At 18:43 28-11-2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
IMNSHO it would have been much better if the IAB had agreed that this
allocation was a policy matter to be left to IANA and the RIRs under
Clause 4.3 of RFC 2860 . Since the IAB chose to define it as a technical
allocation, it is the IETF that has to
Hi, that's an important and good draft. Some editorial nits:
In section 2.1 you use CTL, DQUOTE, and SP in a comment.
Please add these terms to the ABNF imports in section 1.5.
In section 1.3 you mention WSDL, WADL and OpenSearch.
Please add informative references and expand the acronyms.
- Original Message -
From: Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com
To: Richard Shockey rich...@shockey.us; 'John Levine' jo...@iecc.com;
ietf@ietf.org
Cc: ty...@mit.edu
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 6:59 AM
Do we have an official web page listing the timings of the ASCII text RFC
- Original Message -
From: Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
To: Yaakov Stein yaako...@rad.com
Cc: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com; ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 6:07 PM
On 2011-11-26 21:52, Yaakov Stein wrote:
That leaves ASCII, a few forms of PDF, and RFC
- Original Message -
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
To: IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org
Cc: Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com; IETF ietf@ietf.org; IESG
i...@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 10:00 PM
On 2011-11-29 08:10, IETF Chair wrote:
Ted:
I think we should be
On 2011-11-29 09:32, t.petch wrote:
...
You will be aware of the recent threads on apps-discuss about MIME types (of
...
Internet Media Types :-)
...
which the text/plain you mention is one) which concluded, AFAICS, that there is
no rationale why a (top level) type should or should not
On 2011-11-27 19:38, Frank Ellermann wrote:
...
bandwidth plans. PDF/A is an unrelated goal, e.g., I don't care about
the monospaced font details as long as it is monospaced and can handle
the simple i18n examples in IRIbis or EAI presentations.
...
Hear, hear.
On 28/11/2011 19:38, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Dear Sam;
Wearing no hats. This is my own personal take on matters.
Also, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Please note that I, personally, do not
think that this will be trivial or easy to come up with.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:38 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 10:50 28-11-2011, IETF Chair wrote:
The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to
have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer is needed. As a
way forward, I suggest that IASA pay a
On 11/28/2011 1:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think we should be very careful before creating makework for a lawyer.
In other words there are two initial questions that need to be answered:
1. What is the threat model? What type of exposure*of the IETF itself*
(including its volunteer
Tl;dr version: I think that there is value in having IETF legal counsel
evaluate us against other SDOs specifically regarding considerations around
membership (or lack thereof), voting (or lack thereof), and openness (or lack
thereof).
That would help us to determine if this is really something
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 08:37:09AM -0500, Donald Eastlake wrote:
(c) The IETF does not have any members
The governance of the I* is complicated but I don't think any court
would have any trouble finding that, for some purposes, the membership
of the IETF is those qualified to serve as
The IAOC is pleased to announce Berlin as the site for IETF 87 from 28 July - 2
August 2013.
This will be IETF's first meeting in Berlin and only the second time in
Germany.
The IETF met in Munich for IETF 39 in 1997.
Berlin was the number three choice for a European venue in a venue
Doug,
I did not refer to your message. The only two responses to the October 10 Last
Call regarding draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 were:
-
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6rid=49gid=0k1=933k2=60292tid=1322579909
-
On 11/29/2011 7:28 AM, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
only the second time in Germany...The IETF met in Munich for IETF 39 in 1997.
Arguably at least the third...
Although I worked in the Arpanet environment in the 70s, I wasn't involved with
Internet issues until my first Internet
The IAOC is pleased to announce Toronto as the site for IETF 90 from 20 - 25
July 2014.
This will be IETF's second meeting in Toronto. The IETF last met in Toronto
for IETF 30 in
1994 and was then hosted by the University of Toronto. The Proceedings for
that meeting
can be found here:
On Nov 28, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
On October 10, 2011, the IESG issued a last call for comments regarding
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for
Shared CGN Space). While the community did not display consensus supporting
the draft, it
to be pedantic - a BCP stands for the best way we know how to do something
it is not required that the process actually be in use before the BCP is adopted
as Mike O'Dell once said, if BCPs had to reflect what was actually being done
we
could never have a BCP defining good manners on the IETF
On Tue Nov 29 15:41:09 2011, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
Toronto was the number seven choice for a North American venue in a
venue preference
survey conducted after IETF 78.
I can see the signs now.
Welcome to Toronto - ranked 7th most popular place in North America
amongst a
+1
On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:51 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
to be pedantic - a BCP stands for the best way we know how to do something
it is not required that the process actually be in use before the BCP is
adopted
as Mike O'Dell once said, if BCPs had to reflect what was actually being done
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 03:53:14PM +, Dave Cridland wrote:
Welcome to Toronto - ranked 7th most popular place in North America
amongst a non-representative self-selecting group of technical
people.
Obviously, not enough Canadians from outside Toronto were asked.
Everyone in the country
I live in Toronto and love to hate it too!
At the end of the day.. Toronto is a nice venue.. But Winter is not a good
time (would not suggest Nov or March IETF here). Summers are best if
selected.
:)
Victor K
On 11-11-29 10:59 AM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov
Summers are best if selected.
except for the flies.
(or have they disappeared in the last 25 years?)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
imiho, the issue is a balance between participants who are educated on
dangerous behavior and a bunch of rules with which the well-known and
new amateur nit pickers drive us crazy.
randy
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On Nov 29, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
+1
On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:51 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
to be pedantic - a BCP stands for the best way we know how to do something
it is not required that the process actually be in use before the BCP is
adopted
as Mike O'Dell once
Given that this is not a last call but folks are weighing in anyhow, i
will say i oppose this allocations.
+1
as has been discussed endlessly, it is technically broken, will not
achieve squat, and is a waste of time.
randy
___
Ietf mailing list
Hi Russ,
I don't know what an antitrust policy is... Could you explain?
Is this something like a conflict of interest policy? Or is it a policy to
avoid situations where we might be engaging in some sort of collusion?
Your plan sounds fine to me, on general principles, but I'd like to know
--On Monday, November 28, 2011 19:20 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz
hen...@levkowetz.com wrote:
...
I've set the converter ('unoconv', which uses libreoffice) up
to convert to PDF/A, but the converter doesn't always fully
succeed in producing valid PDF/A (also mentioned by Robinson
in one of his
On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
I looked at the antitrust policies of other SDOs. They state the things that
are prohibited from discussion at their meetings and on their mail lists.
Oh, I've been involved in some industry SDOs that had something like this...
Rules against
--On Monday, November 28, 2011 14:10 -0500 IETF Chair
ch...@ietf.org wrote:
Ted:
The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the
IETF ought to have an antitrust policy. To address this
need, a lawyer is needed. As a way forward, I suggest that
IASA pay a lawyer to come up
--On Monday, November 28, 2011 21:42 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz
hen...@levkowetz.com wrote:
One small suggestion, partially prompted by my attempts to
convert PDF and Postscript RFCs to PDF/A: when the converter
cannot or does not succeed in producing valid PDF/A, could
that fact be logged in
Hi SM,
On Nov 29, 2011, at 1:38 AM, SM wrote:
There isn't any information about why an antitrust policy is needed except
for a suggestion from an insurance agent.
It was mentioned that the IETF counsel indicated that such a policy is needed.
Addressing some of your point:
As far as I
fwiw - the last time I looked at this law
1/ the IETF did not qualify as a SDO under the law
2/ the law only protected employees of the SDO, not participants
Scott
On Nov 28, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
+1
It would be helpful in the non normative statement to
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 03:53:14PM +, Dave Cridland wrote:
Welcome to Toronto - ranked 7th most popular place in North America
amongst a non-representative self-selecting group of technical
people.
Obviously, not enough Canadians from outside
There are enough Canadians outside of Toronto?
yes, they were not illegally arrested at the g20
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Original Message -
From: Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
To: Yaakov Stein yaako...@rad.com
Cc: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com; ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 6:07 PM
On 2011-11-26 21:52, Yaakov Stein wrote:
That leaves ASCII, a few forms of PDF, and
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:01:30PM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
There are enough Canadians outside of Toronto?
Don't blame me! I'm a Toronto separatist. I think the city should
separate from Ontario (and hence, Canada), using the old City of
Toronto boundaries, and permit the former Metro
On October 10, 2011, the IESG issued a last call for comments regarding
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for
Shared CGN Space). While the community did not display consensus supporting
the draft, it also did not display consensus against the draft.
On 11/29/2011 07:28, Ronald Bonica wrote:
Doug,
I did not refer to your message. The only two responses to the October 10
Last Call regarding draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 were:
-
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6rid=49gid=0k1=933k2=60292tid=1322579909
-
Apologies, all, for misdirecting my bit of nonsense to the list
instead of just Paul.
A
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:25:11PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:01:30PM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
There are enough Canadians outside of Toronto?
Don't blame me! I'm a
Folks,
I think that our time would be used much more productively if we discussed
whether to make the allocation or not. The proposed status of the document is a
secondary issue.
Ron
-Original Message-
From: iesg-boun...@ietf.org
Ron,
One point of clarification, in your *against* list, you include:
On 11/28/11 2:25 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote:
- Some applications will break. These applications share the
characteristic of assuming that an interface is globally reachable if it
is numbered by an non-RFC
On 11/29/2011 05:47 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Nov 29, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
+1
On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:51 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
to be pedantic - a BCP stands for the best way we know how to do something
it is not required that the process actually be in use before the
On Nov 29, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Chris Donley wrote:
Ron,
One point of clarification, in your *against* list, you include:
On 11/28/11 2:25 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote:
- Some applications will break. These applications share the
characteristic of assuming that an
And that's one of the reasons this draft updates 5735. If routers make
decisions as to whether or not to enable a feature based on whether behind a
public or private address, having a defined address range for CGN space will be
significantly easier to deal with than to have arbitrary address
Agreed!
-Original Message-
From: Chris Donley [mailto:c.don...@cablelabs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 3:14 PM
To: Ronald Bonica; IESG IESG; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request
Ron,
One point of clarification, in your
On 11/29/2011 13:59, Chris Donley wrote:
And that's one of the reasons this draft updates 5735. If routers make
decisions as to whether or not to enable a feature based on whether
behind a public or private address, having a defined address range for
CGN space will be significantly easier to
t.petch wrote:
You will be aware of the recent threads on apps-discuss about MIME types
The threads are on PPTX and DOCX, that is, file name extensions,
not MIME types, which demonstrates that MIME was not necessary
and uuencode is just enough.
If this were not true, then I believe that
In message 4ed55726.5090...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
On 11/29/2011 13:59, Chris Donley wrote:
And that's one of the reasons this draft updates 5735. If routers make
decisions as to whether or not to enable a feature based on whether
behind a public or private address, having a
I support draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request and the
allocation of a /10 as Shared CGN Space because we are approaching
complete global exhaustion of unallocated IPv4 addresses and the value
of globally unique addresses is becoming manifest. Network operators
recognize the need to
Hi Frank,
Thanks for the feedback. Responses below.
On 29/11/2011, at 8:23 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Hi, that's an important and good draft. Some editorial nits:
In section 2.1 you use CTL, DQUOTE, and SP in a comment.
Please add these terms to the ABNF imports in section 1.5.
I'm -0 on
On 11/29/2011 15:37, Chris Grundemann wrote:
I support draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request and the
allocation of a /10 as Shared CGN Space because we are approaching
complete global exhaustion of unallocated IPv4 addresses and the value
of globally unique addresses is becoming manifest.
On 11/29/2011 15:04, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 4ed55726.5090...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
On 11/29/2011 13:59, Chris Donley wrote:
And that's one of the reasons this draft updates 5735. If routers make
decisions as to whether or not to enable a feature based on whether
behind a
In message 4ed5720a.5020...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
On 11/29/2011 15:37, Chris Grundemann wrote:
I support draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request and the
allocation of a /10 as Shared CGN Space because we are approaching
complete global exhaustion of unallocated IPv4
So... in Canada each of the next three years. eh!
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
'twas just heading to the SIDR tools page in a effort to self inflict
sufficient mental confusion that I would try to scoop my eyeballs out of
their sockets with a rusty spoon, I was saved from myself by a bit of a
hiccup in the system:
Horrid cut-n-paste:
An error occurred at this point in the
On 11/29/2011 17:51, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 4ed5720a.5020...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
On 11/29/2011 15:37, Chris Grundemann wrote:
I support draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request and the
allocation of a /10 as Shared CGN Space because we are approaching
complete global
On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 03:53:14PM +, Dave Cridland wrote:
Welcome to Toronto - ranked 7th most popular place in North America
amongst a non-representative self-selecting group of technical
people.
Obviously, not enough Canadians
Since this address space is between the CPE router and CGN device, and
is therefore not globally routable
right. and pigs fly.
you allocate more what is essentially 1918 space and it will be used all
over the place, from your hack to enterprises to $diety knows what. and
it will leak into
All,
I read a lot of emails today regarding this subject. I would like to express
my personal thought on it. I support the allocation of the /10 for this
purpose as laid out
in draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request
In organizations like the one I work for, we have solid IPv6
rollout
IESG,
IMHO the allocation of such space would be extremely valuable to the
Internet Community by allowing operators to minimize the impact of
introducing CGN if required (which can be accomplished quite successfully
in a Dual Stack deployment while introducing IPv6).
The allocation of this
I concur that we need to be realistic about this. Having had discussions with
operators who are trying to deploy IPv6, the reality is that even if IPv6 were
enabled universally tomorrow - a subset of subscribers, subscribers'
devices/applications, and content providers will only support IPv4
anyone who thinks this will not be used as 1918 space should share
what they are smoking. the question is not if, but rather how many
milliseconds before it is. that is the operational reality.
and we should have a betting pool on how long before it is leaked
into a measure such as route-views.
In message m2sjl644h3.wl%ra...@psg.com, Randy Bush writes:
anyone who thinks this will not be used as 1918 space should share
what they are smoking. the question is not if, but rather how many
milliseconds before it is. that is the operational reality.
And what harm to others does that
skype etc. will learn. This does prevent the breakage it just makes
it more controlled. What's the bet Skype has a patched released
within a week of this being made available?
cool. then, by that logic, let's use 240/4. the apps will patch within
a week. ok, maybe two.
i will spare you
I did share what I was smoking - it's called 'reality' :).
On a serious note, there aren't many clean (practical) solution that I am aware
of as we migrate to IPv6. Given where are, and considering the harm caused by
the alternatives of not having a reserved space (inaction - squatting), the
Randy
On 11-11-29 11:30 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
and all this is aside from the pnp, skype, ... and other breakage.
and, imiho, we can screw ipv4 life support.
Non-RFC1918 space is already used widely in Wireless Networks within CGN
Zones.
In fact I placed a number of Skype calls
On a serious note, there aren't many clean (practical) solution that I
am aware of as we migrate to IPv6.
talk to free.fr, camron byrne, ... there are roadmaps.
but this proposal is not about migrating to ipv6. it is about ipv4 life
extension and nat444 4ever. to hell with that.
randy
In message m2r50q42nn.wl%ra...@psg.com, Randy Bush writes:
skype etc. will learn. This does prevent the breakage it just makes
it more controlled. What's the bet Skype has a patched released
within a week of this being made available?
cool. then, by that logic, let's use 240/4. the
I did share what I was smoking - it's called 'reality' :).
Which reality? I think Randy is much more realistic!
You are telling us that you want a /10 of private address space set aside
because you cannot use the current allocation of private address space in RFC
1918. You tell us that the
On Nov 29, 2011 9:46 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message m2r50q42nn.wl%ra...@psg.com, Randy Bush writes:
skype etc. will learn. This does prevent the breakage it just makes
it more controlled. What's the bet Skype has a patched released
within a week of this being made
In message c91e67751b1eff41b857de2fe1f68aba0e5...@tk5ex14mbxc274.redmond.corp.
microsoft.com, Christian Huitema writes:
I did share what I was smoking - it's called 'reality' :).
Which reality? I think Randy is much more realistic!
You are telling us that you want a /10 of private address
On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com wrote:
I did share what I was smoking - it's called 'reality' :).
Which reality? I think Randy is much more realistic!
+1
You are telling us that you want a /10 of private address space set aside
because you cannot
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no wrote:
snip
FWIW, given that the IAB has chosen to not uphold the principle of
subsidiarity and let this thing be done at the lowest possible level in the
decision hierarchy, I hold with the people who argue that allocating
The IAOC is pleased to announce Berlin as the site for IETF 87 from 28 July - 2
August 2013.
This will be IETF's first meeting in Berlin and only the second time in
Germany.
The IETF met in Munich for IETF 39 in 1997.
Berlin was the number three choice for a European venue in a venue
The IAOC is pleased to announce Toronto as the site for IETF 90 from 20 - 25
July 2014.
This will be IETF's second meeting in Toronto. The IETF last met in Toronto
for IETF 30 in
1994 and was then hosted by the University of Toronto. The Proceedings for
that meeting
can be found here:
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'vCard Format Extensions : place of birth, place and date of death'
(draft-ietf-vcarddav-birth-death-extensions-02.txt) as a Proposed
Standard
This document is the product of the vCard and CardDAV Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Peter
The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG
(sidr) to consider the following document:
- 'The RPKI/Router Protocol'
draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-19.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this
78 matches
Mail list logo
