Tony,
I agree completely and believe the IAB has, of late, been
altogether too timid in this area.
I think you know all of what I'm about to say, but your note is,
IMO, easily misread, so an additional observation about 4084 and
its potential relatives: In this sphere, a document that says
I agree. I never got around to buying an 802.11a NIC card, but
I never really felt like I needed it here.
The worst it got was that in some of the full rooms my Mac
would drop the link once or twice in an hour, and have to be manually
reconnected to the network.
And, I noticed a singular
I think that the IETF neglects (or, rather, has neglected in the
past) many possible
opportunities for sponsorship. That implies that increasing the income
from sponsorship should be possible.
People who are concerned with this issue should talk (or email) our
IAD, Ray Pelletier, who
has a
At the beginning of our Jabber experiment several years ago, I volunteered
to Jabber-scribe exactly once, fell off the network five minutes into a
working group meeting, spent ten minutes trying to get hooked back up, gave
up, and never volunteered again until this IETF.
I never felt like
From: Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
Regarding SRV, it's not acceptable to expect that as a condition of
deploying a new application, every user who wishes to run that
application be able to write to a DNS zone.
Agreed. I had a few troubles on Monday in (I think it was monet
or one of those rooms upstairs), but other than that it worked
great!
Thanks to the NOC team and whoever else helped make it work!
Bert
-Original Message-
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I think that the IETF neglects (or, rather, has neglected in the past)
many possible
opportunities for sponsorship. That implies that increasing the income
from sponsorship should be possible.
People who are concerned with this issue should talk (or email) our IAD,
Ray
I know you've heard this all before, but it's been getting
increasingly difficult for us WG Chairs to get all the key
people working on a protocol to fly across the planet for
a 2 hour meeting. These are busy people who can't
afford to block out an entire week because they don't
know when or
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I don't think the meeting fees could actually go down, may be more in the
other way around if we are realistic with the cost figures.
Actually the cost is already high for a sponsor, and I believe trying to get
more from the industry (or other kind of sponsors) for
Ack on Noel's other points, but this is worth mentioning...
But we cannot assume a hosts' DNS is available for that purpose. For
most of us, the DNS entry isn't under our control, nor is it likely
to
be for the forseeable future.
Keith and I concurred on that.
Noel
I have
Spencer,
Thanks for all your scribe contributions. They add real value to the
process.
The wireless has been fantastic. A great job by Nokia and our intrepid
volunteers.
This meeting Jabber services were provided by NeuStar Secretariat
Services pursuant to the SOW. Much thanks to Peter
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:35:13PM -0600, Ken Raeburn wrote:
On Mar 23, 2006, at 21:58, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Just wanted to state what's obvious to all of us by now:
This time the wireless WORKED, and Just Went On Working.
That hasn't happened for a while. THANK YOU!
Mmm... well, my
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:48:19PM -0600, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
The results is also better for all (even participants), because the
logistics and local-planning is done more coherently.
I think there's some unfair handwaving in this thread.
One option however would be to seek
From: Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have learned not to tell people (especially Keith and Noel)
Hey, I'm nowhere near as hypergolic on this as Keith is... :-)
that DNS is the right answer to all questions,
Well, it works fine for what it was designed to do. Problem is,
Related to this, an update to my problems with the OrangeWare Mac
driver:
After having exchanged a few e-mails with the tech support, they
finally figured out that they driver indeed did not work with the
card I had. So, eventually, they agreed to swap my DWL-AG660 card
against an SMC
On Mar 24, 2006, at 7:37 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I think that the IETF neglects (or, rather, has neglected in the
past) many possible
opportunities for sponsorship. That implies that increasing the
income
from sponsorship should be possible.
People who are
Tim Chown wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:48:19PM -0600, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
The results is also better for all (even participants), because the
logistics and local-planning is done more coherently.
I think there's some unfair handwaving in this thread.
One option however
On Fri Mar 24 13:03:11 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
sometimes I find remote participation (via audio streaming and
jabber) more effective than actually attending the meeting. I
sometimes am surprised to find that the extra distance makes it
easier for me to see what is relevant. I also think it
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
One option however would be to seek 'partnerships' between vendors and
the IETF that span more than one meeting. Unless that impacted the
perceived 'neutrality' of the IETF and its standardisation processes.
I suspect that this would indeed be a question.
To
The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through
2010. Those dates can be found at
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html
The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards
development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and
Just wanted to state what's obvious to all of us by now:
This time the wireless WORKED, and Just Went On Working.
That hasn't happened for a while. THANK YOU!
Agreed. I had a couple of problems early in the week, but after that it Just
Worked, even at the plenaries.
Kudos to those who
One option however would be to seek 'partnerships' between vendors and
the IETF that span more than one meeting. Unless that impacted the
perceived 'neutrality' of the IETF and its standardisation processes.
I suspect that this would indeed be a question.
To invoke a particularly
Andy Bierman wrote:
Ray Pelletier wrote:
Andy Bierman wrote:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I don't think the meeting fees could actually go down, may be more
in the
other way around if we are realistic with the cost figures.
Actually the cost is already high for a sponsor, and I believe
Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
...
It would be easy to run a tiny little U[D]P binding server that
took in an application name (yes, we'd have to register those, but
Andy Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
my $0.02:
Nothing -- not in the current meeting format.
A more workable model would be to treat the current
type of meeting as an Annual Plenary, full of Power-Point
laden 2 hour BOFs, and status meetings of almost no value
in the production of
Tim Chown wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:35:13PM -0600, Ken Raeburn wrote:
On Mar 23, 2006, at 21:58, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Just wanted to state what's obvious to all of us by now:
This time the wireless WORKED, and Just Went On Working.
That hasn't happened for a while. THANK YOU!
I've been a happy camper since switching to 11a several meetings ago. It
wasn't intentional; I had just gotten a new laptop that just happened to
have a/b/g. But while everyone else was losing their connections, the
11a network just kept humming along. Life was no different at this
meeting; the
I agree that interim WG meetings would be useful, but here is a
further proposal:
There are quite a few really good ideas for improvements to IETF productivity.
The problem with taking a particular suggestion and then adding others to it
will be that nothing gets considered in detail and
If the meeting fees could be lowered over time because
smaller venues are needed 2 out of 3 IETFs, then more
people will be able to participate.
In my case, the meeting fees are small compared to travel and hotel
costs.
I think there are some good ideas here.
I find that WG meetings
Dave,
Certainly there are organizations that do this. Those
organizations are significantly different from the IETF. For
one thing, the first thing we would have to do in the IETF -
if we adopted a model like this - is to establish a marketing
over-sight function to ensure fair and
The wifi phone booth in Japan [...] wildly popular with attendees, was
actually at APRICOT in Kyoto, but I know it all blends together after a
while :-) At $50, vs the retail price of around $350, it was a loss-leader
give-away. I think we'd be happy to get more free stuff like that :-)
Ole
On Fri Mar 24 16:20:26 2006, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Henk Uijterwaal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That means that there are 50 or so people sitting there doing
nothing. While I agree that face-2-face discussions are useful, I
much rather see the discussion take place in the hallway, then
have
one thing, the first thing we would have to do in the IETF -
if we adopted a model like this - is to establish a marketing
over-sight function to ensure fair and equitable disposition
of sponsorship funds.
Eric, I am not sure why this would be required.
The IETF already takes in money for
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 07:49:46AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
Maybe there's an intermediate between email and full f2f time?
Something like having well known jabber chats to simulate the
quickness of f2f conversation without having to be there? There
is some amount of precedence for this
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
One of the services that ISOC provides to the IETF is a layer
of indirection for sponsors; they give money into a pool
administered by ISOC (and get a seat on the ISOC AC in
return), but the procedures make it pretty clear that they do
From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up
with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;)
What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID
cutoff, is maybe look at such technology for interim
meetings,
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 08:49:28AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference?
VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical.
Well yes, telecons are fine for design team work, but for an open interim
meeting you need to determine which
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up
with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;)
What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID
cutoff, is maybe look at such
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The current funding model makes the IETF disproportionately reliant on one
single company that currently employs far more ADs and working group chairs
than any other. It also has a habit of recruiting through the IETF. If that
company were to have an unexpected
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The current funding model makes the IETF disproportionately
reliant on
one single company that currently employs far more ADs and working
group chairs than any other. It also has a habit of
From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 08:49:28AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference?
VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical.
Well yes, telecons are fine for design team work, but for an
Dave Crocker wrote:
I agree that interim WG meetings would be useful, but here is a
further proposal:
There are quite a few really good ideas for improvements to IETF
productivity. The problem with taking a particular suggestion and then
adding others to it will be that nothing gets
There are quite a few really good ideas for improvements to IETF
productivity.
The problem with taking a particular suggestion and then adding others to
it
will be that nothing gets considered in detail and nothing gets done.
you say that like it's a bad thing.
not to pick on
Michael Thomas wrote:
Maybe there's an intermediate between email and full f2f time?
Something like having well known jabber chats to simulate the
quickness of f2f conversation without having to be there? There
is some amount of precedence for this with the IESG's telechats.
They could be
On 24/03/2006, at 9:52 AM, Yu-Shun Wang wrote:
Just another me-too data point about the Mac. It'll be
good to know why that happened. Mine is a 15 Powerbook.
I also brought a Cisco 11a NIC, and used it about 3-4
times w/out any problems.
yushun
The problem also occurs with Broadcom radios
Hi Ray,
I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is
unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT
list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list.
Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those
organizations to chat
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Andy Bierman wrote:
Ray Pelletier wrote:
...
A more workable model would be to treat the current
type of meeting as an Annual Plenary, full of Power-Point
laden 2 hour BOFs, and status meetings of almost no value
in the production of standards-track protocols.
The
May be if you think the other way around, you reinvent the Minitel model?
Not sure as the final text is not voted and is _very_ confused, but
this _may_ be what the French DADVSI law _may_ lead to.
jfc
At 18:07 24/03/2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Content-class:
Hi -
From: Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:47 AM
Subject: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was:
moving from hosts to sponsors)
...
My question is - do others see this as a problem, and (without
On Fri Mar 24 17:47:04 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
I think that Dave's message reflects a common frustration in IETF
that
we talk a lot about particular problems and never seem to do
anything
about them. When people express that frustration, they often seem
to
think that the solution to this
On Fri Mar 24 17:47:04 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
I think that Dave's message reflects a common frustration in IETF
that we talk a lot about particular problems and never seem to do
anything about them. When people express that frustration, they
often seem to think that the solution to
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that Dave's message reflects a common frustration in
IETF that we talk a lot about particular problems and never
seem to do anything about them.
Quite so, which is why most of us feel that there should be a strong bias in
favor of
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that Dave's message reflects a common frustration in IETF
that we talk a lot about particular problems and never seem to do
anything about them.
Quite so, which is why most of
On Fri Mar 24 19:50:15 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
In other words, there are working groups where a substantial
number of people involved in the discussion are not only not
going to be implementing the proposals, but don't actually do any
kind of implementation within the sphere - we're
maybe I can summerize John's note by asking if this IAB has the
will to write a RFC 1984 about net neutrality
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I think that Dave's message reflects a common frustration in IETF
that we talk a lot about particular problems and never seem to do
anything about them.
Quite so, which is why most of us feel that there should be
a strong bias in favor of action and experimentation rather
On Fri Mar 24 19:50:15 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
In other words, there are working groups where a substantial
number of people involved in the discussion are not only not
going to be implementing the proposals, but don't actually do any
kind of implementation within the sphere -
The draft notes from the Wednesday plenary are posted
at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/minutes/plenaryw.txt
Please let me know of any errors. No need to copy the list
unless it's a discussion point.
Thanks to Mirjam Kuehne for scribing.
Brian
On Fri Mar 24 19:50:15 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
In other words, there are working groups where a substantial
number of people involved in the discussion are not only not
going to be implementing the proposals, but don't actually do any
kind of implementation within the sphere - we're
.11a has worked fine for me at this and at previous meetings with no
problems.
However, at this meeting I occasionally noticed congestion/latency --
appearing as dropouts on VoIP sessions and audio streaming -- that I did
not experience at previous meetings.
Not sure if this was in .11a or in
On 18:47 24/03/2006, Keith Moore said:
My question is - do others see this as a problem, and (without trying
to propose a concrete solution that will be seen as a threat) is there
a shared sense that this is a problem and general willingness to try
new ways of conducting our discussions?
I do.
I know I'm going to regret saying this, but we haven't made much progress
in ten years.
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-carpenter-metrics-00.txt
I got a lot of interest in that draft, none of which came from
ISPs...
Brian
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I think that people need to consider that
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 05:00:07AM -0500, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
There are two strategies that make more sense and have more
chance of success. One is precisely what 4084 attempted to do:
lay out categories and boundaries that, if adopted, make better
information available to
To quote from the Carpenter draft:...
One approach to resolving the current crisis in Internet
performance is to institute an efficient system of
inter-carrier settlements.
Progress is often hard when you are heading in off in the weeds.
Try
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 02:29:23PM +, Dave Cridland allegedly wrote:
I don't actually have the choice, but I find remote participation
generally okay, for the most part, albeit I have the slight advantage
of starting off my internet experience in telnet BBS systems, so I'm
generally used
Hello;
On Mar 24, 2006, at 9:31 PM, Scott W Brim wrote:
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 02:29:23PM +, Dave Cridland allegedly wrote:
I don't actually have the choice, but I find remote participation
generally okay, for the most part, albeit I have the slight advantage
of starting off my internet
Maybe we should leave the Jabber meeting rooms up all the time, and use them
for more dynamic discussions.
John
- original message -
Subject:Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
From: Stig Venaas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 03/24/2006 5:01 pm
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi Ray,
I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is
unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT
list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list.
having attended two of three I would
The IESG has approved the following documents:
- 'NETCONF Configuration Protocol '
draft-ietf-netconf-prot-12.txt as a Proposed Standard
- 'Using the NETCONF Configuration Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH) '
draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
These documents are products
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Using the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Over the Simple Object
Access Protocol (SOAP) '
draft-ietf-netconf-soap-08.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Network Configuration Working Group.
The IESG
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'DHCPv6 Relay Agent Subscriber-ID Option '
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-subid-01.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Margaret Wasserman and Mark
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'DHCP Options for the Intel Preboot eXecution Environment (PXE) '
draft-ietf-dhc-pxe-options-03.txt as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Margaret
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) Extension Field Format '
draft-bagnulo-cga-ext-02.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is
The IESG has approved the following documents:
- 'A DNS RR for Encoding DHCP Information (DHCID RR) '
draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-13.txt as a Proposed Standard
- 'The DHCP Client FQDN Option '
draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-option-13.txt as a Proposed Standard
- 'Resolution of FQDN Conflicts among DHCP
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'PWE3 Fragmentation and Reassembly '
draft-ietf-pwe3-fragmentation-10.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge to Edge Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Margaret Wasserman and Mark
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6 '
draft-ietf-mip6-mipext-advapi-07.txt as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Mobility for IPv6 Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Margaret Wasserman and Mark Townsley.
A
76 matches
Mail list logo
