Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors
Checking out the ORCID site, I noticed that when manually adding a work, one of the possible external IDs is Request for Comments. So they certainly seem to be aware of the RFC series. The site already has the ability to search various external databases to automate the process of adding works, but doesn't have the ability to search the RFC database for works. It would be a great addition to the site if it could. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: [First post here] Hello, I'm a contributor to RFC 6350 - but I'm listed there by name only, and there is nothing to differentiate me from some other Andy Mabbett (the problem is no doubt worse for people with less unusual family names). Like many such contributors, I don't want to publish my email address as an identifier, in case I get spammed, and if I give an affiliation or even the URL of my website, that may change over time. This problem is addressed by Open Research Contributor Identifiers (ORCID; http://orcid.org), UIDs (and URIs) for scientific and other academic authors. Mine is below. As the website says: ORCID is an open, non-profit, community-driven effort to create and maintain a registry of unique researcher identifiers and a transparent method of linking research activities and outputs to these identifiers. Individuals can sign up for an ORCID at http://orcid.org/ and then include it in their attribution in RfCs, in their research papers, and in other publications. I'd like to propose that we strongly encourage, or even mandate, this for future RfCs. How should I proceed? Is this list the best place for discussion of this topic? Does it need an RfC? If so, would someone care to assist me, please? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing Website: http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ORCID: http://orcid.org/-0001-5882-6823
Re: REVISED Last Call: draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-02.txt (The Pseudowire (PW) Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation Survey Results) to Informational RFC
Abdussalam, Thanks again, following IETF last call I'll discuss actions to take on the draft with the IESG. Cheers, Andy On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Andrew, I am happy to see a survey draft, I never seen one before in IETF, however, if there was a survey done before in IETF, it will be interesting to mention that if you think necessary related. On 9/5/13, Andrew G. Malis agma...@gmail.com wrote: Abdussalam, Many thanks for your review and comments on the draft. I have some answers inline. On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: The Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun Date: 05.09.2013 I-D name: draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results Received your Request dated 04.09.2013 ++ The reviewer supports the draft subject to amendments. Overall the survey is not easy to be used as source of information related to such technology users, but easier as source of information related to respondings of companies. AB I prefer the title to start as: A Survey of .. Andy The draft is reporting the results of the survey, rather than being the survey, so the title couldn't start as you suggested. A possibility could be The Results of a Survey on Pseudowire (PW) Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementations, but I think the existing title is more concise. Yes that was my aim, thanks, Abstract This survey of the PW/VCCV user community was conducted to determine implementation trends. The survey and results is presented herein. AB How did the survey determine implementations related to users (are they general known or uknown or chosen by authors...etc). What kind of results? Andy The survey was of service providers deploying pseudowires and VCCV. The users, in this case, are service providers. ok, if described in the document, and how were they selected, is it on there work volume basis, or etc. AB the abstract starts interesting but ends making the results not clear what it was (good, reasonable, expected, positive, had conclusions..etc)? AB The draft states that it has no conclusion, because it is not intended for that but to help in knowing results to help in other future drafts. However, the abstract mentions that the survey conducted to determine (not understood how to determine without conclusions or analysis). Andy It wasn't the job of the people conducting the survey to draw conclusions from the results, it was for them to report the results so that the working group could collectively draw conclusions in their ongoing work. At the time, the WG needed information on which combinations of PW and VCCV options were actually in use, and the survey was used to collect that information. Ok, the WG needs information, but if I still remember, the document does not state/define such need to match the survey. Introduction In order to assess the best approach to address the observed interoperability issues, the PWE3 working group decided to solicit feedback from the PW and VCCV user community regarding implementation. This document presents the survey and the information returned by the user community who participated. AB the introduction needs to show the importance of the survey, or what makes such decision from the WG (i.e. seems like the WG has not cover all types of community, not sure)? AB Why did the WG decide the survey by using questionnair? Andy The part of the Introduction on page 3 provides the background, rationale, and importance of the survey. We used a questionnaire as that form of survey is easiest for the respondents and allowed us to use SurveyMonkey to conduct the survey. The questionnaire method has advantages and disadvantages, so if on section mentions the result validity in linked to method, I think the reader will know how much he can depend on such results. AB suggest amending the document presents the questionnair form questions and information returned .. Andy We could change the sentence to say This document presents the survey questionnaire and the information returned by the user community who participated. my language may not be perfect, but I agree that amending it to show survey method and method of result collection. Sections 1.1 1.2 and 1.3 ..questions based on direction of the WG chairs.. There were seventeen responses to the survey that met the validity requirements in Section 3. The responding companies are listed below in Section 2.1. AB Why were thoes methodologies and why that way of quetions chosen for this survey? The answer to this is important for the document (informational) and future drafts. Andy While the survey questions were originally suggested by the WG chairs, they were written
Re: REVISED Last Call: draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-02.txt (The Pseudowire (PW) Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation Survey Results) to Informational RFC
Abdussalam, Many thanks for your review and comments on the draft. I have some answers inline. On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: The Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun Date: 05.09.2013 I-D name: draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results Received your Request dated 04.09.2013 ++ The reviewer supports the draft subject to amendments. Overall the survey is not easy to be used as source of information related to such technology users, but easier as source of information related to respondings of companies. AB I prefer the title to start as: A Survey of .. Andy The draft is reporting the results of the survey, rather than being the survey, so the title couldn't start as you suggested. A possibility could be The Results of a Survey on Pseudowire (PW) Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementations, but I think the existing title is more concise. Abstract This survey of the PW/VCCV user community was conducted to determine implementation trends. The survey and results is presented herein. AB How did the survey determine implementations related to users (are they general known or uknown or chosen by authors...etc). What kind of results? Andy The survey was of service providers deploying pseudowires and VCCV. The users, in this case, are service providers. AB the abstract starts interesting but ends making the results not clear what it was (good, reasonable, expected, positive, had conclusions..etc)? AB The draft states that it has no conclusion, because it is not intended for that but to help in knowing results to help in other future drafts. However, the abstract mentions that the survey conducted to determine (not understood how to determine without conclusions or analysis). Andy It wasn't the job of the people conducting the survey to draw conclusions from the results, it was for them to report the results so that the working group could collectively draw conclusions in their ongoing work. At the time, the WG needed information on which combinations of PW and VCCV options were actually in use, and the survey was used to collect that information. Introduction In order to assess the best approach to address the observed interoperability issues, the PWE3 working group decided to solicit feedback from the PW and VCCV user community regarding implementation. This document presents the survey and the information returned by the user community who participated. AB the introduction needs to show the importance of the survey, or what makes such decision from the WG (i.e. seems like the WG has not cover all types of community, not sure)? AB Why did the WG decide the survey by using questionnair? Andy The part of the Introduction on page 3 provides the background, rationale, and importance of the survey. We used a questionnaire as that form of survey is easiest for the respondents and allowed us to use SurveyMonkey to conduct the survey. AB suggest amending the document presents the questionnair form questions and information returned .. Andy We could change the sentence to say This document presents the survey questionnaire and the information returned by the user community who participated. Sections 1.1 1.2 and 1.3 ..questions based on direction of the WG chairs.. There were seventeen responses to the survey that met the validity requirements in Section 3. The responding companies are listed below in Section 2.1. AB Why were thoes methodologies and why that way of quetions chosen for this survey? The answer to this is important for the document (informational) and future drafts. Andy While the survey questions were originally suggested by the WG chairs, they were written by the survey authors and reviewed by the WG prior to the collection of results. We could add that if you like. AB The reason of the survey's methodology should be mentioned in clear section, as the athors' opinion. Section 1.2 Form Why the form did not make security consideration related to implementations in the form questions? which then may be used in security section. Andy Because security information wasn't the subject of the survey. Results section 2 AB are difficult to read or find related to section 1.2. AB Usually the section mixes between what was returned and what was given. It is prefered to have two separate sections as 1 (what was given including the form), and what was returned as results. The questions are in section 1.2, and the results are in section 2. Regards AB Thanks again, Andy
Re: IETF Meeting in South America
I think this is an excellent idea. The Adelaide meeting worked out fine, and this would be a lot closer for a great many participants than that meeting was. Cheers, Andy On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:54 AM, The IAOC bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote: As you may know the IAOC has been investigating the feasibility of having an IETF meeting in South America. There was a site visit to South America last February. We have found two venues that we believe will support a successful IETF meeting and we would like to get feedback from the community. The venues are in Buenos Aires. They meet our requirements for the meeting space, networking, nearby restaurants and bars, hotel room rates in the mid $200 dollar range, nearby alternate hotels at a broad range of prices, nice area in the city, safe, direct international flights, and accessible visas. The IAOC thinks we could have a successful IETF meeting in Buenos Aires and that attendees would like the venues. There has been a consistent level of IETF participation from South and Central America, and it has been growing since IETF82. The data on this is posted at http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-Regional-Attendance-00.pdf. The current meeting regional rotation (announced at IETF79) allows for an occasional IETF meeting outside of our main regions (Europe, North America, Asia/Pacific). IETF standards are made more valuable the more relevant they are and the more uptake they get. IETF standards are also made more robust when all perspectives are represented during their development. Encouraging growing participation will help strengthen the Internet, further encourage participation from those areas that will see the most growth in the coming years, and will help advance the IETF in political and international circles which is becoming more of an imperative. We have asked the IESG for their feedback and they are supportive of a meeting in South America if there is community support and active participants attend. Things to consider are that it will be a long trip for the majority of IETFers and the air fares are more expensive (about 10% to 20% higher than average), though restaurants are less expensive. This would be a case where most IETFers would bear more travel pain and expense. The IAOC would like to understand if the IETF community thinks that the IETF should have a meeting in the next few years in Buenos Aires. The IAOC would also like to get feedback on how we can ensure the meeting is as successful as possible and on ways to grow participation in the region. We have set up a survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NWYLQCD where you can indicate your likelihood of attending, and we encourage you to send your general feedback to the IETF list ietf@ietf.org. Thanks, Bob Hinden IAOC Chair
Re: Accessing tools from IETF pages
Tom, There's a compatibility view button in recent versions of IE that I've found helps with some websites. See http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/internet-explorer/products/ie-9/features/compatibility-view. You can also find it in the Tools menu. Cheers, Andy On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:13 AM, t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com wrote: Tom Petch - Original Message - From: Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com To: t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com Cc: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 8:37 PM Subject: Re: Accessing tools from IETF pages From: t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com I wanted to submit an I-D so I wanted to access the tools, as I have done before, so I clicked on 'IETF Tools' from http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ and when that failed tried again with 'Tools Team Pages' from http://www.ietf.org/iesg/ with the same result. Can anyone else get to tools from that link? It resolves to http://tools.ietf.org/ which Internet Explorer (what else?) assures me cannot be displayed, either from the link or from typing it into the Open drop down. Well, all three of those links work for me at May 8 19:33:01 UTC 2013 using Firefox 18.0.2 on Linux. (For whatever that is worth.) I'd sniff the HTTP transaction to get some information on the specific failure mode. Dale Many thanks for that; if others can get to it, then that resolves my issue, I can always go via other means, until I get myself a trace and see what is really going on. Tom Petch Dale
Re: IETF Meeting Hotels for 2013
Ray, I haven't seen much (any?) discussion of this announcement, perhaps a first for this group. Anyway, I think it's an excellent idea, it gives people a chance to plan their travel further out especially if they're thinking of bringing companions, families, etc. Please continue this! Thanks, Andy On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:46 PM, IETF Administrative Director i...@ietf.orgwrote: The IAOC has approved giving advance notice of the IETF Meeting hotel venues for 2013 as an experiment. Customarily such information has not been provided prior to registration opening for that meeting, however the IAOC is persuaded that it may be advantageous to attendees and wants to determine whether there are any unintended consequences. IETF 88 March 10 - 15 Location: Orlando, FL Venue: Caribe Royale Registration now open: https://www.ietf.org/meeting/86/index.html IETF 87 July 28 - August 2 Location: Berlin, Germany Venue: InterContinental Berlin (Note: Reservations to open approximately 12 weeks before the meeting.) IETF 88 November 3-8 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada Venue: Hyatt Regency Vancouver (Note: Reservations to open approximately 12 weeks before the meeting.) Providing Venue information for 2013 is an experiment to determine impacts to participants, Secretariat, contracts, venue, and budget. A decision will be made whether to continue to provide Venue information for 2014 after IETF 88. Ray IETF Administrative Director
Re: I-D Action: draft-farrell-ft-01.txt
Stephen, Your goal is laudatory, but the devil will be in the details. For example, you wrote: Note also that this experiment just needs an implementation that makes it possible for the WG chairs and responsible AD to verify (to the extent they chose) that the implementation matches the draft. Will this require WG chairs and/or document shepherds to do a code review to verify that the implementation and code match? A better criteria might be that there be at least two independent implementations that successfully interoperate. That would also show greater WG interest than just a single individual or organization. Open source code is a plus, but shouldn't be a requirement, as such a requirement might discourage some vendors from implementing. Thanks, Andy On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:48 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : A Fast-Track way to Proposed Standard with Running Code Author(s) : Stephen Farrell Filename: draft-farrell-ft-01.txt Pages : 9 Date: 2012-12-03 Abstract: This memo proposes an optional fast-track way to get from a working group document to IESG review that can be used for cases when a working group chair believes that there is running code that implements a working group Internet-Draft. The basic idea is to do all of working group last call, IETF last call and area director review during the same two week period, and to impose a higher barrier for comments that might block progress. The motivation is to have the IETF process have a built-in reward for running code, consistent with the IETF's overall philosophy of running code and rough consensus. This version is solely proposed by the author (and not the IESG) to attempt to ascertain if there is enough interest in this to warrant trying out the idea as an RFC 3933 process experiment. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-ft-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-farrell-ft-01 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ ___ I-D-Announce mailing list i-d-annou...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
Re: I-D Action: draft-farrell-ft-01.txt
Whoops, I meant that the draft and implementation match, sorry about that. Cheers, Andy On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Andrew G. Malis agma...@gmail.com wrote: Stephen, Your goal is laudatory, but the devil will be in the details. For example, you wrote: Note also that this experiment just needs an implementation that makes it possible for the WG chairs and responsible AD to verify (to the extent they chose) that the implementation matches the draft. Will this require WG chairs and/or document shepherds to do a code review to verify that the implementation and code match? A better criteria might be that there be at least two independent implementations that successfully interoperate. That would also show greater WG interest than just a single individual or organization. Open source code is a plus, but shouldn't be a requirement, as such a requirement might discourage some vendors from implementing. Thanks, Andy On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:48 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : A Fast-Track way to Proposed Standard with Running Code Author(s) : Stephen Farrell Filename: draft-farrell-ft-01.txt Pages : 9 Date: 2012-12-03 Abstract: This memo proposes an optional fast-track way to get from a working group document to IESG review that can be used for cases when a working group chair believes that there is running code that implements a working group Internet-Draft. The basic idea is to do all of working group last call, IETF last call and area director review during the same two week period, and to impose a higher barrier for comments that might block progress. The motivation is to have the IETF process have a built-in reward for running code, consistent with the IETF's overall philosophy of running code and rough consensus. This version is solely proposed by the author (and not the IESG) to attempt to ascertain if there is enough interest in this to warrant trying out the idea as an RFC 3933 process experiment. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-ft-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-farrell-ft-01 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ ___ I-D-Announce mailing list i-d-annou...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Drafthttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announceInternet-Draftdirectories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
Re: A Splendid Example Of A Renumbering Disaster
As LogMein says, even with the TMobile and Rogers use, it's extremely unlikely that their customers will need to communicate with any hosts in 25/8. That said, I absolutely agree that an IPv4 range devoted to VPNs would be great. I run a personal VPN to my home LAN, and I specifically use different ranges of RFC 1918 space for the addresses in my home and my VPN. Cheers, Andy On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Paul Wouters p...@nohats.ca wrote: On Sat, 24 Nov 2012, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: http://b.logme.in/2012/11/07/**changes-to-hamachi-on-**november-19th/http://b.logme.in/2012/11/07/changes-to-hamachi-on-november-19th/ LogMeIn Hamachi is basically a NAT-traversing layer 2 VPN solution. They avoided conflicts with RFC 1918 space by hijacking IPv4 space in 5/8, now actively being allocated by LIRs in Europe. When that didn't work (see link above), they moved to 25/8, allocated to the UK MoD. While I'm almost sure that they haven't got it quite so wrong this time, following the comments says that the idea was not only a very bad one to start with, it's cost a lot of people a lot of grief that IPv6 was clearly going to mitigate in renumbering. Perhaps it is why they recommend it per default, if not for the number of applications that would be broken by it. Both TMobile in the US, and Rogers/Fido in Canada use 25/8. Our IPsec client per default only allows incoming NAT-T for ranges in RFC1918, due to security reasons (you don't want them hijacking google's ip range). So we actually had to add 25/8 to the white list a few years ago. But, it would be nice to have an IPv4 range dedicated to VPN ranges, so you can setup things like L2TP tunnels without fear of collision in the RFC1918 space, although I guess technology has advanced enough to implement proper segmentation and workarounds for this these days. Paul
Re: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF]
There's obviously a subset of the newcomers who only attend because a meeting is local or otherwise convenient to attend, or come with narrowly focused interests, and never planned to become a regular. Since attendance is largely flat over last few years, obviously newcomers that become regulars are offset by existing participants that drop out or cannot make a particular meeting. Drop outs have to be expected for any number of reasons, such as change in job function, change in (or loss of) employer, end of a work item of interest, and so on. I, for one, think we're actually not in a bad place right now, and would not welcome a return of the 2600-attendee meetings, where meeting rooms and hallways were filled to overflowing, with no real commensurate increase in the set of participants doing the work. Cheers, Andy On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote: Trimming SM's email... There is a direct contribution of US $2.2 million by the Internet Society next year. Is the plan to rely on Internet Society subsidies or to fix the deficit? One argument made was that the fees have not been increased over the last years. I'll point out that there hasn't been significant increase in paid attendance over the years. Either the IETF is only relevant to the usual folks or else the meetings are not made relevant enough for (new) people to attend. I am repeatedly struck by how many new people *do* attend. According to Russ's slides [1] 195/1098 are newcomers. And just to labour the point, a newcomer is not a returnee after 10 years, but someone who has never attended before. This number (around 10%) seems consistent over all meetings. So naively, we should be growing our attendance by around 300 per year. That we are not reflects our inability to retain, not our inability to attract (assuming that we are not completely refreshing the IETF attendance every three or four years). Should not be rocket science to follow up with some newcomers to find out why they only attend once and never come back. All other points made by SM may be valid. Adrian [1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-iesg-opsandtech-13
Re: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF]
SM, I was following this working group which will likely be shut down because there is not enough participation. There are quite a few working group which fit that profile. I prefer not to view things as actually not in a bad place as it encourages complacency. Back in the 90s, I chaired a WG that regularly had less than 10 attendees, but all of them were interested and contributed, and we got a good set of RFCs as a result. You don't need a large number of participants, just committed ones. I do agree though, that was a good response from Riccardo. Cheers, Andy
Re: Minutes SHOULD include participants number
Just on a practical matter, many of us WG chairs like to get the minutes uploaded as quickly as possible, before the blue sheet numbers are available. Like John, I fail to see the value of recording the number of people sitting in chairs, except to size the room for the next meeting. One of the most productive WGs I ever participated in usually had fewer than 10 people at a meeting, but every single one of those people contributed to the documents. Regarding consensus, that's a different matter altogether, and one you didn't mention in your original email. In most WGs (certainly in mine), consensus is not determined in the meeting, but on the list. In the minutes, we'll sometimes report on the sense of the room, but it's nothing more than that. Cheers, Andy On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: Hi John, Thanks for your advise and comments. I prefered that consensus is documented to know its value/level as was it 60% or 70% or 80%...etc. How do Chairs in IETF decide on the agree/disagree/no-reply from WGs Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as rough consensus and 99% is better than rough. It is up to the Chair to determine if rough consensus has been reached. I see that minutes just mention WG agreed to ..., but would suggest the value, so it does not become below 51%. Also, most participants need more time to decide on such request from Chairs because they use their variable-available-volunteering time to do reading/work within each 28 days. Regards AB --- On 8/28/12, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: --On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:17 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Reading through some IETF WGs minutes of meetings, is it possible that we follow a procedure in writting minutes. I think the following items are important that SHOULD be included: 1) name of the chair, minute taker, and jabber reader. 2) number of participant in the meeting room. 3) number of participants at jabber. It seems to me that the latter two would fall somewhere between useless and misleading. I don't have any idea how to count participants in the meeting room. The only numbers that are reasonably easy to capture are the number of people who signed the blue sheets, but that doesn't capture either non-signers or those who sign and then sit in the room and pay more attention to email or other topics than the meeting. If we used the number of people signed into Jabber for anything, we'd create a count that was extremely easy to pack as well as not distinguishing between people who were on Jabber but in the room, on Jabber but elsewhere at the IETF meeting (conflicts or couldn't be bothered to attend), remote and actively following the meeting, or others (and there are likely to be some others). I could see somewhat more value if actual names and organizational affiliations were listed, but the community has (for plausible reasons, IMO) decided to not do that. This is just a personal opinion/request, but I would really appreciate it if you (or others making procedural suggestions/requests like this) would carefully think through the implications of what they are asking for and how the information would be used before making the request. It would be even better if you then included an explanation of the value that you think would occur, and maybe the tradeoffs you see, with the request, not just is it possible that we follow a procedure That would have an advantage for you too because such suggestions are more likely to be taken seriously by more people in the IETF rather than, in the extreme case, going unread because you have developed a history of bad and/or unjustified ideas. regards, john
Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting and IPv15
A 260-bit address should be sufficient to address every atom in the universe, according to current estimates (10^78 atoms). We go there next (plus some extra to add hierarchy), and we'll never have to worry about addressing again. Another alternative is self-describing variable-length addresses, again do it once and we'll never have to worry about it again. Cheers, Andy On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) dwor...@avaya.com wrote: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker [hal...@gmail.com] As Tom Knight pointed out when the IPv4 address size was chosen, there aren't enough for one for each person living on the planet. Remember that we are trying to build a network that is going to last for hundreds if not thousands of years. Technology changes over time, and so the optimal design tradeoffs change over time. When IPv4 was designed, memory, processing power, and transmission capacity were far more expensive than now. Moore's Law suggests a factor of 2^15 between 1982 and 2012. Before that was the ARPAnet, with 8 bit addresses, which lasted for around 15 years. Presumably IPv6 will suffice for at least another 30 years. The real issue regarding longevity is that total network overhauls should be infrequent enough that their amortized costs are well less than ongoing operational costs. Once that has been achieved, the cost savings of designing a protocol with a longer usable lifetime is probably not worth the effort of trying to predict the future well enough to achieve longer lifetime. Extrapolating a 30-year lifetime for each IP version suggests that in 300 years we will reach the end of the usable life of IPv15 and will have to allocate more bits to the version field at the beginning of packets. That'll be a mess... Dale
Re: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)
+1 to both of Carsten's suggestions. On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote: On Aug 6, 2012, at 16:41, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote: If we were to choose one place in the U.S. to meet, Minneapolis is the best choice IMHO. +1 a lot. (If we indeed have to choose the US.) Great facility to get work done, good food, reasonable flights. And add Prague as the staple for Europe. Grüße, Carsten
Re: Meeting lounges at IETF meetings
+1 on keeping the terminal room a (mostly) quiet work area. Rather, let's replicate the Quebec large lounge space if possible (at all upcoming meetings). Cheers, Andy On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) dwor...@avaya.com wrote: From: Paul Hoffman [paul.hoff...@vpnc.org] Instead, I propose that we simply designate the terminal room (which is already reserved for future meetings) be designated as meeting areas where talking is allowed / encouraged. Earplugs could be provided for people who really want a quiet Ethernet connection; the cost of those for the Secretariat will be about $25/meeting. I agree with Mary here, we really don't want to turn the terminal room into a talking room. The problem with the earplug idea is that earplugs don't dampen human voices to the point where they don't cause your brain to try to track conversations, because earplugs uniformly cut the volume of both voices and background noise. Since your brain's audio processing system has an excellent AGC (automatic gain control), the recognition of voices is unimpaired. Dale
Re: Proposed IETF 95 Date Change
Both the original and the proposed new dates are fine with me. Note that anyone planning on traveling on 26 March (the day before Easter) should probably make their reservations well ahead of time. On the other hand, travel on 27 March should be relatively easy. Cheers, Andy On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:45 AM, IETF Administrative Director i...@ietf.org wrote: A reminder of the 6 August deadline for input. Thanks The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change for IETF 95 scheduled for March 2016. Currently IETF 95 is scheduled for 27 March to 1 April 2016. 27 March is Easter. The IAOC is proposing IETF 95 be rescheduled for 20 - 25 March 2016 and would like feedback on those dates before making a decision. Comments appreciated to ietf@ietf.org by 6 August 2012. Ray Pelletier IETF Administrative Director
Re: Proposed IETF 95 Date Change
As long as you don't go any later than the week of April 10 - the week of April 17 runs into the start of Passover. Thanks, Andy On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote: On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote: On 7/20/12 09:06 , IETF Administrative Director wrote: The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change for IETF 95 scheduled for March 2016. Currently IETF 95 is scheduled for 27 March to 1 April 2016. 27 March is Easter. The IAOC is proposing IETF 95 be rescheduled for 20 - 25 March 2016 and would like feedback on those dates before making a decision. Comments appreciated to ietf@ietf.org by 6 August 2012. 20 march is palm sunday on the western calender. If one's a conflict presumably the other is too... I personally avoid being away from home on Easter, and would prefer that the IETF meeting avoid it. Yes, Palm Sunday is a question, but not quite on the same scale as Easter. I will note, however, that Good Friday (the Friday before Easter) is a national holiday in a number of countries. People schedule vacations around that weekend. My suggestion: take the week of April 3 or later.
Re: Feedback Requested on Draft Fees Policy
I completely agree that it's reasonable to be able to recover these costs, and trust the IAOC to set the fees to a level commensurate for cost recovery. There's no reason why the IETF should be financially burdened by lawsuits between external parties in which the IETF is not a principal party to the suit. Cheers, Andy On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:07 AM, IETF Administrative Director i...@ietf.org wrote: The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed policy by the IAOC to impose fees to produce information and authenticate documents in response to subpoenas and other legal requests. The IETF receives requests for information, documentation, authentication or other matters through subpoenas and less formal means that require manpower and materials to be expended. These requests are on the rise. During the period 2005 to 2010 the IETF responded to nine subpoenas. Since 2011 the IETF has received five subpoenas and three other legal requests for authenticated documents. Each such request is time sensitive and involves the IETF Counsel, the IAD, and members of the IAOC, who together form the Legal Management Committee, to rapidly analyze and identify the means for satisfying the request. Often there is a need to retain outside counsel, especially in cases that might lead to depositions or court testimony. The IAOC believes a Schedule of Fees is an appropriate and reasonable means to recover costs associated with such efforts. The draft policy entitled Draft Fee Policy for Legal Requests can be found at: http://iaoc.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html Before adopting a policy the IAOC would like feedback on this before making a decision. Comments appreciated to ietf@ietf.org by 6 August 2012. Ray Pelletier IETF Administrative Director
Re: Last Call:draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
Stewart,
To answer your second question, SG15 C1123 (January 2011) states that
0x7FFA is the experimental ACh Type actually in use by CT.
Cheers,
Andy
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
On 16/03/2012 08:46, t.petch wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Stewart Bryantstbry...@cisco.com
To: Fangyu Lifangyuli1...@gmail.com
Cc:lif...@catr.cn;ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:53 PM
On 14/03/2012 13:36, Fangyu Li wrote:
I support the allocation of an ACH codepoint to G.8113.1.
For G.8113.1 had reached the technical and industry maturity to be
assigned a code point, the codepoint allocation from IETF should allow
the ITU-T to progress refinements to G.8113.1 such that it could
satisfy all the functional requirements defined in RFC 5860.
Please can you tell me version of the G.8113.1 text one would
need to implement to be able to seamlessly interwork with the
equipment that has already been been deployed?
Stewart
I am sure you already know the answer to that from posts made to the mpls
list,
where we have been told that there is currently an extensive deployment
('running code') using an experimental value (interesting that there is a
last
call just ending seeking to exterminate such practice, at least for
application
protocols) and that the wish is to move to a standards-based value which
will,
perforce, be a different value.
Tom Petch
Tom,
I don't think you understood my question.
There are several version of the G.8113.1 text in circulation within
the ITU-T. I was asking which version accurately describes the
deployed protocol.
I would be interested to also know what ACh Type it is actually running
on.
Stewart
Re: Last Call:draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
Whoops, I slightly misspoke. Amend my previous email to just say To
answer your second question, SG15 C1123 (January 2011) states that
0x7FFA is the experimental ACh Type actually in use.
Cheers,
Andy
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Andrew G. Malis agma...@gmail.com wrote:
Stewart,
To answer your second question, SG15 C1123 (January 2011) states that
0x7FFA is the experimental ACh Type actually in use by CT.
Cheers,
Andy
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
On 16/03/2012 08:46, t.petch wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Stewart Bryantstbry...@cisco.com
To: Fangyu Lifangyuli1...@gmail.com
Cc:lif...@catr.cn;ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:53 PM
On 14/03/2012 13:36, Fangyu Li wrote:
I support the allocation of an ACH codepoint to G.8113.1.
For G.8113.1 had reached the technical and industry maturity to be
assigned a code point, the codepoint allocation from IETF should allow
the ITU-T to progress refinements to G.8113.1 such that it could
satisfy all the functional requirements defined in RFC 5860.
Please can you tell me version of the G.8113.1 text one would
need to implement to be able to seamlessly interwork with the
equipment that has already been been deployed?
Stewart
I am sure you already know the answer to that from posts made to the mpls
list,
where we have been told that there is currently an extensive deployment
('running code') using an experimental value (interesting that there is a
last
call just ending seeking to exterminate such practice, at least for
application
protocols) and that the wish is to move to a standards-based value which
will,
perforce, be a different value.
Tom Petch
Tom,
I don't think you understood my question.
There are several version of the G.8113.1 text in circulation within
the ITU-T. I was asking which version accurately describes the
deployed protocol.
I would be interested to also know what ACh Type it is actually running
on.
Stewart
Re: [PWE3] Last Call: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard
Mustapha, You might want to wait for any other LC comments before updating. Thanks, Andy On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha) mustapha.aissa...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote: Ooops. Thank you for pointing this out Stewart. I will make the update and publish a new revision. Mustapha. -Original Message- From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbry...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:48 PM To: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-...@tools.ietf.org Cc: ietf@ietf.org; p...@ietf.org Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard Authors There was on point that I notice that you did not address from the AD review and so I am picking it up as a LC comment: In section 10 you say: This document makes the following update to the PwOperStatusTC textual convention in RFC5542 [8]: This update should be recorded in the metadata (top left front page) and it is usual to put a one line note in the abstract. Stewart On 07/03/2012 17:00, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge WG (pwe3) to consider the following document: - 'Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit' draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-03-21. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes a mechanism for standby status signaling of redundant pseudowires (PWs) between their termination points. A set of redundant PWs is configured between provider edge (PE) nodes in single-segment pseudowire (SS-PW) applications, or between terminating provider edge (T-PE) nodes in multi-segment pseudowire (MS-PW) applications. In order for the PE/T-PE nodes to indicate the preferred PW to use for forwarding PW packets to one another, a new status bit is needed to indicate a preferential forwarding status of Active or Standby for each PW in a redundant set. In addition, a second status bit is defined to allow peer PE nodes to coordinate a switchover operation of the PW. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list ietf-annou...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce -- For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html ___ pwe3 mailing list p...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
I would like to support Nurit's comments below. In particular, in the past the ITU-T has expanded upon or changed the usage of IETF codepoint allocations, in some cases incompatibly with its original usage or definition. In the future, all codepoint allocations to the ITU-T should be tied to one specific, dated revision of their specification only. This is similar to the ITU-T's own processes, such as section 2.2.1 of Rec. A.5, which requires a version number and/or date for referenced outside documents in ITU-T recommendations. Cheers, Andy On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) nurit.sprec...@nsn.com wrote: Hi, I cannot support the publication of the document in its current version. I have the following concerns: • It is indicated that the channel is intended to be used to carry Ethernet based OAM messages. It is not clear why there is a need for ACH. PWs can be used to transmit Ethernet OAM. If the intention is to use the channel for OAM messages for operating MPLS-TP based networks, the IETF *already* defined a solution for MPLS-TP OAM and I expect to see first a technical *justification* why a second solution is needed. In addition, I would expect to see *references to the arguments* raised in draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations. • It is not clear what the maturity status of G.8113.1 is. It seems that the document was not approved by SG15 and the discussion was deferred to WTSA. This indicates that there is *no consensus* for the approval of G.8113.1. A code point should not be allocated before a consensus/decision is reached in the ITU-T and before the document is mature and approved. I do not think it is appropriate to allocate a code point and try to force a resolution in the ITU-T. • I find a contradiction in the draft. In one place it is mentioned: These Ethernet based OAM messages and procedures, address the OAM functional requirements defined in [RFC5860]. Other message types should not be carried behind this code point. In another place it is mentioned: all ITU-T Recommendations are subject to revision. Therefore, the code point allocated by this document may be used for future versions of [G.8113.1].. The last statement opens the door for the definition of additional messages in G.8113.1 in the following versions, for example, for APS (supporting linear or ring protection mechanisms) and by this creates two solutions for other mechanisms as well. The use of the code point can go much beyond its original purpose and it will hide other messagesa code point should not be allocated at this point at all, but specifically not for unknown usage that may be defined in future versions of G.8113.1. Best regards, Nurit -Original Message- From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce- boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG Sent: 22 February 2012 15:13 To: IETF-Announce Subject: Last Call: draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM' draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-03-21. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document assigns an Associated Channel Type code point for carrying Ethernet based Operations, Administration, and Management messages in the MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh). The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list ietf-annou...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce ___ mpls mailing list m...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [mpls] point 3 in... RE: Questions about draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point
Also taking my chair hat off ... as Malcolm stated that G.8113.1 applies to PWs, and the requested allocation is in a registry that originated in the PWE3 working group, I agree that a PWE3 WG last call is warranted. This could certainly take place in parallel with the MPLS WG last call. Cheers, Andy On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu wrote: All (taking chair hat off), I agree with Ross's comments below that if the document is last called it should go through a wg last call (pwe3 and mpls) and through an IETF last call. I agree that these last calls could be in parallel is necessary, but I believe that running the wg last call first and the IETF last call would be beneficial. Given that we have a stable document with stable references to last call. /Loa On 2012-01-13 06:43, Ross Callon wrote: Adrian wrote: My review of the write-up and discussions... 3. There seems to be quite a feeling on the mailing lists that this document should be run through the MPLS working group. The write-up makes a case for progressing it as AD sponsored. As far as I can see, the main assertions to answer are as follows. Do you have a view on these points before I make a decision on what to do? a. This is a proposal to use an MPLS code point and so is part of MPLS by definition. b. The type of network being managed by the OAM described in G.8113.1 is an MPLS network. Therefore, this is clearly relevant to the MPLS working . Do you object to this going through the MPLS on principle, or were you just hoping to save the WG the work? If the latter, and if the WG wants to look at the draft, the easiest approach seems to be to redirect the work to the working group. My personal opinion (speaking as an individual)... It is pretty clear that there is a lot of interest in this topic in the MPLS WG. It also is clear that this proposal is very much about MPLS. Thus draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point needs to be last called in the MPLS WG. It seems clear that the document also needs IETF last call. I assume this means that one last call would be posted to both the MPLS and IETF WG lists. It seems that this same last call should also be copied to the PWE3 list. Ross ___ mpls mailing list m...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls -- Loa Andersson email: loa.anders...@ericsson.com Sr Strategy and Standards Manager l...@pi.nu Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13 +46 767 72 92 13 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: RFC 979 (PSN End-to-End functional specification) to HISTORIC RFC
Scott, Well, it's moot now because I've withdrawn the request. However, according to the IESG statement dated 10/20/11 titled Revised IESG Statement on Designating RFCs as Historic, RFC justifications are no longer required for this action. If you have an argument against this new policy, you should respond to the IESG's statement. Cheers, Andy On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Bradner, Scott s...@harvard.edu wrote: where is the written justification? recording a reason will help people in the future understand why this was done I object to a reclassification without a RFC saying why Scott On Oct 27, 2011, at 4:16 PM, IESG Secretary wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual to reclassify RFC 979 (PSN End-to-End functional specification) to HISTORIC. The current status of this document is UNKNOWN. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-11-24. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. ___ 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Calls: [SOME RFCs] to HISTORIC RFCs
Mike, IESG, I am going to withdraw my Historic request for the pre-IETF RFCs, and I will let the IESG decide what the proper status is for IETF RFCs that have been completely obsoleted by newer RFCs further along in the standards track. I'll start a discussion on the rfc-interest list regarding the proper status for pre-IETF UNKNOWN RFCs. Thanks, Andy On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Andy - As I said elsewhere - it seems silly to move a superseded document to Historic when you don't move the Standard to Historic. In the case of three of these RFCs, the new entry will read Obsoleted by Status: Historic. If I happen to read that entry and not notice the Obsoleted by or not know that what we really meant was the document is historic, but not the standard, I might be pretty confused if I later encounter the document's successor or something in the wild that implements one of the versions of the standard. The appropriate status for superseded documents is Obsoleted by: with whatever status the standard currently has. That's always been the understood meaning and I'm not sure why we're suddenly going back and changing things. If you want to move the three document groups of standards to Historical en mass, I'm fine with that, but not with just going back and declaring that a previous version of the standard is Historic - way too confusing. With respect to the other four documents (e.g. Milo's baby et al) - they aren't IETF documents, they weren't adopted as Internet Standards (unlike TCP and IP) and we shouldn't be twiddling with their status. They don't belong to us. Most of the pre-1000 RFCs are neither standards nor even technical in nature. A number of them are administrivia of the early Internet and ARPANET. The status of Unknown is probably misleading though - maybe Pre-IETF? Mike At 04:21 PM 10/28/2011, Andrew G. Malis wrote: Randy, I was the source of the request that started all this, so you can blame me! Of course, if you have replied a bit earlier, we could have discussed this over lunch yesterday! :-) Cheers, Andy On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote: Randy, Reclassifying old documents to historic is like cleaning your attic. Cleaning the attic may seem like a terrible waste of time and effort while you are doing it, but it makes your life much easier the next time you have to find or store something up there. Ron -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 2:47 PM To: Frank Ellermann Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: Last Calls: [SOME RFCs] to HISTORIC RFCs we don't have enough real work to do? Clean up is necessary work. Some hours ago I tried to understand a discussion about the ISE (independent stream), and gave up on it when the maze of updates obsoleting RFCs which updated other RFCs turned out to be as complex as the colossal cave adventure. QED ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IETF] Re: Last Call: RFC 802 (ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol) to HISTORIC RFC
Milo, Actually, I obsoleted 877 with 1356, so 877 should go on the historic list as well! Cheers, Andy On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Milo Medin me...@google.com wrote: Egads! You guys tried to sneak this by me while I was helping my wife deliver our 4th baby? Have you no shame?? I would like to point out that the 1822 protocol is 100% AMERICAN in it's origin - not all this X.* stuff that is partly responsible for the burgeoning US trade deficit. Did you know that X.25 was developed in the same year that the fluoridation of our water supply began? Do I really need to connect the dots together for everyone? I think RFC 802 should not be deprecated until RFC 877 is also deprecated. Otherwise we are taking actions that only undercut the competitiveness of Internet technologies vv their ISO equivalents. What is coming next? Has CLNP been deprecated by the ISO yet? This is a slippery slope that could yield all kinds of bad outcomes. As the takeover of Internet governance by the UN is being debated, this just adds impetus for them to now argue to try and resurrect CLNP and TP4 and their follow travelers and impose them on the world by force. We should never underestimate the threat posed by the OSI suite. It can come back up like a bad piece of sushi if we are not careful here. I urge you to reconsider this move. Thanks! ( :) ) Milo ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Calls: [SOME RFCs] to HISTORIC RFCs
Randy, I was the source of the request that started all this, so you can blame me! Of course, if you have replied a bit earlier, we could have discussed this over lunch yesterday! :-) Cheers, Andy On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote: Randy, Reclassifying old documents to historic is like cleaning your attic. Cleaning the attic may seem like a terrible waste of time and effort while you are doing it, but it makes your life much easier the next time you have to find or store something up there. Ron -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 2:47 PM To: Frank Ellermann Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: Last Calls: [SOME RFCs] to HISTORIC RFCs we don't have enough real work to do? Clean up is necessary work. Some hours ago I tried to understand a discussion about the ISE (independent stream), and gave up on it when the maze of updates obsoleting RFCs which updated other RFCs turned out to be as complex as the colossal cave adventure. QED ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: RFC 802 (ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol) to HISTORIC RFC
Ole, I think Milo can speak for himself! Cheers, Andy On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com wrote: This is going to upset Milo Medin! 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: organdemo On Thu, 27 Oct 2011, IESG Secretary wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual to reclassify RFC 802 (ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol) to HISTORIC. RFC 802 has been obsoleted by RFC 851 and its current status is UNKNOWN. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-11-24. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. ___ 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: watersprings.org archive of expired Internet Drafts
Very nice, thanks!! On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: On 10/10/2011 07:17, Elwyn Davies wrote: But I am now quite happy with the IETF draft archive and I have a couple of customized Firefox search entries that minimize the amount of typing needed. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ietf-doc-fetch-73306/ You can type in an RFC number, or all/part of an I-D name. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-07.txt (Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-discovery and Signaling) to Informational RFC
Speaking as an individual, the solution in this draft has been has been operationally deployed in a number of service provider networks, and it should be documented in an informational RFC. Speaking as PWE3 co-chair, I would be happier if this draft required that routers that implement this solution also implement RFC 4447, that RFC 4447 be configured as the default mechanism for pseudowire signaling, and that RFC 4447 was moved from an informational to a normative reference. In practice, I know that routers that implement this also do implement RFC 4447, but I would like to see it in the RFC as well. Thanks, Andy Subject: Last Call: (Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-discovery and Signaling) to Informational RFC Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:50:05 -0700 From: The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.orgiesg-secret...@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org To: IETF-Announce ietf-annou...@ietf.orgietf-annou...@ietf.org The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-discovery and Signaling' draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-07.txt as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to thei...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-09-27. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs) based on Frame Relay or ATM circuits have been around a long time; more recently, Ethernet VPNs, including Virtual Private LAN Service, have become popular. Traditional L2VPNs often required a separate Service Provider infrastructure for each type, and yet another for the Internet and IP VPNs. In addition, L2VPN provisioning was cumbersome. This document presents a new approach to the problem of offering L2VPN services where the L2VPN customer's experience is virtually identical to that offered by traditional Layer 2 VPNs, but such that a Service Provider can maintain a single network for L2VPNs, IP VPNs and the Internet, as well as a common provisioning methodology for all services. The file can be obtained viahttp://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn/ IESG discussion can be tracked viahttp://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1149/ ___ IETF-Announce mailing listIETF-Announce@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?
I also like Minneapolis, for what it's worth. Cheers, Andy On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Henk Uijterwaal h...@uijterwaal.nl wrote: On 26/08/2011 16:48, Mary Barnes wrote: [MB] I've not seen a single person advocate a 0:3:0 schedule and it's only less cheaper for all participants (not just US) because the hotel rates are extremely reasonable ($150 as I recall). It is definitely less expensive for the vast majority of participants than NA cities like Quebec City and San Francisco that travel by air. BUT, I think you are missing what we are saying overall - the major reasons some of us prefer Minneapolis is because it meets what some of us have been saying over and over as far a key factors for meetings: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68656.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68727.html I like Minneapolis as meeting location too, assuming that the visa troubles we had there last time are solved, and I'd be happy to make it the default location for US meetings. However, we have said that we want to meet all over the planet. That means that we have to go elsewhere somewhere, even if there is a good and cheaper meeting location available elsewhere, but in the wrong region. The same goes for the meeting weeks, if a good hotel option isn't available in a meeting week but is available a week or so earlier/later, then under the present rules, it has to be discarded. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday
+1 for me as well for either proposed new schedule. On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:04 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: +1. I could also happily live with the alternate, more compressed, schedule -- I think both are preferable to the schedule used in Quebec and earlier. john --On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 07:40 +0200 Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote: On 8/22/11 11:24 PM, IETF Chair wrote: The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82. The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes. The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this schedule: 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session I 11:00 AM - 11:20 AM - Room Change and Cookie Break 11:20 AM - 12:20 PM - Session II 12:10 PM - 12:30 PM - Room Change Break 12:30 PM - 13:30 PM - Session III The IESG has already consulted with the IAOC because of the cost associated with the additional food and beverage break. The IAOC believes that the additional cost can be managed without raising the meeting fee. I think this is a good experiment to run as proposed. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Automatically updated Table of Contents with Nroff
I know that XML is the wave of the future, but I just want to give Stefan a plug as a happy user that NroffEdit makes the mechanical and formatting part of writing drafts almost effortless. Cheers, Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment
Like others that have chimed in, I'm just concerned that it will be difficult to attend multiple BOFs of interest if they're all scheduled against each other. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM, David Harrington ietf...@comcast.net wrote: Hi, part of the justification is to have the BOF early in the week so people can discuss it during the week. dbh -Original Message- From: iesg-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Richard L. Barnes Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 10:29 AM To: ietf@ietf.org Cc: wgcha...@ietf.org; The IESG Subject: Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment If we put the BOFs on Friday afternoon instead, wouldn't that make the attendance numbers an even stronger gauge of interest? On 11/8/10 10:26 AM, The IESG wrote: The IESG is seriously considering a WG and BOF scheduling experiment. The goal of the experiment is to provide WG agenda sooner and also provide more time to craft BOF proposals. The proposed experiment includes three parts. First, schedule all BOFs for Monday afternoon. Second, schedule WGs before we know which BOFs will be held. Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF proposal to ADs. Please let us know whether you support this experiment. Discussion is welcome on the mail list and the plenary on Wednesday evening. On behalf of the IESG, Russ Housley ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
I've been to several conferences at the Hilton Hawaiian Village in Waikiki. Both the hotel and the attached convention center are large enough to host several IETFs simultaneously. Cheers, Andy On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Glen Zorn g...@net-zen.net wrote: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto://hkap...@acmepacket.com] writes: ... Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island. Because it's the nicest, obviously. :) I strongly disagree: the leeward coast of Maui (in particular, Kihei south) is far better. Kauai is way too rainy... We can even rotate islands if people get bored. Well, there are extensive conference facilities on Oahu, the Big Island, Maui, and Kauai. I have no information as to if they would work for a group of our size and with our need for breakout rooms. I used to attend IEEE 802 and they met in Kauai (Grand Hyatt in Poipu) every few years, but they were a smaller group. There aren't many restaurants nearby, but I certainly don't remember anyone ever complaining about it. ;) 3GPP2 used to (still does?) meet in Wailea every December. Although that is also a much smaller group than the IETF, the hotels dwarfed it so it might be possible to find a reasonable venue for the IETF. However, I think that this is just an idle fantasy: the IETF has too much moral fiber to meet someplace that might actually be fun ;-). -hadriel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Tourist or business visa from US?
Is there a consensus that a tourist visa is sufficient to attend the IETF from the US? Thanks, Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote: I would expect this (per user login) to fade away after Beijing - unless and until the IAOC and IETF agrees that its necessary for the longer term. And I don't believe that discussion has been had. I would like to second this. IMHO, the best IETF network experiences have been when the IETF took over the entire hotel network for the week, including the guest room access whether wired or wireless, and allowed free access to all hotel guests. I hope that we can return to that model in the future. Cheers, Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht
I'm with Joe on this. I also travel extensively, including in non-tourist areas, and have never had my US Visa or Mastercard declined because it didn't have a chip. Cheers, Andy On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote: On 2010-03-31, at 20:56, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: In theory it is possible to use a US issued credit card in Europe. In practice, forget it unless you are willing to face the embarrassment of 50% of places declining your card. My experience in the UK is that outside London you are very likely to find that the only cards they accept are chip and pin cards. I travel somewhat frequently through Asia, Europe, Africa and Australasia with credit cards issued by US institutions (Bank of America Visa, American Express) and Canadian banks (TD Canada Trust, CIBC, Desjardins, all Visa cards). The Desjardins card is the only one with a chip. I occasionally find that people don't take American Express. This happens more often outside North America, but not only outside North America. I have found that in some countries (UK included) people are unfamiliar with cards that don't have a chip, but it has never stopped me from using one. (In New Zealand it seems more common that people are confused about chip cards, since the EFTPOS terminals support them but very few people have them). I have never had a problem with any of my North American cards being declined, chip or not. I have spent a reasonable amount of time in the UK in particular, since most of my family lives there. I was most recently there in December 2009. Your comments above do not match my experience in the slightest. Joe ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Motivation to submit an idea in IETF?
Abhishek, The overriding reason, as far as I'm concerned, is that many or most service providers have a policy of avoiding equipment purchases that lock them into a single vendor if at all possible. Second sources are necessary for a number of reasons, and not only for competition - what happens if the selected vendor goes out of business, has a supply chain failure, kills the product for whatever reason, or alternatively simply can't meet the demand for the product? That's why you see carriers sponsoring or conducting their own interoperability testing, and include interoperability requirements in their RFPs. And while interoperability can be obtained through private agreements between vendors, it's much easier for all concerned if there are standardized solutions that have been publicly vetted and agreed upon by the community at large (both vendors and service providers). Cheers, Andy On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Abhishek Verma abhishekv.ve...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I have a basic question relating to patents and IETF. Assume that i have a nifty idea on how i can speed up, lets say, a database exchange in OSPF. My doubt is that why should i submit an IETF draft describing this, which can later become an RFC, when i can very well patent this idea? I understand that if i submit this to IETF, then there will be an RFC and all vendors will come out with inter-operable implementations. However, if i dont give it to IETF and rather submit a patent, i can do very well for the vendor that i work for. All customers using this vendor's boxes will now have access to patented database exchange in OSPF, which will effectively mean more business for this vendor. So, the question is, what is the motivation for somebody to write an internet-draft when the person can file a patent? I spoke to several people offline and i couldnt get any good answers. The typical response was that most ISPs prefer multiple vendors, and a patented solution will cause issues as the other vendor will not have that support. Is this the only reason? Thanks, Abhishek ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Visas to China
If you are a US resident, also note that China has multiple consulates, and the consulate that you will use for your visa depends on where you live. See this map for details: http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/hzqz/t84229.htm Cheers, Andy On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote: I'll echo Ole and Brian. In general, I find the Chinese consulate/embassy not very demanding. If you have a business reason for a multi-entry visa, get one, but in general the standard tourist visa is simplest to get and works fine. Not advertising the service, but to give you an idea of what it looks like, I'll point you at the web site of the company Cisco uses for visas. http://www.peninsulavisa.com/russia-.htm To get a visa to China, you need a visa application (download from the web site) and a color passport photo. If you go for a business visa, you need some demonstration of the business. business implies you're trying to sell something or staying there for an extended duration; to attend a conference such as an IETF meeting one generally gets a tourist visa. Some countries need letters of invitation; I would expect the host will have a facility up to get such. The visa process at the Chinese Embassy is usually on the order of a week; safety would suggest two. My multiple entry visa will expire just before the meeting, so I plan to file for a new visa sometime in October. Interesting reading from the Los Angeles PRC Consulate. overview: http://losangeles.china-consulate.org/eng/visa/chinavisa/t27606.htm tourist: http://losangeles.china-consulate.org/eng/visa/chinavisa/t27605.htm business: http://losangeles.china-consulate.org/eng/visa/chinavisa/t27604.htm Non-US folks should of course look at the web site of whatever consulate is relevant to them for specifics of the relations between China and their country. On Jan 12, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Since Andy mentioned visas I would like to give some vague and unhelpful advice :-) It turns out that the DURATION of your visa depends on what country you are from, and even what consulate or embassy you apply at. In all cases the clock starts running the day the visa is issued. Real example: As a Norwegian, applying in San Francisco, I was only grqnted a single-entry visa valid for 3 months. I applied in March 2009 which was a mistake since the trip didn't happen until August, so I would have had a visa that expired sometime in June. They all say must not arrive after date. I was able execute an undo on this particular occasion and came back again in July and received a visa that covered the period of my visit. Your mileage may, no, WILL, vary, so check the wiza wizards, consulates, embassies etc. Fred Baker regularly gets a one-year multi entry visa, but he's American and he uses the visa brokers, something I clearly should have done instead of foolishly applying too early. The form has a box which asks when you intend to arrive in China, but that information is NOT used to start the clock for the validity of the visa itself, in some sense that date isn't used for anything, at least as far as I can tell. How long you can stay in China again depends on what country you are from and what kind of visa you have. 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: China blocking Wired?
I've lost count of the number of times I've been to China (somewhere in the teens), and I'm sure that there are people on this list who've visited China many more times than that. I've entered and left China by air, by car (via Hong Kong), and by train (also via Hong Kong). I've never once had a problem with either immigration or leaving, or obtaining a visa. I've never once had my bags searched on either entry or exit, except perhaps for the normal carry-on security check, which is no different from anywhere else in the world. Frankly, I've encountered more process when entering Japan than when entering China. To get a visa, I recommend using a visa service such as CIBT (but there are many others), which isn't inexpensive, but makes the process relatively simple. Many employer's travel departments have agencies in place, so check with your travel agent. Dean had a question about currency conversion when leaving China. Years ago, you had to show your receipts for purchased Yuan when converting back to dollars; however, that hasn't been the case for a while now. Cheers, Andy On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Christer Holmberg christer.holmb...@ericsson.com wrote: Hi, I've been to China a few times, entering 2 different airports, and personally I've never had any issues with immigration. It's always been fast and without hassle. No what-are-you-doing-here type of questions. No look-into-the-camera. No put-your-finger-here. Only a quick look at the passport and a Ok :) And, no checking of the luggage or questions regarding what stuff I'm carrying. At least once I've had a couple of lap-tops with me. Regards, Christer From: Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org To: Dean Willis dean.wil...@softarmor.com, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com Reply-to: spen...@wonderhamster.org Subject: Re: China blocking Wired? X-RSN: 1/0/933/11208/49983 X-HREF: http://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6rid=49k1=933k2=49983 I try not to follow up to postings on this topic, but since I can comment on specifics... Many of us have been to China multiple times. I am not aware of anyone who has been granted a business or professional visa, and who has gone and behaved professionally, having nearly the problems with entry or exit that have been typical of the US in recent years (even returning US citizens). I've encountered some long lines, bad multilingual signage, and miscellaneous confusion on occasion, but China clearly has no monopoly on those. For example: As I understand it, one is allowed to bring only one camera and one computer, not two of each. Will this affect camera-and- computer loving IETFers? Possibly, if it's still true. Does the camera in your cell phone count against the quota? How about the one built in a Macbook? Nope. I entered China in November (Shanghai, for an IPv6 transition workshop the week before IETF 76) with the same two computers that I usually carry to IETF meetings - my work laptop, and an ASUS netbook that I use to drive projectors (which also has a webcam built in), and a cell phone that has a camera built-in, along with my camera. I was admitted to China with no discussion of any of these items. Past performance is not an indicator of future topics of interest, but that's the way it went. Thanks, Spencer, who is amazed that the lines to enter the US from Matamoros are longer than the lines to enter China in either Hong Kong or Shanghai... and move more slowly, even for US citizens! ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
As I've said before, there is a high cost to service providers every time a new codec is introduced operationally, at the very least in the form of full-mesh transcoding. Thus, new codecs should not be developed lightly. The world already has enough encumbered codecs, and there's no point in adding yet another. However, the draft charter states: Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall attempt to adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. This preference does not explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting encumbered technologies; such decisions will be made in accordance with the rough consensus of the working group. I appreciate the potential difficulty of guaranteeing the unencumbered status of any output of this group. However, I would like this statement to be stronger, saying that this group will only produce a new codec if it is strongly believed by WG rough consensus to either be unencumbered, or freely licensed by the IPR holder(s), if any. Thanks, Andy On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: Peter Saint-Andre wrote: But I don't think we can say that relevent members of the IETF community do *not* have the competence to work on an audio codec or that they are *not* willing to listen to technically competent input from any source when it comes to codec technologies. Indeed, the two BoFs at Stockholm and Hiroshima would lead, I think, to the opposite conclusion: the people who want to do this work appear to be competent (they have already developed codecs like Speex, CELT, SILK, IPMR, BV16, and BV32) and to be quite committed to rough consensus and running code, we have some precedent for doing work of this kind within the IETF (e.g., RFC 3951), several longtime IETF participants have experience with digital signal processing and similar technologies, a codec working group would attract new participants with relevant areas of expertise, and people at the BoFs appeared to be quite open to input from the IETF community or any interested individual. +1 This is work we've done before and there seems to be no particular reason that it should not be done here again. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
Russ, Yes, that's better, thanks. Cheers, Andy On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote: Andy: Does the following text strike a better balance? Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall follow BCP 79, and adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. The working group cannot explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting encumbered technologies; however, the working group will try to avoid encumbered technologies that require royalties. Russ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Unexpected confirmation messages from the IETF
Glen, Go back and enjoy your Christmas!!! Thanks, Andy On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Glen g...@amsl.com wrote: All - The IETF is aware that a number of you have received additional and/or unexpected address confirmation request messages from the IETF over the past couple of days. We're sorry for the confusion this has caused. The reason for this problem was that the confirmation system's database was not being updated correctly. This process occurs as a part of the regularly-scheduled database update system, and the step just before this process was hanging, causing problems for the database update. (Thanks to the efforts of Henrik, it was determined that there is a problem with the RFC Editor's IPV6 feed. A database sync that we pull from the RFC Editor was operating over IPV6, but was hanging due to a problem in their IPV6 feed. Switching that sync to IPV4 solved the problem. The RFC-Editor is moving to AMS in early January, which will permanently resolve that problem.) That prior process has been dealt with, and the confirmation system's database is now being updated correctly. If you received a confirmation message when you should not have, and did not see your message come through its intended list, we ask that you resend your message. There should be no further problems. If anyone DOES encounter any problems beyond the time of this message, or any problems of any kind pertaining to the IETF, please send the details, including as much information as possible, to our trouble desk at ietf-act...@ietf.org so that we may investigate. We hope you enjoy your holidays. Glen Barney IT Director AMS (IETF Secretariat) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [New-work] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
There is a very high cost to service providers every time a new codec is introduced operationally, at the very least in the form of full-mesh transcoding. Thus, new codecs should not be developed lightly. As I think we can all agree, the world already has enough encumbered codecs, and there's no point in adding yet another. However, the draft charter states: Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall attempt to adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. This preference does not explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting encumbered technologies; such decisions will be made in accordance with the rough consensus of the working group. I appreciate the potential difficulty of guaranteeing the unencumbered status of any output of this group. However, I would like this statement to be stronger, saying that this group will only produce a codec if it is strongly believed by WG rough consensus to either be unencumbered, or freely licensed by the IPR holder(s), if any. I would also very much prefer that the WG be chartered at this point to only work on requirements and liaise them to other SDOs; and only if it is determined by the WG that the resulting requirements cannot be met by an existing codec, should the WG be chartered for actual new codec development. Thanks, Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
In this particular case, the patent was published on Jan. 4, 2007, so it's difficult to imagine any valid reason to not have disclosed then. Cheers, Andy On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote: In my company's case, we file IPR disclosures on patent applications as well as allowed claims. That is consistent with our corporate policy of encouraging innovation and patenting defensively; our disclosures as a rule include the fact that we do not seek monetary reward unless another party would rather trade IPR licenses mediated by expensive lawyers than accept a free RFC 1988 license. One of the concerns with filing IPR-laden concepts in a standard without disclosure is that courts have been known to disallow the protections a patent provides when IPR has been disguised in the standards process. The IETF policy of disclosure is there to protect your patent rights, not disrupt them. Your patent attorneys may want to rethink that matter. On Nov 20, 2009, at 9:38 AM, Michael Montemurro wrote: Dear all, I understand the community’s concerns regarding the timeliness of the disclosure. As I’m sure everyone can understand, as employees of companies we are bound by confidentiality obligations and, in addition, cannot always control our company’s internal processes. The community’s concerns have been brought to the attention of my employer and they are in the process of evaluating the concerns. My company has asked for your patience while they take the time to evaluate the concerns and determine if there is an appropriate course of action in this matter to alleviate the concerns of the community. Your understanding is appreciated. Thanks, Mike ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: silly legal boilerplate, was Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
Unfortunately, many corporate email systems, including at a former employer of mine, automatically add these to every outgoing email, and individual employees have no control over it nor any way to change the corporate policy. Which is one of the reasons why I use non-work email for my IETF work. Cheers, Andy On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:36 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: It is a standard footer attached automatically by many attorney's email systems to all outgoing mail. Many non-attorneys' mail, too, as in this case. Yes, it's silly: as far as I can tell, confidentiality claims like this are entirely unenforcable in the US except in a few arcane situations that only apply to messages from one attorney to another. It's just another example of pseudo-legal nonsense running amok. But I have often been sorely tempted to return messages like this with boilerplate of my own explaining that since I cannot accept the sender's alleged restrictions, the message has been returned unread, and since I have no way to evaluate the sender's status relative to the party applying the notice, disclaimers in a message saying to ignore the boilerplate won't help. R's, John From: Andrew Allen aal...@rim.com To: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures ... This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. ... This is just plain silly. Or is it willful ignorance of the Note Well terms? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
Andrew, In this particular case, the patent was published on Jan. 4, 2007, so it's difficult to imagine any valid reason to not have disclosed then. Cheers, Andy On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Andrew Allen aal...@rim.com wrote: With regard to the recent discussion on the IETF-Discussion list regarding RIM’s recent IPR disclosures, I understand the community’s concerns regarding the timeliness of the disclosure. As I’m sure everyone can understand, as employees of companies we are bound by confidentiality obligations and, in addition, cannot always control our company’s internal processes. The community’s concerns have been brought to the attention of my employer and they are in the process of evaluating the concerns. My company has asked for your patience while they take the time to evaluate the concerns and determine if there is an appropriate course of action in this matter to alleviate the concerns of the community. Your understanding is appreciated Best regards Andrew Allen Manager Standards Research In Motion Ltd Office +1 847-793-0861 x20824 BlackBerry Mobile +1 847 809 8636 http://www.rim.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Fix the Friday attendance bug: make the technical plenary the last IETF session, like it was before
The IETF meetings have evolved over time. There are now more activities on Sunday than there used to be. There used to be an opening plenary on Monday. We used to have WG sessions in the evening after dinner. There used to be one long plenary on Wednesday evening, starting at 7:30 PM. When we split the plenary into two, we initially flip-flopped the two plenaries between Wednesday and Thursday from one meeting to the next. We used to have more one-hour meetings than we have now (or at least it seems that way). My point is that nothing is set in stone, and the meetings can and should evolve over time to meet the changing needs of the IETF. Personally, I would like to see more one-hour sessions than we have now - that would force presentations and discussions to be shorter and more focused. And only allow one WG session per meeting. As has been noted elsewhere, work tends to expand to fill the time alloted to it. Perhaps this will allow us to get back to a model where most people can plan to fly home on Friday, and Friday will be reserved for specific activities, such as the RRG and WGs that specifically want more time and are willing to meet on Friday, so that people can plan their travel well in advance to be able to take advantage of discounted fares. Cheers, Andy On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote: On Nov 11, 2009, at 2:43 AM, John C Klensin wrote: I'd even like to see the Nomcom ask IESG candidates whether they consider unbounded meeting-length creep acceptable and what they intend to do about it. To be very honest, the number of things we can do is pretty limited. The number of meeting slots is a more-or-less-fixed number; we can change the number of them in a few ways, but once we have picked a number of days and rented a set of meeting rooms, this is largely about deciding how we will use a fixed resource. We can talk about having more one-hour slots and less two-hour slots, putting more slots into a day by staying later into the evening, putting more slots into the day by running more of them in parallel (more meeting rooms), or extend the duration of the meeting. Or, we can tell working groups that they can't have as many meetings as they would like. I'm not sure I agree that Friday is a problem; the problem is that we have N working groups asking for M meetings and N*M needs to be = that fixed number. Friday is a solution, one that has certain downsides. Stanislaus doesn't like the solution and IMHO has not proposed a solution that tells us how to better manage the demands on the resource. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: NAT Not Needed To Make Renumbering Easy
Sabahattin, Note that IPv6 NAT makes multihoming to different ISPs much easier as well. One thing that IPv6 NAT has in advantage to IPv4 NAT is that it can be stateless, isomorphic, and port transparent by just translating the upper part of the address, such as in the case where an enterprise is internally using a PI /48, just translating the upper 48 bits of the address. This allows easy multihoming without needing to punch holes in ISP address blocks. Especially with IPv6's huge address space, it's extremely important for routing scalability to keep the number of globally announced exceptions to aggregatable address blocks to a bare minimum. If you don't need to multihome, renumber, or use PI addresses, then I agree that there's little utility to IPv6 NAT. Cheers, Andy On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu m...@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com wrote: Not in the IPv6 address space, anyway. And if it is, there's something wrong and we should put it right. Just been reading IAB's commentary on IPv6 NAT. It seems to me that we are perpetuating the worst technology in existence *simply* for one feature, network mobility, that is better served by proposing new techniques and technologies and, in particular: we need a simple way to express host relationships inside an organisation that is independent of external homing. I refuse to suffer because of NAT any longer and don't want to accommodate those that prefer it. If IPv6 does ever get wide enough deployment, and I truly hope it does, I might just *give up* things to accommodate the trouble-free life that is no NAT. What do we have right now, first? Cheers, Sabahattin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Visas and Costs
There are multiple Chinese consulates in the US, and each one seems to have its own rules regarding visas. So it really pays to work with an experienced visa service. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:38 PM, HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS jhua...@att.com wrote: John, I'm commenting specifically on your recollection of China requiring people having visited China before it would consider a multi-entry visa. It doesn't appear to be true - if it was true before. The visa application form I downloaded from the Chinese Consulate in Chicago (just now) lists choice of visa types and number of planned entries to China on page one while the question about whether one has visited China before is on page two of two pages. I could not find any indication that the stated condition was implied. I applied for and received a one-year multi-entry visa last year not having visited with a new US passport. Thanks, Jerry (my own opinions, not my employer's.) -- Jerry Huang, ATT Labs, +1 630 810 7679 (+1 630 719 4389, soon) -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John C Klensin Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:29 PM To: Ole Jacobsen Cc: IETF-Discussion list Subject: Re: Visas and Costs --On Monday, September 21, 2009 10:10 -0700 Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com wrote: Just a couple of comments regarding cost and visas, speaking from personal experience. ... Visa: If you are a US citizen, the visa fee is $130 here in the US. For non-US citizens, the fee is only $30 :-) However, be very careful about visa validity. As a Norwegian citizen, I can (in San Francisco) only get a visa that is valid for 3 months, single entry, but the clock starts on the day it is ISSUED, not, as one might expect, when you arrive in China in spite of the fact that the form asks when you will be ... Depending on where you are from and where you apply, multi-entry visas for a year or even more may be available. Express service (1-2 days) may also be available for a fee, but in June in San Francisco, this was NOT available and the process took a week. All these are things to watch out for especially if you travel a lot since of course the consulate or embassy will hold your passport while processing the visa application. Two additional observations may be useful. In the US, someone must appear in person at the embassy or consulate -- there is no mail-in service, at least for US citizens. In practice, that means that if one is in a city with a consulate (or close to one), one has to use a visa service as an intermediary. Their fees can easily exceed the visa fees themselves unless one works for a company that has a special deal with one of them. More important, they often require far more documentation than the embassy nominally requires, presumably to be sure that they have what they need if the embassy (or local consulate) starts asking questions about the traveler. That additional documentation may include confirmed flight or hotel reservations, letters of endorsement or guarantee (in addition to meeting invitations, etc.). So, especially if one cannot appear in person, one should get started early or be prepared to pay even higher fees. If I remember correctly from the embassy's web site, part of the documentation requirement for a multiple-entry visa is previous visits to China and associated visas. I.e., if you haven't had at least a couple of single-entry visas, there is no point thinking about a multiple-entry one. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Hiroshima room rates (was Re: Non-smoking rooms at the Hiroshima venue?)
Lou, Does that online rate you saw include in-room Internet, service charges, and taxes? Those are included in the IETF rate. Cheers, Andy On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Lou Bergerlber...@labn.net wrote: Out of curiosity, why is the IETF rate ~2000Y higher than their standard internet room rate (try to book next week to get an example rate, and see Best Flexible Rate w/ Breakfast)? Thanks, Lou ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes
+1 to Dave's suggestion below regarding the name of the draft, as well as Joel's and John's responses to Jari's original question (i.e., retain existing practice regarding IESG notes). Cheers, Andy On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Dave CROCKERd...@dcrocker.net wrote: Joel M. Halpern wrote: The documented rules and practice has long been that with regard to Independent Submissions the IESG notes are a request / recommendation to the RFC Editor (soon to be ISE), not a statement of what will be included in the result. ... Based on having seen a number of IESG notes, and reading the resulting text and its inherent tone, I would strongly prefer that IESG notes be an exception. ... Thus, I strongly prefer (a). I prefer that such notes be rare, and that they remain recommendations to the ISE. +1. It might help folks to understand the independent relationship, between the IETF/IESG and these other RFC streams, if the title of this draft were changed from Handling of to Assisting with. d/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
It took me three flights and about 35 or so hours of travel to get to
the Adelaide meeting, but that didn't keep me away. Grow up, people -
it's one trip out of your life! Go with the flow and enjoy it
Cheers,
Andy
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com wrote:
On 25 mei 2009, at 1:15, Fred Baker wrote:
SBA-LAX-AMS-Den Hague, the last hop in both cases being by train instead
of an airplane.
('s-Gravenhage, Den Haag, The Hague, La Haye, La Haya but not Den
Hague.)
Yes, but that's a 30 minute train ride (to Amsterdam is 15 from the
airport), running every 15 minutes (every hour after midnight) and close
enough to take a taxi if you are so inclined. However:
On 25 mei 2009, at 8:29, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
I'm not quite sure how a 1:50 or 2:30 hour train ride translates
to 4 hours of extra travel time.
Easy: on the way back you need to build in extra time so if there is a
problem with the train you don't miss your flight. Don't forget that unlike
the major cities in the Netherlands Maastricht has a single homed
connection to the Dutch rail network and I wouldn't want to take a 200 km
taxi ride.
So suppose you're flying from SFO with Northwest, leaving on friday. Land at
10:30 on saturday. (Results based on doing all of this the same week this
year.) I don't think you'll make the 11:00 train, so it would have to be the
11:30 or 12:00 one, which gets you to the Maastricht train station at 14:04
or 14:34 with 6 minutes to change trains in Utrecht. So far so good.
However, on the way back your flight leaves at 11:10 which means you need to
be at the airport at 9:00 or so. The first train in the morning leaves at
6:26 and is at Schiphol at 8:59 but that leaves almost no room for error.
Dutch trains run on time 80% or so of the time and you need two, so 64%
chance they're both on time...
Maastricht is certainly not the worst IETF location ever, but sticking to
one of the four main cities in the Netherlands would have been a whole lot
better. Someone made the argument that the venues there are popular so you
need to book long in advance. Don't we now have the dates set for the next
five years??
And as I said before, I would be very interested to learn whether doing this
in june rather than july would have made a different location in the
Netherlands a more viable option.
Anyway, during those hours, you
will be sitting on a chair as comfortable as in most planes. I'd
think that most of us do what IETF'ers typically do: open their laptop
and start working.
The non-double decker intercity trains are pretty nice and if you use first
class then it's roomy and quiet. As long as you travel outside peak hours
you should at least be able to sit in second class but lots of people
talking and making phone calls.
In case you get stuck at Schiphol or a train station (or if you can log into
your mail within 2 minutes during stops):
http://www.nshispeed.nl/en/services-ns-business-card-international/kpn-hotspots
On 25 mei 2009, at 8:59, Patrik Fältström wrote:
It is 3 changes from FRA, on one of the routes, but no changes from AMS or
BRU.
Last time I checked planes don't land at the central station in Amsterdam or
Brussels...
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
For better or for worse, several years ago, in reaction to the difficulty people were having attending IETF meetings due to the late announcement of meeting dates and/or clashes with other groups, the decision was made to build a comprehensive do-not-clash list and announce meeting dates as far in advance as possible. This also helps other groups that don't schedule quite so far in advance to avoid clashing with the IETF. This is much more convenient, IMHO, then the way it used to be, which tried to optimize meeting costs/locations while keeping dates relatively fluid for as long as possible. Scheduling meetings this large is not an easy task, and the relative certainty on dates makes it easier on both the attendees and the planners. The current schedule does a relatively good job of not clashing with either other meetings of importance, and major religious or other holidays. You obviously can't please everyone, but in the aggregate, I think the IETF is doing a pretty good job on meeting planning. Try being an ITU-T regular and you'll end up in places where it's not safe to leave the hotel (like the Caracas meeting, where at least one attendee was kidnapped and robbed by his taxi driver) or you'll be in Geneva all the time, where they charge $500 for a decent hotel room. Cheers, Andy On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com wrote: On 25 mei 2009, at 16:56, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: spoon-feeding: by figuring out when the IETF meeting is and placing its own meeting at least 1, preferably at least 2, weeks away. Right, because I obviously asked about the difference in possibilities between july and june because I wanted to have this particular meeting to be moved exactly one month such that it overlaps with something that's on the clash list, rather than use this information in future decision making. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPR/Copyright
A bit agreement with John and Scott. Let's close this up and move on. Cheers, Andy On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Scott Brim s...@employees.org wrote: John, I believe you read the consensus right. authors obtain all of the rights they are willing to. Excerpts from John C Klensin on Tue, Mar 24, 2009 07:35:55PM -0400: Hi. I just attended the IPR (Pre-5398 Problem) BOF and want to share an impression and suggestion. While one could debate details of text and procedures endlessly, reopen old battles, etc., there is really only one issue at this point, and that issue is whether the community wants to * try to accelerate the transition toward 5378 by obligating authors to make a serious attempt to get signoff from previous contributors or * treat documents that contain pre-5398 material as provided for in the workaround, i.e., authors obtain all of the rights if they are willing to do that but otherwise just insert the workaround text and move on. From reading the correspondence on the list, I believe that the community prefers the latter although the former has some strong advocates. I'd like to see if we can focus on those questions to see if a conclusion can be reached about the principle before more Internet-Drafts are written. I note that, if the community's preference is really the second choice, then we are finished. The Trustees would presumably follow the general rough consensus on this list, interpret the existing workaround as permanent, and we would all move on. IMO, finished would be a big win -- no more I-Ds on the subject, no need for a new or renewed WG, no more cycles of people with better ways to spend their IETF time going into these efforts, etc. Of course, YMMD. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Who Wants an RFID Badge for the Upcoming IETF Conference?
I just added my name to the database. What I would REALLY like is to just have my badge scanned when I enter a meeting room instead of signing a blue sheet. Cheers, Andy On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Athar Shiraz Siddiqui [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dr. Henning has asked us to install a system which will help participants identify themselves with their name and affiliation. If you want to know more about the raison d'être for the project please view this presentation (see[1]). Briefly: the purpose of the badge is to permit people (with names that may have unfamiliar spellings) to have their names transmitted to the chatrooms announcing their presance. Kindly email me your name and affiliation or better still just enter them in this database table right here : http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ietf2008/database?method=reportRowstbl=1 Or better still if someone can provide us with the names of the attendees we can prepare the pertinent badges for them :) [1] http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=54ff8064285e58cfc74064dd4c81b78a52bb0458ee4d8af2 or http://www.mediafire.com/?gjmum2gntjx ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.
Todd, I see your point about the cost of producing standards. However, having been both on the vendor and service provider sides of the street, I can tell you that most (all?) service providers generally require their vendors to implement standards so that their products are interoperable and meet particular requirements - in an RFP, it's much easier to put in a list of RFCs, ITU-T recommendations, etc., rather than have to list every individual requirement. As a result, vendors don't generally specifically track their standards participation costs - it's just a part of the cost of doing business in a particular market. It all goes back to the light bulb as a great example of standards setting - back before there was a standard base for bulbs, I'm sure every light bulb manufacturer had a vested interest in their pre-standard bases and sockets - whether it screwed left or right or used push-in pins, the size of the base, etc., and sent people to the meetings to represent their interests when that particular standard was being set. It was just a necessary cost of being in the light bulb business at that particular time. Cheers, Andy On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 8:54 PM, TS Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Andrew G. Malis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: TS Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 2:53 PM Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP. Todd, I generally agree with Tim that it would be difficult to put a value on any IETF submission without an actual transfer of assets of some sort to set a price. The costs of replicating the works - say from a tech writer skilled in an area is a reasonable place to start. Take the hourly rate and then multiply that times the number of hours involved and the number of people. I suggested that the unbundling of the RD costs was appropriate since all the IETF publishes is a set of document-standards per se. However, in general, if a company feels that there is IPR value in technology they are going to include in a submission (and this really deals with ANY kind of standards submission, not just to the IETF), How do you figure they 'deal' with how much it costs to send people to the IETF several times a year. Also to cover the costs of their local participation. they will most probably submit a patent application prior to the standards submission. So the existence of a patent declaration accompanying the submission at least provides a clue that the submitting company feels that there is some value there (else they wouldn't have bothered with the patent application). Only if there is a real program inside the Sponsor to accomplish that. This is one of the issues in the IETF. There are many who are really enamored with the idea that the IETF is a fraternal benevolent society rather than a Intellectual Proeperty War Chest disguised cleverly as an International Networking SDO. However, a value generally can't be set until the company actually starts to issue patent licenses. The value could be as little as zero if no other companies feel compelled to license the technology. As always, the value of the workproduct, as you put it, is set by the market. But the costs of creating it are not. That was the point. The baseline is the costs of replacing the written work. Cheers, Andy On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 8:27 AM, TS Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since there is now a specific value estimated by the LINUX community at 1.4B for the kernel itself Hey, I've done an analysis and found that my toenail clippings are worth $3.8762 billion. That kernel-valuation exercise is the silliest kind of science fiction. Let me let you in on a little secret: Everything in the world has a value, and that value is exactly what people are prepared to pay for it. No more, no less. On payment of a generous consulting fee, I would be delighted to estimate a specific value for any given RFC or even I-D. I'll even issue gold-framed certificates you can mount on the wall. -Tim , the IETF can no longer hide its head in the sand claiming that its workproduct has no specific value. This also means that ANY AND ALL contributions to the IETF no matter when they happened now need to be formally acknowledged for their financial value at the time of their contribution. This is not an OPTION. Todd Glassey ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version
Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.
Todd, I generally agree with Tim that it would be difficult to put a value on any IETF submission without an actual transfer of assets of some sort to set a price. However, in general, if a company feels that there is IPR value in technology they are going to include in a submission (and this really deals with ANY kind of standards submission, not just to the IETF), they will most probably submit a patent application prior to the standards submission. So the existence of a patent declaration accompanying the submission at least provides a clue that the submitting company feels that there is some value there (else they wouldn't have bothered with the patent application). However, a value generally can't be set until the company actually starts to issue patent licenses. The value could be as little as zero if no other companies feel compelled to license the technology. As always, the value of the workproduct, as you put it, is set by the market. Cheers, Andy On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 8:27 AM, TS Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since there is now a specific value estimated by the LINUX community at 1.4B for the kernel itself Hey, I've done an analysis and found that my toenail clippings are worth $3.8762 billion. That kernel-valuation exercise is the silliest kind of science fiction. Let me let you in on a little secret: Everything in the world has a value, and that value is exactly what people are prepared to pay for it. No more, no less. On payment of a generous consulting fee, I would be delighted to estimate a specific value for any given RFC or even I-D. I'll even issue gold-framed certificates you can mount on the wall. -Tim , the IETF can no longer hide its head in the sand claiming that its workproduct has no specific value. This also means that ANY AND ALL contributions to the IETF no matter when they happened now need to be formally acknowledged for their financial value at the time of their contribution. This is not an OPTION. Todd Glassey ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Openness for IETF-sponsored events
Ted, I was at the workshop representing the IAB, and I fully agree. While it was held in a good-sized auditorium, given the obvious interest in the topic, if everyone who wanted to attend or get on the agenda could, we would have needed a venue two or three times the size, more administrative support, and probably have needed to extend the workshop over at least two days. Given the size of the venue and the time available, I thought the way the workshop was conducted was extremely reasonable and fair. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy, There has been a lot of traffic in the past few days on the question of whether the recent p2pi workshop was or was not open. Having sent a paper in to that workshop and participated in an apps-area workshop, I'd like to weigh in on the question with a fairly blunt reply: not fully. Whenever participation is gated by a committee, it is not fully open. In the p2pi case, Jon and Cullen acted as the gates; they swung wide (thanks, guys!), but you had to either submit a position paper and have it approved by them or get a waiver from them. To quote from their mail of May 2nd: We've had a number of inquiries from people interested in the workshop who are reluctant to submit a paper because they have no particular agenda to push in this space. We'd like to stress that position papers can shed light on any aspect of the problem or solution space, and we'd encourage anyone interested in making a technical contribution to ongoing work in this space at the IETF to submit a paper even if it serves only to further explain the problem, the requirements, or even the non-requirements associated with this work. That much said, if it is not appropriate for you to submit a position paper, please contact Cullen and Jon by May 9th to request a waiver. You can reach us at: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] That doesn't really matter, though. What matters is that workshops like this are inputs into an open process (in this case, the BoF, in the APPs workshop a list of potential work items). Anyone could participate in the BoF or on the mailing list, and that is where we have to make sure that the full openness remains. The discussion now of the scope of the work in this proposed working group is a critical part of that openness, as it is *the* time early in the process when the IETF community as a whole considers a proposed work plan and commits to it. ALTO is getting very good feedback, and I hope that its Area Directors (and any potential chairs) are listening to it; it's heartening to see the level of interest here when so many WGs are chartered or re-chartered with no comments at all. I hope we can stop focusing on the openness of the workshop as a primary topic in this conversation, and focus on keeping the proposed working group open to input at this pivotal moment. Having hummed for the creation of the WG at the BoF, I obviously support the creation of a WG now. But I'm much, much happier getting the input on charter details dealt with now, as a good discussion now can avoid lots of later stress on the working group machinery. regards, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: creating a SCADA WG
Todd, Not knowing much about SCADA, I just checked it out in Wikipedia. The following caught my eye: Standard protocols are IEC 60870-5-101 or 104, IEC 61850 and DNP3. These communication protocols are standardized and recognized by all major SCADA vendors. Many of these protocols now contain extensions to operate over TCP/IP. It is good security engineering practice to avoid connecting SCADA systems to the Internet so the attack surface is reduced. The move from proprietary technologies to more standardized and open solutions together with the increased number of connections between SCADA systems and office networks and the Internet has made them more vulnerable to attacks The ISA Security Compliance Institute (ISCI) is emerging to formalize SCADA security testing starting as soon as 2009. ISCI is conceptually similar to private testing and certification that has been performed by vendors since 2007, such as the Achilles certification program from Wurldtech Security Technologies, Inc. and MUSIC certification from Mu Dynamics, Inc. Eventually, standards being defined by ISA SP99 WG4 will supersede these initial industry consortia efforts, but probably not before 2011. So it sems to me, at least naively, that SCADA standardization is already being covered by IEC, ISCI, and perhaps elsewhere as well. What do you envision the IETF could add that is not already being covered, to prevent unnecessary duplication of effort? Also, to my knowledge, there is not much by way of SCADA expertise in the IETF. As I'm sure you're aware, there is a defined process to begin new work in the IETF - you write a draft discussing the problem statement and reqiurements for the proposed work, begin a discussion of the draft on the IETF list, and if it looks like there would be sufficient interest and expertise, propose a BOF on the topic at an upcoming meeting. Cheers, Andy On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:28 PM, TS Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not that anyone listens to me here but the IETF needs a focus group and probably a WG under the general area for SCADA systems. This would be for the creation of BCP's and standards for operating public SCADA systems and would provide an oversight process if its properly managed for SCADA systems operated in the public interest. Todd --- Personal Disclaimers Apply TS Glassey ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org
Harald, My thinking is that many of us (well, at least me) don't have enough time to read everything single email or thread on the ietf list ... but if it turns out that a particular thread that I've been ignoring has generated a lot of mail this past week, then maybe it's worth it to go back to check it out. Just a thought ... Cheers, Andy On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew G. Malis wrote: Thomas, I would personally find this more useful if it were measured by subject line rather than by sender. At the time when these summaries started, it was obvious from some summaries that some participants seemed to be spending more time typing answers than reading the responses (when one person had two to three times as many postings as #2 on the list). That behaviour has largely disappeared, so it may be less obvious why it's a good thing to see this metric. Personally, I'm for keeping the weekly posting as-is. Harald Thanks, Andy On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Total of 103 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Apr 18 00:53:01 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes| Who +--++--+ 6.80% |7 | 5.33% |37130 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5.83% |6 | 6.08% |42351 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5.83% |6 | 5.17% |35998 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org
Thomas, I would personally find this more useful if it were measured by subject line rather than by sender. Thanks, Andy On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Total of 103 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Apr 18 00:53:01 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes| Who +--++--+ 6.80% |7 | 5.33% |37130 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5.83% |6 | 6.08% |42351 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5.83% |6 | 5.17% |35998 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4.85% |5 | 5.50% |38270 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4.85% |5 | 4.47% |31117 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.91% |3 | 3.69% |25708 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.94% |2 | 4.43% |30845 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.91% |3 | 3.41% |23704 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.91% |3 | 3.23% |22492 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.91% |3 | 3.21% |22346 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.91% |3 | 3.09% |21490 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.91% |3 | 2.56% |17790 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.91% |3 | 2.34% |16300 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.91% |3 | 2.25% |15653 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.94% |2 | 2.31% |16112 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.94% |2 | 2.21% |15410 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.94% |2 | 2.00% |13924 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.94% |2 | 1.84% |12796 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.94% |2 | 1.76% |12273 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.94% |2 | 1.60% |11157 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.94% |2 | 1.42% | 9884 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.94% |2 | 1.39% | 9656 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.94% |2 | 1.38% | 9597 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 1.94% |13510 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 1.61% |11205 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 1.47% |10234 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 1.44% |10025 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 1.43% | 9985 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 1.17% | 8150 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 1.15% | 8031 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 1.15% | 8028 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 1.10% | 7628 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 1.07% | 7467 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 1.02% | 7067 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.96% | 6688 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.94% | 6516 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.89% | 6195 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.89% | 6176 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.83% | 5785 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.83% | 5745 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.81% | 5620 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.80% | 5569 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.80% | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.80% | 5541 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.76% | 5267 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.74% | 5140 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.72% | 5033 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.72% | 5014 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.70% | 4868 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.69% | 4797 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.66% | 4569 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.64% | 4451 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.97% |1 | 0.61% | 4237 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--++--+ 100.00% | 103 |100.00% | 696099 | Total ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Write an RFC Was: experiments in the ietf week
Phillip does have a point regarding 802.1x authentication, which is typically used to authenticate the user to the service, and not vice versa. Conceivably a person could set up an evil access point that advertises the same beacon as the official access points, and has 802.1x enabled to accept the same shared user name and password (which is also well publicized). One way that could make this much more secure from the user viewpoint would be for every attendee to receive an individual 802.1x user name and password, perhaps printed on the back of their name tag. Presumably an evil access point would not have access to these names and passwords, so users can be sure that they are attaching to an official access point. But as this would create much more work for the NOC and admin staff, I'm not advocating we do that. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Patrik Fältström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25 mar 2008, at 02.18, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: I am willing to have a go at it next time round but only if I have some idea what I am expected to have on my machine and what authentication indicata I am to expect. As it stands there is no way for me to evaluate an authentic or inauthentic experience. I don't know what authentic looks like. I have no trust anchor. This email message sent to me was enough of a trust anchor to use 802.1x. Specifically as the instructions are the same as IETF-70 and previous meetings. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/71attendees/current/msg00154.html Sure, the mail was not signed, but I also asked a friend at the meeting what he used. And as we both had the same instructions, we trusted that. If we wanted to, we could have asked someone actually running the network, but we did not feel we had to. Patrik ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Nomcom process realities of confidentiality
Wrenching this thread back to match the subject line . Having just gone through the nomcom process as a new addition to the IAB, I just wanted to add my two cents In the past I've volunteered for the nomcom lottery but was never selected, so I can't speak with authority about any previous nomcoms, but regarding THIS nomcom just past, from everything visible to me, the nomcom members took their responsibilities EXTREMELY seriously and professionally, and at no point did I ever feel like I had to worry about anything discussed between me and nomcom, either orally or in writing, being improperly disclosed. This included not only information provided by me about myself, but also comments I provided to nomcom regarding other nominees for the IESG and the IAB. Likewise, I remain completely ignorant of what other people may have said about me, and I prefer it that way. :-) Going forward, several people have proposed that the next nomcom and the confirming bodies agree at the beginning of the process as to what information will be needed for confirmation, and it should then be made explicitly clear to nominees as to what information will be used by which bodies. I highly support this proposal. Cheers, Andy ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Problem with Jabber?
It's up right now. On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it just me or is there a problem with jabber.ietf.org? I can't join any of the rooms. Iljitscy ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 -- Dublin!
Stuart and Ray, I called the hotel directly to make my reservations. Just mentioned the IETF and got the group rate. Note that $130 is for a single room - I was quoted $160 for two people (Ray, is that correct?). Also, I was told that cancellation is 48 hours with with no penalties. Cheers, Andy 2008/2/1 Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED]: GOLDMAN, STUART O (STUART) wrote: Folks, I just went to the website to at least grab a room for the time being. I was disappointed to learn that reservations are non cancellable and non refundable!Our contract provides that the reservations are cancellable, refundable and substitutes permitted. I have contacted the hotel to correct the website. Ray Pelletier IAD Please note the following terms conditions relate to this booking. • Bookings are non refundable and non transferable. • Cancellations will not be accepted for online bookings • Check in time : after 1400 hrs • Check out time : before 1200 hrs • Rates are per room per night. • Rates are for accommodation only unless otherwise stated. • These rates are not available for groups or conferences. • Rates are non commissionable. • Management reserve the right to assign guests to rooms in either the Citywest Main or Golf Hotels depending on availability • For single adult reservations the Management reserve the right to provide guests with a single room instead of double room only in the unlikely event of all double rooms being occupied Stuart Goldman ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 -- Dublin!
Ray, Thanks - and also thanks to everyone that pointed out that I used $ when I meant € ... just typing too fast for my own good. Cheers, Andy On Feb 1, 2008 3:28 PM, Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew G. Malis wrote: Stuart and Ray, I called the hotel directly to make my reservations. Just mentioned the IETF and got the group rate. Note that $130 is for a single room - I was quoted $160 for two people (Ray, is that correct?). 160 is correct for the Double Rate. Also, I was told that cancellation is 48 hours with with no penalties. Contract states: can cancel the reservation without penalty until 3 days prior to check-in; cancellation less than 3 days prior to the event or non-arrival or no-show, the Hotel holds the right to charge the individuals one nights stay as cancellation fees. Ray Cheers, Andy 2008/2/1 Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED]: GOLDMAN, STUART O (STUART) wrote: Folks, I just went to the website to at least grab a room for the time being. I was disappointed to learn that reservations are non cancellable and non refundable!Our contract provides that the reservations are cancellable, refundable and substitutes permitted. I have contacted the hotel to correct the website. Ray Pelletier IAD Please note the following terms conditions relate to this booking. • Bookings are non refundable and non transferable. • Cancellations will not be accepted for online bookings • Check in time : after 1400 hrs • Check out time : before 1200 hrs • Rates are per room per night. • Rates are for accommodation only unless otherwise stated. • These rates are not available for groups or conferences. • Rates are non commissionable. • Management reserve the right to assign guests to rooms in either the Citywest Main or Golf Hotels depending on availability • For single adult reservations the Management reserve the right to provide guests with a single room instead of double room only in the unlikely event of all double rooms being occupied Stuart Goldman ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RFID (was: identifying yourself at the mic)
RFID would be a great way to replace the blue sheets as well - put an RFID reader at the door of each meeting room. Embed the chip in the name tag so you don't need to remember to bring anything else from your hotel room in the morning. Cheers, Andy On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Schliesser, Benson wrote: Sun has been pushing RFID technology quite heavily ... perhaps they would sponsor an experiment??? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RFID (was: identifying yourself at the mic)
Eric, Why not? We each already receive a unique identifier when we register for the meeting - all the RFID tag needs to contain is that identifier, no personal info is required. There could also be an opt-in locator service to let other attendees look up what meeting room you're in at that time. I would opt in - I'm alrways trying to find particular people during the week, and this would certainly help people to find me. Cheers, Andy On 3/27/07, Eric Gray (LO/EUS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excellent idea - NOT!!! All we need is something else to wrap in aluminum foil... Thanks! -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson -- *From:* Andrew G. Malis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:55 AM *To:* David Morris *Cc:* ietf@ietf.org *Subject:* RFID (was: identifying yourself at the mic) RFID would be a great way to replace the blue sheets as well - put an RFID reader at the door of each meeting room. Embed the chip in the name tag so you don't need to remember to bring anything else from your hotel room in the morning. Cheers, Andy On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Schliesser, Benson wrote: Sun has been pushing RFID technology quite heavily ... perhaps they would sponsor an experiment??? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Non-priority baggage handling (Re: Warning - risk of duty free ...)
There is no SLA regarding the priority tags on bags. I've found that most airports ignore them, so I'm always pleasantly surprised when the priority bags come out first. For the most part, my experience has been that bags tend to show up in LIFO order, so you're being rewarded for checking in late. :-) Cheers, Andy On 3/15/07, Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Clint Chaplin wrote: I get the priority tag, because I'm Premium level. The only airport I've seen actually honor that tag is Singapore. San Francisco doesn't care, and neither did Paris nor London. Neither, come to think of it, did Frankfurt. You mean they marked but have only a single queue? What sort of SLA were you given? ;-) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: About Gen-ART reviews
Brian, As a recent victim of a Gen-ART review, I can only say that it improved the quality of the RFC-to-be (thanks, Spencer!). And the reviews might encourage other people to read the draft that might not otherwise had a chance to be aware of it. So yeah, keep them coming! Cheers, Andy On 2/13/07, Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, As devoted readers may have noticed, quite a few Gen-ART reviews have been copied to this list recently, with follow-up postings in some cases. Is this a good or a bad thing? Comments welcome. Brian (as General AD) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 25th Anniversary!
Ole, That's a good one! I would hate to see the length of that exception list :-) And who would have the authority to grant the exceptions Cheers, Andy - On 9/26/06, Ole Jacobsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, Andy. Can we put you in charge of the IP v4/v6 transition, sayJanuary 1, 2009?:-) Ole J. JacobsenEditor and Publisher,The Internet Protocol JournalCisco SystemsTel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)
Dave, Actually, airline hubs increase the risk of depending on a single airline, since most hubs (at least in the US) are dominated by a single airline, such as Northwest in Minneapolisand Detroit, US Airways in Philly and Pittsburgh, American in Dallas, Delta in Altanta and Salt Lake City, America West in Phoenix, United in Denver, and so on. Chicago is one of the few major US airports that is a dual hub (American and United). And yes, Minneapolis is a hub. Cheers, Andy -- On 7/19/06, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian E Carpenter wrote: Starting from Europe, San Diego seems to be no harder to reach than any other major US city. The SPF route from Geneva has two hops (e.g. via EWR or JFK). I agree that major hub airports are a little easier to reach, but maybe that's why we can get meeting space more easily in non-hub cities?Meeting space is gotten more easily at hub cities when planning is done fartherin advance.If a non-hub venue offers dramatic net price savings, fabulous facilities, orsome other strong justification, it makes sense to go there. Otherwise, a non-hum city forces virtually the entire set of attendees to:1. Experience an extraflight, each way, with its attendant inconveniences andrisks (higher risk of lost luggage, missed connections, etc.) 2. Pay higher air fares, since secondary venues do not have the airlinecompetition that major hubs do.3. Experience a higher risk of losing access completely, because of that lack ofairline competition... The primary airline to the non-hub might go on strike, for example, as (nearly) happened to us in Minneapolis one time.4. More generally, secondary venues have less total airline seating capacity andthe concentration of our 1200-1400 attendees flying in and out close together usually has a noticeable impact on their flights.d/___Ietf mailing listIetf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)
Eric, All I can say is that you're not looking very hard - I just spent all of5 mniutes searching for tickets and found a nonstop between Boston and San Diego for $418 on Alaska (this flight is also an American codeshare), and single-connection flights from Manchester NHstarting at $315 on Northwest, Delta, and United. These prices are all extremely reasonable for flights that areabout as far as you can go within the continental US. These prices are for flying out on Sunday 11/5 and returning on Saturday 11/11, so they don't require a Saturday night stayover. Cheers, Andy -- On 7/18/06, Burger, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would offer that it is easier for me to get to London, Paris, orFrankfurt from New Hampshire than it is to get to San Diego.LAX is marginally better.Chicago, Boston, New York, Toronto, Atlanta, and Las Vegas (!) are myeasy, one-hop cities.That said, it was fun driving to Montreal :-) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: An Absolutely Fantastic IETF Meeting Network - Redux
In the past, the IETF network has had a local SMTP server. This wasn't the case this time. Am I the only person that missed it? I obviously have an alternative, but it's a nice service. Thanks, Andy -- On 7/13/06, Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thats because Dr Evil lent us his 'frickin lasers' as he calls them and the NOC integrated them into their triangulation system for detecting people running in ad hoc mode. All we need now is a way to deal with the powerbooks. Lasers don't work on the shiny aluminium covers. From: Ed Juskevicius [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 6:37 PMTo: ietf@ietf.orgSubject: An Absolutely Fantastic IETF Meeting Network - Redux To echo Harald's words from Dallas: - Just wanted to state what's obvious to all of us by now:- This time the wireless WORKED, and Just Went On Working. - THANK YOU! In addition, I want to extend my personal compliments to our Ericsson,Combat Networks and the entire NOC teamfor a very good job. Best Regards, Ed Juskevicius ___Ietf mailing listIetf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: When did the ID drafts index disappear
Phillip,Did you mean http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/1id-abstracts.txt ? It's still there, as always. 1id-index.txt is also there.Cheers, AndyOn 7/10/06, Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The IETF Web site goes for terrible to worse.It is bad enough that the site is designed with the UNIX 'hunt and ye shall find (if you are lucky)' attitude. Now the ID index has disappeared and has been replaced with a search by filename. I am currently trying to find two IDs, one submitted by RSA, another by VeriSign. I do not know the authors of the drafts but I know the subjects and in the past I would simply do a search over the web page with all the personal submissions. HOW ON EARTH WOULD I KNOW THE FILE NAME? This new interface is terrible. It is the sort of thing that a contractor does on purpose in an attempt to abide by the letter of a contract while hoping to be paid more to do the job right. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IETF Meeting Survey - Last Call
Well, obviously, those of us that did the survey should be rewarded by having the consensus results acted upon ... if people don't like the results in Montreal, they'll have more of an incentive to take the survey at that time. More seriously, Ray might get more of a result if he sent the request to the list of people that actually attended the Dallas meeting (they know who we are, after all) rather than just sending it to the ietf list. Cheers, Andy --- At 4/26/2006 16:30 -0400, Ed Juskevicius wrote: Earlier today, Ray suggested that only a small fraction of everyone who went to Dallas has taken the 10 minutes needed to provide feedback on the meeting. I am posting this message to ask Why so little response? Is it because only two hundred people read the IETF discussion list? If so, then maybe we have all the response we can expect, and should be happy with it. If, on the other hand, we know a thousand people monitor the list, then I return to Why so little response? Are we surveyed-out, or did the survey ask too many questions, or what? For the record, and for transparency, I did the survey last week. Doing it was relatively painless, and I don't think it took more than 10 minutes. Regards, Ed Juskevicius ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 66th IETF - Registration and Hotel Accommodations
At 4/23/2006 19:26 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 23-apr-2006, at 18:40, Yaakov Stein wrote: Walking time from the hotel to the conference site is 6 minutes. The advantage of the Delta as compared to closer hotels is that the walk can be done without going outside Is that important? Are there weather or crime issues? Not so much for this meeting, although it could rain. It's really important for the winter. As far as crime goes, while there's no place in the world with zero crime, Canada is in general about as safe as it gets. Cheers, Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
Joel, Thanks - but to answer Eric directly, I was just saying that I was a happy camper for most of the week on 802.11a, in contrast to the problems some people were having on 802.11b. I wasn't making any particular recommendations, but at the next IETF, if your card can support 802.11a, give a try and use whichever mode works best for you. Cheers, Andy - At 11/14/2005 09:29 -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote: On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Gray, Eric wrote: Andy, So, I am confused. Are you saying we should use 802.11a because it works better or is somehow isolated from malicious or accidental misuse? Three things. chipsets lack support for ibss mode in 802.11a 8 non-overlapping indoor channels in north america, makes the 802.11a radio noise situation more tractable. From a deployment perspective the map coloring problem is much easier. All things being equal an a card has signficantly shorter range range at 5.8ghz than a b card does at 2412ghz, and more surfaces (airwalls people etc) are opaque. This cuts down on the noise quite a bit. -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis -- Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 10:14 AM -- To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) -- Cc: Avri Doria; Ole Jacobsen; ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN -- in ad hoc mode -- -- Dan, -- -- You must have been on 802.11b. 802.11a was solid from -- Tuesday morning through to the end of the week. I was -- having problems on Monday with dueling access points but -- that was fixed by Tuesday morning. -- -- Cheers, -- Andy -- -- --- -- -- At 11/12/2005 06:45 +0200, Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\) wrote: -- -- I know. I am attending both the IEEE 802 Plenary meetings -- and the IETF -- meetings for many years. I can witness first hand that the -- situation is -- much worse at the IETF meetings than at the IEEE ones. -- Practically, the -- network is perfect at most IEEE meetings. True, I believe -- that they are -- outsourcing the network deployment and its maintenance during the -- meeting. -- -- As I will be attending the IEEE 802 meeting next week (in -- Vancouver, -- but at a different hotel) I will be able to report by the -- end of the -- week how it was. Anyway, it hardly can be worse than at -- the IETF meeting. -- During this whole IETF week I could almost never connect -- during the -- meetings. I had to wait for the lunch break when everybody -- was away, or -- to go to my room (at the 7th floor in the tower) to be -- able to connect -- to the IETF wireless network. -- -- Regards, -- -- Dan -- -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Please make sure that you do not run your WLAN in ad hoc mode
Dan, You must have been on 802.11b. 802.11a was solid from Tuesday morning through to the end of the week. I was having problems on Monday with dueling access points but that was fixed by Tuesday morning. Cheers, Andy --- At 11/12/2005 06:45 +0200, Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\) wrote: I know. I am attending both the IEEE 802 Plenary meetings and the IETF meetings for many years. I can witness first hand that the situation is much worse at the IETF meetings than at the IEEE ones. Practically, the network is perfect at most IEEE meetings. True, I believe that they are outsourcing the network deployment and its maintenance during the meeting. As I will be attending the IEEE 802 meeting next week (in Vancouver, but at a different hotel) I will be able to report by the end of the week how it was. Anyway, it hardly can be worse than at the IETF meeting. During this whole IETF week I could almost never connect during the meetings. I had to wait for the lunch break when everybody was away, or to go to my room (at the 7th floor in the tower) to be able to connect to the IETF wireless network. Regards, Dan ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 64th IETF Agenda
Previous IETFs, up to IETF 63, had both HTML and text versions of the agenda online, and using the HTML version, one could just click on links to get both the WG charter and the WG meeting agenda. This meeting, you need three different browser windows open if you want the agenda, WG charters, and WG meeting agendas. See http://www.ietf.org/PASTMEETINGS/agenda_63.html as an example. Could we get this back for IETF 64? Thanks, Andy --- At 10/17/2005 19:27 -0400, IETF Agenda wrote: Based on additional information we have just received, we need to rearrange sessions and therefore will be unable to post the final agenda today as indicated in Important Meeting Dates, we hope to have the final agenda posted no later than Thursday, October 20, 2005. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 64th IETF Agenda
Henrik, Thanks! This should probably have been better publicized if you're not on the tools list. I sent my email because on previous meetings the HTML agenda was always there, not just in the last week leading up to the meeting (or during the meeting itself), and I wanted to see one for this meeting as well. Cheers, Andy At 10/30/2005 20:59 +0100, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: Hi Andy, on 2005-10-30 15:29 Andrew G. Malis said the following: Previous IETFs, up to IETF 63, had both HTML and text versions of the agenda online, and using the HTML version, one could just click on links to get both the WG charter and the WG meeting agenda. This meeting, you need three different browser windows open if you want the agenda, WG charters, and WG meeting agendas. See http://www.ietf.org/PASTMEETINGS/agenda_63.html as an example. Could we get this back for IETF 64? I think having an agenda page with html links is terribly useful, and I'm sure the secretariat will provide one once the agenda is considered stable. Till then the html-ized version of the text agenda which is available at http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/64 should hopefully provide what you're looking for. It is automatically updated from the text agenda, and when new WG agendas come online they are also html-ized and linked in. Regards, Henrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 20 years later - where are we?
Mike, We also fixed the IOP and performance problems in the PSNs. :-) Thanks for sending this! Cheers, Andy - At 9/11/2005 18:38 -0400, Michael StJohns wrote: The 20th anniversary of the first meeting of the IETF is coming up fast - January 2006. I think a little history is in order for some of the newcomers. I was recently cleaning out some of my older files and found the attached Internet Problem Reports from late 1986. These were really the first formal items the IETF took on as engineering issues. Note the assumption that TCP/IP was just a passing fancy and that ISO would be the stack going forward. Little did we know... It is nice to know that at least a few things were eventually solved by the IETF (DNS deployment, replacement of EGP as the major routing system). And bandwidth is no longer a problem (mostly). The attached are a scanned, OCR'd and edited to clean up format version of the original reports. Enjoy. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Keeping this IETF's schedule in the future...?
I'm with the folks that like this schedule. it's great being done for the evening before dinner - it makes for a much more relaxed meal, and you don't have to worry about going too far from the meeting. I also remember that the Adelaide meeting, at least half of the people in the Monday night session were fast asleep in their seats. It hasn't been quite that bad at the US meetings, but I still prefer it this way. Cheers, Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Keeping this IETF's schedule in the future...?
Steve, I did notice fewer people in the bar than usual. Given how much work gets done at bar bofs, that's significant. I suspect that's due to what they charge in the hotel bar more than anything else! :-) Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Contact for network problems at IETF62?
Same in salon A as well. I think the outage was at least the third floor, but it seems to be OK now. Andy - At 3/7/2005 03:16 PM +, Tim Chown wrote: Much gnashing of teeth in Salon D this morning. DHCP failing for v4, IPv6 connectivity coming and goping Seems everyone in the room is affected. (So we didn't get a jabber scribe for mboned ;) -- Tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: jabber working?
Yup, there's some chatter in the hallway room right now - mostly people checking their connections. Andy - At 3/7/2005 11:26 AM -0500, jamal wrote: Can someone else double check jabber? - i am having issues connecting to any of the morning sesssions. cheers, jamal ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Excellent choice for summer meeting location!
Boy, what a bunch of wimps! Paris in the summer is not life-threatening, unless possibly you're an elderly shut-in in a fourth-floor walkup without air conditioning during last summer's heat wave; if you want life-threatening, I suggest a trip to any of the affected areas on the Indian Ocean right now. In lieu of the travel, if everyone who participates in the IETF were to make a donation to their favorite relief fund, THAT would be a productive use of this holiday weekend. You can find a partial list of relief agencies at http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Tsunami_Help/Aid_Agencies/Major_International_Agencies . Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Has anybody heard back from the Hotel in Seoul?
I both faxed and emailed the form and received a fax confirmation several days later. I don't know which one did the trick. I suspect the fax, since I was faxed a reply. Cheers, Andy --- At 1/5/2004 02:52 PM -0500, David R. Oran wrote: I sent in my reservation request the day after registration opened and I have heard nothing back at all. Have others similarly gotten no response, or is it likely my room request got dropped and I need to retransmit? (Probably better to reply to me rather than the list unless people suspect we have a generic problem). Dave Oran
Two lost SecureID tokens found at the Crown Plaza
Two lost SecureID tokens have been found at the Crown Plaza Hotel. One was found on the second floor today (Thursday), and the other was found Wednesday evening in the lounge. They have been given to lost and found in the hotel. Andy Malis and Bert Wijnen
Two lost SecureID tokens found at the Crown Plaza
Two lost SecureID tokens have been found at the Crown Plaza Hotel. One was found on the second floor today (Thursday), and the other was found Wednesday evening in the lounge. They have been given to lost and found in the hotel. Andy Malis and Bert Wijnen
Re: MPLS issues spam
Melinda, I sent an email to the anonymous yahoo ID identified as the mplsissues list owner to please identify him or herself, and to cease spamming IETF and other lists. I also completely agree with Randy's point. Posting to IETF lists should be restricted to list participants. That's how I've always run my own working group email lists - suspected spam from a non-list member goes only to the list owner, and is approved for transmission if it turns out to be legitimate WG business. Cheers, Andy -- At 3/8/2002 03:57 PM -0500, Melinda Shore wrote: At 12:46 PM 3/8/02 -0800, Randy Bush wrote: and it is most likely that they just scraped the ietf web pages and just blew it out. highly doubful that they are actual ietf clued. What's annoying and/or funny about this is that it's an MPLS spam. So far it hasn't shown up on dog-related mailing lists, so until it does and because of the subject matter I'm guessing that it was targeted. Melinda
Re: MPLS issues spam
Joe, I also completely agree with Randy's point. Posting to IETF lists should be restricted to list participants. That's often harder to do than it appears, esp. for those who have multiple mail addresses from which they might reply, or for those on local 'exploder' lists that would never show up as mail sources. Let me tell you how I administer my lists (via majordomo). The lists are configured to only forward messages from either list members or those email addresses in a separate approved list. Any other messages get kicked out to me as the list admin. 99.99% are spam and I just delete them. Those that are on-topic are approved for transmission, and I add the source email address to the approved list. Works like a charm. As WG chair, I'm willing to put up with the spam in order to spare the list's members. Cheers, Andy
RE: trying to reconcile two threads
Charles, At least for ATT Broadband, you can call them on the phone and give them a new MAC address (since you are allowed to buy new computers!). In my case, once the cable modem was up and working with one computer, I just called them and gave them the MAC address for my router/firewall/NAT. They switched it on the spot. Cheers, Andy --- At 11/29/2001 08:42 AM -0600, Charles Adams wrote: It's rather difficult to give a cable company the MAC address of your router, when in fact they setup your connection on-site. There's also the assumption that you can change the MAC address on all routers. For most people on this list, it would be somewhat simple to 'foil the system' of a cable company. I just have a hard time believing that the majority of the customer base for a cable company would have the technical ability to do so. Charles
Re: Printing Internet Drafts
Ting, Assuming you use MS Word, here are a few steps to perfectly printed I-Ds: 1. Save the I-D from your browser to your hard drive as a .txt file (not HTML). 2. Start MS Word and open the draft in Word. 3. Use Print Preview to see how it will print (scroll down a few pages to check it out). Usually, it'll look just fine, but sometimes the pages overflow and you get two pages to be printed for every one in the document. In that case, use the ruler on the left of the print preview window to increase the page length until the I-D pages fit. 4. Print to your hearts content. Occasionally, a draft will use lots of white page between pages rather than form feeds. These are notoriously difficult to print correctly, and if I really need hardcopy I will usually use global replace to replace the white space with a page separator. Cheers, Andy - At 10/23/2001 11:44 AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have a question on how to print Internet Draft with the right pagination on Windows machine. Take the document below as an example, http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-msword-template-06.txt If I print this document from Internet Explorer or notepad, the page breaks occur at the wrong place. If I type type draft-hain-msword-template-06.txt LPT1 in the cmd window. The page breaks appears at the right place, but the font has changed. Do you have any suggestion on how to print the draft with right pagination on Windows machines? Thanks. Ting
Re: Why isn't the Internet and 3D technology used for the meetings?
Paul, Join the ietf_censored list, which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you'll get the flames pre-filtered out. As the list info says, not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio. It's a wonderful public service. To subscribe, click on: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=subscribe Cheers, Andy -- At 10/24/2001 12:26 AM +0800, Paul Day wrote: On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Jim Fleming wrote: Why isn't the Internet and 3D technology used for the IETF meetings ? The Next Generation IPv8 Internet has that. Why is the IPv4 Internet stuck in the stone ages ? snip How many times do we have to get the same rants Jim? I bet I'm not the only lurker who's getting quite tired of it. PD -- Paul DayWeb: www.bur.st/~bonfire PGP-key: www.bur.st/~bonfire/pk.txt - This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.
Deja vu all over again (53rd IETF)
From http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt: Spring 2002 - 53rd IETF March 17-22, 2002 Location: Minneapolis, MN Host: TBD Cheers, Andy
Re: WaveLAN Bronze and IETF wireless?
For another data point ... I had the identical problem with my bronze card (flash briefly). I got one of the silver cards and plugged it in, and it just worked with my existing Bronze 4.0 driver and application. I didn't need to update either the silver card firmware or the driver SW. This is on NT 4.0. Cheers, Andy --- At 07:38 AM 3/28/00 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ][ Date: 22:31 (+0930), Mar 27, 2000 ] I brought with me to IETF 47 a WaveLAN Turbo Bronze wireless card which I use daily in my office at home, but it doesn't appear to work with the WaveLAN-Silver-based wireless net here (the LEDs flash briefly as though it's not finding the named network). Other folks here with Bronze cards also find they don't work, regardless of laptop or OS. So are we bronze toters just out of luck? Is it a known thing that WaveLAN Bronze cards are not interoperable with Silver? Anything to be done to fix? The Wavelan site does mention that once the cards' firwares are upgraded to version 6.0, which in this case is so, the base stations (aka access points) also need to be upgraded; however once they (access points) are upgraded, the version 4.0 of the firmware in the older(bronze) cards will NOT work with the upgraded base stations. I am stuck with a so-called "old" card as well. :( /amlan.
Re: history
Jon, Sigh ... I checked out the archive and noticed my own email in the fall 82 archive, from when I was managing the NCP to TCP transition on the ARPANET (I wrote the code to disable NCP at the IMP interface). I didn't need to be reminded how long I've been doing this stuff ... :-). Cheers, Andy == At 03:11 PM 3/9/00 +, Jon Crowcroft wrote: i was looking thru some old archives (1982 on - yes, thats right, from just before this years college kids were born) of the original tcp-ip maillist and came across a message from mark crispin about a broken vax mailer flooding neighbor mailservers with SYNs..amazing how nothings new see http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/multimedia/misc/tcp_ip/ for a slightly incomplete archive of it all i couldn't find any other archive but if someoen does have it, let me know and i'll delete mine and point at theirs... one interesting thing is to look at pre-DNS email addresses - so there used to be this single file we'd all FTP from ISI with the hosts.txt listing of name/addresses - then one day we distributed itnow of course has to haev a .com, and the nameservers have to zone xfer it all the time tooso plus ca change, plus c'est le mome raths cheers jon - This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand. Andrew G. Malis [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone:978 952-7414 fax:978 392-2074 Lucent Technologies 1 Robbins RoadWestford, MA 01886
