Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: Last Call: draft-cheshire-dnsext-special-names-01.txt (Special-Use Domain Names) to Proposed Standard
There are label segments that have semantics. The -- violation, prepended by something, ^xn, where ^ indicates a label boundary, to indicate a (the current) IDN processing. Bytes within a label with values in excess of 127. Off hand I can't think of anything else (that is intentional). Along the accidental sort-of-intended mumble access of forensic engineering are terminating (TLD) labels that brain-dead dead-ware interprets (if anyone living were to ask it) character representations of digit sequences as v4 addresses that currently has the pants scared off of ICANN and some folks from this side of the policy|tech divide. Everything else seems to just be intentional carve outs of string spaces, suited, if there is a purpose, to the (defunct) User Services Area Directorate and its inform-the-community mission that example is not a means to repeat for the bazillionth time the flagship brand of Verisign. .local has sufficient meaning to care about. John Levin's draft covers some don't pretend you're ARPA ground, which is a useful restriction on what appears in the IANA root (and any other used by every user in China) and in SLDs, assuming that a means other than persuasion is available to inform both auctions-are-good gTLD operators and ICANN-is-irrelevant ccTLD operators that some restrictions are beneficial. The chief defect of Stewart's draft is that it makes an analogy to the semantics of addressing, and postulates a pseudo-technical set of implementation responsibilities, and fails to mention ICANN, which has some coordination mission. What isn't a layer 9 is worth documenting. What is at layer 9 should be documented as being at layer 9. Eric ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Stockholm IETF Code Sprint
Russ, did you mean 1 or more likely 2? IETF Chair wrote: Stockholm IETF Code Sprint When: July 15, 2009, begining at 9:30 AM Where: IETF Hotel in Stockholm What: A bunch of hackers get together to work on code for the IETF web site. Some people may be porting of existing functionality to the new framework; some people may be adding exciting new functionality. All code will become part of the open source IETF tools. Who: Hopefully you can help Chris Newman will be helping with advance planning. Henrik Levkowetz will be coordinating the event in Stockholm. You will hear more from them shortly. Many of the results of the last code sprint are being used every day. Please support the tools development effort, Russ ___ IETF-Announce mailing list ietf-annou...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: My resignation
LB wrote: Dear IETF Members, Sorry, I do not speak but I read Engslih. I use Google translation. tant pis. il ya des ingénieurs à beijing, des vrai contributeurs, qui ont fait plus d'efforts que tois. *French text:* JFC Morfin m'avait demandé d'interfacer nos groupes de travail, fra...@large, avec l'IETF. J'ai d'abord été méchament accueilli par certains. Puis j'ai eu la chance de discuter avec des gens sérieux, respectueux de mes ignorances, soucieux de mes apports d'utilisateur. J'ai participé au WG-IDNABIS et j'ai pu échanger là, avec des gens dévoués, désirant travailler pour le bien commun. Ils étaient aussi soumis au problème du financement par les sponsors décrit par l'IAB dans la RFC 3869. il y a rein a voir entre 3869 et le problem ici. bien entendu, le fait que vgrs a fait le demarch avec race en mai 2001 a créé un problème, et notre travail, en 2003 et dans le présent, est limitée en conséquence, mais si to veux voir le problem dans le cadre de 3869, faut dir que le manque de pouvoir publique, le frique public aussi, dans le gestion du contract (.com, .net, .org), et plus au point que quel qu'il soit, point de veu de l'ietf. Aujourd'hui, deux membres brilants et dédiés contributeurs du WG-IDNABIS ont été bannis, en un quart d'heure. brilants??? non. désolé. Par décision et exécution de Membres de Google. j'ai fait le demande le 15 avril et je'ne suis pas un Membre de Google. Eric ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Single-letter names
Ted, As Edmond pointed out, the position at present is that: Single and two-character U-labels on the top level and second level of a domain name should not be restricted in general. I personally expect that for applications made as IDN ccTLD, whether fasttrack or not, will be reviewed for some meaning. It is my understanding however, that in general, an application for a generic TLD is not, in the plan of record, presently reviewed for meaning, at least, not in any sense that would preclude a single Unicode glyph. Example, the Cree character for the i vowel (a delta triangle), encoded as xn--zce, is a single character, and has no sense other than a vowel, is allowable, as is the ascii character sequence iii, which also has no sense other than a (repeated) vowel. Your milage may vary, etc. Eric Ted Hardie wrote: At 9:25 AM -0700 7/7/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, many concepts in modern Chinese dialects require multiple syllables to express them and therefore multiple characters to write them. So there isn't really a one to one mapping of word, syllable, concept as many people suppose. While there may not be a one-to-one mapping of word, character, and concept every time, there are many words and concepts which can be given (and commonly given) in a single character. Forcing those to use multiple characters to get around a policy limitation may introduce, rather than reduce confusion. Why would we want to insist on that? Ted ___ Idna-update mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Guidance for spam-control on IETF mailing lists
Oh goodie! We get to chat about the other IAB -- Internet Advertizing Bureau. (http://www.iab.net) Reading Mr. Kehres back-to-front. Is in-list spam in-scope for poisson? Yup. Is there a venue for general spam? Yup (April's got it). Would adopting an opt-in regime in the US improve things? Yup. (spam TTL = 3) Is everything a horrible muddle so nothing is clearly worth depricating? Noo, but that is a nice try. Cheers, Eric (ex-engage, where cookies were baked, users tracked, and marketing made)
Re: Revision to RFC2727 - NOMCOM
James, I'm going to differ with my learned colleges Dave and Paul. There may be points of 2727 and draft 2727bis that have the potential to benefit from deference until the current nomcom has done its job, but from my reading not all of them fall into that bin. In particular, I don't see how this, or any other nomcom membership could have anything compelling to offer on external liaisons (ISOC), disputes regarding selection of nomcom members, announcements, and recall, or any of the six enumerated items. Eric
Fwd: Indianz.com NEWS BRIEFS: APRIL 1, 2001
Not having seen an RFC come over the transom yesterday or today, here is an alternative. http://216.218.205.86/april1.asp Enjoy, Eric
Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
David, Ron Natalie and I renumbered hq.af.mil the week of the Loma Prieta quake. List the NAT implementations deployed at the time. The point you'll have made is that an-aide-to-renumbering NATs weren't. If they are marketed now as such, happy, but not necessary, is the marketeer. Eric
Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
David, IPv6 does not solve the need to renumber if you change providers (and no, not everyone can be a provider -- IPv6 uses CIDR, just like IPv4). Until that issue is addressed, there will be NATs. Even for v6. Odd. Every time I renumbered some site (hq.af.mil and sundry other sites sharing similar characteristics), there was neither a NAT prior to, nor subsequent to, the renumbering. I suggest that renumbering pre-existed, and did not motivate, NATtage of the NET. Eric
Re: Technical Internet Advancements for White House Internet Strategies
following that, the use of other languages might be a considerably benefit - e.g. spanish, chinese and hopi spring to mind Add Dineh (Navaho), don't want to inflame the Joint-Use Area conflict any further, though Hopi do go Republican (those who "vote"), unlike the majority of Dinetah and away-Dineh voters. Bear in mind that the core of claims by Indigenous Peoples in the current and former British North America and their successor states, apply to the English Crown (in Right of Canada, and unsevered by the Treaty of Paris), and do not make reference to theories of (immigrant) civil rights or equity. We'd still like a recount, thanks awfully, even if conducted in English. Kitakitamatsinopowaw, (see you again, probably someplace cold), Eric
Re: Will Language Wars Balkanize the Web?
Martin, I'll send you a copy of the "@sign vs !path" debate from my USENIX papers archive. See "Pathalias: or The Care and Feeding of Relative Addresses" by Honeyman and Bellovin, undated, at http://www.uucp.org/papers/pathalias.pdf. Speculations on the general utility and availability of "single" encoding schemes or some approximation of limited ambiguity code-set mapping(s) should not displace actual data. The claim that iso10646 is "good" is not improved by non-reference to the costs and benefits of ASCII-colliding encodings (EBCDIC, SJIS, etc.), just as the "interoperability" claim is not improved by non-reference to the operational deployment of serviceable encoding. Ignoring the daft peculiarities of particular encodings (and ANSI C) such as NULLs in strings (or file names), what I learned from owning the i18n problem at Sun was that a program of code-set indepence had time-to-market, sustaining engineering, and ease of implementation arguements over a program of opportunistic code-set dependence (the industry standard practice), and as a matter of convience, that the XPG/3 locale model made a utf8 locale a minor cost item, and an interal convenience mechanism. It was a compelling case who's hardest technical issue was dynamic character width determination in the bottom-half of the tty subsystem. I mention this to contrast it with substition of UTF8 (or any fixed-width multi-octet encoding scheme) dependence for ASCII dependence, or the common form of an addition of an "alternate code path" which affords run-time selection of one of two code-set dependent processing mechanisms. From my perspective, the IETF has preferred the second form of solution to the problem since the appearence of rfc2130. See also the following rfcs: 0373, 1345, 1468, 1489, 1502, 1555, 1557, 1815, 1842, 1922, 1947, 2237, and 2319. As I pointed out to you over lunch Thursday at the W3C AC meeting, the i18n problem is not simplified by the constraint which requires reference to iso639, or iso3166. While few APRAnauts have an evident interest in the problem of Euro-American Americanist hobbiests getting the fundamentals of Cherokee wrong (or care that there are three Cherokee polities), in an ISO normative reference (iso10646), on other lists (ICANN cluttered) Americans of sundry "liberties" pursuasions are quite worked up that Euro-American Sinology hobbiests are not, or may not, have precedence over Chinese governmental and cultural institutions on the operational deployment of Chinese language elements in the DNS (CNNIC vs Verisign). A related question is whether the i18n problem is simplified by a constraint which requires reference to the IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root, a constraint which adds, without reflection, the constraints of iso3166 to the dns-i18n problem set. Again, from my perspective, several sets of critics of the IANA transition(s), and its reluctant proponents, have overloaded the dns-i18n problem set as either an escape mechanism from uniqueness of the DNS root, or as a problem which cannot be solved except by preservation of the same property (uniqueness). Neither party appear to be motivated by the interests of users of ASCII colliding or pre-iso10646 (et alia) encodings, or users without practicable means to use their preferred writing (or signing) systems. Assuming a heterogenity of end-systems, each possibly with a heterogenous set of character encoded applications with some cut-buffer mediation mechanism, e.g., a (encoding-neutral or encoding-preferential) windowing system for transparent, or converted reads and write operations between end-system resident applications, and a DNS resolver library with access DNS service, and no additional constraints (these are enough, thanks!), is UTF-8 _the_ compelling answer? The attractions of Universalism still appear to be compelling, only if some non-technical, or ancilliary service model is controlling. Unfortunately, the utility of Particularism is temporarily hijacked anywhere near the DNS by partizans of one convention or its converse. If next-hop has a case for forwarding, then it is surprising that the case can't be applied to forwarding, except for opaque datagrams. Cheers, Eric P.S. I forgot to work in NATs and VPNs. Sigh.
Re: Will Language Wars Balkanize the Web?
I guess one of the first questions should be; "Is some partitioning of the Internet community such a bad thing?"... If the "partition" intended for discussion is "@sign vs !path" addressing conventions, Eric Allman and Peter Honeyman have left a discussion archive on the subject. Arguably the universalist thesis understated the drawbacks of anyone having the capability of addressing everyone anywhere. Clueless users is only one possible policy model -- a point made by Peter then, and equally valid now. Personally I'm underwhelmed by the universalism advocated by the members of the UNICODE Consortium, a single encoding scheme of necessity comes to peripheral markets late in their adoption of computerized writing systems, and their integration into a rationalized global system is not obviously a boon to their pre-integration service models. PS: I think it is without doubt that it is a Good Thing that we make efforts to internationalize protocols ... Even less satisfactory is the practice of generalizing ASCII (nee BCD) to encodings with more than 256 code points, via this universalist scheme and no other. To advance from ASCII to ASCII-plus-UTF8 could be just as well characterized as SJIS/GB/Big5/... (and their uses) depricated. ... my comments/questions are an attempt to explore how far this process can reasonable go. The i18n problem isn't trivial, and isn't advanced by problematic essays, good intentions, or American (actual and honorary) indulgences. On the up-side, large user bases need not adapt to extraneous requirements for participating in the "Internet community", and Universalist Credos may fail in the markets (plural intended). As for poking the ICANN mess in the eye with a sharpened brush on the IETF list prior to a meeting, it is clumsy slight-of-hand and a poor substitute for work on writing system support. See also the W3C WAI for information encoding and presentation systems which are not "writing". Kitakitamatsinopowaw, Eric
Re: Rechartering WREC
Harald (the match peddler) wrote: I know I shouldn't be bringing more tinder to the bonfire, but Cache interposition semantics on end-to-end policy evaluation and expiry semantics is my cup of gasoline. The policy-de-jour is P3P, to which Mark and I both ... contribute ... or er, illuminate. I second the user session state management item, and offer a cookie in lieu of a second cup of gasoline. Eric
Re: Topic drift Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
And what WG? Internet Drafts were and are generated by Individuals w/o benefit of an associated WG. Precisely my point to Grenville.
Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts
Grenville, I don't mind that you don't find anything valid in my little bit of our exchange, that was the point -- WGs, IESG, inexpiry, etc., aren't the exhaustive sources of "validity". Incidently, the "isn't revised, and falls into the expired (and hence not-valid) state" applies to both the HTTP man-mech and trusted-labels drafts, modulo one wasn't expired even though not revised. Counterexamples to your "valid due to inexpiry" status check exist, not all with 1 April time stamps. Anyway, in keeping with my indifference to fashion, I'll leave validity to its finders, as the original issue was author's intent. Cheers, Eric
Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts
I would suggest only "possibly of current interest to an IETF WG". Too WG-centric, e.g., if draft-jaye-http-trust-state-mgt-01.txt has expired (it has), and if the HTTP WG has shut down (it has), then no interested party (using the above suggested definition of "validity") can exist. Mind, it (and some others) were WG I-Ds at some prior time. An individual I-D may expire into static dustfullness, or into IRTF work, or into a non-WG RFC publication. I'm not sure I covered all of the WG-avoidant alternatives, but WGs aren't the only (or best) metric of utility, validity, or even humor. Cheers, Eric P.S. This document was deleted on March 20, 2000.
Re: can vpn's extended to mobility
The "P" in "VPN" stands for "privacy", which requires encryption ... I expected the term or concept of "data confidentiality" (the "p" is silent) to be bundled into this service model, not "privacy". Eric
Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
PS - is no one else alarmed by the re-publishing of material submitted under an explicit agreement for 'removal after 6 mos'? Yes. More generally the presumption that RFC doesn't mean "Request for Comments" and that the explicit withdrawal of the preliminary form has been over-ridden by a claim for third-party archival persistence. Eric
Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion
keith, having punted on the marks over strings2addrs (policy by indirect rather than direct beneficiaries), is anyone kidding themselves that the result of the content over routing (policy by ...) is going to follow a similar path? i wish i'd made the "you can't do good design with a mindset like that" to the authors of a recent i-d a little more forcefully. doing the same in an oddly proximal context is like swimming in glue. eric
RE: Email Privacy eating software
[from [EMAIL PROTECTED], (www.benton.org/News/) Communications-related Headlines for 7/19/2000 ] BRITISH AUTHORITIES MAY GET WIDE POWER TO DECODE E-MAIL Issue: Privacy/International Britain may adopt a law making it the only Western democracy where the government could require anyone using the Internet to turn over the keys to decoding e-mails messages and other data. "The powers in the bill are necessary and proportionate to the threat posed by 21st century criminals, no more, no less," Charles Clarke, the Home Office official in charge of the bill, said last week. The legislation would allow the British government to tap into and monitor electronic communication for a host of reasons, including to protect national security, to "safeguard the country's well-being," and to prevent and detect serious crime. That last, far-reaching category might include, for instance, "a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose." The measure would not require traditional warrants signed by judges. "This is Big Brother government realizing that unless they get their act together, technology is going to make them impotent by allowing individuals to bypass the regulations, and the spies, of the state," said Ian Angell, professor of information systems at the London School of Economics and a consultant on the recent report. "I'm a supporter of the police, and I believe they should be given powers, but there has to be due process, and this bill doesn't provide that," Mr. Angell said. "They'll be allowed to go on fishing expeditions." [SOURCE: New York Times (A3), AUTHOR: Sarah Lyall]
Defining Internet (or internet)
The Swedish legal definition (Patrik provided the pointer) may not be the only one which attempts to define what "Internet" is, fixed or broken, er, "mobile". Anyone else with a normative legal reference, your favorite jurisdiction or someone else's, please drop me a line. I'll summarize to the list. Eric
Re: XML as disruption
Simon,
The IETF general list may not be the best venue for advocacy pieces written
for non-specialists. The characterization of Keith Moore's and Franklin
Reynold's works ("Substrate" and "CC/PP", resp.) are not substantive and
in my opinion detract from or confuse a reading of your disrupt-the-web
advocacy.
Serious pieces are welcome, there are people here on a number of other lists
which are XML-specific or XML-related, but content is more engaging than
glosses.
Cheers,
Eric
Re: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
I have seen a lot of different people bash WAP over the past two days. However, I am a firm believer that WAP will become what IP is to us today. How nice to have firm belief-systems. What I write here are only my personal opinions. I posted Rohit's tour of the tangle when I was at Nokia Research last year. As Phil pointed out in "The Mystery of the Missing Block Diagram", the WAP gateway is imagined to be playing the cheery ringing tones of the Las Vegas Polka. The urge to own the last mile seems beyond rational examination. Having written XPG/1, and much of XPG/4.2, I experience the sensation of amazement, even wonder, that a company, or a handful of companies, who have a staggering installed base -- are disinterested in programatic APIs as a competitive weapon, and instead position themselves in an unnecessary food fight with the datagram industry -- the "wireless vs wireline" styling that leaks out of market leach fields. Personally I'd trade the "last mile" for the execution platform in a single clock cycle, but this may simply reflect my X v MS (IBM, ATT, resp.) experience as milage clearly varries. A handset is one "M" short of being a 3M device. Needless interposition on the service model makes it unnecessarily difficult to integrate. I agree with Phil, the best set of bits to pour onto a 2M device (Symbian, Palm, ...) is open-generica bits, not closed-(src/svc) bits. The core problem after all is to make the device useful, to expand the service model, not to maximize tolls for voice plus trivial digital dorkage. Since the XXX crowd has managed to lead telephony (and some data) service model development, I'll re-examine my beliefs when I see the XXX techies start to run with WAP. I believe in their crystal balls ;-) Eric
Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail
Keith, Assume that that e-ad and direct e-marketing (email) was $4 billion in 1999. The estimates I have at hand are that the the rate will be $18 billion in 2002. Roughly between now and 2005 the net's share of ads, regardless of the delivery form, is going to increase six-fold -- according to my crystal ball. There is a reason for this -- an unintended consequence of convience. The primary mode of use (research, browsing and purchasing) leaves intent in machine readable form, on dump tapes or click trails or ... and gratis our integrated ordering, billing, and payment cycle the net has become (or has been for some time already) a user-maintained transactional database. My dad could get a smile out of this, as he did early retail point-of-payment bar code systems, which married up not only with back-end inventory systems, but also to payment systems. I don't want to point a particular finger at http state-management (aka "cookies") or any of a number of other techniques for extracting updates of transactions. Which is "worst" may be interesting, and what and how to illuminate users (rather than their transactions) is why I started the cookie-cutters list -- it seems like a user-services thing to do, neh? What I do want to point out is that there the direct e-mailers (Digital Impact, MessageMedia, etc.) are not acting in isolation -- media buyers like Avenue A and Mediaplex, also buy-side companies, sell-side companies, whether portals, ad networks, or e-mail newsletters, and promotional companies, all act in some way on transactional data. Which ever side of the policy balloon gets squeezed, that is a lot of money looking to find effective mechanisms, and no amount of dull ax work is going to undo the crucial decision to unfund the public backbone and withdraw the restriction on commercial use. We could have seen that one comming, neh? Several years ago my friend Barry Shein started an effort to limit spam, before banner ads or professional direct e-marketing, back when dorkage and poor taste were the gravamen of the offense. As we know the general contours of the future, we also know that trusting user interfaces, whether mailer or browser, won't scale with the offered load. This is the IETF's problem domain, regardless of what happens with HR 3113. Cheers, Eric
Re: CCIE
Forgive this spam, but I am looking for 7 CCIE's for locations in London, Silicon Valley, California and Tokyo. i can not find an rfc for "CCIE." what is one, some kind of can opener? "Carbon Copy Internet Explorer", from the "New Corporation(s)." They'll I-D on or about 04/01/01, after securing the market. Power of 2 and all that, neh? Eric
Fwd: URGENT: Los Alamos Fire: Network Systems volunteers needed
The National Indian Telecommunications Institute (NITI) run Digital Council Fires (DCF) mailing list carries the following URGENT request for 10-15 Network Systems volunteers to assist in the Los Alamos fire response. The originator of the request is the New Mexico Information Technology and Software Association (NMITSA), and was sent to New Mexico regional networks yesterday. See the body of the forwarded message for details. IETFers who can help please drop Steen Rasmussen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) a note. Eric --- Forwarded Message Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 20:50:54 -0600 To: dcf@niti. From: Lisa Nelmida [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fwd: Re: URGENT: LA Fire: 10-15 Network Systems volunteers needed Bcc: [EMAIL PROTECTED],Rose Ebaugh User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630) Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:20:56 + Subject: Re: URGENT: LA Fire: 10-15 Network Systems volunteers needed From: Randy Burge [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: Steen Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Email for Steen Rasmussen correction: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [I was given an incorrect email address, I believe] Subject: URGENT: LA Fire: 10-15 Network Systems volunteers needed NMITSA: New Mexico Info Tech Software Assn: 5/11/00, 4:10 pm RESPONSE to Los Alamos Fire: REQUEST for Volunteer Assistance from NM based network and system ops professionals. If you are or know network and system professionals, please forward this email to them immediately. 10-15 people are estimated to be needed, but there may be shift work so let's bring all volunteers forward and sort out the details of need as we go. All interested people with requisite skills are urged to contact Steen Rasmussen at the Santa Fe Institute/LANL, coordinator of this project: cell phone: 505-670-6052 SFI:505-984-8800 ask for Steen email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This system will help coordinate family contact tracking and many other essential communication functions between the various disaster relief/assistance/assessment organizations. Please contact Steen ASAP. NMITSA will be monitoring this disaster and offering its email communication list to the cause of relief and recovery. --- Randy Burge NMITSA: New Mexico Info Tech Software Assn. 505-984-0622 Santa Fe office [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Lisa A. Nelmida Development Director National Indian Telecommunications Institute 110 N. Guadalupe, STE 9 Santa Fe, NM 87501 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 505.986.3872 x103 (v) 505.989.4271 (f) --- End of Forwarded Message
Re: merde! blush Patrick F. and ICANN board error
Normally I ignore Cook, and am grateful to have missed the original screed. Technical contributions on the content of the draft-hollenbeck-rrp-00.txt are nice, but deviations from content analysis are awkward. Eric
