Hi,
I'm part of the design team. SM has written this document to begin a discussion
with the broader IETF.
The document does not have the consensus of the design team, and it is
therefore obviously not a recommendation by the design team.
Lars
On Oct 10, 2013, at 20:10, S Moonesamy
On 10/11/2013 04:48 AM, Ray Hunter wrote:
I think the draft does what it can in a pragmatic manner, but might
benefit from some acknowledgement that this security approach of
applying parsing at a single perimeter can never ever catch all variants
of transporting FOO over BAR.
FWIW, my idea
I am part of the community design team as well because I participate with
community more than the private hidden groups. I think that the draft is a
true work open to IETF. I still did not get a reply to my request to know
what is the DT authority, very strange name without any procedure in IETF,
Hi Pete,
I object if the draft excludes remote participants opinions/feedbacks, the
IETF WG list is the main place for measuring consensus not a physical
limited room located in a region. Some WGs' Chair just follow room's
consensus, or f2f participants arguments, which is not best practice
Hi,
On Oct 11, 2013, at 10:41, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
I am part of the community design team as well because I participate with
community more than the private hidden groups. I think that the draft is a
true work open to IETF.
I haven't said that anything to the
- Original Message -
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
To: Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:38 PM
On 11/10/2013 07:52, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
Then we have a
This draft's premise is interesting, but the implementation leaves to be
desired. That is, I like the idea of fragment identifiers for CSV, but
row/column/cell-based selection doesn't address my need.
My need is based on the CSV files generated from IANA registries. Here's
one:
http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/11/the-core-internet-institutions-abandon-the-us-government/?
The core Internet institutions abandon the US Government | IGP Blog
I'm not quite sure I read the
AB,
I'm very close to take offense by the statement ...WGs' Chair just
follow room's consensus, or f2f participants arguments.
We have maybe 200+ working group chairs, ADs and other people that
need at a rate, from several times a week to maybe once a months make a
consensus calls. I'm certain
A minor point inline, rest snipped
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com
To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 11:48 PM
Finally back to this original review.
On 10/6/13 7:03 PM, Dave Crocker
Randy Bush wrote:
What I am saying is that if we that we want our leaders to only
moderate discussion we are in a big problem.
we are in a big problem, and this is one major part. two decades of
lack of coherent architectural oversight is another symptom of this.
i'm surprised that we
Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun
Date: 11.10.2013
Last Call For the General Area
I-D reviewed: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05
++
Hi Pete and Jari,
The documents provide important examples which are real within IETF, and
needs to be studied/analysed more as case studies.
Just few quick questions,
In what part of Fadi Chehadé mandate at ICANN this falls ? And who
sanctified him as representative of the Internet Community ?
He is just an employee of ICANN and these actions go way beyond ICANN's
mission and responsibilities.
Cheers
Jorge
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at
I am part of the community design team as well
... as being the coauthor of a MANET RFC!
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
As Dave Crocker pointed out, this document is, at best, revisionist history.
Dave's original RFC 1603 text (that I carried forward into RFC 2418) bears
little resemblance to the process/considerations described in this ID.
This ID may be describing how we should start to view the meaning of
From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
we are in a big problem, and this is one major part. two decades of
lack of coherent architectural oversight is another symptom of this.
I have two issues with your observation.
First, while I agree we've been deficient in architecture, from
Hi,
On Oct 11, 2013, at 14:43, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I do have a question for Lars though. What are your opinions on this? (You
said that there is no consensus, but I'd like to hear also your thoughts.)
so one key question is what influence the IETF actually has on an ISOC
we need to keep the flexibility of bringing in someone new
agree
But my main issue is that the draft sounds like its trying to take over and
redefine an ISOC program, which I don't think the IETF can or should do. The
ISOC program has a purpose, a history and at least from my perspective
Pete,
On 10/10/2013 11:08 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 10/7/13 7:48 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
I think it misses two
important points that should be addressed prior to publication:
1) The role WG/IETF mailing lists play in building and
gauging consensus
Yeah, as I just replied to
Ben == Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com writes:
Ben Hi, thanks for the response. Comments inline. I've removed
Ben sections that do not appear to need further comment.
Ben On Sep 17, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
genart -- This abstract claims that
Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Brian,
Responding in a slightly re-arranged order:
The problem is that you are asserting that middleboxes that a tunnel
passes through are expected to examine the complete header chain of
the encapsulated packet even if the encapsulated packet is a fragment.
Yes,
On Oct 10, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
I really think we need to stop behaving as if the IETF is a
small group of people who know each other well. Consensus
decision-making does not scale well with the number of
participants, and if we're going to require
Hi Ray,
-Original Message-
From: Ray Hunter [mailto:v6...@globis.net]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:49 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; 6man Mailing List
Subject: Re: RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-
08.txt
Hi Fernando,
-Original Message-
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 1:36 AM
To: Ray Hunter; Templin, Fred L; brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
Cc: 6man Mailing List; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call:
This draft's premise is interesting, but the implementation leaves to be
desired. That is, I like the idea of fragment identifiers for CSV, but
row/column/cell-based selection doesn't address my need.
This is an Independent stream document, and the IETF doesn't have
change control of the
Le 2013-10-11 17:52, Barry Leiba a écrit :
This is an Independent stream document, and the IETF doesn't have
change control of the document.
The authors can certainly accept your comments at their discretion.
But this last call isn't for comments on the *document*. It's only to
assess
Folks -
As a result of the Internet's growing social and economic importance, the
underlying
Internet structures are receiving an increasing level of attention by both
governments
and civil society. The recent revelations regarding US government surveillance
of
the Internet are now
Just few quick questions,
In what part of Fadi Chehad� mandate at ICANN this falls ? And who
sanctified him as representative of the Internet Community ?
He is just an employee of ICANN and these actions go way beyond ICANN's
mission and responsibilities.
ICANN has a long running fantasy that
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.
Document: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05
Reviewer:
I did not like the change of the title which was suggested in diversity
list. the first title was related to IETF, because we need to attract more
other regions in IETF or to facilitate the improve of other region's
participation. The draft's solution was to recommend fellowship (should not
be the
Just to start, there is no clear consensus of what Internet Governance
means and entails.
Several organizations just as ICANN, ISOC, ARIN, etc, play a specific role
in the development and operations of the Internet, but by no means are
representative of the Internet as a whole, even if you claim
Until ICANN becomes a member based organization where you have real
constituents that can fire a director, the organization is only
representative of itself and its ecosystem.
-J
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
Just few quick questions,
In what part of
On 10/12/2013 5:25 AM, John Levine wrote:
ICANN has a long running fantasy that they are a global
multi-stakeholder organization floating above mere politics, and not a
US government contractor incorporated as a California non-profit.
What's most interesting about your sentence is that both
On 10/11/2013 12:36 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
FWIW, my idea of the I-D is that it says look, if you don't put all
this info into the first fragment, it's extremely likely that your
packets will be dropped. That doesn't mean that a middle-box may want
to look further. But looking further might
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 10/12/2013 5:25 AM, John Levine wrote:
ICANN has a long running fantasy that they are a global
multi-stakeholder organization floating above mere politics, and not a
US government contractor incorporated as a
draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05 and draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-00 are in
conflict with each other.
From draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05:
When
used with MPL, Realm-Local scope is administratively defined and used
to define the boundaries of multicast message dissemination by
On Oct 11, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Scott O Bradner s...@sobco.com wrote:
The process in the ID is not what was followed when I was an AD and it not
what I have described by the meaning of the term rough consensus in my
newcomers tutorials (which I have been giving since at least IETF 57 in
2003).
Hi Ray,
-Original Message-
From: Ray Hunter [mailto:v6...@globis.net]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 9:59 AM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com; ietf@ietf.org; 6man Mailing List
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt
(Implications of
Hi Fernando,
-Original Message-
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 10:04 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; Ray Hunter; brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
Cc: 6man Mailing List; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call:
Hi Pete,
At this point, a working week through the four week last call, I am wondering
whether the volume of comments and changes merit waiting for a revised version
before I do a last call review, or whether I should dive in with the current
version and risk raising a number of points already
On 10/11/13 2:04 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
At this point, a working week through the four week last call, I am wondering
whether the volume of comments and changes merit waiting for a revised version
before I do a last call review, or whether I should dive in with the current
version and risk
Hi John,
On 12/10/2013 05:02, John Curran wrote:
...
In my personal view, it is a very important for the IETF to select leadership
who can
participate in any discussions that occur,
Without obsessing about the word leadership, but following up on a comment
made by Noel Chiappa on the leader
On 12/10/2013 06:04, Fernando Gont wrote:
...
P.S.: Reegarding enforcing a limit on the length of the header chain, I
must say I symphatize with that (for instance, check the last individual
version of this I-D, and you'll find exactly that). But the wg didn't
want that in -- and I did raise
Hi Brian,
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:50 PM
To: Fernando Gont
Cc: Templin, Fred L; Ray Hunter; 6man Mailing List; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt
On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to start, there is no clear consensus of what Internet Governance
means and entails.
You are correct. The term Internet Governance is a term of art, and a poor
one
at that. It is the term that governments like to use,
Fred,
On 12/10/2013 08:56, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Brian,
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:50 PM
To: Fernando Gont
Cc: Templin, Fred L; Ray Hunter; 6man Mailing List; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re:
88th IETF Meeting - Vancouver, BC, Canada
November 3 - 8, 2013
The final agenda has been posted.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/88/agenda.html
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/88/agenda.txt
While this is considered the final agenda for printing, changes may
be made to the agenda up
Thank you for your frank and honest response John.
-Jorge
On Oct 11, 2013, at 3:18 PM, John Curran jcur...@istaff.org wrote:
On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to start, there is no clear consensus of what Internet Governance
means and entails.
Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that is a better approach actually. The CC TLDs are in effect
members of a bridge CA and ICANN is merely the bridge administrator.
It is an interesting way to say it, and put that way, I like it.
One activity that I believe is an
The IESG has received a request from the Multiparty Multimedia Session
Control WG (mmusic) to consider the following document:
- 'Real Time Streaming Protocol 2.0 (RTSP)'
draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-38.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
The IPv6 Maintenance (6man) working group in the Internet Area of the
IETF is undergoing rechartering. 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
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'CUSAX: Combined Use of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the
Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)'
(draft-ivov-xmpp-cusax-09.txt) as Informational RFC
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of
The INtermediary-safe SIP session ID (insipid) working group in the
Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area of the IETF has been
rechartered. For additional information please contact the Area Directors
or the WG Chairs.
INtermediary-safe SIP session ID (insipid)
A new IETF working group has been formed in the Internet Area. For
additional information please contact the Area Directors or the WG
Chairs.
IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo)
Current Status: Proposed WG
Chairs:
Ulrich
The IPv6 Site Renumbering (6renum) Working Group in the Operations and
Management Area has concluded. The IESG contact persons are Joel Jaeggli
and Benoit Claise.
The re...@ietf.org mailing list will remain open for the time being.
At this point we've got our milestones complete and the last
The IESG has received a request from the IP Flow Information Export WG
(ipfix) to consider the following document:
- 'Operation of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol on IPFIX
Mediators'
draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-07.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a
88th IETF Meeting - Vancouver, BC, Canada
November 3 - 8, 2013
The final agenda has been posted.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/88/agenda.html
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/88/agenda.txt
While this is considered the final agenda for printing, changes may
be made to the agenda up
57 matches
Mail list logo
