RE: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

> Perhaps because no one actually reads RFC's on these small devices, > and so we've been trolled by a master into worrying about a use case > which isn't really a problem. I, for one, regularly (attempt to) read RFCs and other standards on small devices. I do this because I have stopped shleppi

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

At 10:50 28-11-2011, IETF Chair wrote: The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer is needed. As a way forward, I suggest that IASA pay a lawyer to come up with an initial draft, and then this draft be brou

RE: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

> Ironically, it was concern about anti-trust suits which led to the creation > of the ISOC, and the re-homing of the IETF under the ISOC, in the first place > (back in the fall of 1989). Not only that. The current IETF rules were specifically designed with antitrust considerations in mind. The

Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

I agree generally with Brian except for the 2860 part. I would not want to have seen IANA put on the spot for this, even if the IAB had been willing to take responsibility for it. Meanwhile I will say once again that capitulating here is wrong on many levels. First there is the whole, "They made t

Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

I refrained from commenting during the IETF Last Call, and I think it might help the IESG to reach the least bad decision if I say why. This whole proposal will *never* be palatable to me. However, it may be reasonable for the IETF to lay down appropriate restrictions, even though we know that ISP

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

As I read that, we'd be much better off having no antitrust policy at all. Any volunteers to monitor and enforce whatever policy our lawyer invents? John, if they'd had no relevant rules, it would probably have read "100. By their failures to promulgate appropriate SSO Rules, ... Quite pos

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

On 2011-11-29 14:51, John Levine wrote: >> Here is some relevant language from the Complaint: >> >> "100. By their failures to monitor and enforce the SSO Rules, and to >> respond to TruePosition's specific complaints concerning violations of the >> SSO Rules, 3GPP and ETSI have acquiesced in, a

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

> Here is some relevant language from the Complaint: > >"100. By their failures to monitor and enforce the SSO Rules, and to >respond to TruePosition's specific complaints concerning violations of the >SSO Rules, 3GPP and ETSI have acquiesced in, are responsible for, and >complicit in, the abuse

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

> From: Marshall Eubanks > As you may know, SDO's have a certain protection against antitrust > actions, but that is not absolute, and can be lost if the SDO behaves > inappropriately. Ironically, it was concern about anti-trust suits which led to the creation of the ISOC, and th

Admin Plenary Minutes

The admin plenary minutes from IETF 82 have been posted: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/minutes/plenaryw.txt Many thanks to Alexa for taking the notes. The name of one speaker is unknown. If you know the name, please share so that I can make them complete. Also, if you notice any errors,

Re: non-line-printer-shaped screens, was discouraged by .docx

In message <2028203627.3441.qm...@joyce.lan>, "John Levine" writes: > >Perhaps because no one actually reads RFC's on these small devices, > >and so we've been trolled by a master into worrying about a use case > >which isn't really a problem. > > I read I-D's on my Kindle, when I can get the

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

Here is one lawsuit that I noticed in the press this summer: http://www.cellular-news.com/story/50118.php On Nov 28, 2011, at 3:35 PM, GTW wrote: > Ted, I like your approach of enquiring what problem we are striving to solve > and I like Russ's concise answer that it is "Recent suits against ot

Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > In my opinion, having a designated space is better than "squat" space, given > that we we already know that squat space is being used. The argument that it > extends the life of IPv4 is, IMHO, of limited value; yes, it allows operators > to k

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF - why?

On 11/28/2011 12:31 PM, John Levine wrote: I would be interested in a brief explanation of why we need one now, since we have gotten along without one for multiple decades. Having worked with a lot of lawyers, my experience is that few lawyers understand cost-benefit tradeoffs, and often recomm

Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

In my opinion, having a designated space is better than "squat" space, given that we we already know that squat space is being used. The argument that it extends the life of IPv4 is, IMHO, of limited value; yes, it allows operators to keep their IPv4 service running; given the number of CPE Rout

RE: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

Money for one discussions of product pricing and or costs for instance. -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 5:12 PM To: Russ Housley Cc: Sam Hartman; IETF Subject: Re: An Antitrus

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

> "Michael" == Michael Richardson writes: Michael> I'm still lost. Michael> What kind of things would the IETF have to prohibit Michael> discussion of, and specifically things that would involve Michael> anti-trust. Cisco and Juniper folks form a design-team including a WG

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

I'm still lost. What kind of things would the IETF have to prohibit discussion of, and specifically things that would involve anti-trust. > "Russ" == Russ Housley writes: Russ> I looked at the antitrust policies of other SDOs. They state Russ> the things that are prohibited from di

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF - why?

+1 to all of John's points here. Especially about the essential nature of lawyers - I've worked with plenty of them as well. Ned > > The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF > > ought to have an antitrust policy. > I would be interested in

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

On 2011-11-28 22:09, Martin Rex wrote: Julian Reschke wrote: On 2011-11-28 20:44, Martin Rex wrote: ... The real problem is buggy software for displaying on small displays. Reflowing ASCII is *no* problem whenever ASCII text is reflowable at all. It can be done in 1-2 KByte of code. Displayi

Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

On October 10, 2011, the IESG issued a last call for comments regarding draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared CGN Space). While the community did not display consensus supporting the draft, it also did not display consensus against the draft. Therefo

RE: reading on small devices, was discouraged by .docx

15 or 20 years ago, I might have been able to use one of those small-screen devices. Nowadays - no way. If things are displayed large enough to be legible the amount of vertical scrolling makes reading anything longer than one (short) sentence painfully slow. But here's a solution: let's just

Re: Plagued by PPTX again

Hi John, On 2011-11-28 21:50 John C Klensin said the following: > > > --On Monday, November 28, 2011 21:42 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz > wrote: > >>> One small suggestion, partially prompted by my attempts to >>> convert PDF and Postscript RFCs to PDF/A: when the converter >>> cannot or does not su

Re: Plagued by PPTX again

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > > The validator tells me that the files which validate does so against > both A-1a and A-1b, which if I understand things correctly indicate > that it's 1a-compliant, since 1b is a subset of 1a. For those who like to geek-out on the detai

Re: Plagued by PPTX again

Henrik, On 2011-11-29 07:20, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > Hi, > > I just came across this (very long) thread started by Brian's post, I apologise to everybody. I should know better by now than to mention anything to do with document format on this list. > and since > (as Robinson Tryon mentioned

RE: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

+1 It would be helpful in the non normative statement to the community to cite what suits were are involved, what was the cause of action and what if any decisions were rendered in these cases. US antitrust law, for instance has specific exemptions for SDO's. http://en.wikisource.or

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

Julian Reschke wrote: > > On 2011-11-28 20:44, Martin Rex wrote: > > ... > > The real problem is buggy software for displaying on small displays. > > Reflowing ASCII is *no* problem whenever ASCII text is reflowable > > at all. It can be done in 1-2 KByte of code. Displaying HTML or XML > > But

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

On 2011-11-29 08:10, IETF Chair wrote: > Ted: > >> The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to >> have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer is needed. As a >> way forward, I suggest that IASA pay a lawyer to come up with an initial >> draft, and th

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:35 PM, GTW wrote: > ** > Ted, I like your approach of enquiring what problem we are striving to > solve and I like Russ's concise answer that it is "Recent suits against > other SDOs that is the source of the concern" > > Russ, what are some of the "Recent suits again

Re: Plagued by PPTX again

Hi John, On 2011-11-28 19:40 John C Klensin said the following: > > > --On Monday, November 28, 2011 19:20 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz > wrote: > >> ... >> I've set the converter ('unoconv', which uses libreoffice) up >> to convert to PDF/A, but the converter doesn't always fully >> succeed in prod

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 15:26, Ted Ts'o wrote: > plain text works just *fine* on a desktop machines, which is what > implementors of network protocols generally use. That's what I've been trying to tell them -- but some people love to engineer so much that they don't know when to stop! -Dave -

Re: non-line-printer-shaped screens, was discouraged by .docx

>Perhaps because no one actually reads RFC's on these small devices, >and so we've been trolled by a master into worrying about a use case >which isn't really a problem. I read I-D's on my Kindle, when I can get the XML so I can turn it into something legible. I'd read RFCs on it if there were a

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

Ted, I like your approach of enquiring what problem we are striving to solve and I like Russ's concise answer that it is "Recent suits against other SDOs that is the source of the concern" Russ, what are some of the "Recent suits against other SDOs" It would be good to pin down the proble

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF - why?

> The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF > ought to have an antitrust policy. I would be interested in a brief explanation of why we need one now, since we have gotten along without one for multiple decades. Having worked with a lot of lawyers, my experience is that few

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 09:03:02PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: > No, it just shows that our format has been optimized for a use case > which almost nobody cares about anymore. Perhaps because no one actually reads RFC's on these small devices, and so we've been trolled by a master into worrying a

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

On 2011-11-28 20:44, Martin Rex wrote: ... The real problem is buggy software for displaying on small displays. Reflowing ASCII is *no* problem whenever ASCII text is reflowable at all. It can be done in 1-2 KByte of code. Displaying HTML or XML But our format currently is not reflowable. Can

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

On 2011-11-28 20:29, John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, November 28, 2011 18:27 +0100 Julian Reschke wrote: That's more of an attribute of the text reader than any thing else. I've had readers that reflow text just fine --- far better than PDF, at any rate. It requires a format that does

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, Sam Hartman wrote: > I support the general approach you outline in terms of process. > However it would really help me if you could write a non-normative > paragraph describing what you think is involved in an anti-trust policy? Yes, please! Also, why it would be a different

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

Julian Reschke wrote: > > > > > So, if we expect people to be able to read our documents in 5 years, > > let alone 50, we need to stop using ASCII art. ASCII arts is just fine. Just that there there is an awful number of "modern" software that is too stupid to display ASCII text with fixed pitch

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

Dear Sam; Wearing no hats. This is my own personal take on matters. Also, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Please note that I, personally, do not think that this will be trivial or easy to come up with. On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: > I support the genera

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

In a different venue it was suggested to me that the group (a university-based research consortium) NOT have a detailed anti-trust policy. The university's law firm felt that we would be covered so long as we up front reminded the participants that they were adults and needed to follow the appr

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

--On Monday, November 28, 2011 18:27 +0100 Julian Reschke wrote: >> That's more of an attribute of the text reader than any thing >> else. I've had readers that reflow text just fine --- far >> better than PDF, at any rate. > > It requires a format that does allow reflowing and > repagination.

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:10 AM, IETF Chair wrote: > Sorry, can you expand on the threat model here? Are we developing one in > order to defend against some specific worry about our not having one? > Because it has become best practice in other SDOs? Because the insurance > agent wishes to see

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

> "Russ" == Russ Housley writes: Russ> Sam: I looked at the antitrust policies of other SDOs. They Russ> state the things that are prohibited from discussion at their Russ> meetings and on their mail lists. OK, that sounds good. I definitely think we could use such a thing. And

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

On 11/28/2011 10:59 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:. However it would really help me if you could write a non-normative paragraph describing what you think is involved in an anti-trust policy? I'll suggest that that be the first work product of the attorney. At the least, that will make sure that it

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

Ted: > The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to > have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer is needed. As a > way forward, I suggest that IASA pay a lawyer to come up with an initial > draft, and then this draft be brought to the community for r

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

Sam: I looked at the antitrust policies of other SDOs. They state the things that are prohibited from discussion at their meetings and on their mail lists. Russ On Nov 28, 2011, at 1:59 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: > I support the general approach you outline in terms of process. > However it wou

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

On 2011-11-28 19:24, Theodore Tso wrote: On Nov 28, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: It requires a format that does allow reflowing and repagination. HTML does, PDF/A does, text/plain does not (maybe RFC 2646 would help, maybe not). text/plain is what we use, and that's a problem tha

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:50 AM, IETF Chair wrote: > The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to > have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer is needed. As a > way forward, I suggest that IASA pay a lawyer to come up with an initial > draft, and then

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 01:50:51PM -0500, IETF Chair wrote: > The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to > have an antitrust policy. Did they say what problem it is they're worried about? I can't respond to the merits without knowing why we might want to do this.

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

a) It would seem sensible to leave the selection of the specific lawyer to the IASA / IAOC. b) I would hope that they will select a lawyer with specific exposure to anti-trust issues. That may well turn out to be the existing IETF counsel. Yours, Joel On 11/28/2011 1:57 PM, Marshall Eubanks w

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

I support the general approach you outline in terms of process. However it would really help me if you could write a non-normative paragraph describing what you think is involved in an anti-trust policy? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.iet

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

I think that this is a very reasonable way to proceed. On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:50 PM, IETF Chair wrote: > The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to > have an antitrust policy.  To address this need, a lawyer is needed. While _a_ lawyer is certainly needed, I se

Re: reading on small devices, was discouraged by .docx

Hi - > From: "John C Klensin" > To: "Ole Jacobsen" > Cc: > Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 6:28 AM > Subject: RE: reading on small devices, was discouraged by .docx ... > On the other hand, I tried the PDF file out on one of those > small-screen devices and discovered that it preserved the page

Re: Plagued by PPTX again

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > Hi, > > I just came across this (very long) thread started by Brian's post, and since > (as Robinson Tryon mentioned in a post already) libreoffice can convert > both .ppt and .pptx to .pdf, I've now set up the tools servers to convert > a

An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer is needed. As a way forward, I suggest that IASA pay a lawyer to come up with an initial draft, and then this draft be brought to the community for review and comm

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

On Nov 28, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > It requires a format that does allow reflowing and repagination. HTML does, > PDF/A does, text/plain does not (maybe RFC 2646 would help, maybe not). > text/plain is what we use, and that's a problem that'll need to be solved. In practice,

Re: Plagued by PPTX again

Hi, I just came across this (very long) thread started by Brian's post, and since (as Robinson Tryon mentioned in a post already) libreoffice can convert both .ppt and .pptx to .pdf, I've now set up the tools servers to convert any .ppt and .pptx to .pdf as soon as they see them. This means that

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

On 2011-11-28 18:46, Eric Burger wrote: Hacking text display applications when HTML was designed for it already and most RFC's natively generate HTML (xml2rfc), do we really have a problem to solve? ... If all documents were submitted in xml2rfc format (or something equally expressive): not

Re: reading on small devices, was discouraged by .docx

Hi, Obviously, the key evolution is greater competition and market of display devices, i.e. lack of a standard perhaps and patent restrictions which promotes the propensity to just use HTML and HTML5 with OS file association shell launching. This is especially the case since the 2006/2007 EOLA

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

Hacking text display applications when HTML was designed for it already and most RFC's natively generate HTML (xml2rfc), do we really have a problem to solve? On Nov 28, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-11-28 18:21, Ted Ts'o wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 06:12:42PM +0100,

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

On 2011-11-28 18:21, Ted Ts'o wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 06:12:42PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: What's important is that things that *should* work well on small displays, such a reflowing prose paragraphs, and re-pagination, do so. This is where text/plain fails big (and HTML does not).

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 06:12:42PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: > > What's important is that things that *should* work well on small > displays, such a reflowing prose paragraphs, and re-pagination, do > so. This is where text/plain fails big (and HTML does not). That's more of an attribute of th

Re: text/lp [was Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/28/2011 01:58 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote: >> That would work too. I added a third URL that returns >> text/plain;format=fixed;line-length=72 > >> http://ietf.implementers.org/fixed/rfc5928.txt > > That is the worst option for my two devices. > On

Re: text/lp [was Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again]

On 2011-11-27 17:20, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The problem here is that RFC and Internet-Drafts are not plain ASCII. They are technically in a special format that I would call "line-printer ready text file", and ASCII is the encoding, not the forma

Re: text/lp [was Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/28/2011 01:52 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote: > Marc > > I opened the link on two different devices, > to see how the tables rendered. > > On one (iPod touch with Safari), it worked reasonably. > The only problem was that the table columns were skewed

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

On 2011-11-27 09:20, Yaakov Stein wrote: Dave I agree that we are thinking as "content creators", and that is the problem. The requirement is not that we will be able to write a new document in 50 years in the same format. The requirement is that we should be able to read the documents written

Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again

On 2011-11-26 21:52, Yaakov Stein wrote: That leaves ASCII, a few forms of PDF, and RFC 5198-conforming UTF-8. That wouldn't bother me much, but be careful what you wish form. What we have been told is that the rationale behind the use of ASCII and several other formats is that they will remai

Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-27.txt

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: dr

RE: reading on small devices, was discouraged by .docx

--On Monday, November 28, 2011 02:45 -0800 Ole Jacobsen wrote: > We, the RSOC, think this might be a good, simple first task > for the new RFC Series Editor ;-) Especially given that, while we left omniscience off the public requirements list, we expect any RSE appointee to demonstrate it :-)

RE: reading on small devices, was discouraged by .docx

We, the RSOC, think this might be a good, simple first task for the new RFC Series Editor ;-) ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj Skype: orga

RE: reading on small devices, was discouraged by .docx

The time interval between ASCII text threads seems to be decreasing over time. Perhaps when half of the traffic on the discussion list is related to this question something will finally be done. Y(J)S -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behal

RE: text/lp [was Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again]

> That would work too. I added a third URL that returns > text/plain;format=fixed;line-length=72 > http://ietf.implementers.org/fixed/rfc5928.txt That is the worst option for my two devices. On both devices the line wraps distort the tables beyond recognition. Y(J)S ___

RE: text/lp [was Re: discouraged by .docx was Re: Plagued by PPTX again]

Marc I opened the link on two different devices, to see how the tables rendered. On one (iPod touch with Safari), it worked reasonably. The only problem was that the table columns were skewed due to browser not using monospace fonts. Were the table more complex or were there some truly wacky ASC