Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)

2008-10-14 Thread Karl Auerbach
Lars Eggert wrote: FYI, there's at least one more proposal in this space: the Ono stuff from Northwestern (http://www.aqualab.cs.northwestern.edu/projects/Ono.html). There was a paper at SIGCOMM this year, and their system has the interesting feature that it simply freeloads of Akamai's DNS

Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

2008-07-07 Thread Karl Auerbach
I guess you've heard the old joke which asks How could God create the world in only seven days? - Because He had no installed base. If we move this thread up one level of abstraction much of the conversation is asking the question of how strongly we respect the installed base of software

Re: Services and top-level DNS names

2008-07-04 Thread Karl Auerbach
John C Klensin wrote: I'm going to try to respond to both your note and Mark's, using yours as a base because it better reflects my perspective. I sense that many of your concerns are well grounded. And I find it interesting that the concerns come not so much from DNS as a system and

Re: Renumbering ... Should we consider an association that spans transports?

2007-09-13 Thread Karl Auerbach
David Conrad wrote: How do you renumber the IP address stored in the struct sockaddr_in in a long running critical application? ... If you had a separation between locator and identifier, the application could bind to the identifier and renumbering events could occur on the locators without

Re: Renumbering ... Should we consider an association that spans transports?

2007-09-13 Thread Karl Auerbach
Tony Li wrote: A key question here is whether the 'association' is a single connection or not. While the association may span the change of underlying infrastructure, the real question is whether it presents a single concatenated transport abstraction or if it's multiple connections. I

Re: Something better than DNS?

2006-11-28 Thread Karl Auerbach
John Levine wrote: As someone noted a few days ago, ICANN and the current roots have yet to address the issues related to IDNs. There's only one significant technical issue, mapping non-unique Unicode strings into unique DNS names There is an ancillary issues that have not, to my knowledge,

Re: Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here)

2004-09-22 Thread Karl Auerbach
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: I think this and a number of other points made here gloss over a key point of which some of the participants may not be aware. Under US law, there is a significant difference between not-for-profit and charitable nonprofit It might be useful to

Re: Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here)

2004-09-22 Thread Karl Auerbach
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Gene Gaines wrote: ISOC is non-profit, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, incorporated in the District of Columbia. I suggest it would be a serious mistake for the IETF not to obtain the same status. There are many kinds of 501(c) exemptions. They all come with different kinds of chains

Re: Is the IANA a function performed by ICANN ?

2004-06-25 Thread Karl Auerbach
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: My understanding was that IANA is a neutral, independent, technical authority the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is a function performed by ICANN. There is a significant lack of clarity in these matters. ICANN has a number of legal

Re: [Ietf] New .mobi, .xxx, ... TLDs?

2004-04-29 Thread Karl Auerbach
So, place your bets on which slippery slopes ICANN takes us down... ICANN loves these sponsored TLDs. It's the only kind they are presently considering. Sponsors generally have the cash needed to cover ICANN's application fee (which is typically on the order of $35,000 to $50,000, and is

Re: national security

2003-12-01 Thread Karl Auerbach
On 1 Dec 2003, Paul Vixie wrote: ICANN's obligation is to guarantee to the public the stability of DNS at the root layer. i disagree... From ICANN's own bylaws: The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is to coordinate, at the overall level, the

Re: national security

2003-11-30 Thread Karl Auerbach
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, vinton g. cerf wrote: I can't seem to recall during my 2 1/2 years on ICANN's board that there ever was any non-trivial discussion, even in the secrecy of the Board's private e-mail list or phone calls, on the matters of IP address allocation or operation of the DNS root

Re: national security

2003-11-29 Thread Karl Auerbach
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Paul Robinson wrote: ... realistically there is only one option left for a single, cohesive Internet to remain whilst taking into account ALL the World's population: ICANN needs to become a UN body. If you look at what ICANN really and truly does you will see that it

Re: national security

2003-11-29 Thread Karl Auerbach
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, vinton g. cerf wrote: I strongly object to your characterization of ICANN as abandoning the operation of roots and IP address allocation. These matters have been the subject of discussion for some time. I can't seem to recall during my 2 1/2 years on ICANN's board that

Re: [Fwd: [Asrg] Verisign: All Your Misspelling Are Belong To Us]

2003-09-16 Thread Karl Auerbach
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Zefram wrote: ... I suggest the following courses of action, to be taken in parallel and immediately: 1. Via ICANN, instruct Verisign to remove the wildcard. It isn't clear that this power is vested in ICANN. There is a complicated arrangement of Cooperative

Re: Pretty clear ... SIP

2003-08-25 Thread Karl Auerbach
It has been my experience that ASN.1, no matter which encoding rules are used, has proven to be a failure and lingering interoperability and denial-of-service disaster. I think the nugget of our discussion is the old, and probably unanswerable, question of what is the proper balance

Re: Pretty clear ... SIP

2003-08-24 Thread Karl Auerbach
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Dean Anderson wrote: H.323 and ASN.1 eventually surpass ... Ummm, based on my own direct experience with ASN.1 since the mid 1980's (X.400, SNMP, CMIP...), I disagree. It has been my experience that ASN.1, no matter which encoding rules are used, has proven to be a failure

Re: re the plenary discussion on partial checksums

2003-07-16 Thread Karl Auerbach
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Keith Moore wrote: so it seems like what we need is a bit in the IP header to indicate that L2 integrity checks are optional A lot of folks seem to forget that from the point of view of IP L2 includes the busses between memory and the L2 network interface. There have been

Re: utility of dynamic DNS

2002-03-01 Thread Karl Auerbach
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, John Stracke wrote: Try this one: while in your hotel room, you see there's something you need to download By the time you get dressed, it's still coming down; and you have to go to a meeting If you're using Mobile IP, you may be able to move from one network to

Re: Example of dns (non) fun

2000-12-04 Thread Karl Auerbach
actually your urls could be: http://www.bq--aduwvya.fr/ http://www.deja.fr/ a application may render the bq--aduwvya.fr as déjà.fr or it may not. Finally it would be up to the URDP process or the courts as to *if* the two domains are the same. We shouldn't worry what the URDP or

Re: Storage over Ethernet/IP

2000-05-26 Thread Karl Auerbach
a. TCP is too CPU intensive and creates too much latency for storage I/O operations. b. The IP stack is too top heavy and processing packet headers is too slow to support storage I/O operations. There were some papers published duing the late '80's or early '90s by John Romkey and I

RE: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated?)

2000-04-25 Thread Karl Auerbach
Turn it any way you want, TCP sessions can only survive renumbering through end to end mechanisms... Which raises the interesting (to me anyway) question: Is there value in considering a new protocol, layered on top of TCP, but beneath new applications, that provides an "association" the life

Re: runumbering (was: Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated?)

2000-04-25 Thread Karl Auerbach
Which raises the interesting (to me anyway) question: Is there value in considering a new protocol, layered on top of TCP, but beneath new applications, that provides an "association" the life of which transcends the TCP transports upon which it is constructed? been there, done that.

Re: prohibiting RFC publication

2000-04-08 Thread Karl Auerbach
I'd like note my agreement with to the comments made by Dave Crocker. And I would like to suggest that there is perhaps yet another aspect of this debate: The IETF recently made a strong moral statement against CALEA. That statement carried weight; it was noticed; it had impact. And that

Re: recommendation against publication of draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt

2000-04-06 Thread Karl Auerbach
I am writing to request that the RFC Editor not publish draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt as an RFC in its current form, for the following reasons: 2. A primary purpose of the NECP protocol appears to be to facilitate the operation of so-called interception proxies. Such proxies violate the

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

2000-01-04 Thread Karl Auerbach
I am glad that NSI has published the I-D for their protocol, now does it need to go beyond that and become an RFC, IMHO, no. Since I-Ds still officially vanish after a while, we need to move it to RFC to maintain its visibility. Let's defer comments on the I-D fade out policy. The IETF