.
NAT sucks.
You suck.
/http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/ipv6.ars
-Thomas Gal
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: NATs as firewalls
This is not to say that all RFCs do just fine with ASCII
art. We have
non-standards documents, which we want the outside world to
read, that
look silly with the current formatting restrictions. We live with
projecting that visual clumsiness, as geeks often do.
I understand this. But
This is not to say that all RFCs do just fine with ASCII
art. We have
non-standards documents, which we want the outside world to
read, that
look silly with the current formatting restrictions. We live with
projecting that visual clumsiness, as geeks often do.
I understand this.
Actually quite a lot of people disagree. And this would HARDLY be considered
a MS friendly venue, though clearly as someone mentioned you've got a gripe
with Microsoft and not proprietary standards otherwise you wouldn't have
mentioned PDF.
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 18:59:10 +0100, Brian E
I am particularly uncomfortable with the idea
that we might consider unpopular, mis-guided, insistent,
frequent and/or hard-to-understand posts to be an abuse of
the IETF consensus process, as I am quite certain that I have
fallen into many of those categories from time-to-time.
from
Messages like I'm for this or I'm against this seem to be
taking the form of a vote, when it seems to me that what's
probably more appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.
Melinda
Yes. We have an RFC with a procedure. I don't like the procedure, and will
oppose it regardless is
Actually the whole DNS caching and forwarding scheme is simply analagous to
a nice and easy heuristic greedy algorithm. It's not perfect..but it's
about the best you can do without being rediculous.
-Tom
The last time I had a reason keep a copy of the root file
locally was back around
For example, consider two college roommates. One wishes to
exercise
his freedom of expression by listing to music until 3 AM in the
morning (without the benefit of headphones, of course!). The other
wishes to exercise his right to get sufficient sleep so as
to be well
rested
Well put. Actually I have yet to see ANYONE refute any of the examples
Harald made about inappropriate acts. Nothing but I don't support this
action universally. THAT sounds a lot like not tolerating disagreement.
-Tom
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
I'm sorry I didn't read these calm well thought out comments before I
responded to some of the other posts.
-Tom
Hold on.
To put it bluntly, you and some others have changed the topic
to: we don't like RFC 3683.
Now, that RFC is a BCP that was duly approved after IETF last
call
Should _every_ Internet user (let count one billion) receive
a personal copy of the root file every month, the decrease of
root related traffic on the Internet would be by 90%. That
the root server system works well, does not implies that the
root servers system concept is still the best
Quote from RFC which I guess you didn't read:
Q: Is this censorship?
A: Only if you believe in anarchy.
What is important is that the rules surrounding
PR-actions exhibit the same properties used by the rest of
the consensus-based process.
Please do not make inferences
I believe I made quite a similar set of points off list to JFC soon after
Harald proposed his 3683. I definitely agree that it appears there is a
fundamental divergence between the mindset and protocols of this
orgnaization and his ways. I guess it boild down to should we stop trying
to pound this
(this should not go on [EMAIL PROTECTED], but for lack of a better list...
please disregard if it bothers you)
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Sure there is - create your own page, write your petition text, and
ask people to sign up there. I'll even share the PHP code
with you if
Michael Mealling writes:
Because, particular codifications of it in the law aside, it
represents a pretty good description of how human beings
cognitively
use names and words.
No, it simply represents the way trademark holders force
others to do their bidding. IP law is
Michael Mealling writes:
All very deployable and rather easy to build and setup...
So is the current system. Why does it have to change?
Well, given the origin of this thread, there are large numbers of
users who consider the current system to be broken.
More specifically, there
At 13:32 29/09/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
They are both published, and obviously the consensus document is the
one on the standards track. It exactly an example of the IETF
publishing a minority opinion. Obviously, we couldn't publish two
standards for the same bits.
Dear Brian,
Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk
Note that I consider it irrelevant
whether his position in this or any past instance turns out to be
correct: it's the form, not the content, of his efforts that
is the problem.
S
That is a perilous line of reasoning indeed. You're saying if I
don't
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
I'm interested to know whether people would see arguments
for either
or both of
1. An IETF Ombudsman (or Ombudscommittee), to act as a dispute
mediator.
2. An IETF netiquette committee, to offload list banning
Thomas Gal wrote:
[..]
I hope that being too
forceful, stubborn, or persistent (NOT oblivious or ambivalent)
doesn't become justification for reprimand.
Since when have political conspiracy theories, allusions to
impending legal action and references to other people's
Actually, a Firewall Considerations section would make sense.
Agreed.
What would be in such a section? There are only three possibilities:
1. There is no firewall: no need for text.
2. There is a firewall, and it doesn't try to block the protocol: no
need for text.
3. There is a firewall,
Well clearly IANA won't accept 2 differing registrations that
overlap on this matter. Certainly it is the IETF/IESG/IAB's job to rectify
that incongruity? If the two proposals cannot come to a resolution regarding
the differing interpretations of the DNS records then clearly they must be
That's an easy one. It's because you're in Europe where the paradigm if
you will of water is different. I think explicit arrangements would need to
be made, while in the US water would be a given.
T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Samuel
Couple of questions:
-What kind of city with a population of 75,000 has hotel accommodations for
2000 people unless it's a tourist Mecca and likely expensive and overbooked?
-What kind of mass transit does your typical city of that size have? On that
note, what kind of car rental capacity is it
+q9bQOx/5ayEQLGFACeLMNxzQyiRwgB0n5KdxPHD0s3LxAAnRcl
NfKI62xgIbF44qYivQyJ4Dmj
=IY/A
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
From: Thomas Gal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:05 AM
To: 'Gunther Palmer'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [Sipping] WiMAX
Probably because people who are influental outside their organization should
be curtailed. Say it's sufficient that you respect their opinion, and also
know that they have enough to do that they should be giving rough opinions
for actual voting members to ponder at length (i.e. read it once vs 3
A practical one when when budgets are tight? I don't see how this
matters when the amount is so miniscule. I would note that we were able to
have a RG meeting last week at a local university thereby obviating the need
for ANY funding in that case, and this was done on the request of
Norton AntiVirus found a virus in an attachment you (Ietf) sent to
ThomasGal.
To ensure the recipient(s) are able to use the files you sent, perform a
virus scan on your computer, clean any infected files, then resend this
attachment.
Attachment: Joke.com
Virus name: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Action
What secret? That nobody in Australia actually drinks Fosters?
-Tom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Greg Daley
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 4:46 PM
To: Eric Burger
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RE: Oz
I don't think that's really a SIP domain issue, though this may have
been adressed somewhere that I'm not aware of.
If you're using RTP to carry the audio than these statistics are
derived from the RTP stream in the context of the sender (with you being the
receiver) and the
I think this discussion shoulg probably move to the Anti Spam Research Group
list No?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Tom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 1:14 PM
To: test
Wow...
I hate it when elected politicans presume to speak for me.
I will not
sit quietly and let self-appointed individuals try the
same. *DO NOT*
tell me to my face that you are negotiating on my behalf or
even just
for 95% of the other people who write or have written
Faber wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 09:44:02PM +0200, Iljitsch van
Beijnum wrote:
On 12-okt-04, at 19:36, Thomas Gal wrote:
and IP is on it's way out
Please note that in the IETF the letters IP first and foremost
mean Internet Protocol. To use them for something else
I think complete nonsense is a little extreme. Typically when you
build something you hire a general contractor who is reponsible for the
project THEY hire the individual contractors to do the tile and roof etc. I
think all that's being put forth is an analogy.
In this case it's
Comments inline
Eric,
We're not out to rid the world of patent-laden work, nor are
we out to make patent owners rich. The IETF exists to
promulgate relevant and correct standards to the Internet
Community, and educate people on their intended safe use.
There is a fine balance to be
Windsor Parl Hotel is .2 miles away. Orbitz worked pretty well finding a
hotel on price, AND it ended up being right next door.
Tom
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Saravanan Govindan
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 9:38 PM
To:
You could have registered and read it by now. It takes anyone of us longer
to explain the article then to just register for free.use a fake email
if you're afraid (I think most of us have an email just for stuff like
that).
Lame,
T
Ps it's about how lame it is for people who can't get into
Exopounding on your last thought. I think it is very important that we come
up with a central portal for this network of organizations that can provide
a roadmap and point lay persons in the right direction. Even a unified
search engine which comvers all of the sites would be useful. I think the
I think a doc like this should certainly be prominently featured somewhere,
maybe even under the title, on our webpage. Whatever way anyone could come
up with to get someone to read background on the org before blindly
searching for an RFC or posting to a list would probably help A LOT of
people.
YeahI blew it.trying to do two things at once. I meant it in the
context of my comment earlier today:
Exopounding on your last thought. I think it is very important that we come
up with a central portal for this network of organizations that can provide
a roadmap and point lay persons in
Yes. Seems odd to have procedure for making procedures and everything else
but nothing formal about an umbrella organization that sits between us and
the real world. Seems counter to the well documented openess that seems to
be a core tenent of everything else that goes on.
-T
-Original
I agree with:
This isn't suppose to be an ego trip. If people really think the documents
are important, they don't need their names on them. If they need their name
on it, they are doing it for the wrong reasons.
Not to mention the spirit of removing authorship. In reality I feel
like
Actually if you knew what it meant but weren't that familiar with the place
of an RFC(someone who's read 2 specs or something) you would assume IMHO
that an Internet Standard is NOT a request for comments.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
43 matches
Mail list logo
