Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Judging by Sunday evening's reception, it seems that the cutbacks in food service at IETF meetings have already begun :-( Ross.
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
--On 16. mars 2003 10:30 -0500 shogunx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harald, I have a facility that will fit the purposes of the IETF in Daytona. We have an international airport, and we can probably get a tremendous deal on the ballrooms if we can guarantee the occupancy of the hotel during a slow season... november-february. Local vendors can satisfy food needs efficiently. When you mentioned corporate sponsor the last time we spoke, did you mean that we need someone to cover the costs described below? Traditionally, the host has been covering the cost of the terminal room and the Tuesday night social event. This may change going forward - we'll talk about this on Wednesday. And of course, both US IETF meetings this year are going forward without the traditional sponsors. If you have numbers, please send them to Marcia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), who does the meeting planning and negotiation with hotel sites. Harald
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
I don't want to debate with Ross on what is, after all, a matter of tastes, but was pleasantly surprised to see that we didn't run out of food (and that's NOT been my experience at previous receptions). Not a HUGE selection (Aaron described the pasta to me as three different pasta dishes with the same sauce), but very serviceable. Thanks for improving the quantity aspect of the reception! (adding a Q to PACT?) Spencer --- Ross Finlayson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judging by Sunday evening's reception, it seems that the cutbacks in food service at IETF meetings have already begun :-( Ross. ___ This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Re: Text Conferencing for the 56th IETF meeting in San Francisco
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Marshall == Marshall Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This name is still not in DNS... Is it still planned? Marshall it got turned on last monday. i'm sitting in three conference Marshall rooms now. Marshall look for an SRV RR under Marshall _jabber._tcp.conference.ietf.jabber.com I see. So, it is demo.jabber.com, port 5269? SRV records *do* make diagnostics hard, since I can not confirm that a host is alive with ping Marshall i'll ask the ops guys to install an A RR, but you should be Marshall able to join Thank you. *gabber* does not understand the SRV construct is seems. Also, with gabber, it seems that all the userids' that I've made up are in use already. ] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic(Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy); [ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBPnXzxoqHRg3pndX9AQFgugP+OX5nxuhghJE4v3+YFapJ2EfWmRrAMxt2 VJkZt7mXpPogfAbrw5hRVphl2h5SHbM6/lopDdLLkgPRCF1pjq7aX/JfxLYnUmLX UQKOrorf6lxvuPZveP61Jz8Ec6VGrDZ+STgAIzt+KQQNre/QeMyYpZATsA3XryqA UiYdYa74cFQ= =4XZc -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Text Conferencing for the 56th IETF meeting in San Francisco
Marshall- Is there a way to browse available IETF jabber conferences? --aaron
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Folks, HTA I'm more worried about the differential impact raising fees would have - it HTA would mean very little for the professional standardizers from the HTA vendors, but would have a negative effect on the self-funded, the academics HTA and other groups that help us preserve a multifaceted perspective on what HTA the Internet is and should be. Participants-on-a-budget have a number of notable challenges to consider: 1. Expense of getting to the meeting site 2. Hotel expense 3. IETF fees The cheapest travel venues are international hubs... with many airlines providing competing service. For example, San Francisco is probably pretty good for this, especially since the region is serviced by three airports. Having to travel an extra air leg from the hub, only makes sense when the site costs are substantially lower, to offset the extra travel. On the other hand, the IETF hotel in S.F. is not all that cheap, running perhaps USD 30 per day higher than we have usually been seeing. IETF planning used to include secondary hotels for those with limited budgets. That stopped some time ago. It would be nice to have IETF meeting planning add this sort of information back in. By paying attention to keeping the travel costs down, IETF planning can make it much easier for attendees can be in a position to pay higher meeting fees. As noted, there also are both tactical (eg, streamlined food and communication services) and strategic (eg, long-term contracts) changes that well might bring meeting costs down. Ted Ts'o highlighted the key requirement: Let's make our choices based on serious cost consideration, with other concerns being secondary. d/ ps. it is worth noting that repeated use of a small set of venues will make net access, as well as costs, better. -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA USA tel:+1.408.246.8253, fax:+1.866.358.5301
Re: Text Conferencing for the 56th IETF meeting in San Francisco
Marshall- Is there a way to browse available IETF jabber conferences? yes, but the client you're using may not implement it. in general, what you're looking for is a button/menu-item that says browse. when you select this, on my client, i get a window asking for a server name. if i enter conference.ietf.jabber.com, then i get a list of the conference rooms there. i can then double-click on a room to join, etc... if your client doesn't implement browsing, you can just do a join by clicking on join group chat... and entering: server: conference.ietf.jabber.com room: use the secretariat acronym, e.g., dccp nickname: and away you go. /mtr
Re: Text Conferencing for the 56th IETF meeting in San Francisco
I see. So, it is demo.jabber.com, port 5269? i have no idea...i just type in the domain name and it works. SRV records *do* make diagnostics hard, since I can not confirm that a host is alive with ping yeah, but i guess the question is why? it would be helpful if you could tell me what diagnostic you're seeing when you try to join a room... Marshall i'll ask the ops guys to install an A RR, but you should be Marshall able to join Thank you. *gabber* does not understand the SRV construct is seems. hmmm... i tried gabber by just typing in the domain name, and it worked ok. Also, with gabber, it seems that all the userids' that I've made up are in use already. if someone is already in a conference room with a given nickname, the room won't let a second person in with the same nickname... /mtr
RE: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
I'm having quite a hard time seeing what the problem is here, but maybe I'm missing something... Based on Harald's analysis the projected annual shortfall is in the region of $350,000 per annum. Assuming ~5,000 attendees per annum, that equates to ~$70 per year per attendee. This equates to an increase in fees of ~$25 per meeting, i.e. ~5.5%. Are there really any regular attendees for whom this increase would constitute a serious problem? Mat.
Re: Text Conferencing for the 56th IETF meeting in San Francisco(fwd)
For those interested in text conferencing using standardized protocols, there is a SIMPLE2Jabber gateway running at iptel.org. See http://www.iptel.org/ietf56/ for instructions how to use it. in the interests of world peace, can we avoid making political statements on the ietf-general list... /mtr
RE: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
At 10:22 AM 3/17/03, you wrote: I'm having quite a hard time seeing what the problem is here, but maybe I'm missing something... Based on Harald's analysis the projected annual shortfall is in the region of $350,000 per annum. Assuming ~5,000 attendees per annum, that equates to ~$70 per year per attendee. The trouble with this analysis is that the 5000 attendees each year are not all different people. Many, if not most, people attend more than one IETF meeting per year. A more accurate analysis would be: A shortfall of $350,000 per annum means ~$120,000 per IETF meeting. So, if 1200 people attend each IETF meeting, then that means $120 extra per person. (Or, if 2400 people attend each IETF meeting, then that means $60 extra per person.) (Personally, I think that even the current $425 fee feels excessive, especially in the current economic climate.) Ross.
RE: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Duh! I meant: A shortfall of $350,000 per annum means ~$120,000 per IETF meeting. So, if 1200 people attend each IETF meeting, then that means *$100* extra per person. (Or, if 2400 people attend each IETF meeting, then that means *$50* extra per person.) Ross.
jabber note-takers
What is the policy this time? Are chairs encouraged or strongly encouraged to provide note-takers for the conference room? Cheers Leif
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
I tend to disagree with you Ross, First it is not excessive by definition because we are not covering our costs. Second I don't think it is excessive because I know of MANY weeklong conferences that want in the order of 1000-1700 registration fees... I can see how this is VERY different between someone whos company pays (who cares it isn't my money) and someone on a grant, sending themselves (every penny counts, cause money I don't spend going to an IETF meeting goes into my pocket that lets me spend it on my little girl... or pick your favorite way of spending money) The other thing that will be interesting is how do the IETF meeting expenses scale with participation... Do we spend 300,000K regardless of how many show up, or as the number of attendies goes up we spend more money and if so how much more Bill On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 11:17:31AM -0800, Ross Finlayson wrote: At 10:22 AM 3/17/03, you wrote: I'm having quite a hard time seeing what the problem is here, but maybe I'm missing something... Based on Harald's analysis the projected annual shortfall is in the region of $350,000 per annum. Assuming ~5,000 attendees per annum, that equates to ~$70 per year per attendee. The trouble with this analysis is that the 5000 attendees each year are not all different people. Many, if not most, people attend more than one IETF meeting per year. A more accurate analysis would be: A shortfall of $350,000 per annum means ~$120,000 per IETF meeting. So, if 1200 people attend each IETF meeting, then that means $120 extra per person. (Or, if 2400 people attend each IETF meeting, then that means $60 extra per person.) (Personally, I think that even the current $425 fee feels excessive, especially in the current economic climate.) Ross.
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
First [the registration fee] is not excessive by definition because we are not covering our costs. Not necessarily. It could be that our current costs are even more excessive :-) Second I don't think it is excessive because I know of MANY weeklong conferences that want in the order of 1000-1700 registration fees... I never attend such conferences. Ross.
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
g'day, Bill Strahm wrote: I tend to disagree with you Ross, First it is not excessive by definition because we are not covering our costs. Actually, from Harald's numbers the meeting fee more than covers the direct costs of the meetings. What they don't cover is the total cost of operating the secretariat and the rest of the IETF's activities. One question that seems appropriate to ask is whether it is fair (for some value of fair) to tax attendees in this way to cover overall costs, or whether there is some more equitable funding mechanism that would help spread this cost around a bit more. After all, the current system is optimised for non-attendees. They get the full benefit of participation, without carrying any of the associated costs... Second I don't think it is excessive because I know of MANY weeklong conferences that want in the order of 1000-1700 registration fees... You're comparing apples and hand grenades. Professionally run conferences operated by for-profit entities (to pick one example) have entirely different cost structures. Sure, they're more expensive, but the IETF doesn't offer professional training sessions, professionally printed literature, trade shows, etc. All these have associated costs and put further demands upon the infrastructure. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if you think Networld+Interop is somehow a better deal than the IETF. What matters is whether the IETF can cover its costs by charging another $100 per meeting without provoking a measurable decline in attendance. If that happens, would you then increase the cost further? Taken to extreme, you only need one person willing to pay $2.5 million per year and the problem's solved but somehow I'm not sure this is going to solve the problem in practice... - peterd -- - Peter Deutsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gydig Software No, Harry - even in the wizarding world, hearing voices is not a good sign... - Hermione Granger -
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
--- Bill Strahm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The other thing that will be interesting is how do the IETF meeting expenses scale with participation... Do we spend 300,000K regardless of how many show up, or as the number of attendies goes up we spend more money and if so how much more This is a concern for me - if there's a high fixed cost, and we've become dependent on the people sitting in the meetings as observers (hopefully, not just reading e-mail and playing solitaire) to cover that cost, that's bad, and it's worse if we've become dependent on them and then their companies stop sending them to IETF because of economic conditions. Any thoughts on whether this is actually the case or not? Spencer __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Theodore Ts'o wrote: At one point, I was told that Europeans were paying roughly the same for intra-European travel as they were to travel to North America, That seems odd, given the European rail network. I don't know what it costs a la carte, but I know that, both times I've flown to Europe and gotten a Eurailpass (30 days one time, 15 days another time), the pass cost less than the flight. It costs extra in travel time, of course. -- /===\ |John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED]| |Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com | |Centive |My opinions are my own. | |===| |If you're going to walk on thin ice, you might as well *dance*!| \===/
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: OTOH, perhaps people could live from lunch to dinner without cookies??? Or perhaps they could buy snacks in a local store and bring them into the meeting? That way everybody gets their preferred food, too. It'd be a little less social than everybody standing around breaking cookie together, though. -- /===\ |John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED]| |Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com | |Centive |My opinions are my own. | |===| |If you're going to walk on thin ice, you might as well *dance*!| \===/
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: The BIG number in these discussions is the cost of the access line to the hotel - the discussions on price of this single item for San Francisco apparently ranged all the way from 10 KUSD to 80 KUSD, depending (among other things) on the shortest period of time the local-access company was willing to sell this service for. It might be possible to find people to *partially* sponsor the terminal room, by letting us set up a fixed-wireless link to their nearest facility and route through their line. Less cash outlay for them, plus it might let us sidestep the extra charges hotels usually (?) levy when you bring in a phone line. The problem would be getting a sponsor who's got that much spare bandwidth in line-of-sight from the hotel; it'd probably mean the only choices would usually be telecom providers. And any provider that close to the hotel would be on the short list of people from whom to buy access, so sponsoring us would be equivalent to giving away the line. -- /===\ |John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED]| |Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com | |Centive |My opinions are my own. | |===| |If you're going to walk on thin ice, you might as well *dance*!| \===/
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
John Lazzaro wrote: Instead of trying to fix the current model (meeting fees subsidize a publishing arm), it might make sense to consider having the publishing arm be self-funded. This would be anathema to the IETF; it would impose a much higher barrier to implementers, and make it expensive for third parties to determine whether or not a given implementation is compliant. Both of these would have the effect of lowering the quality of implementations. Of course, it might be the only way; but we should look *hard* for alternatives. -- /===\ |John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED]| |Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com | |Centive |My opinions are my own. | |===| |If you're going to walk on thin ice, you might as well *dance*!| \===/
Re: jabber note-takers
What is the policy this time? Are chairs encouraged or strongly encouraged to provide note-takers for the conference room? in the absence of a specific request from the iesg, i'd say it's up to the chair. little harm in asking at the beginning of the meeting, right? /mtr
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote: What about South America and India. I've heard that both are substantially less expensive than the US/Europe/Japan for vacation accomodations. Does the same hold for convention costs? What about holiday resorts at the beginning and the end of the holiday season? Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de/
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Claus Färber wrote: What about holiday resorts at the beginning and the end of the holiday season? Or for that matter, entirely outside the holiday season? Sure it might be too hot to go outside in, say, Cancun in August... but how many attendees really do go outside much? (That's not just a rhetorical question; I've never been to an IETF, but I've been to plenty of conventions where practically NOBODY leaves the hotel for several days, and some where nobody STAYS there for any meals.) There are even some places that might be BETTER outside the season -- at a ski resort, you wouldn't have to deal with the snow in summer. -- David J. Aronson, Software Engineer for hire in Washington DC area. See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, references, etc.
Re: jabber note-takers
Marshall Rose wrote: What is the policy this time? Are chairs encouraged or strongly encouraged to provide note-takers for the conference room? in the absence of a specific request from the iesg, i'd say it's up to the chair. little harm in asking at the beginning of the meeting, right? /mtr Unless you are not in the room but would like to listen in :-( This was maintained very nicely in Atlanta. MVH leifj
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
I'm more worried about the differential impact raising fees would have - it would mean very little for the professional standardizers from the vendors, but would have a negative effect on the self-funded, the academics and other groups that help us preserve a multifaceted perspective on what the Internet is and should be. We already subsidize student fees (a Good Thing, I think). Why not make this a little more general... So, we raise the fees to cover our expenses, but continue to offer the possibility of a break by applying for a reduced rate from some fee grant fund. (And, there would be several well-known categories of folk who would be helped: academics, students, self-funded, folks from non-profits, whatever) This notion works for student travel grants for some academic conferences. The notion would be that we acknowledge that we need to raise more money to cover costs -- but, that we do not want to preclude the *very* valuable input of certain classes of participants in doing so. (And, this would be after a through scrubbing of the books to figure out if we can live without terminals in the terminal room, or cookies in the afternoon, or whatever.) allman -- Mark Allman -- NASA GRC/BBN -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/
Re: rfc-ed reference style [Re: Last Call: Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors to BCP]
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:06:37 +0200 (EET), Pekka Savola wrote: I have a problem of writing the author list as Eastlake, D., and E. Panitz, rather than Eastlake, D., and Panitz, E. Eastlake, D., and E. Panitz is standard footnote form Jeffrey Race
Re: rfc-ed reference style [Re: Last Call: Instructions to Requestfor Comments (RFC) Authors to BCP]
Yep, weird as it seems, it's a standard reference form, one of several. Have never figured out the logic, but then again neither is the (US) convention of placing all punctuation inside quotation marks: We call that a quick but secure hack, said Hugh Daniel. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote: On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:06:37 +0200 (EET), Pekka Savola wrote: I have a problem of writing the author list as Eastlake, D., and E. Panitz, rather than Eastlake, D., and Panitz, E. Eastlake, D., and E. Panitz is standard footnote form Jeffrey Race
Re: rfc-ed reference style [Re: Last Call:Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors to BCP]
--On Monday, 17 March, 2003 17:13 +0200 Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Pekka Savola wrote: On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request to consider Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-04.txt as a BCP. This has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. a very important thing to note -- [10] Eastlake, D. and E. Panitz, Reserved Top Level DNS Names, RFC 2606, June 1999. == hopefully this isn't the reference practise, should be s/E. Panitz/Panitz, E./, right? This seems to be happening with almost all the drafts, with the last of multiauthor lists, so I'm fearing a bug in the tools? (of course, tools aren't the problem of IESG, RFC-ED etc. as such, but should be noted and corrected ASAP.) After getting a few private clarifying remarks (thanks!), I'd like to expand this a bit. It seems this reference model is a tradition of a kind. However, now that the RFC-ed policies are being re-reviewed, it should be excellent time to fix problems, with all due respect. Unless, of course, there was some particular point to always writing the _last_ author (and that only) wrong (in the case that author-count 1). Pekka, This is not just a tradition, it is an approved form in some style manuals. It is most often used along with [AUTHyyS]-type references, where AUTH is two or four letters from the first author's name, yy are a two-digit year, and S is a...z if there are more than one reference for the same author, or for an author with the same (last) name. One of the controversies about the method (controversy == different sources make different recommendations) is whether, say two articles, one each by Joe Jones and Fred Jones, should be cited as [JONE03a] and [JONE03b] or whether they should preferentially appear as [JONJ03] and [JONF03]. LastName1, initials1, initials2 LastName2, ... form is preferred to initials1 LastName1, initials2 LastName2, ... because it is easier for the reader to identify the author name and match it to the above referencing variants. And those manuals tend to prefer Initials Lastname (more generally, having names appear in their natural order) in the absence of other considerations because it is really nice to not have ambiguity about what people are really called (those Asian names that are normally written with the family name first appear in natural order in that scheme, without the key commas). The RFC Editor's real tradition, as I understand it, has been to permit any reasonable reference form to be used, as long as it is applied consistently. I am personally sympathetic to that tradition; I think an argument for forcing a single format should focus clearly on the method to be chosen and why it represents an improvement. And, in doing so, please remember those Asian and Spanish-style names. john
DHCP Problems
The NOC staff has been hearing rumors, grumbles, hints and innuendos that DHCP is not handing out addresses to a few people. If there are users with issues, please report them to the NOC/Helpdesk staff. Once we know the problems, only then can we find the solutions. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is our mailing list. If the network is totally inaccessible then running by the California room would be greatly appreciated. --Brett Thorson Foretec Seminars / IETF
Printing at IETF 56
The terminal room information sheet for IETF 56 includes instructions for how to set up printing for Windows machines, and instructions for how to set up printing for Unix machines, but no mention of Macs. Does this mean that printing from Macs is not supported? On the contrary, it means that printing from Macs doesn't require instructions. In the print dialog of any application on OS X 10.2, just click on the Printer popup menu, select the Rendezvous Printers submenu, and select the printer called IETF 56 Printer. Stuart Cheshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc. * www.stuartcheshire.org
Re: IETF: v6 works, v4 is broken
I have found that IPv6 seems to have a much longer round trip delay than IPv4 for just about every site that I have tried. For example, pinging www.rfc-editor.org from here gives me this: IPv6: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 589.174/678.001/1109.953/117.776 ms IPv4: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 8.346/48.524/130.290/37.593 ms Also, note that I cannot get an HTTP response from www.rfc-editor.org using IPv6. The connection is established fine, but the server does not respond to requests. This is really the first time that I have had a chance to use IPv6 outside of a small test environment, and I am quite pleased that it works. In fact, it is easier than IPv4 due to address autoconfiguration (no DHCP client). :-) On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 08:26:38PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: Just FYI.. It's nice to see that IPv6 is working nicely but v4 is not :-) (DHCP servers are probably dying quite frequently..) -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -- At Group L, Stoffel oversees six first-rate programmers, a managerial challenge roughly comparable to herding cats. -- The Washington Post Magazine, 9 June, 1985 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IETF: v6 works, v4 is broken
Tom Marshall wrote: I have found that IPv6 seems to have a much longer round trip delay than IPv4 for just about every site that I have tried. For example, pinging www.rfc-editor.org from here gives me this: IPv6: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 589.174/678.001/1109.953/117.776 ms IPv4: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 8.346/48.524/130.290/37.593 ms See note to ietf list from yesterday that IPv6 routes all go to Europe before going anywhere else. :( Also, note that I cannot get an HTTP response from www.rfc-editor.org using IPv6. The connection is established fine, but the server does not respond to requests. Works for me. What browser are you using? There were some problems with the routing earlier today which appear to have been fixed. Try again and email me privately if you still have trouble? --aaron
Re: IETF: v6 works, v4 is broken
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 09:15:52PM -0800, Lars Eggert wrote: Tom Marshall wrote: I have found that IPv6 seems to have a much longer round trip delay than IPv4 for just about every site that I have tried. For example, pinging www.rfc-editor.org from here gives me this: IPv6: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 589.174/678.001/1109.953/117.776 ms IPv4: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 8.346/48.524/130.290/37.593 ms Also, note that I cannot get an HTTP response from www.rfc-editor.org using IPv6. The connection is established fine, but the server does not respond to requests. I can't comment on the routing issues (IPv6 connectivity esp. to the 6bone seems to have been flaky), but the RFC editor IPv6 server has been up since last week. You should see you are using IPv6 from 2001:490:f002:128:240:96ff:fe40:5bc9 on the bottom of the front page if all went well. Browser issue? No, I verified with this: $ telnet www.rfc-editor.org 80 Trying 3ffe:801:1000:0:2d0:b7ff:c0de:3... Connected to www.rfc-editor.org. Escape character is '^]'. GET / HTTP/1.0 [... wait a couple minutes ...] ^] telnet q Connection closed. My IPv6 address is 2001:460:410:8128::/64. -- An American is a man with two arms and four wheels. -- A Chinese child pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IETF: v6 works, v4 is broken
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Aaron Falk wrote: Tom Marshall wrote: I have found that IPv6 seems to have a much longer round trip delay than IPv4 for just about every site that I have tried. For example, pinging www.rfc-editor.org from here gives me this: IPv6: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 589.174/678.001/1109.953/117.776 ms IPv4: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 8.346/48.524/130.290/37.593 ms See note to ietf list from yesterday that IPv6 routes all go to Europe before going anywhere else. :( Better so than going to Japan first as the last time ;-) -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: IETF: v6 works, v4 is broken
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tom Marshall writes: =20 Browser issue? No, I verified with this: $ telnet www.rfc-editor.org 80 Trying 3ffe:801:1000:0:2d0:b7ff:c0de:3... Connected to www.rfc-editor.org. Escape character is '^]'. GET / HTTP/1.0 [... wait a couple minutes ...] ^] telnet q Connection closed. My IPv6 address is 2001:460:410:8128::/64. Odd -- that exact sequence, using telnet, worked for me. (I'm running NetBSD 1.6.1_RC2, if that matters.) --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of Firewalls book)
Re: IETF: v6 works, v4 is broken
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:28:30AM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tom Marshall writes: =20 Browser issue? No, I verified with this: $ telnet www.rfc-editor.org 80 Trying 3ffe:801:1000:0:2d0:b7ff:c0de:3... Connected to www.rfc-editor.org. Escape character is '^]'. GET / HTTP/1.0 [... wait a couple minutes ...] ^] telnet q Connection closed. My IPv6 address is 2001:460:410:8128::/64. Odd -- that exact sequence, using telnet, worked for me. (I'm running NetBSD 1.6.1_RC2, if that matters.) Perhaps it is the OS. I'm using Linux 2.4.21-pre5. Are there known issues with the Linux 2.4 IPv6 implementation? I also have 2.4.20 on this machine, perhaps I'll try that (there was an IPv6 update in the prerelease). -- Football combines the two worst features of American life. It is violence punctuated by committee meetings. -- George F. Will pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
rfc-ed reference style [Re: Last Call: Instructions to Request forComments (RFC) Authors to BCP]
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Pekka Savola wrote: On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request to consider Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-04.txt as a BCP. This has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. a very important thing to note -- [10] Eastlake, D. and E. Panitz, Reserved Top Level DNS Names, RFC 2606, June 1999. == hopefully this isn't the reference practise, should be s/E. Panitz/Panitz, E./, right? This seems to be happening with almost all the drafts, with the last of multiauthor lists, so I'm fearing a bug in the tools? (of course, tools aren't the problem of IESG, RFC-ED etc. as such, but should be noted and corrected ASAP.) After getting a few private clarifying remarks (thanks!), I'd like to expand this a bit. It seems this reference model is a tradition of a kind. However, now that the RFC-ed policies are being re-reviewed, it should be excellent time to fix problems, with all due respect. Unless, of course, there was some particular point to always writing the _last_ author (and that only) wrong (in the case that author-count 1). -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
RE: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Hey, gang, Come to do it in Fiji. It has direct flights to USA/JAPAN/AUSTRALIA/NEWZEALAND/KOREA/HAWAII, 5 stars hotels with conference room facilities... Good Internet, albeit expensive, but I'm sure the Southern Cross Cable gang may give you some spare bandwidth for the conference I think NADI/LA return is around USD600 (need to check this one). And you may be surfing the net while drinking a pina colada and watching the sunset. Franck Martin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 17 March 2003 12:00 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote: What about South America and India. I've heard that both are substantially less expensive than the US/Europe/Japan for vacation accomodations. Does the same hold for convention costs? What about holiday resorts at the beginning and the end of the holiday season? Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de/
Re: rfc-ed reference style [Re: Last Call: Instructions to Requestfor Comments (RFC) Authors to BCP]
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, John C Klensin wrote: This is not just a tradition, it is an approved form in some style manuals. It is most often used along with [AUTHyyS]-type references, where AUTH is two or four letters from the first author's name, yy are a two-digit year, and S is a...z if there are more than one reference for the same author, or for an author with the same (last) name. One of the controversies about the method (controversy == different sources make different recommendations) is whether, say two articles, one each by Joe Jones and Fred Jones, should be cited as [JONE03a] and [JONE03b] or whether they should preferentially appear as [JONJ03] and [JONF03]. LastName1, initials1, initials2 LastName2, ... form is preferred to initials1 LastName1, initials2 LastName2, ... because it is easier for the reader to identify the author name and match it to the above referencing variants. And those manuals tend to prefer Initials Lastname (more generally, having names appear in their natural order) in the absence of other considerations because it is really nice to not have ambiguity about what people are really called (those Asian names that are normally written with the family name first appear in natural order in that scheme, without the key commas). The RFC Editor's real tradition, as I understand it, has been to permit any reasonable reference form to be used, as long as it is applied consistently. I am personally sympathetic to that tradition; I think an argument for forcing a single format should focus clearly on the method to be chosen and why it represents an improvement. And, in doing so, please remember those Asian and Spanish-style names. It seems I was not clear enough and you misinterpreted my point. Let try to clarify, [10] Eastlake, D. and E. Panitz, Reserved Top Level DNS Names, RFC 2606, June 1999. == hopefully this isn't the reference practise, should be s/E. Panitz/Panitz, E./, right? I have a problem of writing the author list as Eastlake, D., and E. Panitz, rather than Eastlake, D., and Panitz, E. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
