Re: myth of the great transition (was US DefenseDepartment formally adopts IPv6)
--On Monday, 16 June, 2003 21:39 -0400 Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The think I find mindboggling about all this is that I have yet to see a concise explanation of how the great transition to IPv6 is going to be managed and what the incentive for early adopters is going to be. There isn't going to be a great transition to IPv6 in the sense that you seem to mean. IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist for a long time. The most popular IPv4 applications - web and email - will be the last to abandon IPv4, and they won't do so until IPv6 is ubiquitous. The incentive for IPv6 adopters is obvious - they'll use IPv6 to do things they cannot do with IPv4. Those things include: deploying lots of distinctly addressible pieces of hardware (e.g. things that get monitored or controlled remotely), alleviating an actual or imposed, global or local, shortage of IPv4 addresses (this applies both to China and home networks), talking to IPv6-only devices (that use IPv6 because they cannot reliably get enough IPv4 addresses), and any apps that cannot reliably operate through NAT. ... And, if IETF gets its act sufficiently together early enough, the capability for someone who doesn't qualify for PI space under current IPv4 rules to do multihoming -- perhaps to compensate for two incompetent ISPs by hoping they won't be out of service at the same time-- at plausible total costs. My own guess is that, as reliable Internet connections become more important to people, and if the trend toward lowering skill levels at ISPs continues, small enterprise and SOHO multihoming may turn out to be one of the driving applications for IPv6. If we get our act sufficiently together... john
Re: SIRs
On Monday, June 16, 2003, at 04:00 PM, Pekka Savola wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, S Woodside wrote: It might be interesting to have a facility where comments can be attached to I-Ds (like in bug tracking systems / bugzilla). I'm not sure what kind of comments you refer to? "I think this and this is a bad idea, for these reasons, but naturally the document authors/editors won't add that in the next revision of the ID" ? Create a document-based thread rather than a WG-based or mailing-list-based thread. Patches could also be posted and revision history (changes between revisions) would be easier to keep track of. People who have negative comments could post them, and they'd be part of the history record of the draft even if their comments are ignored/rejected. simon
myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department formallyadopts IPv6)
> The think I find mindboggling about all this is that I have yet to see a > concise explanation of how the great transition to IPv6 is going to be > managed and what the incentive for early adopters is going to be. There isn't going to be a great transition to IPv6 in the sense that you seem to mean. IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist for a long time. The most popular IPv4 applications - web and email - will be the last to abandon IPv4, and they won't do so until IPv6 is ubiquitous. The incentive for IPv6 adopters is obvious - they'll use IPv6 to do things they cannot do with IPv4. Those things include: deploying lots of distinctly addressible pieces of hardware (e.g. things that get monitored or controlled remotely), alleviating an actual or imposed, global or local, shortage of IPv4 addresses (this applies both to China and home networks), talking to IPv6-only devices (that use IPv6 because they cannot reliably get enough IPv4 addresses), and any apps that cannot reliably operate through NAT. You might say that there isn't much use of these things today. But when you think about it, enabling new kinds of ways to use the Internet infrastructure is about the only way for ISPs in saturated markets to get new customers.
ASRG Censorship and IPR
Concerning the censorship issue, the chair gives as his reason for blocking my posts as follows: Your request to the Asrg mailing list Posting of your message titled "Reverse DNS modem pool records." has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request: "I need you to decide if you are a member of this group or not. You have stated that you are an ex-member and you have stated that you plan to form a competing group. If you do not believe in the goals of this group, then I can not expect meaningful contributions from you. Therefore, I do not see the purpose of you posting your opinions to this research group's mailing list. Thank you. If at some point, you decide that you would like to contribute to the research group's efforts to address the problem, then please let me know." The group has not been allowed to see that this is the basis for the censorship policy - forming a group which the chair perceives as being in competition. I do not think in this case the actions qualify as moderation. I have complained to the IRTF chair and got nowhere. After I pointed out this was hardly a legitimate use of moderation most of of the posts I sent following were blocked without any form of comment. Presumably to avoid any more embarassing comments that might reveal the true motive. There are two reasons why ASRG is not an adequate forum for anti-spam standards. First it is a research group, the IPR regime is simply not viable for building an open standard given the amount of IP claims existing. An ad hoc post to the list does not fix that. Second, none of the principal stakeholders with the ability to effect change are participating and a number have explicitly rejected any participation with IETF/IRTF on this topic. Hence the need for an alternate forum. I see no reason why membership of one should cause automatic blacklisting in what is pretending to be an open process in the IRTF. The problem with the IPR policy is the WAY in which it was imposed. It was not even a statement that RFC 2062 rules were in force which might at least be readily understood and have some chance of being enforceable. Instead we just got told that a decision had been taken by unspecified persons and some text copied out of RFC 2062 with no indication that that is where they had been taken from or any changes that might have been made. My objection was one which anyone faced with a unilateral contract would be, just what are you trying to spring here? The group is not even being allowed to discuss this issue because the posts are still being blocked. Phill
Re: archiving of spam (was CLOSE ARSG etc...)
> > > I think that having all bounces (for whatever reason) archived is > > > fine; I think having it as "web pages somewhere" is overkill. > > > > both the volume of spam, and the ratio of spam to legitimate content are > > so high, that I'm not sure how much longer it will be practical to > > archive it. if we were to archive rejected messages, it should probably > > only be for a few weeks. > > My rolling 40 day log of all spam sent to my traps or real addresses > contains about 34,484 samples in a total of about 242 Mbytes or an > average of about 7 KBytes/spam. (Each sample is truncated to ~32 KBytes.) > > Judging from DCC numbers from a bunch of medium sized ISPs, the typical > consumer mailbox receives about 10 messages/day (more than 5, less > than 20), of which about half are spam. (Never mind that judicious > "unsubscribing" can reduce that by about 50%.) well, some of the IETF lists that I maintain seem to get around 50 spams/day (at least, if I go away for a day before I cull through the posts from nonsubscribers, I am likely to wind up with 60+ messages on some of those lists, of which 59.5 are spam) but it's not the cost of the disk that matters, it's the cost of backing it up. I can think of better things to spend IETF money on.
Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED
> From: David Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > My understanding is that The Mail Archive > > (http://www.mail-archive.com/lists.html) will provide free storage for > > mailing lists. I think every WG list should be permanetly archived in > > this manner. > > What a great way to help address harvesters ... one site ... one 'API' to > program against to harvest many valid addresses. This particular archive > example hides email addresses, but it took me less that 5 minutes to > determine how to recover addresses from the page data. > > So I don't think the suggested policy is a good idea without much more > effective blocking of access to email addresses. Hmmmph! So only the addresses of authors of messages that are not spam or otherwise rejected by IETF and IRTF moderation should be harvested from the existing archives? It's clear that the price of admission to a public, technical anti-spam mailing list like the ASRG list should include sufficient practical knowledge of spam including enough spam defenses to obviate any worries about exposing one's address. A similar de facto policy in other IRTF and IETF lists to discourage tourists would not be a bad thing. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > My understanding is that The Mail Archive > (http://www.mail-archive.com/lists.html) will provide free storage for > mailing lists. I think every WG list should be permanetly archived in > this manner. What a great way to help address harvesters ... one site ... one 'API' to program against to harvest many valid addresses. This particular archive example hides email addresses, but it took me less that 5 minutes to determine how to recover addresses from the page data. So I don't think the suggested policy is a good idea without much more effective blocking of access to email addresses. Dave Morris
Re: SIRs
S Woodside wrote: > > It might be interesting to have a facility where comments can be > attached to I-Ds (like in bug tracking systems / bugzilla). they're called WG mailing lists, aren't they? cheers, gja
Re: Impending Publication: draft-iab-service-id-considerations-01.txt
> I think this statement gives dangerously wide latitude for intermediate > systems to damage end-to-end-ness. It seems to me that a router should > only do something outside fundamental routing behaviour when this has > been explicitly approved, either through protocol negotiation or through > manual configuration, by sufficiently many affected parties that the > others can't tell that anything out of the ordinary is happening. Where do you think this leaves rewriting DSCPs at network boundaries? But anyway, the document is a statement of principle rather than a standard, and I'm not sure that it's possible to be absolute about these things when the interests of the user may be counter to the interests of the network administrator. That's not quite true - it is possible to be absolute. But I don't think it's likely to produce good results or progress on what really are some rather difficult and sometimes subtle questions about what happens between a sender and a receiver. Melinda
Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED
I am always leary about business models that I don't understand how they make money. So tell me, how will mail-archive.com make money to guarantee that it will be around in 2050, 2100, and beyond. I am not all that interested in a mail archive that might exist for a few months, or a year, frankly I prefer the mail archives that the IETF provides for my list, if the IETF goes out of business, then I don't think the archives of the IETF will be all that interesting anymore Bill On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > My understanding is that The Mail Archive > (http://www.mail-archive.com/lists.html) will provide free storage for > mailing lists. I think every WG list should be permanetly archived in > this manner. > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Dean Anderson wrote: > > > Disks are cheap. 250Gig is under $400, and works just fine for slightly > > long term storage. > > > > --Dean > > > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: > > > > > At 11:27 AM -0600 6/16/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > > >All contributions that are rejected > > > >by any moderators (including spam filters) of any IRTF or IETF mailing > > > >lists must be archived and should be published on web pages somewhere. > > > > > > FWIW, some of the IETF WG mailing lists that IMC runs get >10 spams a > > > day, and often get the virus/trojans that are >120K each. This is not > > > an insignificant amount of junk to wade through when looking for > > > proof of moderator badness/goodness. > > > > > > And there's also the problem of robots that harvest everything, > > > regardless of your robots.txt file. If we had a system like you > > > describe, it would be believable that the archives would get a fair > > > number of hits from people searching for pr0n but finding our archive > > > of spam instead. > > > > > > I think that having all bounces (for whatever reason) archived is > > > fine; I think having it as "web pages somewhere" is overkill. Access > > > to one of the big text archives can be a trivial password given to > > > anyone who wants it for research purposes. > > > > > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > > > --Internet Mail Consortium > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org > A. Michael Froomkin |Professor of Law| [EMAIL PROTECTED] > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA > +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm > -->It's hot here.<-- > >
Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED
Apparently, you didn't read the entire message:
Here is the rest of it:
--- From [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Hallam-Baker, Phillip")
What happened to open and inclusive?
So far we have had a deliberate campaign of heckling that the
chair did nothing to stop followed by the chair taking sanctions
against anyone who complained about the hecklers.
Five members of the group have resigned in disgust at the heckler
faction.
You will note that none of the posts I have sent on this topic
have made it to the list. So even if I do make a statement
concerning IPR the chances are that the post will be seen are
nil.
The chair has admitted that the reason my posts are blocked is
that I am working on starting anti-spam groups in other forums,
I am not aware that that type of move has EVER been sanctioned
by IETF process.
-
Phillip has a complaint about the IPR policies. This complaint is not
getting to the list, which is another complaint. Vixie tries to justify
this suppression in his message:
On 16 Jun 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Hallam-Baker, Phillip") writes:
>
> > What happened to open and inclusive?
>
> it didn't scale. but, rather than change the written rules, more
> emphasis has been put on "design teams" and "directorates" in order to
> get work done in ways the written rules don't cover. note that i think
> this is bad, and that the written rules should be changed, and then
> followed, and that the way things are trying to get done now has scaled
> even less well than before.
To which I refute Vixie, as you quote me:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Scott W Brim wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 04:01:37PM -0400, Dean Anderson allegedly wrote:
> > The IPR policy (controversial as it might be), has nothing to do with who
> > can post to an IETF list. There is no reasonable basis to limit posts
> > because a person is involved in other groups. It has nothing to do with
> > any so-called 'emphasis on design teams and directorates', which seems to
> > be little more than a codeword for suppression of certain viewpoints.
>
> Go back and look at Phillip's original message. The complaint about
> democracy was not about posting rights. Enclosed:
>
> > > I disagree with any requirement imposed by a working group chair who
> > > believes he is not accountable to the group. I do not think that the
> > > way an IPR regime should be specified is a unilateral statement from
> > > the chair that a decision has been taken.
> > >
> > > An IPR policy should not be something that members of a group
> > > discover when they are told it has been imposed from above.
> > >
> > >
> > > What happened to open and inclusive?
>
>
>
>
Re: Impending Publication: draft-iab-service-id-considerations-01.txt
|If intermediate systems take actions on behalf of one or more parties |to the communication or affecting the communication, a good rule of |thumb is they should only take actions that are beneficial to or |approved by one or more of the parties, within the operational |parameters of the service-specific protocol, or otherwise unlikely to |lead to widespread evasion by the user community. I think this statement gives dangerously wide latitude for intermediate systems to damage end-to-end-ness. It seems to me that a router should only do something outside fundamental routing behaviour when this has been explicitly approved, either through protocol negotiation or through manual configuration, by sufficiently many affected parties that the others can't tell that anything out of the ordinary is happening. To perceive some action as "beneficial to ... one or more of the parties" does not make it so. Not only is human history in general littered with examples of evil done "for their own good", but also within recent networking history some of the problems that the draft is responding to have been caused by intermediate systems trying to be helpful. A major problem is that most of these attempts to be helpful are attempts to be helpful to humans, which end up being unhelpful to computers and to those humans that interact with computers as we do; few people outside the IETF are truly competent to judge what is beneficial to someone else within the context of computer networking. Do not underestimate the degree to which computer systems are designed by managers. In the nexxt clause, it's not clear whether "within the operational parameters of the service-specific protocol" is intended to be ANDed or ORed with the "beneficial ... or approved ..." clause. If it is intended to be ORed, I find this also to be dangerously broad. Finally, "unlikely to lead to widespread evasion" is another criterion that anyone who needs to be told this rule won't be competent to judge. Overall, I think that, particularly in such an official statement as this, the IAB needs to be very conservative about Internet architectural matters. We should maintain the current situation wherein firewalls are recognisably a breach of the Internet architecture, at least until we've worked out a way to do them that doesn't cause surprising behaviour. This Internet works (ish), and we need to keep it that way: if we break it now, we'll probably never be able to get the popular momentum required to replace it with a new one that works. -zefram
Re: US Defense Department formally adopts IPv6
On maandag, jun 16, 2003, at 17:47 Europe/Amsterdam, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: The think I find mindboggling about all this is that I have yet to see a concise explanation of how the great transition to IPv6 is going to be managed and what the incentive for early adopters is going to be. Nostalgia. :-) If you find yourself yearning for a simpler time and place, where spamming is unknown, nameservice is still a novelty and people are more interested in the network itself than in the content it may carry, IPv6 is the thing for you. The trouble with IPv6 adoption is that you don't see a huge, immediate gain. But in the long run, the costs of staying with IPv4 are going to be higher than the costs of changing to IPv6. We still have enough time to do it fairly painlessly. I don't buy the 'more addresses' argument. If China wants more IPv4 addresses there are plenty they can take without causing widespread inconvenience. They could decide to simply advertise BGP routes to net 18 or one of the other large class As grabbed early on by a US university. Organizations in China can also simply request the address space from APNIC and get them if the request is within reason, just like American organizations can request address space from ARIN. APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE policies regarding IPv4 address assignments are as good as identical. Just because some US organizations were able to get large blocks of address space in the past doesn't mean all US organizations now have all the address space they need. A few stats: if we squint, 40% of the usable IPv4 address space is unallocated, 20% allocated by the RIRs (= reasonably efficient) and 40% allocated pre-RIR (= mostly rather inefficient). If I am right in my belief that IP beat OSI through inertia and luck rather than technical superiority there is a big problem deploying IPv6. It may well be that inertia wins again and IPv4 plus NAT is good enough for most uses. Vendors will have to implement IPv6 because SOME customers require it. (Note that supporting IPv4+IPv6 in applications by using the IPv6 system calls is fairly trivial. The trouble is supporting both the old and new system calls side by side in case you need to run on a system that doesn't have the IPv6 compatible system calls.) Once all hard- and software supports IPv6, the question is no longer "why move to IPv6" but rather "why stick with IPv4". But we'll really see sparks fly once the Linksyses of this world start to implement automatic 6to4 based on a dynamic IPv4 address (= automatically create, tunnel and give out IPv6 addresses without any need for ISP support) so Gnutella and Kazaa users get to run NATless.
Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED
On 16 Jun 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Hallam-Baker, Phillip") writes:
>
> > The FTC testimony was dire. The ASRG chair stated that he believed the
> > group would come up with a technical solution. Every one of the other
> > members of the technical panel then stated that they thought it had
> > already failed. It made the IETF look ridiculous.
>
> > What happened to open and inclusive?
>
> it didn't scale. but, rather than change the written rules, more emphasis
> has been put on "design teams" and "directorates" in order to get work done
> in ways the written rules don't cover. note that i think this is bad, and
> that the written rules should be changed, and then followed, and that the
> way things are trying to get done now has scaled even less well than before.
I'm not big fan of rules... But the way it is now is not working too well
- especially for ASRG. I do agree with Paul Judge that we CAN come with
tecnical solution (but it may still need to be backed up by some laws as
well). But the problem is with ASRG itself, there are some there who are
truly interested in spam research issues, but nothing is really being done
and one or two topics are complete predominant (plus couple additional
people on the list who just try to critisize everything) and the group
itself is not producing the results as a result of that. I would personally
very much like to work withing ASRG but I stayed away lately because of
the above problems and I'm just keeping some watch over what is happening.
I do agree that problem with ASRG is in part due to its chair and his inability
to get things in order, in which case ultimate control would fall on IRTF
and IETF leadership which has not done anything either and in fact IETF as
many pointed out has tried to avoid taking on the spam issue. Good thing
is IPR issue is now being worked on there (I've that needs to be looked at
3 months ago and that no IPR for ASRG is worst scenarioa - nobody listed then)
but that is small step and rather procedural one at that.
And BTW - is this correct that I'm hearing that Phillip is not being allowed
to post at ASRG? If this is so - that is completely inappropriate - whatever
his comments and work outside ASRG is, I've not seen anything within ASRG
that should have prompted removal of posting priviliges - he's been good
contributor for ASRG early one and shutting him up is just improper
exerscise of his powers by ASRG chair (if that is what is going on).
---
William Leibzon
Elan Communications Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: archiving of spam (was CLOSE ARSG etc...)
What sort of message volume do you see? How much disk storage do you have? --Dean On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > > I think that having all bounces (for whatever reason) archived is > > fine; I think having it as "web pages somewhere" is overkill. > > both the volume of spam, and the ratio of spam to legitimate content are > so high, that I'm not sure how much longer it will be practical to > archive it. if we were to archive rejected messages, it should probably > only be for a few weeks. > >
Re: archiving of spam (was CLOSE ARSG etc...)
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I think that having all bounces (for whatever reason) archived is > > fine; I think having it as "web pages somewhere" is overkill. > > both the volume of spam, and the ratio of spam to legitimate content are > so high, that I'm not sure how much longer it will be practical to > archive it. if we were to archive rejected messages, it should probably > only be for a few weeks. My rolling 40 day log of all spam sent to my traps or real addresses contains about 34,484 samples in a total of about 242 Mbytes or an average of about 7 KBytes/spam. (Each sample is truncated to ~32 KBytes.) Judging from DCC numbers from a bunch of medium sized ISPs, the typical consumer mailbox receives about 10 messages/day (more than 5, less than 20), of which about half are spam. (Never mind that judicious "unsubscribing" can reduce that by about 50%.) So in round numbers, assume 10 spam/list/day. If the IETF has 100 mailing lists, archiving all IETF list spam would involve 1000 spam/day or about 7 MBytes/day or 2.5 GBytes/year. I remember quite well when a large disk drive was a ~2 meter cube, weighed over a ton, used 220 volts and compressed air, and held only 48 MByte, but those days are long past. 2.5 Gbytes would fit on a single DVD, not to mention modern magnetic media. I keep unique (as determined by DCC checksums) copies of all of the spam sent to my trap addresses permanently on CDROM. I have ~1000 trap addresses, although only a several dozen are hit more than half dozen times/week. (These records help me answer complaints about my blacklist.) Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 04:01:37PM -0400, Dean Anderson allegedly wrote: > The IPR policy (controversial as it might be), has nothing to do with who > can post to an IETF list. There is no reasonable basis to limit posts > because a person is involved in other groups. It has nothing to do with > any so-called 'emphasis on design teams and directorates', which seems to > be little more than a codeword for suppression of certain viewpoints. Go back and look at Phillip's original message. The complaint about democracy was not about posting rights. Enclosed: > > I disagree with any requirement imposed by a working group chair who > > believes he is not accountable to the group. I do not think that the > > way an IPR regime should be specified is a unilateral statement from > > the chair that a decision has been taken. > > > > An IPR policy should not be something that members of a group > > discover when they are told it has been imposed from above. > > > > > > What happened to open and inclusive?
Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED
The IPR policy (controversial as it might be), has nothing to do with who can post to an IETF list. There is no reasonable basis to limit posts because a person is involved in other groups. It has nothing to do with any so-called 'emphasis on design teams and directorates', which seems to be little more than a codeword for suppression of certain viewpoints. This is merely a transparent and inappropriate attempt to suppress certain viewpoints, in apparent violation of RFC 2026 10.4(A). The IETF is to take no position on the topic. I note that Mr. Vixie has told me in the past that he supports the concept of software patents. This is something that I and others involved with the LPF, and John McCarthy, Don Knuth, Richard Stallman, and many, many other luminaries of Computer Science, have fought against for many years. Indeed, there is recently renewed interest in changing these laws, as venture capitalists are finally beginning to come over to our side of the debate. It is quite clear where some people stand on the issue of intellectual property. However, it is inappropriate for them to use their influence at the IETF to suppress competing viewpoints in violation of the IETF non-position. Dean Anderson Speaking as President of the League for Progamming Freedom On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Scott W Brim wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 01:56:10PM -0400, Dean Anderson allegedly wrote: > > I think this is just a smokescreen. The real problem is that it didn't > > get the outcomes desired by a certain group. It has nothing > > whatsoever to do with scaling. Democracy scales just fine. > > > > On 16 Jun 2003, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > > > > > What happened to open and inclusive? > > > > > > it didn't scale. but, rather than change the written rules, more > > > emphasis has been put on "design teams" and "directorates" in order > > > to get work done in ways the written rules don't cover. note that i > > > think this is bad, and that the written rules should be changed, and > > > then followed, and that the way things are trying to get done now > > > has scaled even less well than before. > > The original issue was that he felt like "they" were imposing an IPR > policy on him "from above". The IETF IPR policy, which ASRG was copying > from, has been worked out over more than ten years with lots of input > and a number of iterations. This has nothing to do with democracy or > design teams. > >
Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED
My understanding is that The Mail Archive (http://www.mail-archive.com/lists.html) will provide free storage for mailing lists. I think every WG list should be permanetly archived in this manner. On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Dean Anderson wrote: > Disks are cheap. 250Gig is under $400, and works just fine for slightly > long term storage. > > --Dean > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: > > > At 11:27 AM -0600 6/16/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > >All contributions that are rejected > > >by any moderators (including spam filters) of any IRTF or IETF mailing > > >lists must be archived and should be published on web pages somewhere. > > > > FWIW, some of the IETF WG mailing lists that IMC runs get >10 spams a > > day, and often get the virus/trojans that are >120K each. This is not > > an insignificant amount of junk to wade through when looking for > > proof of moderator badness/goodness. > > > > And there's also the problem of robots that harvest everything, > > regardless of your robots.txt file. If we had a system like you > > describe, it would be believable that the archives would get a fair > > number of hits from people searching for pr0n but finding our archive > > of spam instead. > > > > I think that having all bounces (for whatever reason) archived is > > fine; I think having it as "web pages somewhere" is overkill. Access > > to one of the big text archives can be a trivial password given to > > anyone who wants it for research purposes. > > > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > > --Internet Mail Consortium > > > > > > > -- Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org A. Michael Froomkin |Professor of Law| [EMAIL PROTECTED] U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's hot here.<--
Re: SIRs
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, S Woodside wrote: > It might be interesting to have a facility where comments can be > attached to I-Ds (like in bug tracking systems / bugzilla). I'm not sure what kind of comments you refer to? "I think this and this is a bad idea, for these reasons, but naturally the document authors/editors won't add that in the next revision of the ID" ? -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
archiving of spam (was CLOSE ARSG etc...)
> I think that having all bounces (for whatever reason) archived is > fine; I think having it as "web pages somewhere" is overkill. both the volume of spam, and the ratio of spam to legitimate content are so high, that I'm not sure how much longer it will be practical to archive it. if we were to archive rejected messages, it should probably only be for a few weeks.
SIRs
It might be interesting to have a facility where comments can be attached to I-Ds (like in bug tracking systems / bugzilla). simon
Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED
Disks are cheap. 250Gig is under $400, and works just fine for slightly long term storage. --Dean On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: > At 11:27 AM -0600 6/16/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: > >All contributions that are rejected > >by any moderators (including spam filters) of any IRTF or IETF mailing > >lists must be archived and should be published on web pages somewhere. > > FWIW, some of the IETF WG mailing lists that IMC runs get >10 spams a > day, and often get the virus/trojans that are >120K each. This is not > an insignificant amount of junk to wade through when looking for > proof of moderator badness/goodness. > > And there's also the problem of robots that harvest everything, > regardless of your robots.txt file. If we had a system like you > describe, it would be believable that the archives would get a fair > number of hits from people searching for pr0n but finding our archive > of spam instead. > > I think that having all bounces (for whatever reason) archived is > fine; I think having it as "web pages somewhere" is overkill. Access > to one of the big text archives can be a trivial password given to > anyone who wants it for research purposes. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --Internet Mail Consortium > >
Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >All contributions that are rejected > >by any moderators (including spam filters) of any IRTF or IETF mailing > >lists must be archived and should be published on web pages somewhere. > > FWIW, some of the IETF WG mailing lists that IMC runs get >10 spams a > day, and often get the virus/trojans that are >120K each. This is not > an insignificant amount of junk to wade through when looking for > proof of moderator badness/goodness. I disagree in general, but perhaps that's because I look at several 100 spam every day. Not logging messages > 30 Kbytes (or 10K or even 10K) would be fine Even better would be logging but truncating. > And there's also the problem of robots that harvest everything, > regardless of your robots.txt file. If we had a system like you > describe, it would be believable that the archives would get a fair > number of hits from people searching for pr0n but finding our archive > of spam instead. You say that as if it's a bad thing. I really don't see the problem. > I think that having all bounces (for whatever reason) archived is > fine; I think having it as "web pages somewhere" is overkill. Access > to one of the big text archives can be a trivial password given to > anyone who wants it for research purposes. "Openness" and "transparency" are good things in general but best and most effective when you don't notice them. Keeping things secret not only feeds the paranoia of kooks, but does no good and it makes it hard to check a suspicion or a charge without making a federal case. The proximate example is a perfect case. It is impossible to check whether the other person's charge that the ASRG moderator is rejecting contributions because of some sort of self-dealing without the IETF equivalent of going to court to get a subpoena. That's not any sort of "openness and transparency." The suggestion of having two lists, one filtered and a second named whatever-noise, both with open archives, sounds fine to me, but wouldn't help the ASRG case. I think that the ASRG case would be instantly resolved if the moderator would publish all of the rejected messages and related corresponce without any additional commentary...not that I think there's any case there, but passers-by might not have seen the first several weeks of traffic in the ASRG mailing list not to mention those "courtesy" copies I mentioned. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 01:56:10PM -0400, Dean Anderson allegedly wrote: > I think this is just a smokescreen. The real problem is that it didn't > get the outcomes desired by a certain group. It has nothing > whatsoever to do with scaling. Democracy scales just fine. > > On 16 Jun 2003, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > > > What happened to open and inclusive? > > > > it didn't scale. but, rather than change the written rules, more > > emphasis has been put on "design teams" and "directorates" in order > > to get work done in ways the written rules don't cover. note that i > > think this is bad, and that the written rules should be changed, and > > then followed, and that the way things are trying to get done now > > has scaled even less well than before. The original issue was that he felt like "they" were imposing an IPR policy on him "from above". The IETF IPR policy, which ASRG was copying from, has been worked out over more than ten years with lots of input and a number of iterations. This has nothing to do with democracy or design teams.
Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED
I think this is just a smokescreen. The real problem is that it didn't get
the outcomes desired by a certain group. It has nothing whatsoever to do
with scaling. Democracy scales just fine.
Also, the last paragraph is nothing but an inappropriate ad hominem attack
on Mr. Hallam-Baker. I am speaking as someone who has some disagreements
with Mr. Hallam-Baker, but I prefer to couch those disagreements in facts,
rather than hyperbole. Despite my disagreements, Mr. Hallam-Baker makes
some credible points that can't be dismissed as easilly as Mr Vixie would
like. Such ad hominems are a violation of the Code of Conduct of the IETF
as documented in RFC 3184. I ask that the chair take the appropriate
action to halt this inappropriate activity.
--Dean
On 16 Jun 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Hallam-Baker, Phillip") writes:
>
> > What happened to open and inclusive?
>
> it didn't scale. but, rather than change the written rules, more emphasis
> has been put on "design teams" and "directorates" in order to get work done
> in ways the written rules don't cover. note that i think this is bad, and
> that the written rules should be changed, and then followed, and that the
> way things are trying to get done now has scaled even less well than before.
>
> > I have no confidence in Paul Judge as chair. I believe that his handling
> > of the group is damaging the IETF. The group may be in the IRTF but the
> > mailing list bears the name IETF and it the group is being presented to
> > the press as having been charged by the IETF to solve the problem.
> >
> > The FTC testimony was dire. The ASRG chair stated that he believed the
> > group would come up with a technical solution. Every one of the other
> > members of the technical panel then stated that they thought it had
> > already failed. It made the IETF look ridiculous.
>
> three different people came to me (as a known associate of verisign's) to
> ask "who the hell is this hallam-baker idiot and why does verisign let him
> out in public???" after your various tirades and misbehaviours at the ftc
> thing. therefore it's possible that your rant about paul judge's activities
> lacks credibility.
> --
> Paul Vixie
>
>
Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED
At 11:27 AM -0600 6/16/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: All contributions that are rejected by any moderators (including spam filters) of any IRTF or IETF mailing lists must be archived and should be published on web pages somewhere. FWIW, some of the IETF WG mailing lists that IMC runs get >10 spams a day, and often get the virus/trojans that are >120K each. This is not an insignificant amount of junk to wade through when looking for proof of moderator badness/goodness. And there's also the problem of robots that harvest everything, regardless of your robots.txt file. If we had a system like you describe, it would be believable that the archives would get a fair number of hits from people searching for pr0n but finding our archive of spam instead. I think that having all bounces (for whatever reason) archived is fine; I think having it as "web pages somewhere" is overkill. Access to one of the big text archives can be a trivial password given to anyone who wants it for research purposes. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
Re: Recruitment of Experimental SIRs
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 12:05:33PM -0400, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: > > Mail Activity Director And Moderator. > > To be supervised, presumably, by the > > Procedural Inspector and Manager of Processes Yes, but watch out, some of these might really be agents for COPS.
Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED
Vernon Schryver writes: > I hope that all of the rejected contributions to the ASRG mailing list > have been archived. Based on "courtesy" copies of messages that have > been sent to me, I suspect that publishing the messages rejected for > the ASRG list would be quite helpful. Publishing them would do no > harm to the work of the mailing list. Why not just have two lists, a -signal and a -noise list in parallel and let people choose which list they want to read? Mike
RE: US Defense Department formally adopts IPv6
> > (The questions and answers about "IPv5" are sort of funny.) > > Quite whatever happened to that? It is funny that the DoD wouldn't know, since they actually deployed it. The code point 5 was used to differentiate packets belonging to the "stream" service parallel to IP, ST-II (RFC 1190). It was used to carry video conferences services. I remember taking part to one such conference in a DARPA locale. -- Christian Huitema
Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED
> From: Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... therefore it's possible that your rant [about ASRG moderation] That raises an issue that I think the IETF and IRTF and certainly the ASRG moderator should consider. All contributions that are rejected by any moderators (including spam filters) of any IRTF or IETF mailing lists must be archived and should be published on web pages somewhere. Archiving is obviously critical for the defense of the moderators against charges of unfairness, self-dealing, and so forth. Publishing the rejected contributions would go a long way toward defusing or even refuting such charges with minimal embarrassment to those making them and disruption of valuable IETF and IRTF activities. There might be some extreme contributions perhaps involving child pornography or libel that could not be published, but those are surely rare and could be dealt with individually. I hope that all of the rejected contributions to the ASRG mailing list have been archived. Based on "courtesy" copies of messages that have been sent to me, I suspect that publishing the messages rejected for the ASRG list would be quite helpful. Publishing them would do no harm to the work of the mailing list. The cycles of noise on the main IETF list about some other mailing lists would be helped by this policy. Besides squelching a lot of the noise by making the moderation obviously justified, it might also satisfy those who really want their words published. An easy way to implement such a policy is to use the usual mailing list software to create parallel "lists" which to not allow subscriptions or contributions except from the moderator of the main list but that has an open archive. The moderator could send copies of any rejected documents and any relevant coorespondence to the parallel "list." Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Hallam-Baker, Phillip") writes:
> What happened to open and inclusive?
it didn't scale. but, rather than change the written rules, more emphasis
has been put on "design teams" and "directorates" in order to get work done
in ways the written rules don't cover. note that i think this is bad, and
that the written rules should be changed, and then followed, and that the
way things are trying to get done now has scaled even less well than before.
> I have no confidence in Paul Judge as chair. I believe that his handling
> of the group is damaging the IETF. The group may be in the IRTF but the
> mailing list bears the name IETF and it the group is being presented to
> the press as having been charged by the IETF to solve the problem.
>
> The FTC testimony was dire. The ASRG chair stated that he believed the
> group would come up with a technical solution. Every one of the other
> members of the technical panel then stated that they thought it had
> already failed. It made the IETF look ridiculous.
three different people came to me (as a known associate of verisign's) to
ask "who the hell is this hallam-baker idiot and why does verisign let him
out in public???" after your various tirades and misbehaviours at the ftc
thing. therefore it's possible that your rant about paul judge's activities
lacks credibility.
--
Paul Vixie
Re: Recruitment of Experimental SIRs
--On Saturday, June 14, 2003 17:46 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> We'd like to run a proof-of-concept version of the Senior >>> Internet Reviewer (SIR) activity, >> >> I keep waiting for someone to suggest adding >> >> MAture Document-Aquisition Moderator - MADAM >> >> but then I realize everyone else has more self control. > > That's the new title for those who shepherd mailing list > discussions > > Mail Activity Director And Moderator. To be supervised, presumably, by the Procedural Inspector and Manager of Processes > Proving once again that I have no self-control :-) Do we need this thread ? (Which proves that I have no sense of humor as well as no self-control. :-) ) john
RE: US Defense Department formally adopts IPv6
> - DoD can't afford to have its own custom solutions that aren't > commercially available and won't interoperate with commercial or other > Government systems. Exactly the COTS mantra is all. I think the decision to move to require IPv6 capability is entirely consistent with this approach. > (The questions and answers about "IPv5" are sort of funny.) Quite whatever happened to that? The think I find mindboggling about all this is that I have yet to see a concise explanation of how the great transition to IPv6 is going to be managed and what the incentive for early adopters is going to be. I don't buy the 'more addresses' argument. If China wants more IPv4 addresses there are plenty they can take without causing widespread inconvenience. They could decide to simply advertise BGP routes to net 18 or one of the other large class As grabbed early on by a US university. I really would not lay bets on the rights of pioneers who got in early and locked up all the water rights being respected in the case of severe drought. If I am right in my belief that IP beat OSI through inertia and luck rather than technical superiority there is a big problem deploying IPv6. It may well be that inertia wins again and IPv4 plus NAT is good enough for most uses. Phill
ietf@ietf.org
IETF members may be interested in this opportunity to provide input to a National Academies study on the state of telecommunications R&D and possible responses. The Computer Science and Telecommunications Board's Committee on Telecommunications R&D, chaired by Robert W. Lucky, is seeking comments on telecommunications research in the United States, including how the character of telecom research has changed, how changes in telecom research might be measured/assessed, implications of these changes for the telecom industry, and possible mechanisms for strengthening U.S. telecom research. For more information on the study and how to submit comments, please see cstb.org/project_telecomrnd_solicitpapers.html Questions that responders might address include: * Is the U.S. marketplace adequately supporting telecom research--and how would we know? If not, what are the consequences of underinvestment for the U.S. telecom industry and competitiveness with nations that are making these investments? What indicators should be used to measure research (e.g., funding or research papers published)? * Who should pay for long-term research aimed at innovation 10 years out? To what extent are telecommunications research results appropriable and thus likely to be adequately supported by industry? * What can we learn from the experiences of other countries (e.g., EU framework or national programs)? Do other countries fare better because of either greater government support or because their research programs are better organized? How effective have they been historically, and how successful are they likely to be in their present form? * What can we learn from past experiences with institutions in related fields (e.g., Sematech and MCC)? How effective were these initiatives? How did different research strategies affect the outcome? How can government and industry best participate in these efforts? * Could a greater university role in telecommunications research be fostered? What sort of role might universities play in a telecom research initiative? Would enhanced university-industry ties strengthen research or improve research training? Is there an opportunity in the recent migration of researchers to universities from industrial labs? * What is the impact of the Internet and its applications on the appropriate definition of telecommunications, the needed research in telecommunications, the institutions performing research, etc? * How are changes in the industrial research environment changing (or should change) the role of academic research?
Re: US Defense Department formally adopts IPv6
Phill, Spot-on. And in fact, that's what appears to be happening with the IPv6 message. In the document that became RFC 942, DOD's expert panel says: - TCP/IP was custom built for DoD requirements; it's not useful for the commercial world. - The commercial world is going to use ISO protocols; that decision's been made. And the commercial world does things so much better, faster, cheaper, etc. than the DoD. - DoD can't afford to have its own custom solutions that aren't commercially available and won't interoperate with commercial or other Government systems. - Therefore, DoD must ditch TCP/IP and hop on board the commercially-driven OSI train. That "DoD must use commercially-provided solutions for everything" viewpoint became popular in the early 1980's. It went out of vogue for a while, and came back in the early-to-mid 90's, with Gore's "Re-inventing government" stuff. It's still very popular with the current administration. Reading the actual transcript of Stenbit's press conference, you see things like: ... "...that talks about the fact that we're going to insist that acquisitions and programs that move on after the first of the next fiscal year, which is October, will be IP 6-compatible. So, we need to build the inventory of systems that have procured software and hardware on a scale which is actually slower than the replication that happens in the commercial world -- they usually sort of roll over all of this stuff every two years or so. We tend to be a little bit slower than that. So, we're trying to give ourselves five years to go through what is, in effect, an obsolescence criteria here." ... "I think it's an important validation of the work that's gone on, absolutely, outside the Defense Department, although we have participated in the forums; but that the Internet community is moving forward; they've recognized these problems -- those are the kind of problems we have. We're comfortable that they're moving toward solutions, however they come out, that we'll adapt our systems to." ... "We're actually -- we're actually taking advantage of the commercial movement that's going on. The commercial industry has its own transition difficulties. There are people who have vested interest in staying in the past because that's how they made their money, building this little patch on IP 4 that makes something go away and makes people happier in their service. There are other people who would like to get this stuff all into a standard. I think the real pressure here on the commercial side, at least as I understand it -- and this is not -- I don't go out and -- this is not how I spend my life -- the Europeans really need more addresses. So I think the actual push to move from IP 4 to IP 6 will not be driven by us. Our announcement today, and our execution on this policy will move it along because we are a large buyer of Internet-compatible devices and communications. But I think it's the commercial people that will actually cause this trigger to be pulled, and we're assuming that will happen in a time scale which is consistent with what I have just been describing." ... "So this is actually a pretty intrusive change. But as I say, it's not driven by the DoD's use. It is, in fact, driven by commercial uses. And we have basically made the choice that we're going to -- we're comfortable enough with the progress that's been made in the commercial world that we're going to stick with that, however it evolves, because it will change over time, but we're going to change with it because our suppliers are going to change with it to meet that standard." ... (The questions and answers about "IPv5" are sort of funny.) Anyway, the point is, this is yet another case of a high official saying "gee, we have some real problems. And the commercial world is claiming they've solved these same kinds of problems already, with this neat new technology called (XYZ). So that must be the answer - we have to migrate to (XYZ) as well." How well it gets implemented in practice is TBD. It'll largely depend on whether there are any viable commercial products that actually do IPv6 well enough to get the job done. Because fundamentally, Government folks just like commercial folks have to make the bits flow and get the job done. The people who have to do the job every day will soon figure out whether this is top-level smoke, or something real. If IPv6 products are dogs that stand in the way of getting the job done, this policy pronouncement will be good only for the bottom of the bird cage in two years or less. Oh, there will be some high-level posturing and "work" done on it, but that's only to make the top-level policy people feel better. The people who have to get the job done will do so. Al Arsenault - Original Message - From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 8:52 AM Subject: Re: US Defense Depar
