Re: [Ietf] New .mobi, .xxx, ... TLDs?

% There are two proposals for .tel; here's text from one of them: % % Sub-domains of ".tel" may not be arbitrarily defined; rather % they are defined in accordance with the ITU E.164 standard. % A valid e164 domain name under the ".tel" TLD is defined % as follows: % %

Re: Root Anycast

% But as long as we're dissing anycast root DNS servers: how many of the % root servers are being anycast now or in the future, and how many % won't? http://www.rssac.org/ check the 17th & 18th meeting minutes. --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you r

Re: Root Anycast

% % On 17-mei-04, at 17:41, Bill Manning wrote: % % > % But as long as we're dissing anycast root DNS servers: how many of % > the % > % root servers are being anycast now or in the future, and how many % > % won't? % % > http://www.rssac.org/ % % > c

Re: E911 location services (CAS system too)

% If you are reading this, I may actually have an implementation that merits % further review. Thanks for your inquiry. % % Sal % Salvatore Mangiapane roughly, see DNSSEC. If you just want to use the DNS to store CERTS, yor in luck. The CERT RR is supported in most of t

Re: E911 location services (CAS system too)

% % > If you -really- want this % > to work, you need to be able to trust what the DNS gives you. % > % > % > --bill % % If (this is a BIG if): % % 1) this so called CAS system were implemented % 2) DNS chose to use the CAS system to provide DNS server digital %certificates % 3) DN

Re: Chinese IPv9

% Complete compilation of news at http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=622 % % But I guess is an hoax ? % the site seems to be missing some of the chinese language reports... :) and based on (imho) more informed sources, this is not a

Re: Naming convention for a WG I-D that returns to

clearly different rules apply, depending on whom makes the submission. for example, several individual submissions were made before this IETF and we (the authors) were told that we -MUST- use the name of one of th eauthors in the draft name... however, we see that other individual submissions are

Re: survey on Friday IETF sessions

perhaps the reason there has not been more participation in your survey is associated w/ the following: "A problem occurred in a Python script. Here is the sequence of function calls leading up to the error, in the order they occurred." this error could be due to the fact that I did not attend

Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....

% % How about prior art? Am I wrong to think of expiry dates as only relating to % currency to Standards process rather than to the broader record? % % Following on from that does the expiry indicate that the copyright reverts % back from ISOC to the authors? I hadn't expected that to be the case

Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....

% % % fwiw - I would like to see a public archive of old IDs % % something like % http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/html/xids-curr.html % % would be ideal (imo) tangled nest of vipers here. :) ome might take the USG tactic and treat the maintance of some archive as a "third-

Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....

% % Bill - as I said in a previous posting - it would be quite fine % for you to say 'IETF- you do not have permission to post my expired ID' % and the IETF should then remove your ID from the IETF's public archive % but just because you might want to do that shoudl not (imo) keep the % IETF from

Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....

% % One of those terms/conditions was a limited period % of publication, after which, the rights revert back % to the author(s). % % ps - look at RFC 3667 section 1 (g) % % Scott ah... but said RFC did not exist at the time my IDs went out. and my curso

Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....

% that said, it could be that the 40,000 or so legacy % draft authors won't care, but it would be sound hygiene % to ask them if they mind if RFC 3667 rules would apply % to their contributions. % % you are kidding - right? % % Scott nope. not kidding an

Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....

% Joe, % % You mention a potential chilling effect an authors if the IETF % maintained an archive of past drafts, but the text in RFC 2026 is pretty % clear. Check the paragraph #1 in section 10.3.1. It says "the % contributor ... grant an unlimited perpetual, non-exclusive, % royalty-free, world-

Re: I-D submission tool draft

% I think that this process is missing a chance to deal with one of the % confusions about the IETF's process - if the submission process included % a click-through agreement covering the IPR (copyright & patent % disclosure) requirements it would eliminate any possibility for the % submitter to cl

Re: I-D submission tool draft

% % Bill says: % actually, i think that the WG chairs are the -wrong- people % to ensure that the right text is part of each -00 IDs. you % really want proper legal review of each -00 id to ensure that % the copyright text is correct/intact. % % I do not recall say

Re: Reminder: Poll about restructuring options

% Just a reminder: % % The poll about restructuring options: % % % % is open until Wednesday. % % The poll does contain questions that we want EVERYONE to answer, whether % they have a specific opinion or not. So everyone who reads the

Re: Issue with Meeting Schedule change at the last moment

hum... who is this "we" that you speak of? and why do you think that you must attend and be a participant in -every- meeting on this topic? if you've spent any time at all within the IETF, you must know that the published agenda is an attempt to get enough space and enough time to meet & di

IPv6 -HAS- been deployed -- yawn.

On Nov 5, 2004, at 17:17, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Noel, Then you should not just look for data, but compare it. For instance, when IPv4 was initially deployed, how much time took to get some "realistic" deployment. Also remember that in IPv6 only /32 are announced, so you can't just compa

Re: [Inquiry #19085] Issue with Meeting Schedule change at the last moment

On Nov 7, 2004, at 15:15, Stephane Maes wrote: I am asking that agenda be not changed long enough before a FTF (e.g. 15 days) and that changes after be only for adhoc meetings provided that there are no objevtions of meeting participants. Thanks Stephane perhaps ... if you were willing to mak

Re: IPv6 is being deployed !

"6.4.3. Minimum Allocation RIRs will apply a minimum size for IPv6 allocations, to facilitate prefix-based filtering. The minimum allocation size for IPv6 address space is /32." So the problem is still there. (Same text is also still present at IANA and the other RIRs.) the "problem" is th

Re: Why?

On Mar 12, 2005, at 12:29, Michel Py wrote: Noel Chiappa wrote: The problem with this is that multiple addresses were adopted as the way to do large-scale multi-homing (i.e. having a lot of multi-homed sites) because it was the only approach that seemed technically feasible within the existing arch

Re: Why?

On Mar 12, 2005, at 17:14, Keith Moore wrote: Starting with the more specific principle, moving functionality from "the network" to "the user entities" is not at all necessarily the Wrong Thing. Sometimes it's very much the Right Thing. however, when that functionality requires having knowledge th

Re: reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless

On Mar 15, 2005, at 9:08, Odonoghue, Karen F CIV B35-Branch wrote: I distinctly remember sitting in the health club hot tub at the end of IETF58 swearing I would never do the wireless again. well... call me old fashioned - I appreciate those good folks who go forth and try and give us an env

Re: reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless

On Mar 16, 2005, at 10:36, Dave Crocker wrote: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:12:59 -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:  >  how much would it cost us to have our own equipment?  >   Shouldn't the question of _which_ equipment to buy come first ? That will   pretty much   determine the price. indeed. my questi

Re: IENs: 127, 117, 93

i've all the existant IENs in paper form, have scanned them and merged the database with the ASCII transcriptions that are/were on the RFC-Editor site. There is a plan to put them online soon. --bill manning On Apr 16, 2005, at 18:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: h... http://www.google.com S

Re: Uneccesary slowness.

perhaps but i think (based on personal experience w/ the "discover" draft first submitted in 1998 - still in "process") that the reason for the increased "slowness" in getting documents through the RFC Editor is the extra-ordinary burden placed on the RFC editor staff to coordinate w/ and

Re: Last Call: 'Deprecation of "ip6.int"' to BCP

this is a next step in removing support for 6 years of legacy code in endsystems. given that some folks will not upgrade without incentive, this document provides RIRs and others with justification for terminating service for this legacy code. i would much prefer carrots instead of sticks to mot

Re: S stands for Steering [Re: Should the IESG rule or not?]

On Jul 5, 2005, at 2:32, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Robert Elz wrote: ... Also remember that "no consensus" in an issue like this, really needs to mean "no authority" - if you cannot get at least most of the community to agree with the IESG position, then the IESG cannot just claim the authori

Re: Why have we gotten away from running code?

On Aug 11, 2005, at 2:22, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I think that's right. However, what may well be missing in the mix is input from people who actually deploy and operate our stuff, and live with its limitations and quirks every day. We need to understand the indirect consequences of our choic

Re: Why have we gotten away from running code?

On Aug 11, 2005, at 7:09, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 11-aug-2005, at 11:22, Brian E Carpenter wrote: However, what may well be missing in the mix is input from people who actually deploy and operate our stuff, and live with its limitations and quirks every day.

Re: Stopping loss of transparency...

steve bellovin and jck have very good advice. my question... what happens when you use address literals in the URL; i.e. http(s)://192.02.80/index.php --bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

there is a fairly extensive history of multicast DNS... in 1998/1999, along w/ this draft: Woodcock, B., Manning, B., "Multicast Domain Name Service", draft-manning-dnsext-mdns-02.txt, August 2000. Revied twice now Expired. was this one: Vixie, P., Manning, B., "Supporting unicast replies

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Aug 26, 2005, at 10:36, Russ Allbery wrote: Presumably the DNS working group has some incredibly strong arguments that trump running code or they wouldn't have made the choices that they have. Let's see them, and furthermore, let's see them *in the document* or at least in a supporting in

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:25, Peter Dambier wrote: Russ Allbery wrote: Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Other than a few minor issues that are being dealt with in a -43 update, I don't think that anyone has raised a blocking technical issue with the LLMNR specification during this

Re: Name ownership and LLMNR (Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution...)

On Sep 1, 2005, at 15:17, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On torsdag, september 01, 2005 20:30:56 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "You choose" in the DNS case is because you believe (presumably) in the chain of servers between you, the root node and the authoritativ

Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-blanchet-v6ops-routing-guidelines-00.txt

sorry, the I-D has no information as to where this should be discussed... so: i am convinced that the IETF has no business telling me what routes i may or may not accept from or send to my peers, with the exception of prefixes of undefined BEHAVIOUR, much like the IPv4 class "E" space. That said,

Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call

On Sep 20, 2005, at 10:55, Bernard Aboba wrote: DNSsec is very important for other reasons, such as the current pharming attacks. The risks have been known in the security community since at least 1991, and publicly since at least 1995. The long- predicted attacks are now happening. We reall

Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone. --bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Can the USA welcome IETF

M. Eduardo, i am persaded that you are inconsistent at best. first you state: >This is may be we do not share the same culture. >Every culture is to be respected. and then you state: On Oct 17, 2005, at 10:04, Eduardo Mendez wrote: >IETF culture is no interest. Please respect th

Re: jabber rooms

On Nov 9, 2005, at 6:27, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, November 09, 2005 04:05 +0100 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't think I've seen a reminder this week that jabber room for the XXX WG or BOF is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brian, I commented to someone last nig

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML

so your concerned about editing ASCI text vs. ASCI XML? i think you'll be spending that hour regardless. --bill On Nov 9, 2005, at 12:02, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: What I do find somewhat tedious is coming to edit an internet draft or RFC someone else wrote and discovering that I have to sp

Re: FYI - ZDNet and the "Birth of IPv6" referring to the BBC article

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

Re: ISO 3166 mandatory?

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.

Re: Scheduling unpleasantness

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

Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

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

Re: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness

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

Re: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness

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 >

Re: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness

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&#

Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

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.

Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

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.

Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

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

Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

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

Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

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

Re: Blue sheet harvest

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

Re: Blue sheet harvest

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.

Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal

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. >

Re: Blue sheet harvest

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 > > >

Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal

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

Re: ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration

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

Re: ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration

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

Re: ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration

> 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, >

Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

> > 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

Re: problem dealing w/ ietf.org mail servers

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

Re: problem dealing w/ ietf.org mail servers

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

Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2606

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

Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

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

Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

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

Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2606

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

Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

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

Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73

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-

Re: Improvements for IETF 72

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.

Re: 73rd IETF - Registration

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

Re: Proposed DNSSEC Plenary Experiment for IETF 74

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

Re: Proposed DNSSEC Plenary Experiment for IETF 74

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.

Re: Proposed DNSSEC Plenary Experiment for IETF 74

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

Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your reviewand comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem

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

Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your reviewand comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem

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." > -

Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your reviewandcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem

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

Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?

> > That said, the hotel cost is as much of an issue for me. I continually have > to weigh up the convenience of staying in the host hotel, with the > exorbitant room rates. The 30% degradation of the US dollar over the last > six or seven years is a great help, but surely it would be even bett

Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?

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

Re: IPv4

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

Re: IPv4

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 > >&

Re: IPv4

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

Re: IPv4

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

Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all

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

Re: IPv6 RIR policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all]

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

Re: IPv6 RIR policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all]

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

Re: IPv6 RIR policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all]

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

Re: IPv6 RIR policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all]

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,

Re: Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt)

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,

Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

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

Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

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

Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it

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

Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it

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

Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it

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

Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it

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

Re: Non-participants [Re: Experimental makes sense for tls-authz]

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.

Re: Transitioning IETF DNS services

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

Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

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 > > > >

  1   2   3   >