On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:25, John Levine wrote:
> Perhaps "disclose that fact promptly."
+1
Since not everyone is aware of what's going on in the IRTF: we recently made a
minor modification to our IPR statement to that effect. See
https://www.irtf.org/ipr
One possibility would be that the IESG a
Hi,
On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:34, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> There is a point of disagreement between IRTF and IETF IPR Policy, or at
> least there appeared to be yesterday in ICCRG.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3979#section-6.1.3 states that a person who
> knows that someone else has IPR on so
Full agreement with Stephan.
Lars
On Jan 11, 2013, at 22:02, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for replying to this "advise to secretariat" thread and not to the
> ietf-announce thread--I'm not subscribed to ietf-announce.
> I have three comments, and regret that I have not followed all of
Hi,
On Jan 14, 2013, at 10:08, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> I think that you underestimate the IETF community, who certainly know how to
> see through all the FUD about the GPL. Sure it may be a bad idea to literally
> copy 300 lines of GPL code in your code, but that does not apply to what we
>
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Eggert, Lars"
> Subject: [irtf-discuss] New: Software-Defined Networking Research Group
> (SDNRG)
> Date: January 14, 2013 10:24:57 GMT+01:00
> To: "" ,
> ""
> Cc: "s...@irtf.org"
> Repl
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Eggert, Lars"
> Subject: [irtf-discuss] Applied Networking Research Prize 2013 presentation
> at IETF-86
> Date: January 22, 2013 15:51:13 GMT+01:00
> To: "irtf-annou...@irtf.org" ,
> "irtf-disc...@irtf.or
On Feb 16, 2013, at 9:04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Why not have a poster session as part of Bits-n-Bites? It would give
> new ideas a chance to be seen without wasting WG time. Make it official
> enough that people can use it in their travel requests.
Great idea!
(Or do it during the welcome r
On Mar 3, 2013, at 13:37, Eric Burger wrote:
> There are two other interpretations of this situation, neither of which I
> think is true, but we should consider the possibility. The first is the TSV
> is too narrow a field to support an area director and as such should be
> folded in with anoth
Hi,
On Mar 3, 2013, at 15:35, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> What I'm getting at is that this line of argument doesn't scale.
> The only solution I see is to replace it by
> "Several people on the Y Directorate need to understand X."
only if the Y directorate reviews all IDs going through the IESG.
Hi,
On Mar 3, 2013, at 13:56, Eric Burger wrote:
> The 50% time commitment is an IESG-imposed requirement.
it isn't. The The IETF process (which the IESG cannot unilaterally change)
requires an AD to manage his or her area, and review all documents going
through the IESG. The later is typicall
On Mar 3, 2013, at 18:42, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Otherwise, the AD gets a directorate review calling out congestion problems.
> He puts in the discuss. And can not discuss it with the other ADs. It is not
> his discuss. He can not work out how to resolve it.
>
> Directorates are critical.
Hi,
On Mar 3, 2013, at 21:14, Michael Richardson wrote:
> To be considered qualified the candidate needed to:
> a) have demonstrated subject matter expertise (congestion in this case)
> b) have demonstrated IETF management expertise (current/former WG chair)
> c) have time available
>
> Gener
Hi,
On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger wrote:
> I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this situation
> is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want to fix it.
> Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it is is the same
> as say
Hi,
On Mar 4, 2013, at 15:57, John Leslie wrote:
> Eggert, Lars wrote:
>
>> Especially when technical expertise is delegated to bodies that rely
>> on volunteers.
>
> We're _all_ volunteers!
right, but ADs are basically full-time volunteers of whom the
On Mar 4, 2013, at 16:42, "Dale R. Worley"
wrote:
> One possibility might be to split TSV into two areas, so the workload
> on the TSV ADs (both technical and social) is reduced.
Doesn't help much. Management of ones area takes some time, but at least as
much time is spend on dealing with docum
On Mar 4, 2013, at 19:44, Michael Richardson wrote:
> The Transport Area has all of the groups that deal with transport
> protocols that need to do congestion control. Further, the (current)
> split of work means that all of the groups that need congestion
> oversight would be cared for by the p
On Mar 5, 2013, at 12:43, t.p. wrote:
> but I am positing that for most
> of the IETF, congestion control is a solved topic and little expertise
> is needed
I have seen too many WGs trying to build "lightweight" UDP-based application
protocols that do not correctly back off under loss to agree w
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Srinivasan Keshav
> Subject: [e2e] Why do we need congestion control?
> Date: March 5, 2013 15:04:48 GMT+01:00
> To: ""
>
> To answer this question, I put together some slides for a presentation at the
> IRTF ICCRG Workshop in 2007 [1]. In a nutshell, to save
On Mar 5, 2013, at 15:10, t.p. wrote:
> The question is can we do with a
> Transport Area Director whose congestion control skills are limited; I
> am suggesting we can, because of all the work over the years in
> congestion control and the relative stability of the topic.
Martin already mentione
Hi,
On Mar 4, 2013, at 23:44, Allison Mankin wrote:
> Was there something causative about extracting RAI from Transport?
a lot of thought went into making sure that the WGs that went on to form RAI
formed a cohesive whole. In hindsight, we should have thought more about how
cohesive the set of
Probably of interest to RTG folks.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Eggert, Lars"
> Subject: [irtf-discuss] Applied Networking Research Prize 2013 presentation
> at IETF-86
> Date: January 22, 2013 9:51:13 EST
> To: "irtf-annou...@irtf.org" ,
> &
Hi,
I sent the following proposal to Alissa yesterday after she spoke on the mike:
> What if we created an ietf-mentors list that all newcomers were
> auto-subscribed to. Those of us who want to mentor send a brief description
> of who they are and what they work on to the list, and the newcome
Hi,
On Mar 14, 2013, at 16:26, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> I haven't observed that many newcomers at the newcomer meet-and-greet.
> They seem to be overwhelmed (numerically) by the ADs+chairs that go, which
> is reinforced by ADs+chairs using it as a taking-care-of-business
> opportunity as John
Hi,
On Apr 17, 2013, at 14:50, "Eggert, Lars" wrote:
> I've been talking to a few folks about whether there would be interest and
> energy for a new IRTF RG focusing on - for the lack of a better term -
> "Internet challenges and solutions for emerging regions.&qu
23, 2013, at 10:40, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Apr 17, 2013, at 14:50, "Eggert, Lars" wrote:
>> I've been talking to a few folks about whether there would be interest and
>> energy for a new IRTF RG focusing on - for the lack of a better term -
>&
On May 1, 2013, at 19:35, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Sorry: oughtn't that be Proposed Standard?
Yep, it ought to.
Crazy idea: Call a draft PS when it completes WG last-call and give it an RFC
number, call it something else when it passes IESG review (draft standard? :-)
and republish the RFC.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Eggert, Lars"
> Subject: [IRTF-Announce] Applied Networking Research Prize 2013 presentation
> at IETF-87
> Date: May 27, 2013 12:01:01 GMT+02:00
> To: "irtf-annou...@irtf.org" ,
> "irtf-disc...@irtf.org"
On May 27, 2013, at 12:10, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> Each IETF document mentions the authors place address (I may suggest
> adding region, as a categorised by IETF), but not sure of history
> statistics of how many IETF-documents produced by authors in South
> America, Africa, or Asia, or others.
On May 27, 2013, at 15:31, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> On 5/27/13, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>> On May 27, 2013, at 12:10, Abdussalam Baryun
>> wrote:
>>> Each IETF document mentions the authors place address (I may suggest
>>> adding region, as a categorised
Hi,
On May 28, 2013, at 19:46, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> by looking into the statistics of I-Ds and RFCs, it is strange that we get
> sometimes high rate in the I-D going in IETF from some regions but the
> success rate of I-Ds to become RFCs is very low (5- 50).
which IDs and RFCs are you basi
CALL FOR NOMINATIONS:
APPLIED NETWORKING RESEARCH PRIZE (ANRP) 2014
http://irtf.org/anrp
*** Submit nominations for the 2014 award period of the ***
*** Applied Networking R
On Jun 25, 2013, at 7:53, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Congratulations, gentlemen.
>
> and they are all male
Well, all the volunteers were male, so no real surprise here.
(And yes, I wish the volunteer pool had been more diverse. But it wasn't.)
Lars
On Jun 25, 2013, at 7:53, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Congratulations, gentlemen.
>
> and they are all male
Well, all the volunteers were male, so no real surprise here.
(And yes, I wish the volunteer pool had been more diverse. But it wasn't.)
Lars
Hi,
Section 2 says:
RFC 3777 [RFC3777], Section 5, "Nominating Committee Operation",
Paragraph 1 of Rule 14, is replaced as follows:
Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of
last 5 IETF meetings remotely or in person including at least 1 of
the 5 last
Hi,
On Jun 27, 2013, at 18:26, S Moonesamy
wrote:
>> (1) How do you define "remote attendance"?
>>
>> (2) How does the secretariat determine whether someone has remotely
>> attended? (Based on whatever definition of remote attendance you have in
>> mind.)
>
> I prefer not to get into a defin
Hi,
On Jun 27, 2013, at 17:49, "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)"
wrote:
> RFC 6234 contains, embedded in it, code to implement various functions,
> including SHA-2.
>
> Extracting that code from the RFC is not a clean process.
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcstrip/ can take the headers/footers ou
Hi,
On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:53, "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)"
wrote:
> But the broader point is that if it's worth the IETF publishing the code as
> an RFC, it's worth making the code available straightforwardly.
some WGs are good at this. RFC5662 for example includes the shell commands to
ext
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Dave Farber
> Subject: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers against
> censorship
> Date: December 14, 2011 4:12:20 GMT+02:00
> To: ip
> Reply-To:
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Peter Eckersley
> Date: Tuesday, December 1
Until now, the IRTF didn't have a clearly formulated statement of how IPR is
handled by the organization. For the last year, the IRSG has been discussing
this topic with the IETF's legal counsel and other community members with a
deep understanding of the issues.
The result of this discussion i
It's taken Linux 9 years longer to implement it, and it will take them 9 years
longer to remove it, too :-)
Lars
On Apr 1, 2012, at 20:05, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> On 1. Apr 2012, at 13:36 , Martin Sustrik wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
>> During yesterday's takedown of the Internet [1] it has become pains
CALL FOR NOMINATIONS:
APPLIED NETWORKING RESEARCH PRIZE (ANRP) 2012
http://irtf.org/anrp
***Submit nominations for the 2012 award period of the***
*** Applied Networking Research Prize until May 13,
Hi,
On Apr 19, 2012, at 22:31, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> The IESG has been discussing how to tidy up after Experimental RFCs.
>
> We have developed the following draft IESG statement. This does not
> represent a change in process, and continues to value Experimental RFCs
> as an important part of t
Hi,
On Apr 19, 2012, at 22:38, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I do not support such a view, and it is not supported in a plain reading
> of RFC 2026. What's more, it's not how researchers work. Researchers
> naturally move on. If we are looking to further push researchers away
> from the IRTF, this is a g
Begin forwarded message:
> A new IRTF research group on Information-Centric Networking has been
> chartered:
>
> Distributing and manipulating named information is a major application
> in the Internet today. Information-centric networking (ICN) is an approach
> to evolve the Internet infrastr
Also related:
http://cms.comsoc.org/eprise/main/SiteGen/n2women/Content/Home.html
There is a meeting at least once a year at SIGCOMM.
Lars
On May 2, 2012, at 12:08, Mary Barnes wrote:
> There have been some offline discussions as to how we can improve the
> situation and encourage the particip
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Eggert, Lars"
> Subject: [IRTF-Announce] Applied Networking Research Prize 2012 presentation
> at IETF-84
> Date: June 5, 2012 16:10:58 GMT+02:00
> To: "irtf-annou...@irtf.org" ,
> "irtf-disc...@irtf.org"
>
Hi,
having just gone through a similar exercise over on the IRTF side of things
(see http://irtf.org/ipr), I wonder if what we came up with as a text couldn't
be adapted to also work for the IETF:
> The IRTF follows the IETF Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disclosure
> rules. This is a summ
On Jul 3, 2012, at 14:24, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> I found it is to be odd to have a requirements document as a BCP, but I am
> sure
> you can sort the right status out with IESG.
+1
I fail to see why Informational wouldn't be the better status.
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic
And for those of us who write academic papers, there is of course Roland's and
Miguel's BibTex collections:
http://tm.uka.de/~bless/bibrfcindex.html
https://sites.google.com/site/ea1dof/bibtex
Lars
On Jul 31, 2012, at 11:16, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
> In The Internet Protocol Journal I have bee
Agreed. I suggest we stop discussing this proposal.
On Aug 1, 2012, at 9:03, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>
>> I written this draft starting a RFC2119 update for the reasons of
>> discussion threads in [1] and [2]. Please check draft and feedback,
>> thanking you.
>>
>
> I agree with what Paul and Mel
Looks good to me, but I agree with whoever suggested to increase the fees. I
think you could easily double or triple them.
On Aug 2, 2012, at 9:47, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
> A reminder of the deadline of 6 August for input.
> Thanks
>
> The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a p
On Aug 2, 2012, at 16:29, Steven Bellovin wrote:
> I don't think this can be a profit center; as I understand it, the judge in
> any case will rule on the reasonableness of any fees.
Agreed. My intent is not to create a profit center. But I do also avoid this
remaining a loss center for us.
Bu
Hi,
one suggestion: I-Ds must be cited as "Work in Progress" only. From the
boilerplate text:
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as r
On Aug 11, 2012, at 1:55, Bob Hinden wrote:
> I support the IETF and IAB chairs signing document.
+1
(I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate in
this case.)
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Eggert, Lars"
> Subject: [irtf-discuss] Applied Networking Research Prize 2012 presentation
> s at IETF-85
> Date: September 3, 2012 11:38:33 GMT+02:00
> To: "irtf-annou...@irtf.org" ,
> "irtf-disc...@irtf.or
CALL FOR NOMINATIONS:
APPLIED NETWORKING RESEARCH PRIZE (ANRP) 2013
http://irtf.org/anrp
*** Submit nominations for the 2013 award period of the ***
*** Applied
On Oct 4, 2012, at 20:23, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
> - 'Obsoleting the Endpoint Identifier (EID) Option'
> as Proposed Standard
Have the original authors been contacted? Also, I see no reason why this RF
On Oct 23, 2012, at 4:42, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is
>> reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant.
>
> Yes.
+1
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Venue was great, food options here and in the city were great, all-around great
experience. Let's come again!
(I do kinda wonder how there wasn't a single local company willing to step up
to be the host. That's embarrassing to me as a German, esp. if the IETF meets
in the self-declared IT hub o
Hi,
On Aug 2, 2013, at 13:04, Russ Housley
wrote:
> I have also enjoyed my time in Berlin. However, we need to complete the
> analysis on the impact of VAT. I hope there is a way to avoid a cost to each
> participant of an 19%. We heard in plenary that VAT clearly applies to
> conferences,
On Aug 2, 2013, at 13:56, "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)"
wrote:
> -1 on doing it during the winter speaking as a Californian who doesn't even
> own a winter coat
You are not going to like going to Vancouver for IETF-88...
Lars
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMai
Hi,
we are extremely pleased to report that for the 2013 award period of
the Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP), 36 eligible nominations
were received. Each submission was reviewed by eight members of the
selection committee according to a diverse set of criteria, including
scientific excel
Hi,
I'm part of the design team. SM has written this document to begin a discussion
with the broader IETF.
The document does not have the consensus of the design team, and it is
therefore obviously not a recommendation by the design team.
Lars
On Oct 10, 2013, at 20:10, S Moonesamy wrote:
>
Hi,
On Oct 11, 2013, at 10:41, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> I am part of the community design team as well because I participate with
> community more than the private hidden groups. I think that the draft is a
> true work open to IETF.
I haven't said that anything to the contrary. I am simply poi
Hi,
On Oct 11, 2013, at 14:43, Jari Arkko wrote:
> I do have a question for Lars though. What are your opinions on this? (You
> said that there is no consensus, but I'd like to hear also your thoughts.)
so one key question is what influence the IETF actually has on an ISOC program.
We can cert
65 matches
Mail list logo
