On Mar 11, 2008, at 2:31 PM, Ofer Inbar wrote:
Subject: IPv6 only Plenary Makes the News
Isn't that just a press release from ISOC, being distributed by wire
services online?
That's why they say they are making the news.
Carl
___
IETF mailing
Hi Brian -
Thanks for the shout out ... I blogged the whole thing at the
time if anybody is interested:
http://museum.media.org/eti
Regards,
Carl
I think we should give credit to Carl Malamud and Tony Rutkowski,
whe spent many months in Geneva at least ten years ago, sowing
Hi -
I actually think the question of how a namespace is to be administered
is a perfectly valid one for the IETF to consider if it impacts the
performance or functionality of a protocol.
We do that all the time when we give explicit instructions to the IANA
in an IANA Considerations
Hi Ted -
I've tried to stay out of this, since there has been too much comment.
But, I'd like to amplify your point and some others I've heard.
1. I'm offended by Todd's repeated implication that Brian has lied
to the IETF. That is an ad hominen attack and goes well beyond
the stated purpose
IMHO, fighting the messenger is not the proper solution to the
problem.
The messenger accused the IETF chair of lying. That is totally
inappropriate behavior.
Carl
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
As for traditional mathematical notation, I think resorting to it for
all but the simplest formulas, e.g. y =(m * x) + b), often
does a grave disservice to all readers who are not mathematicians.
RFC authors MUST NOT use calculus or matrix algebra. Addition and
subtraction MAY be expressed as
I could not agree with John more on the desirablilty of a tighter definition
of PDF and the reasonableness of plates in the back.
The problem with tightly defining which piece of PDF you will support is
that most clients don't give the user choice on what they do. A user
gets a export to PDF
Hi -
There's been an awful lot of traffic on this subject, both this time
around and in the perpetual past. My $0.02 is that we're a standards
body and we shouldn't invent a new document profile/standard. That's
not our business, so we should steal code.
We have a home-grown effort done by a
It's worth distinguishing the search for alternate normative output
formats from the search for a standard input format.
Or are you proposing 2629bis as a standard intermediate format, which
makes both camps (input and output) unhappy?
I think we should pick one somewhat complete solution
Hi Jorge -
Take a look at Section 5.4 of RFC 1602, which redefined
the IETF's IP process originally set forth in RFC 1310:
5.4. Rights and Permissions
In the course of standards work, ISOC receives contributions in
various forms and from many persons. To facilitate the
Cookies seem to be a scarce resource, so why not bring your own darn
cookies to the meeting, and you wouldn't have a problem. Seriously, stop
by a local grocery store, and plop down $3 and buy whatever kind of
cookies make you the most happy. Aggravation avoided.
That's a very
Hi Brian -
I understand the difficulty of adding too many constraints to the
scheduling process, but I'd like to point out that particpants in
events such as AFNOG and AfriNIC meetings don't necessarily all
come from Africa. In fact, strong participation from other
regions is one of the most
...
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The comments on http are rather amusing when you consider we spent the next
five years trying to act on them.
At the time the CERN connection to the internet was a T1.
Er, the CERN connection to the NSFnet was a T1, or possibly an E1 by then.
CERN
But I do not believe that the concept of an RFC Editor that is
independent of the IETF is a sustainable model at this time.
Harald
I think a degree of independence is an important part of the
checks and balances that have been established and is necessary
to attract a
Harald (who has only public knowledge at this point)
There isn't much secret knowledge... but as an IAOC member,
I feel we've been told by the community to seek multiple proposals
when possible and appropriate, and in any case to be as transparent
as possible in the process.
If we consolidate too much, we cease to be an association of
individuals working together to produce a rough consensus and
working code and begin to resemble a corporate hierarchy.
No knowledgeable individual would ever assert that the IETF is anywhere
near as efficient as a
Hi Leslie -
It would be really helpful to understand what the RFC Editor
thinks of this proposed charter. Have you run it by them and
what was their reaction?
It would be equally helpful to understand where the IAB/IAOC
is going with this ... are there plans to rebid the contract
to another
Carl -- did you get the other message (the one with
the timeline)?
Yes, I did. Not having been party to the discussions, I'm
not quite sure what is going on. We did a sole source
re-assignment of the IETF secretariat. As I said in my
note, I'm curious about:
1. the opinion from the
It's been pointed out that the note to DoC was actually sent by
the IAB and the IETF *Chair* not the IETF as whole.
Obviously, the timescale of this RFI was too short for the
IETF as a whole to debate a response. In fact, it was even too short
for us to spot this nit.
Or to run a spell
Hi -
I'm conducting an informal, non-scientific survey with the aim of trying
to understand within an order of magnitude how much it costs folks to
contribute to open source software.
If any of you have 30 seconds and feel like answering 3 questions, please
mail your responses back to me.
Randall's method works, or you can do what the readme suggests:
rfc ipr='full3978' docName='draft-mrose-writing-rfcs-01'
see:
http://xml.resource.org/authoring/draft-mrose-writing-rfcs.html#ipr
Regards,
Carl
Dear all:
I recently submitted a draft to the ietf repository and got
this
Hi -
I think a research request to study how protocols are designed and features
added over time deserves a more accurate answer than an official
incantation of they're gone.
Try this site:
http://www.watersprings.org/
You'll find all drafts and diff's between them.
Regards,
Carl
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:23:55PM -0800, Carl Malamud wrote:
My fishing expedition is this:
Have other people received a lot of these when did you first
queries? If so, would you send me a private note? I promise not
to use your name without your permission
I'm conducting research for a new project, and am on a fishing expedition.
From time to time, I get notes from people who are lawyers or work for
lawyers asking questions in the form when did you first do foo where,
in my case, foo is usually something invented by one of my distinguished
As for presentations, the fact that they vary in quality can't be
blamed on PPT. It should be blamed on the presenters, perhaps.
Brian
Edward Tufte makes a very convincing case that in the case of
powerpoint, the medium certainly influences the message:
Summary of Tufte's views in
In section 3, the draft hijacks local.. Not _local. or
local.arpa., but local..
hijacks is the wrong word. stuart asked long and hard for a forward-name
that was nonuniversal in the way that rfc1918 addresses are, and finally he
did what a lot of people do when faced with entrenched
A very simple solution would be to write the documents in French :-)
That would be illegal. ;)
Carl
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Merci bien pour votre suggestions ... JSPF (Je suis pas francais). :))
Regards,
Carl
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
This is an interesting proposal, however I would suggest that
the grammatical mistakes relative to the french language
and the cultural references be fixed.
Hi Brian -
I read the first draft of this document, and wondered:
Does this propose to change IETF behavior on list management, so that the
name of the list (usually same as working group) is not put in the Subject:
using the feature of mailman that does this?
That isn't the specific
Hi -
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt says:
Internet-Drafts must be in ASCII. No 8bit chars are currently allowed.
If you need to include codepoints, a suggestion might be to use the
unicode convention: U+, where X is a hexadecimal digit.
So, for the quotes, if retaining
Hi Leslie -
For myself, I find the arguments on both sides of controlled
and managed to be compelling -- perhaps because I am not a
lawyer.
Finding both sides compelling makes you very qualified
to be a lawyer. ;)
snip
So, if the token really doesn't mean anything (per Jorge) because
Hi -
If anybody has problem reading .doc files, here is a version in pdf:
http://public.resource.org/adminrest/IETF-IASA-BCP-v6.pdf
Regards,
Carl
Per Harald's request, ISOC's legal counsel reviewed the latest
version of the IASA BCP and suggested a number of minor changes.
These changes
Hi Bob -
Since I examined some of the issues you raise in some depth as part of
my consulting engagement, I thought I could provide some useful background
on some of the points you raise.
For those who are interested, I looked at these issues in two reports:
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Margaret Wasserman
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 01:47
To: Lynn St.Amour; Carl Malamud; Tom Petch
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Lynn DuVal; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC
Standards
and the IETF
community) between themselves.
Margaret
At 11:43 AM -0800 1/20/05, Carl Malamud wrote:
Hi -
I agree with Tom that this is kind of confused, and I think there is some
potential fast and loose use of the language of accountancy. :))
I think the vague term accounts
Hi Tom -
Ah ships in the night; yes, Carl, I think this is the best wording so
far.
Two queries in my mind. Looking at the ISOC Report 2003, I notice it
uses revenue rather than income that you use; is there any hidden
meaning in that? eg because it is incorporated as a nonprofit
Hi -
I agree with Tom that this is kind of confused, and I think there is some
potential fast and loose use of the language of accountancy. :))
I think the vague term accounts is just fine for the purpose we are
engaged in. I think all we're trying to say is that the ietf community
would like
Carl Malamud wrote:
The one thing that I agree sticks out is that the language of 3777 talks
about firing *one* person - in the case where the group is dysfunctional,
it may be better to take the group out, as you say.
I think if there is enough momentum to engage in these procedures
The one thing that I agree sticks out is that the language of 3777 talks
about firing *one* person - in the case where the group is dysfunctional,
it may be better to take the group out, as you say.
I think if there is enough momentum to engage in these procedures, it won't
be hard to take
I agree with Scott on this one. In-kind contributions are great if they
have a real purpose, which in this case it means the folks responsible for
deploying the contribution have to agree it is worth the trouble.
Another example is somebody accepting a bunch of equipment for use in
the next IETF
John makes a very good point. I prefer to think of these types of
documents as a Request for Information (RFI), which is a common
contracting mechanism. It allows vendors to make general presentations
about their capabilities, and that allows the host institution to
put together a short list of
Hi Spencer -
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
Hi John -
Your note seems like an outlier. In particular, it takes a really
*strong* stance on protecting people from each other because
people *will* act badly. For example, the way I read your
note, the IESG will
Hi John -
Your note seems like an outlier. In particular, it takes a really
*strong* stance on protecting people from each other because
people *will* act badly. For example, the way I read your
note, the IESG will micromanage and the IASA/IAD will order
bagels flown in daily from New York.
Hi John -
(i) the IESG, or the IESG's leadership, is likely to micromanage
because it has tended to micromanage, or try to do so, many of
the things it has touched in the last several years -- the
secretariat, the content of various documents down to the
editorial level, the RFC Editor, and
Well, I'd like to suggest that we should decide not to decide
at this time. It is a low-level issue compared to getting the
BCP to a point of consensus and keeping to the schedule for
creating the IASA. As a survivor of many ISOC Board discussions
on such issues, I can tell you we aren't
Hi Leslie -
There's something I'm not quite understanding, and I was wondering if others
might share my confusion.
I can think of two reasons why taking small targeted donations is bad:
1. It's a pain to administer and account for.
2. It screws up the overall marketing plan in some way (e.g.,
Pete -
This debate between John and Pete seems to be at such an abstract
meta level to me, that I have difficulty to try and see what it
means for the IAS BCP doc that I thinkwe are trying to get consensus
on.
As I said, it could be just me, but I seem unable to map it to any
issue(s)
On 2004/12/07, Bob Kahn wrote:
I think it fair to state in the document what the IETF thinks appropriate
for it to manage its own affairs going forward, but one of the matters we
will have to work out is the fact that there is considerable IP generated
over the past almost twenty years. At
6. The IASA, on behalf of the IETF, shall have an irrevocable,
permanent right of access and later use to all data created
in support of the IETF's activities, including
the right to disclose it to other parties of its choosing.
...
Reasonable, but I want to be
It's kind of a good fences makes good neighbors kind of thing.
but Frost was arguing just the reverse
http://www.bartleby.com/118/2.html
(in case anyone is confused - in pointing the above out I am not
saying anything about the need for a Pre-nup agreement in this case -
just
The specific term is work for hire. All data, created software, etc must
be considered the result of work for hire and as such is the property of
ISOC in trust for the IETF.
I agree, and would simply add whenever possible. Remember, this is
not the contract, it is guidance to the folks
Yes. I have a feeling that even with the BCP approved by the IESG
and by an ISOC Board motion, we would still need a piece of paper with
ink signatures - it might only say that the IETF and ISOC agree to the
terms of the BCP - it might also contain termination clauses about
money and IPR, if
Works for me to.
Harald suggests
Suggested edit: Change
Note that the goal is to achieve and maintain a viable IETF support
function based on meeting fees and designated donations. The IETF
community expects the IAOC and ISOC to work together to attain that goal,
and
2.2.6 currently reads:
The right to use any intellectual property rights created by any IASA-related
or
IETF activity may not be withheld or limited in any way by ISOC from the IETF.
You could simply append:
As a matter of principle the IAOC and IAD should ensure that any contracts
for
Scott -
I did postfix whenever possible and prefix as a matter of
principle ... this simply says if you're not going to do it
that way, please have a reason.
Regards,
Carl
Carl suggests:
2.2.6 currently reads:
The right to use any intellectual property rights created by any
At 3:41 PM +0100 12/1/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yes, I've always assumed there will be an MOU between IETF and ISOC,
both to recognize the BCP when we have it, and to make explicit some
of these boundary conditions.
This is interesting, because I had not assumed that there would be a
As the maintainer of the Linksys Blue Box Router HOWTO, I am quite well
aware of this fact. And if my objective were to have exciting adventures
in system and network administration, I would have reflashed my Linksys
long since.
I don't want to have exciting adventures in system and
in these principles I have not directly addressed the feeling of some
people that the IETF needs to be able to blow the bolts (as I put it
a while back) with the ISOC quickly if things go bad in some way. I
have not done so not because I want to dismiss or ignore such feelings
but because I
There is an obvious question that at least for me drives the answer to
whther the IAD is the IETF Executive Director.
As currently practiced / defined, is the IETF Executive Director a full
time job?
Scott Bradner could probably answer more definitively, but I believe
our process
That seems simple enough when put that way ... then leave the executive director
totally out of this BCP or specify that the IESG names that person. No need to
pussy-foot around the issue. :)
Carl
Carl == Carl Malamud [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Carl It seems to me that one
I actually think everybody is in agreement. The ceo definitely
does the budget. There is no doubt about it. And, the paragraph
you quoted was actually one that is fine as is.
But, there are a few places in section 3, as Bernard pointed out,
that we're making some unnecessary distinctions
Bernard -
Good comments. I went back and re-read section 3, and I agree
that it is somewhat unclear. (That's sometimes good, of course,
but probably not in this case).
From what I read, the idea is that the IAOC sets policy: it
has a large say in how finances are done, reporting to the IAOC
is
this is far to proscriptive - I do not think that the authors of this
document or the general IETF community are accounts - lets establish the
requirement that funds be available when needed but not try to dictate
the best way for that to be done - let the accountants figure that out
I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
one example from section 3.1 -
Although the approval of the ISOC President/CEO or ISOC Board of
Trustees may be required for some contracts, their review should be
limited to protecting ISOC's liabilities and financial stability.
[many other
Hi -
I'm not aiming this note at anybody in particular, but I sense some
confusion about some basic accounting principles. I hope nobody
will be offended by a brief tutorial.
An income statement shows expenses and revenues over a period of time,
often one year. When I hear full allocation of
This relates to my previous comment in response to Geoff. It's
all about how to smooth cash flow, given that both income and
outgoings are bumpy.
If, in practice, some help from the IASA account is needed to smooth
ISOC's cash flow temporarily, that is fine by me but I'd like it
to be
The second paragraph in this section says:
If ISOC directly funds any other IETF expenses, such as the IETF
share of ISOC's liability insurance premium, this will be documented
together with the other IASA accounts.
I'm not really sure what this means...
There are some
Hi Michael -
I actually looked at this issue in drafting this report. bcp8 seems to
place the irtf in the inner ietf circle (e.g., iesg, iab, etc...).
And, as Harald notes, their support needs are fairly minor. So,
I lumped their funding needs in the misc. category of the ietf
financials.
We
This is one of my more general objections to the report -- in
areas like the personnel one and how staffing roles are
presented, it appears (intentionally or not) to be organized in
such a way as to impede community understanding of what is being
proposed.
I'm not sure what you're
John -
Would it be fair to summarize your note by saying it is a
lightweight scenario A? E.g., simply take one action: hire
an administrative director for the IETF and have that person
live at ISOC. RFPs, budgets, etc... will all flow out of that
initital action and there is no need for a
making is, imho, an important one,
and I'm trying to translate that into terms that I
can understand, which is what specific actions might be
taken.
Regards,
Carl
--On Wednesday, 15 September, 2004 06:59 -0700 Carl Malamud
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John -
Would it be fair
So, if be specific about what this job is about is going to be
delegated from community review and approval of a proposal that
is presumably based on Carl's report to a team that writes a
job description, then I think the community needs to review and
approve that job description before any
Hi John -
At the risk of being too specific about this, the meeting
planning function(s) and the [standards] secretariat one(s)
have almost nothing to do with each other --other than, in our
case, some rather important history.
Agreed, with the addition of Steve Crocker's point about the
Ole -
I agree that the IETF has a special responsibility to properly present
the archive ... we can't simply lay a big ftp directory out there and
make no efforts to show how a particular file fits in context.
On the other hand, ietf.org could certainly beg/borrow/steal some of
the work being
You could do an opt-out period, say 6 months, before publishing
the database. With sufficient publicity, say periodic reposting
of the opt-out announcement on the ietf list, this seems to
strike a balance between the unspecified policy of the past
and a new policy for the future.
This seems
like many things outside the core technical field, these things are hard,
and harder than they look, and hard enough that you need a better lawyer.
as long as IETF remains an unincorporated association, i think you need
every new IESG and IAB member to add their signature to all current MoU's
The thing that left me most uncomfortable with Scenario B as described was
that it presented a smorgasboard of options (here are ten menu choices -
take your pick), where some of them (the MoU) were totally obvious, and
some had (in my mind) severe disadvantages. So we can't say we go for
Harald sed:
scenarios C and D envision incorporating the *support function* for the
IETF. The IETF would remain an undefined entity under these scenarios.
I've had another suggestion that the IETF (the real technical process
entity) should become a formally recognizable
Hi Fred -
If I can have two separate files (a tombstone and a subsequent new file
version) that have the same name, as described in the recent announcement,
I am going to have to figure out a trigger that will tell me that I need to
re-download the file.
Incrementing the number also
Hi -
http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/delegation-only.html
Carl
I've just got to ask... I am seeing news that BIND WILL BE patched with
this kind of support in it.
Is this a sponsored patch, or is it just a random person posting a patch
- that if applied would have this functionality
To build a collection (not an archive) of internet-drafts in RFC2629
format (which is Marshall Rose's format for writing documents in xml
(which is a subset of sgml and a generalization of html)), I'd appreciate
it if people who have such documents would send me mail.
Regards,
Carl Malamud
I hated ITU, but because now I can get ITU documents freely,
Well, I've never hated the ITU, though I'm not sure the feeling is mutual.
I consider myself a long-term friend of this august organization and have
even served in the voluntary Friends of the ITU Auxiliary Standards Corps
82 matches
Mail list logo
