Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists
Dean, ok, i asked nicely and privately several times. PLEASE! take this thread some place else. -rick On Tue, 11 May 2004, Dean Anderson wrote: On Mon, 10 May 2004, Noel Chiappa wrote: So? Rob's not refusing to accept *any* email *at all* from you as a person (just from a range of addresses which are generating email he doesn't like); and you're more than savvy enough technically to get email to him via some other path. As an IETF WG chair, he's obligated to follow the IETF rules on public participation. He can't block anything that the IETF mail server can't block: Public Participants. He's not under any more obligation to accept email from you via whatever channel you feel like using, no matter how onerous for him, than he is to accept messages written on 12' long oak logs of 3' diameter. Get a life, will you? Your constant whining and flaming is really getting old. You're getting really close to the line at which I'd ask the Chair to ban you from posting. Oh wait, I know what your response would be - you'd sue us. And you seem to think the rest of the world is doing things which is making you look bad. Here's another free clue: you're doing a far better job of that than the rest of us could do with a decade of free time. I'm entitled to particpate, and I'm entitled to send email to the WG chairs as a participant. One thing I've noticed is that of none of the people criticizing me has thought to address the fact that OUR ADDRESS SPACE IS NOT HIJACKED, and that these people associated with the IETF: Paul Vixie, Joe Abley, Bill Manning, and Rob Austein as WG Co-chair in his role for IETF business, all claim that it is. But anyone can plainly see they are lying. Dean Anderson Av8 Internet, Inc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Ietf] New .mobi, .xxx, ... TLDs?
This is the sort of thing ISOC should speak out on. doh! ISOC can't as they are the major benefactor from the .org divestature from verisign. sorry, try again. -rick ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: [Asrg] Verisign: All Your Misspelling Are Belong To Us]
An excellent question! But that is a discussion that belongs with ICANN, not the IETF. Jim Jim, that would be true if the ICANN were functioning and this event is just proof that the ICANN does not function. the mission of ICANN (my paraphrase) is Technical Administration of Internet ?N?ames and Numbers It is ovious to anyone today, that there is no technical oversite of the DNS today. -rick
RE: Testing Root A going away
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Christian Huitema wrote: [snip] Obviously, cutting of the A root would have some pretty drastic consequences. On the other hand, there are many computers that have no business contacting directly the root servers. For example, in many enterprises and campuses, computers are suppose to send their DNS traffic to a configured relay. not realy. If 'A' stops answering you'll just ask questions of the others. The issue is not if 'A' goes off the air, there are always other servers to talk to. -rick
Re: spam
dean a small note before i add you to my procmailrc On Wed, 28 May 2003, Eric A. Hall wrote: You still don't seem to understand the nature of proof, arguing instead that the existence of alternatives somehow disproves a matter of fact. Again, whether or not you think that the proof is significant is a matter of opinion, not a matter of proof. This is exactly true of your position, but not mine. Seems you are looking in a mirror. * Shannon's theorem is a fact, not an opinion. * The cost of disks and networks are facts, not opinions. * The cost of spam is a fact deduced from the costs on disks, networks and computers. It is a fact, not an opinion. * Anti-spammers already tried to use costs in 1998, and lost, when disks, networks, and computers were much more expensive. That is a fact, not an opinion. Email, and thus spam, is practically a free service. Spam costs practically nothing. That is a conclusion based on fact, not opinion. your conclusion is incorrect, we have to pay sysadmins to keep spam out of our mail boxes and in some cases prefessional services to keep spam out of mailboxes that are real important. just as my paper shredder and the electricity to run it cost me to process junk mail and garbage service to throw away the trash. buring it is not an option in my fair city. if you wish to continue draw conslusions through falty analysis you may land in my filters... -rick
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Vint, Let me restate what I said at the open mike on Wednesday. I will reserve 8% or $1 USD, whichever is greater, per unit sold by my company for one year. At the end of that year I'll donate that money to the ISOC ear marked for the IETF. Its almost the same deal IMS/ISC offered had they gotten the .org bid. Be the change you wish to see. -rick On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, vinton g. cerf wrote: that would have to be a decision of PIR and its board - ISOC does not, at least as I understand it, have any direct access to the .org revenues. ISOC does select the PIR board but otherwise there is no financial connection. Vint At 12:08 PM 3/15/2003 -0800, Rick Wesson wrote: Harald, The short and sweet of it is: Unless we change something, our current funding methods won't pay for our current work. At the presentation, I'll ask the floor what they think about various ideas for improving the situation. At one point some of us tried to use the .org redelegation to help fund the IETF. [1] We didn't win but the ISOC's bid did win. Did the ISOC make the same commitment, could they divert some funding from .org domain registrations to support the IETF? It only seems like the right thing to do, at least it did to those of us who worked on the bid [2] So, couldn't the ISOC make the same commitment fund the IETF and IAB? -rick [1] http://trusted.resource.org/Support/ISOC/intent_to_donate.pdf [2] http://trusted.resource.org/ Vint Cerf SVP Architecture Technology WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Harald, The short and sweet of it is: Unless we change something, our current funding methods won't pay for our current work. At the presentation, I'll ask the floor what they think about various ideas for improving the situation. At one point some of us tried to use the .org redelegation to help fund the IETF. [1] We didn't win but the ISOC's bid did win. Did the ISOC make the same commitment, could they divert some funding from .org domain registrations to support the IETF? It only seems like the right thing to do, at least it did to those of us who worked on the bid [2] So, couldn't the ISOC make the same commitment fund the IETF and IAB? -rick [1] http://trusted.resource.org/Support/ISOC/intent_to_donate.pdf [2] http://trusted.resource.org/
Re: Internet-Draft Cutoff Dates for San Francisco, CA (March 16-21,2003)
Could we see these cutoff dates on the main meeting page, since they change and the location of this document isn't well know. thanks, -rick On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Internet-Drafts Administrator wrote: NOTE: There are two (2) Internet-Draft Cutoff dates February 24th: Cutoff for Initial Submissions (new documents) All initial submissions(-00) must be submitted by Monday, February 24th, at 09:00 ET. Initial submissions received after this time will NOT be made available in the Internet-Drafts directory, and will have to be resubmitted. As before, all initial submissions (-00.txt) with a filename beginning with a draft-ietf MUST be approved by the appropriate WG Chair prior to processing and announcing. WG Chair approval must be received by Monday, February 24th. Please do NOT wait until the last minute to submit. Be advised: NO placeholders. Updates to initial submissions received the week of February 24th will NOT be accepted. March 3rd: FINAL Internet-Draft Cutoff All revised Internet-Draft submissions must be submitted by Monday, March 3rd, 2003 at 09:00 ET. Internet-Drafts received after this time will NOT be announced NOR made available in the Internet-Drafts Directories. We will begin accepting Internet-Draft submissions the week of the meeting, though announcements will NOT be sent until the IETF meeting is over. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concenrs. FYI: These and other significant dates can be found at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/cutoff_dates_56.html
Re: Internet-Draft Cutoff Dates for San Francisco, CA (March 16-21,2003)
ok, got it. I had looked for the dates last week and couldn't find them. consider me now, clued. -rick On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, John C Klensin wrote: --On Friday, 14 February, 2003 09:24 -0800 Rick Wesson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could we see these cutoff dates on the main meeting page, since they change and the location of this document isn't well know. Rick, The Secretariat is almost certainly better at reading minds than I am, but I don't quite understand what you want here. On what I think of as the main meeting page (http://www.ietf.org/meetings/IETF-56.html for this meeting), there is a link called Important Meeting Dates. It leads to a page that has these dates, and the registration cutoffs, etc., on it. Do you think we need: (i) To change Important Meeting Dates to Important Meeting Dates, including I-D cutoffs? (ii) To move some or all of those dates onto the main meeting page? That ought to be possible since neither the main meeting page or the referenced one are very long. (iii) To put a note onto the cutoff dates page (http://www.ietf.org/meetings/cutoff_dates_56.html) that contains all of the prohibitions, threats, and explanations about what happens if one misses the deadline and when documents can next be submitted from the mailing list announcement? That information hasn't changed for years, but it probably should be easier for the new and/or forgetful to find. Just trying to clarify... I don't have any strong opinions about this. john
Re: Information on Directorates and Finances
Harald, I'd never seen any finances for the ietf, but are these from 2002 or did it just take that long to pull 2001 expenses together? -rick On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: I have put two web pages up at the following URL: http://www.ietf.org/u/chair/ One details the directorates that currently exist in the IETF, with memberships of most of them. The other one is the IETF finances for 2001. The presentation format is subject to modification - if you find things unclear or hard to understand, drop me a line! Harald
sole-sourceing IANA function to ICANN for next 3 years
FYI -rick -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:15:30 -0500 Subject: FW: US Grants ICANN Extension of Global Domain Powers US Grants ICANN Extension of Global Domain Powers By Kevin Murphy ICANN, which manages policy aspects of the internet's domain name system, is to be granted a three-year extension of its powers to manage the world's country-code domain names, ComputerWire has learned. The US Department of Commerce last week quietly published a document detailing its decision to sole-source the contract for the so-called IANA function to ICANN, as opposed to opening the contract for competitive bidding. ICANN and a spokesperson for the DoC's National Telecommunications and Information Administration both confirmed the extension, although ICANN general counsel Louis Touton added that no contract has yet been signed. IANA is responsible for maintaining the definitive list of which organizations, individuals, and domain servers are associated with approximately 240 country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs), such as .uk, .us, and .fr. The decision will cause concern to some in the international community, particularly those concerned in the policy aspects of the ccTLD industry. Some ccTLD operators had considered a counter-bid for the IANA contract before its March expiration. A statement buried six clicks into a Federal web site heavily suggests that the ICANN-DoC Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and the IANA contract are essentially inseparable, and that ICANN is the only party fit to run IANA. The NTIA document said that ICANN, having assumed key resources and associated privatization responsibilities under the MoU is therefore the only responsible entity that can continue to provide seamless performance of the IANA functions. As a further link, the three-year IANA contract will come up for renewal at periods of six months, one year, one year, and six months - paced to coincide exactly with the times the MoU comes up for renewal, Touton and the NTIA said. ICANN's Touton added that the decision was made because of how closely linked the policy-making functions of ICANN are with the policy-implementing functions of IANA, and that it wouldn't make sense for a third party to take over IANA. ICANN has been accused in the past of using the IANA function to further its own ends. One of the Herculean tasks in the MoU requires ICANN to sign stable operating agreements with each of the ccTLD operators, but this has proved difficult. In the majority of the cases when ICANN has signed such an agreement, it has coincided with the re-delegation of a ccTLD to a new operator. The most recent such deal was with the new government of Afghanistan. Last October, a number of ccTLDs, disgruntled with their treatment by ICANN over the four years of its existence, said they would consider mounting a bid to take over the IANA function, being the groups most affected by its decisions. But the current international political climate would have made the US venturing outside its borders for a contractor unlikely. Recent denial-of-service attacks against the DNS root servers has created a mindset among some where the DNS is a US national, rather than international, resource that must be protected against terrorism like any physical target. Lisette Zarnowski Register.com, Inc. Manager, Public Relations/Special Events (212) 798-9165 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://216.21.229.207/images/sig_line.gif http://216.21.229.207/images/sig_txt.gif http://216.21.229.207/images/spacer.gif http://216.21.229.207/images/sig_logo.gif http://216.21.229.207/images/sig_line.gif
Re: DNSEXT WGLC Summary: AXFR clarify
I agree with the notion that all folks in positions of perceived power (e.g. IAB, IESG, WG Chairs, IRTF Chair) should be required to disclose publicly all of their relationships (e.g. employment, presence on other Internet-related positions such as board of a registry, technical advisory board memberships, and so forth) that might possibly be conflicts of interest. The goal should be to err on the side of too much disclosure, rather than too little. I like that we have individuals at the ietf meetings rather than company representatives, in the long run it creates less politics. I don't think anyone who attempts to move drafts for financial gain will ever gain much; these documents we develop here (less the informational track) stand on their own. -rick
naming debates
dns naming debates don't belong on the IETF list. there is a sandbox created just for naming debates, see [EMAIL PROTECTED] those interested in continuing these discussions should pick them up some place else. thanks, -rick
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did NotTell You)
[ cc list trimmed ] On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Okay, so when every foo.com. applies to become a foo., how will you control the growth? What is to keep the root from becoming a flat namespace within a few weeks? It won't take long for the masses realize that an SLD is not as prestigious as their own personal TLD... I know... a nameing hierarchy like in usenet but it will only be controlling at the top -- then a organization will be CHARTERED to be the caretaker of each of the top level names. maybe we'll start off with just 3 and see how it goes... -rick
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did NotTell You)
Steve, On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Steve Hotz wrote: H? At the risk of feeding a diversionary thread, it does seem appropriate to address the question of the number of Internet users who can see New.net's domain names. [ many lines of self gratification trimmed ] I don't believe the topic to be relivant to this list, butI do have a suggestion for you... turn off the new.net root servers and see if any press gets written about the event. When you get some press, then you'll know some folks can see you servers, until then they [the new.net servers] probably don't matter. best, -rick
Re: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You
first of all I don't think this belongs in the IETF forum. Vint said has increased the priority of root server security evaluation This is an interesting comment. Again Vint please be concrete. What precisely have they done? Where is their report? Have they ever actually had a meeting? URL. Press releasesome definite citation please. see http://www.icann.org/committees/security/ for a list of the documents the group has produced and presented to date. -rick
Re: Uniqueness of WHOIS handles
Florian, there is no guarantee the uniqueness of WHOIS handles. there is no name space for whois, nor an entity to register such. pick any prefix you wish. -rick On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Florian Weimer wrote: Is there some method to guarantee the uniqueness of WHOIS handles? Can I register affixes somehwere? I'm currently creating a WHOIS-like database (which might be publicly accessible one day), and I'd like to avoid handle collisions with other WHOIS databases. (I asked a similar question on some IETF WHOIS list a few months ago, but this list appears to be dead.)
