Looks much better, people might even read it.
- If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
applications, you need to disclose that fact.
Perhaps disclose that fact promptly.
Pete's been
In article 5092d99f.3070...@cisco.com you write:
Why does the mailing list memberships reminder send passwords in the
clear?
Because that's what Mailman does. Send code.
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies,
Please consider the environment
Only majordomo2, which has been unmaintained for a while now (and
it's author calls it Dead holds much of a chance, but I doubt it
?would work for the IETF in its current condition.
Actually, MJ2 works great, I've been using it in production for years,
but I agree that we'd need to locate a perl
I agree with you that removing him would be the simplest approach, but I
can see possible situations where NOT following the process could lead
us into legal trouble.
Anyone can sue in the US for any reason, but this is silly.
The IAOC made extensive attempts to contact him in many ways, with
The legal issue raised by a previous reply that resonates with me is
that someone unsatisfied with a business decision by the adjusted
IAOC membership could sue based on documented process not being
followed to appoint the membership.
Are you aware of any case law that suggests that any U.S.
But we don't have rules that say, failure to attend for X period,
without permission, will result in the position being declared
vacant. I we did this would be simple. I don't think we have
any choice from a proceedural point of view other than to start
recall proceedings.
Having reread RFC
So, is it better to put in a sentence about representing non-ASCII
text in the group name without including a replyable address?
The main motivation is to provide a syntax for a non-replyable address
in From: and Sender: headers for cases where that is appropriate. See
the EAI downgrade
An I-D will only be removed from the Public I-D Archive under unusual
circumstances with consensus of the IESG. ...
If circumstances permit, a removed
I-D will be replaced with a tombstone file that describes the reason that
the I-D was removed from the Public I-D Archive.
That seems much
directs two people who are at an IETF meeting to refrain from one having
a sales discussion with the other in private.
Um, could you identify which item under 2 or 3 would describe a
sales discussion?
R's,
John
Utility can determine whether it's worth the effort/expense to run a
public archive, but your utility never undermines my rights as an author.
We're very deep into Junior Lawyer territory here.
You might want to review RFC 3978, section 3.3a, in which contributors
make a:
perpetual,
In article 505a2b08.70...@isi.edu you write:
On 9/19/2012 11:24 AM, John Levine wrote:
Utility can determine whether it's worth the effort/expense to run a
public archive, but your utility never undermines my rights as an author.
We're very deep into Junior Lawyer territory here.
I'm
I very much agree. I'm happy with the decision being the consensus of
a board, but not giving it to an individual.
So give it to the IESG and we can stop arguing about it.
I have to say, the urge to post a few I-D's consisting of snuff porn
is nearly irresistible.
R's,
John
I believe we /do/ need a written policy that has been reviewed by
legal counsel. Even with a group -- versus individual -- we should not
create possible charges of censorship up to the personal whims of the
moment.
Censorship? Sheesh.
The IETF is not the government. We have no
It shows a tendency of the active IETF discussants to resist doing the
work of settling on policy for the IETF. That's quite different from
demonstrating a lack of /need/.
The IETF has been around for 26 years, and has had, I gather, zero
removal requests to date.
If that doesn't demonstrate
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues related to making expired drafts available?
Yes. Depends on the IDs, when they were authored, and which version of
the boilerplate they contain.
Can you give a concrete example of an I-D with this problem? I
Or we can voluntarily
turn the trend around, one step at a time, starting with
rejecting this proposed statement in favor of discretion,
flexibility, and intelligence (and definitely not a statement/
policy of even more complexity) and maybe even including do we
really have resources for this
NEW:
An I-D MAY be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance
with a competent legal demand. If possible, a removed I-D will be
replaced with a tombstone file that describes the reason that the I-D
was removed from the public I-D archive.
This leaves sufficient flexibility for the
I have to say that I'm baffled at the perverse pride that people seem
to take in being so technically backward that they're unable to handle
the mail that 99% of the world uses today. While not being a fan of
overdecorated HTML and endless font changes, and strongly preferring a
mail program that
There's some stuff that's being sent that is extremely
difficult to pull apart.
Really? Like what? (This is an honest question -- it's been
ages since I recall seeing a message that my fairly dorky
mail software couldn't handle.)
R's,
John
Also it might be useful for the submitter to sign (rather tick a
tickbox/radio button) an indemnification clause for the IETF before
submitting an I-D.
Even a totally meritless DMCA challenge could cost upwards of $100,000
in legal fees to challenge and go through court hearings. Will that
be
non-laywer here,
The IETF is not an ISP and does not accordingly have safe harbor privileges.
Junior Lawyer here. A quick look at the law, or even the Wikipedia
article about it
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act)
reveals that the DMCA refers
This discussion of DMCA is useful to me as a non-US resident.
Are we sure that the boilerplate included in I-Ds does not constitute a
statement by the authors that they have not, as far as they are aware,
infringed any copyright? In other words, isn't the boilerplate a
pre-emptive
coffee and snacks, and the ability to
provision Internet access in meeting rooms and guest rooms, forget it.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies,
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
PS: Meter-deep water running
People also should be aware that Dallas has major transit and highway work
underway right now in particular North of the airport. By 2015 (2014
actually), you will be able to take light rail (orange line) from the
airport to downtown:
http://www.dart.org/about/expansion/orangeline.asp
Somehow it
This is worth mentioning because the MY formal rule is not strict
prohibition but a formal visa process that is so onerous as to equate to
a prohibition.
Wouldn't that rule out the United States? It is my impression that
getting a US visa for someone with a Cuban or Iranian passport is
ps. btw, what is it that you think is different about this from the way
we /do/ discuss protocol specs?
People discussing venues are less willing to believe that anyone
else's experience or issues differ from their own.
R's,
John
So I agree with that. If a feasible venue actually in Dublin
turns up I'll be sure to let Ray/IAOC/site-visit folks know.
The Burlington hotel claims that they can host a 1500 person meeting.
MAAWG met there in 2007 and it worked well for us, although that was
a somewhat smaller meeting.
R's,
The Burlington hotel claims that they can host a 1500 person meeting.
Yeah, it's exactly that easy to choose a venue. A single number does it.[1]
not.
Of course. MAAWG has been there so we know it's not a dump, it's
downtown, they can deal with nerds with lots of computers who demand
coffee
If we restrict European cities to the ones with direct flight
connections from other continents, we're really limiting the choices.
For some of us, if we limit our choices to places with direct flights,
that means Newark, Philadelphia, or Detroit. Count your blessings.
We can argue about
Flights to Vancouver from some cities were extremely expensive. It would
have cost me more than twice as much as it did to fly to Beijing, for
example, if I had taken a direct flight from DFW - it would have been by
far my most expensive IETF airfare ever.
That's very odd. I see lots of fares
And it means we stop being tourists.
Depends where. I would be happy to be a tourist in Vancouver, Quebec,
Paris (assuming we can sort out the Hotel Klepto issue), and/or Berlin
every year.
R's,
John
PS: But not Orlando.
Yes, we typically then point out that much of what they want is
available on line, and frequently negotiate with opposing counsel to
moderate demands for depositions, etc., but, in the end, we propose,
the judge and opposing counsel dispose. That won't change.
I'd want to set the depo rate
That said, moving the meeting further south would
have helped as well vs. How far north Vancouver is.
Summer daytime temperatures in Vancouver are typically 20c or lower,
while in the southern US they're usually over 30c. I'm not sure
that would be an improvement.
You're not going to find
You're not going to find cool temperatures again in July or August
unless you go as far south as Argentina or New Zealand.
Not only is there life north of the 60th parallel (N), there are
even hotels and restaurants and airports. Anchorage is probably
large enough for an IETF meeting, although
I see. Well, look on the bright side: the meeting could have been in
Reykjavik ;-).
Yes, that would have been bright, wouldn't it?
R's,
John
PS: sure like those hot dogs, though.
The draft policy entitled Draft Fee Policy for Legal Requests can be found
at: http://iaoc.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html
It seems fine to me, but I would add an hourly rate for research.
For requests for e-mail, do they typically provide pointers to the
specific archive entries, or do
NANOG is around 500 attendees. I daresay exposure to the average nanog
attendee is worth more, but ultimately the best feedback in that regard
will likely come from the sponsors.
IETF is bigger, but on the other hand, IETF attendees probably spend
less per capita on equipment than NANOGers do.
Maybe, in the interest of interplanetaryization (i19n ?) and
multigalacticism (m13m ?) we should start using FoPSCII and
Galicode references in our documents and noting that ASCII and
Unicode are temporary substitutes.
It hardly seems worth the effort, since the only difference between
ASCII and
The intended rotation cycle is still 1-1-1 for NA-EU-AP regions, but
it's all dependent on finding suitable and available venues and
willing hosts and sponsors. Changing the text of the document would
imply a change in policy or normal state of things which there
hasn't been.
Hmm. So a
Do we spell Standardization with and s or a z?
Yez.
R's,
John
In article CAHBU6iui0_n_=3p85msgdcswc3johl5f0hcbycmip04fvuo...@mail.gmail.com
you write:
Who are these people? -T
Based on what I've seem on the IGF list, people with an extraordinary
amount of free time.
R's,
John
the question seems to be we used to reply to the sender with a
notification that their message was blocked due to not being a
list member, with options to wait or cancel; did we disable those
notifications?
I sure hope so. These days about 99.9% of spam from unknown senders
is spam with
I do believe that, someday, someone should try to write up an
up-to-date description of the difference that recognizes the
fact that compressed files are in use as media types with
application/zip (in assorted spellings) and application/gzip
(from this spec and in assorted spellings) as examples.
In article 4f6236e6.5030...@nostrum.com you write:
The current plan is to investigate both a web based archive access
mechanism and an IMAP based one.
Don't forget NNTP (RFC 3977). I use it locally, deliver list mail to
local per-list newsgroups, and it works really well.
R's,
John
Last month I ran into a guy on the dmarc list who complained that his
server returns NOTIMP in response to queries for SPF records (because
it doesn't implement them) and clients were doing odd things. But
it's been a long time since I've run into anyone else like that, so I
agree, it's
Sometimes an ASCII text record will be fine, in other cases, it probably
won't.
My point is as we move again towards multiple text representations of the
digit five for example,
both encoding and parsing is easier and more secure if that digit is really
for example eight bits
and not text
Would you really want to build an SPF or DKIM parser into every DNS
server?
Here's another thought experiment. DKIM records are a sequence of
tag=value fields. Let's imagine a binary version of DKIM records
where each field is a length byte, a tag byte, and a suitably coded
value. For the
by people who care about
it, rather than managed by some distant DNS operator.
I suppose that unparsed records mean that the server can't add
additional section records, but based on yesterday's discussion, it
sounds like nobody's using them any more, so who cares?
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo
.
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies,
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
If your DNS hosting company doesn't support them find another one
or complain to them. You are paying them to host your DNS services
and this is a basic part of the job.
Can you suggest some DNS hosting companies that provide support for
provisioning SPF records? I'm not aware of any.
R's,
In an ideal world I'd also like to see us move in the direction that
RFC5507 promotes, but it seems we still aren't there yet.
I'm still hoping to get some more feedback on
draft-levine-dnsextlang-02.txt
R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
So, what we need to do is learn from that experience. 8.5 years later
support for 3597 is a very reasonable thing to expect, and with ,
DNSSEC, etc. we're well past the era where hidebound DNS software is an
acceptable operational model.
There are indeed very few current DNS servers that
Er, so? If the tool to bundle up the needed bits for SPF-as-text and
SPF-as-binary are similarly trivial, why should we care if people who
want to use a feature of the Internet can't persuade their provider to
make a trivial change.
Because there's no point in checking records that don't exist.
In other words, I don't see a problem with the existing text that
warrants bothering with an errata.
If IANA isn't able to figure out what they need to do under the
current wording, we have problems that no amount of word twiddling can
fix.
R's,
John
PS: The last time I checked, it wasn't a
Section 5 is for those people that do DKIM without ADSP but care about
giving author domain signatures preferential treatment.
Since there's nothing in the DKIM spec that suggests that's a correct
way to use DKIM, I'd be fairly unhappy about any language that
purports to legitimize it.
Here in
With ATPS, the requirement is to replace the d= string with the domain name
from
the From: field. That replacement value is then passed to the assessment
module.
In other words, DKIM provides it's own identifier to be used for assessment,
whereas ATPS dictates use of the From: field domain
Does this mean that those who have not had a car accident should not carry
auto
insurance? Should those who have not had their house suffer damage from wind,
rain, flood or fire or had someone sue them after slipping on the sidewalk
should not have homeowner's insurance?
What does insurance
This draft proposes a way to semi-redact personal information in spam
reports by replacing the address or other string by a hash. It's a
reasonable idea, but as far as I know, it has not been implemented.
Speaking as one of the authors of RFC 5965, which this draft would
update if it were on
Rather than trying to set up rules that cover all hypothetical developments, I
would suggest
a practical approach. In our process, disputes are materialized by an appeal.
Specific legal
advice on the handling of a specific appeal is much more practical than
abstract rulemaking.
+1
This has
them for something else in the
future and risks collisions. For the same reason, it'd probably be a
good idea to register the authentication-results tags described in
sections 8.2 and 8.3.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies,
Please consider
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
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
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 of
FWIW, I think that, if we are going to start banning proprietary
formats, it makes lots more sense to ban _all_ proprietary formats,
not just picking and choosing among proprietary formats that are,
e.g., more recent or less frequently reverse-engineered than others.
So, yes, let's ban pptx,
ASCII is already unreadable on many popular devices
and in a few years will be no better than old versions of word.
If you can pan and scan a complex PDF file, you can pan and scan ASCII
art.
I've been doing some experiments trying to make RFCs and I-D's
readable on my Kindle. It has native
Adding a new tool/process is absurd. If you have a solution that actually
works for everyone without adding much to their time burden, test it,
demonstrate it with your own materials, etc.
Are there really presentation programs so lame that they can't export PDFs?
If so, loop back to the
This doesn't address strict pdf/a 1.4 compatibility, but this is a more
subtle problem which the ietf cannot realistically expect its presentation
submitters to handle in a consistent manner.
OOO and LibreOffice purport to export PDF/A. I haven't run the
results through a verifier to see how
What is much more important is that the data formats used by the
IETF will still be fully supported in 15-20 years. For a new,
and more so a proprietary data format, ...
I'm confused. When you say a proprietary data format, I presume you
mean Microsoft's closed and undocumented PPT format, as
PowerPoint slides regularly require a real Microsoft Windows with a
PowerPoint viewer
I find that Libreoffice on FreeBSD shows all the powerpoint slides I
need to show just dandy. PDF is nice but not a lot easier.
R's,
John
PS: I presume we've all read the notes that meetecho also speaks SIP?
I'd still prefer s/the largest/a/ or s/the largest/a large/ or similar.
This makes no sense. you believe that there is another large
organization that does what MAAWG does?
Others asked about the non-derivative blurb, and maybe I missed the
answer for these questions. What is the idea?
That's
If anyone has any suggestions on how to speedup the rendering part,
please do let me know either on-list of off-list.
Break up the version that you get by normal web browsing into multiple
interlinked smaller pages, keep the big page available at a fixed
address for people who want to download
The no derivative clause makes it impossible to incorporate the
material in this draft in any IETF work.
Section 3.3 of RFC 5378, on derivative works says:
There are two exceptions to this requirement: documents
describing proprietary technologies and documents that are
republications
Yes, there's no doubt that the IESG needs to have strong input into
IASA decisions; there is no way round that. But it isn't clear to me
that this must be the IESG Chair's job, if we had a model where the
IETF Chair and IESG Chair were two different people. As long as it's
one person, this is a
Is there any reason we can't create this on wikipedia itself, e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFC3514
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and all that is supposed to go on the
main pages is encyclopedia type material, which this doesn't sound
like. There's a talk page where you can have
I think that if some people support the idea, they can easily create a
wiki somewhere (e.g., specsannotated.com) and get to work. If the
experiment has value, we'll figure that out. If not, well, it was just
an experiment.
Agreed. In my experience, wikis only work well if they have someone
When the text in 2119 is already clearly written, but people fail to
read it, I don't understand why adding more text in yet another
document is likely to improve understanding. Adding additional text
and documents inherently increases the burden on readers.
Having done my share of writing, and
Obviously the date needs to be fixed at some point, but does it really
have to be six years in advance? (
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html )
As I understand it, the main reason to schedule so far out is to avoid
collisions with other meetings that attract a large number of the same
I can't tell what problem we're trying to solve here. The original
question (other than that whoever runs the IETF web site should
buy a new cert) seemed to have something to do with mailing list
archives. I think it would be swell to know that the archives I
retrieved were the real ones, but
What I have heard is that the community would prefer going to
locations that were easy to travel to over interesting.
Well, some of the community. I expect that's because we just came
back from a meeting that wasn't great for travel (insert shout-out to
the gang who were all stuck for the night
I can't find a flight that gets me there in less than 2 days from
Canada. I tried for November.
Um, you can fly YYZ-NRT/NRT-MNL on AC and NH in about 20 hrs. The
return flight is about 18 hrs, same route. Any chance we've forgotten
about the International Date Line? I see coach fares of about
DKIM is designed for to deal with one posting and one delivery. Mailing
lists take delivery and re-post. For almost all scenarios, DKIM was not
intended to survive re-posting.
I wasn't referring to the post from the originator to the list, I was
referring to the message posted from the list.
happy to let those who prefer to not have such a prefix setup their
procmail rules to remove it.-:)
Gee, I was about to say I was happy for people who want a subject tag
to add one using procmail or whatever.
I'm not unalterably opposed to subject tags, but I believe that the
IETF's dogfood is
Perhaps. But it's difficult to escape the impression that this is
another example of IETF failing to solve an important problem by
focusing on a portion of the problem that's easy to solve, and ruling
the difficult part out of scope for the time being.
It's definitely a case of the best being
Does it follow, then, that the Right Thing to do is to avoid
building any other parts of the system (even, say, the reputation
service query protocol) until the easiest part is finished?
If we knew what to build, we'd build it.
We published RFC 5518 for VBR, a reputation system that sits on
I am very pleased to report that the IETF is now applying DKIM signatures
to all outgoing list email from mailman.
What about a RFC 5617 published signing practice?
That RFC is only useful for a narrow range of heavily phished domains
like Paypal's. Fabulous though the IETF is, it's not one
See http://www.out-law.com/page-5536
It says There is no legal authority on the effectiveness of these
notices in email messages; and There is no legal authority on the
value of these notices in email communications. When the notice is
added automatically to every external communication, there is
Ever since, I've wondered if these notices were set up by someone
who is a lawyer and does understand the situation, or if they were
set up by someone who saw others do it, or heard that this sort of
thing was needed.
It's clueless cargo cult lawyering. I blogged on it in January:
Yes, and perhaps disclaimers/confidentiality notices should be
standardized with their own MIME type to make automatic processing
easier so receivers of this kind of notice (mailing-list or other)
can respect the wishes of the sender.
That respect would of course be demonstrated by rejecting or
For an application that is likely to encounter a different IP address for
essentially every query, across a very large number of queries, the only
solution I see available is to use a different cache.
Seems reasonable. I gather that there are already caches with the
ability to partition
I believe that the solution is to have the applications, themselves,
distinguish the cache they are using (or the containing library). A
blocklist app needs to use a different library/cache than a web
browser.
You could do it either way. Either you could adjust the MTAs to have
a new parameter
Alas, that's not enough for me to refuse to use SORBS for my
customers who ask for it.
There are a few blacklists that are well enough run to be worth
expending effort to find out why you're listed and get removed. SORBS
used to be one of those lists, but hasn't been at least since Michelle
In article 4e02ee24.2060...@gmail.com you write:
On 6/22/11 11:14 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
The bottom line about Doug's note is that the working group extensively
considered the basic issue of multiple From: header fields and Doug is
raising nothing new about the topic.
Dave is quite
I am slightly concerned about the relatively short time for my
connection at YUL, though - I've only got 1h05 between scheduled
landing from LHR and the hop out to YQB.
I presume you're coming in on the BA flight, since that's the only one
that has a 1:05 connection. If you miss the 21:00
The only European operator into YQB appears to be Air Transat (whoever
the heck they are) and they only fly from Marseille and Paris.
Air Transat is a Montreal-based quasi-charter carrier that specialize
in holiday travel. Their A330s have kneecap killing 31 seat pitch so
I would only fly them
My recollection, which of course could easily be flawed, is that the
survey did not make clear that travel is significantly more difficult
to Quebec than other Canadian cities, nor that hotels are more
expensive.
The hotels in Quebec are no more expensive than hotels in other cities
where the
My flight in changes in Newark and out in Chicago, both major
intercontinental hubs which means there are plenty of long-range
connections that are no more difficult.
In my case, coming from Europe, that means that I have to go through US
customs, recheck my bags and wait for the next plane.
Why is this being discussed here? Logistics about Quebec and how to
get there should be discussed on 81attendees.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/81attendees
The archive link on that page is 404. Has anyone ever posted a
message to that list?
I'm staying in the Delta for $209. That doesn't seem out of line to
me.
People who are very price sensitive can stay in the Laval university
dorms for $52/night. I know people who've stayed there for a
conference in the convention centre and said that it was fine. It's
too far to walk, so you
As you may have noticed, flying to Quebec City (YQB) is incredibly
expensive. That's because it's a regional airport with little
competion. Flying to Montreal is usuallly a lot cheaper. Getting
from Trudeau airport in Montreal involves some planning, but it's not
hard. The trip is about four
In article 20110615213858.9853.22165.idtrac...@ietfa.amsl.com you write:
The IESG has received a request from the Domain Keys Identified Mail WG
(dkim) to consider the following document:
- 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures'
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-12.txt as a Draft Standard
101 - 200 of 371 matches
Mail list logo
