On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Harald Koch wrote:
> There was an access point in the Embassy Suites Hotel. It was not
> connected to the rest of the IETF LAN. It was instead connected to the
> Internet via a Qualcomm HDR, a high-speed cellular data connection being
> tested by Qualcomm.
>
> An enterprisin
Teemu Rinta-aho wrote:
> Thank you. That was nice service from Qualcomm, just too
> bad there was no information of the wireless coverage
> on the meeting web pages.
It wasn't kept secret, though; they had a table set up in the Sheraton
(opposite the social event/LAN card desk) with information.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" writes
:
> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:45:08 -0800 (PST)
> From: Mike Fisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Gateways that surreptitiously modify packets can break ANY end-to-end
> protocol no matter what layer it's at. Assume that we sacrifice IP
>
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kerberos tried to deal with this problem by talking about "canonical
> domain name", which it tried to define as being the name that you got
> when you took a DNS name, forward resolved it to get an A address, and
> then reverse-resolved it to get a
At 22:54 18/12/00, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote:
>If DNSSEC were deployed, I see no reason why SAs
>could not be bound to domain names.
The semantics of an FQDN is not crisp and clear
these days as is once was.
For example, www.cnn.com names a set of content
(served by an arr
> If DNSSEC were deployed, I see no reason why SAs could not be
> bound to domain names.
Well, there are all those load-distributing hacks -- Akamai and
others. But I bet they could come up with a huge flesh-tone bandaid
so you would continue not to notice. On a good day.
Folks,
Some compare/contrast about then and now, followed by
some (perhaps radical) thoughts to ponder. I'm NOT interested
in quibbles about the timeframe for THEN or minor differences
in perception about either THEN or NOW, so I'll ignore any
troll-like responses. This is intended as a
Tripp Lilley wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Matthew Goldman wrote:
>
> > I also disagree with you regarding hotel rates. Pre-negotiated block rates
> > for meetings are around the same price as we paid in San Diego for a similar
> > type of hotel (clearly, Vegas hotels are both much better than
> there is no such thing as a "canonical domain name" for a host.
> Kerberos tried to invent such a concept, but it didn't work all that
> well. I would much rather have some real IP-level endpoint identifier.
> If that's what we're securing, that's what we should be using.
mumble. as far as I
>If DNSSEC were deployed, I see no reason why SAs could not be
>bound to domain names.
>
> I disagree. IPSEC is about Security at the IP layer, and that means we
> need a security association which is tied to an object which is
> addressable at the IP layer --- an IP address.
except tha
Steve Bellovin, on IPSEC, not-AH:
| [A] host's identity is represented by its certificate (I'm speaking a bit
| loosely here); its IP address is merely the way that packets reach it.
This is an example of two separate namespaces that allow one
to distinguish between "who" and "where". That
At 01:08 AM 12/19/00 -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>OK, in that case, we've completely thrown out the end-to-end principle,
>... then you shouldn't
>be using IPSEC. You should be using TLS instead.
Unfortunately, the production Internet (ie, since 1983) has never been
fully end-to-end at the I
Ran Atkinson writes:
| The semantics of an FQDN is not crisp and clear
| these days as is once was.
Wow, your memory must be better than mine if you remember
crispness & clarity. :-)
| For example, www.cnn.com names a set of content
| rather than naming a single given host.
In your previous mail you wrote:
While I wouldn't go quite that far, I've been saying for years that the
IP header doesn't need any authentication if we have IPsec.
=> this is not true for IPv6 extension headers or IPv4 options.
... in a note explaining why I thought AH was useless
At 09:28 AM 12/19/00 -0500, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>We can also end the de facto practice of
>using the sessions as tutorials and discontinue fancy prepared
>presentations of the material already in the I-Ds. While
>tutorials are a fine thing, they are appropriate for USENIX
>or Interop, not IETF W
Additionally, after network shutdown on Friday, Jeff Schiller cross-connected
his
his Apple AirPort to his HDR/Hornet box, and was providing NATed wireless
service
to folks still hanging out in the lobby of the east tower of the Hotel.
Hi Keith!
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Keith Moore wrote:
> mumble. as far as I can tell, both DNS names and IP addresses
> are hopelessly overloaded and are likely to stay that way until
> we figure out how to make a major architectural change.
Could you please take a look at
draft-guruprasad
Ran,
Everything you say contains truth, but to be optimistic in this holiday
season, in some ways we are doing much better than one might expect.
Here is a larger context...
THEN:
- The WWW had not been created, or was just in its infancy.
- Commercialization of the Internet w
On 19 Dec 2000 at 11:07 -0500, Frank Kastenholz apparently wrote:
> I believe that the only choices are
> - limit attendance to "the right people" or
> - accept the tourists and panda-watchers and
> that the IETF meeting has evolved.
The right people include "monitors" these days. For example
Sorry for the wasted bandwidth. But could someone please post the
lyrics to the IETF Christmas song, the video that was shown at the
Plenary.
Thanks.
Jeffrey Altman * Sr.Software Designer C-Kermit 7.1 Alpha available
The Kermit Project @ Columbia University includes Secure Telnet an
> I would suggest that chairs try setting the agenda around issues, not
> around drafts themselves. The main point of the face-to-face meetings
> is to resolve issues that cannot be resolved by mail. Put those on the
> agenda, and let the combatants present as much tutorial information as
> they
From: Ken Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Dec 2000 09:02:52 -0500
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kerberos tried to deal with this problem by talking about "canonical
> domain name", which it tried to define as being the name that you got
> when you took a
Frank Kastenholz wrote:
>
> At 09:28 AM 12/19/00 -0500, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> >We can also end the de facto practice of
> >using the sessions as tutorials and discontinue fancy prepared
> >presentations of the material already in the I-Ds. While
> >tutorials are a fine thing, they are appropriate
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:45:08 -0800 (PST)
>From: Mike Fisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Gateways that surreptitiously modify packets can break ANY end-to-end
>protocol no matter what layer it's at. Assume that we sacrifice IP
>addres
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Fi
sk writes:
>
>The marginal value I see in IPsec is that it is useful for protocols other
>than TCP. For TCP applications, I confess that I don't see much value in
>IPsec (not that TLS has any particular merits, it just became more common
>first).
>
Why do
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, V Guruprasad wrote:
> Could you please take a look at
> draft-guruprasad-addressless-internet-00.txt
> ?
I've just started to read it and in 1.1 it says:
"- requiring e2e network knowledge (omniscience) at each node in the
form of e2e routing tables (Section 1
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:20:23 -0500
From: V Guruprasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Keith Moore wrote:
> mumble. as far as I can tell, both DNS names and IP addresses
> are hopelessly overloaded and are likely to stay that way until
> we figure out how to make a
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:07:32 EST
From: Jeffrey Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sorry for the wasted bandwidth. But could someone please post the
lyrics to the IETF Christmas song, the video that was shown at the
Plenary.
Is the video itself available anywhere?
Scott Brim wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2000 at 11:07 -0500, Frank Kastenholz apparently wrote:
> > I believe that the only choices are
> > - limit attendance to "the right people" or
> > - accept the tourists and panda-watchers and
> > that the IETF meeting has evolved.
>
> The right people include "mon
Ok, so the issue now is not about Vegas as an acceptable location, but
rather about which participants have the "right" and "priviledge" to attend
a meeting?
Speaking for myself, but I'm sure this applies to more than just me: I read
the relevant RFCs and drafts ("did my homework"), but I am not
> Steve Bellovin, on IPSEC, not-AH:
>
> | [A] host's identity is represented by its certificate (I'm speaking a bit
> | loosely here); its IP address is merely the way that packets reach it.
>
> This is an example of two separate namespaces that allow one
> to distinguish between "who" and "w
On 12/19/00 at 11:07 AM -0500, Frank Kastenholz wrote:
>At 09:28 AM 12/19/00 -0500, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> >We can also end the de facto practice of
> >using the sessions as tutorials and discontinue fancy prepared
> >presentations of the material already in the I-Ds. While
> >tutorials are a
On 12/19/00 at 12:04 PM -0500, Scott Brim wrote:
>I would suggest that chairs try setting the agenda around issues, not
>around drafts themselves. The main point of the face-to-face meetings
>is to resolve issues that cannot be resolved by mail. Put those on the
>agenda, and let the combatants
> Speaking for myself, but I'm sure this applies to more than just me: I read
> the relevant RFCs and drafts ("did my homework"), but I am not "active" by
> the strict definitions some have used in this thread (at least not yet). I
> pre-paid the meeting fee (in good faith that in return for accep
> Unfortunately, the production Internet (ie, since 1983) has never been
> fully end-to-end at the IP layer. Never.
this depends largely on what you call "the Internet".
> It's fine to create a clean architecture, but not very helpful to ignore or
> complain about market-driven extensions (o
> What we can do for future IETFs is make the current
> sporadic practice of reserving the front few rows of seats for
> folks who have actually read the drafts and are involved in
> implementation.
why don't we reserve all *except* the last three rows for those
who have read the drafts, leaving
Can anybody explain what the "default free" zone of the Internet is
or provide some documentation on what it is?
Thanks,
Dave
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Jon Knight wrote:
> are on and what the address of their gateway router is. Not exactly what
> I'd call omniscience.
All right, I confess, I'm not perfect in summarising the existing art and
relating to it (yet). I promise to gratefully acknowledge comments such as
these t
On 19 Dec 2000 at 11:08 -0800, Matthew Goldman apparently wrote:
> Speaking for myself, but I'm sure this applies to more than just me: I read
> the relevant RFCs and drafts ("did my homework"), but I am not "active" by
> the strict definitions some have used in this thread (at least not yet). I
>
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: IETF logistics
> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:49:47 -0500
>
> > What we can do for future IETFs is make the current
> > sporadic practice of reserving the front few rows of seats for
> > folks who have actually read the
At 11:20 AM -0600 12/19/00, Pete Resnick wrote:
>How about it? Other chairs wish to join me in this mission?
Yup. As someone who chaired a meeting where we had three
presentations on three drafts that had already been on the list, and
the discussion was all around topics that could have been br
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Mike Fisk wrote:
> explosion. So over time there becomes an established club of roots and
> everybody else has to be a child. That creates a monopolistic situation
> where you have to pay a root node for transit. It could work, but it
> sounds worse than the existing DNS
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:12:31 EST, Dave Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Can anybody explain what the "default free" zone of the Internet is
> or provide some documentation on what it is?
It's the parts of the Internet core where the topology is sufficiently
convoluted that a default r
What I have observed is that the discussions in the face to
face WG meetings are very useful, and frequently result in
resolution (to be ratified by the WG's mailing list) of both
technical and procedural issues (if the meetings are not
useful for these pur
Dear Collegues and Friends,
When the Ietf must decide to prepare a meeting in Italy
I hope that see all of you "de visu" for talk to my "tech friends"
Ciao Alessio
Sys Adim
Rome Italy
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Mike Fisk wrote:
> It's one thing to hand out addresses or names. It's another thing to run
> a top-level routing server that all of your children customers have to
> route through to get to other top-level providers. Your mapping between
> the two would imply that, for i
V Guruprasad wrote:
> > of virtual memory is that it makes it easier for the user (well,
> > programmer) by hiding the nasty details of which physical address your
>
> IMHO, hiding is not the primary function of virtual memory addressing,
On the contrary. Hiding the details from the programmer
*>
*> why don't we reserve all *except* the last three rows for those
*> who have read the drafts, leaving the last three rows for bottom
*> feeders?
*>
*> Keith
*>
*>
Keith,
The problem is that sll who attend IETF meetings and care about the
Internet are "bottom feeders", at
At 03:15 PM 12/19/00 -0600, Timothy J. Salo wrote:
>What happened to the proven and time-honored technique of getting
>to a meeting early if you want a seat?
Don't you mean a seat AND electrical power? :-)
BTW, much thanks to Steve and his crew for providing a generous
amount of electrical powe
It did indeed seem that the significant majority of
time was spent 'viewing presentations/tutorials',
while the WG chairs frequently employed RED/discard
on the folks that occupied the queues at the
microphones in order to more promptly begin the
next tutorial and finish within the alloted t
At 08:07 AM 12/19/2000, Frank Kastenholz wrote:
>At 09:28 AM 12/19/00 -0500, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> >We can also end the de facto practice of
> >using the sessions as tutorials and discontinue fancy prepared
> >presentations of the material already in the I-Ds. While
> >tutorials are a fine thing,
I respect both Pete and Paul's position here, but I believe this
frustration is endemic to our efforts rather than specific to how the
working group meeting agendas are set. I also believe that the
frustration is worth the result.
One of the things which sets the IETF apart from other efforts to
It did indeed seem that the significant majority of
time was spent 'viewing presentations/tutorials',
while the WG chairs frequently employed RED/discard
on the folks that occupied the queues at the
microphones in order to more promptly begin the
next tutorial and finish within the alloted t
Someone else noted:
>Participation by mail before participation in person.
EXAMPLE
I was an active participant (e.g. ask folks in Denmark
who were involved with early MIME stuff) via email long
before I showed up in person. To this day, I don't make
every meeting. Before ever showing u
> How about a first step: In WG sessions that I chair, there are going
> to be no more presentations. From now on, one week before the IETF
> meeting, document editors will be required to send me a list of
> outstanding issues they wish to discuss in the WG session for their
> particular draft
At 11:03 AM 12/19/00 +0200, Teemu Rinta-aho wrote:
>Thank you. That was nice service from Qualcomm, just too
>bad there was no information of the wireless coverage
>on the meeting web pages.
for the record, apart from Qualcomm's HDR service, the Wireless was Cisco
Aironet.
> Nothing personal Frank, but in a general sense I'd say you weren't doing
> your job well enough.
easy to say if you have not been and AD
Frank was a good AD and managed WGs as well as any of us (and better than many)
yet getting people out of presentation mode is hard and takes previewing
the
--On Tuesday, December 19, 2000 3:49 PM -0700 Danny McPherson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It did indeed seem that the significant majority of
> time was spent 'viewing presentations/tutorials',
> while the WG chairs frequently employed RED/discard
> on the folks that occupied the queues at th
At 05:10 PM 12/19/2000, Scott Bradner wrote:
> > Nothing personal Frank, but in a general sense I'd say you weren't doing
> > your job well enough.
>
>easy to say if you have not been and AD
>Frank was a good AD and managed WGs as well as any of us (and better than
>many)
>yet getting people out
IMHO that's an excellent suggestion. It's been my experience that when you
state that the draft is itself an agenda item, previously resolved issues
often get rehashed, sometimes contrary to the clear consensus of the list.
This strategy would also allow less opportunity for those who haven't rea
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, RJ Atkinson writ
es:
>Someone else noted:
>>Participation by mail before participation in person.
>
>EXAMPLE
>
>I was an active participant (e.g. ask folks in Denmark
>who were involved with early MIME stuff) via email long
>before I showed up in person. To
Said another way, I do not believe that
the increased number of people has harmed the S/N ratio in any
of my WGs, nor any that I attended. The people who participate
participate and the people who don't don't. I don't have
a problem with that.
It seems like
> It did indeed seem that the significant majority of
> time was spent 'viewing presentations/tutorials',
> while the WG chairs frequently employed RED/discard
> on the folks that occupied the queues at the
> microphones in order to more promptly begin the
> next tutorial and finish within the all
> Chairs serve at the discretion of the AD's.
good chairs can be *extremely* difficult to find. especially if you
want someone to replace an existing chair and inherit a group which
is off in the weeds due to a previous lack of leadership.
Keith
let me say that I'm fully in agreement with those who think that our WGs
need broad input, and who want to encourage more cross-group fertilization.
I just don't happen to believe that merely paying the meeting fees
entitles one to a seat in the room.
I honestly don't know how many of the 'l
Just to be clear, Pete's idea does not preclude giving newcomers to
the meeting context. Instead of the 5 minutes for agenda bashing and
then straight into presentations, the WG chair can spend 15 minutes
saying what the group is doing, where the WG is and is not meeting
its charter, and the s
Keith> I honestly don't know how many of the 'lurkers' in any particular room
Keith> are actively participating in some WG versus how many are lurking in
Keith> all of them. but I do know that a large number of lurkers is harmful
Keith> to a WG's ability to conduct a useful meeting.
How so? If t
67 matches
Mail list logo
