The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed policy by the IAOC to
impose
fees to produce information and authenticate documents in response to subpoenas
and
other legal requests.
The IETF receives requests for information, documentation, authentication or
other
matters through
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 06:07:33AM -0700, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
Before adopting a policy the IAOC would like feedback on this before making a
decision. Comments appreciated to ietf@ietf.org by 6 August 2012.
I think this is a perfectly legitimate policy, and I support it. The
On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 06:07 -0700, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The draft policy entitled Draft Fee Policy for Legal Requests can be found
at: http://iaoc.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html
Assuming that the IAOC has set these fees to be close to the actual
costs of servicing legal
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:07 AM, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed policy by the IAOC to
impose
fees to produce information and authenticate documents in response to
subpoenas and
other legal requests.
The IETF receives requests for
+1
Although I wonder whether radical openness would be cheaper in the long run:
Put everything online and have an auto-responder at subpo...@ietf.org that says
Go look it up yourself.
--Richard
On Jul 20, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:07 AM, IETF
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:07 AM, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The draft policy entitled Draft Fee Policy for Legal Requests can be
found
at: http://iaoc.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html
Fine idea.
great idea - just does not jive with the legal system which often need
authenticated
copies of documents
Scott
On Jul 20, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:07 AM, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The draft policy entitled Draft Fee Policy for Legal Requests can
[assuming you mean the go look it up idea]
We have the technology. Surely a CMS signed object (or even just an HTTPS
download) would provide adequate authentication that it came from the IETF.
And it doesn't seem like we would have a problem providing authenticated
documents to the world.
On 20/07/2012 14:07, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed policy by the IAOC to
impose
fees to produce information and authenticate documents in response to
subpoenas and
other legal requests.
Do it. This will dissuade trivial requests
--On Friday, July 20, 2012 06:07 -0700 IETF Administrative
Director i...@ietf.org wrote:
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed policy by
the IAOC to impose fees to produce information and
authenticate documents in response to subpoenas and other
legal requests.
...
Before
On Jul 20, 2012, at 4:52 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 06:07 -0700, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The draft policy entitled Draft Fee Policy for Legal Requests can be found
at: http://iaoc.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html
Assuming that the IAOC has set
The draft policy entitled Draft Fee Policy for Legal Requests can be found
at: http://iaoc.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html
It seems fine to me, but I would add an hourly rate for research.
For requests for e-mail, do they typically provide pointers to the
specific archive entries, or do
On 7/20/2012 7:25 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
We have the technology. Surely a CMS signed object (or even just an HTTPS
download) would provide adequate authentication that it came from the IETF.
And it doesn't seem like we would have a problem providing authenticated
documents to the
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change for IETF 95
scheduled for March 2016.
Currently IETF 95 is scheduled for 27 March to 1 April 2016. 27 March is
Easter.
The IAOC is proposing IETF 95 be rescheduled for 20 - 25 March 2016 and would
like
feedback on those dates
What a perspective refresher - March 2016!
My projects end 2013. Those which have not yet started end 2015.
2015 is the deadline for fire detectors being mandatory in EU.
2018 - maybe a new metro line near where I live, but not known
underground or above.
2016 new presidential elections
On 7/20/12 09:06 , IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change for IETF 95
scheduled for March 2016.
Currently IETF 95 is scheduled for 27 March to 1 April 2016. 27 March is
Easter.
The IAOC is proposing IETF 95 be rescheduled for
On Jul 20, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 7/20/2012 7:25 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
We have the technology. Surely a CMS signed object (or even just an HTTPS
download) would provide adequate authentication that it came from the IETF.
And it doesn't seem like we would have a
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 7/20/12 09:06 , IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change for IETF 95
scheduled for March 2016.
Currently IETF 95 is scheduled for 27 March to 1 April 2016. 27 March is
Easter.
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:06 AM, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change for IETF 95
scheduled for March 2016.
Currently IETF 95 is scheduled for 27 March to 1 April 2016. 27 March is
Easter.
The IAOC is proposing IETF 95 be
As long as you don't go any later than the week of April 10 - the week
of April 17 runs into the start of Passover.
Thanks,
Andy
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 7/20/12 09:06 , IETF Administrative
Richard,
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:40 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
On Jul 20, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 7/20/2012 7:25 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
We have the technology. Surely a CMS signed object (or even just an HTTPS
download) would provide adequate authentication that
For convenience, the complete list:
http://www.interfaithcalendar.org/2016.htm
On Jul 20, 2012, at 1:44 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
As long as you don't go any later than the week of April 10 - the week
of April 17 runs into the start of Passover.
Thanks,
Andy
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at
I don't understand why this issue is coming up.
Maybe you don't know, IETF 84 falls in the month of Ramadan for
Muslims and nobody asked to change it?
My 2 cents.
Behcet
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:06 AM, IETF Administrative Director
i...@ietf.org wrote:
The IAOC is seeking community feedback
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Jiankang Yao ya...@cnnic.cn wrote:
I have taken a look at this policy. but still not very clear about this
policy.
could you kindly show some examples for charging the fee?
I looked at this before the policy was created.
Many internet companies do this.
Hi,
(I restricted this response to behave wg, since that is where
lsn-requirements is chartered, not pcp wg; I added ietf@ietf.org since
this is about a DISCUSS relating to ietf consensus).
I think we should mandate something if interoperability will break if it
is not done.
But if the
-- BCP or not? --
As previously-responsible AD for behave, I have had serious concerns about
this document being published as a BCP.
In another email, I discussed whether PCP should be required to be
compliant to this BCP.
I think the IETF needs to decide whether lsn-requirements is something
Good point, some data in this regards:
All previous behave RFCs that 'standardized' NAT behavior are BCPs
(RFC4787, 5508, etc).
And they are have lots of MUSTs
On 7/19/12 9:37 AM, David Harrington ietf...@comcast.net wrote:
-- BCP or not? --
As previously-responsible AD for behave, I have
On 7/19/12 9:02 AM, Sam Hartman hartm...@painless-security.com wrote:
I think that behave-lsn-requirements is far more useful if it names a
specific protocol by name. By endorcing one of our middlebox protocols,
we encourage interoperability. If we don't pick a protocol by name, we
don't
David == David Harrington ietf...@comcast.net writes:
David The IETF could mandate a specific protocol to try to ensure
David interoperability, but doing this takes the decision out of the
David responsibility of the deployer to choose the best solution for the
David deployment
I have taken a look at this policy. but still not very clear about this
policy.
could you kindly show some examples for charging the fee?
Jiankang Yao
- Original Message -
From: IETF Administrative Director i...@ietf.org
To: IETF Announcement List ietf-annou...@ietf.org
Cc:
I completely agree that it's reasonable to be able to recover these
costs, and trust the IAOC to set the fees to a level commensurate for
cost recovery. There's no reason why the IETF should be financially
burdened by lawsuits between external parties in which the IETF is not
a principal party to
20 jul 2012 kl. 16:09 skrev Richard L. Barnes rbar...@bbn.com:
+1
Although I wonder whether radical openness would be cheaper in the long run:
Put everything online and have an auto-responder at subpo...@ietf.org that
says Go look it up yourself.
I could think of some other things it
Ray:
I'm fine with the change
Cheers,
Pascal
-Original Message-
From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of IETF Administrative Director
Sent: vendredi 20 juillet 2012 18:06
To: IETF Announcement List
Cc: i...@ietf.org; i...@iab.org;
I support the change and would not make it there on Easter.
Thank you,
Kathleen
-Original Message-
From: wgchairs-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:wgchairs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
IETF Administrative Director
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 12:06 PM
To: IETF Announcement List
Cc:
I think it should be changed. But, it seems like the week later rather than
earlier would be a better choice due to the fact that the week before Easter is
often Spring break for many schools, impacting travel and increasing the
likelihood of personal conflicts for attendees. Is there a
Except that there is a cost of taking all the existing paper archives and
making them available in such a manner. How many thousand pages are out there?
Keith
-Original Message-
From: wgchairs-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:wgchairs-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Richard L. Barnes
Sent:
At 12:58 PM 7/20/2012, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
For convenience, the complete list:
http://www.interfaithcalendar.org/2016.htm
outstanding - now we can't meet that whole year... ;-)
On Jul 20, 2012, at 1:44 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
As long as you don't go any later than the week of
At 12:29 PM 7/20/2012, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 7/20/12 09:06 , IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change
for IETF 95
scheduled for March 2016.
Currently IETF 95 is scheduled
On Jul 20, 2012, at 11:37 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
I don't understand why this issue is coming up.
Maybe you don't know, IETF 84 falls in the month of Ramadan for
Muslims and nobody asked to change it?
Two comments, a question, and a suggestion.
One, the muslims in the crowd had the
I don't think we should try to factor in Spring Break. Personally, I like
it when the meeting overlaps with Spring Break because that introduces the
possibility that my sons can travel with me depending upon the locale
(they're old enough to care for themselves during the day). Even if they
are
On 7/20/12 12:42 , Mary Barnes wrote:
Also, the range of
dates for Spring Break is extremely broad in my experience.
More than 6 months inclusive of the southern hemisphere.
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:06 AM, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC is proposing IETF 95 be rescheduled for 20 - 25 March 2016 and would
like
feedback on those dates before making a decision. Comments appreciated to
ietf@ietf.org
by 6 August 2012.
As much as I would love to see
On Jul 20, 2012, at 6:08 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
As for the Ramadan issue: we've had IETF meetings during Jewish holidays a
few times, and folks dealt with it as best they can. If there are some
accommodations that can be made at any IETF meeting for different holidays of
major religions,
84th IETF Meeting
Vancouver, BC, Canada
July 29-August 3, 2012
Host: Google
Meeting venue: Hyatt Regency Vancouver http://Vancouver.hyatt.com
Register online at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/84/
Registration
A. **Early-Bird Registration - USD 650.00 Pay by Friday, 20 July 2012 1700 PT
(UTC
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed policy by the IAOC to
impose
fees to produce information and authenticate documents in response to subpoenas
and
other legal requests.
The IETF receives requests for information, documentation, authentication or
other
matters through
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change for IETF 95
scheduled for March 2016.
Currently IETF 95 is scheduled for 27 March to 1 April 2016. 27 March is
Easter.
The IAOC is proposing IETF 95 be rescheduled for 20 - 25 March 2016 and would
like
feedback on those dates
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6656
Title: Description of Cisco Systems' Subnet
Allocation Option for DHCPv4
Author: R. Johnson, K. Kinnear,
M. Stapp
Status:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6674
Title: Gateway-Initiated Dual-Stack Lite Deployment
Author: F. Brockners, S. Gundavelli,
S. Speicher, D. Ward
Status: Standards Track
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6686
Title: Resolution of the Sender Policy
Framework (SPF) and Sender ID Experiments
Author: M. Kucherawy
Status: Informational
Stream:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6692
Title: Source Ports in Abuse Reporting
Format (ARF) Reports
Author: R. Clayton, M. Kucherawy
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'ASON Routing for OSPFv2 Protocols'
draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
List address: tao-disc...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tao-discuss/
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tao-discuss
Purpose: The Tao of the IETF can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/tao.html.
52 matches
Mail list logo
