Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:30:48 PST, Einar Stefferud said: > At the minimum, such violations of IETF Standards should be formally > noted in a letter from the IAB to the offending vendor, whoever that > might be, when such information becomes available to the IESG or the > IAB. >PS:I apologize profusely to Dave and everyone else for > violating my own rule against use of the Eudora Redirect > Command, which always results in confusion when used as I > did...\s I have to wonder if the Eudora Redirect command is in violation of a standard, for its failure to re-write the headers to make the redirection clear. ;) /Valdis msg07320/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ... > I think the reason Einar forwarded it was for this: > > >The problem is that due to the Market share of Microsoft an error in a > >Microsoft program may force non-Microsoft users to make changes, and > >possibly also imply a loss of mail functionality. > > There *is* the 800-pound gorilla problem here. If one company with > significant market share manages to Do It Very Wrongly, it leaves everybody > else having to decide between being able to follow the standard, or being > able to intercommunicate. > ... Bugs that cause operational problems in the network such as routing flaps might be reasonably announced in the IETF's main list. This particular bug does sound likely to affect the operation of the Internet itself. It also does not not sound as serious as other bugs in Microsoft MUAs, such as the one that puts the wrong MIME boundary string in the header and so causes receiving causing MUAs to think the message is empty. The internal bug reporting mailing list for any large company would have far too much traffic to be forwarded to the IETF's mailing list. Let's not try to imagine what a mailing list devoted to bugs in Microsoft software would be like, given Microsoft's many products and world leading attention to quality. (If you're not in the middle of the pack, your salescritters will claim you're leading, and never mind the direction.) In other words, let's let those who are forced to use Microsoft MUAs software (including indirectly by sending mail to people who insist on using Microsoft MUAs) find their own wailing wall. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bandwidth? BANDWIDTH! We do (maybe) need more stinking bandwidth
Seemingly of interest specifically to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> At 08:57 PM 1/21/2002 -0800, Lixia Zhang wrote: >>> Note I am not saying MPLS is the right solution for the problem. >>> To me the right solution to the above mentioned problem should be a >>> multi-path routing protocol. Dan K says: Whether its MPLS and/or QoS or something else it occurs to me intrinsically every extra byte that's not payload also is overhead. That's not saying its not worth doing, just that it has a cost. Also, Cisco et al are going to do some forklift upgrades here and there, and there are admin costs (eg. testing) to making something new work on a planetary scale. (1) There should be a model thats like a spanning tree model, weighted for any axis of freedom to make a completely deterministic solution to network routing given different flavors or quality. I worry though it might be a parellel to the bridge of Konigsburg problem. Which either has no deterministic solution; (I can't understand why), or is NP complete. Either is equally bad for a network with a billion people on it! http://thesaurus.maths.org/dictionary/map/word/835 Its right to the philosophy of packet switching versus circuit switching. If you book every hop and its mostly invariant, you just built a circuit switched system from a packet one. No body is going to *stop* anyone from doing that, but its driven by different goals. For instance, if in 2015 bandwidth went up 100 fold per user, would all the QoS/RSVP etc just be overhead and get turned off? This wouldn't be so bad of a thing. It occurs to me its pretty complex to say the least. for instance is it ethical to test a path from an application, yet ask for a RSVP circuit as a backup in case congestion kills the higher bandwidth, less certain path? If so its important the reservation processes have virtually no overhead if not used. Seems like a hard goal. Some infinite spanning process crawling Internet to discover paths and sort of allocate them, that a piggy thing for sure! And regarding tarriffed value added services, very un-internet like indeed. Regards to all! Regarding (1) seems like a component of that potential NSF process?
Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
At the minimum, such violations of IETF Standards should be formally noted in a letter from the IAB to the offending vendor, whoever that might be, when such information becomes available to the IESG or the IAB. Among other things, such notices would result in a formally recorded track record for the offending vendor, which should be made public by CC to the IETF mailing list, as these are public standards, which are of public interest and public record. This assumes that the IESG or IAB care about such violations, in the interests of promoting vendor conformance with their standards. Of course, if no one cares, then no one cares, though one might become curious about what the IETF does care about;-)... >I am not suggesting that the IETF should mount a conformance police >force! but it should offer more than a simple shrug of their >shoulders, such as "ok. i give. why?". PS: I apologize profusely to Dave and everyone else for violating my own rule against use of the Eudora Redirect Command, which always results in confusion when used as I did...\s At 08:53 -0500 22/01/02, David Farber wrote: From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (by way of Einar Stefferud) Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:40:41 +0100 > This needs to be given some attention in the IETF...\Stef ok. i give. why? there are only a few thousand of us, far too few to fix microsoft's bugs. and we don't have the source anyway.
Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:40:41 +0100, Randy Bush said: > > This needs to be given some attention in the IETF...\Stef > > ok. i give. why? > > there are only a few thousand of us, far too few to fix microsoft's > bugs. and we don't have the source anyway. We can't fix their bugs. I think the reason Einar forwarded it was for this: >The problem is that due to the Market share of Microsoft an error in a >Microsoft program may force non-Microsoft users to make changes, and >possibly also imply a loss of mail functionality. There *is* the 800-pound gorilla problem here. If one company with significant market share manages to Do It Very Wrongly, it leaves everybody else having to decide between being able to follow the standard, or being able to intercommunicate. There's been a lot of discussion on the NANOG mailing list regarding a certain router vendor with high market share, whos gear will forward a bad BGP route and *then* reset the session, rather than the other way around - this is generally acknowledged to be against the spec, and has caused a lot of operational problems. Interestingly enough, most of the problems are seen on *other* people's gear - the offending vendor's stuff manages to survive the ensuing badness. -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech msg07316/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Please note this was NOT from me to the list but was redirected by Stef to the list (a bad practice)
>Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:37:02 -0800 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (by way of Einar Stefferud) >Subject: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >This needs to be given some attention in the IETF...\Stef > > >>Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:25:45 + (GMT Standard Time) >>From: Frode Greisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>Dave >> >>Using Pine as my mailer I found Microsoft XP outlook users could not read >>my attachments. We found this was due to a bug in Microsoft's Outlook XP >>mail user agent. Other non-MS mailers may have seen similar problems. >> >>As of this writing, Microsoft has acknowledged the bug but has not added >>it to the Knowledge Base. We have been told that there will be a >>post-SP1 hotfix for Outlook XP. This particular bug has bug fix number >>OfficeQFE:4781. The nature of the bug is that messages with attachments >>which contain a Content-ID header (which standard Pine attachments do) >>do not show the attachment indicator (a paperclip) when viewed with >>Outlook XP. So the user has no indication that the message contains an >>attachment. >> >>Pine has produced an option to remove the content-id header which is >>part of the Mime specification but which is probably not much used. >> >>The problem is that due to the Market share of Microsoft an error in a >>Microsoft program may force non-Microsoft users to make changes, and >>possibly also imply a loss of mail functionality. >> >>Frode > >For archives see: >http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ >
Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
> This needs to be given some attention in the IETF...\Stef ok. i give. why? there are only a few thousand of us, far too few to fix microsoft's bugs. and we don't have the source anyway.
IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
This needs to be given some attention in the IETF...\Stef >Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:25:45 + (GMT Standard Time) >From: Frode Greisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Dave > >Using Pine as my mailer I found Microsoft XP outlook users could not read >my attachments. We found this was due to a bug in Microsoft's Outlook XP >mail user agent. Other non-MS mailers may have seen similar problems. > >As of this writing, Microsoft has acknowledged the bug but has not added >it to the Knowledge Base. We have been told that there will be a >post-SP1 hotfix for Outlook XP. This particular bug has bug fix number >OfficeQFE:4781. The nature of the bug is that messages with attachments >which contain a Content-ID header (which standard Pine attachments do) >do not show the attachment indicator (a paperclip) when viewed with >Outlook XP. So the user has no indication that the message contains an >attachment. > >Pine has produced an option to remove the content-id header which is >part of the Mime specification but which is probably not much used. > >The problem is that due to the Market share of Microsoft an error in a >Microsoft program may force non-Microsoft users to make changes, and >possibly also imply a loss of mail functionality. > >Frode For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
