Hi, Refer http://samirsrivastava.typepad.com for posting on Standards
And Patents. Copyright of posting on Standards And Patents is free for
personal usage. Arguments were presented in favour of that standards
and their usage should be free from patents. If standards are
patentable then
On Wed Jul 27 02:28:06 2011, Mark Andrews wrote:
Billions of dollars have been wasted globally for the sake of a few
hours
work by webbrowser vendors.
Seems to be a recurring theme - browsers could have easily performed
probe tests to check for vulnerable proxies and disabled WebSockets
Le 27 juil. 2011 à 00:11, james woodyatt a écrit :
On Jul 25, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
Please post your views on this course of action by August 8, 2011.
I remain convinced that this document is unnecessary and publishing it would
be silly, at best, and at worst, the
I oppose this action.
I see clear evidence that 6to4 is damaging the Internet and although there are
those who can use it without causing damage, I believe that the principle is
'First, do no harm'
so the IETF has a responsibility to discourage its use. For me, classifying it
as 'Historic' is
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:17:48AM -0700,
Glen g...@amsl.com wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
I am very pleased to report that the IETF is now applying DKIM signatures
to all outgoing list email from mailman.
What about a RFC 5617 published signing practice?
Le 27 juil. 2011 à 01:54, Randy Bush a écrit :
i do not care what the draft is called.
i do not care whether it is info, experimental, or an IEN
i do care that is says 6to4 MUST be off by default
+1
This is really what IETF has to say.
Everything else should better be limited to
On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long term future *by
definition*. Even if someone chooses to design a v2, who is going to
implement it?
Actually, I think one could argue pretty effectively that 6rd is 6to4-bis.
On 27/Jul/11 08:07, Samir Srivastava wrote:
Standards are developed by community for community. There is no
role of patent hunters in that.
I agree, with the exception of defensive patents, some of which are
announced with very elegant disclosures. Let's draw a veil over
incomprehensible and
On 26/Jul/11 06:19, Hector Santos wrote:
But the original destroyed signature from the author is not stripped.
Nor verified, apparently.
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com;
dkim=pass header.d=ietf.org header.s=ietf1 header.i=ietf.org;
adsp=fail policy=all author.d=isdg.net
On 7/25/11 2:01 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 7/25/2011 1:17 PM, Glen wrote:
I am very pleased to report that the IETF is now applying DKIM signatures
to all outgoing list email from mailman.
I'll be presumptuous and speak on behalf of the DKIM operations
community, rather than just myself:
On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long term future *by
definition*. Even if someone chooses to design a v2, who is going to
implement it?
Actually, I think one could
I am very pleased to report that the IETF is now applying DKIM signatures
to all outgoing list email from mailman.
What about a RFC 5617 published signing practice?
That RFC is only useful for a narrow range of heavily phished domains
like Paypal's. Fabulous though the IETF is, it's not one
On Jul 27, 2011, at 9:07 AM, John Mann (ITS) wrote:
Actually, I think one could argue pretty effectively that 6rd is 6to4-bis.
only if you're confused about the use cases for each.
In my opinion:
6to4 use case
- D.I.Y setup - no ISP involvement
- depend upon kindness of strangers
On 7/27/2011 4:46 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
I am very pleased to report that the IETF is now applying DKIM signatures
to all outgoing list email from mailman.
What about a RFC 5617 published signing practice?
ADSP only works when the domain in the From: field is the same as the
Dear Presenters,
Please include slide numbers in your presentations. This makes life much
easier for remote participants and jabber scribes.
Thanks!
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
I have considered the issues I had facing 6to4 deprecation, and in the light of
what you propose here, and other discussions, I support this course of action.
-George
On 25/07/2011, at 10:30 AM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
Folks,
After some discussion, the IESG is attempting to determine whether
On Jul 27, 2011 4:32 AM, Mark Townsley m...@townsley.net wrote:
On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long term future *by
definition*. Even if someone chooses to design a v2,
On 27/07/2011 16:22, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Dear Presenters,
Please include slide numbers in your presentations. This makes life much
easier for remote participants and jabber scribes.
And also when you are presenting, please say on which slide you are.
Henk
--
On Jul 27, 2011 7:20 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
If you have a reason to install and enable 6to4, why would the nominal
status of a couple of RFCs make you do anything different?
This seems like an easy question to answer. You'd implement and use
6to4v2 because it works
In message CAD6AjGTPjhD=yiv5pe6g4trgknpyzn0_nmk9v8bevmgtqu2...@mail.gmail.com
, Cameron Byrne writes:
On Jul 27, 2011 4:32 AM, Mark Townsley m...@townsley.net wrote:
On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Since
In message 968f0b1c-d082-4a59-8213-fd58c74af...@nominum.com, Ted Lemon writes
:
If you have a reason to install and enable 6to4, why would the nominal
status of a couple of RFCs make you do anything different?
Because it will come down to run 6to4 and be exposed to some bug
or not run 6to4 but
On Jul 27, 2011 8:16 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 968f0b1c-d082-4a59-8213-fd58c74af...@nominum.com, Ted Lemon
writes
:
If you have a reason to install and enable 6to4, why would the nominal
status of a couple of RFCs make you do anything different?
Because it will
On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Jul 27, 2011 7:20 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
If you have a reason to install and enable 6to4, why would the nominal
status of a couple of RFCs make you do anything different?
This seems like an easy question
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long
term future *by definition*. Even if someone chooses
to design a v2, who is going to implement it?
free.fr, which is a third of the worldwide IPv6 traffic.
Fred Baker wrote:
Actually, I think one could argue
On Jul 27, 2011 8:30 AM, Michel Py mic...@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us
wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long
term future *by definition*. Even if someone chooses
to design a v2, who is going to implement it?
free.fr, which is a third of the
On 27 Jul 2011, at 16:15, Mark Andrews wrote:
Because it will come down to run 6to4 and be exposed to some bug
or not run 6to4 but be safe from the bug. We already have vendors
saying they are thinking about pulling 6to4 from their code bases
if it becomes historic.
I would note that
Hi Stephen,
The example given below illustrates also what I'm thinking. And please forgive
me if I miss something below.
IMHO, what you are saying about the SIP-Resource-Priority is true for any other
QoS parameters carried over the Diameter QoS application. It is therefore why
I'm assuming
Hi Iñaki,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:58:41AM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/7/24 Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu:
To ensure nobody gets me wrong, I'm certain this can help solve issues
*if this is optional*. If it becomes a MUST, then the negative effects
will override the positive ones.
Hi Folks,
All of the Voting Members chosen by the random selection have been
contacted and have confirmed their willingness and ability to serve on the
2011-2012 Nomcom. There have been no challenges to the selection of the
voting Members of this Nomcom and the challenge deadline has now passed.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:28:06AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
SRV provides load-balancing and failover. I never said that SRV is a
solution for temporaly put in maintenance a server.
Happy eyeballs however does allow you to take a server out of production
and not really notice it. Note
* Ronald Bonica
After some discussion, the IESG is attempting to determine whether there is
IETF consensus to do the following:
- add a new section to draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
- publish draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic as INFORMATIONAL
draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic will
In your letter dated Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:38:33 +1000 you wrote:
In message 4e2f4491.30...@gmail.com, Brian E Carpenter writes:
Of course, if implementors choose to drop the code you might not be
able to upgrade software versions - but hopefully by that time you
will have native IPv6 service
2011/7/26 Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu:
if you want to have any chance of making SRV *usable* with WS (or
HTTP), you have to motivate both sides by showing them that :
- it's better for them to use it than not to use it (both servers and
browsers)
- the additional cost of using it is
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:43:58AM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/7/26 Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu:
if you want to have any chance of making SRV *usable* with WS (or
HTTP), you have to motivate both sides by showing them that :
- it's better for them to use it than not to use it (both
2011/7/27 Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu:
That's where I think you're mistaken. As long as you think of it as mandatory
this will not be possible.
Hi Willy, as I've explained several times in these threads, if a WS
client is not mandated to perform SRV given a WS URI domain, then the
service
On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long term future *by
definition*. Even if someone chooses to design a v2, who is going to
implement it?
Actually, I think one could
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:46:28PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Hi Willy, as I've explained several times in these threads, if a WS
client is not mandated to perform SRV given a WS URI domain, then the
service provider cannot rely on SRV records. This is, let's assume
that a WS service
Hi,
On 27 July 2011 22:15, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long term future *by
definition*. Even if someone chooses to
2011/7/27 Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu:
Once again, the goal to make SRV adopted BY USERS is not to ensure that
it tries to cover all the server-side needs, but that it offers better
quality of service to USERS. That way USERS will massively adopt it and
server will one day be able to safely rely
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 03:45:38PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/7/27 Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu:
Once again, the goal to make SRV adopted BY USERS is not to ensure that
it tries to cover all the server-side needs, but that it offers better
quality of service to USERS. That way USERS
If you have a reason to install and enable 6to4, why would the nominal
status of a couple of RFCs make you do anything different?
This seems like an easy question to answer. You'd implement and use 6to4v2
because it works better than the historic 6to4 protocol.
Moving 6to4 to historic does not in any way impact your ability to use
it as you wish.
6to4 support is not part of the IPv6 node requirements, as I
understand it. Therefore I believe that any vendor (OS, router,
otherwise) could deleted 6to4 support in any release and be in
violation of
2011/7/27 Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu:
I don't think home users (neither professional users) has nothing to
decide here, they will not resolve the WS URI retrieved from a
webpage.
I think you're wrong. Those are these users which ask for feature XXX or
YYY that they like because it brings them
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:19:30PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Well, I understand (and agree) most of your text, but I still think
that the URI resolution mechanism is something transparent for an
end-user. This is not like having FlashPlayer for showing annoying and
dancing menus in a
In message EMEW3|fcf145b5033ff99790b7c34003f47686n6QGZC03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|D
0d20eb6-78c9-415d-9493-3aa08faac...@ecs.soton.ac.uk, Tim Chown writes:
On 27 Jul 2011, at 16:15, Mark Andrews wrote:
Because it will come down to run 6to4 and be exposed to some bug
or not run 6to4 but be
From: Philip Homburg pch-v6...@u-1.phicoh.com
I think it would be quite weird to keep 6to4 at standards track just to
prevent some vendors from dropping 6to4 support.
There have been suggestions that it might be more appropriate to reclassify
it as Experimental, and I think that
On 7/27/11 4:31 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long term future *by
definition*. Even if someone chooses to design a v2, who is going to implement
In message CAD6AjGThTpvH5HgGc8RbedOcJKZ=_JLR=2t7yaajwkss1ck...@mail.gmail.com
, Cameron Byrne writes:
On Jul 27, 2011 8:16 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 968f0b1c-d082-4a59-8213-fd58c74af...@nominum.com, Ted Lemon
writes
:
If you have a reason to install and enable
On 7/23/2011 3:13 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Hello,
The new registry says:
System Ports are assigned by IETF
process for standards-track protocols, as per [RFC1340]. User Ports
are assigned by IANA using the Expert Review process, as per
[RFC5226]. Dynamic Ports are not
On Wed Jul 27 06:25:49 2011, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:28:06AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
SRV provides load-balancing and failover. I never said that SRV
is a
solution for temporaly put in maintenance a server.
Happy eyeballs however does allow you to take a server
On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:31 AM, Mark Townsley m...@townsley.net wrote:
On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long term future *by
definition*. Even if someone chooses to
On 27 Jul 2011, at 17:03, Mark Andrews wrote:
0d20eb6-78c9-415d-9493-3aa08faac...@ecs.soton.ac.uk, Tim Chown writes:
a) use 6to4 anyway on an open platform like OpenWRT
Which may or may not still have the code. OpenWRT could remove
support just the same as another source could. OpenWRT
Hi all,
I just noticed this document about Internet-Facing Server Logging:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6302
It does not contain any privacy considerations even thought it would be a very
natural thing to do.
Does anyone know the history of this document?
Ciao
Hannes
On Jul 27, 2011, at 3:32 AM, t.petch wrote:
I oppose this action.
I see clear evidence that 6to4 is damaging the Internet and although there are
those who can use it without causing damage, I believe that the principle is
'First, do no harm'
so the IETF has a responsibility to discourage
On Jul 27, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
I suspect, but have no proof, that the huge majority of 6to4 users don't use
it intentionally, and the content they are trying to reach is also available
over IPv4. But for people who want to develop and use new IPv6-specific apps,
then either
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 1:52 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org IETF
Subject: RFC 6302: Internet-Facing Server Logging: No Word about
Privacy?
Hi all,
I just noticed this
On Jul 27, 2011, at 4:32 AM, Philip Homburg wrote:
In your letter dated Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:38:33 +1000 you wrote:
In message 4e2f4491.30...@gmail.com, Brian E Carpenter writes:
Of course, if implementors choose to drop the code you might not be
able to upgrade software versions - but
On Jul 27, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Erik Kline wrote:
Moving 6to4 to historic does not in any way impact your ability to use
it as you wish.
False. Moving 6to4 to Historic is inviting people to mount denial of service
attacks on things that actually work for people today. Moving 6to4 to Historic
Keith Moore wrote:
I see clear evidence that 6to4 is damaging the Internet and although there
are
those who can use it without causing damage, I believe that the principle is
'First, do no harm'
I put the word feature in quotes because this can be a pain in the a**
It means it's IPv6
Thank you Keith for restating the problem.
Keith == Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com writes:
Keith So essentially, the argument that 6to4 damages the
Keith Internet, is tantamount to having multiple addresses for
Keith hosts damages the Internet.
+1
...
Keith People
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 14:18, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
So essentially, the argument that 6to4 damages the Internet, is
tantamount to having multiple addresses for hosts damages the Internet.
*And this is an explicitly chosen architectural feature of IPv6.*
Having
On Jul 27, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
I see clear evidence that 6to4 is damaging the Internet and although there
are
those who can use it without causing damage, I believe that the principle is
'First, do no harm'
I put the word feature in quotes because
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:07 PM, John Mann (ITS) john.m...@monash.edu wrote:
snip
[ And that native dual-stack is a replacement for both. ]
We want normal users to move past experimental IPv6 towards production
IPv6.
Exactly, we should focus on doing production IPv6, not wasting our
time on
Le 27/07/2011 21:25, Roger Jørgensen a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:07 PM, John Mann (ITS)john.m...@monash.edu wrote:
snip
[ And that native dual-stack is a replacement for both. ]
We want normal users to move past experimental IPv6 towards production
IPv6.
Exactly, we should focus on
If you are participating in IETF 81 from outside of Quebec City, this
is a reminder that Meetecho is providing remote participation support
for tonight's Administrative Plenary. Starting at 16:20, you can view
the plenary content here: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf81/adminplenary.
Regards,
Support, A+++, would by from again, etc.
On Jul 26, 2011, at 7:54 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
i do not care what the draft is called.
i do not care whether it is info, experimental, or an IEN
i do care that is says 6to4 MUST be off by default
Arguing about the label feels like rearranging
Keith Moore wrote:
It means it's IPv6 which is damaging the Internet.
Except that the (v4) Internet is already doing its best to damage
itself. So the choice is between a thoroughly brain-damaged
v4 Internet that is continually getting worse, and a somewhat
less brain-damaged v6 Internet
Alexa,
Writing from Auckland NZ, I wish to object to the fact that the regular
audio streaming is not avaialble for the plenaries. It's a signficant
inconvenience.
Meetecho requires login and is picky about browser versions and Java versions,
forced me to blindly accept a security certificate,
After extensive discussion on this list and in the IESG Russ has decided
to make a reduced proposal. I am now initiating a new Last Call to gauge
consensus on the new version. I believe this version is more focused,
narrower, and removes many of the parts that people had problems with in
the
Hi,
per the discussion in the jabber room, one issue is that the rtsp, sip,
and tel URIs were not available at the ietf page. They should be made
available so that people can use them without accessing the meetecho web
page if they want.
With respect to the audio quality, I have not checked
On 2011-07-28 09:48, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
Hi,
per the discussion in the jabber room, one issue is that the rtsp, sip,
and tel URIs were not available at the ietf page. They should be made
available so that people can use them without accessing the meetecho web
page if they want.
With
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Writing from Auckland NZ, I wish to object to the fact that the regular
audio streaming is not avaialble for the plenaries. It's a signficant
inconvenience.
Full ACK.
Although there are rtsp-URLs available for the meetecho audio streams
(which you can only find
The second byte in an IPv4 header is called the Differentiated Services Field.
Quoting RFC 2474:
2. Terminology Used in This Document
...
Differentiated Services Field: the IPv4 header TOS octet or the IPv6
Traffic Class octet when interpreted in conformance with the
definition given
Responding to Glen Zorn's question in plenary:
Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see
numerous no objection or missing ballot responses.
Secondly, the drafts are de facto reviewed by review teams
these days (gen-art, security area, etc.). This serves to alert
the ADs if
Roger == Roger Jørgensen rog...@gmail.com writes:
We want normal users to move past experimental IPv6 towards production
IPv6.
Roger Exactly, we should focus on doing production IPv6, not wasting our
Roger time on something that run on top of something else, whatever
Hi Alexa,
At 02:42 PM 7/27/2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Writing from Auckland NZ, I wish to object to the fact that the regular
audio streaming is not avaialble for the plenaries. It's a signficant
inconvenience.
I would like to add my voice to Brian's objection. Can the usual
audio stream
I think this is a terrible idea.
IKEv2 has a way for mutual authentication with a shared key.
A concern was raised that this method was vulnerable to guessing if trivial
shared keys were configured.
There were several proposals for a better cryptographic method.
The IPsecME working group
Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see
numerous no objection or missing ballot responses.
Brian,
I've been repeatedly hearing from IESG folk for some year -- and seeing reports
relating to Nomcom -- that, in fact, ADs are expected (and maybe required) to
read
Hi,
I don't know about the codecs, but there is a wireless hop. I'm getting
frequent very short drops as well as slightly buzzy sound and less fidelity
than the parallel session streaming. The voices of people I know well are
harder to recognise.
one aspect to consider is that long play-out
In message 9031.1311786432.357811@puncture, Dave Cridland writes:
On Wed Jul 27 06:25:49 2011, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:28:06AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
SRV provides load-balancing and failover. I never said that SRV
is a
solution for temporaly put in
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Responding to Glen Zorn's question in plenary:
Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see
numerous no objection or missing ballot responses.
I can understand the resource contention when reading drafts
brought to the IESG. I would not expect
After reading your text, let me share my experience:
I struggled hard to get a class C w/o NAT. As hard as that was it was
still easier than obtaining native IPv6. I wont struggle to get native
ipv6 too.
We use 6to4 on a frontend machine, and we use native IPv6 out of that
6to4 on several
Mark Andrews wrote:
Dave Cridland writes:
Happy eyeballs - try everything as soon as you can, in parallel. Drop
everything else when one does.
More correctly it is try the first address and if that doesn't
connect in a short period (150...250ms) start a second connection
to the
Brian, SM,
First, I want to reassure you that there is no plan to discontinue the
regular audio streaming at meetings; indeed, there was every intention
of providing regular audio streaming for IETF 81, in parallel with the
support provided by the Meetecho volunteers, but there was some
Dear all,
as a representative of the Meetecho team, let me jump into this discussion.
First, about the quality of the audio stream. Our system provides two
different real-time (and when I say real-time I mean real-time)
streams: the former is a standard VoIP (Asterisk-based) GSM stream; the
hat location=off
On Jul 27, 2011, at 6:30 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
I think this is a terrible idea.
+.5. I think is is a bad idea.
IKEv2 has a way for mutual authentication with a shared key.
A concern was raised that this method was vulnerable to guessing if trivial
shared keys were
Dear all,
the full recording (synchronized video, audio, slides and jabber room)
of today's Operations and Administration Plenary is available at the following
URL:
http://www.meetecho.com/ietf81/recordings
In case of problems with the playout, just drop an e-mail to
On 2011-07-28 11:13, Martin Rex wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Responding to Glen Zorn's question in plenary:
Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see
numerous no objection or missing ballot responses.
I can understand the resource contention when reading drafts
On 2011-07-28 10:34, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see
numerous no objection or missing ballot responses.
Brian,
I've been repeatedly hearing from IESG folk for some year -- and seeing
reports relating to Nomcom -- that, in fact, ADs
So, you arguing that all DISCUSSes by ADs are indeed justified and necessary.
It is great to hear that our leadership is completely unbiased with regard to
technology, does not follow their own (or a company) agenda, misjudge their
expertise in a certain area, showed long delays in responding,
Thanks Alexa!
And certainly the Meetecho service has its value - although those of us
on the end of a very long, thin glass fibre in the South Pacific may
not be able to get the full benefit.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2011-07-28 11:51, Alexa Morris wrote:
Brian, SM,
First, I want to
On 2011-07-28 12:51, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
So, you arguing that all DISCUSSes by ADs are indeed justified and necessary.
No. I said exactly the opposite: Sometimes there are inappropriate DISCUSSes
and those need to be pointed out when they happen.
It is great to hear that our leadership
I believe we agree.
On Jul 27, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
My suggestion: Talk to the Nomcom if you think that certain ADs treated you
in an unfair way.
Absolutely agreed. The NomCom needs an overview of this.
___
Ietf mailing
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
And certainly the Meetecho service has its value - although those of us
on the end of a very long, thin glass fibre in the South Pacific may
not be able to get the full benefit.
Admittedly there was an improvement to previous IETFs.
Running Meetecho in a virtual
On 2011-07-28 09:46, Jari Arkko wrote:
After extensive discussion on this list and in the IESG Russ has decided
to make a reduced proposal. I am now initiating a new Last Call to gauge
consensus on the new version.
Thankyou. I fully support this version.
Brian Carpenter
On Jul 27, 2011, at 4:32 AM, Philip Homburg wrote:
So I think it would be quite weird to keep 6to4 at standards track just to
prevent some vendors from dropping 6to4 support.
As one of those implementers-- as in, it will probably be *my* commit to the
repository that does rm
In message 201107272350.p6rnodka019...@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp, Martin Rex writes
:
Mark Andrews wrote:
Dave Cridland writes:
Happy eyeballs - try everything as soon as you can, in parallel. Drop
everything else when one does.
More correctly it is try the first address and if
At dinner today it was suggested that the right course of action is:
leave rfc3056 (6to4) as it is.
mark rfc3068-only (anycast) as historic.
It is the availability of anycast that permits 6to4 to be on by default.
Turn off the anycast, and now 6to4 is simply a useful tool for people
who
Likewise...
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 9:25 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: Why the IESG needs to review everything...
I believe we agree.
On
From an operators point of view, specifically one that has deployed 6to4
relays, use of the same should not be encouraged.
I fully hope and expect the use of 6to4 to systematically decrease over
time so the associated infrastructure can be decommissioned.
While we have seen issues related to
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
