jason
On 5/27/09 9:55 PM, Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote:
I have been selected
This campaign continues:
-- Forwarded Message
From: Dave Farber d...@farber.net
Reply-To: Dave Farber d...@farber.net
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:20:23 -0500
To: ip i...@v2.listbox.com
Subject: [IP] TODAY: Stop IETF Enactment of Patented Standard for TLS
Begin forwarded message:
From: Seth
I recall stats from IETF 71 (which may be out of date). I believe at
that time, 48% of attendees were from the U.S. Next was Japan with 9%,
then China with 5.7%. If I recall correctly, this was a good number of
attendees from China, but I do not know how that compared to IETF 72 or
to IETF 73.
+1
Jason
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David B. Nelson
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 11:49 AM
To: 'Ed Juskevicius'
Cc: 'IETF Discussion'
Subject: RE: Announcement: New Boilerplate Text Required for
allnewSubmissions to
-Original Message-
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keith - I encourage you to consult with several very large
scale email domains around the world to see if they think
that DNSxBLs are useful, effective, and in widespread use or not.
Jason - I encourage you to
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Keith Moore
Sent: Sat 11/8/2008 2:50 PM
To: John Levine
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)
Keith Moore wrote:
and there's a billion and a half users
John C Klensin wrote:
I've got two separate and unrelated incidents in the last 10
days in which RBL lists have decided to block some (but not all)
of Comcast's outbound mail servers.
Interestingly, this draft is about both blacklists and whitelists. Many large
domains maintain
Incidentally, although it may still be the conventional
wisdom in the IETF that DNSBLs don't work and aren't useful,
in the outside world where 95% or more of mail is spam,
they're essential tools to run a mail server. Although there
are indeed lots of stupid DNSBLs, those aren't the
winner.
Regards
Jason Livingood
Comcast
-Original Message-
From: Livingood, Jason
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 1:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Win Ice Hockey Tickets
Thanks to HP, our business partner in releasing Comcast
SmartZone, we are raffling four club box tickets
IETF 71 - Social Event Advisory
The social begins at 7:00pm and runs until 10:30pm.
This is a reminder regarding transportation from the Marriott to the
Philadelphia Art Museum. We are providing buses (that look like
trolleys, for what that's worth). These buses will run in a continuous
loop
Due to high demand for the already sold-out social, the wait list will
close today. We will probably have fewer cancellations than people
already on the wait list, which is why we are taking this step with AMS.
Regards
Jason Livingood
Comcast
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
As noted previously, the IETF 71 Social is currently sold out.
However, of the 500 tickets available, 105 people have reserved tickets
but not yet paid. An email just went out to those people asking them to
pay for their social ticket no later than 11:30 a.m. ET, Monday, March
10th. At 11:31
BTW, the direct payment URL is https://www.amsl.com/ietf/ietfpayment.py
Jason
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of IETF Secretariat
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 6:02 PM
To: IETF Announcement list
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL
This is a reminder that if you have not already purchased your social
ticket and would like to attend, you should do so *immediately.* This
event is strictly limited to 500 people, and we currently have 467
registered. So just 33 tickets remain available as of a few minutes
ago.
To buy your
I am sure you can find something to stay for the duration. From
http://ietf71.comcast.net/?page_id=5 some added suggestions:
1 - Loews, across the street
2 - Marriott Courtyard, 1/2 block
3 - Marriott Residence Inn, 1/2 block
4 - Hilton Garden Inn, 2-3 blocks
and about 10 other suggestions as
You may want to check out the URL below on our IETF 71 microsite for
some other hotel suggestions. Ray or Marcia may have more info but this
list is pretty comprehensive.
http://ietf71.comcast.net/?page_id=5
Jason
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the other thread, I reminded folks of our IETF 71 microsite @
http://ietf71.comcast.net and the list of hotels there. Please excuse
the fact that this site is off-line for a few hours right now, though it
should be back up in a few hours if all goes according to plan (famous
last words, I
Just wanted to remind IETF-71 attendees that the social event will be
strictly limited to 500 people. As of now, we are about 50% full, which
means we're booking up somewhat more rapidly than expected.
Thus, if you would like to attend, please consider registering soon.
All of the details are
Since folks may have missed some of the traffic in December, please take
note of the hotel booking advisory at our IETF-71 microsite @
http://ietf71.comcast.net/?page_id=5.
Specifically --- If you are considering arriving on the *Saturday*
before IETF 71 (March 8, 2008), please be aware that the
Please take note of the early arrival alert posted on our microsite and
on the IETF website:
If you are considering arriving on the Saturday before IETF 71 (March 8,
2008), please be aware that the Philadelphia Flower Show is taking place
next door at the Philadelphia Convention Center. This is a
FYI - We have setup a small website regarding IETF 71 at
http://ietf71.comcast.net for attendees
This site includes additional hotel recommendations, information about
traveling to the city, the social event, and will include important
information about such topics as where to get a good drink or
Is that going to be a large suite, a converted meeting room,
or a room large enough to accommodate several hundred of us
at the same time? The question is important if it is
reasonable to assume that all other small meeting spaces in
the hotel (at least those not specifically covered
-Original Message-
From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually, I'm interested in a more basic thing. We usually
put a large load on a hotel. Why don't our contracts insist
that the hotel not be undergoing significant renovation
during the meeting.
One of the
For the record, Ray was aware of this renovation, and tells
us that there will be renovation ongoing in Philadelphia as
well.
Ray can comment more, but the renovation in Philly for IETF 71
(discovered after the venue decision I believe) is of some of the common
areas in the bar and does not
From: Fred Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
One question I would ask the peanut gallery is: if we were to
pick a small set of venues to return to, which would we pick?
The ones I might think of would include our recent venues in
Paris and Prague, the Minneapolis Hilton, the facility we
FYI, in addition to the typical info that will be on the web in advance
of IETF 71, we setup a site that will soon include additional logistical
and city information. It's pretty basic at the moment, but you can
subscribe to the RSS feed if you like. The hope is to provide a little
extra info
be posting at http://ietf71.comcast.net a guide to all of the
local bars and the distances from the hotel lobby in the coming weeks
and months before IETF 71.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Adam Roach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:11 PM
To: Livingood, Jason
, Jason
Cc: Elisabeth Porteneuve (labo)
Subject: Geography briefiengs for IETF required
Re your message posted to IETF list:
Subject: IETF 71: Results of Social Venue Survey
From: Livingood, Jason Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 22:20:24 -0400
[...]
6
East: 1%
g. 2% lived in the network, on the moon, or in some
other secret locale.
Regards
Jason Livingood
-Original Message-
From: Livingood, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 3:48 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: IETF 71: Social Venue Survey
Hello -
I am on the planning team for the sponsoring organization of IETF 71. We
are continuing to get ready for this event.
We would like to solicit the community's feedback on the possible
locations of the social venue and what is important to you for such
events. There are 6 questions, so
Looks like the hotel is on the far eastern edge of the Jewish Quarter
(or just to the east of it), so there may be other hotels in that area.
The Old Town is also close by (Stare Mesto) and is probably a good area
to look for hotels as well.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Elwyn Davies
You probably want to post your question to two different WG mailing
lists. The first is speermint and the second is enum.
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/speermint-charter.html
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/enum-charter.html
Regards
Jason
Does this section mean that 802.11a is specifically not supported? Any
idea if the wifi network at the Dallas meeting will be better than in
Vancouver?
Regards
Jason
3.3. Wireless Network
IEEE 802.11b/g service must be available in all the meeting rooms (as
identified by the
69 matches
Mail list logo
