For what it's worth, there was (Once Upon A Time) a working group called
TCPIMPL (TCP Implementation), that published an don't do it like this
RFC (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2525.txt), that didn't call out vendor X,
but DID provide traces from implementations that violated the spec, and
On 4/22/2010 3:35 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
For what it's worth, there was (Once Upon A Time) a working group called
TCPIMPL (TCP Implementation), that published an don't do it like
this RFC (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2525.txt), that didn't call out
vendor X, but DID provide traces from
everyone--
After just now finding the root cause of yet another stupid interoperability
problem to be an interaction between a client not choosing a sufficiently
unique host/session identifier and a server being overly clever about using
said identifiers for purposes other than intended in the
On 04/21/2010 05:55 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
everyone--
After just now finding the root cause of yet another stupid
interoperability problem to be an interaction between a client not
choosing a sufficiently unique host/session identifier and a server
being overly clever about using said
On 22 Apr 2010, at 01:55, james woodyatt wrote:
After just now finding the root cause of yet another stupid interoperability
problem to be an interaction between a client not choosing a sufficiently
unique host/session identifier and a server being overly clever about using
said identifiers
...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Sabahattin Gucukoglu
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 8:39 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: another document categorization suggestion
On 22 Apr 2010, at 01:55, james woodyatt wrote:
After just now finding the root cause of yet another stupid interoperability
problem
Hi Dave and Lixia,
I went through this document and it looks good. It provides a nice
balanced viewpoint on the issues. One thing I would like to be added
into the document is a cost-benefit analysis of doing ipv6 NAT for each
of the problems in section 2. e.g.
Avoid renumbering
Benefit:
I also have a suggestion for a WG and while I don't think its a Security
Area WG model, it is one that would use some Security WG's work-product.
That is a Critical Infrastructure WG. One specific to BCP's and Operating
Guidelines for CI and its protection.
The Charter would enable the CI WG
Any commentary?
I'll give you the standard answer. Take a look at
draft-narten-successful-bof-01.txt and start building up support the
old fashioned way. I.e., write a clear problem statement, get other
people who agree with you to collaborate, set up a mailing list, etc.
Thomas
: Thursday, October 05, 2006 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Suggestion for IETF Critical Infrastructrei WG.
todd glassey wrote:
Any commentary?
For me it sounds like a proposal to reinvent the IAB as WG.
Some draft-iab-whatever and resulting RFCs like 4690 are
quite interesting, examples:
draft
todd glassey wrote:
Response-
No Joel - you are dead wrong IMHO. The IETF doesnt get to redefine the
Industry Term BCP to mean 'some document we publish'.
We use the term Request for Comments when after last call for input.
We use the term Standard when we have no official compliance
, March 14, 2006 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: Suggestion on a BCP specific WG...
A) BCPs have an issue date. They are the best current practice at
the time of issue. There is no requirement that we maintain them,
although we like to.
b) There is, as far as I can tell, no intellectual property issue
Not that you folks take suggestions from me - but there would be a
tremendous value in creating a specific BCP WG that was a permanent part of
the IETF to manage the collection and IP issues within BCP's.
BCP's are an important part of moving-forward with IP management within the
IETF and it
A) BCPs have an issue date. They are the best current practice at
the time of issue. There is no requirement that we maintain them,
although we like to.
b) There is, as far as I can tell, no intellectual property issue
relative to BCPs that needs to be managed by anyone.
c) There is not any
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:44:11AM +0530,
Neil Harwani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 128 lines which said:
I am not sure whether this idea that I am about to write has been
implemented before
The idea is interesting but it is clearly underspecified. Before a
serious discussion can
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:44:11AM +0530,
Neil Harwani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 128 lines which said:
I am not sure whether this idea that I am about to write has been
implemented before
Operating Systems, Design and Implementation by
Andrew S.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:49:21PM +0100,
Peter Dambier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 112 lines which said:
ucspi-tcp-0.88
provides a different tcp/ip stack
No, it is not a TCP/IP stack (just a framework and library to develop
network applications). Sometimes, I really wonder if
--On 23. januar 2006 00:44 +0530 Neil Harwani [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My suggesionts:
1. Have a variable system built into all OSes which have internet
interface which can allocate space and resources as per what amount of
space and resources are free on the OS.
2. Let a separate new
Peter Dambier writes:
Operating Systems, Design and Implementation by
Andrew S. Tannanbaum and Albert S. Woodhull,
ISBN 0-13-638677-6 Prentice Hall
Not only do the discuss every aspect of an operating system but
they include as an example and for homework practice the complete
Minix
Operating Systems, Design and Implementation by
Andrew S. Tannanbaum and Albert S. Woodhull,
ISBN 0-13-638677-6 Prentice Hall
Not only do the discuss every aspect of an operating system but
they include as an example and for homework practice the complete
Minix operating system plus
Steven M. Bellovin writes:
Nonsense. Tanenbaum has forgotten more about operating systems than
most of us will ever know.
He has apparently forgotten a lot of things that I remember, or, more
likely, he just has never been exposed to them. In his book he writes
about the things he knows,
I am not sure whether this idea that I am about to write has been implemented before or not but it has crossed my mind so I am writing it to you all. Grid / distributed computing is being done these days via availing of services or giving some services as an application in operating systems. What
On Nov 15 2005, at 21:48 Uhr, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I don't think anyone participating in the
session will modify its own slides during the session.
You cannot have been to IETFs much, have you? :-)
People modify their slides even *during their presentation* all the
time, certainly
De: Carsten Bormann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 08:53:25 +0100
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Carsten Bormann [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: Audio streaming and slides suggestion
On Nov 15 2005, at 21:48 Uhr, JORDI
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], JORDI PALET MARTINEZ w
rites:
Then we don't want to just upload the slides, but offer also a simple
slides and white board system.
VNC, perhaps? (www.realvnc.com)
I've been known to fire up a mini-web server on my laptop during talks,
so people could get
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Good idea, if the network works ...
- Original message -
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I understand that is difficult to get the slides of everyone before the
meeting itself, but it should be very easy to centralize the slides in an
IETF server
On Tuesday, November 15, 2005 03:54:10 PM -0800 Paul Hoffman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am one
of the people who was listening from afar last week, and the one
presentation where the person didn't get his slides out in time was
frustrating, but I certainly got some of the technical content
Good idea, if the network works ...
- Original message -
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Fri 11 Nov 2005 07:08:26 PM EET
Subject: Audio streaming and slides suggestion
Hi,
I've heard from the people that is outside that the streaming
suggestion
Hi,
I've heard from the people that is outside that the streaming is very
useful, but it will be even more if they can also have access to the slides.
I understand that is difficult to get the slides of everyone before the
meeting itself, but it should be very easy to centralize
running jabber is
also being able to access to it ;-)
Regards,
Jordi
De: John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 04:50:47 +0200
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: Audio streaming and slides suggestion
Good idea
Good idea, if the network works ...
- Original message -
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I understand that is difficult to get the slides of everyone before the
meeting itself, but it should be very easy to centralize the slides in an
IETF server and ask the co-chairs
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Of course, I have suggested before on this list that the IETF
consider using some sort of on-line whiteboard technology, which
would allow for real time viewgraph production and annotating, which
also has its uses.
Whiteboard sounds good idea to me, but maybe new
: Audio streaming and slides suggestion
Good idea, if the network works ...
- Original message -
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Fri 11 Nov 2005 07:08:26 PM EET
Subject: Audio streaming and slides suggestion
Hi,
I've heard from the people
At 01:50 PM 12/11/2005, John wrote:
To avoid extra overload from the co-chairs during the session, and if we
want to make it more strict, if any of the presenters is not done with
his/her slides, he will not be able to talk.
more strict
sorry, but that's just not on - if all we are these
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Of course, I have suggested before on this list that the IETF
consider using some sort of on-line whiteboard technology, which
would allow for real time viewgraph production and annotating, which
also has its uses.
On Nov 15, 2005, at 7:27 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Of course, I have suggested before on this list that the IETF
consider using some sort of on-line whiteboard technology, which
would allow for real time viewgraph
the
slides first, so that remote participants had a prayer of actually
participating remotely.
I like that suggestion. I agree with Geoff that requiring powerpoint in
order to occupy WG meeting space and time is not a good thing.
Spencer
I appreciate that powerpoint does enable complex concepts
De: Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:16:34 -0800 (PST)
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: Audio streaming and slides suggestion
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote
De: Geoff Huston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 05:17:24 +1100
Para: John [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: Audio streaming and slides suggestion
At 01:50 PM 12/11/2005, John wrote:
To avoid extra
On Nov 15, 2005, at 10:27 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Of course, I have suggested before on this list that the IETF
consider using some sort of on-line whiteboard technology, which
would allow for real time viewgraph production and annotating, which
also has its uses.
Whiteboard sounds good
I agree with Geoff.
My theory is, if the projector bulb blows out the second before you
go on, and the
spare is also dead (you'd be surprised how common that is), you
should be able to get
your points (or, at least the most important ones) across regardless.
If all there is is sharing of
without slides for context),
you have to hand over the slides first, so that remote participants
had a prayer of actually participating remotely.
Why are we discussing this as a requirement, not a suggestion? I am
one of the people who was listening from afar last week, and the one
presentation
Hi,
I've heard from the people that is outside that the streaming is very
useful, but it will be even more if they can also have access to the slides.
I understand that is difficult to get the slides of everyone before the
meeting itself, but it should be very easy to centralize the slides in an
Jordi,
We should ask the chairs to put the slides on the Meeting
Materials system (where they are available
to everyone outside and inside) at the time of the meeting,
if not before, now that the upload is so easy.
The Working Group Secretaries will get access to the
Meeting Materials system,
+ 1 to all of this. Seeing the slides for the WGs and BOFs I have
listened to this week has been *very* helpful. I noticed this even
more during SAAG yesterday when one speaker didn't have his slides
available, and those of us listening or following in Jabber were
completely lost.
Of course,
The above draft concentrates on actions of MTAs sending email. I wish
to add a section regarding actions of MTAs receiving/rejecting email.
My proposed addition is as follows...
Email Rejection Practices
Many emails are unwanted advertising, viruses, worms, and other
malware. They almost
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Walter Dnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The above draft concentrates on actions of MTAs sending email. I wish
to add a section regarding actions of MTAs receiving/rejecting email.
My proposed addition is as follows...
[snip]
[] Best practices are:
The problem is the MBONE doesn't reach the target audience.
If just multicast access is the problem, then why not use a number of
multicast/unicast reflectors as was done on the last SIGCOMM conference.
One application for this might be the marratech Session Proxy which can
be found on e.g.
Hi,
It sure would be nice for the IETF to offer webcasting of the meetings. The
objective of 'ease of access to information' would be greatly serve if the
protocol and software package debate can be put aside... If commercial
conferences like Comdex can be provided by CNET (See
Two of the rooms will be multicast, in two formats h.261 and mpeg-1. Those
sessions will be recorded and can then be down-mixed to various formats
for archiving...
They should be available slighlty thereafter in a format similar to what
we're currently doing for the nanog meetings...
- Original Message -
From: Shirley Tseng [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 1:50 PM
Subject: Useable video from meetings - was suggestion
Hi,
It sure would be nice for the IETF to offer webcasting of the meetings.
The
objective of 'ease
Daniel Senie wrote:
College students ALREADY are there providing video feeds onto the MBONE. The
problem is the MBONE doesn't reach the target audience. In the past this was
less problematic, as the universities and corporations able to connect to
the MBONE covered the core IETF activist
Doing even a small number of sessions all day for four days is a major
logistical effort that currently involves around 20 volunteers including
at current count something like 7-9 students...
Just to re-iterate what Joel said... we are doing things differently
this IETF than we have in the
I've been frustrated by the need to modify core routers to support
multicast properly, and the resulting reluctance of the ISPs to deploy it.
Perhaps it's time to interpret this as damage, and route around it?
Yes. Current multicast doesn't scale.
I agree with the first set of
At 08:25 19/10/2000 -0400, Daniel Senie wrote:
I wonder if we have any statistics available on how many people actually
tune in to the multicast sessions? Many network providers are presently
unable or unwilling to allow multicast into their networks. Last I
asked, this included ATT
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Harald Alvestrand typ
ed:
MBONE tunnels to connect, and a widely available (Linux?) client that would
connect to that server, and behave like a multicast router?
"start this program on a spare PC, and you too can watch the IETF multicast".
we have reflectors
David Mitton writes:
What I do object to is backhanded Microsoft bashing.
Let me try the same tune with different lyrics:
The Cisco Kid was a friend of mine
He drink whiskey Pancho drink the wine
We met down on the border Rio Grande
Eat the salty peanuts out de can
The outlaws had us pinned
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
what would happen if there was an open server that would allow (filtered)
MBONE tunnels to connect, and a widely available (Linux?) client that would
connect to that server, and behave like a multicast router?
It's been done. I've implemented such in various real
At 11:37 PM 10/19/00, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
my anarchistic self wonders
what would happen if there was an open server that would allow (filtered)
MBONE tunnels to connect, and a widely available (Linux?) client that
would connect to that server, and behave like a multicast router?
Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions. So that all new techniques
such as Video, Audio, White board, Chat etc. can be used to exchange the
valuable knowledge members posses.
Champake/Sri Lanka
Assitant Director (Information Documentation)
Telecommunications Regulatory Commission
276
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Telecom Regulato
ry Commission of Sri Lanka typed:
Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions. So that all new techniques
such as Video, Audio, White board, Chat etc. can be used to exchange the
valuable knowledge members posses.
we do - we not only have put
Jon Crowcroft wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Telecom Regulato
ry Commission of Sri Lanka typed:
Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions. So that all new techniques
such as Video, Audio, White board, Chat etc. can be used to exchange the
valuable knowledge members posses.
Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions.
the last thing we need is more pro-Microsoft bias in this community.
Telecom Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions. So that all new techniques
such as Video, Audio, White board, Chat etc. can be used to exchange the
valuable knowledge members posses.
I have a better idea. Put the meetings
At 10/19/00 10:19 AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
The last thing I need is more political statements like that.
Stick to engineering here, please.
the question is, what environment are we engineering for? one
which is controlled by Microsoft or one which is platform-agnostic?
when I was on
Keith Moore wrote:
Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions.
the last thing we need is more pro-Microsoft bias in this community.
I hope that this sentiment won't distract us from what I hope are more
important objectives, one of which presumably is to effectively communicate
with our
Well, last I looked I didn't think that the IETF was "engineering" video
conferencing application products here. I would suspect that we are users
of developed products, and that we should pick the products, perhaps
several, that benefit the largest community that we wish to reach.
I know
Tim Salo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(Awaiting a modest proposal to outlaw PowerPoint at IETF meetings...)
What wrong with SliTeX anyway? Other than that the files are too
small compaired to PowerPoint?
(I swear, every time I see that blue fade to black background, I feel
my eyelids start to
I don't know whether NetMeeting is the right answer. But, I am pretty
sure the question ought to be "How can we more effectively communicate
our message?", not "How can we avoid using Microsoft products?"
agree entirely. but in my mind part of communicating effectively
is avoiding the use
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 07:39:53 +0300, Musandu [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This database if created would be a one stop shopping point for "hackers" to
test their theories because it would most likely be configured to meet the
standards that are advocated within it (even if the IETF was to run it
han likely that it is already being exploited.
Any further delay in fixing the problem, patching your OS for example
only increases the vulnerability of your environment.
My suggestion is to create an Internet Database where vendors /
Emergency Response Teams, may put information in a SPECIFIC format
suggestion without quandry.
In addition to 'la fammile Bloggs' the fact that CERT caters mainly for OS's (
although admittedly not exclusivley ) however there are many products
installed in corporate environments, ISP environments and the home user
environment that can, and do, cause vulnerabilities
72 matches
Mail list logo
