ya Sabahattin Gucukoglu is right, if we don't do anything it is much worse than what we do. So I think we need to increase the productivity in IP v6.
best wishes, Sanjay +91-9920291497. 2011/4/12 <ietf-requ...@ietf.org> > If you have received this digest without all the individual message > attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list > subscription. To do so, go to > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get > MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME. You can set this option > globally for all the list digests you receive at this point. > > > > Send Ietf mailing list submissions to > ietf@ietf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ietf-requ...@ietf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ietf-ow...@ietf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Ietf digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Adventures in IPv6 (Sabahattin Gucukoglu) > 2. Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-kitten-digest-to-historic-03 > (Ben Campbell) > 3. Test, please ignore (Glen Barney) > 4. Re: Call for a Jasmine Revolution in the IETF: Privacy, > Integrity, Obscurity (todd glassey) > 5. Re: Adventures in IPv6 (Doug Barton) > 6. Re: Adventures in IPv6 (Masataka Ohta) > 7. GEn-ART last call review of > draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-07 (Roni Even) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Sabahattin Gucukoglu <m...@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com> > To: ietf@ietf.org > Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:41:48 +0100 > Subject: Adventures in IPv6 > 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 breaking the finger-pointing circle, and making it work by > whatever means necessary. We won't make the situation better by not doing > anything. And yes, I know how tired this all is, but it's starting to look > like some people in this world just aren't going to be convinced until > there's an actual, real crisis on top of us. > > Cheers, > Sabahattin > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ben Campbell <b...@estacado.net> > To: draft-ietf-kitten-digest-to-historic....@tools.ietf.org > Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:56:23 -0500 > Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-kitten-digest-to-historic-03 > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < > http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you > may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-kitten-digest-to-historic-03 > Reviewer: Ben Campbell > Review Date: 2011-04-11 > IETF LC End Date: 2011-04-15 > > Summary: This draft is essentially ready for publication as an > informational RFC. I have a couple of editorial comments that should be > considered prior to final publication. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > > -- Note following abstract: > > Will this note stay in the RFC? The note makes me unsure whether the > resulting RFC is intended to actually execute the deprecation, recommend > deprecation, or start a discussion about deprecation. I assume from the IANA > section, you intend the first.- > > -- Section 1, 7B. "Lack of hash agility." > > Can you elaborate on what this means? (I think I know, but I don't know if > it will be obvious to all readers) > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Glen Barney <g...@amsl.com> > To: ietf@ietf.org > Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:45:18 -0700 > Subject: Test, please ignore > Test, please ignore. > > Glen > Glen Barney > IT Director > AMS (IETF Secretariat) > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: todd glassey <tglas...@earthlink.net> > To: ietf@ietf.org > Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:56:11 -0700 > Subject: Re: Call for a Jasmine Revolution in the IETF: Privacy, Integrity, > Obscurity > On 3/23/2011 12:02 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > >> On Mar 23, 2011, at 6:52 AM, SM wrote: >> >> The IETF can only address the technical problems. >>> >> This is an argument I often hear. I do, however, believe that you cannot >> see technology in isolation. >> > Yeah - sure you can... if you want to be totally about the original design > and practice of the IETF and its vision. It was built to advance protocol > standardization and not to decide what protocols it would allow on the > Internet and which it wouldn't. But lately many have forgotten this and > are using the IETF as a formal lobby for technological policy advancement > and that's a no-no. > > Bluntly the IETF members are becoming more and more aggressively > politically and this statement is based on IAB and other publication on what > the IETF does and does not allow through its frameworks. In doing so their > statements about allowing protocols or not allowing protocols to be > standardized based on their stated perception of "what damages the Internet" > or what they personally want to see as a "free access to all information and > ideas" model, creates a real serious divergence from the Standards Practice > this organization was set up as, and IMHO is one which is designed clearly > to destroy global Intellectual Property law and practice. > >> However, in many cases the technology, regulatory environment, business >> aspects, and the social context gets mixed together. >> > No Hannes - it doesn't unless the Chair allows it to - meaning that the > Chair in this instance has allowed political materials to be fielded (filed > in this instance) into the IETF and trust me I am already filing a formal > complaint with the Treasury about ISOC's becoming a formal PAC and its > locking out protocol efforts based on its own desires therein... > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00 > > > I suggest that the Chair immediately post a formal statement that the IETF > is a-political and will not do anything but standardize technology. Also > that ONLY technology drafts can be accepted since the IETF is part of ISOC > and not registered as a political PAC or Lobbying Agency which it clearly > has become in direct violation of the NTIA MOU which gave it (ISOC and its > ARIN) the real power. > > > Todd Glassey > Please have a look at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00 > >> Ciao >> Hannes >> > > Hannes - this is the issue with the IETF and the gross number of flaming > idiots inside of it. The IETF is not a Social Reform Agency, nor is it a > freaking political action group since its financial filings prevent this. > > Todd Glassey > >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> >> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Doug Barton <do...@dougbarton.us> > To: ietf@ietf.org > Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:39:39 -0700 > Subject: 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 breaking the finger-pointing circle, and >> making it work by whatever means necessary. >> > > "Much worse" for who? Just because we (may) believe that IPv6 is the way > forward doesn't mean that the providers or consumers of Internet services > will agree with us. The consumers just want to watch their videos and read > their mail. The providers just want to sell them that capability. IPv6 needs > to solve more problems than it creates, or else it's not the right answer. > > > Doug > > -- > > Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. > -- OK Go > > Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. > Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Masataka Ohta <mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> > To: ietf@ietf.org > Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:10:56 +0900 > Subject: Re: Adventures in IPv6 > Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: > > > Of course, I think the conclusion is basically wrong, *not* doing > > IPv6 is much worse than breaking the finger-pointing circle, > > and making it work by whatever means necessary. > > The problem is that, operationally, IPv6 does not work. > > > We won't make the situation better by not doing anything. > > Insisting on IPv6 is worse than not doing anything, because > it gives people insisting on IPv6 false feeling of doing > something. > > > And yes, I know how tired this all is, but it's starting to > > look like some people in this world just aren't going to be > > convinced until there's an actual, real crisis on top of us. > > That's so true for you and other people insisting on IPv6. > > Masataka Ohta > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Roni Even <even.r...@huawei.com> > To: draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite....@tools.ietf.org > Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:40:36 +0300 > Subject: GEn-ART last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-07 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < > http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you > may receive. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-07 > > Reviewer: Roni Even > > Review Date:2011–4–10 > > IETF LC End Date: 2011–4–12 > > IESG Telechat date: > > > > Summary: This draft is ready for publication as standard track RFC. > > > > Major issues: None > > > > Minor issues: None > > > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > 1.& bsp; In section 8.3 NAT-44 appears without any reference or > terminology expansion. > > 2. In section 8.5 “liefetime” should be “lifetime” > > 3. I am not sure what the recommendation in section 8.5 is. Is keep > alive required or using PCP is recommended. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
