Hi John,
Thanks for your comments/proposals, I always know that your
discussions are important for my progress in IETF. I reply some
comments as below,
On 5/30/13, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
Jari,
Inspired by two of your recent notes and Dave Crocker's long
one last weekend
In an attempt to inject some data into the discussion, I wrote a bit of code
that figures out how much time, given your home city, you would have spent in
the air if you'd attended all IETF meetings since IETF74 (i.e., from 2009
onwards).
The first column is the home airport.
The second
Original Message -
From: Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com
To: adr...@olddog.co.uk
Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:06 AM
On 5/29/13 10:53 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I see a wedge :-)
The problem is where to stop.
Well, I don't know. Maybe the
On 05/31/2013 11:59 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
In an attempt to inject some data into the discussion, I wrote a bit
of code that figures out how much time, given your home city, you
would have spent in the air if you'd attended all IETF meetings since
IETF74 (i.e., from 2009 onwards).
The
John,
On 05/30/2013 08:04 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
irrelevant. If there is a major vendor design presence in a
region, then we should be very concerned if we don't have
significant presence from that region in the IETF as well. But,
if the vendor presence is limited to marketing, sales,
On 31/05/2013, at 8:28 PM, Fernando Gont fg...@si6networks.com wrote:
On 05/31/2013 11:59 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
In an attempt to inject some data into the discussion, I wrote a bit
of code that figures out how much time, given your home city, you
would have spent in the air if you'd
Wow, that's real science at work...
Sorting by the relevant column (I don't own a private jet):
LHR 249:44 // London
FRA 255:22 // Frankfurt
SFO 282:04 // San Francisco
FCO 283:04 // Rome
SVO 287:14 // Moscow
ATL 297:28 // Atlanta
BOS 297:38 // Boston
NRT 314:38 // Tokyo
On Friday, May 31, 2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
So lets be explicit. This is a standards-setting body, which is
discussing
outreach, inclusiveness, wider participation outcomes, and the cost
consequences on attendance where the core motivation is standards
setting.
Yes, let's be
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote:
Of course, this doesn't include time-to-airport, so you can immediately
discount London.
Well, you say that, but I now know why Alexey moved from Moscow to Kingston
(40 minutes to LHR on the X26).
Dave.
On 5/31/13 9:53 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
I don't know what the smiley is supposed to connote, but the IETF
responds to changes in the community by changing its engineering goals
and the problems it works on.
I would add that the IETF should change the way we solve those problems
as
melinda,
i assure you that operations being 'owned' by vendors is not restricted
to the geographically isolated. one small example. i was asked to
consult on a global deployment by a global fortune whatever company
whose name you would all recognize. there was no real management, and
the
clearly, all IETF meetings should be in Cape Town, Wellington, or Perth,
because more time in the air means more time without interruption where drafts
can be read before the meeting.
quiet time on a plane can be productive time.
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:03 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
clearly, all IETF meetings should be in Cape Town, Wellington, or Perth,
because more time in the air means more time without interruption where
drafts can be read before the meeting.
quiet time on a plane can be productive time.
On May 31, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Riccardo Bernardini framefri...@gmail.com wrote:
Then I would suggest Antarctica as permanent location for future IETF
meetings. :-) Maybe the only drawback is hotel availability, but
nothing that a handful of tents and sleeping bags cannot cure...
Also, penguins
For those of you looking at where I-D and RFC authors are from, I'd like
to suggest one other thing to look at - the extent that participants are
co-authoring with folks outside their region.
It's pretty tempting for new participants to submit drafts that they
like, and maybe reaching out to
Dear Adrian,
Thank you for your comments.
We will address your comments after this last call as follows.
idnits shows a couple of issues with your references
== Unused Reference: 'RFC3945' is defined on line 373, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused
Hello Roni,
Please see my answer below prefixed with [SV].
From: ext Roni Even [mailto:ron.even@gmail.com]
Sent: 29. toukokuuta 2013 21:13
To: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of
Here is the current list of names of eligible volunteers for Nomcom 2013-2014.
If your name is not already on this list, what are you waiting for? Thanks to
those who have already volunteered and all of you who are
about to volunteer :D
If you volunteered and weren't eligible, I've sent
--On Friday, May 31, 2013 12:36 +0200 Fernando Gont
fg...@si6networks.com wrote:
if the vendor presence is limited to marketing, sales, and
perhaps implementation, then, if that is a problem, it is one
that doesn't lie easily within IETF scope... and probably
shouldn't.
Do open source
On May 31, 2013, at 10:03 AM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
clearly, all IETF meetings should be in Cape Town, Wellington, or Perth,
because more time in the air means more time without interruption where
drafts can be read before the meeting.
quiet time on a plane can be productive time.
Jorge,
I seriously believe you're overreacting and overrepresenting the actual
view of the people in Argentina. Few, if any, members of the Internet
community in Argentina and neighboring countries share this view, and
almost all of us can't help laughing at the ironic situation where some
people
Dear All,
The Internet Society has just completed its Board of Trustees Elections and
appointments.The IAB re-appointed Bob Hinden as the IETF appointee to the
ISOC Board.
Folks, let us join hands in congratulating Bob for his re-appointment to
the ISOC Board.
Congratulations to you Bob on
Carlos, I clearly stated that the comment was OT, ie didn't have to much
relation with the discussion. I'm not overreacting or misrepresenting
anything, it was just an OT comment about a blog article which IMHO I
consider really stupid and completely out of lalaland.
I didn't say a protest WILL
If people are interested, we could launch a new service: dirigible tours
with Internet access. We'll have multiple airships, one for each set of
related meeting rooms. Of course we'll have audio, jabber and all the
virtualization tools we have today. We'll amble along at some moderate
speed,
Whether OT or not you actively contribute to the mood of the discussion.
And to have a fruitful discussion on the topic I believe we MUST
accurately represent the facts, again, regardless of being OT or not.
~Carlos
On 5/31/13 3:07 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Carlos, I clearly stated that the
Completely off-topic too, but since I live in the southernmost capital
city of the world, and certainly not the best served by airlines
When you moved to NZ ? ;-)
-J
The existence of that article IS a fact
-Jorge
On May 31, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Carlos M. Martinez carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote:
Whether OT or not you actively contribute to the mood of the discussion.
And to have a fruitful discussion on the topic I believe we MUST
accurately represent the
We now live in a blessed, sort-of, time, where you perhaps have
in-flight Internet but no-one presumes you do, so you get the Internet
and its benefits without the constant distraction of other people
calling, emailing and expecting immediate answers and all that :D
Completely off-topic too, but
The Internet Society (ISOC) provides organizational and financial support for
the IETF. As part of the arrangements between ISOC and the IETF, the IETF is
called upon to name three Trustees to its Board, with staggered 3 year terms.
This requires that the IETF select one Trustee each year.
On May 30, 2013, at 8:37 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Thursday, May 30, 2013 15:31 -0400 Warren Kumari
war...@kumari.net wrote:
The below is not a direct response to John, it is more my
general views on IETF interaction with operators.
So, I've been a long time
On 5/31/2013 8:12 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
We'll have multiple airships, one for each set of related meeting rooms.
is dirigible a new term of endearment for an AD?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
On Friday, May 31, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/31/2013 8:12 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
We'll have multiple airships, one for each set of related meeting rooms.
is dirigible a new term of endearment for an AD?
Obviously the ADs have a small helicopter so they can get between
dirigibles.
Hi Spencer.
I like your point. I think it is correct that collaboration is needed
between all regions for many I-Ds or related I-Ds to the region
participants interest. Cross-participation co-authoring between
regions may make better results than co-authors from same region.
Comments below,
On
On 5/31/13 12:18 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/31/2013 8:12 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
We'll have multiple airships, one for each set of related
meeting rooms.
is dirigible a new term of endearment for an AD?
Obviously the ADs
On May 31, 2013, at 16:53, Spencer Dawkins spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com
wrote:
co-authoring with folks outside their region.
Very good point.
Significant advantage comes from any kind of co-authoring with someone who is
able to bring another perspective. By region, by academic/commercial
Yup. And some operators have decided that the IETF document
development and consensus-forming process is sufficiently annoying
that they are standing up their own forum for Best Common Practice
docs:
http://www.ipbcop.org/ -- Documented best practices for Engineers by
Engineers
Some more
You are right, Wellington is almost 7 degrees south of Montevideo,
although I hope it's better served by airlines :D
cheers!
~C.
On 5/31/13 3:24 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Completely off-topic too, but since I live in the southernmost capital
city of the world, and certainly not the best
On 31/05/13 20:18, Scott Brim wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/31/2013 8:12 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
We'll have multiple airships, one for each set of related
meeting rooms.
is dirigible a new term of endearment for an AD?
Obviously the ADs
(I think what Warren, Randy, and others have to say is more
relevant to most of this than my opinion - unless you count a
handful of end networks with VPN connections among a subset of
them, I haven't had either ops responsibility or even direct or
indirect management responsibility for those who
On 31/05/2013, at 7:59 PM, Mark Nottingham m...@mnot.net wrote:
SFO 204:10 282:04 // San Francisco
BOS 197:42 297:38 // Boston
ATL 205:44 297:28 // Atlanta
ANC 197:12 345:54 // Anchorage
LHR 198:02 249:44 // London
FRA 202:10 255:22 // Frankfurt
FCO 223:52 283:04 //
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of
ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and
cost, let me get an ipv6 allocation from the integer rental monopoly,
flip a switch or
amen! :)
On 31May2013Friday, at 17:23, Randy Bush wrote:
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of
ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and
cost, let me get an
... and now, looking forward to our announced upcoming meeting locations (just
the shortest route numbers, not great circle):
LHR 145:30 // London
JFK 150:20 // New York
SFO 155:54 // San Francisco
FRA 156:08 // Frankfurt
ATL 158:10 // Atlanta
BOS 159:34 // Boston
ANC 181:56 //
On May 31, 2013, at 7:03 AM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
clearly, all IETF meetings should be in Cape Town, Wellington, or Perth,
because more time in the air means more time without interruption where
drafts can be read before the meeting.
Heavens no. All meetings should be in Santa
Heavens no. All meetings should be in Santa Barbara, so I don't have
to board an airplane at all.
i too, but tokyo. induce. answer, remote participation. i hope that a
decade from now many of us will not need to fly.
randy
On May 31, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of
ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and
cost, let me get
On May 31, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
Yup. And some operators have decided that the IETF document
development and consensus-forming process is sufficiently annoying
that they are standing up their own forum for Best Common Practice
docs:
http://www.ipbcop.org/ --
Warren Kumari wrote:
Unfortunately the was a bad case of creeping featuritis and we got:
A new, and unfortunately very complex way of resolving L2 addresses.
You may use ARP (and DHCP) with IPv6.
Extension headers that make it so you cannot actually forward
packets in modern hardware
(
On May 31, 2013, at 4:32 PM, Elwyn Davies
elw...@dial.pipex.commailto:elw...@dial.pipex.com wrote:
Don't they use the ADs (Area Drones) controlled from the IESG bunker?
Nope, ADs are autonomous.
On May 31, 2013, at 8:49 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
i too, but tokyo. induce. answer, remote participation. i hope that a
decade from now many of us will not need to fly.
We could just always meet in Tokyo. I'd be down with that...
:)
--On Friday, May 31, 2013 17:23 -0700 Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
wrote:
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made
out of ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute
minimal change and cost,
On 01/06/2013 15:00, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, May 31, 2013 17:23 -0700 Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
wrote:
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made
out of ipv6. the end user, and the op,
John C Klensin wrote:
Similarly, various applications folks within the IETF have
pointed out repeatedly that any approach that assigns multiple
addresses, associated with different networks and different
policies and properties, either requires the applications to
understand those policies,
A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Real-time Applications
and Infrastructure Area. The IESG has not made any determination yet. The
following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for informational
purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg
at
The Network Configuration (netconf) working group in the Operations and
Management Area of the IETF has been rechartered. For additional
information please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs.
Network Configuration (netconf)
Current Status:
(Corrected CC line above.)
A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Real-time Applications
and Infrastructure Area. The IESG has not made any determination yet. The
following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for informational
purposes only. Please send your comments to the
A new IETF working group has been formed in the Applications Area. For
additional information please contact the Area Directors or the WG
Chairs.
JavaScript Object Notation (json)
Current Status: Proposed WG
Chairs:
Matthew Miller
57 matches
Mail list logo
