James Seng writes:
Particularly, it will explain why display of non-ASCII glyphs isnt as
simple as just use UTF-8 and everything is okay.
Here we go again: IDN WG co-chair James Seng responds to a discussion of
IDNA's flaws by attacking another proposal.
Think about that for a moment. IDNA
James Seng writes:
Particularly, it will explain why display of non-ASCII glyphs isnt as
simple as just use UTF-8 and everything is okay.
Here we go again: IDN WG co-chair James Seng responds to a discussion of
IDNA's flaws by attacking another proposal.
Nope. If you read my mail again,
D. J. Bernstein;
What Seng fails to do is compare IDNA to the status quo. Sure, the
status quo forces sites to stick to ASCII, which is visually unpleasant
for many users.
Though I, personally, can read, for example, Hangul (Korean Alphabet),
for almost all international users, it is much
On 28th May 2001 (oh boy, we been aroud for so long?), I response to you on
the similar discussion: See
http://www.imc.org/idn/mail-archive/msg02789.html
Particularly, it will explain why display of non-ASCII glyphs isnt as simple
as just use UTF-8 and everything is okay.
I've been
On Mar 17, Bonney Kooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think every one missed the point due to my not being
a bit more precise, and using a very strong word.
I understood your point fine - what I had problems understanding were the
responses. For people to come back with arguments like 'Do you
On Mar 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm.. so you're saying that *ALL* that code out there that double-checked that
things that claimed (possibly implicitly) to be USASCII were in fact in the
0-127 range are crusty code?
No. I'm saying that if a piece of software gets input that is
On Mar 18, D. J. Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More importantly, in the absence of consensus, the status quo wins.
Something is seriously wrong when an internationalization proposal draws
objections from hundreds of Chinese-speaking users, for example.
Now *that's* a convincing
Bonney -
1) the meeting fee is USD 425. You pay an USD 150 penalty for forcing us to
staff the registration desk with people authorized to handle credit card
transactions and so forth; I don't have numbers on whether the penalty is
enough to pay for the overhead.
The average fee paid in 2001
--On 17. mars 2002 21:24 +0800 Tim Kehres [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that I have seen any spam on this or the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mailing lists in quite a long time. Ad I can only recall two incidences
where I have seen any spam on either list. So I guess I am wondering
why
--On Sunday, March 17, 2002 02:04 PM -0800 Bonney Kooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
support that. I suggest let IETF institute a tiered
corporate membership program like all other standards
forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums
and MPLS forums etc.). Let us have $20 K per year
Paul Robinson wrote:
...
1. More money will be raised - Cisco et al are going to send their people
regardless, and the point where they do not see it as being economically
viable to do so is going to be quite high
That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tim Kehres [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], IETF general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
For the IETF list, it is because it is being run in the mode recommended
(subscribers only + large whitelist).
We started doing that a
Hello,
I was trying to locate ietf mail archive in tar gz format, the mail
archive that seems to be available on the www.ietf.org are in form of
single message, that is not very convenient for the offline viewing,
Thanks.
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Microsoft has recently addressed the NAT traversal issue for multimedia
scenarios by shipping Messenger in Windows XP and it uses universal plug
and play protocols (www.upnp.org) to open holes on upnp capable internet
gateways. There are many vendors building upnp capable NATs in 2002.
I suggest let IETF institute a tiered
corporate membership program like all other standards
forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums
and MPLS forums etc.)
Yes--and they get what they pay for: a consortium to rubber-stamp their
proposals.
large companies are
just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The
whole
idea of tiered prices is based on a massive misunderstanding of the way
companies
manage expenses.
In fact, large corporations can be *more* sensitive to meeting costs,
because they have better
On Mar 18, Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF attendance
since the economic downturn started is across the board - large companies are
just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The
The objections from the Taiwanese (non-wg members btw) are noted to the
group.
See http://www.imc.org/idn/mail-archive/msg05977.html
None of them provide any useful technical information to the last call.
Neither are the protest within the IETF process as described in RFC2026
Section 6.5.
BTW, slightly better than just not showing up is watching the
multicast feed.
In fact, the more people who choose to participate this way
will indeed serve to make a justification to make this better,
i.e. real-time feedback from the network, etc.
And before anyone starts whining about not
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William Allen Simpson writes:
The Purple Streak (Hilarie Orman) wrote:
Mild-mannered S. Kent is in reality SuperNoSecMan. He adds
the essential anti-replay counter to IPsec protocols and, ...
causes people to NOT adopt them?
Actually, of course, Steve Kent did
At 08:42 AM 3/18/2002 +, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
What Seng fails to do is compare IDNA to the status quo. Sure, the
this has been done many times. there is no need to repeat just because a
participant failed to acknowledge or understand it.
d/
--
Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL
I'm an individual with a modest income who generally pays his own way
to attend IETF meetings. I agree that the costs are too high. However,
I'd be opposed to a scheme that charged corporations more, because then
they'd expect their word to carry more weight. IMHO the only way to
make sure
In other words, the code re-write and upgrde is going to have to happen
sometime.
right. but it's not in our power to tell people when to do the rewrite
and upgrade. and insisting that everyone upgrade all applications to
accept IDNs before anyone uses IDNs won't work. there's too much
Ahh, it doesn't have to damage routing transparency. If we were to use
a signaling protocol that is carefully crafted to preserve routing
transparency (e.g. RSVP) then we can avoid this issue.
The upnp guys are not really thinking of damaging routing transparency.
The protocols explicit probe
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 15:59 + Paul Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In addition, I still find it amazing that people are justifying costs due
to the number of breakfasts and cookies being served. The word
'ludicrous' is overused on this list, but I think I've found a situation
g'day,
Paul Robinson wrote:
On Mar 18, Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF attendance
since the economic downturn started is across the board - large companies are
just as sensitive to meeting costs as
Paul Robinson wrote:
On Mar 18, Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The whole
idea of tiered prices is based on a massive misunderstanding of the way companies
manage expenses.
I can assure you it isn't.
Since cross-posters always (!) read each mailing list's charter before sending,
it is intriguing to consider that said posters probably also stumbled across
the list's subscription method. This would presumably move the act of
subscription from the realm of obscure knowledge and into the
Jeff,
I don't think that I have seen any spam on this or the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mailing lists in quite a long time. Ad I can only recall two incidences
where I have seen any spam on either list. So I guess I am wondering
why there seems to be a perceived problem with spam on these
Date:Sun, 17 Mar 2002 21:24:50 +0800
From:Tim Kehres [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: 10e401c1cdb7$3ce5ffe0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Traditional metrics for defining spam
| (header forging, indiscriminate mass mailings, use of third party relays,
| etc.) don't seem to
Defining spam as any unsolicited and undesirable mail not only
makes it impossible for strangers to sent you mail but trivializes
the offense and makes it harder to penalize the real spammers.
Taken to an extreme (very close to it for some definitions), it makes it
difficult to differentiate
Joe - since you replied to my note rather than bonney's, i am obliged
to reply.
Unlike both of you, i am not expressing an opinion on the fees. What i
am saying is that neither of you have any data. Let's look at some
actual numbers, and we can then have a reasoned discussion...
/mtr
At 03:49 PM 3/13/2002, William Allen Simpson wrote:
10 years ago tomorrow, Brian Lloyd and I had a rubber hose lunch
meeting with Steve Kent, who as a member of the IAB had refused to allow
the PPP WG to publish CHAP in our RFC as an official authentication
protocol. (He had previously mandated
Keith Moore wrote:
[..]
1. it's unreasonable to expect occasional commentators to subscribe to a list
before sending traffic there.
#include we_all_dug_our_heels_in_over_this_topic_12_months_ago.h
(it's completely reasonable to expect them to
read the charter, and any drafts
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 08:17 -0800 Kevin C. Almeroth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, slightly better than just not showing up is watching the
multicast feed.
In fact, the more people who choose to participate this way
will indeed serve to make a justification to make this better,
i.e.
From: Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
With respect to the second above issue - I am very aware of what
happend -
some of our people sent single directed messages (unsolicited) to
parties
they thought might be interested in what we do. They were single, short
messages, sent from real
Tim and all,
Tim Kehres wrote:
From: Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
With respect to the second above issue - I am very aware of what
happend -
some of our people sent single directed messages (unsolicited) to
parties
they thought might be interested in what we do. They were
--On Sunday, March 17, 2002 02:04 PM -0800 Bonney Kooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
support that. I suggest let IETF institute a tiered
corporate membership program like all other standards
forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums
and MPLS forums etc.). Let us have $20 K per year
the weakness of using mailman's suspend delivery for submit-only
addresses is that the guy will get a monthly reminder of his password.
I find that if I as administrator use this feature for allowing people to
post, they tend to unsubscribe themselves at the start of the month, rather
defeating
Hi folks,
This week, we will again have 2 plenaries - IAB on Wednesday, IESG on
Thursday.
The most important part of the plenary is the open mike session - YOU get
to tell us what YOU consider important about the IETF.
And we get to respond, and you get to respond to each other, for as long as
--On Sunday, March 17, 2002 02:04 PM -0800 Bonney Kooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
support that. I suggest let IETF institute a tiered
corporate membership program like all other standards
forums (organizations do pay huge fees for WAP forums
and MPLS forums etc.). Let us have $20 K per year
To go back to the original argument, trying to put a stop on a standard
getting through because it breaks a piece of softwre written some time ago
that a small percentage of people use today is a dumb idea.
I have very little sympathy for software that breaks when given unexpected
input. But
The behavour that bulk emailers exhibit is substiantly different from
happened in this case. I've outlined in detail what our people had
done -
if you look at the bulk mailers and their practices it is not difficult
to
determine many key differences. In fact if you look at the
On Saturday, March 16, 2002, at 08:01 , William Allen Simpson wrote:
... I didn't happen to be at that ad-hoc meeting
in San Diego, so I wasn't influenced by it
No, but you were at the meetings where swIPe was demonstrated --
ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATED -- and where the the packet headers were
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 08:17 AM -0800 Kevin C. Almeroth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And before anyone starts whining about not having multicast access,
the alternative is to send out unicast streams. And of course this
creates an immense cost in terms of additional bandwidth needed out
But Bill, I'm trying to understand what your point is. We can't force
people to use security. IPsec is standard in most major business
operating systems (Win2K, Solaris, *BSD, etc.) and available for for
Linux. There are hardware solutions -- I have a small IPsec box with
me in
The Usenix annual convention is about the same cost. I suspect the
O'Reilly Open Source Convention is more.
Corporations already pay for the ietf meetings. Check out the
registration list. Corporations are also members and contributors to
ISOC.
Let's assume we took the meeting prices down
RJ Atkinson wrote:
On Saturday, March 16, 2002, at 08:01 , William Allen Simpson wrote:
... I didn't happen to be at that ad-hoc meeting
in San Diego, so I wasn't influenced by it
No, but you were at the meetings where swIPe was demonstrated --
ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATED -- and where the
On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 12:04:37 +1100, grenville armitage said:
Since cross-posters always (!) read each mailing list's charter before sending,
it is intriguing to consider that said posters probably also stumbled across
the list's subscription method. This would presumably move the act of
At 11:23 AM 3/18/02, Keith Moore wrote:
I'm an individual with a modest income who generally pays his own way
to attend IETF meetings. I agree that the costs are too high. However,
I'd be opposed to a scheme that charged corporations more, because then
they'd expect their word to carry more
At 11:29 AM 3/18/02, Keith Moore wrote:
In other words, the code re-write and upgrde is going to have to happen
sometime.
right. but it's not in our power to tell people when to do the rewrite
and upgrade. and insisting that everyone upgrade all applications to
accept IDNs before anyone
On Mar 18, Scott Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip all your arguments that I now accept as being reasonable now I've had
a reasonable intake of Dr. Pepper and cigarettes :-)
I think you make some good points regarding the ability of independent
developers to find funding. So good that
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:57:17 GMT, Paul Robinson said:
Hmm.. so you're saying that *ALL* that code out there that double-checked that
things that claimed (possibly implicitly) to be USASCII were in fact in the
0-127 range are crusty code?
No. I'm saying that if a piece of software gets
Paul Robinson wrote:
On Mar 18, Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF attendance
since the economic downturn started is across the board - large companies are
just as sensitive to meeting costs as small
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 11:44:50AM +, Paul Robinson wrote:
2. Individual participation will increase, and therefore the quality of the
protocols, rafts and RFCs will increase. Would the IETF rather be pushing
through some standard that one manufacturer really wants for their new
Joe,
To a large extent I agree with the goals. And I am not saying NATs are
the cats pajamas, but they do existing and you and I yacking about it
are not going to make them go away. (by the way, most people buying
NATs think they are buying a firewall and often have no clue as how they
work).
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Keith == Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Keith And as much as the meeting costs annoy me, I haven't thought of a better
Keith way to fund IETF. But I'd be curious to know whether holding meetings
Keith in other venues (say university
I have forwarded the question to the secretariat.
I suspect that the moderator is taking the weekend off.
Harald
--On 18. mars 2002 07:50 -0700 Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why are your, Eric Brunner-Williams's, Robert Elz's, and my messages
present in the
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William Allen Simpson writes:
Right. The only copy I could find was from 1996, but I don't think
that that difference is important.
(http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-simpson-ipsec-enhancement-00.txt)
Remember, the WG chair
--- Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Bonney -
1) the meeting fee is USD 425. You pay an USD 150
penalty for forcing us to
staff the registration desk with people authorized
to handle credit card
transactions and so forth; I don't have numbers on
whether the penalty is
The protocols explicit probe the first hop router on the network for
upnp capabilities. In their model of a home gateway/LAN there is no
internal routing, the world is bridged, so the signaling should not
damage routing transparency.
But just imposing that model removes transparency. Maybe I
On 3/18/02 at 6:20 AM +, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
``Internationalized domain names are a failure if non-ASCII glyphs
don't appear on the screen.'' What kind of idiot would disagree with
that?
I'm one of those kind of idiots. I expect that there will be many
applications that won't put
I set up VPN over IPSEC on a national academic network with 40mbit backbone
and 10/100 mbit site linkspeeds. the best end-to-end performance I could get
was 2mbit rising to 3-4 burst, and I was flooded by fragmented IP.
You should try (again?) a more modern implementation.
Stuff like pMTU
Paul Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... Have you noticed that nobody from any company has
piped up in this thread to say oooh, no, that would be a bad
idea!.
I wouldn't have used just those words, perhaps, but just so there is
no misunderstanding:
Oooh, no, that would be a bad idea!
I
That's an interesting assertion, but it isn't true. The decline in IETF attendance
since the economic downturn started is across the board - large companies are
just as sensitive to meeting costs as small companies or individuals. The whole
idea of tiered prices is based on a massive
The behavour that bulk emailers exhibit is substiantly different from
happened in this case.
The key point, though, is that there is no way for the recipients to tell
the difference. From my point of view, when I get customized spam (the
sort with my name address on it, rather than BCC:ing
Paul Robinson wrote:
[..]
For people to come back with arguments like 'Do you know how much
the coffee costs?' raised the question 'Do you think the coffee is critical
to have at those meetings?'.
At the IETF meetings you've participated in, are you saying the morning
and afternoon
Paul Robinson wrote:
[..]
please, ask yourself whether the cookies are really needed. :-)
Enabling cookies improves information exchange between participants.
cheers,
gja
Ahh, it doesn't have to damage routing transparency. If we were to use
a signaling protocol that is carefully crafted to preserve routing
transparency (e.g. RSVP) then we can avoid this issue.
That's what I'm working on, but midcom and upnp as they're
currently defined most certainly do have
right. but it's not in our power to tell people when to do the rewrite
and upgrade. and insisting that everyone upgrade all applications to
accept IDNs before anyone uses IDNs won't work. there's too much demand
for IDNs right now, and people are already deploying it. since we don't
have
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Why are your, Eric Brunner-Williams's, Robert Elz's, and my messages
present in the archive for the IETF list at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/index.html
while Mr. Kehres's are absent?
A large mailing list (such as [EMAIL PROTECTED]) is
I'm intrigued that the reggo figures say attendance is shrinking. Amazed
but also delighted in a way, because there is no question smaller is
more functional. Obviously sad for those who can't attend, I'm not
saying this is unequivocally wonderful or anything.
The thing is, it doesn't *feel*
From: Bruce Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why are your, Eric Brunner-Williams's, Robert Elz's, and my messages
present in the archive for the IETF list at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/index.html
while Mr. Kehres's are
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 12:25 -0800 Bonney Kooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Bonney -
1) the meeting fee is USD 425. You pay an USD 150
penalty for forcing us to
staff the registration desk with people authorized
to handle credit
Paul Robinson writes:
Something *should* be done, but your argument has a hint of
'I never want anything done, ever' about it, which is putting people off.
I have put a huge amount of effort into evaluating the costs of various
IDN proposals. Please read http://cr.yp.to/proto/idnc3.html before
William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It was certain members of the WG who insisted we didn't need the
counter. At least one has admitted he was wrong. Are you ever going
to
admit you were?
I didn't realize that a call for admission had been previously issued.
Sure, I was
g'day,
Scott Lawrence wrote:
...
In addition, I still find it amazing that people are justifying costs due to
the number of breakfasts and cookies being served. The word 'ludicrous' is
overused on this list, but I think I've found a situation it applies to -
please, ask yourself whether
From: John Stracke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
In fact if you look at the various forms
of legislation around the world
Law has nothing to do with right and wrong. If I can't look at a piece of
spam and determine whether or not it infringes the law, then there is
something wrong with the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian E Carpenter writes:
I can
assure you that for large multi-nationals the difference between paying $500
for a delegate and $5000 is a drop in the proverbial ocean, especially when
it comes to standards tracking.
I can assure you that you are as wrong as
The objections from the Taiwanese (non-wg members btw) are noted to the
group.
See http://www.imc.org/idn/mail-archive/msg05977.html
None of them provide any useful technical information to the last call.
Neither are the protest within the IETF process as described in RFC2026
Melinda,
I actually agree with most of what you say in the absolute.
I will note that the one thing going for the home network NAT guys is
that they have focused on making things work to the extent that they
even have George Hamilton selling NATs at the poolside on TV commercials
for Circuit
This is a very old problem in many situations.
I remember well dealing with it in the LA ACM back in the 1960's...
People were objecting to paying $5.00 for dinner;-)...
One answer is to set up some kind of Hardship Case program to which
hardship cases may submit an application for a special
--On 18. mars 2002 13:56 -0600 Michael Richardson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As another independant consultant, I am actually far more price
sensitive on the hotel and food costs than I am on anything. (And the
ritzier the hotel, the higher the cost of the food, and the availability
of a
It is useful technical input on the first time.
By the 353th time, someone got to ask what else are they contributing?
of course once should be sufficient.
some people don't realize that we don't do voting.
It is a protest and appeal against the last call. The IETF process specify
the
I got a question about which subjects to address in which session
The IAB is responsible for:
- architectural overview
- management of the IRTF
- management of external relations including ISOC/ICANN
Some of these things will be addressed in presentations in the IAB session;
comments to
Once again, we will be holding a PGP Key signing party at the IETF
meeting in Minneapolis. We have been scheduled to meet at 10:30pm on
the evening of Wednesday, March 20, 2002. The procedure we will use is
the following:
o People who wish to participate should email an ASCII extract of their
Pete Resnick writes:
Inability to display non-US-ASCII glyphs by legacy
applications is not a failure.
Go sell a Greek user an ``internationalized domain name'' with a delta,
Pete. Then tell him that most of his correspondents will see the delta
as incomprehensible gobbledygook rather than a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As such, I have to insist that *any* IDN proposal be required to be
backwards transparent to the current 2821/2822/2045-2049 standards
Putting UTF-8 into email headers right now would trigger a serious
Sendmail bug, so of course I don't encourage anyone to do that.
I would love to see the complete solution to signaling all the potential
blocking intermediate hops in the network that specific traffic should
pass.
Regards, peter
Robert Elz writes:
All the work here is for the benefit of other protocols, the DNS
(which never had a problem with domain names in any char set whatever)
is being mangled to make life easier for other protocols that really
should have been fixed years ago.
Exactly.
The IDNA documents
There is merit is actively sponsoring student participation. Perhaps we
should be thinking of awards for best contributions, honoraria for
travel, expenses, etc.
How can I participate in an IETF meeting? I'm a student, so money is
short. ;) Is it possible to be there electronically?
--
Thor
A starting point: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/multicast_53.html
As important is participation in the mailing lists, docs, etc.
Cheers, peterf
-Original Message-
From: Thor Harald Johansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:45 PM
To: Peter Ford
Cc: Paul
92 matches
Mail list logo
