Hello,
RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet
Architecture Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled.
draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility proposes an update RFC 3777 to
allow remote
SM,
I read the draft and although I like the idea I have some concerns.
Today it is possible to verify that somebody attended to an IETF
meeting. You have to register, pay and collect your badge. However, in
remote participation we do not have mechanisms to verify that somebody
attended
Hi,
Section 2 says:
RFC 3777 [RFC3777], Section 5, Nominating Committee Operation,
Paragraph 1 of Rule 14, is replaced as follows:
Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of
last 5 IETF meetings remotely or in person including at least 1 of
the 5 last
On Jun 27, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
Hi,
Section 2 says:
RFC 3777 [RFC3777], Section 5, Nominating Committee Operation,
Paragraph 1 of Rule 14, is replaced as follows:
Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of
last 5 IETF
I guess you can prove attendance by Jabber log
as much of the acculturation happens outside of wgs, we can have the nsa
install jabber spies in the hallway. and they log everything!
randy
On 06/27/2013 10:50 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hello,
RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet
Architecture Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled.
draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility
On Jun 27, 2013, at 5:50 AM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
Hello,
RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet Architecture
Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF Administrative Oversight
Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled.
Hi Arturo,
At 03:00 27-06-2013, Arturo Servin wrote:
I read the draft and although I like the idea I have some concerns.
Thanks for taking the time to read the draft. I'll comment below.
Today it is possible to verify that somebody attended to an IETF
meeting. You have to register,
I have a general question.
What is the rationale of the requirement to attend psychically to
meetings?
- That nomcom participants know the IETF
- That nomcom participant know in person people appointed to IESG,
IAB, etc
- To avoid game/abuse the system by an organization?
On Jun 27, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the rationale of the requirement to attend psychically to
meetings?
Acculturation: the opportunity over time to absorb the IETF culture and become
a part of it. The other points you raised are valid, but this
Ted,
Thanks.
Perhaps then Olafur recommendation:
must have attended at least 5 meetings of the last 15 and including one of the
last 5.
may be a good compromise. Also, I would suggest one of the last 6
(instead of 5). I guess in two years the IETF does not change too much.
On Jun 27, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
must have attended at least 5 meetings of the last 15 and including one of
the last 5.
may be a good compromise. Also, I would suggest one of the last 6
(instead of 5). I guess in two years the IETF does not
Ben, thank you very much for the review, and Michael, thank you for answering
and addressing the issues.
I am still concerned about the crypto profile question, however. I'd like to
understand what the lack of a profile specification means for interoperability
and the ability of others to use
On Jun 27, 2013, at 5:50 AM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
Hello,
RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet Architecture
Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF Administrative Oversight
Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled.
Hi,
First, as a comment, I guess there is people who follow more IETF remotely
than other in place.
Second, I like this idea of changing the threshold.
Third, In the other hand, since there are several positions that are fill
using this RFC maybe we can place a testbed. 50% can be fill
John,
I agree with everything you wrote. I especially applaud SM for getting
out there with new ideas, and I like the idea of opening up eligibility
a bit more. John's proposed change would reduce risk of capture. I do
think that risk is also mitigated through other mechanisms (like
limiting
I have attended some IETF meetings remotely and I am not in favor of this
change.
On Jun 27, 2013, at 5:50 AM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
Hello,
RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet Architecture
Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF
I have not read the thread yet, on purpose.
As a person who has done significant remote participation myself, and has also
observed the difficulty new people have in understanding how things fit
together, I can not support your specific proposal, but I support the idea.
I would suggest:
2.
Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
Today it is possible to verify that somebody attended to an IETF
meeting. You have to register, pay and collect your badge. However, in
remote participation we do not have mechanisms to verify that somebody
attended to a session.
Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
However, before getting into that I'd like to hear from
folks who've been on or chaired nomcoms. I know a lot of
it is done remotely, but how important is the f2f part
that happens during meetings? Would it really be ok if
On 06/27/2013 02:24 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
However, before getting into that I'd like to hear from
folks who've been on or chaired nomcoms. I know a lot of
it is done remotely, but how important is the f2f part
From: John Curran jcur...@istaff.org
the proposed language also increases the possibility of capture (i.e.
the ability of an single organization to inappropriately skew the
outcome of the process)
Why not just say directly that 'to prevent capture, no more than X% of
the
Just a quick aside, but having run an interim WG meeting where we did not
charge a meeting fee and knowing how significantly attendance diverged, I
would strongly support at least some meeting fee for remote attendance.
There's also the key fact that the IETF is funded by IETF meeting fees and
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Michael Richardson
mcr+i...@sandelman.cawrote:
Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
Today it is possible to verify that somebody attended to an IETF
meeting. You have to register, pay and collect your badge. However,
in
remote
On 6/27/13 3:34 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Why not just say directly that 'to prevent capture, no more than X% of
the NomCom may work for a single organization' (where X is 15% or so, so
that even if a couple collude, they still can't get control).
It's already in RFC 3777. No more than 2 per
Hi Alejandro,
At 05:42 27-06-2013, alejandroacostaal...@gmail.com wrote:
First, as a comment, I guess there is people who follow more IETF
remotely than other in place.
Yes.
Here's is an extract from a Jabber log:
I don't think I've seen a WG chatroom this full before
Well the future
--On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:50 +0100 Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
...
(*) Like I said, too early to get into it, but the nomcom
selection process could also require that the voting
members collectively have been to N meetings, with each
voting member able to
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote:
On 6/27/13 3:34 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Why not just say directly that 'to prevent capture, no more than X% of
the NomCom may work for a single organization' (where X is 15% or so, so
that even if a couple collude, they still
Hi,
I am strongly opposed to a remote meeting registration process and remote
meeting fees.
This increases the financial bias towards large corporate control of IETF
standards.
I like the IETF because anybody can comment on a draft or write a draft
without
paying fees.
I think there could be
On Jun 27, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
Why not just say directly that 'to prevent capture, no more than X% of
the NomCom may work for a single organization' (where X is 15% or so, so
that even if a couple collude, they still can't get control).
There are
--On Thursday, June 27, 2013 09:35 -0400 Alia Atlas
akat...@gmail.com wrote:
Just a quick aside, but having run an interim WG meeting where
we did not charge a meeting fee and knowing how significantly
attendance diverged, I would strongly support at least some
meeting fee for remote
Michael,
I think what you're getting at is that there are different types of
remote participation. If one wants to listen in, that should only
require the appropriate software and a network connection. If one
actually wants to participate, then one either has to get onto a WeBex
or Meetecho
At 09:42 AM 6/27/2013, Eliot Lear wrote:
On 6/27/13 3:34 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Why not just say directly that 'to prevent capture, no more than X% of
the NomCom may work for a single organization' (where X is 15% or so, so
that even if a couple collude, they still can't get control).
It's
Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote:
I think what you're getting at is that there are different types of remote
participation. If one wants to listen in, that should only require the
appropriate software and a network connection. If one actually wants to
participate, then one
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
Once scenario for this - both benign intentions and non-benign - is that a
company instead of sending one person to all the meetings starts rotating the
opportunity to attend the IETF among a number of people - say
At 11:13 AM 6/27/2013, Scott Brim wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
Once scenario for this - both benign intentions and non-benign - is that a
company instead of sending one person to all the meetings starts rotating
the opportunity to attend
At 09:51 AM 6/27/2013, David Meyer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote:
On 6/27/13 3:34 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Why not just say directly that 'to prevent capture, no more than X% of
the NomCom may work for a single organization' (where X is 15% or so, so
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
At 09:51 AM 6/27/2013, David Meyer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote:
On 6/27/13 3:34 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Why not just say directly that 'to prevent capture, no more than X%
RFC 6234 contains, embedded in it, code to implement various functions,
including SHA-2.
Extracting that code from the RFC is not a clean process. In addition the code
must have existed unembedded before being embedded.
Is that code available from the IETF or elsewhere?
(I have tried some
Hi,
Thanks for the comments, comments inline.
On Jun 24, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Please treat these comments as normal last-call comments.
I've been asigned as a security directorate reviewer for this draft.
This draft specifies a mechanism to indicate which packets were
What language, OS? There are plenty of rich hashing/encrypting C/C++
libraries out there. Windows has CAPI, even OPENSSL has these libraries.
On 6/27/2013 11:49 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
RFC 6234 contains, embedded in it, code to implement various functions,
including SHA-2.
Hello,
I'll reply to several messages below to reduce ietf@ mail traffic.
At 03:03 27-06-2013, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Section 2 says:
RFC 3777 [RFC3777], Section 5, Nominating Committee Operation,
Paragraph 1 of Rule 14, is replaced as follows:
Members of the IETF community must have
I want the specific code that is in the RFC (which happens to be in C) rather
than some other implementation.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Michael Richardson
mcr+i...@sandelman.cawrote:
Alia Atlas akat...@gmail.com wrote:
I have attended one meeting remotely - and the experience is nothing
at all
like being at IETF. I can see modifying NomCom eligibility
constraints
slightly -
Hi,
On Jun 27, 2013, at 18:26, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com
wrote:
(1) How do you define remote attendance?
(2) How does the secretariat determine whether someone has remotely
attended? (Based on whatever definition of remote attendance you have in
mind.)
I prefer not to get into
Hi,
On Jun 27, 2013, at 17:49, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
chris.dearl...@baesystems.com wrote:
RFC 6234 contains, embedded in it, code to implement various functions,
including SHA-2.
Extracting that code from the RFC is not a clean process.
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcstrip/ can
On Jun 27, 2013, at 9:26 AM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
I prefer not to get into a definition of remote attendance for now.
Then maybe we should wait for you to do so. This discussion is kind of
pointless if we don't have shared definitions.
--Paul Hoffman
On 6/27/13 5:08 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I have attended some IETF meetings remotely and I am not in favor of this
change.
To be honest, I'm skeptical, myself. I have attended a lot of
meetings remotely and I don't think that it provides enough
context to be able to provide the background
On 2013-06-27, at 11:49, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
chris.dearl...@baesystems.com wrote:
RFC 6234 contains, embedded in it, code to implement various functions,
including SHA-2.
Extracting that code from the RFC is not a clean process. In addition the
code must have existed unembedded
--On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:07 -0400 Michael StJohns
mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
...
But that's still problematic. The current rules basically
give any company who provides = 30% of the Nomcom volunteer
pool an ~85.1% chance of having 2 members (sum of all
percentages from 2-10
Yes, but instead of 150 volunteers from other organizations we could
have 500. So the probabilities are back to the same.
/as
On 6/27/13 4:07 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
I believe the proposal as stated would further exacerbate that problem - not
for a given company, but for pretty much
Oh, I missed the first date line in my paste, which makes the second one a
bit mysterious. Here it is :-)
[krill:~]% date
Thu 27 Jun 2013 12:56:35 EDT
[krill:~]% mkdir 6234
[krill:~]% cd 6234
...
On 2013-06-27, at 13:22, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
[krill:~]% mkdir 6234
[krill:~]%
At 09:44 27-06-2013, Eggert, Lars wrote:
sorry, but it's silly to attempt to propose that remote attendees be
permitted to volunteer for NomCom without defining what defines a
remote attendee.
Agreed.
The issue you are raising - that limiting the NomCom pool to recent
attendees of physical
These days I don't contribute much to the IETF, so I hesitate to say
much, but I care about it a lot and may contribute again someday.
IMHO ...
Once I lived in Japan for a year and got to think I understood
Japanese culture, but finally realized I had hardly scratched the
surface. Once, in
On 6/27/2013 3:50 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
However, before getting into that I'd like to hear from
folks who've been on or chaired nomcoms. I know a lot of
it is done remotely, but how important is the f2f part
that happens during meetings? Would it really be ok if
say 5 voting members could
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Because of that, weakening requirements for NomCom participation
greatly increases the probability that our culture will fracture, and
our mission statement lose meaning, before we have a chance to agree
on what they should become. I
From: iaoc-...@ietf.org
Subject: Accessibility of IETF Remote Participation Services
For more than a decade, the IETF has tried to make it easier for remote
attendees to participate in regular and interim face-to-face meetings. The
current tools that the IETF has been using, as well as the
On Jun 27, 2013, at 10:29 AM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
I think that the NomCom eligibility criteria should not discriminate between
any contributor to the IETF Standard Process.
-1. Those choosing the leadership of an organization should understand more
than the leadership
Thanks Moonesamy,
I support the draft, it will give all participants from all the world equal
opputunity. I made input related to this on the list because I found that I
am remote participant and there was limits and conditions which I don't
want. However, there may be some reasons that IETF done
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Just as long as you understand that you are influencing the diversity of the
nomcom itself.
Yes, we need to cultivate more talent and more viewpoints while
simultaneously using hard-earned wisdom and encouraging
--On Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:29 -0700 S Moonesamy
sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
At 09:44 27-06-2013, Eggert, Lars wrote:
sorry, but it's silly to attempt to propose that remote
attendees be permitted to volunteer for NomCom without
defining what defines a remote attendee.
Agreed.
I'm
Because of that, weakening requirements for NomCom participation
greatly increases the probability that our culture will fracture, and
our mission statement lose meaning, before we have a chance to agree
on what they should become. I supported the proposal to require a few
Ok, other than time, it should be easy to extract, clean up and cross
your fingers that it compiles with your favorite C compiler. But I
would write to the authors to get the original source. Or google:
C source crypto libraries API hashing functions
among the first hit:
As per a request I received from you
Dear Bernard,
Chair, IETF Remote Participation Services Committee
Thanks for your message. I am a remote participant that never ever came to
the IETF meetings and not sure if I would. I think my experience may help
your committee
On 2013-06-27, at 15:38, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
Ok, other than time, it should be easy to extract, clean up and cross your
fingers that it compiles with your favorite C compiler.
Having just done it, I'm happy to report that there was little finger-crossing
involved. The fact
The IETF 87 Preliminary Agenda has been posted. The final agenda will be
published on Friday, July 5th.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/87/agenda.html
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/87/agenda.txt
https://www.ietf.org/meeting/87/index.html
Thank you!
IETF Secretariat
iaoc-rps == iaoc-rps iaoc-...@ietf.org writes:
iaoc-rps As noted in Section 4 of the IETF Chair message, the IETF is
iaoc-rps currently soliciting suggestions for improvements in its RPS
iaoc-rps capabilities. As part of that, the IETF would like to solicit
iaoc-rps feedback
On 06/27/2013 02:50 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hello,
RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet
Architecture Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled.
draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility
On 6/27/2013 12:06 PM, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
As part of that, the IETF
would like to solicit feedback on the accessibility and usability of remote
participation
services by IETF participants with disabilities. If you would like to comment
on
the accessibility and usability of
Hi John,
At 12:33 27-06-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
I'm not sure I agree and want to come back to an earlier point
-- we should figure out what we really need and want and then
see if we can work out the details to make it work. If we
The definition of attend is and has been people who pay
Evi used to be an IETF regular. There is rather ominous news - she is
lost at sea between New Zealand and Australia:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1objectid=10893482
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1objectid=10893503
Regards
Brian Carpenter
--On Friday, June 28, 2013 11:24 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Evi used to be an IETF regular. There is rather ominous news -
she is lost at sea between New Zealand and Australia:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1objectid=
10893482
[I have significantly cut down the thread to respond to a couple points.]
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:54 PM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
In principle, one could consider the do we want this and what
would the criteria be questions in either order. In practice,
I think the former
On 6/27/2013 4:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Evi used to be an IETF regular. There is rather ominous news - she is
lost at sea between New Zealand and Australia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evi_Nemeth
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
At 12:38 27-06-2013, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I think you can rely on each person actually on NomCom to speak their mind and
deliver from their experience (and we can rely on the NomCom chair
to tease that
out). So surely we can say something like:
2 old-timers chosen randomly from a list of
Hi Abdussalam,
At 12:16 27-06-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I support the draft, it will give all participants from all the
world equal opputunity. I made input related to this on the list
because I found that I am remote participant and there was limits
and conditions which I don't want.
On Thursday, June 27, 2013, Scott Brim wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Michael Richardson
m...@sandelman.cajavascript:;
wrote:
Just as long as you understand that you are influencing the diversity of
the nomcom itself.
Yes, we need to cultivate more talent and more viewpoints
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 4:30 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Friday, June 28, 2013 11:24 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Evi used to be an IETF regular. There is rather ominous news -
she is lost at sea between New Zealand and Australia:
Hi all,
I have an idea and want to share.It is about adaptive http. The protocol
requests the interests and other parameters from the client and send the web
page dynamically different to different users based on the interests. The
intersts can be shared via XML. This is in contrast to
Please forward to all interested parties.
Dear Colleagues,
The IAB (on behalf of the IETF) has been asked to supply a member to the 2014
ICANN Nominating Committee (NomCom) by 15 August 2013. We would therefore like
to ask the community for volunteers to serve on the ICANN NomCom. If you are
Total of 177 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jun 28 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
5.65% | 10 | 8.11% | 110934 | hal...@gmail.com
5.65% | 10 | 5.57% |76202 |
Summary:
Douglas Otis and Dave Rand have appealed the action taken by the IESG to
advance RFC 6376, DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures, from
(the legacy status of) Draft Standard to Internet Standard. The document
was advanced under the criteria defined in section 2 of RFC 6410. The
From: iaoc-...@ietf.org
Subject: Accessibility of IETF Remote Participation Services
For more than a decade, the IETF has tried to make it easier for remote
attendees to participate in regular and interim face-to-face meetings. The
current tools that the IETF has been using, as well as the
The IETF 87 Preliminary Agenda has been posted. The final agenda will be
published on Friday, July 5th.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/87/agenda.html
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/87/agenda.txt
https://www.ietf.org/meeting/87/index.html
Thank you!
IETF Secretariat
Please forward to all interested parties.
Dear Colleagues,
The IAB (on behalf of the IETF) has been asked to supply a member to the 2014
ICANN Nominating Committee (NomCom) by 15 August 2013. We would therefore like
to ask the community for volunteers to serve on the ICANN NomCom. If you are
85 matches
Mail list logo
