Re: How the IPnG effort was started

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 06:23:51PM -0800, Michel Py wrote:
> 
> ISDN which 10 years ago was supposed to be the digital miracle that
> would save us from the analog crap and take over the world never took
> off because the price was not worth the gain, the majority of phones and
> dial-up still are analog and now ISDN costs _more_ than DSL or cable for
> low-end data.

What one observes in one part of the world is not necessarily true in 
all parts of the world.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder   International University Bremen
 P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: AdminRest: New version of IASA BCP document available

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

and here's the draft name.
---
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.

Title   : Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity 
(IASA)
Author(s)   : R. Austein, B. Wijnen
Filename: draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-00.txt
Pages   : 17
Date: 2004-11-16

This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative
  Support Activity (IASA) as an IETF-controlled activity housed within
  the Internet Society (ISOC) legal umbrella.  It defines the roles and
  responsibilities of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee
  (IAOC), the IETF Administrative Director (IAD) and ISOC in the fiscal
  and administrative support of the IETF standards process.  It also
  defines how the IAOC will be comprised and selected.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-00.txt
To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the body of the 
message.
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
to change your subscription settings.

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-ietf-iasa-bcp-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

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt

[Frank Solensky]

On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 20:58 -0600, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> From: "Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > Do the Morality ADs get to wear funny clothes?
> >
> > Inquiring minds want to know...
> 
> I would love to be on NomCom when they open the envelope and read the 
> desired characteristics for the position ... 

Oh, _that_ kind of position!
Never mind..



___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: TCP bandwidth usage was: Yahoo is not using ESMTP

[Michel Py]

> Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
> What Michael said. This is probably below the radar for now
> because, so far, BitTorrent trading of large files (regular TV
> shows and pirated movies) is more popular in Asia and Europe
> than in the US. 

Indeed, I made that very point on Nanog a couple months ago. But it will arrive 
in America sooner or later and I don't see anything stopping that freight 
train. Plenty of overseas torrent sites (such as www.torrentbits.org, located 
in the NL) are in English, no language barrier here.


> Even on the well-known BitTorrent ports, there is a *huge*
> amount of trading going on.

Approaching a petabyte per day (that's right, 1K terabytes) me thinks. And it 
might get worse soon: double-layer DVD burners are out (I bought one for $79 
last week), in a short while we will see blank double-layer DVDs at the current 
DVD-R prices ($0.40 a pop) and images that are 8.7 GBytes instead of 4.7 
GBytes. Christmas 2005: blue ray DVDs :-( $DEITY help ISPs.


Cisco is supporting 10+ Gbyte file swap to sell more CRS-1s.
Juniper is supporting 10+ Gbyte file swap to sell more T-640s.



> To make things more difficult for the law, a good chunk of
> that trading is completely legitimate, allowed-use music
> trading of artists who actively encourage trading of live
> show recordings.

And some that encourage distributing software and/or software updates that way. 
I foresee small players publishing a torrent instead of having their FTP site, 
and seed it only with a few low-bandwidth machines. BitTorrent was not 
originally designed to swap illegal content.

Technically speaking, hard to take it down too. Last week, I successfully 
tested resuming multiple downloads with re-published torrents pointing to a 
different tracker than the original one that was taken down. No problem.

And it's not such a big deal to run a big site, apparently:
> TorrentBits.org is situated on a dedicated server in the Netherlands.
> For the moment we have monthly running costs of approximately â 213.

Private torrent site for 100,000 users

Michel.

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt

[James M. Polk]

At 06:39 PM 11/16/2004 -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
At 03:57 PM 11/16/04 -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
We should be proactive and create a morality area in the IETF.  The 
morality ADs can review and vote Discuss if the Morality Considerations 
section in drafts being reviewed by the IESG is not adequate.
Do the Morality ADs get to wear funny clothes?
I think they *are* the fashion police...

Inquiring minds want to know...
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

cheers,
James
   ***
Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt

[Tim Bray]

On Nov 16, 2004, at 3:57 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
We should be proactive and create a morality area in the IETF.  The 
morality ADs can review and vote Discuss if the Morality 
Considerations section in drafts being reviewed by the IESG is not 
adequate.
I would volunteer for such a job, bearing in mind that the Morality ADs 
would need to conduct intensive and detailed research on *im*morality 
to provide the necessary background context, involving extended 
excursions to New Orleans, Las Vegas, and Vladivostok.  -Tim

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt

[Spencer Dawkins]

From: "Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 03:57 PM 11/16/04 -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
We should be proactive and create a morality area in the IETF.  The 
morality ADs can review and vote Discuss if the Morality 
Considerations section in drafts being reviewed by the IESG is not 
adequate.
Do the Morality ADs get to wear funny clothes?
Inquiring minds want to know...
I would love to be on NomCom when they open the envelope and read the 
desired characteristics for the position ... 


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt

[Fred Baker]

At 03:57 PM 11/16/04 -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
We should be proactive and create a morality area in the IETF.  The 
morality ADs can review and vote Discuss if the Morality Considerations 
section in drafts being reviewed by the IESG is not adequate.
Do the Morality ADs get to wear funny clothes?
Inquiring minds want to know... 

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: How the IPnG effort was started

[Michel Py]

>> Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the
>> network that's really out there, not the network some
>> of us wish were there.

> grenville armitage wrote:
> I imagine any number of circuit-switching Telco-types
> said much the same thing to the emerging packet-switching
> fanatics 30+ years ago. And I know B-ISDN types said the
> same to "Internet fanatics" 15+ years ago.

I think you missed the point. As of today, IPv6 is in the same situation
ISDN has always been:

I Still Don't Need.
^ ^ ^ ^

ISDN which 10 years ago was supposed to be the digital miracle that
would save us from the analog crap and take over the world never took
off because the price was not worth the gain, the majority of phones and
dial-up still are analog and now ISDN costs _more_ than DSL or cable for
low-end data.

Michel.


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt

[James M. Polk]

At 06:44 PM 11/16/2004 -0500, Mike S wrote:
At 05:23 PM 11/16/2004, James M. Polk wrote...
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirement 
s-00.txt
>
>I do not see why this ID should be limited to the Routing area...

Morals exist at layer 3, and are therefore related to Routing.
Ethics exist at layer 2, perhaps you would like to submit an RFC covering 
switching ethics?
I'm sure I can drum one up

(Self-preservation and enlightened self-interest are layer 1, and are 
self-defining)
seems like these conflict with the known layers 8 (politics) and 9 
(religion) - so I believe we'll need an agreeable scope for layer 1 after 
all...

cheers,
James
   ***
Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

[Noel Chiappa]

> From: grenville armitage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>> The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the network that's
>> really out there, not the network some of us wish were there.

> I know B-ISDN types said the same 

Funny thing you should mention B-ISDN.

Another group of people who thought that because a major standards
organization wrote specs, and a whole bunch of manufacturers poured a ton
of money into building the gear, it would necessarily take over the world.

Noel

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

At 18:17 16/11/2004, Noel Chiappa wrote:
The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the network that's really
out there, not the network some of us wish were there.
To put it another way (and mangle a well-known phrase in the process), if
life gives you lemons, you can either sit around with a sour look on your
face, or make lemonade. NAT's make me look sour too, but I'd rather make
lemonade.
Right. Maybe time to accept that we have a real life "Interpatch" to use, 
and to start considering the best way to make it. One does not  build the 
world: one survives in it. However, may be the problem is the IETF promotes 
an "IPv4 with larger addresses" (Huitema, Aaron).

These 12 years shown that the world does not want another IPv4. It already 
has another one with NATs. But it wants larger addresses, for many reasons 
which have nothing to do with IP. As Harald says, let stop considering IPv6 
has an IETF matter. It is now up to the Govs, ITU, Corporations, operators, 
etc. to work on the numbering plans they want for the NGN.

At 00:19 17/11/2004, grenville armitage wrote:
>Noel Chiappa wrote:
> >The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the network that's really
> > out there, not the network some of us wish were there.
> I imagine any number of circuit-switching Telco-types said much the
> same thing to the emerging packet-switching fanatics 30+ years
> ago. And I know B-ISDN types said the same to "Internet fanatics" 15+
> years ago.
Yes. This is what _you_ say that to NGN types today. :-)
Let follow on this: the telephone system they implemented in the 70s was 
not the one imagined in the 40s. But it used its numbering plan (may be the 
dates are different from one place to another, but the comparison holds).

X.121 said 14 digits, up to 20 with OSI and a maximum of 32. ITU says that 
the core of the NGN, wich needs that 32 digits, is IP. Great! IPv6 will not 
be used because the IPv6 TF will promote it, but because it is the only IP 
available possibility. Not glorious, but useful and propably more 
efficient. Who is still using an operator (that you could compare to NAT) 
when telephoning ?

jfc


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Document Action: 'BinaryTime: An alternate format for representing date and time in ASN.1' to Experimental RFC

[Pete Resnick]

On 11/16/04 at 5:02 AM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Graham Klyne writes:
The integer value is the number of seconds after midnight UTC, 
January 1, 1970.

NEW:
The integer value is the number of seconds, ignoring leap 
seconds, after midnight UTC, January 1, 1970.
I think Russ' intention for this was that you should be able to copy 
the Unix time() into it without any further thinking (except 
wondering whether the clock is accurate) - "ignoring leap seconds" 
rather obviously doesn't say the same thing to everyone

Suggestions for rewording? Russ?
I think you want to go back to the old wording. If you need a 
reference to insert, see RFC 1305, Appendix E, sections 7 & 8.

pr
--
Pete Resnick 
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt

[Bob Hinden]

Ole,
At 03:03 PM 11/16/2004, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Indeed.
People polled after the election said they put Moral Values as the #1
priorty. I see no reason why the previous and next administration won't
make  a morality section a requirement in all published docs.
We should be proactive and create a morality area in the IETF.  The 
morality ADs can review and vote Discuss if the Morality Considerations 
section in drafts being reviewed by the IESG is not adequate.

Is it April already?
Must be
Bob

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt

[Mike S]

At 05:23 PM 11/16/2004, James M. Polk wrote...
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt
>
>I do not see why this ID should be limited to the Routing area...

Morals exist at layer 3, and are therefore related to Routing.

Ethics exist at layer 2, perhaps you would like to submit an RFC covering 
switching ethics?

(Self-preservation and enlightened self-interest are layer 1, and are 
self-defining) 


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt

[Glen Zorn \(gwz\)]

Ole Jacobsen <> wrote:
> Indeed.
> 
> People polled after the election said they put Moral Values as the
#1
> priorty. 

Just one question: when did minding your own business cease to be a
"moral value"?

> I see no reason why the previous and next administration
> won't make  a morality section a requirement in all published
docs.  
> 
> The immorality of NATs for example...
> 
> Is it April already?
> 
> What did I miss?
> 
> Ole
> 
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal Academic
> Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems 
> Tel: +1 408-527-8972   GSM: +1 415-370-4628
> E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, James M. Polk wrote:
> 
>>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requir
em
>> ents-00.txt 
>> 
>> I do not see why this ID should be limited to the Routing area...
>> 
>> The Application of General Internet specifications should
consider
>> the Operations and Management of the Security surrounding
Transport
>> of morality considerations, even if in a Sub-IP moral zone.
>> 
>> nuff said?
>> 
>> cheers,
>> James
>> 
>> ***
>>  Truth is not to be argued... it is to be
presented
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Ietf mailing list
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>> 
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Hope this helps,

~gwz

Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by
simply
  listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

[grenville armitage]

Noel Chiappa wrote:
[..]
> The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the network that's really
> out there, not the network some of us wish were there.

I imagine any number of circuit-switching Telco-types said much the
same thing to the emerging packet-switching fanatics 30+ years
ago. And I know B-ISDN types said the same to "Internet fanatics" 15+
years ago.

cheers,
gja
-- 
Grenville Armitage
http://caia.swin.edu.au
I come from a LAN downunder.

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt

[Ole Jacobsen]

Indeed.

People polled after the election said they put Moral Values as the #1
priorty. I see no reason why the previous and next administration won't
make  a morality section a requirement in all published docs.

The immorality of NATs for example...

Is it April already?

What did I miss?

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Academic Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj



On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, James M. Polk wrote:

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt
>
> I do not see why this ID should be limited to the Routing area...
>
> The Application of General Internet specifications should consider the
> Operations and Management of the Security surrounding Transport of morality
> considerations, even if in a Sub-IP moral zone.
>
> nuff said?
>
> cheers,
> James
>
> ***
>  Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented
>
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt

[James M. Polk]

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt
I do not see why this ID should be limited to the Routing area...
The Application of General Internet specifications should consider the 
Operations and Management of the Security surrounding Transport of morality 
considerations, even if in a Sub-IP moral zone.

nuff said?
cheers,
James
   ***
Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Document Action: 'BinaryTime: An alternate format forrepresenting date and time in ASN.1' to Experimental RFC

[Randy Presuhn]

Hi -

> From: "Alan Barrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 1:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Document Action: 'BinaryTime: An alternate format 
> forrepresenting date and time in ASN.1' to Experimental RFC
>

> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Graham Klyne wrote:
> > Has there been detailed discussion of leap second issues?  What exactly
> > does the revised text "ignoring leap seconds" actually mean (I think I can
> > guess, but I also think there's some room for misinterpretation here)?
>
> I assume it means "assuming exactly 86400 seconds per day".
...

I had understood it to mean that the values coming from the seconds
clock would have no gaps or duplicates due to leap seconds.  This is very
useful if the system needs to calculate accurate intervals, especially if it
won't be receiving software updates to tell it when leap seconds have
occurred.  An assumption of "exactly  86400 seconds per day" means
that the seconds clock would have to be advanced (or possibly set back)
at the time the leap second is to be inserted so that the fiction of an
86400-second day could be maintained, and would thus require that
the system be informed when leap seconds are to be inserted.  Otherwise,
dates and times derived form the clock would drift.

This is an old debate.

Randy



___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

AdminRest: New version of IASA BCP document available

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

Thanks to the dilligent effort of our editing team (Rob Austein and Bert 
Wijnen), we have a new version of the BCP describing the IETF 
Administrative Support Activity out for your review, building on the 
earlier efforts by Leslie Daigle and Margaret Wasserman.

There have been a number of suggestions for change, both private and 
public, and the editors have made their best guess at what the proper 
resolution of comments is for any given case. It is, of course, up to the 
IETF to say whether or not the proposed resolution is acceptable.

In some cases the best way to handle a particular suggestion (in the
editors' opinion, at any rate) has been to incorporate new text with
an "Editors' note" which attempts to explain the change.
A HTML version and a diff file with the previous version is available from 
the adminrest Web pages: http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/adminrest/

The editors request that substantive comments and requested changes
be sent, one per message, with a clear and meaningful subject line on
each message, as this will make it easier for the editors to keep
track of change requests.
Minor nits may be sent straight to the editors; substantive issues should 
be sent to the IETF list.

Let there be review!
Harald Alvestrand

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Should IAB chair be a voting member of IAOC

[Geoff Huston]

In considering what is best choice here its a case of considering the role 
of the office when setting such things up, rather than considering the 
personal feelings of the current incumbent of the office (sorry Leslie!).

The iAB has an interest in this matter, and, as far as I can see, that 
interest will not stop abruptly, nor should it.  In making the IAB position 
non-voting I think we are setting ourselves up for a source of potential 
frustration. Thats not good.

Equally, in the grand scheme of things its a pretty minor matter to spend 
time on

regards,
  Geoff

At 04:20 AM 17/11/2004, Thomas Gal wrote:
Probably because people who are influental outside their organization should
be curtailed. Say it's sufficient that you respect their opinion, and also
know that they have enough to do that they should be giving rough opinions
for actual voting members to ponder at length (i.e. read it once vs 3
times). I don't think the IAB chair will feel offended or second class for
that matter. Again I think Harald put it best, if they want to the should
be, but I just don't think they need the burden.
-Tom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Steve Silverman
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 9:43 AM
> To: Geoff Huston; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Should IAB chair be a
> voting member of IAOC
>
> It would seem to me that being a non-voting member is being a
> second class member of the group.  Given the relative lack of
> importance to voting in the IETF, it is not obvious to me
> that any person who is expected to participate in discussions
> should be excluded.
> In particular, one (at least I) would not expect the IAB
> chair to be particularly irresponsible.
> Can anyone explain why certain positions are non-voting?
>
> Steve Silverman
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Behalf Of Geoff
> > Huston
> > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 2:30 AM
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Should IAB chair be a
> voting member
> > of IAOC
> >
> >
> > At 02:53 AM 14/11/2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > >Margarets draft-wasserman-iasa-bcp-01.txt states (bottom
> > of page 7):
> > >
> > > There will also be two non-voting, ex officio liaisons:
> > >
> > > o  The IAB Chair
> > >
> > > o  The IETF Administrative Director
> > >
> > > [Note: There is some question about whether the IAB
> > Chair should be a
> > > liaison or a full member of the IAOC.  There are
> > multiple trade-offs
> > > here, and this should be discussed by the community.]
> > >
> > >During the Plenary last wednesday there were
> > suggestions/proposals to
> > >make IAB chair a voting member.
> >
> >
> > That makes a lot of sense to me
> >
> > Geoff Huston
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Ietf mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > ___
> > 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]).
> >
>
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Yahoo is not using ESMTP

[Robert . Shaw]

> So from the WSIS/WGIG perspective I am being asked: is spam a 
> significant (network) problem for certain parts of the world? 
> Maybe more importantly: will it still be so in UN timescales?

Yes it is a major problem. e.g., see
http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Developing%20countries_contribution.pdf

Other presentations, contributions at
http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/background.html

--RS

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Should IAB chair be a voting member of IAOC

[Thomas Gal]

Probably because people who are influental outside their organization should
be curtailed. Say it's sufficient that you respect their opinion, and also
know that they have enough to do that they should be giving rough opinions
for actual voting members to ponder at length (i.e. read it once vs 3
times). I don't think the IAB chair will feel offended or second class for
that matter. Again I think Harald put it best, if they want to the should
be, but I just don't think they need the burden.

-Tom

[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> Behalf Of Steve Silverman
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 9:43 AM
> To: Geoff Huston; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Should IAB chair be a 
> voting member of IAOC
> 
> It would seem to me that being a non-voting member is being a 
> second class member of the group.  Given the relative lack of 
> importance to voting in the IETF, it is not obvious to me 
> that any person who is expected to participate in discussions 
> should be excluded.
> In particular, one (at least I) would not expect the IAB 
> chair to be particularly irresponsible.
> Can anyone explain why certain positions are non-voting?
> 
> Steve Silverman
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Behalf Of Geoff
> > Huston
> > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 2:30 AM
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Should IAB chair be a 
> voting member 
> > of IAOC
> >
> >
> > At 02:53 AM 14/11/2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > >Margarets draft-wasserman-iasa-bcp-01.txt states (bottom
> > of page 7):
> > >
> > > There will also be two non-voting, ex officio liaisons:
> > >
> > > o  The IAB Chair
> > >
> > > o  The IETF Administrative Director
> > >
> > > [Note: There is some question about whether the IAB
> > Chair should be a
> > > liaison or a full member of the IAOC.  There are
> > multiple trade-offs
> > > here, and this should be discussed by the community.]
> > >
> > >During the Plenary last wednesday there were
> > suggestions/proposals to
> > >make IAB chair a voting member.
> >
> >
> > That makes a lot of sense to me
> >
> > Geoff Huston
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Ietf mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > ___
> > 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]).
> >
> 
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

[Noel Chiappa]

> From: Jon Allen Boone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> In my experience, if a technology hasn't been readily adopted
> within a decade of it's creation, it's not going to be. It appears
> that time is rapidly approaching for IPv6.

Ah, you need to adjust your clock, or calendar, or whatever. SIP (what we
now call IPv6) was created in 1992 (it was presented to the ANTF meeting
in August '92), and was adopted as IPng at the 30th IETF in Toronto, in
July 1994. That's already more than 10 years.

Just to give everyone a sense of what that really means, here are some
things to jog our memories. In 1994:

- The WWW had about 2,700 sites, total.
- The current Microsoft operating system was Windows 3.1

Think about that for a minute.


It's pretty clear by now that IPv6 is just not going to reach its stated
goal - which is to ubiquitously replace IPv4. Even many IPv6 proponents
are now speaking of an essentially indefinite period of co-existence.
Which essentially voids the original basic argument *for* IPv6...

And don't give me any of that "oh, we really needed to have the X system
available, now we've got that it'll really take off next year". We've
been hearing this exact excuse for years - I have a whole file full of
them.

Yes, there is going to be some deployment of IPv6. (With the amount of
money that's been spent on it, it'd be totally astonishing if there
*weren't*. If I were a barn manufacturer, and had the kind of budget
that's been spent on IPv6, half the airline passengers today would be
flying around on jet-propelled barn doors.) It will see some use in
discrete areas of the network, particular networks that utilize IPv6. 

It may even find a certain amount of utility as an end-end naming layer
(which is incredibly ironic, but that deserves a rant in itself); but
again, that not the original goal - which was to be the ubiquitous packet
layer.


Look, I really do understand Brian's point - that the current situation
is not good.

But acting like IPv6 is going to magically save us - when we have year after
year after year after year of actual experience that is telling us "no, it
isn't" - is not the way to fundamentally improve the situation.

The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the network that's really
out there, not the network some of us wish were there.

To put it another way (and mangle a well-known phrase in the process), if
life gives you lemons, you can either sit around with a sour look on your
face, or make lemonade. NAT's make me look sour too, but I'd rather make
lemonade.

Noel

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: TCP bandwidth usage was: Yahoo is not using ESMTP

[Paul Hoffman / VPNC]

What Michael said. This is probably below the radar for now because, 
so far, BitTorrent trading of large files (regular TV shows and 
pirated movies) is more popular in Asia and Europe than in the US. 
Even on the well-known BitTorrent ports, there is a *huge* amount of 
trading going on. To make things more difficult for the law, a good 
chunk of that trading is completely legitimate, allowed-use music 
trading of artists who actively encourage trading of live show 
recordings.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Last Call for Nominees

[Danny McPherson]

Folks,
Only one week left, please send your nominations for open IESG
and IAB positions to [EMAIL PROTECTED], many thanks to those of
you that have already provided feedback to the NomCom.
IESG members whose terms are up are:
Harald Alvestrand -- IETF Chair
Bill Fenner -- Routing Area
Ted Hardie -- Applications Area
Russ Housley -- Security Area
David Kessens -- Operations & Management Area
Thomas Narten -- Internet Area
Jon Peterson -- Transport Area
IAB members whose terms are up are:
Bernard Aboba
Rob Austein
Sally Floyd
Jun-ichiro Itojun Hagino
Mark Handley
Geoff Huston
The nomination period will end Tuesday, November 23, 2004.
Any member of the IETF community may nominate any member of the
IETF community for any position.  Self-nominations are permitted and
encouraged.
Likewise, if you have any feedback regarding current incumbents, please
send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IAB desired qualifications can be found here:
http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2004-10-21-iab-quals.html
IESG qualifications are included below.
Thanks!
-danny
IESG Desired Qualifications
With the adoption of the new Nominations Committee procedures defined
in RFC 3777, the IESG is responsible for providing a summary of the
expertise desired of the candidates selected for open IESG positions.
This information is included below, and is suitable for publication to
the community, along with the Nomination Committee's request for
nominations.
We realize that this is a long list of demanding qualifications, and
that no one person will be able meet all of the requirements for a
specific position.  We trust that the NomCom will weigh all of these
qualifications and choose IESG members who represent the best possible
balance of these qualifications.
Generic Requirements:
IESG members are the managers of the IETF standards process. This
means that they must understand the way the IETF works, be good at
working with other people, be able to inspire and encourage other
people to work together on a volunteer basis, and have sound technical
judgment about IETF technology.
ADs select and directly manage the WG chairs, so IESG members should
possess sufficient interpersonal and management skills to manage
~15-30 part-time people.  Most ADs are also responsible for one or
more directorates or review teams.  So the ability to identify good
leaders and technical experts and recruit them for IETF work is
required. Having been a WG chair helps in understanding the WG chair
role, and will help in resolving problems and issues that a WG chair
may have.
In addition, all IESG members should have strong technical expertise
that crosses two or three IETF areas.  Ideally, an IESG member would
have made significant technical contributions in more than one IETF
area, preferably authoring documents and/or chairing WGs in more than
one area.
IESG members are expected to make sure that every document coming
before the IESG is properly reviewed.  Although IESG members may
delegate the actual review to individuals or review teams, the IESG
members will need to understand and represent the reviewers'
objections or comments. So the ability and willingness to read and
understand complex information quickly is another important attribute
in an IESG member.
It is helpful for an IESG member to have a good working knowledge of
the IETF document process and WG creation and chartering process.
This knowledge is most likely to be found in experienced IETF WG
chairs, but may also be found in authors of multiple documents.
IESG members must also have strong verbal and written communications
skills and a proven track record of leading and contributing to the
consensus of diverse groups.
A few comments on the IESG role:
Serving on the IESG requires a substantial time commitment.  The basic
IESG activities consume between 25 and 40 hours per week (varying by
area and by month, with the most time required immediately before IETF
meetings).  Most IESG members also participate in additional IETF
leadership activities, further increasing the time commitment for
those individuals.  It is also imperative that IESG members attend all
IETF meetings and up to two additional IESG retreats per year.
Because of the large time and travel commitments, employer support is
essential for an IESG member.
Applications Area:
The Applications Area focuses on applications that run across the
Internet and require some sort of standardized infrastructure to be
effective.  This includes, but is not limited to: E-Mail, instant
messaging systems, Web protocols, Directory services, printing
services and NetNews.
The Applications area often discusses whether something is properly
the realm of the IETF or "belongs" to other organizations.  Because of
this, and Applications AD needs to be willing and able to relate to a
wide range of non-IETF organizations.  An Applications AD also needs
to be someone that we can trust to make these critical decisions about
the scope of the IETF's work.
Because of the breadth of th

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

[Jon Allen Boone]

Brian,
  Thanks for you kind note.
On Nov 16, 2004, at 05:59, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
but unfortunately the work-around (ambiguous addresses and NATs) really
only works for a limited subset of applications, apparently including
those you use at home.
  yeah, not even everything I'd like to do at home works.  :-(  But,  
I've learned to live with it.

There is a quite excellent article that describes the gory details at:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_7-3/ 
anatomy.html

  Thanks, I'll review it in detail to see what I can learn from it.  It  
seems like STUN isn't exactly a great choice of a name for the  
protocol, though, given that it's already used for Serial TUNnelling.   
:-(

For those who want to innovate, or for those countries whose ISPs are
already forced to run multiple levels of NAT, and in particular for
countries with on the order of a billion citizens, there simply isn't
any doubt that this mess cannot continue. It's a strategic issue, not
one that can be understood with our industry's traditional 3 month
forward look.
  I don't disagree that it seems like things will have to change  
eventually.  I just can't see far enough into the future to see how the  
change will occur.  After unsuccessfully trying to predict these types  
of changes for the last decade+, I've given up.  :-(

  I was hoping someone else had some bright ideas that could provide  
some inspiration.

I too run behind a NAT when I have to. And I can run a few good old
fashioned client/server applications. But it isn't 10% of what I
could do on a real transparent Internet.
  I've just lost track of the bright-eyed future that I had a clear  
vision of back in 1992.  In my experience, if a technology hasn't been  
readily adopted within a decade of it's creation, it's not going to be.  
 It appears that time is rapidly approaching for IPv6.

  I dearly wish someone could rejuvenate my imagination in this area.
--jon
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Should IAB chair be a voting member of IAOC

[Steve Silverman]

It would seem to me that being a non-voting member is being a second
class member
of the group.  Given the relative lack of importance to voting in the
IETF, it is not
obvious to me that any person who is expected to participate in
discussions should be excluded.
In particular, one (at least I) would not expect the IAB chair to be
particularly irresponsible.
Can anyone explain why certain positions are non-voting?

Steve Silverman

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Geoff
> Huston
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 2:30 AM
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Should IAB chair be a
> voting member of
> IAOC
>
>
> At 02:53 AM 14/11/2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> >Margarets draft-wasserman-iasa-bcp-01.txt states (bottom
> of page 7):
> >
> > There will also be two non-voting, ex officio liaisons:
> >
> > o  The IAB Chair
> >
> > o  The IETF Administrative Director
> >
> > [Note: There is some question about whether the IAB
> Chair should be a
> > liaison or a full member of the IAOC.  There are
> multiple trade-offs
> > here, and this should be discussed by the community.]
> >
> >During the Plenary last wednesday there were
> suggestions/proposals to
> >make IAB chair a voting member.
>
>
> That makes a lot of sense to me
>
> Geoff Huston
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> ___
> 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]).
>


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Yahoo is not using ESMTP

[Dave Aronson]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 > I was in a spam workshop yesterday and a guy was saying that spam was
 > a bandwidth issue. I suppose it is if you are on the end of a slow
 > link and (therefore?) all you are doing is e-mail: a big chunk of
 > everything you do is always a lot.

Being on dialup also affects the perception because the mail tends to 
build up into large chunks that you download while waiting (and waiting 
and waiting).  By contrast, with pretty much any kind of always-on link 
(even that slow), it trickles in, you get alerted when one arrives, and 
the total bandwidth of email is seen as a tiny fraction for most of us.  
(If you are being absolutely barraged with spam, literally in the 
millions per day, I suppose it might become a large fraction.)

 > So from the WSIS/WGIG perspective I am being asked: is spam a
 > significant (network) problem for certain parts of the world? Maybe
 > more importantly: will it still be so in UN timescales?

IMHO, it is not a *computer* bandwidth issue but a *human* bandwidth 
issue, something which does not increase anywhere near as quickly.  I 
can only read the subjects, let alone content, of so many emails a day.  
(For some people, there is also the "offense" issue.)

-Dave

-- 
David J. Aronson
Work: http://destined.to/program
Play: http://listen.to/davearonson

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

[Brian E Carpenter]

Jon Allen Boone wrote:
...
  Where is the incentive to move to IPv6 going to come from?All of 
the Mac OS X and Linux machines I have at home support it.  The core 
infrastructure of the Internet has the ability to support it.  But why 
should we go to the trouble of enabling it?  Where's the benefit?
Jon,
There is no doubt that the Internet has, as usual, routed around damage,
i.e. the objective shortage of IPv4 addresses for end users, but
unfortunately the work-around (ambiguous addresses and NATs) really
only works for a limited subset of applications, apparently including
those you use at home. There is a quite excellent article that describes the
gory details at:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_7-3/anatomy.html
For those who want to innovate, or for those countries whose ISPs are
already forced to run multiple levels of NAT, and in particular for
countries with on the order of a billion citizens, there simply isn't
any doubt that this mess cannot continue. It's a strategic issue, not
one that can be understood with our industry's traditional 3 month
forward look.
I too run behind a NAT when I have to. And I can run a few good old
fashioned client/server applications. But it isn't 10% of what I
could do on a real transparent Internet.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Yahoo is not using ESMTP

[Bruce Campbell]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Franck Martin wrote:

> This is interesting, because on our side of the world, when I do an
> analysis, I can see that mail is about 30% of the TCP traffic, with the
> web being about 40% of TCP traffic.
>
> I guess we do not have the same needs over very slow links...

Look more at the patience factor.  Over a 'slow' ( high latency, low
bandwidth, high cost, or all of these ) link, applications which require
interaction are simply not as attractive to users.  This, coupled with the
relatively high cost of such links to the people using them, makes email
(and news) the far more _valued_ applications, as you can batch up your
replies and send them all at once.

The community that you are measuring for a given measurement is important.

--==--
Bruce.

I speak for myself.

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Document Action: 'BinaryTime: An alternate format for representing date and time in ASN.1' to Experimental RFC

[Alan Barrett]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Has there been detailed discussion of leap second issues?  What exactly 
> does the revised text "ignoring leap seconds" actually mean (I think I can 
> guess, but I also think there's some room for misinterpretation here)?

I assume it means "assuming exactly 86400 seconds per day".

--apb (Alan Barrett)

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Yahoo is not using ESMTP

[Gordon . Lennox]

When I had a 14.4K modem *all* I did was e-mail.

Even with 56K surfing was not fun and the web was only consulted in case of
real need.

But now...

So maybe it simply depends where you are on the curve.

I was in a spam workshop yesterday and a guy was saying that spam was a
bandwidth issue. I suppose it is if you are on the end of a slow link and
(therefore?) all you are doing is e-mail: a big chunk of everything you do
is always a lot. But it appears not so if you are on a fast connection where
e-mail traffic is low in the single digits.

So from the WSIS/WGIG perspective I am being asked: is spam a significant
(network) problem for certain parts of the world? Maybe more importantly:
will it still be so in UN timescales?

Gordon

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Franck Martin
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 12:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Yahoo is not using ESMTP


This is interesting, because on our side of the world, when I do an 
analysis, I can see that mail is about 30% of the TCP traffic, with the 
web being about 40% of TCP traffic.

I guess we do not have the same needs over very slow links...

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf