Re: Work effort? (Re: Proposed Standard and Perfection)
> Standard. In my experience the hardest part of getting a document > advanced is to collect the implementation report. > > Hence this modest proposal: [clip] I rather like the proposal. What's been lacking is any forum for further development of standards outside of mailing lists and IETF meetings -- there's no tracking, and that's a major problem. Rick
Re: Continuing the story - another stab at an IETF mission statement
--On 18. februar 2004 18:06 + Tom Petch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I find your definition of the Internet delightfully ambiguous. I was taught that the Internet (as opposed to an internet or the internet) was the public network accessible through public IPv4 addresses (this predates IPv6) ie the Internet ceased at a firewall or other such IP level gateway. Reading your definition, I cannot tell where you stand; are firewalls and networks behind them included in IETF mission or not? Tom, reviewing, I cannot tell whether I answered this one or not I was definitely intending to include them, since IMHO they are connected to the internet (see "both core and edge networks", "host to host"). If you can suggest words to make this clearer, I'd appreciate it! Harald
Re: Work effort? (Re: Proposed Standard and Perfection)
Hi - > From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 5:59 AM > Subject: Re: Work effort? (Re: Proposed Standard and Perfection) > > I spent more time trying to capture what people were saying at the > plenary than trying to figure out who said what, but I would like to > figure out who said > > [06:43:24] too much time needed to take something out there > and take it back to historic. > [06:43:44] suggests steps for things to automatically go > historic. > [06:43:48] harald. > [06:43:55] --- AWGY has joined > [06:44:20] perhaps have someone else beside IESG do leg > work. > [06:44:36] ??. > > on Thursday night - sound familiar to anyone? The last name mentioned > in the logs was John Loughney, then Harald replied, and then SOMEONE > said "too much time needed..." I'd love to find who who said this. ... I made the comment that I thought we should apply RFC 2026 and force things to either advance or go historic. Our AD advised us in one case that if our WG wanted one of its RFCs to go historic, we had to write another RFC explaining why. The procedure in RFC 2026 section 6.2 (last paragraph) seems very reasonable, and I like Harald's suggested approach to cleaning up the cruft. Randy
Re: Continuing the story - another stab at an IETF mission
> > I find your definition of the Internet delightfully ambiguous. I was > > taught that the Internet (as opposed to an internet or the internet) ... been there, done that, sold the t-shirt: >> But what *IS* the internet? > It's the largest equivalence class in the reflexive transitive > symmetric closure of the relationship "can be reached by an IP > packet from". --Seth Breidbart -- Paul Vixie
Re: Work effort? (Re: Proposed Standard and Perfection)
--On 8. mars 2004 12:38 -0700 Rick Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Standard. In my experience the hardest part of getting a document advanced is to collect the implementation report. Hence this modest proposal: [clip] I rather like the proposal. What's been lacking is any forum for further development of standards outside of mailing lists and IETF meetings -- there's no tracking, and that's a major problem. in draft-iesg-hardie-outline-01, the concept of a "maintenance team" (called "IANA Team" in that document) was floated. This didn't get much discussion. Is this something that's worth discussing as an idea? Harald
Re: Work effort? (Re: Proposed Standard and Perfection)
I don't KNOW that what I'm thinking is true, but I'm wondering to myself if the target audience for protocol specification maintenance is all in the IETF... Spencer - Original Message - From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Rick Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 9:48 PM Subject: Re: Work effort? (Re: Proposed Standard and Perfection) > > > --On 8. mars 2004 12:38 -0700 Rick Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> Standard. In my experience the hardest part of getting a document > >> advanced is to collect the implementation report. > >> > >> Hence this modest proposal: > > > > [clip] > > > > I rather like the proposal. What's been lacking is any forum for further > > development of standards outside of mailing lists and IETF meetings -- > > there's no tracking, and that's a major problem. > > in draft-iesg-hardie-outline-01, the concept of a "maintenance team" > (called "IANA Team" in that document) was floated. This didn't get much > discussion. Is this something that's worth discussing as an idea? > > Harald > > > > > ___ > 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 IETF_CENSORED ML Administrator ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Question for the DNS system.
Dear all, According to the current Internet, in most cases, the allocation/design of DNS is not more than 3-5 levels, such as us.ibm.com etc. What's my problems is that "when using lots of DNS names with more than 5 levels, Is there some problem with the whole DNS system, such as some performance problem for searching, dificulities to operate etc.? Could the current DNS tree architecure bear large traffic or not?" Is there somebody can provide some real data about the current Internet, such as average search time etc. As everyone knows, IPv6 is coming .. :-) Best regards. Yours Felix. Zhang.
Re: Continuing the story - another stab at an IETF mission statement
At 19:25 -0800 3/9/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: >--On 18. februar 2004 18:06 + Tom Petch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I find your definition of the Internet delightfully ambiguous. I was >>taught that the Internet (as opposed to an internet or the internet) was >>the public network accessible through public IPv4 addresses (this predates >>IPv6) ie the Internet ceased at a firewall or other such IP level gateway. >> >>Reading your definition, I cannot tell where you stand; are firewalls and >>networks behind them included in IETF mission or not? > >Tom, >reviewing, I cannot tell whether I answered this one or not >I was definitely intending to include them, since IMHO they are connected to the >internet (see "both core and edge networks", "host to host"). If you can suggest >words to make this clearer, I'd appreciate it! > > Harald Just to throw a wrench into your discussion, The Internet just happens to be a Manifold (which literally means a bunch of pipes all connected together, such that entering at the end of any pipe, you can traverse the manifold and get to the open end of every other connected pipe in the manifold. Every manifold pipe can be extended, so it is not possible to define the ends in any rigid way. Extension can be with PPP over dial-up, or a NAT router, or even a printer or word of mouth, or CD/DVD/TAPE/Postal-Service/etc/et al, ad nauseum. It might be interesting to view the Internet through the contextual lens of spherical geometry concepts which I think fit as well as anything, contrary to some of our historical internautical terminology. For example, in spherical Geometry, a manifold has no edges, and has no center, while IETF folk insist that the Internet has an edge somewhere (just one) but I have not heard any claims that it has a surface, or that it has a center. Apparently, what people call "the edge of the Internet" consists of an imaginary canvas stretched over the ends of all those manifold pipes with an imaginary elastic sheet of imaginary fabric. But this only forms an edge if the Internet exists only in a two dimensional plane. And even then, I have problems imagining all those spokes as making an edge. Actually, they are referring to all those ends of all the manifold pipes, in that when attached to an end, the attachment is said to be made at the edge. I have big problems trying to imagine this as an edge (or a surface). So, I have tried to stop using those terms as they get in the way of thinking about various aspects of the Internet. Not that I really understand much more than this about spherical geometry. I just wanted to toss this into the mix while all y'all are trying to decide what this thing called the Internet actually is. I notice that all y'all have not settled on much of any agreement. Reminds me of the 8 blind wise men trying to discover what an elephant is by each exploring a different part with their hands. So far, I do not know anyone who claims to have touched its edge with their hands. So, I just want to suggest that some of you out there who do understand spherical geometry might discover some things from looking it the net with spherical geometry glasses. I only know that certain aspects seem to fit better than might be expected. For one thing, a manifold has no center, and indeed, an internet has no center. >From my management consultant background, this has been an important realization, >because, without the existence of a center, there is no logical place to put a >control center to enable central control. We like to say that the internet is >controlled from its edges, by which I expect they mean it is controlled from its >manifold pipe endpoints. Also, I note that from any endpoint a user can, and generally does, create a personal private network of (sometimes) collegial correspondents that is controlled by it owner. Those networks are centrally "controlled" with address lists in address books and routing tables, and such. Surely, some of you will be quite upset about my observations, but I ask you to stay cool and just ponder it all for a while to see of things don't start to look different from this point of view, hopefully yielding some useful new insights. Enjoy;-)...\Stef
Re: Question for the DNS system.
Just a matter of curiousity: which division do you work for in Huawei? -James Seng Felix, Zhang wrote: Dear all, According to the current Internet, in most cases, the allocation/design of DNS is not more than 3-5 levels, such as us.ibm.com etc. What's my problems is that "when using lots of DNS names with more than 5 levels, Is there some problem with the whole DNS system, such as some performance problem for searching, dificulities to operate etc.? Could the current DNS tree architecure bear large traffic or not?" Is there somebody can provide some real data about the current Internet, such as average search time etc. As everyone knows, IPv6 is coming .. :-) Best regards. Yours Felix. Zhang.
