On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:43 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
...
The point, Warren (and others) is that all of these are ICANN
doing technical stuff and even technical standards in a broad
sense of that term. Some of it is stuff that the IETF really
should not want to do (I'm
On 6/21/13 10:46 , John Curran wrote:
I believe that policy issues that are under active discussion in
ICANN can also be discussed in the IETF, but there is recognition
that ICANN is likely the more appropriate place to lead the process
of consensus development and approval.
I believe that
--On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:46 -0400 John Curran
jcur...@istaff.org wrote:
...
Let's not complicate things further by making the assumption
that anything that reasonably looks like technical stuff
belongs in the IETF and not in ICANN. It is likely to just
make having the right
On Jun 21, 2013, at 2:56 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
While I agree with the above (and am still trying to avoid
carrying this conversation very far on the IETF list), I think
another part of the puzzle is that there are also situations in
which technical considerations imply
On Jun 18, 2013, at 11:25 PM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote:
I think this is the correct strategy, BUT, I see as a very active participant
in ICANN (chair of SSAC) that work in ICANN could be easier if some more
technical standards where developed in IETF, and moved forward along
On 18 jun 2013, at 18:54, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
As for the rest of the discussion - I'm sure there are things to be improved
in ICANN. I'd suggest though that some of the feedback might be better placed
in an ICANN discussion than on IETF list. And is not like there'd be
Hi Patrik,
At 23:25 18-06-2013, Patrik Fältström wrote:
I think this is the correct strategy, BUT, I see
as a very active participant in ICANN (chair of
SSAC) that work in ICANN could be easier if some
more technical standards where developed in
IETF, and moved forward along standards track,
On 19 jun 2013, at 10:59, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
I'll highlight part of a comment from Steve Crocker:
(I sometimes have to explain to my colleagues at ICANN who have not had the
benefit of the IETF experience that let's send it over to the IETF doesn't
work. The IETF isn't a
On Jun 19, 2013, at 2:27 AM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote:
And do not let me get started on EPP or Whois issues... ;-)
Actually, let's let you get started. :-)
Part of the problem you are seeing with the lack of RFCs desired by ICANN is
that it is now harder to get an individual
On 19/06/2013 18:25, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 18 jun 2013, at 18:54, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
As for the rest of the discussion - I'm sure there are things to be improved
in ICANN. I'd suggest though that some of the feedback might be better
placed in an ICANN discussion
On Jun 19, 2013, at 4:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 19/06/2013 18:25, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 18 jun 2013, at 18:54, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
As for the rest of the discussion - I'm sure there are things to be
improved in ICANN. I'd
--On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 17:14 -0400 Warren Kumari
war...@kumari.net wrote:
I think this is the correct strategy, BUT, I see as a very
active participant in ICANN (chair of SSAC) that work in
ICANN could be easier if some more technical standards
where developed in IETF,
+ lots.
--On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 09:42 +0100 Steve Crocker
st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
Like the IETF, ICANN is also an open organization. ICANN
meetings are free, and a veritable ocean of documents are
published regularly, many in multiple languages to increase
availability.
ICANN is
Did this LC end?
or stated differently: What's the status of this draft LC?
I'm not such a fan of the draft, mostly because it appears to remove
some principles that some RIR folk hold up in their policy discussions
as important... while not having a backstop in said policies to
replace the
Chris: The last call on RFC 2050 bis has ended. The draft will be shortly on
the IESG telechat, up for an approval decision and/or suggestion for changes. I
personally think it is ready to move forward. That is not to say that we
wouldn't take comments, if you have some.
As for the rest of the
--On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 19:54 +0300 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Chris: The last call on RFC 2050 bis has ended. The draft will
be shortly on the IESG telechat, up for an approval decision
and/or suggestion for changes. I personally think it is ready
to move forward. That is
John,
For the record, I still believe that 2050bis should be
published. Regardless of what I think of some of the things it
says, I think it is reasonably reflective of reality and that
reality is always worth documenting.
Thanks.
As to my more general comments, they were not really
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Chris: The last call on RFC 2050 bis has ended. The draft will be shortly on
the IESG telechat, up for an approval decision and/or suggestion for changes.
I personally think it is ready to move forward. That is not to
As for the rest of the discussion - I'm sure there are things to be
improved in ICANN. I'd suggest though that some of the feedback might
be better placed in an ICANN discussion than on IETF list.
when that feedback is that the icann does not really listen to feedback,
i think there is a
Dan and John,
Thanks for the exchange last week. As chair of ICANN's Board of Directors and
an active participant in ICANN's current effort to take a fresh look at the
Whois architecture and operation, your notes catch my attention in multiple
ways. But first, for the benefit of under forty
dear emperor, despite the braggadocio, there seems to be a shortage of
attire. icann is notorious for pretending to be open but being
effectively closed. it solicits public comment and ignores it. i could
go on and on, but i am far less wordy.
randy
On 21/05/2013 10:42, Steve Crocker wrote:
As I said above, I invite anyone who is interested to participate.
The IETF, ICANN, the RIRs, ISOC, W3C and other organizations have all arisen
within the ecosystem that accompanies the growth and prevalence of the
Internet. It is natural for there
Dear Randy,
On 21/05/2013 11:58, Randy Bush wrote:
dear emperor, despite the braggadocio, there seems to be a shortage of
attire. icann is notorious for pretending to be open but being
effectively closed. it solicits public comment and ignores it. i could
go on and on, but i am far less
Hi Steve,
At 01:42 21-05-2013, Steve Crocker wrote:
I want to share two thoughts, one about the role of the IETF, ICANN
and other organizations within the Internet ecosystem, and one about Whois.
The great strength of the IETF is it's a forum for technical people
to come together, work out
Hi Olivier,
At 03:00 21-05-2013, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
And you do NOT need to be part of an At-Large Structure to participate
in the At-Large Working Groups. Membership is only needed for matters of
voting - and since we operate by consensus, that's a rare occurrence,
usually only
On 5/21/2013 8:50 AM, SM wrote:
I gather that everyone is aware that civil society has been somewhat
uncivil lately. That society has not made any significant negative
comments about the IETF.
Actually it has. Since he's such a long-active figure in those circles,
check out Milton
Hi Dave,
At 10:03 21-05-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
Actually it has. Since he's such a long-active figure in those
circles, check out Milton Mueller's Ruling the Root, from 10 years
ago. He was quite critical and dismissive of the technical
community, including the IETF:
Thanks for the
On May 15, 2013, at 7:50 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
So lets play a little hypothetical here; What if an RIR or ICANN through a
global policy decided Whois Data no longer should be public for overriding
privacy reasons. My read of Section 5, is that would be proper path for such
To be abundantly clear, you are hypothesizing a difference of opinion
between the IETF/IESG and the ICANN/RIR communities, wherein the
technical guidance of the IETF was considered during the ICANN/RIR
decision process, but in the end the outcome was contrary to IETF
expectations.
if you
--On Friday, May 17, 2013 18:54 +0300 Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
wrote:
To be abundantly clear, you are hypothesizing a difference of
opinion between the IETF/IESG and the ICANN/RIR communities,
wherein the technical guidance of the IETF was considered
during the ICANN/RIR decision process,
John,
On 18/05/2013 05:23, John C Klensin wrote:
...
I, however, do have one significant objection to the current
draft of the document and do not believe it should be published
(at least as an RFC in the IETF Stream) until the problem is
remedied. The Introduction (Section 1) contains the
--On Saturday, May 18, 2013 08:14 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
John,
On 18/05/2013 05:23, John C Klensin wrote:
...
I, however, do have one significant objection to the current
draft of the document and do not believe it should be
published (at least as
On 18/05/2013 11:59, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Saturday, May 18, 2013 08:14 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
John,
On 18/05/2013 05:23, John C Klensin wrote:
...
I, however, do have one significant objection to the current
draft of the document and do not
On 5/14/13 13:32 , David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
On May 14, 2013, at 11:02 AM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
The third goal you refer to focuses on the need for accurate registration
information ... in order to meet a variety of operational requirements. I believe
this to be a valid
On 5/11/13 10:17 , SM wrote:
At 18:36 10-05-2013, David Conrad wrote:
...
Is it up to the IETF to set up a one-stop shop for personal data
requests?
I suspect not, but I suspect it isn't up to the IETF to dictate global
privacy policy either.
Section 2 is about the goals for distributing
Hi,
On May 14, 2013, at 11:02 AM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
The third goal you refer to focuses on the need for accurate registration
information ... in order to meet a variety of operational requirements. I
believe this to be a valid technical concerns of the IETF, it is difficult
On May 11, 2013, at 11:17 AM, SM wrote:
If it's a policy it cannot be a principle.
Sorry, but unless you can point to some relevant real-world examples of
self-executing, self-sustaining principles, or you're a nihilist and don't
really believe that such things as principles exist at all,
On May 11, 2013, at 7:34 PM, SM wrote:
At 13:08 11-05-2013, Tom Vest wrote:
Sorry, but unless you can point to some relevant real-world examples of
self-executing, self-sustaining principles, or you're a nihilist and don't
really believe that such things as principles exist at all, this is
At 13:45 12-05-2013, Tom Vest wrote:
I certainly did not intend to misrepresent your position. But given
the fact that the
part of a message that you reproduced was offered in response to
doubts that you yourself raised about the points covered therein
(esp. operational need), what is your
Dave,
Just on this point:
On 5/11/13 2:36 AM, David Conrad wrote:
There isn't any mention of privacy [2] considerations in the draft.
True. The document is documenting current practices and policies. At this
point in time, I'm unaware of a global privacy practice or policy that is
Uch... you can see where my head is:
On 5/11/13 2:14 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
It's probably worth saying that the various PDPs SHOULD address policy
considerations. How they address them is a matter for them, individually.
s/policy considerations/privacy considerations/
Grr...
Eliot
Hi David,
At 18:36 10-05-2013, David Conrad wrote:
Sure, but it is also looking towards the remaining few IPv4
allocations that will be made over the next few years.
I am looking at the draft from an IETF perspective. There is IPv4
address space for protocol assignments. It could be said
On 12/05/2013 03:17, SM wrote:
...
The fact that the IPv6 address pool is very large does not remove the
fact that it is a not an infinite resource and thus, constraints must
be applied to allocation policy.
The constraints are not set by the IETF. It's up to other communities
to see what
At 13:08 11-05-2013, Tom Vest wrote:
Sorry, but unless you can point to some relevant real-world examples
of self-executing, self-sustaining principles, or you're a nihilist
and don't really believe that such things as principles exist at
all, this is a patently false, bordering on nonsense
At 16:06 16-04-2013, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The Internet Numbers Registry System'
draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
On May 10, 2013 11:51 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 16:06 16-04-2013, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The Internet Numbers Registry System'
draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt as Informational RFC
The
SM,
On May 10, 2013, at 11:40 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
In Section 2:
As such, allocations must be made in accordance with the operational
needs of those running the networks that make use of these number
resources and by taking into consideration pool limitations at the
time
47 matches
Mail list logo
