ed in 000s) will be
drawn from the October 13, 2004 Wall Street Journal which
reports the sales figures from the previous trading day - October
12, 2004. If trading in any of the shares is suspended, then
the shares traded will be assumed to be 0.
Please volunteer!
Thanks!
Danny McPherson <[EMAIL
oosing it's leadership,
your participation is integral to it's success.
Please Volunteer!
-danny
[snip]
From: Danny McPherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:46:59 -0400
Subject: NomCom 2004/05 Call for Volunteers
==
t Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Russ White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stewart Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Non-voting Members:
Danny McPherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Chair)
Eric Rescorla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (IAB Liaison)
Alex Zinin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (IESG Liaison)
Steve Crocker &l
://www.ietf.org/nomcom/msg09.27.04.txt
If you've volunteered but don't see you name on the list please
send me a note.
If you haven't volunteered as of yet, please do!
Thanks!
-danny
---
From: Danny McPherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:38:23 -
The final list of 2004/05 NomCom volunteers is available
here:
http://www.ietf.org/nomcom/msg10.06.04.txt
If you've volunteered and don't see your name on the list
please contact me ASAP. If your name is flagged on the
list you still need to be confirmed as eligible (I'm in the
process of doing th
Please send your nominations for open IESG and IAB positions
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IESG members whose terms are up are:
Harald Alvestrand -- IETF Chair
Bill Fenner -- Routing Area
Ted Hardie -- Applications Area
Russ Housley -- Security Area
David Kessens -- Operations & Management Area
Thomas Narte
Folks,
Please send your nominations for open IESG and IAB positions
to [EMAIL PROTECTED], many thanks to those of you that have
already provided feedback to the NomCom.
IESG members whose terms are up are:
Harald Alvestrand -- IETF Chair
Bill Fenner -- Routing Area
Ted Hardie -- Applications Area
R
Folks,
NomCom members will be available in the Bancroft Room at the
Hilton Monday through Wednesday afternoon and available for
nominations, discussion and collection of any feedback you might
like to provide.
Please drop an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or me directly) if
you'd like to chat with any
Folks,
Only one week left, please send your nominations for open IESG
and IAB positions to [EMAIL PROTECTED], many thanks to those of
you that have already provided feedback to the NomCom.
IESG members whose terms are up are:
Harald Alvestrand -- IETF Chair
Bill Fenner -- Routing Area
Ted Hardie --
omaki
Matt Larson
Russ White
Stewart Bryant
Non-voting Members:
Eric Rescorla (IAB Liaison)
Alex Zinin (IESG Liaison)
Steve Crocker (ISOC Liaison)
Richard Draves (Previous Chair/Advisor)
Danny McPherson (Chair)
Thanks,
-danny (On behalf of the 2004
nt
Non-voting Members:
Danny McPherson (Chair)
Eric Rescorla (IAB Liaison)
Alex Zinin (IESG Liaison)
Steve Crocker (ISOC Liaison)
Richard Draves (Previous Chair/Advisor)
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On May 9, 2005, at 8:09 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'm going to ask this year's Nomcom chair to see if this year's
candidates can answer the question "would you have run if your name
had been made public?"
Brian
Brian et al.,
Here are some data points for folks to consider. Thanks to all
thos
agnus Westerlund
Markus Isomaki
Matt Larson
Russ White
Stewart Bryant
Non-voting Members:
Eric Rescorla (IAB Liaison)
Alex Zinin (IESG Liaison)
Steve Crocker (ISOC Liaison)
Richard Draves (Previous Chair/Advisor)
Danny McPherson (Chair)
Thanks to all,
-danny (On behalf of the 2004/05 N
On Jul 28, 2005, at 7:53 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
- number of candidates who were nominated for each area (not by name)
and for the IAB
- number who agreed to serve (per area and for the IAB)
- number of those who made the short list per area and for the IAB
Eliot et al.,
Apologies for the
On Mar 7, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> Fully agree. In fact, given that the IAB expectations have been on
> the web for >4 years, it's surprising this debate hasn't happened
> before.
One might argue that it has, and it's specifically what prompted
clarify - yet still ambiguous
On Mar 7, 2008, at 1:10 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>
> Agreed - and one of the process failures here is that a nomcom that
> includes the previous chair and a liaison from the IAB designed a
> questionnaire in ignorance of the stated requirements; if the IAB
> expec
On Mar 15, 2008, at 9:10 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> I understand that there is work underway on the topic of revising 3777
> and I have also had several discussions with various folks on this
> topic. With no intention to undermine the work already underway, I
> will
> briefly state some
On Mar 17, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Isn't one of the roles of the liaisons to ensure that due process is
> followed to the extent required by the body they represent, and to
> give
> advanced notice when the choice of candidate is likely to be
> unacceptable to their body?
Ye
On Mar 17, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> Stewart Bryant wrote:
>> Isn't one of the roles of the liaisons to ensure that due process is
>> followed to the extent required by the body they represent, and to
>> give
>> advanced notice when the choice of candidate is likely to be
>>
On Mar 17, 2008, at 8:08 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> Try this one, quite non-hypothetical: a candidate for the IESG is
> contemplating switching jobs. His or her current employer does not
> yet
> know this. It has a clear bearing on whether or not that person can
> do
> the job of AD, b
48 Volunteers total... Additional data point:
8 Nokia /* includes NSN */
5 Ericsson
5 Cisco
2 Tekelec
2 Qualcomm
2 Juniper Networks
2 Huawei
2 BBN Technologies
2 Alcatel-Lucent
1 Viagenie
1 Trinity College Dublin and Newbay Software
1 Telecom Ita
On Nov 11, 2008, at 11:57 AM, David Kessens wrote:
Joe,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:20:11AM -0800, Joe St Sauver wrote:
I'm not aware of DNS block lists which cover IPv6 address spaces at
this time, probably in part because IPv6 traffic remains de minimis
(see http://asert.arbornetworks.com/
On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:34 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Sorry, I misremembered.
The correct number from the presentation is 0.238% - only Russia,
Ukraine and France have more than 0.5% IPv6.
Presentation available from http://rosie.ripe.net/presentations-detail/Thursday/Plenary%2014:00/index
On Nov 12,
The report as presented at the RIPE meeting indeed mentions the
possibility of undercounting. However, it appears that there is an
undercount of several orders of magnitude. At that point you really
cannot claim that the report provides a perspective on Internet IPv6
traffic as it d
Having been on several nomcoms, served as chair, and as a
liaison/advisor, I fully agree with Fred. I think we see a thread
such as this (i.e., re: confidentiality of nomcom feedback, willing
nominees, non-willing nominees, who's re-upping, who's not,
etc..) pretty much every year about this tim
On Nov 7, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
What The liaisons are there to provide additional information,
not directly influence the outcome.
Do you have more information on this? If this is true, I think the
result from that Nomcom is questionable. I think this needs to be
On Nov 7, 2006, at 3:46 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
Bob - depends on the meaning of "straw poll". Any vote that
results in an
action should be restricted to the 10 voting members. My
understanding of
"straw poll" is an opinion poll that results in no direct action.
Agree, as is mine.
-danny
Folks,
The RFC Editor has drafted a proposal for handling RFC
errata. The proposal is available in the Internet-Drafts
repository as:
draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-00.txt
Discussion of this proposal is encouraged, and should
take place on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.
You can find gen
I do support this document being published as BCP.
A couple of minor comments:
Section 4's reference to BCP 84, in part, creates a false sense of
useful action on part of the operator, IMO (in addition, there's a
typo; s/were/where/).
In situations were more complex network setups are in pla
On Oct 1, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
No; the blame for an attack _always_ lies with the attacker, not
the victim. While I certainly wish more network providers would
implement BCP 38, those who fail to do so are not to blame for the
bad acts of others.
Given the realit
On Oct 1, 2007, at 1:52 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 10:32:39PM -0600,
Danny McPherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 51 lines which said:
Section 4's reference to BCP 84, in part, creates a false sense of
useful action on part of the opera
On Oct 1, 2007, at 7:42 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
As for the TSIG or SIG(0) recommendation, I'm not sure what
the numbers are for client support today, but I suspect it's at
best an negligible sample.
Well all Windows XP/2003/Vista boxes can be configured to
support TSIG, with
On Oct 1, 2007, at 9:24 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Note that in real deployments just this behavior has broken things
on occasion, as many firewall and other such policy application
points
assume things like DNS resolution will only be UDP/53 transactions.
That assumption has always
On Oct 1, 2007, at 8:55 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I'm not blaming the victim, I'm pointing out the contributory
negligence on behalf of the ISP that is supplying the
attacker bandwidth.
BCP 38 is over 7 years old now. The time has past where you can
blam
On Oct 2, 2007, at 1:41 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Someone should talk to ucdavis.edu and get this idiocy pulled.
And NIST, and many many others..
Because there are lots of recursive and authoritative
nameservers out there behind firewalls that get it right.
I'
I'd prefer Option 3 (as well).
-danny
> [clipped...]
[clipped more...]
> 3/ Status quo
[...]
> Option 2 would be fine. Option 3 would be ok too.
>
> Yakov.
>
> 3. The I in IETF means that the IETF shouldn't be working
> sub-IP anyway. Many of these discussions (layer 2 VPNs, in
> particular) would be better served by occuring within the context
> of their original host organization (i.e., IEEE for ethernet over
> IP),
Perhaps
> They defined ethernet. It is they who would best determine how to carry
> ethernet over another protocol and keep current ethernet correctness.
Sure, but what about IP network correctness (e.g., security or congestion
control)?
> Certainly IETF-ers would be useful participants, but keep in m
[Apologies in advance for the use of this distribution list,
I need to ensure that I cover as many work areas as possible]
That said, I wanted to ask if folks that are aware of real uses
for "directed broadcasts" in networks today could let me know of
the use. I'm aware of a few (e.g. the Mobi
Could anyone that's ever "deployed" an IGP take just a second to
answer the following questions? Please reply in private, I'll send
a summary to the list.
Thanks in advance!
-danny
[snip]
Included below are several questions regarding IGP use. If you don't
have the time to complete the ent
> actually, it must have been a wider list, as i was included as a victim.
>
> i foolishly presume folk on the ietf list are net.savvy enough to know
> that wise folk do not do any business with spammers. their lack of ethics
> is likely not limited to email.
Come on, this guy's a head hunter.
Actually, the reality is that this alias wasn't spammed. Someone [apparently]
used information obtained from some apparently-IETF-associated list to send
unsolicited messages to lots of folks that are associated with the IETF (in
some form or another).
Ran, does your company make it routine
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
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
The PWOT mailing list has been created for discussion
of Pseudo Wires Over Transport. PWOT is a descendant
of CEOT (Circulation Emulation Over Transport), and is
a to-be working group.
The IESG is working with the chairs to finalize the
charter now and a BOF slot has been secured for the
m
> Please clarify exactly what you mean by 'Member posting only' for an
> IETF WG list. (You may wish to read recent discussion on poisson
> over the last month first, and consider the implications.)
Anti-spam measures are in place (i.e., non-member posts are moderated).
I believe this should a
On Dec 4, 2012, at 9:46 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>
> But the point of "running code" in our nice, catchy slogan, is that
> "running" doesn't mean simply that it runs. It means that it's
> actually *in use*, possibly for real, but at least in a test lab where
> it's getting real use. *Real* runni
> Given these observations, the public declaration last year by the NRO
> > that all 5 RIRs will offer RPKI service as of 1/1/11, and the
> ongoing > SIDR WG efforts, most of this discussion seems OBE at this
> stage.
Steve,
Thanks for your comments here, not surprisingly, they're spot on...
Ad
>
> Given these observations, the public declaration last year by the NRO
> that all 5 RIRs will offer RPKI service as of 1/1/11, and the ongoing
> SIDR WG efforts, most of this discussion seems OBE at this stage.
Steve,
Thanks for your comments here, not surprisingly, they're spot on...
Additi
Figured I'd be the one to kick a thread off on this fascinating topic :-)
I like the idea of day passes, it's not just about the cost of the day pass and
all it avails, if someone is only coming to the IETF meeting for a day (e.g.,
they only want a day pass because they have a time constraining
On Apr 28, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> These comments were sent to the IAB already. I was encouraged to send them
> to the general IETF list. This is mostly a re-posting of the comments, with
> one added paragraph (there's marker there).
>
> The referenced document is:
> http://
On Jul 27, 2009, at 3:02 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 27 jul 2009, at 9:43, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
This must mean that silently enabling IPv6 increases the number of
people for whom IPv6 works by a factor of around 100 (from <0.01%
in the general population
(http://asert.arbornetw
On Sep 28, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
Look at http://www.nro.net/ for the current process. Look at
http://www.ebay.com/ for the process once the IANA & RIR pools are
allocated. There are misguided fantasy discussions about controlling
the
market in the RIR context, but given that the
Russ, Olaf, et al,
I was serious in my recommendation to experiment with limiting
question (comment) time at the microphone at plenaries. I believe
it'll not only help mere mortals pay more attention, but will also
encourage those folks that have questions or comments to be more
concise, thereby
On Nov 16, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
I can think of a few people who I think have been
ranting too long as soon as they step up to the
mike. So, I think it's probably a mistake to turn
plenaries into a techie version of "The Gong Show" -
we shouldn't be making it easier to silenc
On Dec 19, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
> I don't think this idea is coming from people who don't understand the
> Internet or its current economic models. I think they understand it all too
> well. I think this is a thoroughly bad idea that really should be stopped
> dead in its
On Dec 14, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> As you say, NetConf is for *configuring* routers. RPKI-rtr is not used
> for router configuration, but rather dynamic data, a la IS-IS or BGP.
> In fact, the RPKI-rtr payload data go into the same data structure as
> the BGP data.
But aren't you'
I'm kinda surprised the security ADs are OK with this in a brand new
connection-oriented protocol meant to increase security of the network:
S.7:
"Caches and routers MUST implement unprotected transport
over TCP using a port, rpki-rtr, to be assigned, see Section 12.
Operators SHOULD use proce
On Dec 20, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hi Danny,
>
> On 12/20/2011 11:00 PM, Danny McPherson wrote:
>>
>> I'm kinda surprised the security ADs are OK with this in a brand new
>> connection-oriented protocol meant to increase security of
On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:17 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> Unfortunately not all OSs support TCP-AO…. Well then, it seems that, as
> routers already support SSH it should be simple to wrap a TCP stream, yes?
> Unfortunately no -- not all implementations have a simple library type model.
> Same thi
On Dec 21, 2011, at 8:01 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>
> Since all of the objects that are transferred over this protocol are
> digitally signed, I do not see a security issue. I think the Security
> Considerations section (Section 11) does a good job explaining the situation
They're signed and
On Dec 21, 2011, at 11:55 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Stephane:
>
> Sorry, I was too terse in my response. Let me try again.
>
> All of the inputs to the server are signed, so there is no concern about
> theses objects being modified.
>
> Once process by the server, a protocol that provides au
On Dec 21, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>
> Maybe I misunderstood your concern. The operator's server to the operator's
> routers only involves the operator's internal network. While I would
> personally prefer a mandatory-to-implement mechanism, I can see that
> operators do not n
On Jul 29, 2013, at 4:54 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> Yes I'm making a last call comment on a document I edit:-)
>
> During discussion of another document
> )(draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table), a routing directorate review
> brought up the concern that we don't talk about time synchroni
On Jul 29, 2013, at 5:35 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> I like your text below except that signing is the wrong word.
> How about generation of integrity-protected messages?
Yeah, that's what I meant.. New text WFM, thanks [again] Sam for addressing
these concerns!
-danny
> These messages are
I read this draft and tried to participate in shaping into something I as an
operator believe useful in SIDR WG, but to no avail -- IMO because the protocol
work, and then the requirements work, were largely completed already. I
believe this approach will cause more harm than good and result i
66 matches
Mail list logo
