On 08/08/2013 02:04 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 8, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
We might reach consensus that it's OK to release change control over
the Tao (although I'm not sure I agree with that - what's so hard about
keeping it under an
On 08/08/2013 02:49 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 8, 2013, at 2:21 PM, Jorge Contreras cntre...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, verbatim translations are already allowed under the existing IETF
document license. It's other modifications that are not allowed under IETF, but
which CC-BY would
On 08/06/2013 01:46 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Aug 6, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Hadriel Kaplan hadriel.kap...@oracle.com wrote:
If the problem is we don't know who's speaking, then fix that problem. In WGs I go to,
both the WG chairs and the jabber scribes regularly yell NAME! if someone forgets to
say
On 08/06/2013 12:58 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
For what it's worth (not much) I would miss the line at the mic. There are
useful conversations that happen within the line that I think we would lose if
the mic followed the speaker
If the conversations are useful, should they not be happening as
On 08/06/2013 01:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 08/06/2013 01:46 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Aug 6, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Hadriel Kaplan hadriel.kap...@oracle.com
wrote:
If the problem is we don't know who's speaking, then fix that
problem. In WGs I go to, both the WG chairs and the jabber scribes
On 07/20/2013 01:48 PM, Andrew Allen wrote:
I think IANA registration of namespaces has a lot of value.
I think backfilling registrations for poached identifiers sets a
bad/dangerous example.
Doug (not necessarily speaking with any hats, current or former)
On 07/20/2013 03:48 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I think IANA registration of namespaces has a lot of value.
let me ask the other side of the coin, in this case, what harm will be
done by not making this an rfc and registering the imei uri?
None, because we lost the battle over protocol parameter
, for better or worse. :) BIND's implementation also starts off
with a reasonable default list of delegation-only domains, and allows
you to customize the list.
... which is an excellent example of market forces influencing software
development.
At 20:14 14-07-2013, Doug Barton wrote
On 07/12/2013 02:40 PM, John R Levine wrote:
Point your browser at http://dk/ or http://tm/ and see what happens.
As John points out, the ccTLDs are already doing this. ICANN has no
authority to tell the ccTLDs NOT to do it, thus restricting the gTLDs
from doing it (via their contract with
On 07/14/2013 08:25 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 7/14/2013 8:14 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
It is unarguably true that as things currently stand there will be
problems with dotless domains. How widespread, and how serious those
problems become is yet to be seen. However it is also unarguably true
On 07/03/2013 05:20 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
C: does my appeal look more like the club of 3, or the club of 11?
I think there's a new club of one.
Wait, so now instead of voting we're using clubs? I think I need to pay
more attention to this thread ...
On 06/29/2013 05:28 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Yet.
PS: I probably should have added a :-) to that. Sorry, it's early, the
brain's not firing on all cylinders yet, and I was so entranced by the chance
to set the record for the shortest
On 06/27/2013 02:50 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hello,
RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet
Architecture Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled.
draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility
In English as it is commonly spoken recommended, and should do
indeed mean different things. Arguably it's unfortunate that 2119
conflated them, but that's the landscape we're living in.
So if the question is, How do we improve the normative language in
RFCs? we should probably be thinking
On 06/20/2013 09:36 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:17:16AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
So some review of the DNSEXT-specified procedures and
expectations may be in order.
I encourage you, then, to organize the BOF session that will spin up
the WG to achieve this.
On 06/20/2013 10:27 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:04:54AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
Perhaps we could have a non-WG mailing list so that people could
submit proposals for review prior to the expert review process.
The WG list isn't going away with the WG. The list
On 06/19/2013 09:45 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:22 AM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't know about that one. In the US, at least, legal mandates
have typically led social change, at least when it comes to civil
rights, etc.
Yup. First the Civil Rights act,
On 06/19/2013 11:11 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 6/19/13 10:03 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
Short version, if everyone does what they can to encourage diverse
participation, we won't need legislation to fix the problem.
I'd like it if that were true but I don't think it is. For example
On 06/19/2013 11:40 AM, Aaron Yi DING wrote:
On 19/06/13 21:16, Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/19/2013 11:11 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 6/19/13 10:03 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
Short version, if everyone does what they can to encourage diverse
participation, we won't need legislation to fix
On 06/19/2013 12:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/19/13 1:12 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
We can point to all kinds of examples that are outside the IETF of where
various biases exist. It's not at all clear that the existence of those
problems elsewhere corresponds to any actual problem within
On 06/19/2013 11:31 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 6/19/13 10:16 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
It's not clear to me how this example relates to the IETF.
Even in fields in which the overwhelming majority of
practitioners, the majority of people in leadership or
management positions are men.
So again
On 06/19/2013 12:21 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jun 19, 2013, at 10:12 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
wrote:
We can point to all kinds of examples that are outside the IETF of where
various biases exist. It's not at all clear that the existence of those
problems elsewhere corresponds
On 06/19/2013 05:09 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 6/19/13 2:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/19/2013 11:31 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
Even in fields in which the overwhelming majority of
practitioners, the majority of people in leadership or
management positions are men.
So again, it's not at all
On 06/19/2013 10:13 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
It seems as though participants in this thread are operating
with different understandings of what constitutes institutional
bias. A critical difference is whether *intent* is necessary
for bias to exist. As I understand it, institutional bias
On 06/11/2013 10:43 AM, John Levine wrote:
So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because
some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough,
can those objections again be raised in IETF LC or are they set in stone?
If that were ever to happen, I don't
On 06/11/2013 11:02 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jun 11, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
wrote:
The flip side of that argument is that we don't want to assume
working groups are infallible, or more importantly not subject to
the groupthink phenomenon. Otherwise what is IETF LC
On 05/31/2013 09:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
It was more complicated. I was actually running a team that ran site
network ops at the time, and (since DHCP was not yet deployable),
IPv4 was then a serious nuisance to manage, compared say to Novell
Netware and, even, Appletalk. There were good
While it's unlikely that I would be able to attend, I think it's an
excellent idea for reasons already better stated by others, and BA is a
very nice city.
The only suggestion I might add that I haven't seen mentioned yet (and
pardon me if I missed it) would be to perhaps schedule the meeting
On 05/24/2013 11:21 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
The consistent feedback regarding non-conflict as long as I been
involved in this tends to indicate otherwise. 18-months to 2 years seems
much more reasonable to me personally.
Joel,
You're making several fundamental mistakes in your thinking.
On 05/24/2013 11:29 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
probably because I've been involved in the planning loop since 44.
... and you're also involved in planning for LACNIC, LACTLD, LACNOG, and
every other regional organization in Latin America that might be
interested in running their meeting before
On 05/21/2013 12:08 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Without responding in detail to John's note, I'll say that I agree
substantially with the notion that the fact that someone manages to get
a protocol name or number registered, should not be any kind of
justification for standardization of a document
On 05/05/2013 11:06 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
Subject: Re: A note about draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis Date: Sun, May 05, 2013 at
11:01:02PM -0400 Quoting Scott Kitterman (sc...@kitterman.com):
Personally, I'm quite surprised that doubling the DNS queries associated with
SPF for the foreseeable
On 05/03/2013 02:22 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
GEN-ART is a good example, but actual document editing is much more work
and arguably, less rewarding than a review. So I think this can only
succeed with professional (=paid) editors.
I'm not sure that's the right conclusion to draw.
In the past I
Andrew (and Pete, since he raised a similar issue),
On 05/02/2013 12:50 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Doug,
No hat.
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:22:03PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
Given that you can be 100% confident that the issue will be raised
during IETF LC, wouldn't it be better to hash
On 5/2/2013 9:02 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
If anyone has any objection I suggest raising it during the Last Call.
Given that you can be 100% confident that the issue will be raised
during IETF LC, wouldn't it be better to hash it out in the WG (as we
have attempted to do)? Or is the WG's
On 04/30/2013 09:28 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
While it's too late for SPF, we can learn this lesson.
As has been repeatedly pointed out in the discussion on both dnsext and
spfbis, it is NOT too late for SPF. The way forward is simple:
1. Publish the bis draft which says for senders to
On 04/03/2013 05:01 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Apr 3, 2013, at 6:16 PM, Dean Willis dean.wil...@softarmor.com wrote:
I've tried to imagine using Facebook-like system for IETF work, and it is
strangely compelling ...
It would, however, be nice if it were peer-to-peer rather than monolithic.
On 03/30/2013 11:26 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
IPv6 makes publishing IP address reputations impractical. Since IP address
reputation has been a primary method for identifying abusive sources with IPv4,
imposing ineffective and flaky replacement strategies has an effect of
deterring IPv6
On 03/28/2013 08:29 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
IPv6 makes publishing IP address reputations impractical.
For individual addresses, sure. But one of the (if not *the*) primary
benefits of v4 reputation is the test of whether or not the address is
in a botnet range (aka, ranges assigned to
On 03/19/2013 11:48 AM, John Levine wrote:
In article 51489888.6050...@internet2.edu you write:
I want my badge to have my name and a small screen showing the room I
just came from.
I want the screen to show the room I'm going to next. And it should
be upside down so I can read it.
And a
On 03/17/2013 08:20 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
If the
confirming body knows things about a candidate that were not
available to the Nomcom, then it should apply that knowledge.
And, if the confirming body sees something in whatever the
Nomcom chooses to tell it about qualifications/expectations
On 03/17/2013 04:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, March 17, 2013 15:52 -0700 Doug Barton
do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 03/17/2013 08:20 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
If the
confirming body knows things about a candidate that were not
available to the Nomcom, then it should apply
On 03/01/2013 12:13 PM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Hi John,
--On March 1, 2013 7:13:44 PM + John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
Florida will be at UTC-4 (which we call EDT) as of early Sunday
morning, so a meeting at noon in Florida any day of IETF 86 will
be at 0800 UTC.
Yow - wrong way around.
On 03/01/2013 12:20 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 03/01/2013 12:13 PM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Hi John,
--On March 1, 2013 7:13:44 PM + John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
Florida will be at UTC-4 (which we call EDT) as of early Sunday
morning, so a meeting at noon in Florida any day of IETF 86
On 02/26/2013 02:49 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly.
+1
The deadline originated because the secretariat needed time to post all of
those drafts (by
On 02/11/2013 08:34 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
WG meetings should not, in general, be used for presentations. They
should primarily be used for discussions. Presentations are largely a
waste of precious WG time.
It is sometimes possible to prepare slides to help facilitate
discussions. But
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/07/2013 08:56 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
| I am setting a deadline for slides for IETF86 for my WG, and I will
| be doing a unified slide deck.
Does that mean all slides from all presentations in 1 deck? If that's
offered as a bonus
On 12/04/2012 09:59 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
The concept is simple: a time-specific gather is a meeting. Meetings
require prior announcement beyond the working group.
I am not against a meeting announcement. I am suggesting to announce the
meeting where the audience is -- in the
On 11/01/2012 01:58 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Russ Housley and Ray Pelletier were able to visit Marshall at his home last
Friday. They discussed the situation with Marshall including describing the
discussion on the IETF list. He confirmed he had not been reading his email
since early August
On 10/26/2012 12:20 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 25/10/2012 19:40, Doug Barton wrote:
On 10/25/2012 12:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 24/10/2012 20:34, Doug Barton wrote: ...
... Nothing in the text suggests an unfettered right of
creating new definitions of vacant.
You mean, new
On 10/25/2012 12:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 24/10/2012 20:34, Doug Barton wrote:
...
... Nothing in the text suggests an
unfettered right of creating new definitions of vacant.
You mean, new compared to the first definition in Merriam-Webster.com?
1: not occupied by an incumbent
On 10/25/2012 9:57 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 25, 2012, at 16:37, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
retro-active
I don't get how that is relevant.
This is for the case the seat is still vacant when the new process comes into
force.
When Marshall was appointed the rules we
On 10/25/2012 12:05 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 25, 2012, at 20:52, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 10/25/2012 9:57 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 25, 2012, at 16:37, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
retro-active
I don't get how that is relevant
On 10/25/2012 11:57 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
When Marshall was appointed the rules we have now were in place. To
change the rules now, and then apply them to this situation is by
definition retroactive.
By that logic, _any_ change to any rule
On 10/25/2012 12:21 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 10/25/12 11:13 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
First, I disagree with your belief that what you propose would not be
retroactive. Second, it's worth pointing out that if the IAOC put an
equal amount of effort into the recall procedure, the problem would
On 10/25/2012 12:34 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 25, 2012, at 21:20, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
_punitive_
Again, you are confused. This action is not about punishing an
individual, and I would be violently opposed to it if it were.
Removal from office _is_ considered
On 10/25/2012 1:26 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
Removal from office _is_ considered a punitive action
Noel, you have a very bad habit of replying to snippets out of context.
Personally I don't appreciate it, as the snippet above could lead
someone to believe
On 10/24/2012 5:49 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
On Oct 24, 2012, at 1:01 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
I get what you're saying, but this is one of those times where
(arguably for the better) we've created a difficult procedure that
should be infrequently exercised. We should follow the procedure
On 10/23/2012 11:42 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net
The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a
vacancy that the IAOC feels is not adequately covered by existing IETF
rules.
I'm not sure why the IAOC thinks
On 10/23/2012 12:21 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
It is neither safe, nor appropriate, to assume that the subset of
people humming about this issue overlaps sufficiently with the subset
that hummed about establishing the procedure
On 10/23/2012 01:07 PM, David Kessens wrote:
Doug,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:26:58PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
You're not proposing a change in procedure. You're proposing to ignore
one.
No procedure is ignored.
That is a matter of interpretation.
BCP 101 does not define the rules
First in regards to Bob's post a bit ago, I personally am not asserting
that the IAOC has broken any rules. I was sincere in my applause for
their requesting feedback on this question; in spite of the fact that I
disagree with their premise.
On 10/23/2012 2:32 PM, John Leslie wrote:
Doug Barton
On 10/23/2012 8:47 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Let me get this straight: for the sake of procedures that are clearly
designed to be hard to use,
While I think that 3777 probably errs on the side of too hard to use,
recalling someone from one of these positions _should_ be hard to do,
and should
On 10/23/2012 9:51 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
On 10/24/12 6:23 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
With respect, you haven't spent much time with either the ITU or ICANN
if you think that 3777 is rigidly bureaucratic by their standards.
This is one of those situations where we have to take our medicine. Doug
On 8/8/2012 6:40 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Imagine my surprise when I just discovered this actually exists
To the extent that anything on wikipedia actually exists ... :)
--
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do
something. And I will not let what I cannot
On 08/07/2012 00:46, Martin Rex wrote:
IPv6 PA prefixes result in that awkward renumbering.
Avoiding the renumbering implies provider independent
network prefix.
ULA on the inside + https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296
--
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do
On 08/07/2012 09:51 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 5021742a.70...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
On 08/07/2012 00:46, Martin Rex wrote:
IPv6 PA prefixes result in that awkward renumbering.
Avoiding the renumbering implies provider independent
network prefix.
ULA on the inside
On 08/07/2012 10:19 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 5021742a.70...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
On 08/07/2012 00:46, Martin Rex wrote:
IPv6 PA prefixes result in that awkward renumbering.
Avoiding the renumbering implies provider independent
network prefix.
ULA
On 8/2/2012 1:24 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 11:44 AM, j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote:
we should instead focus on the ways that the technical architecture of
the Internet creates control points that are vulnerable to capture and
consider ways in which those
On 8/2/2012 2:53 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
The whole concept of a global network, with no centralized control, that
permits (nay, encourages) the free flow of information is anathema to
many national governments. They are desperate to choke
On 05/16/2012 06:59, Barry Leiba wrote:
In fact, RFC 2119 says that the normative keywords are often
capitalized, but doesn't require that they be.
Standards should be written in such a way as to remove as much ambiguity
as possible, not show how clever we are. That allowance in 2119 was a
On 5/10/2012 1:48 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
What I dispute is that make available to those who are interested
necessarily leads to the need to broadcast the data (i.e. publish in the
proceedings).
What is the harm you are trying to guard against by requiring the request?
Or, to take a
On 05/06/2012 03:54 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Doug:
- Discard paper blue sheets after scanning.
Everything else seems fine, but I'm concerned about this one. Have you
run this idea past some sort of legal counsel who is knowledgeable about
intellectual property litigation? If so, no
On 05/06/2012 09:46, IETF Chair wrote:
- Discard paper blue sheets after scanning.
Everything else seems fine, but I'm concerned about this one. Have you
run this idea past some sort of legal counsel who is knowledgeable about
intellectual property litigation? If so, no worries.
Doug
--
On 02/28/2012 15:06, John R. Levine wrote:
In your little dialog, the boss was entirely reasonable -- the practical
benefit from implementing SPF records would be zip.
Or, put more simply, your conclusion seems to be that we can never add
new RRs. Given that adding new RRs is crucial to the
On 03/02/2012 09:00, John R. Levine wrote:
By the way, what's your opinion of draft-levine-dnsextlang-02?
It isn't clear to me what problem you're trying to solve. For resolving
name servers 3597 should be enough. For authoritative name servers your
idea is sort of interesting, but generally
On 03/02/2012 10:34, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
The point of my draft is that it's an extension language that
both name servers and provisioning systems can read on the fly.
Add a new stanza to /etc/rrtypes and you're done, no software
upgrades
On 03/02/2012 10:48, John R. Levine wrote:
Skipping over all the parts I agree with, and noting that two decades of
telling people to upgrade their DNS servers frequently hasn't worked, we
get to ...
I'll also add one more point based on my experience with DNS
provisioning system UI design,
On 2/27/2012 5:56 PM, John Levine wrote:
The problem is provisioning software. We weenies can stuff anything
into our DNS servers we want, because we use vi and emacs and (in my
case) custom perl scripts. For the other 99.5% of the world, what
they can put in their DNS zones is limited to
On 2/27/2012 11:57 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
To accommodate user interface limitations, the RFC that defined SPF (2006)
included use of TXT as a backup to enable a period of transition.
Collected evidence shows that a lot of clients do query the type, but fewer
than 5% of
On 02/24/2012 07:38, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 01:54:32PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 4f46bfdf.3070...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
2782 was published 12 years ago this month. I suppose it can be
considered mature enough to deploy at this point
On 02/23/2012 13:51, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
Old news perhaps, but an unavoidable consequence of this is that the
oft-repeated assertions that various systems have been IPv6 ready for over 10
years don't involve a useful definition of the term ready.
The OP specified IPv4 only
I don't *quite* go back 2 decades, but a big +1 to all my experiences
with bolt-on security have been bad.
Doug
On 02/23/2012 10:00, Leif Sawyer wrote:
I've got the last 2 decades of experience trying to deal with security on the
network.
95% is dealing with the peculiarities of the
For my money it would be quite important for an HTTP 2.0 definition to
make SRV DNS records a full-fledged participant in the standard. Minimum
once a month there is someone asking for help on bind-users@ for which
the answer is, The solution to that _would_ be SRV records, if they
were supported.
On 02/23/2012 14:48, Ned Freed wrote:
On 02/23/2012 13:51, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
Old news perhaps, but an unavoidable consequence of this is that the
oft-repeated assertions that various systems have been IPv6 ready for over
10
years don't involve a useful definition of the term
On 02/14/2012 17:26, Pete Resnick wrote:
Of course it will be used as 1918 space. That's not the point of the text.
My first reply in this most recent version of the thread pointed out
that now that we're finally willing to admit that if a new block is
issued it will be used as 1918 space then
On 02/12/2012 13:34, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
there _is_ a cost, the cost of not being able to allocate unique
address space when there is a more legitimate need than the proposed
wasting of an entire /10 to please those who did not do
On 02/13/2012 12:45, David Conrad wrote:
On Feb 13, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
If an ISP can't use a shared block, they'll go ask their RIR for
a block - and given that they demonstrably have the need (lots of
customers), they will get it. Multiply than by N providers
On 02/13/2012 13:46, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
I haven't kept up to date on all of the RIRs' policies for granting
requests, but I don't recall seeing give me a huge block so that I
can do CGN as one of the established criteria.
An ISP
On 02/11/2012 04:52, Ralph Droms wrote:
On Feb 11, 2012, at 12:27 AM 2/11/12, Doug Barton wrote:
Ok, let's go with that. We already have a way to make collisions
very unlikely, don't use either of 192.168.[01]. Fortunately this
method doesn't require allocation of a new block.
But, what
On 02/10/2012 07:47, Chris Donley wrote:
Please remember that this draft is in support of ARIN Draft Policy 2011-5.
Partially, sure. But RFCs apply to the whole Internet.
IMO, an IETF RFC is not the correct place to tell ARIN or other RIRs how
to allocate space;
I'm not going to parse the
On 02/10/2012 10:22, Chris Grundemann wrote:
This is not about IPv4 life-support.
Seriously?
This is about providing the best answer to a difficult problem.
The best answer is to make sure that CPEs that will be doing CGN can
handle the same 1918 space inside the user network and at the CGN
On 02/10/2012 15:42, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 2/9/12 10:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
As I (and many others) remain opposed to this entire concept I think
it's incredibly unfortunate that the IESG has decided to shift the topic
of conversation from whether this should happen to how it should
On 02/10/2012 16:12, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 15:13, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 02/10/2012 10:22, Chris Grundemann wrote:
This is not about IPv4 life-support.
Seriously?
Seriously.
The birth of a shared CGN space in no significant way extends
Thanks for your response, mine is below, with snipping.
On 02/10/2012 19:19, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 2/10/12 3:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 02/10/2012 15:42, Pete Resnick wrote:
I expect there will be clarifications as per the earlier messages in
this thread: This is *not* to be used
On 02/10/2012 20:04, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
My point is that no matter how loudly you say, Don't use this as
1918 space! some users will do it anyway.
And if they do, any problem that results is _their_ problem.
You snipped the bit
On 02/10/2012 20:44, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
You snipped the bit of the my post that you're responding to where I
specifically disallowed this as a reasonable argument.
What an easy way to win a debate: 'I hereby disallow the following
On 2/9/2012 10:02 AM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
Or, the way I read you, you tell us that this entire document isn't
relevant anymore.
It cover something called whitelisting that were in use for a short
periode of time for reason no one in a few year can understand as
relevant?
+1
--
On 01/30/2012 15:03, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared CGN Space'
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14.txt as a BCP
On its December 15, 2011 telechat, the IESG
On 12/05/2011 18:11, Greg Daley wrote:
The assumption that information is present only within the IP address is
erroneous.
This has been studied for mobile IPv6 users as well, and there is information
leakage up and down the stack.
We have local source address selection mechanisms in
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
