Re: Piling on [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id-03.txt

Hi Adam, exactly, we want to avoid having a confusing IANA registry. It needs to be crystal clear for the implementors who will check it at any point. In any case, note that a few IPR disclosures on the INSIPID drafts are being updated to reflect that they also apply to this draft. So, we will ne

Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

Hi Glen, as I mentioned in another email, that question is just a reminder. In the past, it has happened that even long-time IETF participants with a lot of experience had forgotten about a particular disclosure until they received the reminder. Responding with a "yes, per the draft's boilerplate

RE: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

Hi, I have doubts myself, doubts that I shared with the IESG that this question is really needed. Asking this question at the end of the process after the conformance with BCP 78 and BCP 79 was explicitly declared with each version of the I-D submitted seems redundant. It is probably intended

Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

On Sep 16, 2013, at 9:20 AM 9/16/13, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" wrote: > Hi, > > I have doubts myself, doubts that I shared with the IESG that this question > is really needed. Asking this question at the end of the process after the > conformance with BCP 78 and BCP 79 was explicitly declared

Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

On 09/16/2013 02:20 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > I have doubts myself, doubts that I shared with the IESG that this > question is really needed. Asking this question at the end of the > process after the conformance with BCP 78 and BCP 79 was explicitly > declared with each version of the I-

Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

It seems to me that it would be good practice (for someone?) to invite or remind authors of RFCs of the requirements of BCP 78 and 79 ... but maybe not use the words the email as below describing confirmation as "necessary in order to progress the document" "> Please confirm that any and a

Re: PS Characterization Clarified

On 13 sep. 2013, at 21:02, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hey Olaf, > > Thanks for stubbornly pushing on with this. > > Comments (sorry I haven't read the thread to see if others have already made > these comments)… This is to acknowledge I took the suggestions that I am not quoting. > --- >

Re: PS Characterization Clarified

[Barry added explicitly to the CC as this speaks to 'his' issue] On 13 sep. 2013, at 20:57, John C Klensin wrote: [… skip …] >> * Added the Further Consideration section based on >> discussion on themailinglist. > > Unfortunately, IMO, it is misleading to the extent that you are > capt

ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

[First post here] Hello, I'm a contributor to RFC 6350 - but I'm listed there by name only, and there is nothing to differentiate me from some other Andy Mabbett (the problem is no doubt worse for people with less unusual family names). Like many such contributors, I don't want to publish my emai

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

On 9/16/13 6:49 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > That's not to say you can't put any particular URI against your name in > an RFC, mind, but I'd be rather hesitant to leap at mandating a > registration procedure for authors. I think it's an interesting idea. It might be worth talking with Heather and w

Re: PS Characterization Clarified

> Yeah it is a thin line. But the language was introduced to keep a > current practice possible (as argued by Barry I believe). Yes, that was my concern. > I see where you are going. > > > > While commonly less mature specifications will be published as > Informational or Experimental RFCs, the

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > This problem is addressed by "Open Research Contributor Identifiers" > (ORCID; ), UIDs (and URIs) for scientific and other > academic authors. Mine is below. > There are actually IETF participants who share a name - all poo

IETF Mentor Program

All, Based on the positive feedback we received after IETF 87, we are going to continue the trial of an IETF mentoring program in Vancouver. During this trial period, we would like to pair newcomers (people who have attended 3 or fewer meetings or have registered as students) with existing IETF

Macro Expansion (was: Last Call: (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)

Hi Doug, At 21:55 11-09-2013, Douglas Otis wrote: Add to: 11.5.3. Macro Expansion ,--- It is not within SPF's purview whether IPv6 or DNSSEC is being used. IPv6 (RFC2460) increased the minimum MTU size to 1280 octets. DNSSEC is deployed with EDNS0 (RFC6891) to avoid TCP fallback. EDNS0 sug

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

Or perhaps use the FOAF (Friends of A Friend), inaugurating Semantic Web / Linked Data in the IETF. Avoids centralization and imposes no limits on the choice of the information by the interested. Julião Em 16/09/2013 11:52, Melinda Shore escreveu: > I think it's an interesting idea. It might be

Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

can we try to keep life simple? it is prudent to check what (new) ipr exists for a draft at the point where the iesg is gonna start the sausage machine to get it to rfc. if the iesg did not do this, we would rightly worry that we were open to a submarine job. this has happened, which is why this

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

--On Monday, September 16, 2013 18:34 +0100 Andy Mabbett wrote: >> If the goal is to include contact info for the authors in the >> document and in fact you can't be contacted using the info is >> it contact info? > > While I didn't say that the goal was to provide contact > info[*], an indivi

Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

--On Monday, September 16, 2013 07:14 -1000 Randy Bush wrote: > can we try to keep life simple? it is prudent to check what > (new) ipr exists for a draft at the point where the iesg is > gonna start the sausage machine to get it to rfc. if the iesg > did not do this, we would rightly worry t

Re: PS Characterization Clarified

--On Monday, September 16, 2013 15:58 +0200 Olaf Kolkman wrote: > [Barry added explicitly to the CC as this speaks to 'his' > issue] > > On 13 sep. 2013, at 20:57, John C Klensin > wrote: > > [… skip …] > >>> * Added the Further Consideration section based on >>> discussion on themail

RE: [Int-area] Last Call: (Using the IPv6 Flow Label for Server Load Balancing) to Informational RFC

I've reviewed this draft, and have one substantive comment: I think within the operational considerations (and possibly the info model), you need some discussion of diagnostics and troubleshooting, both for on-box and off-box implementations. How do I see that it's working properly, and how do

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

It's a good idea but I would generalize it. Why have a system just for I*? I would allow people to provide a pointer to their public information in one (or more?) of many places. For example, http://vivo.cornell.edu/display/individual8772 and if necessary we can explore federated identity. Scot

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

On 16 September 2013 19:06, John C Klensin wrote: >>> If the goal is to include contact info for the authors in the >>> document and in fact you can't be contacted using the info is >>> it contact info? >> >> While I didn't say that the goal was to provide contact >> info[*], an individual can do

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 9/16/13 6:49 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > > That's not to say you can't put any particular URI against your name in > > an RFC, mind, but I'd be rather hesitant to leap at mandating a > > registration procedure for authors. > > I think it's an intere

Re: [DNSOP] Practical issues deploying DNSSEC into the home.

This discussion highlights the importance of making sure that hardware vendors understand the need for working clocks that can be easily bootstrapped. In addition to NTP radio clock receivers are ubiquitous, tiny and ridiculously cheap. It is unconscionable that any consumer electronics are so

Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

> "John" == John C Klensin writes: John> It seems to me that, in this particular case, too many people John> are assuming a far more rigid process than actually exists or John> can be justified by any IETF consensus procedure. Let's just John> stop that. I agree with John h

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

On 9/16/2013 3:07 PM, David Morris wrote: On Mon, 16 Sep 2013, Melinda Shore wrote: On 9/16/13 6:49 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: That's not to say you can't put any particular URI against your name in an RFC, mind, but I'd be rather hesitant to leap at mandating a registration procedure for auth

Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

On 09/15/2013 11:06 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: Hi, Qin is correct. Glen's way of responding does not help. Apparently there is no way that would be helpful (see below). The wording of this question is not a choice. As WG chairs we are required to answer the following question which is

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

On 17/09/2013 02:39, Andy Mabbett wrote: > [First post here] > > Hello, > > I'm a contributor to RFC 6350 - but I'm listed there by name only, and > there is nothing to differentiate me from some other Andy Mabbett (the > problem is no doubt worse for people with less unusual family names). > Lik

Re: PS Characterization Clarified

--On Monday, September 16, 2013 10:43 -0400 Barry Leiba wrote: >... > I agree that we're normally requiring much more of PS > documents than we used to, and that it's good that we document > that and let external organizations know. At the same time, > we are sometimes proposing things that we

Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

--On Monday, September 16, 2013 19:35 +0700 Glen Zorn wrote: >... >> The wording of this question is not a choice. As WG chairs we >> are required to answer the following question which is part >> of the Shepherd write-up as per the instructions from the >> IESG http://www.ietf.org/iesg/templa

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

On 9/16/13 7:39 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > [First post here] > > Hello, > > I'm a contributor to RFC 6350 - but I'm listed there by name only, and > there is nothing to differentiate me from some other Andy Mabbett (the > problem is no doubt worse for people with less unusual family names). > Like

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for bibliographers

>* The purpose of ORCID is to /uniquely/ identify individuals, both to >differentiate between people with similar names, and to unify works >where the author uses variant or changed names If you think that's a good idea, I don't see any reason to forbid people from including an ORCID along with th

Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

On Sep 16, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > This is a claim in the boilerplate which the IETF, not the authors, are > making. I am sure flames are already directed my way for being imprecise here, but what I mean is that although the authors put this boilerplate in the document, the IETF,

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

On 16 September 2013 17:59, joel jaeggli wrote: >> I'm a contributor to RFC 6350 - but I'm listed there by name only, and >> there is nothing to differentiate me from some other Andy Mabbett (the >> problem is no doubt worse for people with less unusual family names). >> Like many such contributor

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for bibliographers

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:24 PM, John Levine wrote: > >* The purpose of ORCID is to /uniquely/ identify individuals, both to > >differentiate between people with similar names, and to unify works > >where the author uses variant or changed names > > If you think that's a good idea, I don't see an

Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

Ralph, Will you be in Vancouver? I'd like to get some time to talk about IPSO and also my new project for the White House - SmartUSA Challenge. I plan to be there if I can get approval for "foreign travel". Geoff Mulligan Presidential Innovation Fellow Cyber-Physical Systems SmartUSA Chal

Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

On Sep 16, 2013, at 1:37 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > (2) Whether the "submitted in full conformance..." statement in > I-Ds is sufficient to cover IPR up to the point of posting of > the I-D. If the answer is "no", then there is a question of why > we are wasting the bits. If it is "yes", as I a

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for bibliographers

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 8:24 PM, John Levine wrote: > My name turns out to be fairly common. Over the years, I have been > confused with a comp sci professor in Edinburgh, a psychology > professor in Pittsburgh, another comp sci researcher in Georgia, a > psychiatrist in Cambridge MA, a composer

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for bibliographers

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 >Since this has turned out to be ambiguous, I have decided to instead use a >SHA-256 hash of my DNA sequence: > >9f00a4-9d1379-002a03-007184-905f6f-796534-06f9da-304b11-0f88d7-92192e-98b2 How does your identical twin brother feel about this? -BEG

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

On Sep 16, 2013, at 11:31 PM, John Levine wrote: >> How do I know that the sender of this message actually has the right >> to claim the ORCID in question (-0001-5882-6823)? The web page >> doesn't present anything (such as a public key) that could be used >> for authentication. > > I dunno

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

On 16 September 2013 21:06, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > How do I know that the sender of this message actually has the right > to claim the ORCID in question (-0001-5882-6823)? The web page > doesn't present anything (such as a public key) that could be used > for authentication. It is not the

Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

On 17/09/2013 08:10, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Sep 16, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> This is a claim in the boilerplate which the IETF, not the authors, are >> making. > > I am sure flames are already directed my way for being imprecise here, but > what I mean is that although the authors p

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

On 16 September 2013 21:37, Andy Mabbett wrote: > It is not the purpose of ORCID to provide authentication. I also note that: "ORCID uses OAuth to support authentication of the relationship between an individual and an ORCID record. When an individual creates a record, ORCID sends a verificati

Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

(off-list) John C Klensin wrote: > > The first sentence of the writeup template, "As required by RFC > 4858, this is the current template..." is technically invalid > because RFC 4858, as an Informational document, cannot _require_ > anything of the standards process. I'm OK with asserting that

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

On 16 September 2013 19:06, John C Klensin wrote: > Treating an ORCID (or equivalent) as supplemental would also > avoid requiring the RSE to inquire about guarantees about the > permanence and availability of the relevant database. I've checked with ORCID and they say: "the ORCID Registry is p

RE: [Int-area] Last Call: (Using the IPv6 Flow Label for Server Load Balancing) to Informational RFC

Please disregard, these comments are intended for draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-05. I replied to the wrong thread. Sorry for the spam. Thanks, Wes > -Original Message- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > George, Wes > Sent: Monday,

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

On 16 September 2013 22:02, Yoav Nir wrote: > If we use ORCID instead of email No-one has proposed that. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

>How do I know that the sender of this message actually has the right >to claim the ORCID in question (-0001-5882-6823)? The web page >doesn't present anything (such as a public key) that could be used >for authentication. I dunno. How do we know who brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com is? I can tel

Gen-ART LC Review of draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-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-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establi

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

On 9/16/13 1:02 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: > If we use ORCID instead of email, we get less strong authentication. That's not its job - it's there to distinguish between authors with similar names. As I understand the proposal the intent is to have it provide additional information, not supplant anything

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

On 17/09/2013 11:19, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 9/16/13 1:02 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: >> If we use ORCID instead of email, we get less strong authentication. > > That's not its job - it's there to distinguish between authors > with similar names. Fair enough, but adding a public key to the record wou

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

On 9/16/13 3:41 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Fair enough, but adding a public key to the record would enable > authentication too. I suppose it was inevitable that when it came into the IETF it would balloon into an overcomplicated mess. Think of it as one metadata element, not a big blob of me

Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for bibliographers

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM, John Levine wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > >Since this has turned out to be ambiguous, I have decided to instead use a > >SHA-256 hash of my DNA sequence: > > > >9f00a4-9d1379-002a03-007184-905f6f-796534-06f9da-304b11-0f88d7-92192e-98

RE: ORCID - unique identifiers for bibliographers

I do have an identical twin brother, and hashing the DNA sequence collides more regularly than either random or MAC-based interface-identifiers in IPv6. Also, he doesn't have the same opinions. Greg Daley From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Phillip Hallam-Ba

RE: ORCID - unique identifiers for bibliographers

I do have an identical twin brother, and hashing the DNA sequence collides more regularly than either random or MAC-based interface-identifiers in IPv6. Also, he doesn't have the same opinions. Clearly, one of you needs to get to know some retroviruses. Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com,

Why we don't want to actually replace 2026 (was: PS Characterization Clarified)

Hi John, At 08:31 16-09-2013, John C Klensin wrote: By the way, while I understand all of the reasons why we don't want to actually replace 2026 (and agree with most of them), things are getting to the point that it takes far too much energy to actually figure out what the rules are. Perhaps it