Hi,
At its core, the value of the IETF is technical. We must always make
the best technical standards we can possibly make, adhering to the
values of rough consensus and running code. Everything else is
secondary or nobody (government or otherwise) will want to implement
what we develop. It's
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
Like it or not, governments are fundamentally opposed to the open nature of
'the Internet', and they always will be (even the 'reasonable' ones).
Managing information flow is how they derive and exercise power
Aside from the
On 4 jan 2013, at 01:59, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
Like it or not, governments are fundamentally opposed to the open nature of
'the Internet', and they always will be (even the 'reasonable' ones).
Because I do not think generalization is really a reasonable thing to do, and
even
Ted Hardie wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
Like it or not, governments are fundamentally opposed to the open nature
of
'the Internet', and they always will be (even the 'reasonable' ones).
Managing information flow is how they derive and exercise
At 16:59 03-01-2013, Tony Hain wrote:
other. How long the IETF gets to stay independent of that will depend on how
responsive it is to meeting the needs of governments. If short-sighted
attempts at political maneuvering are exposed in the IETF, it will lose its
independence and finally bring
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
Ted Hardie wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
Like it or not, governments are fundamentally opposed to the open nature
of
'the Internet', and they always will be (even the
And that consent is based on information availability. Manage the
information, and you manage the consent.
Possibly; the extent to which that management is obvious may, of course,
drive other behavior (cf. самизда́т [Samizdat] and similar efforts).
or, in the states, wikileaks.
Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
Given the ever increasing number of mobile devices, one could argue that the
world
has never been more dependent on radio spectrum allocation.
If you don't insist on allocating fixed bandwidths, CSMA/CA takes care
of most of issues.
- Original Message -
From: David Morris d...@xpasc.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:16 PM
On Wed, 2 Jan 2013, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
At one point there was something that said one phone in each home
had to be
directly wired without a plug. I
No: 1996687
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Masataka Ohta
Sent: 03 January 2013 08:40
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?
--! WARNING ! --
This message originates from outside our
Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
It's really not that simple. If it were all the world would be doing it for
everything.
You should recognize that all the smart phones are working fine
(or even better than LTE) with Wifi and that Wifi support
prioritized packets.
My point was not about the need (or lack thereof) of spectrum
management, but rather the need (or lack thereof) of an international
office for handling spectrum slots.
The kind of allocation management you mention is an easier one to
tackle. Radio allocation for mobile networks is
: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?
--! WARNING ! --
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external partner or from the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link
, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England Wales No: 1996687
-Original Message-
From: Carlos M. Martinez [mailto:carlosm3...@gmail.com]
Sent: 03 January 2013 12:52
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker; IETF Discussion Mailing List
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome
Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
Yes, all smart phones support Wi-Fi. In some unregulated (not
actually entirely so) frequency bands, and with regulated powers,
over a short range.
CSMA/CA can also work over a long range too and can, in a sense,
fairly arbitrate packets from different
My only point is that it is not what is used to be. But we can agree to
disagree.
Happy new year all by the way.
~C.
On 1/3/13 11:21 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
I'd like my mobile phone to work all round the world, as it does. It takes
more than one band, but only a few. And that
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?
--! WARNING ! --
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external partner or from the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
But one of the reasons those auctions were originally proposed was to force
various military interests to stop hogging 95% of the available bandwidth
on the offchance they might have a use for it some day. Putting a price on
the resource forced the Pentagon and
From: John Day jeanj...@comcast.net
No, there was nothing illegal about it. The reason for acoustic
couplers was that the RJ-11 had been invented yet and it was a pain
to unscrew the box on the wall and re-wire every time you wanted to
connect.
In the 1970s, in the US, and for
in England Wales No: 1996687
-Original Message-
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
Sent: 03 January 2013 13:39
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?
--! WARNING ! --
This message
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
...
There are some control points in the Internet but they are rather less
critical
than many imagine. IPv6 address space allocations, DNS zone management
and AIS numbers are arguably control points.
If we can eliminate the control point nature of those
:
Re: WCIT outcome?
At 7:29 PM -0500 1/1/13, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
I'v been hesitating to join in here because this seems distinctly OT
to me, but there are some
On 01/01/2013 18:32, John Day wrote:
...
Not only tariffs. Historically, it was national enforcement of
international
regulations set by CCITT (now known as ITU-T) that prevented
interconnection
of leased lines**.
But creating a VPN with in an international carrier that crossed
national
At 13:08 31-12-2012, John Day wrote:
jumped all over. Generally, ITU meetings require unanimity to have
a consensus. This
There seems to be different definitions of consensus; each body has
its own meaning for that word.
;-) Why is that daunting? ;-) I hear that excuse often. If we
At 9:03 AM + 1/2/13, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 01/01/2013 18:32, John Day wrote:
...
Not only tariffs. Historically, it was national enforcement of
international
regulations set by CCITT (now known as ITU-T) that prevented
interconnection
of leased lines**.
But creating a VPN
At 4:33 AM -0800 1/2/13, SM wrote:
At 13:08 31-12-2012, John Day wrote:
jumped all over. Generally, ITU meetings require unanimity to have
a consensus. This
There seems to be different definitions of consensus; each body has
its own meaning for that word.
No, it isn't that. I have been
Hi!
On 12/29/12 4:19 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com
mailto:jmamo...@gmail.com wrote:
ITU was founded previously as the International Telegraph Union
before AG Bell's phone was patented, no doubt the evolution of
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:33 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 13:08 31-12-2012, John Day wrote:
jumped all over. Generally, ITU meetings require unanimity to have a
consensus. This
There seems to be different definitions of consensus; each body has its
own meaning for that word.
On 02/01/2013 13:44, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
Radio spectrum allocation was a critical task at the time (it still is,
although the world doesn't depend that much on it anymore), and one of
the task the ITU actually has performed very well, being a positive and
constructive player.
I don't
Interesting as always.
At 9:14 AM -0500 1/2/13, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:33 AM, SM
mailto:s...@resistor.nets...@resistor.net wrote:
At 13:08 31-12-2012, John Day wrote:
jumped all over. Generally, ITU meetings require unanimity to have
a consensus. This
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:46 AM, John Day jeanj...@comcast.net wrote:
**
Interesting as always.
But beyond the illegitimate concerns, there are some important legitimate
ones. In particular a country like France has to be concerned that if it
gets into a trade dispute with the US that the US
On Dec 29, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
to be honest I prefer don't comment your emails - but this time I changed mu
rules...
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com wrote:
As the multistakeholder model and its associated processes, which
Carlos M. Martinez
Radio spectrum allocation was a critical task at the time (it still is,
although the world doesn't depend that much on it anymore),
Given the ever increasing number of mobile devices, one could argue that the
world
has never been more dependent on radio spectrum allocation.
From: John Day jeanj...@comcast.net
No, there was nothing illegal about it. The reason for acoustic
couplers was that the RJ-11 had been invented yet and it was a pain
to unscrew the box on the wall and re-wire every time you wanted to
connect.
In the 1970s, in the US, and for
From: John Day jeanj...@comcast.net
I remember when a modem came with an 'acoustic coupler' because
connecting it directly to the phone line was illegal.
No, there was nothing illegal about it. The reason for acoustic
couplers was that the RJ-11 had been invented yet
On 1/2/2013 1:34 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
Now, your point about rewiring the jack may in fact be the reason for
_post-Carterphone_ acoustic couplers, but it was indeed at one time illegal
to connect directly (other than AT+T/WE supplied equipment).
I'm skeptical about this last
On Wed, 2 Jan 2013, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
At one point there was something that said one phone in each home had to be
directly wired without a plug. I don't know if this was a regulation, a phone
company rule, or just a suggestion, but it also fell by the wayside after
Hi John,
At 05:11 02-01-2013, John Day wrote:
Could you expand on this?
The question (asked in a previous message) used the word
telecommunication. If one goes by the definition in Y.2001 it may
not fit everybody's view of what telecommunication should
mean. The objectives in Y.2001 are
On 1/2/2013 1:34 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
Now, your point about rewiring the jack may in fact be the reason for
_post-Carterphone_ acoustic couplers, but it was indeed at one time illegal
to connect directly (other than AT+T/WE supplied equipment).
I'm skeptical about this
I'v been hesitating to join in here because this seems distinctly OT
to me, but there are some basics that need to be understood:
On 31/12/2012 21:08, John Day wrote:
At 1:05 PM -0500 12/31/12, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:51 AM, John Day
Thanks Brian, That helps clear up a few things. See below for a
couple of questions:
At 8:31 AM + 1/1/13, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'v been hesitating to join in here because this seems distinctly OT
to me, but there are some basics that need to be understood:
On 31/12/2012 21:08, John
On Tue 01/Jan/2013 09:31:28 +0100 Brian E Carpenter wrote:
** CCITT document D.1. The 1988 version includes the restrictions on
use of leased lines:
http://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=eid=T-REC-D.1-198811-S!!PDF-Etype=items
The 1991 version is much less restrictive, but it remains
On 1/1/2013 12:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Also, it is exactly because ITU was in charge of resource allocations
such as radio spectrum and top-level POTS dialling codes that it was
a very plausible potential home for IANA in 1997-8, before ICANN was
created. Some of the ITU people who were
Dave,
I was thinking about that after I sent my email. I actually don't
think there is an argument for ITU holding the IANA function. The
assignment of addresses should be done in such a way as to facilitate
routing. This requires agreements among providers, but not
governments. Going
On 1/1/2013 10:52 AM, John Day wrote:
I was thinking about that after I sent my email. I actually don't think
there is an argument for ITU holding the IANA function.
And just to make sure my own message was clear: I wasn't commenting on
the merits of the view, but merely trying to report
It is of course all history, but allow me some remarks (in line).
Thanks Brian, That helps clear up a few things. See below for a
couple of questions:
At 8:31 AM + 1/1/13, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'v been hesitating to join in here because this seems distinctly OT
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
I'v been hesitating to join in here because this seems distinctly OT
to me, but there are some basics that need to be understood:
On 31/12/2012 21:08, John Day wrote:
At 1:05 PM -0500 12/31/12, Phillip
At 7:29 PM -0500 1/1/13, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter
mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.combrian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'v been hesitating to join in here because this seems distinctly OT
to me, but there are some basics that need to be
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
In most countries, wiretap laws apply to public facilities.
laws do not seem to have much relation to government spying.
randy
SM wrote:
What people say and what they actually do or mean is often a very
different matter. An individual may have principles (or beliefs). A
stakeholder has interests. There was an individual who mentioned on an
IETF mailing list that he/she disagreed with his/her company's stance.
Phillip,
The reason that rule is useful is that just as it is ridiculous for
the US representative to the ITU to attempt to convey the positions
of Comcast and Google, it is no more practical for one person to
represent the position of Cisco or Microsoft.
Then I take it from this comment
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:51 AM, John Day jeanj...@comcast.net wrote:
**
Phillip,
The reason that rule is useful is that just as it is ridiculous for the US
representative to the ITU to attempt to convey the positions of Comcast and
Google, it is no more practical for one person to
At 1:05 PM -0500 12/31/12, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:51 AM, John Day
mailto:jeanj...@comcast.netjeanj...@comcast.net wrote:
Phillip,
The reason that rule is useful is that just as it is ridiculous for
the US representative to the ITU to attempt to convey the
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:25 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 10:19 29-12-2012, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
ICANN is a US corporation and the US government can obviously pass laws
that prevent ICANN/IANA from releasing address blocks that would reach
certain countries no matter what
ITU was founded previously as the International Telegraph Union before AG
Bell's phone was patented, no doubt the evolution of telecommunications and
the Internet puts ITU with its current behavior in the path of becoming
obsolete and extinct, but you can't discount many positive contributions
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The stakeholders in the Internet don't even align to countries. My own
employer is relatively small but was founded in the UK, moved its
headquarters to the US and has operations in a dozen more countries and
many times that number of affiliates. The same is even
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com wrote:
ITU was founded previously as the International Telegraph Union before AG
Bell's phone was patented, no doubt the evolution of telecommunications and
the Internet puts ITU with its current behavior in the path of becoming
On 29 dec 2012, at 19:19, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
ITU must change if it is to survive. But it was merely a means to an end.
There is no reason that the ITU 'must' be kept in existence for its own sake.
Tim Berners-Lee has on numerous W3C AC meetings reminded people
At 10:19 29-12-2012, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
ICANN is a US corporation and the US government
can obviously pass laws that prevent ICANN/IANA
from releasing address blocks that would reach
certain countries no matter what Crocker et. al.
say to the contrary. But absent a deployed BGP
60 matches
Mail list logo
