Re: Please change the Subject: when you change the subject [Re: Sarcarm and intimidation]
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote: ... Does this mean that you think the IETF should disband the ASRG, drop all current I-D's relating to spam, and quit working on spam issues? Yes. The last time I checked, the IETF was about manifesting genius level ideas into functional standards, and not letting lots of whining users who ccan't figure out how to operate a simple packet filter dictate our work. What I think is that if you change the subject, you should change the Subject:, so that people who might be interested in Sarcarm and intimidation but aren't interested in Spam don't waste their time. That too. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf sleekfreak pirate broadcast http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt
Paul, That seems like the most resonable approach to me. Are current requests archived now? John -- original message -- Subject:Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt From: Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 07/22/2005 11:03 pm At 3:51 PM -0400 7/22/05, Bill Sommerfeld wrote: On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 07:35, Sam Hartman wrote: BTW, this conversation and a side conversation with John has convinced me that IESG review should involve a call for comments phase. A call for comments requires having something for the community to comment on. Will an internet draft will be required from folks seeking IESG review of a proposed assignment, or will we invent yet another mechanism for circulating a description of the proposal to the community? It would make sense for the IESG to send to the community what was sent to them; that way, we can judge what they are judging. If it was a pointer to an Internet Draft, great; a pointer to some other document(s) works just as well. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Sarcarm and intimidation
Dean Anderson wrote: ... It is too bad you didn't take the opportunity to clear up the ambiguity of whether you want the IETF to stop work on spam issues. Please stop playing rhetorical games on our list. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: calendar file for IETF
An additional update reflecting yesterdays changes is now available at http://www.ofcourseimright.com/~lear/ietf63.ics. Additional stuff: - UIDs *should* be stable across changes. - An attempt has been made to make proper use of SEQUENCE - An attempt has been made to parse out LOCATION information - Garbage in/Garbage out problem repaired. - Several bad dates have been corrected. Usual cautions apply. This calendar file could blow up any tool it is applied to. But it didn't blow up iCal, at least. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
finding a spam solution (was Re: Sarcarm and intimidation)
The reason that there is no consensus in the spam area is that most proposed solutions are claiming to solve the whole problem (or at least a big chunk of it) but are grossly overstating their applicability. To some degree this is because people want to have the prize of creating _the_ anti-spam solution, which is counterproductive. You are absolutely right here. The problem is at least made worse by the fact that the first thing that happens when a focussed proposal is made people start saying 'That is no good, the [bad guys] will just do X'. yes. even if you state the limitations of your proposal, people who are looking for a magic bullet that will save us from all spam will point out that your proposal is not a magic bullet. And if you do attempt to advance a comprehensive strategy such as accountability you get the standard agenda denial tactics. I think of this as damage control mode. even a proposal that attempts to be comprehensive will miss some things. if people see it as a threat to be defended against (because it is not perfect) rather than a tentative proposal that can be improved, they will go into damage control mode and try to kill the proposal. If we instead look at each of the proposals and say what does this do well, and what does it not do well, then modify the proposals so that they can work well together (and to get rid of the harm that several of the proposals would do to the email system if widely adopted), then we will be able to identify the missing pieces. Somehow the statement 'we will not design an X' gets turned into 'we will not even talk to the Xs that are already designed and deployed'. Unfortunately, just because something is designed and deployed doesn't mean it works well to solve any particular problem. Particularly in the area of spam prevention people are so desperate that they'll try anything whether it makes good sense or not. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meeting Locations
The timing on this one was too good to ignore: URL: http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=969926 Title: At 117 Degrees - No One Escapes the Heat I could go for Mexico, but Las Vegas is just so weird! Thanks, Spencer From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: shogunx [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 8:52 AM Subject: RE: Meeting Locations Las Vegas has ridiculously cheap air fares, large amounts of cheap accomodation and many hotels that have the necessary conference infrastructure. Cancun and Acapulco are even cheaper. The Mexico option has the considerable advantage that non-US visitors do not get insulted at the border by either US-Visit or the often threatened visa requirements for countries that do not issue biometric passports. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A proposed experiment in narrative minutes of IESG meetings
Sounds like a great idea. I'm looking forward to additional detail about how decisions are reached as well as more clarity in the description of those decisions. Thanks, Brian... - Ralph On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 15:19 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: The IESG is interested in carrrying out an experiment to publish narrative minutes for IESG meetings as well as the regular minutes of decisions taken. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Transportation to/from airport
I'm looking at the IETF information page for transport to/from the airport for the upcomomg meeting http://www.ietf.org/meetings/transport_63.html and comparing it with the information I'm finding on the RATP web site. I think something is wrong. The only header on the IETF page is From Charles de Gaulle Airport, and yet most of the instructions seem to be germane for the Orly airport (specifically, the instructions for the Metro Line 1 and the RER line C) -- Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin Wireless Security Technologist Wireless Standards Manager ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Transportation to/from airport
I think something is wrong. The only header on the IETF page is From Charles de Gaulle Airport, and yet most of the instructions seem to be germane for the Orly airport (specifically, the instructions for the Metro Line 1 and the RER line C) I you read the From CDG as only applying to the immediately following section (Air France Coaches), it makes more sense. As in: If you're coming from CDG, use the coaches; if you're coming from anywhere else, these are the transit lines and highway exits that serve the Palais des Congres. CDG is served by RER line B, but line B doesn't go anywhere near the Palais des Congres, and the Air France busses are probably faster than transferring between train lines. -- Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Transportation to/from airport
Both Orly and CDG airports are serviced by RER B (blue on the map). From Orly you have to take the monorail to get to the Antony station; CDG has direct service. When in RER B, exit the train at Chatelet-Les Halles (some RER trains do not stop at every station but all trains will stop there). At Chatelet-Les Halles connect to RER A direction Cergy - Poissy - Saint-Germain en Laye (red on the map, going west). Exit RER A at the Charles de Gaulle Etoile station (do not confuse with Charles de Gaulle airport). It's the second stop from Chatelet-Les Halles. At Etoile connect to Metro line 1 direction La Defense (yellow on the map). Exit Metro Line 1 at Porte Maillot. It's the second stop from Etoile. As an alternative note that you can connect to Metro line 1 at Chatelet-Les Halles directly from RER B, but the connection tunnel is 1/2 mile long and 1 mile when you're in a rush :-) and there are 9 stops. Michel. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
