Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The whole idea of fixed ports is broken.
...
The Internet has a signalling layer, the DNS. Applications should use it.
The SRV record provides an infinitely extensible mechanism for advertising
ports.
And with what port would I reach this magical DNS that would
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 07:14:52 -0800, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Dave Mohsen BANAN wrote:
we propose...
Dave Besides yourself, who is the we?
Among others, Richard M. Stallman has served as a
director of the Free Protocols Foundation (FPF)
and has reviewed and endorsed various
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:56:57 +0100, Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Harald Mohsen BANAN wrote:
Complaints Against The IESG
and The RFC-Editor
About Publication of RFC-2188 (ESRO)
Harald The IESG pointed some of the issues out to the RFC Editor, who handled
Harald the
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:56:57 +0100, Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:10:10 -0800, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Harald What's the point of reposting this message now?
Dave Seems like there ought to be a statute of limitations.
In response to both
On Sun Mar 19 09:46:30 2006, Mohsen BANAN wrote:
For example, the negative IESG note in the
original HTTP specs and the success of HTTP
demonstrated IESG's attitude and its eventual
relevance.
For the crowd watching who were curious, but not curious enough to
bother looking, RFC1945
Harald The IESG pointed some of the issues out to the RFC Editor, who handled
Harald the communication with the author; that was the procedure at that
time.
Harald Nevertheless, the RFC Editor felt that the document was worthy of
Harald publication, and published anyway.
As the written
Found this link via Boing Boing. I think it is very appropriate,
considering the 20th aniversary of the IETF.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-742634319032463
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Hi,
I also like this suggestion. Not much to add, I agree with Frank's
comments.
The third paragraph of section 2.2 seems to have missing something
around the last sentence..
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Frank Ellermann wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Title : IETF Process and
Hello all
The room name is Sapphire in Hilton Anatole.
It is located 1st floor of the Tower. We will put a poster on the message board.
For tele-conf.
We prepare our bridge and polycom for remote a participants.
Mail ug at xcast.jp_NOSPAM yoneda.takahiro at
jp.panasonic.com_NOSPAM for bridge
Robert, Scott and Paul, is there any chance you could sit down and try to work
this out?
I read Robert's two messages to the working group list and I do find
them fairly hard to follow. They don't explain why he's angry at a
specific organization or what the supposed process failure is.
If he
On 3/19/06, Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is there any chance you could sit down and try to work this out?
No, the WG is out of control. That's easy to observe, no matter where
one places the blame.
If he had explicitly explained that there were conformance tests that
were not
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Ran,
RJ Atkinson wrote:
There was an understanding then that the
RFC Editor's role extends far beyond just publishing IETF-sponsored
documents. I am concerned that this is not being acknowledged now.
I would feel a lot better if there were more public
I too agree with Mohsen's comments, overall. What Mohsen points out as true
eight years ago continues to be true even now. Not a lot changed, IMHO. I
believe, it had gotten worse. IESG continues to wield enormous influence over
the independent submissions sent to the RFC editor. The RFC editor
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:42:50 -0800 (PST), Pyda Srisuresh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I too agree with Mohsen's comments, overall. What Mohsen points out as true
eight years ago continues to be true even now. Not a lot changed, IMHO. I
believe, it had gotten worse. IESG continues to wield enormous
Right, that is the foced outcome of the current practice. Without an
independent channel, people find other avenues outside the IETF to get their
work done.
regards,
suresh
--- Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:42:50 -0800 (PST), Pyda Srisuresh
[EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Has jabber moved from ietf.xmpp.org?
- --
] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson,Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON|net architect[
] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Michael Richardson wrote:
--[PinePGP]--[begin]--
Has jabber moved from ietf.xmpp.org?
yes - see: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/text_conf.html
rooms.jabber.ietf.org
--
] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.
On 3/19/06, Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a long-standing effort outside the WG that includes
conformance tests. Their first inclusion of conformance tests for the
current draft had many errors, as Rob pointed out.
The errors were extensive to indicate that either the editor
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:17:13 -0800 (PST), Pyda Srisuresh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right, that is the foced outcome of the current practice. Without an
independent channel, people find other avenues outside the IETF to get their
work done.
More precisely, to publish their work. My question
Hi Tony,
The point is that the past IESG practice which has driven out those who
would submit individual submissions, resulting in the current ratios, MUST
NOT become the guide for what SHOULD happen going forward.
Actually, RFC 3932 already makes it quite clear what the role
of the IETF and the
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:23:45 +, Dave Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Dave On Sun Mar 19 09:46:30 2006, Mohsen BANAN wrote:
For example, the negative IESG note in the
original HTTP specs and the success of HTTP
demonstrated IESG's attitude and its eventual
relevance.
Dave
Dave RFC2068, HTTP/1.1, was published a little over half a year later,
Dave which would appear to be relatively soon.
The primary author of Informational RFC1945 with
the negative IESG note is Tim Berners-Lee.
He then pulled out of the IETF/IESG and formed
W3C.
Why do you think that
All -
Due to major flooding in NOC (yes, that's right, IN the NOC)
we will be taking a short outage in order to move to higher
(dryer) ground. The network will be down while we move shop.
Our dns/dhcp will be coming down at 2:45 and will be down at
least half an hour. If you have a lease, you
Dear Mr. Chair,
I never hidden I am involved in cultural policy.
Actually, I represent a group of specialised colleagues.
>From EU Governments, EU Parliament, and International Organisations.
We came here after reading a suggestion of Mr. Morfin.
We wanted to know about this IETF he talked about.
From: Joe Touch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And with what port would I reach this magical DNS that would
provide the SRV record for the DNS itself?
You use fixed ports for the bootstrap process and only for the bootstrap
process.
Fixed ports do not work behind NAT. Anyone who wants to
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 09:38 -0800, Eliot Lear wrote:
This therefore leads to two questions for the community:
1. Are well known ports archaic? If so, can we request that the IANA
do away with the distinction?
2. If they are not archaic, under what circumstances should they
Keith,
You have totally confused ESRO with EMSD.
RFC-2188 is different from RFC-2524.
1) RFC-2188 (ESRO)
As far as I know the RFC-2188 complaint had
nothing to do with you. Everything is fully
documented. We are talking about historic facts,
not opinions. IESG did not object to
Eduardo,
I'll take the word of anyone
Eduardo Mendez wrote:
Dear Mr. Chair,
I never hidden I am involved in cultural policy.
Actually, I represent a group of specialised colleagues.
From EU Governments, EU Parliament, and International Organisations.
Name them, if you can. If they exist, they
done - we should be back in business!
--
Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services
Computing CenterUniversity of Oregon
llynch @darkwing.uoregon.edu (541) 346-1774
___
Ietf mailing list
Dave Crocker wrote:
This was eight years ago. The IESG that the complaint was made against
was:
Seems like there ought to be a statute of limitations.
In the IETF process, that's two months. I presume that anybody who
found the RFC 3932 (BCP 92) procedures unsatisfactory would have
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Eduardo, if there is one person I know who is willing to say that he
knows who you are, and that you are a different person from Jefsey
Morfin, I'll stop thinking you're a Jefsey sock puppet.
What difference does it make?
King Harald from Norway, no other member of
Regardless of what the community consensus is on:
1. Are well known ports archaic?
I want to comment that on this:
If so, can we request that the IANA
do away with the distinction?
The IETF decides, and the IANA will then be responsible for implementing the
decision.
Brian
Dear all,
Before this heats up too much, could all you, please, relax your tone and
avoid what it can be considered personal attacks.
Thanks in advance for your diligence.
IETF Sergeant-at-arms
De: Peter Dambier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organización: Peter and Karin Dambier
Responder a: [EMAIL
You have totally confused ESRO with EMSD.
RFC-2188 is different from RFC-2524.
I stand corrected.
Tony gets it:
Tony The point is that the past IESG practice which has driven out those
who
Tony would submit individual submissions, resulting in the current ratios,
MUST
Tony NOT
On Sun Mar 19 20:59:46 2006, Mohsen BANAN wrote:
The only part of the IESG note that can be
considered to have any aspect of legitimacy is:
I say again, I examined RFC2524 is some detail, both because it was
prior art in an area that was under heavy discussion at the time in
Lemonade,
I will however caution against the assumption that IESG is inherently
overbearing and a separate review function is inherently more
reasonable. No matter who does the review there will always be the
potential for capriciousness on the part of the reviewer.
It seems to me that while many
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Dave Cridland wrote:
If they were popular projects pulling useful input away from the IETF
and Lemonade respectively, I'd classify that as harm.
Why? Harm to who and in what way?
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I will however caution against the assumption that IESG is inherently
overbearing and a separate review function is inherently more
reasonable. No matter who does the review there will always be the
potential for capriciousness on the part of the reviewer.
It seems to me that while
The IETF65 network is deployed and operational. We are supporting
IPv4 and IPv6. There is wireless running throughout the hotel (ssid
is ietf65). The wireless supports IEEE 802.11a and 802.11b.
You can find detailed information about the network on the IETF 65
website:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
I will however caution against the assumption that IESG is inherently
overbearing and a separate review function is inherently more
reasonable. No matter who does the review there will always be the
potential for capriciousness on the part of the
It's not at all clear to me that we can afford the resources to give the
privilege of appeal to mere individuals.
Excuse me? What do you think IETF is or do you really prefer to see it
officially turn into IVTF?
IETF is, or should be, an engineering organization. Not a vanity press.
IETF
At 02:44 20/03/2006, Keith Moore wrote:
It's not at all clear to me that we can afford the resources to
give the privilege of appeal to mere individuals.
Excuse me? What do you think IETF is or do you really prefer to see
it officially turn into IVTF?
IETF is, or should be, an engineering
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Joe Touch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And with what port would I reach this magical DNS that would
provide the SRV record for the DNS itself?
You use fixed ports for the bootstrap process and only for the bootstrap
process.
Which means that the DNS
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) '
draft-ietf-ippm-owdp-16.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Allison Mankin and Jon Peterson.
A URL
44 matches
Mail list logo
