RE: IETF Meeting in South America

At 22:18 28-05-2013, GT RAMIREZ, Medel G. wrote: How about in the Philippines? I can show my homeland… I can help facilitate the event, why don’t you give it a try! In the message that was quoted the person mentioned that: "I understand that usually the place is chosen based on the most of

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

Hello, Thanks alot, we need people like you that tell others about IETF and its real culture, or what they can do by using IETF. If people/community can know what they can do, they will participate. Are the IETF management contacting Internet Societies in South America about participation, and wha

Re: More participation from under-represented regions (was: IETF Meeting in South America)

Hi SM my answer to your reply, On 5/27/13, SM wrote: > Hi Abdussalam, > At 16:38 26-05-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >>I think they SHOULD have, and all of us should do the same, because >>IETF will expand and become stronger by increasing participants from >>ALL Internet community regions. The

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

On 5/29/13, S Moonesamy wrote: > I wasn't unable to attend an IETF meeting some > time ago due to an administrative issue. The > proposal I intended to discuss about (it was > discussed during a session) was not > adopted. With hindsight I'll say that the > proposal would not have been adopted a

Re: Participation per Region of Authoring IETF documents vs Marketing

Hi, On May 28, 2013, at 19:46, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > by looking into the statistics of I-Ds and RFCs, it is strange that we get > sometimes high rate in the I-D going in IETF from some regions but the > success rate of I-Ds to become RFCs is very low (5- 50). which IDs and RFCs are you basi

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

ICANN constituencies, mission and participants are way different than IETF and an important number of folks receive financial support to participate. I believe the discussion is not really about if Buenos Aires is the right location or not but if by meeting in a particular region that will drive m

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

--On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 14:50 +1000 George Michaelson wrote: > I went to Adelaide. it was my first IETF. I am now an IETF > regular-irregular, of 10+ years standing. So, proof by > example, it increased Australian participation by at least 1. >... I think that increasing IETF participatio

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

--On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 08:34 +0200 Patrik Fältström wrote: > ICANN 48 is to be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 17-21 > November 2013, and I am looking forward to it! Patrik, ICANN has taken on a formal obligation to meet regularly in Latin America, sees significant obligation to "show

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

On 29 maj 2013, at 13:31, John C Klensin wrote: > Given the differences between ICANN and the IETF, this is > relevant how? I was not clear enough on my response. I see two things discussed: 1. Whether the organisation should "move around" and place meetings here and there. There is, as man

IETF Meeting in South America

Hello, I agree with the Idea of a IETF meeting in South America. I think it is a way to let the people know about IETF (of course there are other ways, but this is a good one), to give the possibility to students/engineers with very good skills to get into the IETF, thinking that it is going to b

financial fun with an IETF Meeting in South America

Hello, > I'd also say that I've never heard anyone making that sort of statement. > For instance, the argentinan government itself has a program to increase > Internet connectivity throughout the country -- > That is the web page of the program that Fernando mentions, http://www.conectariguald

Re: Participation per Region of Authoring IETF documents vs Marketing

>> by looking into the statistics of I-Ds and RFCs, it is strange that we get >> sometimes high rate in the I-D going in IETF from some regions but the >> success rate of I-Ds to become RFCs is very low (5- 50). There seems to be a general pattern where new participants first participate and/or

Re: Participation per Region of Authoring IETF documents vs Marketing

--On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 18:20 +0300 Jari Arkko wrote: > There seems to be a general pattern where new participants > first participate and/or produce IDs but it takes some time to > produce RFCs. For instance, for a while it was the case that > there was a growing number of proposals and p

Re: IETF Meeting in South America (off-topic)

At 02:19 29-05-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: I don't think I should follow the IETF culture to make my I-D adopted by WG, but I may follow the good/technical reasons the WG provide. We If a working group does not show any interest in working on an I-D it is a good enough reason, in my opinion

Re: Last Call: (Resource R ecords for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 08:44:08AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > but i think the draft in question has very serious privacy issues, and > would like to focus on that, not characterization of the messengers. The discussion in the security considerations of the -04 draft appears to me to acknowledge t

Re: Last Call: (Resource R ecords for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

--On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:25 -0400 Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 08:44:08AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > >> but i think the draft in question has very serious privacy >> issues, and would like to focus on that, not characterization >> of the messengers. > > The discussi

Re: Last Call: (Resource R ecords for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

On May 29, 2013, at 12:36 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > If I had been able to figure > out what else to say that would be stronger, constructive, and > not stray into Applicability Statement territory, I would have, > so I'm out of ideas and it is possible that Joe is too. Even if you don't have an

What do we mean when we standardize something?

Hi. A number of recent discussions, specifically including the Last Calls on DKIM and standardizing RRTYPEs and even to some extent the meeting location ones, have started me thinking that perhaps we need to review what business the IETF is actually in and to be sure that we actually still agree a

Re: When to adopt a WG I-D

This doc seems more useful as a section of an update to the TAO of the IETF. I agree with Brian that putting it forth as a separate document may give the unintended impression that this is the formal procedure. Joe On 5/28/2013 1:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 28/05/2013 21:32, Adrian Far

Re: When to adopt a WG I-D

On 5/29/2013 7:31 PM, Joe Touch wrote: This doc seems more useful as a section of an update to the TAO of the IETF. I agree with Brian that putting it forth as a separate document may give the unintended impression that this is the formal procedure. Nevermind that it isn't standards track or B

Re: What do we mean when we standardize something?

I think this is one of the best discussions of what we're about that I've seen anywhere, and I'm grateful to John for working this through. One thing I'd like to take up further is this: On 5/29/13 9:23 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > Similarly, we sometimes hear it argued that we should accept a > s

Re: What do we mean when we standardize something?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 5/29/13 11:38 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: > I think this is one of the best discussions of what we're about > that I've seen anywhere, and I'm grateful to John for working this > through. > > One thing I'd like to take up further is this: > > On 5/29

Re: When to adopt a WG I-D

On May 29, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 5/29/2013 7:31 PM, Joe Touch wrote: >> This doc seems more useful as a section of an update to the TAO of the >> IETF. I agree with Brian that putting it forth as a separate document >> may give the unintended impression that this is the form

Re: When to adopt a WG I-D

On 5/29/2013 10:36 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 5/29/2013 7:31 PM, Joe Touch wrote: This doc seems more useful as a section of an update to the TAO of the IETF. I agree with Brian that putting it forth as a separate document may give the unintended impression that this is the formal procedure.

Re: When to adopt a WG I-D

On 5/29/2013 7:42 PM, Joe Touch wrote: Yes, to some - especially newbies who don't know the process. Except that's exactly whom you're trying to reach. Consider yourself a newbie who has been told that the TAO gives all the informal information on how the IETF works. OK. So your premise is th

Re: When to adopt a WG I-D

On 5/29/2013 10:51 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 5/29/2013 7:42 PM, Joe Touch wrote: Yes, to some - especially newbies who don't know the process. Except that's exactly whom you're trying to reach. Consider yourself a newbie who has been told that the TAO gives all the informal information on ho

Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-05

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-

Re: When to adopt a WG I-D

You can always include add some text from this document in the TAO and add a reference so anybody wanting to know more could follow. Also, to me, this I+D also targets new and not so new WG chairs, not just new comers. .as On 5/29/13 2:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > > >

Re: When to adopt a WG I-D

On 5/29/2013 7:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote: My premise is that when introducing people to a new game, it makes sense to keep things simple and in one place p the TAO. You can continue to disagree with that if you prefer. I haven't disagreed with doing that. I disagreed with saying that that doc

Re: Last Call: (Resource R ecords for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

Hi Ted, On 2013-05-29, at 9:54, Ted Lemon wrote: > On May 29, 2013, at 12:36 PM, John C Klensin wrote: >> If I had been able to figure >> out what else to say that would be stronger, constructive, and >> not stray into Applicability Statement territory, I would have, >> so I'm out of ideas and

Re: When to adopt a WG I-D

On 5/29/2013 11:56 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 5/29/2013 7:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote: My premise is that when introducing people to a new game, it makes sense to keep things simple and in one place p the TAO. You can continue to disagree with that if you prefer. I haven't disagreed with doing

Re: What do we mean when we standardize something?

On 29 May 2013 18:42, "Peter Saint-Andre" wrote: > /me wonders if we need a separate series for informational documentation Or maybe multiple paths, with multiple entry points. Perhaps instead of Proposed Standard, we have a Engineering Proposal for an engineering consensus, and a Submitted Prop

Re: What do we mean when we standardize something?

On 30/05/2013 08:04, Dave Cridland wrote: > On 29 May 2013 18:42, "Peter Saint-Andre" wrote: >> /me wonders if we need a separate series for informational documentation > > Or maybe multiple paths, with multiple entry points. We already do have exactly that, and there are many instances of propr

Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-forces-interop-08

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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-forces-inter

Nomcom 2013-14 Volunteering - 2nd Call

Hi, everyone, Remember that I'm challenging the IETF to come up with 200 volunteers for the upcoming nomcom. You can volunteer just by hitting Reply to this email. What are you waiting for?? The more volunteers we get, the better chance we have of choosing a random yet representative cross sec

Oooops CORRECTION Reply to This - Re: Nomcom 2013-14 Volunteering - 2nd Call

Sorry - my eye was on entering the reply-to field and then I forgotapologies in advance for pain that may result from this lapse. On May 29, 2013, at 5:04 PM, "Mankin, Allison" wrote: > Hi, everyone, > > Remember that I'm challenging the IETF to come up with 200 volunteers for > the upc

Re: Last Call: (Resource R ecords for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

Hi Ted, At 09:53 29-05-2013, Ted Lemon wrote: too restrained in this regard, IMHO. I would add some text to the introduction, like this: The DNS Resource Records described in this document have significant privacy implications (see section 8). They were developed with the intention to use

Re: Last Call: (Resource R ecords for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

On May 29, 2013, at 5:51 PM, SM wrote: > Here's what I would be told: Scenario a and Scenario b do not have privacy > implications as they have been reviewed by a respected organization in > Canada. I would also be told that there is an Office of the Privacy > Commissioner of Canada which is

Re: Last Call: (Resource R ecords for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

On May 29, 2013, at 6:21 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > I hope the responsible AD for this document will not count me as > participating in the consensus on this document; it was not my intention in > making the suggestion I made to indicate that I favor publishing the > document. Based on the extent

DKIM promotion to Internet Standard status

As a commercial implementer and acknowledged contributor to the DKIM protocol IETF project, with some reservation, I would like to add my support for the promotion of the DKIM protocol to Internet Standard (IS) status. For the record, I would like to state that there still remains inconsisten

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

yes, I made a facetious posting because I sensed that we were discussing outcomes on a basis of 'nothing happened' when in fact, I think by scale, Australian participation reflects if not exceeds our numerical role in standards development and Internet matters. There is reason to believe we do accr

Re: Participation per Region of Authoring IETF documents vs Marketing

Hi Lars, It was for Asia region, I thought its rate is between (5 - 50) rfc/year for last 3 years. Basing on; The first figure of RFCs is the Comparison of countries over the year [1], the second, is the Distribution of number of RFCs per continent [2], the third is publication rate per year [3].

Re: Participation per Region of Authoring IETF documents vs Marketing

I would take those numbers with a HUGE grain of salt (as Jari documents). For example, I've lived in Australia since 2006, and yet am only listed as producing RFCs in the USA. Regards, On 30/05/2013, at 10:39 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > Hi Lars, > > It was for Asia region, I thought its

Re: Participation per Region of Authoring IETF documents vs Marketing

On 5/29/13, Jari Arkko wrote: > >>> by looking into the statistics of I-Ds and RFCs, it is strange that we >>> get >>> sometimes high rate in the I-D going in IETF from some regions but the >>> success rate of I-Ds to become RFCs is very low (5- 50). > > There seems to be a general pattern where n

Re: Last Call: (Resource R ecords for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

Hi Ted, On 2013-05-29, at 15:50, Ted Lemon wrote: > Okay, I felt a bit embarrassed about having said this, so I went back and > reviewed the justification for bringing this forth as an IETF document. The > stated reason for publishing the document as an IETF document is that there > is a re

RE: Participation per Region of Authoring IETF documents vs Marketing

http://www.arkko.com/tools/recrfcstats/d-contdistr.html (Jari, what time period is that across? Oceania doesn't rate a mention...) 11 RFCs (0.73%) have authors from South America. http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/fernandogont.html This author is in Argentina (as of 2013) Fernando has the follow

"Fixing: the standards track or RFC series (was: Re: What do we mean when we standardize something?)

Melinda, Peter, Dave, and Brian, I wanted to try to describe some fundamental models and their implications but avoid leaping head first into either the "fix the standards process" or "change the categories or content of the RFC Series" rat holes.However... --On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 09:38

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

Jari, Inspired by two of your recent notes and Dave Crocker's long one last weekend (with which I almost completely agree should that be notable), let me make a few observations: (1) To the extent to which the IETF's focus is on protocols that we hope vendors and others ("producers" in the vocabu

RE: When to adopt a WG I-D

OK, I think Dave and I are going to discuss this. I see a wedge :-) The problem is where to stop. I completely agree that the current I-D does not cover everything and I can see that *some* things can usefully be added. OTOH, if we don't draw lines, mission creep will lead us, step-by-step, to

Re: Participation per Region of Authoring IETF documents vs Marketing

Lloyd, > http://www.arkko.com/tools/recrfcstats/d-contdistr.html > (Jari, what time period is that across? Oceania doesn't rate a mention…) "Recent RFCs" is anything from RFC 5400 onwards. An arbitrary definition. And Oceania is listed under "Australia" per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contine