Re: RFC2119 Keywords
Bob Braden wrote: > *> I don't believe the intent of 2119 was to change the meanings of > *> "should", "must", etc., in RFCs, but rather to define new terms > *> "SHOULD", "MUST", etc., with specific new meanings. > *> > *> Keith > *> > > Keith's statement was certainly correct when we first introduced the > capitalized words in the Host Requirements RFCs (1122,1123). Actually, MUST was first introduced in RFC1023 two years earlier :-) The list is as follows: 1023MUST 1085MAY 1122SHOULD Joe
RE: Any idea the ratio of end user workstations to network equipments
I've just checked the website - can anyone tell me how the number of hosts/users has almost doubled in the last month? Regards, Peter. -Original Message- From: Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 15 February 2002 16:34 To: Jian Bo Huang; ietf Subject: Re: Any idea the ratio of end user workstations to network equipments Have you tried www.netsizer.com? I'm not sure if it has the data you need, but at least may give you and idea... Saludos. Regards. José Manuel Arronte García Supervisor de Soporte Técnico Helpdesk Meg@Red Veracruz Telecomunicaciones y Entretenimiento S. A. de C. V. Av. S. Díaz Mirón 2625-A Fracc. Moderno 91916 Veracruz Ver. MÉXICO +52 (229) 923-0400, 923-0410 ext. 5 http://www.megacable.com.mx/ http://www.megared.net.mx/ "Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?". --O. W. Kenobi (in Star Wars ep.IV: A New Hope) - Original Message - From: "Jian Bo Huang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ietf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 10:02 AM Subject: Any idea the ratio of end user workstations to network equipments > Dear Sirs, > > For my project needs, I want know some statistic data on the usage of IP > address. That means: > > 1) How many addresses are occupied and how many are unassigned? > 2) How many addresses are used for servers, routers and other network > equipments, in contrast with the user end PCs or workstations? That is > the ratio of end user workstations to network equipments. > > I tried to find, but failed on no idea! Have you any suggestion? > > Thank you! > > Truly yours, > Jian Bo Huang > > MSc Student > Department of Electronic Engineering, > University of Surrey > Guildford, Surrey > GU2 7XH, UK > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: +44-870-2820955
Re: RFC2119 Keywords
At 8:15 AM -0500 2/15/02, Scott Brim wrote: >In normative text, I don't see how "must" could occur anywhere except >where it was supposed to mean "MUST". It occurs when describing how something happened, not what needs to happen. Example from a current Internet Draft that is having the capitalization fixed: ...not less than 3, but 4 is less than 5, so 4 must be the last digit. -> ...not less than 3, but 4 is less than 5, so 4 has to be the last digit. There were a few places where the "must" turned into a "MUST" as a way of specifying how an implementation of the protocol had to work. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
Re: RFC2119 Keywords
*> I don't believe the intent of 2119 was to change the meanings of *> "should", "must", etc., in RFCs, but rather to define new terms *> "SHOULD", "MUST", etc., with specific new meanings. *> *> Keith *> Keith's statement was certainly correct when we first introduced the capitalized words in the Host Requirements RFCs (1122,1123). Bob Brden
Re: Any idea the ratio of end user workstations to network equipments
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:35:29 PST, Christian Huitema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > and extrapolate. I do not advise that you try the hacker's path, i.e. > pick address at random and use hackers' tools to remotely sense the type > of the equipment; it is bad practice, and your results would be tainted > by statistical errors due to firewall practices. An even bigger danger, statistics-wise, is assuming that because it's answering on ports 25, 80, 109, and 119, that it's a server, when it's more likely just another desktop machine running WAAAY too many services by default How many people do you think found out they had IIS installed when CodeRed or Nimda pointed it out to them? And how many do you think are *still* unaware they have IIS on their desktop system? ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech msg07474/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Any idea the ratio of end user workstations to network equipments
Good places to start are: IANA, INTERNET PROTOCOL V4 ADDRESS SPACE: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Internet Domain Survey: http://www.isc.org/ds/ Telcordia's Netsizer, which includes breakout by domains: http://www.netsizer.com/ BGP Routing table statistics: http://www.apnic.net/stats/bgp/ I am not aware of any publication listing the ratio of networking equipment to hosts. You will have to conduct some statistical sampling, e.g. get a few friendly domains administrators to tell you their ratios and extrapolate. I do not advise that you try the hacker's path, i.e. pick address at random and use hackers' tools to remotely sense the type of the equipment; it is bad practice, and your results would be tainted by statistical errors due to firewall practices. -- Christian Huitema > -Original Message- > From: Jian Bo Huang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 8:03 AM > To: ietf > Subject: Any idea the ratio of end user workstations to network equipments > Importance: High > > Dear Sirs, > > For my project needs, I want know some statistic data on the usage of IP > address. That means: > > 1) How many addresses are occupied and how many are unassigned? > 2) How many addresses are used for servers, routers and other network > equipments, in contrast with the user end PCs or workstations? That is > the ratio of end user workstations to network equipments. > > I tried to find, but failed on no idea! Have you any suggestion? > > Thank you! > > Truly yours, > Jian Bo Huang > > MSc Student > Department of Electronic Engineering, > University of Surrey > Guildford, Surrey > GU2 7XH, UK > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: +44-870-2820955
Re: Any idea the ratio of end user workstations to network equipments
Have you tried www.netsizer.com? I'm not sure if it has the data you need, but at least may give you and idea... Saludos. Regards. José Manuel Arronte García Supervisor de Soporte Técnico Helpdesk Meg@Red Veracruz Telecomunicaciones y Entretenimiento S. A. de C. V. Av. S. Díaz Mirón 2625-A Fracc. Moderno 91916 Veracruz Ver. MÉXICO +52 (229) 923-0400, 923-0410 ext. 5 http://www.megacable.com.mx/ http://www.megared.net.mx/ "Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?". --O. W. Kenobi (in Star Wars ep.IV: A New Hope) - Original Message - From: "Jian Bo Huang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ietf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 10:02 AM Subject: Any idea the ratio of end user workstations to network equipments > Dear Sirs, > > For my project needs, I want know some statistic data on the usage of IP > address. That means: > > 1) How many addresses are occupied and how many are unassigned? > 2) How many addresses are used for servers, routers and other network > equipments, in contrast with the user end PCs or workstations? That is > the ratio of end user workstations to network equipments. > > I tried to find, but failed on no idea! Have you any suggestion? > > Thank you! > > Truly yours, > Jian Bo Huang > > MSc Student > Department of Electronic Engineering, > University of Surrey > Guildford, Surrey > GU2 7XH, UK > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: +44-870-2820955
Any idea the ratio of end user workstations to network equipments
Dear Sirs, For my project needs, I want know some statistic data on the usage of IP address. That means: 1) How many addresses are occupied and how many are unassigned? 2) How many addresses are used for servers, routers and other network equipments, in contrast with the user end PCs or workstations? That is the ratio of end user workstations to network equipments. I tried to find, but failed on no idea! Have you any suggestion? Thank you! Truly yours, Jian Bo Huang MSc Student Department of Electronic Engineering, University of Surrey Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +44-870-2820955
Re: RFC2119 Keywords
At 11:39 PM 2002-02-14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", > "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be > interpreted as described in RFC 2119. > > >So I'd say "if you mean the 2119 meaning, use ALL CAPS". I think the source of confusing is the statement "These words are often capitalized" in RFC 2119. This implies that the words have the same meaning when NOT capitalized. Kurt
Re: RFC2119 Keywords
> In normative text, I don't see how "must" could occur anywhere except > where it was supposed to mean "MUST". Perhaps, but often we don't clearly distinguish between normative and non-normative text. Using the 2119 keywords (spelled in all capitals) helps us do that. I've certainly seen cases in standards documents where it was useful to distinguish "should" from "SHOULD". "SHOULD" imposes a (conditional) requirement on implementations, while "should" can be used for advisory text. I don't believe the intent of 2119 was to change the meanings of "should", "must", etc., in RFCs, but rather to define new terms "SHOULD", "MUST", etc., with specific new meanings. Keith
Re: RFC2119 Keywords
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:15:40 EST, Scott Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > In normative text, I don't see how "must" could occur anywhere except > where it was supposed to mean "MUST". I use all-caps but I think we're > more experienced these days and we could stop shouting at each other now > if we chose to. We thrashed this out a few weeks ago, and decided we SHOULD NOT issue sidearms to the Protocol Police. Therefor, shouting MUST be supported, since we are still supporting flat-ASCII format for RFCs, and as a result, there is no way to attach a Krushchev-style banging-of-shoes to a "you MUST NOT do this" requirement Or maybe I'm just astounded that we live in a world where there exist deployed MUAs that don't understand the distinction between a CRLF and an unquoted CR in a RFC822 header, and I really should get some more caffeine before hitting the 'send' button... ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech msg07468/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC2119 Keywords
standard usage has been that one MUST write MUST in all upper case to get the magical meaning. The reason MUST be that MUSTy old grammarians MAY think that one SHOULD not attach special meanings to words just because they MAY occur in places where they MUST occur in order to make the meaning apparent to a normal reader of English. This is most apparent in the month of May. Harald --On 15. februar 2002 00:54 -0600 David Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am working in a standards group and a disagreement has arisen > concerning RFC2119. > Is the 2119 keyword simply "must" or "MUST" or "Must" or "MuSt" ... , or > is the weight of the 2119 definition reserved strictly for "MUST" (all > caps)? I assume the answer would equally apply to the entire list of > 2119 keywords. > Regards, > > David Fischer > Drummond Group.
Re: RFC2119 Keywords
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 01:01:20PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If the 2119 keywords included the any caps versions, eg "must" and "Must" > and...etc, you'd have to avoid using those keywords in your english to not > invoke the definitions in rfc2119 everywhere. If it is limited to > the all caps versions, eg "MUST", things get a bit easier. I don't think > the author of 2119 intended for everyone to watch their language. In normative text, I don't see how "must" could occur anywhere except where it was supposed to mean "MUST". I use all-caps but I think we're more experienced these days and we could stop shouting at each other now if we chose to.
Re: RFC2119 Keywords
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, David Fischer wrote: > Is the 2119 keyword simply "must" or "MUST" or "Must" or > "MuSt" ... , or is the weight of the 2119 definition > reserved strictly for "MUST" (all caps)? I assume the > answer would equally apply to the entire list of 2119 > keywords. If the 2119 keywords included the any caps versions, eg "must" and "Must" and...etc, you'd have to avoid using those keywords in your english to not invoke the definitions in rfc2119 everywhere. If it is limited to the all caps versions, eg "MUST", things get a bit easier. I don't think the author of 2119 intended for everyone to watch their language. Ketil
Re: RFC2119 Keywords
Date:Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:54:07 -0600 From:"David Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Is the 2119 keyword simply "must" or "MUST" or "Must" or | "MuSt" ... , or is the weight of the 2119 definition | reserved strictly for "MUST" (all caps)? I assume the | answer would equally apply to the entire list of 2119 | keywords. All caps MUST be used for 2119 to apply - unless your doc says otherwise - it could of course, it could say we treat "must" as if it was MUST from bcp14 instead of just saying that 2119 is used (if you don't mention 2119 at all, you'll just have a somewhat strange typographical convention, which will probably result in the IESG getting annoyed with you). And yes, all of them. kre
