At 09:47 19/12/2000 -0800, Mike Fisk wrote:
>It's an argument of semantics, but I prefer to say that we're separating
>transport-layer end-to-end from application-layer end-to-end. Make
>applications explicitly terminate transport connections at gateways. So
>what is now a connection from me to
Date:Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:53:00 -0500
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| I assume that by "Presentations", you mean "tutorial presentations",
| and not "Gee George, your proposal on the mailing list looks novel
| and interesting, but we're n
juste test please discard
--On Thursday, 21 December, 2000 20:48 +1100 Robert Elz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspect that Pete actually meant both, while often both are
> inappropriate there are times when the second form are useful
> to have. Perhaps not when just one or two people make that
> request - that's bette
A meeting can happen in Italy -- or elsewhere -- if there's a local
gropu interested in hosting it. Contact Steve Coya if you're
contemplating it.
--Steve Bellovin
From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:51:38 -0800
> a) Was the AD hissing because the newcomer's company has made a well-
> financed but technically broken attempt to be an 800-pound gorilla in the
> area?
actually, it was not the AD, but the co-chair.
[ Apologies for duplicate mails ]
RIPE Whois RPSL Migration
The RIPE Database re-implementation project is nearing completion. A key
feature of the new database is the implementation of RPSL, to replace the
old RIPE-181 standard.
RPSL is similar, but not identical, to RIPE-181. The RIPE NCC e
Bill,
This is an excellent illustration of why newcomers need to be mentored.
Brian
Bill Manning wrote:
>
> % > Bill said:
> % > a "winnowing" process is now in effect, making it harder, perhaps
> % > much harder to allow individual contribution. If I was starting today,
> % >
A possible venue but sth I want to stay away from if possible.
> Kim Dongkyun wrote:
>
>
> Hello ALL,
>
> * Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this *
>
> --
> IEEE Symposium on Ad Hoc Wireless Networks (SAWN) 2001
> ---
Agreed. And why, in some cases, it is of dubious value to ask WG chairs
or ADs to act in the mentoring process. Unless of course the intent is
to drive people away. Even if, as Randy Bush suggests, the idea as presented,
was ill-conceived, and was being encouraged by a market-driven company
As a newcomer, I can't agree more with Bill, or at least I find it difficult
doing so. Apart from reading emails, I kind of feel left behind.
Isaac Udotong
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 4:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECT
> Agreed. And why, in some cases, it is of dubious value to ask WG chairs
> or ADs to act in the mentoring process. Unless of course the intent is
> to drive people away. Even if, as Randy Bush suggests, the idea as
presented,
> was ill-conceived, and was being encouraged by a market-driven com
Hi, all.
Sorry for the previous email from me, I was trying to forward to my
students - to tell them that my schedule for next year would be too full
for any addiitonal travel - but accidently hit the
reply-all buttom (when using the Netscape email).
I hope none of you would mis-interpret that m
%
% > Agreed. And why, in some cases, it is of dubious value to ask WG chairs
% > or ADs to act in the mentoring process. Unless of course the intent is
% > to drive people away. Even if, as Randy Bush suggests, the idea as
% presented,
% > was ill-conceived, and was being encouraged by a mark
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Keith Moore wrote:
> > Hard to say, but the newcomer's briefing and the Tao of the IETF are
> > both on the web site. Maybe we need some text on the registration page
> > pointing to those and suggesting strongly that people should read them
> > before typing in their cred
>I think it's still the case that someone who demonstrates knowledge of
>the background material and understanding of how the Internet works is
>quite welcome at IETF.
That hasn't been my experience; I've seen what can only be described as
an "old-boy" network in operation. I'm not saying that s
Call for Papers
MobiHoc 2001
The ACM Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking & Computing
October 4-5, 2001, Long Beach, California, USA
http://www.cs.ucla.edu/mobihoc/
sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE
MobiHoc
> Few ideas are really bad. Most are either pre or post mature.
thanks for the quotes file entry!
I was not present so I could not clarify. It does seem pretty
clear that these days, "bad-ideas" are often floated and experimented
with in other venues and only after vetting are brought to the IETF
for standards approval/rubber stamping.
in my experience, plent
> "Melinda" == Melinda Shore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Melinda> I think the problem could, in part, be alleviated by physically
Melinda> ejecting from the room people either playing games on their
Melinda> laptops or checking their portfolios.
I agree.
As useful as the wir
%
% > Few ideas are really bad. Most are either pre or post mature.
%
% thanks for the quotes file entry!
%
Proper attribution is then required. It came to me originally from Jon Postel
and was independently espoused by Dave Farber. I would hope that you don't
attribute things to me that come
At 11:58 AM 12/21/00 -0500, Ken Hornstein wrote:
>That hasn't been my experience; I've seen what can only be described as
>an "old-boy" network in operation. I'm not saying that such a thing is
>necessarily bad, just that sometimes it takes significant effort to
>overcome it if you're a newbie.
%
% I was not present so I could not clarify. It does seem pretty
% clear that these days, "bad-ideas" are often floated and experimented
% with in other venues and only after vetting are brought to the IETF
% for standards approval/rubber stamping.
%
% in my ex
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> At 09:47 19/12/2000 -0800, Mike Fisk wrote:
> >It's an argument of semantics, but I prefer to say that we're separating
> >transport-layer end-to-end from application-layer end-to-end. Make
> >applications explicitly terminate transport connections
> % in my experience, plenty of bad ideas survive such "vetting".
> % but those who bring them to IETF still expect the rubber stamp.
> %
>
> True. The point being that the IETF is becoming a "rubber-stamp" for
> work already complete.
outsiders have tried to treat IETF like a rubber stamp for
%
% > % in my experience, plenty of bad ideas survive such "vetting".
% > % but those who bring them to IETF still expect the rubber stamp.
% > %
% >
% > True. The point being that the IETF is becoming a "rubber-stamp" for
% > work already complete.
%
% outsiders have tried to treat IETF like
> And yes, I've seen WG try and discard earlier work...
I've seen them succeed, though perhaps not often enough.
> (btw, whats the distinguishing characteristic between an "outsider" and an "
> insider"?)
I was remembering numerous instances when an organization would issue
a press release of
Ken Hornstein wrote:
> That hasn't been my experience; I've seen what can only be described as
> an "old-boy" network in operation. I'm not saying that such a thing is
> necessarily bad, just that sometimes it takes significant effort to
> overcome it if you're a newbie.
Unfortunately, it's har
In March 2000, the ITU-T established Recommendation E.106, A Description of
an International Emergency Preference Scheme (IEPS). This Recommendation
presents the basic requirements for preferential treatment of critical
communications to support recovery operations from serious disasters such as
e
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:39:11 -0500, you wrote:
>V Guruprasad posted, in reply to private mail:
>
>> Obscurity would mean that a unique server host address exists but
>> is not advertised.
>No. Security through obscurity means any approach that attempts to protect
>network resources (in this cas
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:25:19 -0500, you wrote:
>but I do agree that to the extent we try to discourage clueless
>folks from coming, we need to make sure that we don't filter out
>clueful people in the process.
Hmm, terminology is wrong - clueless may mean doesn't know, but it
does not mean unwil
>> Excellent. We've agreed that IPv6's problems are a subset of IPv4's.
From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>unfortunately, we have not shown it is a proper subset. e.g. the larger
>address space may exacerbate issues already causing problems in v4, such as
>the increasing number of routes
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Ken Hornstein wrote:
> That hasn't been my experience; I've seen what can only be described as
> an "old-boy" network in operation. I'm not saying that such a thing is
> necessarily bad, just that sometimes it takes significant effort to
> overcome it if you're a newbie.
Bo
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Michael Richardson wrote:
> The wireless access is likely key to actually giving everyone a chance to
> get online, but I recall a lot of useful work that occured in the terminal
> room. I also recall deciding to go to the terminal room rather than find a
> session that
>>That hasn't been my experience; I've seen what can only be described as
>>an "old-boy" network in operation. I'm not saying that such a thing is
>>necessarily bad, just that sometimes it takes significant effort to
>>overcome it if you're a newbie.
>
>Since the IETF professes to be open, it's a
--On Thursday, 21 December, 2000 06:28 -0800 Bill Manning
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even if, as Randy Bush suggests, the idea as presented,
> was ill-conceived, and was being encouraged by a
> market-driven company that is flush with cash, its no reason
> to berate people in public, even i
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Mike Fisk wrote:
> Yes, I was being slightly more general to include other gateways that
> don't necessarily operate at the application layer:
> TCP-splicing/spoofing, NAT, SOCKS, etc.
>
> The problem is that the protocol mechanisms to discover and use these
> gateways ar
> So maybe WG chairs should have the right to unplug the
wireless access
> points :-)
I wouldn't go that far - I'd rather have people who
enter the room without having read the drafts trying
to fetch them and read them on the fly than I would
have them expecting to have everything explained.
N
Title: Happy Holidays!
Happy Holidays!
BuyStainlessOnline
would like to take this opportunity to wish all of our users the
warmest and happiest holiday season ever! We look forward to
helping
you make the internet
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Ken Hornstein wrote:
>
> > That hasn't been my experience; I've seen what can only be described as
> > an "old-boy" network in operation. I'm not saying that such a thing is
> > necessarily bad, just that sometimes it takes significant effort to
> > overcome it if you're a
On 20 Dec 2000 at 23:53 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] apparently wrote:
> I assume that by "Presentations", you mean "tutorial presentations",
> and not "Gee George, your proposal on the mailing list looks novel
> and interesting, but we're not getting it, could you take 10 mins
> in the WG meeting and
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Mike Fisk wrote:
>
> > Yes, I was being slightly more general to include other gateways that
> > don't necessarily operate at the application layer:
> > TCP-splicing/spoofing, NAT, SOCKS, etc.
> >
> > The problem is that the protocol mechanisms to discover and use
Ken Hornstein wrote:
...
> >Being open does not mean that new arrivals are free from learning the
> >special handshakes and the technical peculiarities of our work; they are
>
> Hm, my mistake, I guess. I read on the IETF web page that the IETF didn't
> have any secret handshakes; I guess I was
At 08:47 AM 12/21/00 -0800, Bill Manning wrote:
>True. The point being that the IETF is becoming a "rubber-stamp" for
>work already complete.
This is simply not true. Sometimes we take in work that is mature and
needs only minor changes to satisfy the community. To characterize this as
either
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:51:18 EST, Scott Brim said:
> I think we can succeed in using mail for clarification (like we're doing
> now). We all just have to be willing to look stupid now and then.
I've got that mastered. ;)
PGP signature
On 21 Dec 2000 at 14:24 -0500, Ken Hornstein apparently wrote:
> >Being open does not mean that new arrivals are free from learning the
> >special handshakes and the technical peculiarities of our work; they are
>
> Hm, my mistake, I guess. I read on the IETF web page that the IETF didn't
> hav
Is anyone aware of current implementations of Virtual Private Routed
Networks in use by carriers as described in the VPN RFC 2764? Or if anyone
can point me in the direction to find more information on VPRN
implementation advantages and disadvantages besides that described in the
RFC.
Thanks,
J
Sorry, no. Not always.
Let's be clear that email and face-to-face are not equivalent media. Human
communications skills vary and sometimes you need to change channels to get
an idea across.
Sometimes a quick presentation can clarify a point in a way that no amount
of writing can accomplish.
Isaac,
Welcome!
I would say that the first year of involvement in the IETF is tough on anybody.
It takes that long to learn the language.
Brian
"Udotong, Isaac" wrote:
>
> As a newcomer, I can't agree more with Bill, or at least I find it difficult
> doing so. Apart from reading emails, I
In fact, having wireless access to drafts, RFCs and mail archives
during the discussion is a real productivity tool IMHO. Exchanging
email about the topic under discussion can be pretty useful too.
Brian
Melinda Shore wrote:
>
> > So maybe WG chairs should have the right to unplug the
> w
Ken, et al,
Humor notwithstanding, please note that I said "special", not "secret".
That was quite intentional, and intended to reflect the considerable
process and culture documentation AND willingness to teach
them. (Yeah. We are and do.)
d/
At 04:03 PM 12/21/00 -0600, Brian E Carpenter
% It IS true that development from scratch, within a working group, is highly
% problematic when the group is large and/or the topic complicated. (Can we
% all say "design by committee".) That's why the concept of the design team
% is formally acknowledged.
When did this occur? Cert
At 02:50 PM 12/21/00 -0800, Bill Manning wrote:
>% That's why the concept of the design team is formally acknowledged.
>
> I've never seen where the concept of design teams was sanctioned
> but I've not been all that active in IETF politics.
Design teams have been formally discuss
At 02:19 PM 12/14/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I haven't decided which of the four NAT should be blamed on.
let's be fair. There was an excellent reason for NAT at the time. Postel
suggested that private address spaces could be used rather than assigning
precious IP Address space to netw
At 02:54 PM 12/14/00 -0500, Tony Dal Santo wrote:
>What exactly is the state of the IPv4 "address pool"? I realize there is
>a PERCEIVED shortage, and this is usually the main motivation for NAT.
>But is there a real shortage? Are "reasonable" requests for addresses
>being denied?
The way I und
At 04:41 PM 12/21/00 -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
>Unfortunately, the world is not internet-attached. Western Europe is, the
>US and Canada are, Australia is, Taiwan has Internet in every public
>library (I'm told). It comprises populations in the 1 billion person
>ballpark. There are some pretty l
| from label switching, so what I'm suggesting is that we take the bull by
| the horns once and for all and run MPLS over IP instead of under it...
an mplsd-like tag fits neatly in the first half of an ipvsux destination
address, although there are other places in the vsux header you can put
t
so too can using instant messaging be a valuable tool during a meeting.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> In fact, having wireless access to drafts, RFCs and mail archives
> during the discussion is a real productivity tool IMHO. Exchanging
> email about
>
> As for the rest ... yes, I think new people need to gather a few clues
> but it doesn't take many. I guess the first clue is to realize how much
> of your time making real contributions takes. If you're willing to do
> real work I think you're accepted immediately -- especially if your work
On 12/21/00 at 3:05 PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 04:51 PM 12/21/00 -0500, Scott Brim wrote:
>>On 20 Dec 2000 at 23:53 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] apparently wrote:
>>>I assume that by "Presentations", you mean "tutorial
>>>presentations", and not "Gee George, your proposal on the mailing
>>>li
> Yes, some individuals espouse unfriendly opinions about newbies. The
> subject line of this thread is a painfully good example.
uh, my use of the term "bottom feeders" had nothing to do with newbies.
Keith
> 1. There is nothing to prevent a competing design team. Just ask the
> Instant Messaging folks.
competitive cooperation has been impressively demonstrated in the management
area for the last year or more.
> 2. Yes, it does provide tactical advantage to the folks that do the
> specification
> No I-D editor should ever have the need to
> make up a PowerPoint slide show.
I strongly disagree
one of the most successful methods I've seen is to have a series of
slides (powerpoint or not) each with one issue tersley described
and a few options listed - this is used to focus the discussio
At 02:11 AM 12/22/00 +0100, Sean Doran wrote:
>an mplsd-like tag fits neatly in the first half of an ipvsux destination
>address, although there are other places in the vsux header you can put
>tag bits if you're inclined to do so for stacking reasons or whatnot.
actually, I should think the flow
At 19:29 21/12/2000 -0600, Pete Resnick wrote:
>I was talking about agenda items determined pre-meeting. And I do think in
>that sense Dave is dead wrong: Presentations should *never* be such an
>agenda item: No I-D editor should ever have the need to make up a
>PowerPoint slide show. If someth
At 13:25 21/12/2000 -0500, Folts, Harold wrote:
>In March 2000, the ITU-T established Recommendation E.106, A Description of
>an International Emergency Preference Scheme (IEPS). This Recommendation
>presents the basic requirements for preferential treatment of critical
>communications to support
At 20:17 21/12/2000 -0500, Tony Hansen wrote:
>so too can using instant messaging be a valuable tool during a meeting.
tangentialI wonder whether the IETF could host an IRC server with one
channel per working group and BOF, as part of the "remote participation"
effort?
if some organization
At 07:33 AM 12/22/00 +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>At 20:17 21/12/2000 -0500, Tony Hansen wrote:
>>...an IRC server with one channel per working group and BOF, as part of
>>the "remote participation" effort?
>
>if some organization were to volunteer (and advertise!) this for
>Minneapolis, it
Dear Colleagues,
Please consider the following Call for Papers, Posters, Tutorials, Special
Sessions, and Exhibition, as a unique scientific and industrial opportunity to
promote your results&solutions, or extend your market presence in
telecommunication areas ( http://ict2001.ici.ro ).
Any co
yeah, I really wish those who are trying to improve network routing
(an endeavor which I respect in principle) would consider that
applications really do need stable endpoint identifiers which
are globally scoped, exchangable with other applications, and
reliably usable from anywhere to reach th
70 matches
Mail list logo
