Hi Cyrus,
At 07:33 20-08-2009, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Use of SRV records for locating email services '
draft-daboo-srv-email-02.txt as a Proposed Standard
In the Introduction section:
A better
Steve Crocker writes:
Today, one can pretty much count on IPv4 connectivity around the
world, and one can also count on being to reach almost any service
(Google, Amazon, CNN, etc.) via IPv4. What's the estimated date when
those two statements stop being true?
When colo vendors start
Jason
When I saw the announcement of this I-D, I thought that the asrg Working
Group would be well placed to comment on this, since it has already had a
lot of discussion about bots and what to do with them:-)
You may be familiar with the I-Ds on blacklists that this WG has produced.
Tom Petch
Greetings;
We have received numerous suggestions and requests for an IETF meeting
in China and the IAOC has been working on a potential China meeting for
several years. We are now close to making a decision on a potential
upcoming meeting in China. However, the following issue has arisen
and we
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote:
The Chinese government has imposed a rule on all conferences held
since 2008 regarding political speech.
Perhaps more material to this discussion, the government has imposed
severe and wide-ranging restrictions on
On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
We are therefore asking for input from the community by two means - by
commenting on the IETF discussion list, ...
I'm trying to imagine the thought police remaining calm during a
plenary such as the one at Danvers. I can't quite picture
Excerpts from Marshall Eubanks on Fri, Sep 18, 2009 11:42:00AM -0400:
Greetings;
We have received numerous suggestions and requests for an IETF meeting
in China and the IAOC has been working on a potential China meeting for
several years. We are now close to making a decision on a potential
On Sep 18, 2009, at 17:42, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
The IAOC does believe that this
condition would not prevent the IETF from conducting its business.
Marshall,
I also do not believe that the IETF needs to violate this condition to
do its business.
However, in this case there are two
On Sep 18, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
Excerpts from Marshall Eubanks on Fri, Sep 18, 2009 11:42:00AM -0400:
Greetings;
We have received numerous suggestions and requests for an IETF
meeting
in China and the IAOC has been working on a potential China meeting
for
several years.
From: Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org
Has the SAR (Hong Kong) been considered?
Excellent idea. Does HK have the same 'Great Firewall of China' issues
(which I would assume would be a fairly significant problem for many
IETF members)?
Noel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/18/09 10:06 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote:
The Chinese government has imposed a rule on all conferences held
since 2008 regarding political speech.
Perhaps more material to
To quote from Wikipedia: Most national laws of the People's Republic
of China do not apply to the Special Administrative Regions of Hong
Kong or Macau. There are no known cases of the Chinese authorities
censoring critical political or religious [Internet] content in those
territories.
I am
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/18/09 9:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Should the contents of the Group's activities, visual or audio
presentations at the conference,or printed materials used at the
conference (which are within the control of the Client) contain
Marshall,
Since seeing your note, I've been trying to figure out how to
formulate my concern. Carsten's note captured it for me, so
let me be a little more specific.
First, thanks for asking.
I am deliberately not addressing the where else could we meet
where things would be better
On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Finally, do you think that, in this group of people, there won't be
at least one who cannot resist stating their opinions about some
political hot button? Or for that matter, figure out they can DoS
the entire IETF by throwing up a
John,
Since both you and I have attended meetings in China, as recently as 3
weeks ago, I think you will agree that the host --- any host --- has
a significant investment in effort, people and funds along with a
great deal of pride and determination that the meeting run
perfectly. Given all
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
We are therefore asking for input from the community by two means - by
commenting on the IETF discussion list,
Marshall,
Thanks for asking.
I've only been to China a couple of times, but it was enough to be impressed,
particularly with many aspects of their
Steve Crocker wrote:
Tony,
Thanks for your comments. I guess I don't understand the nominal
criteria for declaring something to be historic. I assumed it was
when it was no longer in common use, but I gather from your comments
and others that it's sometimes used as a leading edge, i.e. to
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, John C Klensin wrote:
I am concerned that, if there is some incident --completely
unrelated to IETF-- that someone associated with the host or
hotel might overreact and decide to interpret, e.g., a
discussion about mandatory-to-implement cryptography, as pushing
too close
Speaking solely as an individual, providing only my personal opinion:
I think that this is not acceptable and we should not sign it.
I understand that no location is perfect. However, I think that this goes well
beyond what we normally put up with and well beyond what we should put up with.
At 08:42 18-09-2009, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
The Chinese government has imposed a rule on all conferences held
since 2008 regarding political speech. A fundamental law in China
requires that one not criticize the government. Practically, this
As an IETF participant, I do not take any position
From: Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com
ONE of the reasons a meeting is being proposed in China is that the
IETF now has a significant number (and growing) of Chinese
participants
A meeting in China makes a certain amount of sense, but there are
inevitably going to be side-issues.
Hi Ross,
Please see below:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Ross Callon wrote:
Speaking solely as an individual, providing only my personal opinion:
Same here.
I think that this is not acceptable and we should not sign it.
Agreed.
I understand that no location is perfect. However, I think that
John, (and others),
The difficulty is
that, from things I've heard informally, the proposed Host
(Client) isn't the government or a government body.
The (possible) host is not a government body. However, the host must
have permission from the government to organize the meeting, they
asked
On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
I think it is safe to assume that the government did run some checks
on what the IETF is doing and, if we did keep ourselves busy with
things they do not like, then I seriously doubt that they would
have given the host permission to invite us
The IETF does not and cannot make any warranties relating to the political
views, manners or behavior of attendees. The attendees are responsible for
their own actions, and the IETF has no ability ensure their conformance to
local laws or customers. If attendees violate the laws or customs
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 03:02:53PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
visa issues are not much worse then for other countries, and an internet
connection not hampered by a Great Firewall, I see no reason to single
If there has been an indication one way or the other about the nature
of the Internet
Dean Willis wrote:
So all in all, I'd say I'm not comfortable with the idea of an IETF
meeting in the PRC at this time. Maybe, in a few years, if they open
up their Internet and cut back on the human rights abuses associated
with the users of our technology (making bloggers disappear is
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Henk Uijterwaal h...@ripe.net wrote:
I think it is safe to assume that the government did run some checks
on what the IETF is doing and, if we did keep ourselves busy with
things they do not like, then I seriously doubt that they would
have given the host
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:12:59 -0500
Matt Crawford craw...@fnal.gov wrote:
On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
We are therefore asking for input from the community by two means -
by commenting on the IETF discussion list, ...
I'm trying to imagine the thought police
On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Should the contents of the Group's activities, visual or audio
presentations at the conference,or printed materials used at the
conference (which are within the control of the Client) contain
any defamation against the Government of
Marshall, excellent statement for the IAOC.
May I recommend that the IETF sit down with representatives of the People's
Republic of China and the U.S. government and discuss concerns with meetings
in both countries -- the issue of censorship in China and arbitrary visa
problems in the U.S.
Not to
Steve Crocker wrote:
Today,
one can pretty much count on IPv4 connectivity around the world, and
one can also count on being to reach almost any service (Google,
Amazon, CNN, etc.) via IPv4. What's the estimated date when those two
statements stop being true?
That's not a true
On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Gene Gaines wrote:
Marshall, excellent statement for the IAOC.
Thank you, but I trust that you and others understand that the
statement represents the consensus view of the IAOC, and was prepared
by the IAOC working together.
The Chair, Bob Hinden, has been
On Sep 18, 2009, at 12:29 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
I think it is safe to assume that the government did run some checks
on what the IETF is doing
The government has been negotiating to bring an IETF meeting to China
since 1997, and has been very carefully vetting the IETF's activities
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/18/09 1:33 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
The IETF does not and cannot make any warranties relating to the
political views, manners or behavior of attendees. The attendees are
responsible for their own actions, and the IETF has no ability ensure
On 2009-09-19 08:08, Fred Baker wrote:
On Sep 18, 2009, at 12:29 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
I think it is safe to assume that the government did run some checks
on what the IETF is doing
The government has been negotiating to bring an IETF meeting to China
since 1997, and has been very
From: Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com
Perhaps appropriate people could inform about organisational matters
with others who have more experience, for example the IOC.
Umm, you're not being ironic here, are you?
I'm wondering, because as I assume you are aware, a number of promises
--On Friday, September 18, 2009 21:29 +0200 Henk Uijterwaal
h...@ripe.net wrote:
John, (and others),
The difficulty is
that, from things I've heard informally, the proposed Host
(Client) isn't the government or a government body.
The (possible) host is not a government body. However,
On 18 Sep 2009, at 16:42, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote:
Greetings;
We have received numerous suggestions and requests for an IETF meeting
in China
I'd have no problem with such a meeting if, and only if, there would
be a normal meeting network with normal Internet access. I
--On Friday, September 18, 2009 15:46 -0400 Steven M. Bellovin
s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
...
Speaking of Danvers -- what is the situation -- theory and
practice -- regarding encrypted transmissions to/from such a
meeting? I think that a high percentage of IETF attendees are
using various
Technically, the IETF (or ISOC or IAOC) will not be signing the
agreement, the host in China will, but that's in some sense a fairly
minor detail. We would still be expected to play by the rules.
I don't think anyone is expecting us to warrant the views or
behaviors of our attendees, so
--On Friday, September 18, 2009 15:02 -0400 Paul Wouters
p...@xelerance.com wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, John C Klensin wrote:
I am concerned that, if there is some incident --completely
unrelated to IETF-- that someone associated with the host or
hotel might overreact and decide to
Masataka Ohta wrote:
On the other hand, with NAT, which can be end to end transparent,
IPv4 capable servers can be reached by IPv4 only clients, optionaly
with end to end transparency.
Nat is not end to end 'transparent' no matter how you define it, and will
break all the stuff you claim
In addition to the distasteful restriction on freedom of speech placed
on attendees (comments, perhaps made in jest, during the plenary or
even in the hallway about the great firewall of china might cause
summary ejection of the individuals or the entire groups), there are
two other issues that
From: Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu
(comments, perhaps made in jest, during the plenary or even in the
hallway about the great firewall of china might cause summary
ejection of the individuals or the entire groups)
Look at the bright side: if that should by some chance happen,
Date:Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
From:Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com
Message-ID: pine.gso.4.63.0909181236360.12...@pita.cisco.com
| Whether or not we should meet in China based on principles of
| free speech and such is, I think, something we need to come
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 08:16:18AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
Date:Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
From:Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com
Message-ID: pine.gso.4.63.0909181236360.12...@pita.cisco.com
| Whether or not we should meet in China based on principles of
When I saw the announcement of this I-D, I thought that the asrg Working
Group would be well placed to comment on this, since it has already had a
lot of discussion about bots and what to do with them:-)
Botnets are a little out of our range, since botnets send a lot of
spam, but they do other
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Theodore Tso wrote:
OTOH, if there is a legal agreement which must be signed which clearly
impacts the free speach rights of IETF attendees, past a certain
level, I think it is valid for us as a community to decide that maybe
using such a venue might not be the path
Hi Jari,
Here's the problem I see with draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-09.
Suggesting a dialogue when there is disagreement is fine.
Allowing the IESG to consult the IETF as a whole is fine. But
then the final part of the dispute resolution procedure attempts
to undercut the editorial independence
On 9/18/09 at 5:35 PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
But, at least to my knowledge, the IETF has not been asked before
(by any country) to agree to having the meeting stopped, having all
participants being kicked out of the country, and bearing full
financial responsibility for any costs that
Tony Hain wrote:
On the other hand, with NAT, which can be end to end transparent,
IPv4 capable servers can be reached by IPv4 only clients, optionaly
with end to end transparency.
Nat is not end to end 'transparent' no matter how you define it,
I did think so. So, I tried to prove so
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Transmission of IP over Ethernet over IEEE 802.16 Networks '
draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16-12.txt as a Proposed
Standard
This document is the product of the IP over IEEE 802.16 Networks Working Group.
The IESG contact
Greetings;
We have received numerous suggestions and requests for an IETF meeting
in China and the IAOC has been working on a potential China meeting for
several years. We are now close to making a decision on a potential
upcoming meeting in China. However, the following issue has arisen
and we
On Sep 18, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
Excerpts from Marshall Eubanks on Fri, Sep 18, 2009 11:42:00AM -0400:
Greetings;
We have received numerous suggestions and requests for an IETF
meeting
in China and the IAOC has been working on a potential China meeting
for
several years.
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Problem Statement '
draft-ietf-alto-problem-statement-04.txt as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization
Working Group.
The IESG contact
57 matches
Mail list logo
