References to RFCs-to-be in IANA registries (Was: Re: Please review updated 1id-guidelines)

we are happy to listen to them. Such suggestions could be discussed here if the community agrees it's appropriate, or sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] at any time. Regards, Doug -- Doug Barton General Manager, The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ___ Ie

Re: References to RFCs-to-be in IANA registries

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [ Note, I'm replying from my personal address because that's how I'm subscribed to the list for hysterical raisins. ] Bruce Lilly wrote: | The issue is not the appearance of registrations prior to final | publication of an RFC, but rather the usability

LA -> San Diego transportation (Was: Re: Meetings in other regions)

[ Disclaimer, I grew up in San Diego and now live in the LA area, so I have biases in both directions. :) ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > (BTW, how much would a taxi from LAX to San Diego cost? And would > you expect taxis willing to do it?) It's 120+ miles from LAX to the Sheraton San Diego, so a

Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

todd glassey wrote: > Elliot - > Then you leave it up to the party providing the service and open the IETF to > all kinds of trouble... By the way Elliot do you think your sponsor, Cisco > and their Legal department would let Cisco negotiate a contract like that? This may be where some of the conf

Re: IANA media type registry vs RFC4288

Julian Reschke wrote: > Hi, > > I noted a few days ago that RFC4288 (obsoleting RFC2048) points to > for the registration form, > but that form hasn't been updated accordingly (it still refers solely to > RFC2048). > > Yes, I sent an email to [EMAIL PRO

Re: IETF58 - Network Status

Marcus Leech wrote: Atheros released open-source linux drivers for their chips and the corresponding reference design. I don't know which cards use the Atheros chipset, other than ours. The atheros folks are also cooperating with the FreeBSD project, so they are making a good commitment to open

Re: Just so I'm clear

On 10/24/2012 5:49 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > On Oct 24, 2012, at 1:01 AM, Doug Barton wrote: >> I get what you're saying, but this is one of those times where >> (arguably for the better) we've created a difficult procedure that >> should be infrequent

Re: Just so I'm clear

On 10/25/2012 12:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 24/10/2012 20:34, Doug Barton wrote: > ... >> ... Nothing in the text suggests an >> unfettered right of creating new definitions of "vacant." > > You mean, new compared to the first definition in Merriam-We

Re: don't overthink, was Just so I'm clear

On 10/25/2012 9:57 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Oct 25, 2012, at 16:37, "Adrian Farrel" wrote: > >> > retro-active > I don't get how that is relevant. > This is for the case the seat is still vacant when the new process comes into > force. When Marshall was appointed the rules we have now we

Re: don't overthink, was Just so I'm clear

On 10/25/2012 12:05 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Oct 25, 2012, at 20:52, Doug Barton wrote: > >> On 10/25/2012 9:57 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >>> On Oct 25, 2012, at 16:37, "Adrian Farrel" wrote: >>> >>>>> retro-active >>> I d

Re: don't overthink, was Just so I'm clear

On 10/25/2012 11:57 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: Doug Barton > >> When Marshall was appointed the rules we have now were in place. To >> change the rules now, and then apply them to this situation is by >> definition retroactive. > > By that logic, _any_

Re: don't overthink, was Just so I'm clear

On 10/25/2012 12:21 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 10/25/12 11:13 AM, Doug Barton wrote: >> First, I disagree with your belief that what you propose would not be >> retroactive. Second, it's worth pointing out that if the IAOC put an >> equal amount of effort into the rec

Re: don't overthink, was Just so I'm clear

On 10/25/2012 12:34 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Oct 25, 2012, at 21:20, Doug Barton wrote: > >> _punitive_ > > Again, you are confused. This action is not about punishing an > individual, and I would be violently opposed to it if it were. Removal from office _is_

Re: don't overthink, was Just so I'm clear

On 10/25/2012 1:26 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: Doug Barton > >> Removal from office _is_ considered a punitive action Noel, you have a very bad habit of replying to snippets out of context. Personally I don't appreciate it, as the snippet above could lead someone to

Re: Just so I'm clear

On 10/26/2012 12:20 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 25/10/2012 19:40, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 10/25/2012 12:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> On 24/10/2012 20:34, Doug Barton wrote: ... >>>> ... Nothing in the text suggests an unfettered right of >>&g

Re: IAOC Request for community feedback

On 11/01/2012 01:58 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: > Russ Housley and Ray Pelletier were able to visit Marshall at his home last > Friday. They discussed the situation with Marshall including describing the > discussion on the IETF list. He confirmed he had not been reading his email > since early Augu

Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls

On 12/04/2012 09:59 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: >> The concept is simple: a time-specific gather is a meeting. Meetings >> require prior announcement beyond the working group. > > I am not against a meeting announcement. I am suggesting to announce the > meeting where the audience is -- in the

Re: Remote Participation Services

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/07/2013 08:56 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: | I am setting a deadline for slides for IETF86 for my WG, and I will | be doing a unified slide deck. Does that mean all slides from all presentations in 1 deck? If that's offered as a bonus featur

Re: Remote Participation Services

On 02/11/2013 08:34 PM, Keith Moore wrote: WG meetings should not, in general, be used for presentations. They should primarily be used for discussions. Presentations are largely a waste of precious WG time. It is sometimes possible to prepare slides to help facilitate discussions. But more

Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today

On 02/26/2013 02:49 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly. +1 The deadline originated because the secretariat needed time to post all of those drafts (by hand) before the meeting. Th

Re: Time zones in IETF agenda

On 03/01/2013 12:13 PM, Cyrus Daboo wrote: Hi John, --On March 1, 2013 7:13:44 PM + John Levine wrote: Florida will be at UTC-4 (which we call EDT) as of early Sunday morning, so a meeting at noon in Florida any day of IETF 86 will be at 0800 UTC. Yow - wrong way around. The correct tim

Re: Time zones in IETF agenda

On 03/01/2013 12:20 PM, Doug Barton wrote: On 03/01/2013 12:13 PM, Cyrus Daboo wrote: Hi John, --On March 1, 2013 7:13:44 PM + John Levine wrote: Florida will be at UTC-4 (which we call EDT) as of early Sunday morning, so a meeting at noon in Florida any day of IETF 86 will be at 0800

Re: role of the confirming body

On 03/17/2013 08:20 AM, John C Klensin wrote: If the confirming body knows things about a candidate that were not available to the Nomcom, then it should apply that knowledge. And, if the confirming body sees something in whatever the Nomcom chooses to tell it about qualifications/expectations th

Re: role of the confirming body

On 03/17/2013 04:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, March 17, 2013 15:52 -0700 Doug Barton wrote: On 03/17/2013 08:20 AM, John C Klensin wrote: If the confirming body knows things about a candidate that were not available to the Nomcom, then it should apply that knowledge. And, if

Re: Getting rid of the dot

On 03/19/2013 11:48 AM, John Levine wrote: In article <51489888.6050...@internet2.edu> you write: I want my badge to have my name and a small screen showing the room I just came from. I want the screen to show the room I'm going to next. And it should be upside down so I can read it. And a

Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6

On 03/28/2013 08:29 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: IPv6 makes publishing IP address reputations impractical. For individual addresses, sure. But one of the (if not *the*) primary benefits of v4 reputation is the test of whether or not the address is in a botnet range (aka, ranges assigned to end-use

Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6

On 03/30/2013 11:26 PM, Christian Huitema wrote: IPv6 makes publishing IP address reputations impractical. Since IP address reputation has been a primary method for identifying abusive sources with IPv4, imposing ineffective and flaky > replacement strategies has an effect of deterring IPv6 u

Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6

On 04/03/2013 05:01 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Apr 3, 2013, at 6:16 PM, Dean Willis wrote: I've tried to imagine using Facebook-like system for IETF work, and it is strangely compelling ... It would, however, be nice if it were peer-to-peer rather than monolithic. XMPP (aka Jabber) already ha

Re: [spfbis] [dnsext] Obsoleting SPF RRTYPE

On 04/30/2013 09:28 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: While it's too late for SPF, we can learn this lesson. As has been repeatedly pointed out in the discussion on both dnsext and spfbis, it is NOT too late for SPF. The way forward is simple: 1. Publish the bis draft which says for senders to pu

Re: A note about draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis

On 5/2/2013 9:02 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: If anyone has any objection I suggest raising it during the Last Call. Given that you can be 100% confident that the issue will be raised during IETF LC, wouldn't it be better to hash it out in the WG (as we have attempted to do)? Or is the WG's positio

Re: Language editing

On 05/03/2013 02:22 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote: GEN-ART is a good example, but actual document editing is much more work and arguably, less rewarding than a review. So I think this can only succeed with professional (=paid) editors. I'm not sure that's the right conclusion to draw. In the past I

Re: A note about draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis

Andrew (and Pete, since he raised a similar issue), On 05/02/2013 12:50 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Doug, No hat. On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:22:03PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: Given that you can be 100% confident that the issue will be raised during IETF LC, wouldn't it be better to ha

Re: A note about draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis

On 05/05/2013 11:06 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote: Subject: Re: A note about draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis Date: Sun, May 05, 2013 at 11:01:02PM -0400 Quoting Scott Kitterman (sc...@kitterman.com): Personally, I'm quite surprised that doubling the DNS queries associated with SPF for the foreseeable futur

Re: Proposed Standards and Expert Review

On 05/21/2013 12:08 PM, Keith Moore wrote: Without responding in detail to John's note, I'll say that I agree substantially with the notion that the fact that someone manages to get a protocol name or number registered, should not be any kind of justification for standardization of a document tha

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

While it's unlikely that I would be able to attend, I think it's an excellent idea for reasons already better stated by others, and BA is a very nice city. The only suggestion I might add that I haven't seen mentioned yet (and pardon me if I missed it) would be to perhaps schedule the meeting

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

On 05/24/2013 11:21 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: The consistent feedback regarding non-conflict as long as I been involved in this tends to indicate otherwise. 18-months to 2 years seems much more reasonable to me personally. Joel, You're making several fundamental mistakes in your thinking. Rather

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

On 05/24/2013 11:29 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: probably because I've been involved in the planning loop since 44. ... and you're also involved in planning for LACNIC, LACTLD, LACNOG, and every other regional organization in Latin America that might be interested in running their meeting before o

Re: Not Listening to the Ops Customer

On 05/31/2013 09:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: It was more complicated. I was actually running a team that ran site network ops at the time, and (since DHCP was not yet deployable), IPv4 was then a serious nuisance to manage, compared say to Novell Netware and, even, Appletalk. There were good

Re: Content-free Last Call comments

On 06/11/2013 10:43 AM, John Levine wrote: So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough, can those objections again be raised in IETF LC or are they set in stone? If that were ever to happen, I don't se

Re: Content-free Last Call comments

On 06/11/2013 11:02 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Jun 11, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Doug Barton wrote: The flip side of that argument is that we don't want to assume working groups are infallible, or more importantly not subject to the groupthink phenomenon. Otherwise what is IETF LC for? The IETF

Re: IETF Diversity

On 06/19/2013 09:45 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:22 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: Don't know about that one. In the US, at least, legal mandates have typically led social change, at least when it comes to civil rights, etc. Yup. First the Civil Rights act, then Selma... ;) Yes

Re: IETF Diversity

On 06/19/2013 11:11 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 6/19/13 10:03 AM, Doug Barton wrote: Short version, if everyone does what they can to encourage diverse participation, we won't need "legislation" to fix the problem. I'd like it if that were true but I don't think

Re: IETF Diversity

On 06/19/2013 11:40 AM, Aaron Yi DING wrote: On 19/06/13 21:16, Doug Barton wrote: On 06/19/2013 11:11 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 6/19/13 10:03 AM, Doug Barton wrote: Short version, if everyone does what they can to encourage diverse participation, we won't need "legislation&q

Re: IETF Diversity

On 06/19/2013 12:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 6/19/13 1:12 PM, Doug Barton wrote: We can point to all kinds of examples that are outside the IETF of where various biases exist. It's not at all clear that the existence of those problems elsewhere corresponds to any actual problem w

Re: IETF Diversity

On 06/19/2013 11:31 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 6/19/13 10:16 AM, Doug Barton wrote: It's not clear to me how this example relates to the IETF. Even in fields in which the overwhelming majority of practitioners, the majority of people in leadership or management positions are men. So

Re: IETF Diversity

On 06/19/2013 12:21 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: On Jun 19, 2013, at 10:12 PM, Doug Barton wrote: We can point to all kinds of examples that are outside the IETF of where various biases exist. It's not at all clear that the existence of those problems elsewhere corresponds to any actual pr

Re: IETF Diversity

On 06/19/2013 05:09 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: On 6/19/13 2:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote: On 06/19/2013 11:31 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: Even in fields in which the overwhelming majority of practitioners, the majority of people in leadership or management positions are men. So again, it's not a

Re: IETF Diversity

On 06/19/2013 10:13 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote: Hi - It seems as though participants in this thread are operating with different understandings of what constitutes "institutional bias." A critical difference is whether *intent* is necessary for bias to exist. As I understand it, institutional bia

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

On 06/20/2013 09:36 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:17:16AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: So some review of the DNSEXT-specified procedures and expectations may be in order. I encourage you, then, to organize the BOF session that will spin up the WG to achieve this. DNSE

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

On 06/20/2013 10:27 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:04:54AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: Perhaps we could have a non-WG mailing list so that people could submit proposals for review prior to the expert review process. The WG list isn't going away with the WG. The li

Re: SHOULD and RECOMMENDED

In English as it is commonly spoken "recommended," and "should" do indeed mean different things. Arguably it's unfortunate that 2119 conflated them, but that's the landscape we're living in. So if the question is, "How do we improve the normative language in RFCs?" we should probably be thinki

Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility

On 06/27/2013 02:50 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: Hello, RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet Architecture Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled. draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility propose

Re: Comments For I-D: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 (was Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility)

On 06/29/2013 05:28 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > From: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) > Yet. PS: I probably should have added a ":-)" to that. Sorry, it's early, the brain's not firing on all cylinders yet, and I was so entranced by the chance to set the record for the shortest

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

On 5/7/2010 8:54 AM, David Morris wrote: > > The appropriate statement from the IESG at this time is to simply confirm > that the english word 'attend' encompases day-pass attendance. At the > present time, the maximum corruption, if it is indeed meaningful, is two > day passes and 1 full meeting

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

On 05/10/10 08:58, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > Yes, it does stink. As nearly as I can tell, the import of having Day > Passes, in terms of other IETF participation such as being on Nomcom, > was entirely missed by the community -- that is, by all of us. We are > now paying the price for that. One c

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

Would it be possible to get a number from the secretariat of those who have paid full freight for 2 of the last 5 meetings, plus used a day pass for one or more of the other 3? I have already asserted that the attention devoted to this so far has exceeded that which is reasonable based on the fact

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

n this topic. Thanks, Doug - Original Message Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:59:08 -0700 From: Doug Barton To: IETF CC: The IESG Would it be possible to get a number from the secretariat of those who have paid ful

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

On 5/14/2010 3:23 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > Day Pass History: >Hiroshima: 121 >Anaheim: 135 Thanks Russ (and Ray). However it's not clear to me if those numbers represent the total number of day pass participants (which they seem to) or if those numbers are an answer to the question I pose

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

On 05/14/10 17:02, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > Doug, > > I had also wished for numbers that more clearly translated into impact > on who was NomCom eligible (as you requested), but decided not to, > simply because I wasn't convinced this would matter enough on who was > selected to serve on NomCom, t

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 05/15/10 08:15, Russ Housley wrote: > I got some data from the Secretariat that I hope provides better insight > to the questions that were asked: ... > The remaining 18 people have attended only three of the five meetings > with one or more on a

Re: [IAOC] Proposed IAOC Administrative Procedures

On 06/02/10 10:50, Bob Hinden wrote: The IAOC's intent in creating these "proposed IAOC administrative procedures" was to write down what we were doing in areas where we thought BCP101 wasn't clear to us or didn't specify anything, and then get feed back from the community. We were not trying t

Re: Is this true?

On 8/26/2010 4:10 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: in this case, the vastly larger address space of IPv6 permits attackers to switch to new addresses at a rate that was not possible with IPv4. this is likely to defeat the substantial infrastructure of attack-tracking that is address-based, such as for an

Re: IETF Attendance by continent

Marshall, While I admire your math skills I think you're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. (In the IETF? Perish the thought!) 1. Figure out what the desired ratio is 2. Add up the total number of meetings represented by the ratio 3. Multiply by 2 to arrive at number N 4. St

Re: Last Call: draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-07.txt

On 11/18/2010 04:51, RJ Atkinson wrote: Excessive nit-picking is going on with this document, especially since it is already globally deployed and clearly works well. Further, there are multiple interoperable implementations already deployed, which is an existence proof that the current I-D is

Re: Last Call: draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-07.txt

On 11/22/2010 06:53, Tony Finch wrote: On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Doug Barton wrote: I'm confused. If the standard is already deployed, then what is the rush to publish the RFC? Why bother with RFCs at all? Why not move to a zero-step standards process and do all implementation and deployment

Re: Last Call: draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-07.txt

On 11/23/2010 13:17, Paul Hoffman wrote: At 12:55 PM -0800 11/23/10, Doug Barton wrote: In the theoretical perfect world the reason for producing a spec is so that vendors can _create_ interoperable versions of the service. That motivation doesn't apply here, so one wonders what the

Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

On 01/27/2011 01:10, John C Klensin wrote: --On Thursday, January 27, 2011 09:41 +0200 Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: Hi, yes, I also agree the first one is the most important point and has not been addressed so far. If we want a system that works (and is used), it needs to include incentives to

Re: MHonArc mail archive line wrapping

On 02/17/2011 23:03, Carsten Bormann wrote: On Feb 15, 2011, at 21:46, Stuart Cheshire wrote: (readable E-Mail) How did you manage to get Apple Mail to properly use RFC 3676, i.e. ; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" on the Content-Type? Apple broke that in 10.6, IIRC. (Not that solving t

Re: [IAOC] xml2rfc and legal services RFPs

On 02/21/2011 12:20, John C Klensin wrote: Perhaps I'm the only member of the community who cares any more. Nope, I'll give a +1 to that as well. I don't have anything intelligent to say about either RFP, but I'm more concerned about the fact that the IAOC thought that releasing them without

Re: [IAOC] xml2rfc and legal services RFPs

On 02/22/2011 09:33, Ole Jacobsen wrote: If you are talking about the badge checking in Beijing, that's another matter, but also not an IAOC policy matter that was "planned". That is what I was talking about, yes. Sorry the 2 things got conflated in my mind. And in fairness to the IAOC, as I

Re: Adventures in IPv6

On 04/11/2011 13:41, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: This is just a blog posting, but I think it has valid illustrative points of the general frustration in it: http://bens.me.uk/2011/adventures-in-ipv6 Of course, I think the conclusion is basically wrong, *not* doing IPv6 is much worse than breakin

Re: Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

On 05/03/2011 01:43, SM wrote: I am stupid but I am not that stupid to go and argue about a draft that has been blessed by DNSOP and v6ops. "Blessed" is rather strong. There are a non-zero number of people in both groups (of which I am one) who don't like the draft, and don't agree that docum

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

On 05/09/2011 07:51, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: Companies sell tap water in bottles at prices higher than those of gasoline... Fortunately gasoline is catching up fast. :) -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of

Re: The XML page cannot be displayed

On 5/20/2011 9:05 AM, t.petch wrote: Not as much as you might think. :) - Original Message - From: "Julian Reschke" To: "t.petch" Cc: "IETF Discussion" Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 3:37 PM Subject: Re: The XML page cannot be displayed Out of curiosity: what's your user agent? Int

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-09

On 05/24/2011 03:15, Adrian Farrel wrote: Thanks Roni, > Nits/editorial comments: > > 1. Need to expand LDP when first mentioned. LDP is a recognised acronym at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt and does not need to be expanded. And how would someone new to t

Re: one data point regarding native IPv6 support

On 6/12/2011 12:33 PM, Michel Py wrote: If the argument is that IPv6 "native" should be the preferred Solution over "tunneled", it does not hold water. If you were to remove 6to4 and 6RD from the picture, that would set us back 10 years ago in terms of IPv6 adoption. Can you explain the exact m

Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?

On 06/24/2011 09:08, John C Klensin wrote: --On Friday, 24 June, 2011 13:34 +1200 Brian E Carpenter wrote: ... I think that's about right. There were several strong and very raional opinions against this, including some who were not involved in the similarly rough consensus in the WG discus

Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?

On 06/24/2011 04:35, Keith Moore wrote: I often get the impression that dissenters are dismissed as "in the rough" and that their opinions, no matter how well expressed, are given less weight than those who are in favor. One could also consider the idea that due to the very human tendency to

Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?

On 06/24/2011 13:11, Keith Moore wrote: On Jun 24, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote: By "your document" above are you referring to Brian'shttp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory? If so I would argue that the extensive WG discussion about both documents meet

Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?

On 06/24/2011 13:14, Keith Moore wrote: On Jun 24, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Doug Barton wrote: On 06/24/2011 04:35, Keith Moore wrote: I often get the impression that dissenters are dismissed as "in the rough" and that their opinions, no matter how well expressed, are given less weight

Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

On 07/01/2011 13:03, Kenneth Voort wrote: I would also add that future IPv6 capable devices should allow end users to reach the IPv6 Internet from an IPv4-only provider through some means, perhaps tunneling, with no or minimal administrator intervention. I can see many providers remaining IPv4-

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

On 07/02/2011 12:21, Cameron Byrne wrote: On Jul 2, 2011 11:55 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Ronald Bonica mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>> wrote: >> >> - In order for the new draft to be published, it must achieve both V6OPS WG and

Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

On 07/01/2011 14:17, Keith Moore wrote: On Jul 1, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Doug Barton wrote: On 07/01/2011 13:03, Kenneth Voort wrote: I would also add that future IPv6 capable devices should allow end users to reach the IPv6 Internet from an IPv4-only provider through some means, perhaps tunneling

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

On 07/02/2011 19:22, Ronald Bonica wrote: 1)Because we do not vote in the IETF, the process for determining consensus is squishy. A simple majority does not win the day. A few strongly held objections backed by even a scintilla of technical rational can increase the size of the super-majority req

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

On 07/02/2011 18:50, Mark Smith wrote: Where is the evidence that 6to4 is holding back native IPv6 deployment? It's been discussed ad nauseum in numerous fora. Bad 6to4 (which almost all of it is) results in a poor user experience when the largest content providers enable records. Thus,

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

On 07/02/2011 20:31, Ronald Bonica wrote: Randy, You have three points that deserve to be addressed. These are: 1) "as measured on the real internet, not the ietf bar, 6to4 sucks caterpillar snot" 2) "perhaps that minority was also vocal in the back room" 3) "yes, but that will be a year from

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

On 07/02/2011 20:49, Mark Smith wrote: On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 19:44:24 -0700 Doug Barton wrote: On 07/02/2011 18:50, Mark Smith wrote: Where is the evidence that 6to4 is holding back native IPv6 deployment? It's been discussed ad nauseum in numerous fora. Discussion isn't ev

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

On 07/06/2011 09:45, james woodyatt wrote: Actually, I seem to have been the only person who proposed killing it-- the rest of you seem to have settled on merely looking at it crossly and hoping it will wither away in shame. ... as well it should. :) Meanwhile I have stated several times tha

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

On 07/06/2011 13:14, Martin Rex wrote: Doug Barton wrote: Meanwhile I have stated several times that I'd like it to be gone, completely, yesterday. I was however willing to accept "historic" as a reasonable compromise. "historic" as a compromise? Between which t

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

> lots of MUST NOT language. > > > -Original Message- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Martin Rex > Sent: 06 July 2011 23:50 > To: Doug Barton > Cc: v6...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6o

Re: Repetitions and consensus

On 07/13/2011 11:00, Fred Baker wrote: > To my mind, it's not a matter of voting (how many people think A, how many > people think B, ...) and not a matter of volume (which would accept a > filibuster as a showstopper). It's a question of the preponderance of opinion > ("agreement, harmony, conc

Re: Another look at 6to4 (and other IPv6 transition issues)

John, I think Brian and Joel both made excellent points about why this suggestion is probably sub-optimal, and I won't presume to add to the elegance of their arguments on those points other than to say that I agree with them. To address your concern about whether or not vendors are paying attent

Re: Another look at 6to4 (and other IPv6 transition issues)

On 07/16/2011 07:02, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Friday, July 15, 2011 15:39 -0700 Doug Barton > wrote: > >> To address your concern about whether or not vendors are paying >> attention to this discussion, and why historic status is >> substantively d

Re: Another look at 6to4 (and other IPv6 transition issues)

On 07/19/2011 14:01, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: > Clearly, the view that making something historic when it's in active use is > offensive. No standards body could seek to stand behind their > specifications, or to give the impression of doing so, with such a position. Define "active use." --

Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?

On 08/03/2011 11:21, John Levine wrote: >>> happy to let those who prefer to not have such a prefix setup their >>> procmail rules to remove it.<-:) > > Gee, I was about to say I was happy for people who want a subject tag > to add one using procmail or whatever. > > I'm not unalterably opposed t

Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?

On 08/05/2011 09:45, Warren Kumari wrote: > Subject-line tags allow me to just drop everything in the inbox and then, at > a glance figure out what to read, and in what order. I then move the read > stuff (and that that I don't care about) into separate mailboxes. To me it boils down to you sayi

Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?

On 08/05/2011 20:11, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 8/5/2011 2:56 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >> To me it boils down to you saying in effect, "Here is my way of working >> with e-mail, and I'd like the IETF to support it." If there was a way >> that we could

Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?

On 08/08/2011 20:08, John Levine wrote: > I still don't think we should add subject tags for the aforementioned > autotrofigiaskylousphagic reasons, but DKIM signs perfectly well > either way. Thank you for clarifying that. -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.

Re: voting system for future venues?

Including only the hotel costs may (I haven't crunched the numbers) be providing a very distorted view of the situation. In order to get the whole picture you have to include the meeting fees and air fare, at minimum. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.

Re: voting system for future venues?

On 08/25/2011 02:36, Glen Zorn wrote: > On 8/25/2011 3:52 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > >> Including only the hotel costs may (I haven't crunched the numbers) be >> providing a very distorted view of the situation. In order to get the >> whole picture you have to include

  1   2   >