Re: Bruce Schneier's Proposal to dedicate November meeting to saving the Internet from the NSA

2013-09-06 Thread Keith Moore
On 09/06/2013 11:46 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: The threat model isn't really the NSA per se—if they really want to bug you, they will, and you can't stop them, and that's not a uniformly bad thing. I disagree, or at least, I think that your statement conflates two different threat models. One kind

Re: Charging remote participants

2013-08-16 Thread Keith Moore
On 08/16/2013 09:38 AM, Janet P Gunn wrote: ...I want it from people who can't get approval for even a $100 expense, from people who are between jobs, people from academia, and even from just plain ordinary users rather than just vendors or big corps. I agree. The realities of internal

Re: Radical Solution for remote participants

2013-08-16 Thread Keith Moore
On 08/16/2013 04:59 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: Conversely, until the technology gets that good, we must not penalize the face-to-face meeting for failures of the technology. Unfortunately, we've been doing that for many years, e.g. by forcing speakers to queue up at the microphones, and by

Re: Charging remote participants

2013-08-16 Thread Keith Moore
On 08/16/2013 11:36 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: On Aug 16, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: As someone who just spent $3.5K out of pocket to show up in Berlin, I have a hard time being sympathetic to someone who won't participate because he has to spend $100 out

Re: Faraday cages...

2013-08-10 Thread Keith Moore
On 08/09/2013 09:39 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Aug 8, 2013, at 9:05 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: Would being able to reliably know exactly who said everything that was said in a WG meeting visibly improve the quality of our standards? If the answer is not a clear yes

Re: Faraday cages...

2013-08-08 Thread Keith Moore
On 08/08/2013 07:41 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Hmmm didn't a certain large company whose name rhymes with scroogle recently get whacked with a huge fine for violating privacy in a similar manner in the EU? The rules are different for large companies with funny names. Keith

Re: Faraday cages...

2013-08-08 Thread Keith Moore
On 08/08/2013 08:48 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Barcodes have the potential to work really well and require almost no change from current practice. Except that current practice is broken anyway and we desperately need to change it, not add more mechanisms to reinforce continued use of it.

Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility

2013-08-07 Thread Keith Moore
On 08/07/2013 02:26 AM, Riccardo Bernardini wrote: Just thinking out aloud What about a web-cam (maybe a wireless one? Never tried to use them...) right under the mic, so that it takes a picture of the badge and shows it on the screen? Everyone (right?) in a meeting has a badge wit

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-06 Thread Keith Moore
On 08/04/2013 02:54 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: While I think getting slides in on time is great for a lot of reasons, reading the slides early isn't that important. What is important is that remote people see the slides at the same time as local people. For that, it seems to me that Meetecho

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-06 Thread Keith Moore
On 08/06/2013 11:06 AM, Andrew Feren wrote: On 08/06/2013 09:08 AM, Keith Moore wrote: On 08/04/2013 02:54 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: While I think getting slides in on time is great for a lot of reasons, reading the slides early isn't that important. What is important is that remote people see

Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility

2013-08-06 Thread Keith Moore
On 08/06/2013 04:03 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 8/6/13 11:58 AM, 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, and I also think that

Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again

2013-08-06 Thread Keith Moore
On 08/06/2013 07:36 PM, John C Klensin wrote: ... IETF 39 was in Munich (August 1997) ArabellaSheraton @ Arabella Park, and it was HOT pretty much the whole week. If I recall, another very successful meeting in a place we should go back to. I liked Munich as a destination. But the hotel /

Re: Bringing back Internet transparency

2013-08-02 Thread Keith Moore
On Aug 1, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the ISP business model. So this is rather amusing: you're trying to tell me that ISPs wanted to kill NAT, and I have other people

Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again

2013-08-02 Thread Keith Moore
On Aug 2, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Eggert, Lars wrote: Hi, On Aug 2, 2013, at 13:04, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote: I have also enjoyed my time in Berlin. However, we need to complete the analysis on the impact of VAT. I hope there is a way to avoid a cost to each participant of

Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again

2013-08-02 Thread Keith Moore
On Aug 2, 2013, at 1:27 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: In the grand scheme of things, it's less than the room price for one night (unless you're staying at some particularly cheap motel, and those are more available in the US). The availability of less expensive nearby hotels was also a plus for the

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense

2013-07-31 Thread Keith Moore
On Jul 30, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: It's been pointed out before that in a group with very diverse languages, written words are usually better understood than speech. It's a fact of life that you can't have a full-speed cut-and-thrust discussion in a group of 100 people,

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense (was: Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF)

2013-07-31 Thread Keith Moore
for presenting is the problem or boring factor. I mentioned before that we need short presentations 5 minutes, and more discussions. AB On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: On Jul 30, 2013, at 7:47 PM, Bob Braden wrote: On 7/30/2013 9:35 AM

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense (was: Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF)

2013-07-31 Thread Keith Moore
On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:30 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall conversations and side meetings The hall conversations and side meetings will continue to be immensely valuable. But working group sessions can, and should, also be

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense

2013-07-31 Thread Keith Moore
On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: It's hard to tell how many of them would be participating if the meeting were more useful, but the very fact that the room contains so many nonparticipants is itself a deterrent to getting work done in the meeting. If nothing else,

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense

2013-07-31 Thread Keith Moore
On Jul 31, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: It may be the case in some instances that if it's going to be nothing but presentations there may not be a need for a working group to meet at all. +1. If nothing else, when a WG agenda starts to shape up like this, this should be a big

Re: Bringing back Internet transparency

2013-07-30 Thread Keith Moore
On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: Roland Bless roland.bl...@kit.edu we probably need to do something on reducing the number of _broken_ middleboxes (or their implementations respectively) - I'm not focusing on NAT boxes here. ... I think it's clear that we will not

making our meetings more worth the time/expense (was: Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF)

2013-07-30 Thread Keith Moore
On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: We have discussed diversity at the IETF at length. Yesterday, Pete Resnick and I wrote an article about what we think the goal for the IETF should be, as well as listing some of the early activities that we have taken at the IETF. Our goal is

Re: Bringing back Internet transparency

2013-07-30 Thread Keith Moore
On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Josh Howlett wrote: Though of course an underlying problem is that no vendor wants to sell hardware that will obsolete itself, unless of course it obsoletes itself by requiring the customer to purchase even more expensive hardware than it replaces.It's hard

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense (was: Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF)

2013-07-30 Thread Keith Moore
On Jul 30, 2013, at 7:47 PM, Bob Braden wrote: On 7/30/2013 9:35 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: Easy fix: 'slide' (well, nobody uses real slides anymore :-) rationing. E.g. if a presenter has a 10 minute slot, maximum of 3 'slides' (approximately; maybe less). That will force the slides to be

Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials

2013-07-29 Thread Keith Moore
On Jul 29, 2013, at 3:59 PM, t.p. wrote: I think the points you make below are good, once the newcomer to the IETF has found their working group. This is not always easy. Fine if your interest is in OSPF, ISIS, TLS, TCPMaintenance but in other spheres, the IETF approach of choosing a

Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials

2013-07-27 Thread Keith Moore
On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 7/27/13 8:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote: yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove the projectors and screens. Then I guess it's time for my quarterly I'd be good with that. As would I. Keith

Re: IAB Statement on Dotless Domains

2013-07-12 Thread Keith Moore
On 07/12/2013 08:16 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: And before people start bringing up all the reasons I am wrong here, first consider the fact that for many years it was IETF ideology that NATs were a terrible thing that had to be killed. A position I suspect was largely driven by some

Re: IAB Statement on Dotless Domains

2013-07-12 Thread Keith Moore
On 07/12/2013 09:28 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com mailto:mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: On 07/12/2013 08:16 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: And before people start bringing up all the reasons I am wrong

Re: IETF registration fee?

2013-07-11 Thread Keith Moore
On 07/11/2013 11:17 AM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:34 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote: ... Using paid conferences as a profit center is a risky long term prospect at best. Refusing to adapt the format of the conferences to protect the profit center

Re: IETF registration fee?

2013-07-11 Thread Keith Moore
On 07/11/2013 11:39 AM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote: The tutorials is an interesting idea. I think youtube videos may be effective as well without having to schedule meetings for tutorials. Note that I was suggesting tutorials as a revenue source for IETF. I doubt that youtube videos would

Re: IETF registration fee?

2013-07-11 Thread Keith Moore
On 07/11/2013 04:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Douglas, ... Those traveling thousands of miles already confront many uncertainties. Those that elect to participate remotely should be afforded greater certainty of being able to participate when problems occur at local venues or with

Re: IETF registration fee?

2013-07-11 Thread Keith Moore
On 07/11/2013 06:24 PM, Andrew Allen wrote: I think that misses the point. The WG sessions are where the issues are raised and the opinions and positions are stated. As far as I can tell, these days the WG sessions are where endless PowerPoint presentations are held and bored people check

Re: IETF registration fee?

2013-07-10 Thread Keith Moore
On 07/10/2013 02:50 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: The IETF values cross area interaction at IETF meeting and attendees have always been encouraged to attend for the week. Allowing one day passes is a recent phenomenon to which some people, including myself, are on balance opposed. I'm also of the

Re: IETF registration fee?

2013-07-10 Thread Keith Moore
On 07/10/2013 05:17 PM, Josh Howlett wrote: Day passes have nothing to do with it. I disagree. Day passes encourage the notion that it's normal to parachute into the IETF to attend a single session. I think that the IETF's strength is that we don't totally compartmentalise work items. I am

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-21 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/20/2013 04:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Publication of EUI-48 or EUI-64 addresses in the global DNS may result in privacy issues in the form of unique trackable identities. This might also result in such MAC addresses being spoofed, thereby allowing some sort of direct attack.

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-21 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/21/2013 10:04 AM, Joe Abley wrote: On 2013-05-21, at 09:36, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: Publishing EUI-XX addresses in the DNS is a bad idea. With respect, *my* question as the author of this document is simply whether the specification provided is unambiguous

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-21 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/21/2013 11:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: With respect to the question of proposed standard. What changes if the requested status is informational? I think just get rid of the normative language - SHOULDs, MUSTs, etc. Given that the RR types have already been assigned, documenting them

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-21 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/21/2013 11:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote: On 2013-05-21, at 11:50, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: On 05/21/2013 11:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: With respect to the question of proposed standard. What changes if the requested status is informational? I think just get rid

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-21 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/21/2013 11:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote: On 2013-05-21, at 11:56, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: 2119 language is intended to describe requirements of standards-track documents.Informational documents cannot impose requirements. Then I think we've just identified a reason

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-21 Thread Keith Moore
: On May 21, 2013, at 8:56 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: 2119 language is intended to describe requirements of standards-track documents. Can you support that statement with a reference to an RFC or an IESG statement that supports it? Informational documents cannot

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-21 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/21/2013 01:35 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: On 5/21/13 9:02 AM, Keith Moore wrote: On 05/21/2013 11:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote: On 2013-05-21, at 11:56, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: 2119 language is intended to describe requirements of standards-track documents

Re: Last Call: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

2013-05-21 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/21/2013 12:30 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: Documents that aren't standards should not be worded as if they were; this is likely to cause confusion about the status of the document. I'm pretty sure that you as AD approved Informational RFCs that used 2119 language, and that this was discussed

Re: Proposed Standards and Expert Review

2013-05-21 Thread Keith Moore
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 that describes use of that name or number.

Re: Deployment of standards compliant nameservers

2013-05-20 Thread Keith Moore
It seems like a first step might be to set up a web page and/or write up an I-D with a) a description of the problem b) documentation a procedure and/or code that can be used to test name server software for compliance c) recommendations for zone operators that delegate to other zones The

Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process]

2013-05-17 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/17/2013 05:31 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: On May 17, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field fixed length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language

Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process]

2013-05-17 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/17/2013 05:32 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: On May 17, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote: On May 16, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote: There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs. Other concerns raised during IETF LC may lead to

Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process]

2013-05-17 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/17/2013 04:36 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: On May 17, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote: But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing - what problem they're trying to solve, what approach they're taking, what

Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process]

2013-05-17 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/17/2013 10:21 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: I notice that nowhere on this list is any mention of the charter milestones or dates. Is the Foo Proto draft due in 14 months or is it 14 months behind schedule? If the latter, why isn't the Foo WG meeting at the IETF? I don't think milestones

Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process]

2013-05-17 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/17/2013 10:37 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com mailto:mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: I don't think milestones will be useful unless and until: (a) they're defined in terms of not only concrete but also

Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

2013-05-16 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/16/2013 01:44 AM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Thursday, May 16, 2013 00:55 -0400 Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: Which is to say, if there is only a single AD blocking a document, that block is essentially a 2 week affair if you are willing to push the point. No need

Re: Gather Profiles/Resumes [was Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process]

2013-05-16 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/15/2013 12:25 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: I don't think the IETF needs to be in the profile/resume business. There are plenty of other places that do a fine job already. What I do think the IETF should do is *require* that participants identify themselves. That means knowing who they are (a

Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process]

2013-05-16 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field fixed length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is used in an appropriate way, or whether the protocol is extensible enough is at IETF last call. Actually the time

Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process]

2013-05-16 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/16/2013 06:09 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: Fix that problem, and most of the conflicts between IESG and WGs that surround DISCUSS votes will go away. Maybe but I wouldn't take that as an article of faith. You're going to get pressure for more changes when fresh eyes review something. Yeah,

Re: article on innovation and open standards

2013-05-15 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/15/2013 02:00 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: Otoh hand the whole point with IETF is that *nobody* is *excluded*, it consists of all interested parties and the barrier of entry is really low. That's what many of us would like to believe. But IETF certainly doesn't consist of all

Re: article on innovation and open standards

2013-05-15 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/15/2013 02:42 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Wed, 15 May 2013, Keith Moore wrote: Yes, I'm aware that some people (including myself) have effectively participated on occasion without doing either of the above. But I think it's hard to effectively participate in IETF on a regular

Re: article on innovation and open standards

2013-05-15 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/15/2013 10:00 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Wed, 15 May 2013, Keith Moore wrote: I'd like to see WGs be more pro-active about periodically summarizing the salient points of their proposals, determining which parties outside of the WG are likely to be affected, explicitly soliciting

Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

2013-05-15 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/15/2013 10:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote: On 5/14/2013 9:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote: Publishing broken or unclear documents is not progress. Keith Broken, agreed. Unclear, nope - please review the NON-DISCUSS criteria, notably: The motivation for a particular feature of a protocol

Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

2013-05-15 Thread Keith Moore
IMO, IESG should have grounds to reject any document that isn't specifically authorized in a WG's charter. - Keith On May 15, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: On May 15, 2013, at 10:41 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: The motivation for a particular

Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

2013-05-15 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/15/2013 02:48 PM, Joe Touch wrote: On 5/15/2013 11:08 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: I don't think this is a topic that the IETF as a whole is likely to find very interesting. However, if anyone is curious, they are welcome to read the DISCUSS here and see if they agree with your characterization

Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

2013-05-15 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/15/2013 11:33 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: On May 15, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: IMO, IESG should have grounds to reject any document that isn't specifically authorized in a WG's charter. - Keith Why? There's definitely a process failure

Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

2013-05-15 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/15/2013 09:07 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: I initially replied to address Keith's comment. But a few things on Joe's: On 5/15/13 7:41 AM, Keith Moore wrote: On 05/15/2013 10:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote: On 5/14/2013 9:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote: Publishing broken or unclear documents

Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

2013-05-14 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/14/2013 06:30 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 5/14/2013 3:12 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On May 14, 2013, at 6:00 PM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote: At the same time, discussions do have to be resolvable. If there is no way to address it, then it is not a discuss. But required to clar

Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

2013-05-14 Thread Keith Moore
On 05/14/2013 04:45 PM, Joe Touch wrote: Brian, et al., On 5/14/2013 1:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I think this exchange between Cullen and Ted says it all, except for one tweak: the IESG is allowed, even encouraged, to apply common sense when considering the DISCUSS criteria. They are

Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6

2013-04-10 Thread Keith Moore
On 04/09/2013 08:07 PM, John Levine wrote: Quoting Nathaniel Borenstein [1]: One man's blacklist is another's denial-of-service attack. Email reputation services have a bad reputation. They have a good enough reputation that every non-trivial mail system in the world uses them. They're

Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6

2013-04-10 Thread Keith Moore
On 04/10/2013 06:55 PM, John Levine wrote: There seems to be a faction that feel that 15 years ago someone once blacklisted them and caused them some inconvenience, therefore all DNSBLs suck forever. I could say similar things about buggy PC implementations of TCP/IP, but I think a few things

Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6

2013-04-10 Thread Keith Moore
On 04/10/2013 07:14 PM, John R Levine wrote: Like I said, things have changed since 1996. Indeed they have. Email is much less reliable now than it was then. Agreed. But it's not the DNSBLs, it's all the other stuff, notably heuristic content filters, that we have to do to deal with the

Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6

2013-04-09 Thread Keith Moore
On 03/29/2013 01:28 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: The Internet is under a DDoS attack specifically against an email address reputation service. You have it backwards. Internet email has long been under DDoS attack from email address reputation services. Keith

Re: On the tradition of I-D Acknowledgements sections

2013-04-08 Thread Keith Moore
On 03/25/2013 02:05 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: My experience over lo, these many years is that the best way to ensure that you're recognized is to produce text/suggestions/ideas that other people find valuable. +1

Re: Less Corporate Diversity

2013-04-06 Thread Keith Moore
On 03/23/2013 02:27 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: To raise this discussion up a bit, I can think two other related reasons why there may be less corporate diversity in the IETF. The first is that it's possible to build applications and businesses that take advantage of the Internet without having to

Re: Architecture

2013-03-22 Thread Keith Moore
On 03/22/2013 09:50 AM, John Curran wrote: On Mar 21, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: ... Another result is that the Internet architecture has gone to hell, and we're now spending a huge amount of effort building kludges to fix the problems associated

Re: Architecture

2013-03-22 Thread Keith Moore
On 03/22/2013 03:03 PM, John Curran wrote: On Mar 22, 2013, at 2:49 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: I don't think we're in disagreement. I think that more diversity in IETF would help minimize the risk that some interests were shortchanged, but I certainly agree

Re: Less Corporate Diversity

2013-03-21 Thread Keith Moore
On 03/20/2013 07:20 PM, Martin Rex wrote: The more diverse the culture, the higher the probability for miscommunication (misunderstanding and taking offense). True, but without the diversity, the solutions provided by IETF are less likely to serve the interests of the extremely diverse Internet

Re: Less Corporate Diversity

2013-03-21 Thread Keith Moore
On 03/20/2013 08:51 PM, Martin Rex wrote: IMHO, the IESG is not (and maybe never was?) a committee where_each_ member reviews_all_ of the work, where_each_ forms his very own opionion, and where all of them caste a VOTE at the end, so that the diversity within that committee would be vitally

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

2013-03-20 Thread Keith Moore
On 03/20/2013 08:13 AM, Martin Rex wrote: The monetary and time resources necessary to fill an I* position adequately appear quite significant to me, and I believe it would be hard to fill them without strong support from an employer which covers the monetary investment. Agreed. But this is a

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

2013-03-20 Thread Keith Moore
On 03/20/2013 11:41 AM, Mary Barnes wrote: Given that folks are still debating whether this years nominees reflected a reasonable diversity (there were 9 women out of 37 nominees), I actually don't think that the number of female nominees is relevant.What is relevant is the number of

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

2013-03-20 Thread Keith Moore
On 03/20/2013 12:21 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: On 03/20/2013 11:41 AM, Mary Barnes wrote: Given that folks are still debating whether this years nominees reflected a reasonable diversity (there were 9 women out of 37

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

2013-03-12 Thread Keith Moore
On 03/11/2013 03:33 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: ISOC is doing a great job with the fellowship program. There is just a few people each meeting but it is a good start. I'm glad they are doing it but it is a drop in the bucket. Our processes are considerably biased against anyone who is

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

2013-03-11 Thread Keith Moore
On 03/11/2013 01:43 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: My opinion is that we agree we have a situation that we should improve, but also we shouldn't focus on the nomcom process, the problem is not about how we select people (it may help but it is not the root problem). The problem is to bring new

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

2013-03-10 Thread Keith Moore
One aspect of IETF leadership diversity that seems to have considerably decreased over the years that I've been working with IETF is the number of people from academic/research relative to the number of people from the commercial sector. I believe that this has been extremely harmful to

Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today

2013-02-27 Thread Keith Moore
On 02/27/2013 01:49 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: On Feb 27, 2013, at 19:18, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: routing around obstacles It turns out for most people the easiest route around is submitting in time. That is actually what counts here: how does the rule influence the behavior of

Re: presenting vs discussion in WG meetings (was re:Remote Participation Services)

2013-02-16 Thread Keith Moore
On 02/16/2013 03:04 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 15/02/2013 20:57, Keith Moore wrote: ... But this makes me realize that there's a related issue. An expectation that WG meetings are for presentations, leads to an expectation that there's lots of opportunity to present suggestions for new

Re: presenting vs discussion in WG meetings (was re:Remote Participation Services)

2013-02-15 Thread Keith Moore
On 02/15/2013 12:46 PM, George, Wes wrote: [WEG] Perhaps it would be helpful to make an informal recommendation to WG chairs (via the wiki, for example) that generally they should carve each request for agenda time roughly in half, with a hard limit of $speaker_time/2 devoted to presenting or

Re: Remote Participation Services

2013-02-11 Thread Keith Moore
On 02/05/2013 11:04 AM, IETF Chair wrote: 3.4. Slide Sharing Slides are often sent by email in advance of the meeting. WebEx allows the slides and desktop applications to be viewed by the remote participants. These are controlled by the presenter. The presenter can be

Re: Remote Participation Services

2013-02-11 Thread Keith Moore
On 02/11/2013 10:23 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: On 2/11/13 5:17 PM, Keith Moore wrote: On 02/05/2013 11:04 AM, IETF Chair wrote: 3.4. Slide Sharing Slides are often sent by email in advance of the meeting. WebEx allows the slides and desktop applications to be viewed

Re: Remote Participation Services

2013-02-11 Thread Keith Moore
On 02/11/2013 10:46 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: Keith, On Feb 11, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Keith Moore wrote: On 02/05/2013 11:04 AM, IETF Chair wrote: 3.4. Slide Sharing Slides are often sent by email in advance of the meeting. WebEx allows the slides and desktop applications to be viewed

Re: Remote Participation Services

2013-02-11 Thread Keith Moore
On 02/11/2013 11:45 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: Keith, you seem to be asking for something (discussion, wit no presentation), that has never happened in the WGs I have attended in the last 20 years. Even the WG sessions that had the best, most useful, discussions, generally started with a

Re: The notion of fast tracking drafts

2012-12-16 Thread Keith Moore
On 12/14/2012 06:09 PM, John C Klensin wrote: I've been trying to say out of this because I think most of the suggestions are better carried out by AD-encouraged experiments and reports to the rest of us on effectiveness rather than by long discussions in the community about details and the

Re: The notion of fast tracking drafts

2012-12-16 Thread Keith Moore
On 12/16/2012 04:49 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: ISTM that you are of the opinion that anything the IETF does to go faster is bad in and of itself because its scary. It's not that simple, at least in my opinion. I'm generally fine with fast tracking a document that describes a simple protocol

Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)

2012-12-04 Thread Keith Moore
On 12/04/2012 08:29 AM, Tim Chown wrote: Exactly. If the presentation is one slide listing the key changes in the document since the last revision/meeting, and one slide per key question/issue being asked of the room, then that should help facilitate good discussion, not hinder it. What

Re: English spoken here

2012-12-04 Thread Keith Moore
On 12/04/2012 12:50 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote: I started making up really good slides (in a variety of settings) after noticing non-native-English speakers at the IETF taking pictures of the screen -- it*really* helped them. I used to see that also, but I don't recall seeing anyone do that in

Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)

2012-12-03 Thread Keith Moore
On 12/03/2012 08:57 AM, George, Wes wrote: From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith Moore A different toolset, (e.g. pens and paper and overhead cameras coupled to projectors), would likely produce better results if that toolset did not encourage

Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)

2012-12-02 Thread Keith Moore
On 12/02/2012 01:29 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 12/1/12 9:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote: sadly, too many of us remember writing on scrolls of acetate. i imagine that some remember stone and chisels. At the last meeting, for my own stuff I went with the old one-slide approach. However, it did occur

Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)

2012-12-02 Thread Keith Moore
On 12/02/2012 03:27 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Yes. It escapes me why we would hamper ourselves by *not* using diagrams to explain complicated new ideas. The first time. Not the second and subsequent times; that's why we have proceedings. It also escapes me why we would hamper ourselves by

Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)

2012-12-02 Thread Keith Moore
On 12/02/2012 09:45 AM, John C Klensin wrote: But rigs for cameras that are set up to be pointed down onto sheets of paper on which drawings and notes are being made are a lot more compact, compatible with the projectors we are using already, and, like overhead transparencies and PowerPoint-like

Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)

2012-12-02 Thread Keith Moore
On 12/02/2012 10:03 AM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, December 02, 2012 09:53 -0500 Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: ... (Another way to put is that even if we provide such cameras in meetings along with colored pens and paper, we will continue to see PowerPoint being used

Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)

2012-12-02 Thread Keith Moore
On 12/02/2012 12:42 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: But can be considerably aided in many cases by written material (slides, summaries, or both) well in advance especially if those material are also used at the meeting, thereby aiding synchronization. This is a very specific matter of technique. As

Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)

2012-12-02 Thread Keith Moore
On 12/02/2012 12:50 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, December 02, 2012 12:19 -0500 Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote: There is another unfortunate community habit that I have noticed. It is, I believe, a consequence o their being simply too much stuff to look at. Of course,

Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)

2012-12-02 Thread Keith Moore
On 12/02/2012 12:57 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 12/2/2012 9:51 AM, Keith Moore wrote: I think you're missing the point. The core problem is the overuse of presentations, and presentation tools, for working group face to face meeting time which is better suited for discussion. stop blaming

Presentation vs. Discussion sessions (was: PowerPoint considered harmful)

2012-12-02 Thread Keith Moore
On 12/02/2012 01:06 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: There's a whole nexus of connected issues here, I think, and what a given person complains about depends on that person's pet peeves. It seems to me that if we were better about moving work forward between meetings (- peeve!) meeting time wouldn't be

Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)

2012-12-02 Thread Keith Moore
On 12/02/2012 01:46 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: We have non-native english speakers and remote participants both working at a disadvantage to follow the discussion in the room. We should make it harder for them by removing the pretext that the discussion is structured around material that they can

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >