Re: avoiding pitfalls in v4/v6 NAT (was Re: About IETF communication skills)

On 2008-08-04 02:09, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>> these limitations don't inherently apply to NAT between v4 and v6, > > >> I thought the inherent problems ... would apply to an IPv4-IPv6 NAT, > >> when such a device is used to allow a grou

Re: About IETF communication skills

> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > But these limitations don't inherently apply to NAT between v4 and v6, > particularly not when the v4 address is a public one. I don't understand this; I thought the inherent problems you so ably and clearly laid out in your other message (e.g

Re: "reality" vs. "principle" (was Re: About IETF communication skills)

> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Love the email address... > IPv4 NATs cause problems .. because they rob applications developers of > functionality, make the net less reliable and less flexible, increase > the cost of running applications and raise the barrier for new

Re: About IETF communication skills

I find myself imagining what IETF would be like if anyone who could claim to be a journalist (say because they have a blog) could get in for free, subject only to the condition that they could not talk during meeting sessions. I think I just might claim to be a journalist (after all, I do have

Re: avoiding pitfalls in v4/v6 NAT (was Re: About IETF communication skills)

Noel Chiappa wrote: > From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You don't need to add it to all (or most) IPv6 implementations. More hair-splitting... It's not hair-splitting if it significantly reduces the barrier to adoption. > The goal ... is not to magically make all boxes and

RE: About IETF communication skills

> >> I don't know what "accredited" means anymore. > > > IMHO it should mean "real journalists" in this context. > > That excludes technical experts who play at journalism on > their blog. > > Right, we wouldn't want to encourage reporting by people who > actually know what they're talking abou

Re: avoiding pitfalls in v4/v6 NAT (was Re: About IETF communication skills)

> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You don't need to add it to all (or most) IPv6 implementations. More hair-splitting... > The goal ... is not to magically make all boxes and apps suddenly be > able to communicate with both IPv4-only and IPv6-only hosts as if there >

Re: avoiding pitfalls in v4/v6 NAT (was Re: About IETF communication skills)

Noel Chiappa wrote: > From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> these limitations don't inherently apply to NAT between v4 and v6, >> I thought the inherent problems ... would apply to an IPv4-IPv6 NAT, >> when such a device is used to allow a group of hosts with only IPv6

Re: About IETF communication skills

On 1 aug 2008, at 0:57, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't know what "accredited" means anymore. IMHO it should mean "real journalists" in this context. That excludes technical experts who play at journalism on their blog. Right, we wouldn't want to encourage reporting

Re: avoiding pitfalls in v4/v6 NAT (was Re: About IETF communication skills)

> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> these limitations don't inherently apply to NAT between v4 and v6, >> I thought the inherent problems ... would apply to an IPv4-IPv6 NAT, >> when such a device is used to allow a group of hosts with only IPv6 >> addresses to communi

avoiding pitfalls in v4/v6 NAT (was Re: About IETF communication skills)

Noel Chiappa wrote: > From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > But these limitations don't inherently apply to NAT between v4 and v6, > particularly not when the v4 address is a public one. I don't understand this; I thought the inherent problems you so ably and clearly laid out in y

Re: "reality" vs. "principle" (was Re: About IETF communication skills)

Noel Chiappa wrote: > IPv4 NATs cause problems .. because they rob applications developers of > functionality, make the net less reliable and less flexible, increase > the cost of running applications and raise the barrier for new > applications, and increase the effort and expen

Re: About IETF communication skills

From: Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:52 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Some considered that part of the delay of the IPv6 deployment was due to the lack of communication effort from IETF. I'm not really sure about that, however I agree that everything helps, of course.

"reality" vs. "principle" (was Re: About IETF communication skills)

Geoff Huston wrote: Yes, I stand by what I said in that article. If you disagree with my perspective on this topic, then perhaps you may want to followup with me directly, rather than claim some shortcoming on the part of the journalist. Well, of course, the things you are quoted as saying are

Re: About IETF communication skills

Like Steve Bellovin, I have always believed that I've been treated accurately and fairly and I really don't understand what this thread is all about. Yes, I stand by what I said in that article. If you disagree with my perspective on this topic, then perhaps you may want to followup with me dir

Re: About IETF communication skills

Noel Chiappa wrote: Having read it, I think this story is pretty accurate - and that's probably why some people here are upset about it. It's not the accurate parts I'm upset about. From the article: > The Internet engineering community working on IPv6 is considering > reintroducing NAT - on

Re: About IETF communication skills

Fred Baker wrote: On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:52 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Some considered that part of the delay of the IPv6 deployment was due to the lack of communication effort from IETF. I'm not really sure about that, however I agree that everything helps, of course. To be honest, I t

Re: About IETF communication skills

On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:52 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Some considered that part of the delay of the IPv6 deployment was > due to the lack of communication effort from IETF. I'm not really > sure about that, however I agree that everything helps, of course. To be honest, I think IPv6 h

Re: About IETF communication skills

> From: Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The article in question ... > mostly written by Carolyn Duffy Marsan. It's probably also worth mentioning that she's been on this same beat for at least 15 years or so, and so she's lived through a lot of the history, so while she's not a

Re: About IETF communication skills

Another strategy that might be worth pursuing is getting the questions from the journalist and responding in writing. If the response is long then there is a chance it will get paraphrased / mangled. If the response is short there is a higher chance it will be quoted as is. In the event a report

Re: About IETF communication skills

On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:52 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Some considered that part of the delay of the IPv6 deployment was due to the lack of communication effort from IETF. I'm not really sure about that, however I agree that everything helps, of course. To be honest, I think IPv6 has bee

Re: About IETF communication skills

Paul Hoffman wrote: > mostly written by Carolyn Duffy Marsan. In Germany it's often Monika Emmert. [John Morris wrote] | My 2 cents Euro Cents, at least. Accredited journalists and other proposals for another millennium sounded like "Spanish inquisition, reloaded". The number of folks e

Re: About IETF communication skills

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 07:38:27 +0100 Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Folks: please review all of the IETF-related articles in the IT trade > press from the past five years. Discard the articles that say "the > IETF is considering Foo" when in fact someone had submitted a -00 > draft. The

Re: About IETF communication skills

Ole Jacobsen wrote: I agree with Paul. Having now quickly read the article in question I don't even see what the "problem" is, including the somewhat provocative headline. I think it's a huge problem if the market gets the idea that NATs (as we currently know them) will also be a part of IPv

Re: About IETF communication skills

On Aug 01 2008, at 08:53, Ole Jacobsen wrote: problem The problem is that the spin of the article is that NATs are being added to IPv6 itself (which is a misleading statement when taken at face value, actually surprising, hence perceived as sensational), when in reality they are being ad

Re: About IETF communication skills

e to IPv6 and plan ahead to do so instead of waiting for the last minute. Regards, Jordi > From: Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:05:59 +0100 > To: Jordi Palet Martínez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: > Su

Re: About IETF communication skills

I agree with Paul. Having now quickly read the article in question I don't even see what the "problem" is, including the somewhat provocative headline. But if you (collecively) would like a more technical and less "sensational" (if that is your perception of the article in question) approach,

Re: About IETF communication skills

At 5:32 PM -0400 7/31/08, Keith Moore wrote: I suppose the headline might have been chosen by an editor. If you understand the press so little as to start that sentence with "I suppose", you might reconsider the validity of the rest of your attack. The article in question,

RE: About IETF communication skills

Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > ... > (I'd be astonished if the reporter in question were not reading this > thread -- what will the next story be?) Actually, let's hope so, and that a copy of the thread will make it back to the editorial staff. They need to understand that sensationalizing the story

RE: About IETF communication skills

At 11:57 PM +0100 7/31/08, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Of course then there is the clarity of terminology, so lets define journalist as someone who is paid to write articles for a publication and who is at IETF to do their dayjob. Whether or not the journalist also has a blog is irrelevant. This d

Re: About IETF communication skills

+1 & well said Steven M. Bellovin wrote: To put it bluntly, I'm not at all in favor of trying to manage news coverage, especially by organizational mechanisms. Say what you mean, say it clearly, and publish your own blog/newsletter/whatever if you need to. Complaints about misconstrued quotes

RE: About IETF communication skills

> I don't know what "accredited" means anymore. IMHO it should mean "real journalists" in this context. That excludes technical experts who play at journalism on their blog. Since the intent of the press conference is to help non-technical writers understand both the IETF technology and the IETF

Re: About IETF communication skills

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:08:57 +0100 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Maybe IETF should be thinking about what actions and > > policies, uniformly applied, will result in the most accurate > > representation of its work to the community. > > In my experience, the best action to take would be to adv

RE: About IETF communication skills

> Maybe IETF should be thinking about what actions and > policies, uniformly applied, will result in the most accurate > representation of its work to the community. In my experience, the best action to take would be to advise, or teach, people how to handle media interviews. Back when I used t

Re: About IETF communication skills

My experience with that reporter is similar. I came to believe that she saw it as her job to misrepresent whatever information was given to her. ... Let's not be too harsh. Do we have any reason to believe that media coverage in this case is less accurate than media coverage in general? The se

Re: About IETF communication skills

Ned Freed wrote: Lixia Zhang wrote: I'd like to share my own experience here: I was interviewed by exactly the same reporter some time ago, and I requested to review the article before publication. But the very next thing I learned was that the article had been published, and the interview misq

Re: About IETF communication skills

Lixia Zhang wrote: > > I'd like to share my own experience here: I was interviewed by exactly > the same reporter some time ago, and I requested to review the article > before publication. But the very next thing I learned was that the > article had been published, and the interview misquoted.

Re: About IETF communication skills

Hi - > From: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Lixia Zhang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 1:08 PM > Subject: Re: About IETF communication skills ... > My experience with that reporter

Re: About IETF communication skills

Lixia Zhang wrote: I'd like to share my own experience here: I was interviewed by exactly the same reporter some time ago, and I requested to review the article before publication. But the very next thing I learned was that the article had been published, and the interview misquoted. My exp

Re: About IETF communication skills

> > I think it is unwise to assume that you will get an opportunity to > > review a story before publication - let alone offer comments or > > corrections - unless you have specifically negotiated that right with > > the reporter and perhaps their superiors. YMMV. IANAL. > Right. Years ago, the

Re: About IETF communication skills

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:24:07 -0700 Ted Faber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 02:11:48PM -0400, Daniel Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Or you know not consenting to interviews with someone who's > > > pr

Re: About IETF communication skills

I think that at our level in the news food chain, it is wise to assume that any words said to journalists may be published regardless of our wishes or promises received. Regards Marshall On Jul 31, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Ted Faber wrote: On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 02:11:48PM -0400, Daniel Brown w

Re: About IETF communication skills

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 02:11:48PM -0400, Daniel Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Or you know not consenting to interviews with someone who's professionalism > > you don't respect. Why you would expect someone engaged in serious > > jo

Re: About IETF communication skills

[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:48:58 -0700 > To: Jordi Palet Martínez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: > Subject: Re: About IETF communication skills > > On Jul 31, 2008, at 9:52 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >

Re: About IETF communication skills

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Or you know not consenting to interviews with someone who's professionalism > you don't respect. Why you would expect someone engaged in serious > journalism or otherwise to offer you the opportunity to modulate your own

Re: About IETF communication skills

Daniel Brown wrote: On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Lixia Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I questioned the reporter why she ignored my request, the reply was that it was the magazine's policy not allowing preview --- something they never told me beforehand. One lesson learned. Indeed.

Re: About IETF communication skills

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Lixia Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I questioned the reporter why she ignored my request, the reply was that it > was the magazine's policy not allowing preview --- something they never told > me beforehand. > > One lesson learned. Indeed. It may be wor

Re: About IETF communication skills

On Jul 31, 2008, at 9:52 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: I understand that IETF has not done a good job in communicating about our work and I appreciate that this is being improved, however I think we need to be very careful. Yesterday, during dinner, one of the discussions with my colleagu

About IETF communication skills

I understand that IETF has not done a good job in communicating about our work and I appreciate that this is being improved, however I think we need to be very careful. Yesterday, during dinner, one of the discussions with my colleagues, was about this topic. Some considered that part of the dela