On Jan 8, 2008, at 4:22 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
On 2008-1-3, at 11:11, ext Stewart Bryant wrote:
Wouldn't Bittorrent fail congestion considerations review?
Since Bittorrent is heavily used now by endusers and is likely to be
used by commercial enterprises (either as is, or with
or vice versa for the sake
of prettification then its not likely to happen.
From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 08/01/2008 5:56 AM
To: Lars Eggert
Cc: 'Tony Finch'; Ping Pan; 'IETF discussion list'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Deployment
Ping Pan wrote:
Exactly! It is one impressive spec: clean and simple. Looking at its
adaptation, I wonder why in the world it was not adapted and done in IETF.
On the other hand, it may take too long in IETF, and would require extensive
debate over architecture, framework, requirements... ;-)
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless I've missed something recent, the IETF did not do a
lot of work
on the scenario where IPv4 islands need to communicate over an IPv6
Internet, talking to both IPv4 and IPv6 services.
It is called dual-stack.
That seems to simply ignore the issue by saying,
Unless I've missed something recent, the IETF did not do a
lot of work
on the scenario where IPv4 islands need to communicate over an IPv6
Internet, talking to both IPv4 and IPv6 services.
It is called dual-stack.
That seems to simply ignore the issue by saying, let there be IPv4
Sandisc.
Yes, whole industries can and do march right off a cliff in lockstep even when
they see the cliff comming.
From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 03/01/2008 5:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Deployment Cases
On 3 jan 2008, at 17:30, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Yes, as you point out the generic answer to the problem is NAT-PT
which was recently squashed after a cabal got together.
I think the second v6ops meeting in Vancouver showed a decent amount
of interest in resurrecting it again. (This
On 2008-01-04 05:30, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Yes, as you point out the generic answer to the problem is NAT-PT which was
recently squashed after a cabal got together.
That's a bizarre statement. Which of the technical arguments
in RFC 4966 are you referring to as being products of a
it is 100% transparent to
application developers and end users.
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 03/01/2008 2:42 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Jeroen Massar; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Deployment Cases
On 2008-01
I think the questions of precedence, scope, etc. are interesting but not
particularly on point. In may view there are two types of work the IETF
performs: Infrastructure and Functional.
Most IETF protocols fall into the functional category. They may be building
blocks for other protocols to
and even fewer care about.
From: Ping Pan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 01/01/2008 11:00 PM
To: 'Franck Martin'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'IETF discussion list'
Subject: RE: Deployment Cases
Personally, I don't believe in any authority telling me what's needed
On 2 jan 2008, at 17:16, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Another difference with IP is that the IETF is competing with its
past success. What made IPv4 successful is also the reason that end
users are reluctant to change. There is a major difference between
reseach and development. IPv4 was
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 10:32 AM
To: Tony Finch
Cc: Ping Pan; 'IETF discussion list'
Subject: Re: Deployment Cases
Tony Finch wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008, Ping Pan wrote:
Another place that needs some serious help
The reason I am proposing deployment cases is that while I
beleive that #1 is the ultimate end state I also believe the
same of PKI and cryptographic security systems. There is no
technology developed in computer science that provides a more
compelling intellectual case
...to computer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
Unless I've missed something recent, the IETF did not do a lot of
work on the scenario where IPv4 islands need to communicate over
an IPv6 Internet, talking to both IPv4 and IPv6 services.
It is called dual-stack.
One will have IPv4 NAT and IPv6 e2e. This is
Dave Crocker wrote:
Well, that's such a reasonable question, I did a subjective review of
Proposed Standard RFCs for the last number of years -- ignoring that
most recent and going back to rougly RFC 2500 -- looking for acronyms
that were for significant IETF-generated efforts.
...
A
Dave Crocker wrote:
Well, that's such a reasonable question, I did a subjective review of
Proposed Standard RFCs for the last number of years -- ignoring that
most recent and going back to rougly RFC 2500 -- looking for acronyms
that were for significant IETF-generated efforts.
...
I'd also
Folks,
Felíx Año Nuevo.
From some feedback, here are changes to the list. I'm adding guesses about
the current degree of success each has had. Please take it as a request to
comment, whether you agree or disagree, as well as a request to add items.
However, besides indicating a simple
Dave,
RTP is implemented and used in millions of devices, including just
about all enterprise VoIP systems and H.323. Not as widely used for
streaming, from what I can tell.
There are obviously other IETF streaming and VoIP technologies with
RFC # 2500 that are seeing large-scale use,
On 31 dec 2007, at 21:09, Dave Crocker wrote:
I don't think that's valid statistics: obviously many of the
protocols in question were already successful before they were
given to the IETF, which isn't necessarily the case for protocols
developed in-house.
That's the point: protocols
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
There are obviously other IETF streaming and VoIP technologies with RFC
# 2500 that are seeing large-scale use, including SIP, SDP, MGCP and
RTSP, both in the enterprise and across closed and open IP networks.
SIP does seem to have reached critical mass for
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
But you missed my point, which is that stuff brought to the IETF will
almost certainly already have some measure of success, while stuff
developed within the IETF doesn't, because it's completely new. To make
that comparison fair, we'd have to compare work
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
But you missed my point, which is that stuff brought to the IETF will
almost certainly already have some measure of success, while stuff
developed within the IETF doesn't, because it's completely new. To make
that comparison fair, we'd have to compare work
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008, Dave Crocker wrote:
IMAP4
Success within organizations? Not much between?
Lots between. It's common for IMAP clients to access remote message stores
across organizational boundaries. The work on remote message submission
(RFCs 4409 and 5068) are complementary to
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 12:46:08PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
In other words, I believe IMAP gets used as a MAPI surrogate, but not as a
general-purpose means of accessing mailboxes supplied by consumer-oriented
service providers.
Those providers usually make IMAP available, but my sense is
Theodore Tso wrote:
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 12:46:08PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
In other words, I believe IMAP gets used as a MAPI surrogate, but not as a
general-purpose means of accessing mailboxes supplied by consumer-oriented
service providers.
Those providers usually make IMAP
On 2 jan 2008, at 0:01, Dave Crocker wrote:
You and I and pretty much everyone reading this email are not
representative of the broader Internet community. So the question
is how to document the assessment that lots of people do use IMAP.
What was the purpose of this dicussion again?
If
So the question is how to document the
assessment that lots of people do use IMAP.
Start to ask oufits like https://www.imap4all.com/ but what is the
poinmt of this discussion anyway?
jaap
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 03:01:04PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
You and I and pretty much everyone reading this email are not
representative of the broader Internet community. So the question is how
to document the assessment that lots of people do use IMAP.
So all of the people who wanted
-Original Message-
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 11:45 AM
From outside IETF:
XMPP
iSCSI
MPLS
Dave,
MPLS is an IP technology that has been largely driven inside IETF. Millions
of users have benefited from the backbones
Isn't it the role of the IRTF/IAB/? to look at which areas should the
IETF put more effort into?
Is there some kind of vision, road map, looking forward?
A wish list, which would stay as a wish list pending people willingness
to work on the items.
I think there is a need to analyse
regards,
- Ping
_
From: Franck Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 7:09 PM
To: Ping Pan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'IETF discussion list'
Subject: Re: Deployment Cases
Isn't it the role of the IRTF/IAB/? to look at which areas should the IETF
put more
*From:* Franck Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 01, 2008 7:09 PM
*To:* Ping Pan
*Cc:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'IETF discussion list'
*Subject:* Re: Deployment Cases
Isn't it the role of the IRTF/IAB/? to look at which areas should the
IETF
On 28 dec 2007, at 7:41, Franck Martin wrote:
The What makes a protocol successful presentation, shows that the
best protocols are the ones given to IETF for it to refine and
complete. They have already a user pull when they reach IETF.
I don't think that's valid statistics: obviously many of
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 28 dec 2007, at 7:41, Franck Martin wrote:
The What makes a protocol successful presentation, shows that the
best protocols are the ones given to IETF for it to refine and
complete. They have already a user pull when they reach IETF.
I don't think that's
I think this whole discussion would benefit from some concrete examples.
What wholly new protocols has the IETF developed in the past decade?
Which ones would you consider successful or not?
Almost by necessity, newer protocols tend to cover niches, relatively
speaking, as opposed to broad
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I think this whole discussion would benefit from some concrete examples.
What wholly new protocols has the IETF developed in the past decade?
Which ones would you consider successful or not?
Well, that's such a reasonable question, I did a subjective review of
Thanks for the list; the cut-off point is probably somewhat
subjective, but I see at least several protocols on the list that one
can consider reasonably successful, as in having several well-known
implementations, shipping as part of common desktop or server
operating systems, references
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I thought XMPP came from outside (www.jabber.org)?
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Thanks for the list; the cut-off point is probably somewhat
subjective, but I see at least several protocols on the list that
one can consider reasonably successful, as
I thought XMPP came from outside (www.jabber.org)?
I believe that's correct.
Sieve is another interesting case. It was originally developed at the IETF
but not by the IETF, in that there were various informal meetings where it
was designed but the initial documents were all individual
they constrain..
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 4:35 PM
Subject: RE: Deployment Cases
However we do need to have a basis for believing that the work we are
doing
Re: Deployment CasesPhil,
I think I kinda do see what Brian's point is. I don't think it should be a
conversation-ender, but Brian is pointing out an issue that we need to work
through...
As an organization of individuals developing protocol specifications - that's
who we are, and that's what
I don't want to repeat myself unduly, but I believe that
the IETF is institutionally incapable of taking this type
of approach, for exactly the same reasons that's it's quite
good at doing protocol design. I think that the organisations
that do emphasise business cases and deployment have a
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I think I kinda do see what Brian's point is.
...
As an organization of individuals developing protocol specifications -
that's who we are, and that's what we do - we don't even have a natural
way to interact with operators,
...
I think Brian is saying the same thing
However we do need to have a basis for believing that the work we are
doing will actually get used.
We went through that many times. The best way we have found so far is to verify
that the proposed working group has a sufficient constituency. This has the
advantage of not requiring economic
Christian Huitema wrote:
However we do need to have a basis for believing that the work we are
doing will actually get used.
We went through that many times. The best way we have found so far is to
verify that the proposed working group has a sufficient constituency. This
has the advantage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The problem is not to produce specifications, but to get them used.
The What makes a protocol successful presentation, shows that the
best protocols are the ones given to IETF for it to refine and
complete. They have already a user pull when they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian et al,
I remember Vint told me in the early days, he had to pay people to
develop a TCP/IP stack on various OSes. This is how partly he got
adoption and interoperability.
While it is not the role of IETF to do that, I feel part of the
solution
Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject:Re: Deployment Cases
Phill,
On 2007-12-24 07:32
Yes the 6to4rd technology is the one I will soon describe in an
Internet Draft.
Incidentally, its proposed name is likely to change: its purpose (rapid
deployment of Ipv6 on IPv4 infrastructures) is too different from that
of 6to4 (Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds).
Regards and
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote :
*Problem*: We have a lot of specifications that work fine, but have not
seen deployment
That's coming.
See:
http://www.telecompaper.com/news/article.aspx?id=196198
And, if you read French:
http://www.freeplayer.org/viewtopic.php?p=55711#55711
An I-D on the
On Dec 23, 2007, at 10:04 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote :
*Problem*: We have a lot of specifications that work fine, but
have not seen deployment
That's coming.
See:
http://www.telecompaper.com/news/article.aspx?id=196198
And, if you read French:
52 matches
Mail list logo
