The madness continues
I know I can't be the first person to get a 90-KB bounce message from a Majordomo server, but I got my first one this morning. It's the e-mail you get when someone forges e-mail as being from you, with a virus-bearing attachment, so the Majordomo server processes every string in the virus as a separate (not a) command, and sends you the result. And I'm thinking fixing the Majordomo server is not the best answer... Spencer
Re: The madness continues
On Mar 22, 2004, at 8:24 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: And I'm thinking fixing the Majordomo server is not the best answer... If best means fastest then I suspect it does, alas.
Re: [ga] LatinoamerICANN publica versión en españolde los Estatutos delICANN
On Wed March 17 2004 02:44, Jeff Williams wrote: Dave Aronson wrote: ... Well excuse... mee!!! B-P Your diatribe that I responded to, was the first appearance of this thread on the IETF list, at least according to my trash-folder. No excuse Dave as this thread originated on the DNSO GA forum, and your previous response did a disservice to others on that forum by you removing [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the recipients of that forum. Crossposting leads to missed connections, whether on email lists or Usenet, so I generally don't post discussions to multiple lists or newsgroups. I'll leave it in this time 1) The people at the UN are, generally speaking, career diplomats. Knowing foreign languages and cultures is part of their way of life. This is true in some UN agencies, and certainly not in others as several are almost entirely volunteers... Fair enough. I was speaking mainly of the General Assembly delegates, though they are a minority of the entirety of UN employees, observers, etc. Well sorry again Dave, but you are still mistaken. Most of the UN General Assembly delegates are english speakers and all while in the general assembly meetings have real time translation capability both ways... That was part of my point. To recap, it is basically threefold, and I think we're almost fully in agreement: 1) Unlike the UN delegates, we (IETF, ICANN, etc.) aren't in a profession where one could reasonably expect us to generally be so proficient in so many foreign languages, that we could be expected to read a given language, even a fairly widespread one like Spanish. (All the more so since so many of us are Americans. As the old joke goes, someone who knows two languages is bilingual, someone who knows three languages is trilingual, and someone who knows only one language is American.) As it happens, I know enough French, and smatterings of Spanish and Latin, that I could probably understand most of the gist of something written in Spanish, or maybe even Portugese or Italian, but that's just me. An American who chose to learn, say, Russian or Japanese, when I opted for French, might be totally lost in Spanish. 2) The exception to #1 is a very basic proficiency in English (even if with a heavy accent, limited vocabulary, and bad grammar and spelling), since it is the lingua franca of today's world, especially in computers and business. All the more so for someone whose native tongue is something closely related like any Romance or Germanic language, as opposed to an Asian or African language. It makes far more sense to post to lists such as these in broken English, than perfect Spanish. 3) We don't have anywhere near the money to do all the translating the UN does, let alone distributed in real-time like they do. Even regarding the others, the UN's entire point is international cooperation for basically its own sake (even if specific agencies have more specific missions). It seems obvious to me that they will be more often people who have an interest in foreign languages, than will most other groups, even those that operate internationally. You MAY have a good point here I will grant you. But it is a speculative point at least... Agreed However as the UN is and has been less than well respected on an international basis for various reasons based on repeated errors in judgment and subsequent action they as a international body, hardly are representative in any superior way to many other international bodies that are not UN related... I purposely avoided making any comments on the effectiveness, efficiency, etc. of the UN, as those really aren't germane to the points we were both making. However, I happen to mostly agree -- Dave Aronson, Senior Software Engineer, Secure Software Inc. Email me at: work (D0T) 2004 (@T) dja (D0T) mailme (D0T) org (Opinions above NOT those of securesw.com unless so stated!) WE'RE HIRING developers, auditors, and VP of Prof. Services.
Re: [ga] LatinoamerICANN publica versión en españolde los Estatutos delICANN
On Wed March 17 2004 02:44, Jeff Williams wrote: Dave Aronson wrote: ... Well excuse... mee!!! B-P Your diatribe that I responded to, was the first appearance of this thread on the IETF list, at least according to my trash-folder. No excuse Dave as this thread originated on the DNSO GA forum, and your previous response did a disservice to others on that forum by you removing [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the recipients of that forum. Crossposting leads to missed connections, whether on email lists or Usenet, so I generally don't post discussions to multiple lists or newsgroups. I'll leave it in this time 1) The people at the UN are, generally speaking, career diplomats. Knowing foreign languages and cultures is part of their way of life. This is true in some UN agencies, and certainly not in others as several are almost entirely volunteers... Fair enough. I was speaking mainly of the General Assembly delegates, though they are a minority of the entirety of UN employees, observers, etc. Well sorry again Dave, but you are still mistaken. Most of the UN General Assembly delegates are english speakers and all while in the general assembly meetings have real time translation capability both ways... That was part of my point. To recap, it is basically threefold, and I think we're almost fully in agreement: 1) Unlike the UN delegates, we (IETF, ICANN, etc.) aren't in a profession where one could reasonably expect us to generally be so proficient in so many foreign languages, that we could be expected to read a given language, even a fairly widespread one like Spanish. (All the more so since so many of us are Americans. As the old joke goes, someone who knows two languages is bilingual, someone who knows three languages is trilingual, and someone who knows only one language is American.) As it happens, I know enough French, and smatterings of Spanish and Latin, that I could probably understand most of the gist of something written in Spanish, or maybe even Portugese or Italian, but that's just me. An American who chose to learn, say, Russian or Japanese, when I opted for French, might be totally lost in Spanish. 2) The exception to #1 is a very basic proficiency in English (even if with a heavy accent, limited vocabulary, and bad grammar and spelling), since it is the lingua franca of today's world, especially in computers and business. All the more so for someone whose native tongue is something closely related like any Romance or Germanic language, as opposed to an Asian or African language. It makes far more sense to post to lists such as these in broken English, than perfect Spanish. 3) We don't have anywhere near the money to do all the translating the UN does, let alone distributed in real-time like they do. Even regarding the others, the UN's entire point is international cooperation for basically its own sake (even if specific agencies have more specific missions). It seems obvious to me that they will be more often people who have an interest in foreign languages, than will most other groups, even those that operate internationally. You MAY have a good point here I will grant you. But it is a speculative point at least... Agreed However as the UN is and has been less than well respected on an international basis for various reasons based on repeated errors in judgment and subsequent action they as a international body, hardly are representative in any superior way to many other international bodies that are not UN related... I purposely avoided making any comments on the effectiveness, efficiency, etc. of the UN, as those really aren't germane to the points we were both making. However, I happen to mostly agree -- Dave Aronson, Senior Software Engineer, Secure Software Inc. Email me at: work (D0T) 2004 (@T) dja (D0T) mailme (D0T) org (Opinions above NOT those of securesw.com unless so stated!) WE'RE HIRING developers, auditors, and VP of Prof. Services.
Re: The madness continues
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote: On Mar 22, 2004, at 8:24 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: And I'm thinking fixing the Majordomo server is not the best answer... If best means fastest then I suspect it does, alas. Although converting to mailman (which has so MANY desireable features relative to majordomo) might be slower but faster in the long run. Features such as online archives, browser-based user and administrative interface, flow control (e.g. digest mode)... Just a thought. rgb -- Robert G. Brownhttp://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/ Duke University Dept. of Physics, Box 90305 Durham, N.C. 27708-0305 Phone: 1-919-660-2567 Fax: 919-660-2525 email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Categorization of TCP/IP service provision types (was: Re: The right to refuse, was: Re: Principles of Spam-abatement) (FWD: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt)
--On Friday, 19 March, 2004 18:34 -0700 Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: John C Klensin Last week's version of the spam discussions, led to an interesting (to me) side-discussion about what was, and was not, an Internet connection service. ... draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-ip-service-t erms-00.txt This clearly isn't finished, indeed, it is not much more than a skeleton with a few examples. It needs more work, probably additional categories, and more clarity about the categories that are there. I think it is about as clear as it should be. Much more clearity would require sample contracts or risk getting bogged down in nitpicking on whether it is practical to run an SMTP server on a dynamic IP address, whether an IP address that changes once a year is really dynamic, and so forth. Those are the places where I clearly don't think we should go. To do so rapidly gets us, I think, to a function matrix. That would be conceptually useful, but would not be extremely unlikely to be adopted by vendors and hence would not help at all with the promote truth in advertising theme that started the attempt. What I see missing are hints why dynamic addresses are widely blacklisted. There need to be words about the first three classes usually being priced so low that providers cannot afford to keep records of who was using a given address when it was used to send spam, denial of service attacks, or other naughtiness, or cannot afford to have abuse department to consult any records there might be. Text would be welcome, but it seems to me that this addresses a different theme. One could say that quality of customer service usually improves with categories, but that isn't universally true until one starts making categories of customer service efforts. From my experience, I would even question your description above, although we don't disagree about the consequences: my impression is that a number of the broadband operators offering low-end services actually have fairly good logs. What they don't have are abuse departments with the will and resources to dig through those logs and identify specific offenders. Hand that same provider a subpoena associated with, e.g., some clearly criminal behavior, and records seem to turn up in a lot of cases. What I've done in response to several comments is to add text to the beginning of the terminology section that tries to make it clear that these definitions are about what the provider intends to offer. Whether the restrictions are imposed by AUP (or contractual terms and conditions) and whether technical means to enforce particular restrictions are effective on a particular day seems less important. The dynamic address issue is, from that point of view, just a technical means to enforce (or just consistent with) an AUP or Ts and Cs. I.e., if one believes that blacklisting dynamic addresses is rational, then part of the reason for that isn't too cheap or the addresses themselves, it is that these dynamic addresses tend to show up only in server prohibited environments. Maybe it is equally rational to blacklist an address range on the theory that anything coming from that range is in violation of provider conditions of service and that one bad deed (violating AUPs or Ts and Cs) is as bad as another (demonstrated spamming). But I don't see a reasonable way to incorporate any of that reasoning (whether one agrees with it or not) into the document without generally weakening it. If you do, please suggest text. If there is real interest in the subject, I'd like to see someone else take over the writing and editing. If there isn't any real, perhaps we can stop spending time discussing the subject. The subject is not going to do away as long as people think they have a fundamental human right to do the equivalent of moving to a cardboard box under a bridge and then demanding banks and creditcard companies to see them as creditworthy as their bourgeois neighbors. Of course, that belief is not limited to the Internet... for better or worse. If no one else will take the job and if there is any hope of getting it past the IESG, I'll happily be your editor, elaborator, or whatever. My strengths don't include writing intelligible English, but it needs doing. Thanks. I've started a discussion with some selected ADs about what they want to do with this, if anything. My intent is to wait to see what they have to say. If they aren't interested, and interested in moving toward BCP, then the effort is, as far as I'm concerned, dead. If they want a WG, then the next real task is charter. Otherwise... well, let's how they want to proceed. And, as far as I can tell, you do intelligible English very well. john
[iesg-secretary #23499] Extended Mail (Autoreply)
Your request of the subject Extended Mail has been received. If you have further email on this subject, please retain the subject: line (including the tracking number [ietf-action #xxx]) so that when you respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED], the email goes in the same tracking ticket. Thank you.
Re: DARPA get's it right this time, takes aim at IT sacred cows
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 08:54:30PM -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Thus spake Scott Michel [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 07:09:12PM -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote: When you add in the (assumed) requirements of backwards compatibility with existing routers and hosts that don't implement a proposed extension, it gets messy real quick. The immediate handwave would be Tunnel it. I'm not denigrating backwards compatibility, but a lot of good work has relied on tunneling in the past, e.g., Mbone and v6-v4. I'm currently waiting with baited breath the day that service providers provide v6-to-v4 as the special case to v4-only hosts. The Mbone and 6bone are different beasts, as they're about tunneling traffic from capable hosts across an incapable core. In the case of an identity layer between IP and TCP, we would need to be backwards-compatible with non-capable hosts and applications (not just non-capable routers) and so tunnels don't seem a workable solution. Tunnelling can exist at multiple layers. Overlays are just a different version of tunnelling. Proxies can be viewed as a very limited form of application tunnelling. Dealing with the complexity of different tunnelling methods and requirements makes my handwave less tractable (which was actually more to my point.) You never know until you submit a proposal what DARPA **really** wants even after you get through the program-speak. All too true. We do, however, know many of the IETF's needs in the identifier/locator arena, e.g. for Mobile IP and IPv4/6 multihoming. That may be a good starting point to determine what, if any, additional requirements DARPA has. No argument there.
Re: DARPA get's it right this time, takes aim at IT sacred cows
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:40:31PM +0100, jfcm wrote: I am afraid you confuse layers. You can understand firewall as a traffic filter (what you obviously consider here): this would be obviously absurd fro what I address. You can also consider it as the appropriate protection for the considered layers, what we mean. If you want an exemple, look at Intelliwall (http://www.bee-ware.net). They are addressing the firewalling of applications. Traffic filtering is really the third lowest level (after electric and frame protection). I'm not confusing layers at all. I'm looking at the system view as you proposed and came to my particular conclusion. Even the certain national entities and the control they attempt to assert still have to deal with some of the fundamental international problems like address allocation, TLD server location and replication, etc. That's why I characterized the idea as the Internet version of the Maginot Line: It's intimidating, looks good, but eventually gets overrun by progress and reality. I would agree with you that cyberspace, for lack of any better term, is an integral part of national infrastructure and needs protecting. I'm less inclined to agree with anyone that wars take place in cyberspace, as the concept of war goes in the taking of territory and national assets (I'd really like to see a national entity conquer Google or Amazon.com, for example.) Disruption is the most important element of protecting the cyberspace national asset and preventing disruption is indeed a problem seeking a solution. But it seems as if the problem statement can be taken so far that it divorces itself from reality -- there are a lot of physical systems that we tend to fall back on when cyberspace fails. In other words, even if Amazon.com is disrupted and a portion of US GDP goes out of commission, and given the network effects of disrupting Amazon.com and the amplification of the network effects due to the speed at which information can propagate (good news travels fast, bad news travels FTL), it wouldn't crater the US or global economy. It would make the punctuations in the equilibrium sharper (rift vs. crack) and the return to a new equilibrium state longer as the system bridges or repairs the rift. The difference today is the timeline: it's no longer millions of years. Your quote of Occam's Razor is great. The ENS model is a full cybernetics integrated model. Cybernetics has actually two successive slightly different understandings (I would say before and after the e-networks). The way Wienner, Ampere or Watts first thought of it. You would name it today organization governance (from Plato's kubernetes, the way/art of steering, governing - like in Oxford/Cambridge race - steer and row - the proposition of McLean to the ITU meeting on governance). A top-down approach where the brain or a team (agora) is the leader (monarchy/athenic democracy). Centralized or meshed networks (ICANN, ISPs, Gateway Protocols). I'm not sure I grok this paragraph, although some references would be useful. The second understanding, we could call generalized cybernetics, is the arts of efficiency in using models discovered from feedbacks (Couffignal). This understanding is necessary in distributed systems like the USERs' demanded internet, where authority is not delegated anymore (monarchy) or shared (democracy) but retained by each participant. Then you consider granularity, not hierarchy (hirearchy is just the most simple ordained occurence of a granularity of decreasing importance with the distance from the source of authority). And then you apply the principle of subsidiarity (respect the functionalities of the granular organization - the responsblity of its own governance). This way you can keep understanding complexity while not being embarassed by it. Life is not democratic but is often coalescent - so is the human connexion, communication, relation system. You do not ask your telephone to be democratic, but to work. I understand the general idea here, but a few extra references would be helpful to grok it (e.g., generalized cybernetics theory papers.) I suppose that FLAPPS is a way to address that kind of need, from what I gather? Actually, I never had such grand visions for FLAPPS. It's just a way of looking at P2P infrastructures and trying to reduce the amount of redundant effort that goes into building them. I'm not sure that a consequence of my work is a larger contribution to addressing philosophical or epistemological questions, but I'd rather interested in understanding the larger issues FLAPPS might address in that context. So you confirm something that resemble (we agree). Please, let us not confuse IP and packet switch. I was only considering IP-the-packet-protocol -- the rest of the program-speak is dressing to market the idea. No reason to throw out IP-the-packet-protocol when it just works. I agree with the larger problem
Re: [ga] LatinoamerICANN publica versión en españolde los Estatutos delICANN
Dave and all former DNSO GA members and stakeholders/users as well as IETF participants, Dave Aronson wrote: On Wed March 17 2004 02:44, Jeff Williams wrote: Dave Aronson wrote: ... Well excuse... mee!!! B-P Your diatribe that I responded to, was the first appearance of this thread on the IETF list, at least according to my trash-folder. No excuse Dave as this thread originated on the DNSO GA forum, and your previous response did a disservice to others on that forum by you removing [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the recipients of that forum. Crossposting leads to missed connections, whether on email lists or Usenet, so I generally don't post discussions to multiple lists or newsgroups. I'll leave it in this time Well here we disagree rather significantly. However I CC'ed and not cross posted. However also, anytime one is discussing other groups from one forum in another using email, one should as a matter of common decency include that forums participants, ergo CC that forum.. 1) The people at the UN are, generally speaking, career diplomats. Knowing foreign languages and cultures is part of their way of life. This is true in some UN agencies, and certainly not in others as several are almost entirely volunteers... Fair enough. I was speaking mainly of the General Assembly delegates, though they are a minority of the entirety of UN employees, observers, etc. Well sorry again Dave, but you are still mistaken. Most of the UN General Assembly delegates are english speakers and all while in the general assembly meetings have real time translation capability both ways... That was part of my point. To recap, it is basically threefold, and I think we're almost fully in agreement: 1) Unlike the UN delegates, we (IETF, ICANN, etc.) aren't in a profession where one could reasonably expect us to generally be so proficient in so many foreign languages, that we could be expected to read a given language, even a fairly widespread one like Spanish. Agreed, and that was my original point when I ask for one this thread, for Erick to also include an english version as the GNSO forum is mostly english speakers only. (All the more so since so many of us are Americans. As the old joke goes, someone who knows two languages is bilingual, someone who knows three languages is trilingual, and someone who knows only one language is American.) Well or maybe a ubangi! ;) However your point here is also well taken and in addition supports my original point that again, Erick's post in Spanish, should have included a English translation. It didn't! When I pointed that out I was personally and professionally attacked. As it happens, I know enough French, and smatterings of Spanish and Latin, that I could probably understand most of the gist of something written in Spanish, or maybe even Portugese or Italian, but that's just me. An American who chose to learn, say, Russian or Japanese, when I opted for French, might be totally lost in Spanish. Of course... 2) The exception to #1 is a very basic proficiency in English (even if with a heavy accent, limited vocabulary, and bad grammar and spelling), since it is the lingua franca of today's world, especially in computers and business. All the more so for someone whose native tongue is something closely related like any Romance or Germanic language, as opposed to an Asian or African language. It makes far more sense to post to lists such as these in broken English, than perfect Spanish. Agreed. Or is posting in Spanish or any other language, be considerate enough of the majority of the ML forums participants to provide a translation in the language which the majority of participant are most fluent in.. And so again, Erick did not do that. 3) We don't have anywhere near the money to do all the translating the UN does, let alone distributed in real-time like they do. We? Is there a mouse in your pocket? ICANN certainly has the funding or can acquire it. So can or does the IETF... Even regarding the others, the UN's entire point is international cooperation for basically its own sake (even if specific agencies have more specific missions). It seems obvious to me that they will be more often people who have an interest in foreign languages, than will most other groups, even those that operate internationally. You MAY have a good point here I will grant you. But it is a speculative point at least... Agreed However as the UN is and has been less than well respected on an international basis for various reasons based on repeated errors in judgment and subsequent action they as a international body, hardly are representative in any superior way to many other international bodies that are not UN related... I purposely avoided making any
Multiple I-Ds (Was: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-uruena-xsdf-overview-00.txt)
I do not know to whom I should address this. The URL quoted in this announcement leads not only to the referred draft, but to several other as well. It looks like the folks in charge with processing the Internet-Draft submission should be more careful regarding what is being submitted and posted in the I-D repository. Regards, Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 March, 2004 10:44 PM To: IETF-Announce; @[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-uruena-xsdf-overview-00.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Overview of the eXtensible Service Discovery Framework (XSDF) Author(s) : M. Urue±a, D. Larrabeiti Filename: draft-uruena-xsdf-overview-00.txt Pages : 19 Date: 2004-3-22 This document provides an overview of the eXtensible Service Discovery Framework (XSDF). It defines a collection of extensible protocols and agents for the dynamic location of network services. XSDF Service Discovery Framework is scalable and can be deployed from unmanaged LANs up to Internet-wide Service Location. XSDF also provides several mechanisms to select among the available services discovered. This allows service providers to implement load sharing or active/backup policies among multiple servers providing the same service. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-uruena-xsdf-overview-00.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username anonymous and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type cd internet-drafts and then get draft-uruena-xsdf-overview-00.txt. A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body type: FILE /internet-drafts/draft-uruena-xsdf-overview-00.txt. NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the mpack utility. To use this feature, insert the command ENCODING mime before the FILE command. To decode the response(s), you will need munpack or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with multipart MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. ATT64788.TXT Description: ATT64788.TXT draft-uruena-xsdf-overview-00.URL Description: draft-uruena-xsdf-overview-00.URL
Users can not hear each other - Netmeeting NAT Voip GW
Hi,I am setting up a Addpac AP1100 VOIP GW. I use Microsoft Netmeeting which isbehind a NAT router. I setup the GW and can make a call, answer the call,release the call, the debug output is perfect. But none of the two sides canhear anthing. What could be the problem? does this mean signaling is allright, but RTP can not be established? Or my firewall blocked it?Thanks a lot!
Re: Categorization of TCP/IP service provision types (was: Re: The right to refuse, was: Re: Principles of Spam-abatement) (FWD: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt)
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:19:12 -0500, John C Klensin wrote: And, as far as I can tell, you do intelligible English very well. I am travelling just now but when I come to rest I volunteer to look over if this would be of value. Jeffrey Race
Re: Multiple I-Ds (Was: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-uruena-xsdf-overview-00.txt)
Dan, the internet-drafts submission address is one logical place to contact... it's possible that they came in as one long text file, and the I-D editor simply didn't read past page 20. All the stuff they're supposed to check is on the front page, so that wouldn't surprise me - we've mostly been saying post whatever comes in as long as the copyright is OK, and do it quick, so it's not strange that they don't bother reading much of it. I've sent in a trouble ticket Harald --On 23. mars 2004 04:54 +0200 Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not know to whom I should address this. The URL quoted in this announcement leads not only to the referred draft, but to several other as well. It looks like the folks in charge with processing the Internet-Draft submission should be more careful regarding what is being submitted and posted in the I-D repository.
Draft-klensin-process-july14-01.txt.
John Klensin and I wrote a draft on lightweight process experiments, and would like to get other people's feedback before requesting last call for publication as a BCP. The abstract is In the last two years, the IETF has initiated a number of interrelated efforts to improve or fine-tune its standards process and its internal procedures using the procedures intended for development of protocol specifications. None of these efforts has had an observable impact on the quality or timeliness of IETF outputs, and, based on the proposed charter milestones now under discussion, approval to try to improve things is still between six and eighteen months away. This document proposes a radically different approach to the system of making changes to IETF process, one that relies heavily on a propose and carry out an experiment, evaluate the experiment, and then establish permanent procedures based on operational experience model rather than the ones that have been attempted previously. The announcement is at http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf-announce/Current/msg29188.html. The draft itself is at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-process-july14-01.txt. Please follow up on the Solutions mailing list. The URL for this mailing list, including subscription information, is http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/solutions. Thanks, Spencer, for John and Spencer
