is "...an IETF context..." well defined?
/bill
On 11/6/12, IETF Chair wrote:
> The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review and
> comment.
>
> Russ
>
>
>
> === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===
>
> Note Well
>
> This summary is only meant to point you in the right
The IANA function was split?
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf
--bill
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
and I guess I am the only one who might still use it - but regardless, if its
broken, it should be fixed
to wit:
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-(ofthehour).txt
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-draf
don't forget the comfy chairs and soft cushions...
--bill
On 15November2010Monday, at 1:34, Bert wrote:
>
> On Nov 14, 2010, at 10:55 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
>>
>> Bert on the other hand has clearly been taking advantage of us for
>> years, we should put a stop to that :-)
>
>
> The Sec
another datapoint for those keeping score. I am aware of people who
register, pay
and don't attend. seems that IETF attendance is a value proposition.
is it worth it (to my organization/self) to spend the time, money,
effort to engage in the
IETF and its pr
On 20October2010Wednesday, at 14:06, David Conrad wrote:
> Bill,
>
> On Oct 20, 2010, at 1:58 PM, bill manning wrote:
>> right... but only rarely in the DNS world do edge nodes actually go hit
>> the authoritative sources. much/most of the time they h
SSH & HTTP sessions running through the DNS. Ringtones? Piece of
Cake.
--bill
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of bill
> manning
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:43 PM
> To: Richard Shockey
draft may include
caching
behaviours. Based on Richards email, it didn't seem so.
--bill
On 20October2010Wednesday, at 13:18, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 12:43 PM -0700 10/20/10, bill manning wrote:
>> while I agree that the hierarchical and distributed nature of the DNS is
>
while I agree that the hierarchical and distributed nature of the DNS is
a scintillating, shimmering attractant, it is wise to be aware of the baseline
assumption in your arguement, e.g. that a client will -ALWAYS- ask an
authoritative
source...
The DNS is so designed that caching is a huge co
On 27September2010Monday, at 7:48, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>
>> DNSSEC is a mechanism for establishing inter-domain trust. It is not an
>> appropriate technology for intra-domain trust.
>
> Why not?
Because the "atomic" unit of DNSSEC is a
On 24September2010Friday, at 17:16, John Levine wrote:
>> Plan A: few consumers will use DNSSEC between their PCs and the ISP's
>> resolver, so they won't notice.
>>
>> Plan B: consumers will observe that malicious impersonation of far away
>> DNS servers is rare and exotic, but malware spam a
Dave,
thats not what the text says... again:
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/hzqz/zgqz/t84247.htm
Updated: 23/04/2009
Business Visa (F Visa) is issued to an alien who is invited to China for a
visit, an investigation, a lecture, to do business, scientific-technological
and culture
perhaps this will muddy the waters some...
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/hzqz/zgqz/t84247.htm
sez:
Updated: 23/04/2009
Business Visa (F Visa) is issued to an alien who is invited to China for a
visit, an investigation, a lecture, to do business, scientific-technological
and culture exchan
ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because other cultures use
yyddmm. If the IETF website used something like ISO-2010-01-02 maybe.
This format is less confusing: 02jan2010
--bill
On 13March2010Saturday, at 7:06, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Cu
data point. I tried this in Hiroshima and was rebuffed.
They would only allow a -single- one day pass per IETF week.
the second day they inisted I pay the walk up cost for the
whole week - minus the cost of the one day pass I already
used.
So for one day, plus 20min in a WG on the second day
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:40:07AM -0800, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
>
> - 'The Eternal Non-Existence of SINK.ARPA (and other stories) '
> as a BCP
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 07:24:43AM -0800, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
> (except it's not a joke)
>
>
> Chinese proposal to meter Internet traffic
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8417680.stm
>
> China wants to meter all internet traffic that passes through its
> borders, it has emerg
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 01:16:37PM -0800, David Conrad wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2009, at 9:30 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > Clearly the root operators are responsible to and accountable to the
> > Internet community.
>
> Err, no.
>
> First, the root server operators are all independent actors pe
On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 05:28:52AM -0500, Steve Crocker wrote:
>
> On Nov 5, 2009, at 11:30 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>
> >I actually don't think we have any serious disagreement here.
> >ICANN's management of the root zone is cautious for all sorts of
> >reasons, and as you note the root se
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:58:17AM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> I'd like to take one step up on this discussion. When the discussions
[elided]
> making it possible for participants to attend can have. I think their
> efforts to make it easier for colleagues from China to attend are
> ge
the japanese equivalent of the OMROM V600-D23P71
--bill
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 09:16:37AM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> I have asked Osamu and Kato to answer. Stay tuned.
>
> Ole
>
>
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
> Cisco Systems
> Tel: +1 408-527-8
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:05:02AM +0200, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>
> The matter came up in an IPv6 discussion ISOC Chapters teleconference call
> last night. We reached a burning question which nobody could answer
> factually:
>
> Is a dual stack IPv4-IPv6 likely to be more unstable t
a standard does not deployment make. There are networks still
running DECNETpV, Chaosnet, X.25, and even XNS. If there ever
is a time when IPv4 -not- running somewhere, it is likely to be
after 2038 - there is no "pure" IPv4 today and it is doubtful there
will ever be a "pure" IPv6 Internet.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 04:25:11PM +0200, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 7/30/09 at 3:03 PM +0100, Samuel Weiler wrote:
>
> >What harms would come from destroying those old records and/or not
> >collecting such details in the future? And how widespread is the
> >support for destroying them?
>
> Repe
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:11:39AM -0400, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> the reason that the blue sheets were created was as part of maintaining
> a full record of the open standards process - the question of room size
> was never considered
>
> the basic idea is discussed in section 8 of RFC 2026
>
>
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:54:28PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> Hello;
>
> I am writing this to see what people think about creating a tlp-
> discuss mailing list.
>
> While I hope that the need for TLP revisions will diminish after the
> current round is completed, it seems to several of
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:55:05PM +0100, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
> Silly question, I'm sure - any chance of putting the DNS into a
> gigantic DHT and spreading the entry nodes liberally about the planet?
>
> Cheers,
> Sabahattin
>
> PS: No political agenda implied.
>
been propose
So quit trying to be a dead horse that is not even there.
If you are so interested in transport layer security, then
by all means, encourage, promote, and develop solutions.
STCP is one such measure. IPSEC is another. there are
many choices.
transport level security (integrity, authenticity)
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 10:38:28PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Christian Huitema wrote:
>
> >>That is, security of DNSSEC involves third parties and is not end
> >>to end.
>
> > That is indeed correct. An attacker can build a fake hierarchy of
> > "secure DNS" assertions and try to get it accep
> The question is why there should be moratorium on returned ASNs. I can
> think of one reason that could be of dis-service to a new assignee, but
> all we have so far is handwaving from the proponents.
> ___
a thought experiment.
John is prop
Chers LB,
D??sol??, je ne parle pas mais je lis en fran??ais. Je utiliser Google
traduction.
*google translation:*
ok, bye.
English version.
ok, bye.
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (lega
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 04:28:31PM -0800, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
>
> > From: "Bill Manning"
> > To: "Lawrence Rosen"
> > Cc: "'IETF Discussion'"
> > Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Trust
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:17:47AM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Bill Manning wrote:
> > "This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of
> > Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the right to produce derivative works
> > is not granted."
> -
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:16:43PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> That's why I challenged Ted Hardie directly. Please don't take it personally
> or as flaming, but anyone who wants to assert a private ownership right in
> any copyright in any IETF RFC ought to do so now or forever hold your peac
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:58:59AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> As a DNS geek, I'd _prefer_ more-intelligent end points with respect
> to the DNS. But I don't buy the argument that they're a necessary
> condition for DNSSEC deployment.
apparently you and john (and me too) do not sh
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 03:52:50PM -0500, Steve Crocker wrote:
>
> All of the above should invisible unless the end system explicitly
> invokes the DNSSEC-compliant recursive resolver AND asks for a signed
> response.
>
>
> Steve
for me, this statement is the crux of the issue.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:50:56AM -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
> I have been approached about a plenary experiment regarding
> DNSSEC. The idea is for everyone to try using DNSSEC-enabled clients
> during the plenary session. I like the idea. What do others think?
>
> Russ
>
nifty! jck shar
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 07:46:21AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> >but what about cookie preference?
>
> s/cookie preference/cookie size preference/
>
> Marshall
>
> >;-)
> >
> >James
> >
> >> Dietary Restrictions?
> >>
> >> Tony Hansen
see Dietary Restrictions, re cookie pref
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 05:32:36PM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
> Third, on site you received a booklet rather than the usual stack of
> various sheets of paper. The Note Well, Local Info and Agenda was
> combined into a single document thus making those manilla envelopes a
> thing of the past.
what is interesting to me is the weekend factor.
for nearly a decade, I've been going to mtgs the
wkend before the start of IETF - workshops, training sessions,
sidebars, RSSAC mtgs, etc.
about five years ago, the -other- suite of interesting/useful
meetings started occuring the weekend -after-
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 02:34:59PM -0700, Ted Faber wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 05:11:35PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > And vanity TLDs are going to be much more attractive if people think
> > they can get single-label host names out of them.
>
> Of your concerns (which I don't have the rel
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 01:49:24AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, 07 July, 2008 12:08 -0700 Bill Manning
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > John, do you beleive that DNS host semantics/encoding that
> > form the bulk of the IDN w
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 02:25:31PM -0700, Ted Faber wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 02:04:31PM -0700, Bill Manning wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:44:28PM -0700, Ted Faber wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:38:28PM -0700, Ted Faber wrote:
> > > > On M
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:44:28PM -0700, Ted Faber wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:38:28PM -0700, Ted Faber wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:32:10PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > If you can cite verifiable evidence that even a single case that works
> > > reliably now, will cease
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 12:25:09PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, 07 July, 2008 10:30 +1000 Mark Andrews
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >...
> > If / when MIT stop using ai.mit.edu, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" will not longer
> > mean [EMAIL PROTECTED] This will mean that any
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 07:57:58AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> A mobile machine can register its current addresses in the
> DNS regardless much more easily than it can register its
> reverse PTR records.
er... both are registering things in the DNS. manipulation
you are not the first to report this problem.
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 10:47:53PM -0700, 'kent' wrote:
> Hi Rich
>
> I'll cc this to the ietf list, as you suggested.
>
> I've found the problem. It may or may not be something that ietf want's to
> do something about -- I would think they would
>
> I'm suggesting it would be helpful if there were an RFC directing IANA
> to establish a registry that contains both labels and rules (e.g, no
> all-numeric strings, no strings that start with 0x and contain
> hexadecimal values, the string 'xn--', the 2606 strings, etc.) that
> specify
> Two additional observations:
>
> (1) While we think of RFCs as online documents, their
> antecedents, and all of the early ones, were paper publications.
[elided]
> I suggest that the community would be better served, and the ISSN
> made more useful, if we treated RFCs as "authoritative paper,
>
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 06:02:20PM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> So? The rules of academic citation are broken. Take a look at their idiotic
> criteria for citing web pages.
>
> Unfortunately the folk who designed the reference manager for office 2008
> made the mistake of taking them se
would the ISSN apply to the whole series?
--bill
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 01:52:09PM -0400, Ray Pelletier wrote:
> The IETF Trust is considering applying to the U.S. Library of Congress
> to obtain an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) for the RFC
> Series and would like community inp
bout something entirely
> different.
>
> Thanks,
> -drc
>
> On Apr 4, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Bill Manning wrote:
> >
> >WIDE camps have done the RFID thing for several years now.
> >
> >--bill
> >
> >
> >On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:35:12AM -0400
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 03:14:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:50:08AM -0700, Bill Manning wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:08:41AM -0400, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> > > < it started w/ folsk scanning the pages of the early bound
> > >
WIDE camps have done the RFID thing for several years now.
--bill
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:35:12AM -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> The registration database for each IETF meeting already contains email
> addresses of all attendees, presumably a superset of the blue-sheet
> signers.
>
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:08:41AM -0400, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> < it started w/ folsk scanning the pages of the early bound
> < copies of IETFF proceedings.
>
> the sheets are no longer included in the proceedings
right - the point is that this has been a problem
for years.
the process you describe has happend in recent memory at more than
one IETF. it started w/ folsk scanning the pages of the early bound
copies of IETFF proceedings.
--bill
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 08:10:12PM -0400, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
>
> Ole guessed
> > My understanding is that the blue sh
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 11:53:37PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> > It was obvious 20+ years ago that MX processing was broken
> > as there was no way to say "I don't want email".
>
> First, it may have been obvious to you, but it wasn't obvious to
> many of us. In the general case, it
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 01:15:23PM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Bill Manning wrote:
>
> > example.com. soa (
> > stuff
> > )
>
> > ns foo.
> > ns bar.
> > ;
> > mailhost fe80::21a:92ff:fe99:2ab1
>
> > is what i am us
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:10:38AM -0700, SM wrote:
> At 19:32 25-03-2008, Bill Manning wrote:
> > er... what about zones w/ A & rr's and no MX's?
> > when I pull the A rr's, you are telling me that SMTP
> > stops working? That
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 09:30:27AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:00:23AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> > > Ned Freed wrote:
> > >
> > > > If the consensus is that better interoperability can be had
> > > > by banning bare records that's perfectly fine with me.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 03:56:14PM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Bill Manning wrote:
>
> >> FWIW, I'd like that...
>
> >>>> Clarity can be established and interoperability _improved_
> >>>> by limiting discovery to just A and MX records.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:17:36AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 25 Mar 2008, at 10:08 , Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> >
> >On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Bill Manning wrote:
> >>On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >>>So I&#
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:08:02AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Bill Manning wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >>So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in
>
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in
> the future, it will be easy to determine which wgs attract the same
> people and overlap can be avoided more effectively.
>
as someone who has
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:00:23AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Ned Freed wrote:
>
> > If the consensus is that better interoperability can be had
> > by banning bare records that's perfectly fine with me.
>
> FWIW, I'd like that...
>
> >> Clarity can be established and interoperability
one has to schedule unpleasentness, since there is so much of it.
--
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@iet
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 07:25:17PM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> lconroy wrote:
>
> > I guess that the IETF Meeting Registration pages are run by/on
> > behalf of the IETF, and that's where the mandatory code is required.
>
> Tons of forms want this for obscure purposes, if in doubt I pick UM.
in the case of "B" - you would have only gotten "A" records
prior to 04feb2008.
--bill
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 01:59:38PM -0500, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
> Prior to 4 Feb, quite a few of the root servers had listed IPv6
> addresses
> (see http://www.root-servers.org). I took this announcemen
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 02:27:13PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 01:29:40PM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
> >
> > I really have a hard time being sympathetic to this complaint. If
> > the purpose of the IETF is open discussion and cross-pollination,
> > what does it matter w
if you read the ARIN statement on IPv6, you will find that Keith
is describing the story of how to cook a frog. soon, (pick your
favorite study) all IPv4 space will be allocated. For folks who
need IP access after that time, IPv6 will be available. Its those
(ones and twos) who will need t
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:15:26AM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
> At 10:25 -0800 1/19/08, Bob Braden wrote:
> > *>
> > *> The RFC repository also has rfc-index.txt, which lists all the RFCs,
> >
> >And an RFC search engine... just type "1730" into the little box,
> >and it will magically return the
gt; would offer in addition to getaddrinfo(). The library
> I'm thinking of would also have to handle reachability
> checking - and as John said, would ideally also be stateful
> to avoid repeating the same timeouts.
>
> Brian
>
> On 2008-01-06 11:45, Bill Manning
the IETF has refused to adopt the DISCOVER opcode for
the DNS - which pretty much handles this problem. Others
may have developed other techniques.
--bill
>
> As Phill H-B has implied more than once, there's scope
> for a library on top of the socket API that takes care
> of this once and fo
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 07:57:29PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
>
> (3) As Keith Moore has pointed out repeatedly for the general
> case and as I and others have pointed out for more specific ones
> (including today's mail-and-DNS case), dual stack is a nice
> thing to do if one is developin
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 01:33:54PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, 31 December, 2007 10:05 -0800 Barbara Roseman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 4 February 2008, IANA will add records for the IPv6
> > addresses of the four root servers whose operators have
> > requeste
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:05:36AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:20:32PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:36:34AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > > The problem is getting the records for them published.
> > > > A local
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 10:09:28PM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Bill Manning wrote:
>
> > as offical spokesmodel for the IETF in your role
> > as Sgt at Arms, your you SURE you want to advocate
> > the IETF abandon its published statement wrt there
> &g
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 02:43:10PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 01:32:00PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> Yes, right now IPv6 deployment isn't good enough that we can't do this
> without using all sorts of workarounds. OK, let's document those
> workarounds and make them
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 08:48:38AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 7:56 AM -0800 12/16/07, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >Yaakov Stein wrote:
> >>Why don't we dedicate a separate 2 hour plenary just to this
> >>experiment with the moderator announcing workarounds and collected
> >>statistics ?
> >
> >Tha
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:32:26PM -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Bill Manning wrote:
>
> > The IETF can do that?
>
> Just have Bill jack it again...
>
again? i never (well not publically)
--
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the ti
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 08:54:01AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > We will make more information about the structuring of this activity over
> > the next few weeks. Please do whatever you can to make ready ...
> >
> > Russ Housley
> > IETF Chair
> >
> >
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 05:11:47PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Mark Andrews wrote:
> > >> Hello Ray ,
> > >>
> > Brian
>
> You need both physical (power, hardware, location) and
> operational (different global prefixes, preferably different
> AS's) diversity for re
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 07:52:25AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> I think the process has proved to be rather resistant to packing of
> meetings, written statements distributed in the meeting room, and
> back-channel campaigns to have non-participants commenting on drafts
> they haven't read.
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 07:16:20PM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> > We have more than enough IPv4 addresses for China.
>
> no way.
>
> itojun
>
well... being charitable, there are likely enough IPv4
addresses for all the china in my family... but adding the
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:17:21PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:08:30AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > >
> > > > interestingly, some software vendors ship w/ license
> > > > keys tied to IP addresses... particularly for enterprise
> > > > lev
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:08:30AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > interestingly, some software vendors ship w/ license
> > keys tied to IP addresses... particularly for enterprise
> > level stuff. not so easy to update in my experience.
>
> I've always thought that practice t
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 12:06:26PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Mark,
> >
> > > I get renumbered in IPv4 today.
> >
> > I suspect there is probably a question of scale here.
> >
> > I wouldn't be surprised that a small home network with a limited
> > number of subnets and systems could b
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 05:29:39PM -0700, Tony Hain wrote:
> David Conrad wrote:
> >
> > IPv6 _is_ IPv4 with more bits and it is being deployed that way.
>
> No it is not, and you need to stop claiming that because it confuses people
> into limiting their thinking to the legacy IPv4 deploym
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:05:22PM +0300, Jari Arkko wrote:
> David,
>
> > We had an opportunity to fix that, but we blew it.
>
> I think everyone agrees that having that flexibility
> (ease of renumbering, no routing explosion in the
> core etc) would be good.
>
> But I would suggest that inste
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 01:21:00AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 10-sep-2007, at 0:51, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> >I tend to rely on Dictionaries to sort these things out - from
> >Dictionary.com
>
> Dictionaries are useless, when in doubt they just add definitions.
> For instance,
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 02:03:47AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> >> maybe I'm misled but I've never thought of the registries as bodies
> >> whose purpose was to collect operational experience.
> >>
> >> but yes, I'd very much like for IETF to have more input from those
> >> involved in operation,
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 10:58:21PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> >> perhaps, but if IETF has the problem that it's not willing to assert its
> >> ownership over its own protocols, that problem is better addressed in
> >> IETF than in ARIN.
> >>
> >
> > very true. but throwing protocols "ove
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 04:36:51PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> >> again, the fundamental problem here is that the RIRs are trying to
> >> second-guess IETF design decisions.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > "the" RIRs are membership organizations, with members
> > consisting of the operational com
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:57:44PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> Bob Braden wrote:
> > In this whole discussion, I find it hard to keep separate the
> > technical issues, about which the IETF should care a lot, from
> > the business model and issues, about which the IETF should be
> > agnostic. We m
Michael Dillon sez:
"ARIN ... belives IPv6 addresses are ... resources that need to be
[distributed] according to need."
I guess I have to agree with this sentiment. If the ARIN community
decides there is a better way to distribute IP addresses *OTHER THAN*
need, I'd be really happy to hear wh
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 04:35:02PM -0400, Stephen Kent wrote:
> At 11:40 AM -0700 8/9/07, Bill Manning wrote:
> >O...
> >
> >
> > ICANN is also a legal entity, with the same vulnerabilities
> > as all other companies including RIR's... which was my po
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 12:59:38PM -0400, Stephen Kent wrote:
> At 9:03 AM -0700 8/9/07, Bill Manning wrote:
> >...
>
> > RIR's are legal entities, just like other companies... and are
> > subject
> > to the same problems that companies have, e.g. a
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 10:49:20AM -0400, Stephen Kent wrote:
> At 6:35 AM -0700 8/9/07, Bill Manning wrote:
> >...
> > > The RIRs are working to enable clean transfer of address space
> >> holdings, using X.509 certs. While one could do what what Harald
> >&
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 01:25:13PM -0400, Stephen Kent wrote:
> At 4:36 PM +0200 8/8/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >On 8-aug-2007, at 12:07, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> >
> >>Routing certificates are simple. If HP "sells" (lends, leases,
> >>gifts, insert-favourite-transaction-type-here) addres
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 03:58:53PM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> ... missing the heart of the issue. Which in my opinion
> is that the operation of the overhead functions that are the general
> ietf infrastructure are funded out of the meeting fees which means the
> amount made on the meeting has
1 - 100 of 252 matches
Mail list logo
