Questionnaire [Re: IETFs... the final Friday?]

[Brian E Carpenter]

Ken Raeburn wrote:
...

Finally, I noticed the IAD included a question about Friday meeting or
not in the survey we were invited to on 9 January.  Getting a sense of
peoples' views quantitatively is good, though that was a
self-selected group, rather than a random sample that could be
assigned a statistical mapping to the IETF population.



How about a questionnaire at the next IETF or two?  (With collection  
going through Friday noon at least, of course.)  Still somewhat self- 
selected, but it's reaching out specifically to those who attend  
regularly.


I think we'll stick to an on-line survey; having people do their own
data entry and having a computer add up the numbers saves a lot of
clerical expense. We can discriminate in the survey between attendees
and non-attendees. As for the self-selection bias that Allison notes,
I'm afraid that is very hard to avoid without much more work.

Brian


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: posting privileges vs receiver-side filtering

[Brian E Carpenter]

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

grenville armitage writes:



- protects agains dilution of a WG's historical record (archives
that soak up all posts to the WG's mailing list)



Stop blindly archiving every message, and this ceases to be a problem.


The IETF standards process requires us to archive WG mailing lists.
For good reasons: open process requires a public record, and prior art
claims can be checked.





- improves the 'signal to distraction' ratio of traffic on the list
(particularly important for list residents charged with keeping
things on charter and evaluating rough consensus)



Distraction is in the eye of the beholder.  Ignoring something
requires no action;


Not true. When one receives a few hundred emails per day, the act of
ignoring, say, 75% of them takes a significant amount of time. Even
the act of maintaining one's personal filters takes a significant
amount of time.

...



Yes, revocation of posting privileges and receiver-side filtering both
cause a drop in traffic reaching one's inbox. But that doesn't 
make the actions equivalent.



Yes.  The former is censorship, the latter is not.


It isn't censorship. It isn't infringing anybody's free speech.
It's very specifically restricting misuse of mailing lists that
have been set up for a given purpose. That is well within bounds
for a community such as ours.

Brian


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

[Julien . Maisonneuve]

Theodore Ts'o wrote:


... not to mention the cost of keeping the hotel rooms for the extra
day or so.  (Presumably if some or all of the wireless infrastructure
is left running until Friday night, it means that at least some of the
rooms can't get released back to the hotel until mid-day Saturday, and
the volunteers will have to do some of the final teardown Saturday
morning.)

Teardown doesn't take so much time (from my last participation to it)  
that you couldn't postpone the final moment and still be able to remove 
it the same day. In addition, we're not necessarily talking about 
leaving it all up. It would be enough to leave a few Wifi spots and a 
couple of wired switches in/close to the terminal room, leaving a lot of 
space for teardown work (meeting rooms, most of the APs, cables, 
terminal room tables/switches/power/printers, backup links,...). Routers 
and other equipment would go last, but most of the work would already be 
done by then.

So it doesn't have to be exactly noon, there is some wiggle room there.
Regards,
Julien.

--
Julien Maisonneuve  



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Putting ideas into practice

[Spencer Dawkins]

We're generating quite a bit of e-mail under two or three separate threads 
that may not be changing anyone's mind, and we're seeing suggestions for 
actions that probably require BCP changes in order to implement them.


While I would not dream of asking people to refrain from sharing their 
opinions on this list at whatever typing speed their fleshware will support, 
It Might Be More Effective to write internet drafts that capture these 
excellent ideas and propose RFC 3933 process experiments that would actually 
cause the ideas to be implemented.


... unless you think the IETF bases process changes off e-mail postings, in 
which case, please feel free to keep typing at line rate.


Thanks,

Spencer 




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

[Brian E Carpenter]

Let's not sweat the details on this list.

We've got two points from this conversation:

1. it is good to have BOFs earlier in the week if possible,
subject to scheduling constraints.

2. it would be much appreciated, subject to financial limits,
to have some wireless connectivity through Friday afternoon.

I'm sure the IAD will note these points for future
planning.

   Brian

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Theodore Ts'o wrote:


... not to mention the cost of keeping the hotel rooms for the extra
day or so.  (Presumably if some or all of the wireless infrastructure
is left running until Friday night, it means that at least some of the
rooms can't get released back to the hotel until mid-day Saturday, and
the volunteers will have to do some of the final teardown Saturday
morning.)

Teardown doesn't take so much time (from my last participation to it)  
that you couldn't postpone the final moment and still be able to remove 
it the same day. In addition, we're not necessarily talking about 
leaving it all up. It would be enough to leave a few Wifi spots and a 
couple of wired switches in/close to the terminal room, leaving a lot of 
space for teardown work (meeting rooms, most of the APs, cables, 
terminal room tables/switches/power/printers, backup links,...). Routers 
and other equipment would go last, but most of the work would already be 
done by then.

So it doesn't have to be exactly noon, there is some wiggle room there.
Regards,
Julien.




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

[Spencer Dawkins]

Ack.


Let's not sweat the details on this list.

We've got two points from this conversation:

1. it is good to have BOFs earlier in the week if possible,
subject to scheduling constraints.

2. it would be much appreciated, subject to financial limits,
to have some wireless connectivity through Friday afternoon.

I'm sure the IAD will note these points for future
planning.

   Brian


And thanks!

Spencer


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Survey Results

[Adam Roach]

Ken Raeburn wrote:


Are there [802.11a] cards with Mac OS X drivers nowadays?


This device has a lot of geek appeal; in addition to A/G/B support, it 
acts as a stand-alone handheld 802.11 network detection device:


http://www.zyxel.com/product/model.php?indexcate=1131440677

The spec sheet doesn't make it obvious, but they do have an OS X driver 
available:


ftp://ftp.us.zyxel.com/AG-225H/MacOSDriver/AG-225H_MacOSdriver_v1.10.zip

/a



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: junior lawyers, was List archives and copyright

[Anthony G. Atkielski]

John Levine writes:

> Can I politely encourage people who are not lawyers to refrain from
> expressing legal opinions here, or even worse stating legal opinions
> as though they were facts?

Why?  IP litigation is usually a roll of the dice, anyway.

> I know just enough about copyright law to know that it is complex and
> subtle, it is hard to say exactly what is a license and what is fair
> use, and should a situation like this end up in court, the result will
> depend on the detailed facts of the case including arguments about
> what's the customary usage of messages sent to mailing lists and
> whether people are aware of the physical locations of archives so they
> know what law applies and so forth.  I have my opinions about what's
> legitimate and what's not, but I am not under any illusions that a
> judge would necessarily agree with me.
>
> Besides, we already got the opinion of an actual lawyer for free.
> What a deal.

See above.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin

[Anthony G. Atkielski]

Pekka Savola writes:

> Why must each and every WG member be required to filter a person's
> postings?  Much more convenient to do so in one place.

Because each and every WG member is an individual, with his own ideas
of what he does or doesn't want to read, and imposing the same rules
upon everyone prevents members from making their own decisions.  It
also imposes the decisions of a small minority upon the majority.

> Maybe you should try participating in a WG trying to be constructive
> sometime.

Maybe.  Do they involve as much puerile bickering as this list?

> As far as I can see from quick googling and browsing
> various I-D/RFC data, you've never made any contribution to any IETF
> WG at all, just more or less heated and/or trollish messages at 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

As far as I know, you're a complete stranger who resorts to personal
attacks from his very first post.  Maybe this list is just the place
for you, from what I've seen.



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: posting privileges vs receiver-side filtering

[Anthony G. Atkielski]

Brian E Carpenter writes:

> The IETF standards process requires us to archive WG mailing lists.
> For good reasons: open process requires a public record, and prior art
> claims can be checked.

How much of an open process can there be if some input is censored?

> Not true. When one receives a few hundred emails per day, the act of
> ignoring, say, 75% of them takes a significant amount of time.

No, it does not.  I do it.  I know people like to give that impression
so that they can justify censorship, but it just doesn't take that
much time.

> Even the act of maintaining one's personal filters takes a
> significant amount of time.

See above.

> It isn't censorship.

Whenever a third party decides to prevent one party from communicating
with another, it's censorship.

> It's very specifically restricting misuse of mailing lists that
> have been set up for a given purpose. That is well within bounds
> for a community such as ours.

Unfortunately, there is no objective defintion of misuse, so it
resolves to highly subjective censorship, and often the grounds for
censorship are practically unrelated to real utility or a lack
thereof.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: posting privileges vs receiver-side filtering

[Spencer Dawkins]

Now that we are reaching the stage of "is not"/"is too" discourse, could the 
people who need so desperately to convince each other try private e-mail?


Please feel free to google my own posting history on this list. At one 
point, I thought posting to this list was an effective way to accomplish 
change at the IETF. It's not. If you care, write a draft. If you don't care 
...


Thanks,

Spencer

From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Brian E Carpenter writes:

Not true. When one receives a few hundred emails per day, the act of
ignoring, say, 75% of them takes a significant amount of time.


No, it does not.  I do it.  I know people like to give that impression
so that they can justify censorship, but it just doesn't take that
much time. 




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: hotels for Dallas?

[Adam Roach]

Ray Pelletier wrote:



Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:



We understand that the new registration system is taking time to get 
working, and I doubt that's a big problem for many people.  But as of 
this writing, there is no information on the IETF web site about the 
meeting venue or hotels.  Any idea when that will change?


-- Jeff



I expect it to change Monday 23 January.
Ray Pelletier
IETF Administrative Director



Do we have a new ETA?

/a

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus

[nick . staff]

-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa) 
> Ah, I suspect that Elwyn was gently pulling your leg about your inability to > spell "capital" (i.e. the death penalty) - "capitol" means "location of the > government" 
Ahh haaadamn word...it'll pay for that...;)
Now imagine if you looked up the word Capital in the dictionary and it read like this:
 
Capital - Although not exhaustive, examples of the meaning of the word Capital include:  Wealth in the form of money or property; Human resources considered in terms of their contributions to an economy; a city that is the center of a specific activity or industry;  etc.
 
Maybe some of our inaction comes from having policies that are a little too open-ended.  I don't like being locked into rules but maybe there are cases where we can't be so open ended  (RISC vs. CISC?).  Maybe if we made our operational policies specific and all-inclusive we wouldn't have to reinterpret them every time we went to use them.  Then again maybe we want reinterpretation.
 
Nick
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

P2P-SIP effort

[Philip Matthews]

In light of the recent discussion of P2P protocols, I would like to  
call people's attention
to the proposal to form a working group to develop methods of using  
SIP in a fully distributed
P2P network. There is an active mailing list, there are some internet- 
drafts, there is a draft charter proposal,

and a BOF slot has been requested for the Dallas meeting.

For more information, check out:
  www.p2psip.org
(which contains information about the effort) AND
  https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/p2p-sip
which is the mailing list.

- Philip



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Preventing posting vs preventing the airing of opinion

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

Distracting from the topic yet again

--On 24. januar 2006 05:24 +0100 "Anthony G. Atkielski" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Theodore Ts'o writes:


The problem with the "just filter" approach is that if you then fail
to respond to something of substance that got inadvertently filtered
out, it is trivially easy to claim rough consensus.


The problem with prior restraint, such as a ban, is that nobody ever
gets to respond to anything that doesn't toe the party line.  That's a
general problem with all censorship.


I've seen this claim several times, and it still makes my head hurt to try 
to relate it to the real world.


If what is important is having an opinion stated, there is no barrier to 
having a friend (that is, a real person, not an alternate email account) 
say "I hear from X, and he says" on your behalf.


Of course there are two cases where this is a problem:

- When, among the participants with posting rights on the list, there isn't 
a single person who is willing to pass on your opinion
- When you are so sure that your words are the perfect expression of what 
you are trying to say that you refuse to let anyone else touch them before 
posting


Since this is in the context of the concept of "censorship", there is a 
third category:


- where the act of passing on your opinion puts the other person in 
immediate danger of being refused posting rights


I haven't seen that as a realistic fear in the IETF.

   Harald




pgpPshUx5eVg9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Survey Results

[Ned Freed]

On Jan 23, 2006, at 21:57, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> In my own case, having a Mac is not easy to get built-in 802.11a. I
> can of course buy an external card,



Are there cards with Mac OS X drivers nowadays?


Yes there are. Here's the one I use:

  http://www.orangeware.com/endusers/wirelessformac.html

There's a fairly long list of supported cards, some of which support 802.11a.
I'm currently using a 3COM 3CRWE154A72 card, FWIW.

Ned

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: hotels for Dallas?

[rpelletier]

Today.
Of course, the sun never sets on the Internet.
Really today 24 Jan 2006.
Ray




-Original Message-
From: "Adam Roach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:52 am
To: "Ray Pelletier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
0"Tim Chown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
0"IETF Discussion" 
Subject: Re: hotels for Dallas?

Ray Pelletier wrote:

>
> Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
>
>>
>> We understand that the new registration system is taking time to get
>> working, and I doubt that's a big problem for many people.  But as of
>> this writing, there is no information on the IETF web site about the
>> meeting venue or hotels.  Any idea when that will change?
>>
>> -- Jeff
>
>
> I expect it to change Monday 23 January.
> Ray Pelletier
> IETF Administrative Director


Do we have a new ETA?

/a



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Survey Results

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Jonne,

I'm not sure if I got it. My MUST was on the other way around: We really
need to warrantee good coverage for b/g to 75% of the participants.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organización: NET/ST/IED
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:35:13 +0200
> Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: "ietf@ietf.org" 
> Asunto: Re: Meeting Survey Results
> 
> Hi Jordi,
> 
> the preference for .11a was stated because we want to make sure that
> everybody who has the possibility for it would use it. It makes the
> network much more reliable. Of course b and g are provided as well.
> 
> It is a recommendation not a MUST, like the mail says.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jonne.
> 
> On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 22:57 -0400, ext JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> Hi Ray,
>> 
>> I'm not sure if we need some clarification on this:
>> 
>>> 1.  Slightly more than 25% say their laptop is compatible with 802.11a.
>>> [Note the IETF 65 NOC for Dallas recommends 802.11a]
>> 
>> According to the survey, only 25.5% of the participants have 802.11a, which
>> in my opinion means that 11b/g MUST be reliable for 75% of the participants
>> in the next meeting.
>> 
>> Remember that if we don't have an 802.11a interface in our laptops is
>> because *THEY DONT'T HAVE IT*.
>> 
>> In my own case, having a Mac is not easy to get built-in 802.11a. I can of
>> course buy an external card, but is not reasonable (more power consumption,
>> more things to carry, etc.). There is one more reason, is that in most of
>> the world is not (today) widely used, so buying it almost only for IETF
>> meetings, don't make too much sense.
>> 
>> Even do, if it is just me, I will consider buying it, but I don't really
>> agree to get this asked for 75% of the participants. It is not a choice !
>> 
>> So the clarification is ... what we actually will get at IETF65, and if
>> something must be changed now for getting good 802.11b/g support, please,
>> make sure about that now !
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> De: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Fecha: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:45:07 -0500 (EST)
>>> Para: "ietf@ietf.org" 
>>> Asunto: Meeting Survey Results
>>> 
>>> All;
>>> 
>>> More than 300 responded to the Meeting Survey conducted following IETF 64
>>> in Vancouver.
>>> 
>>> See survey results link below.
>>> 
>>> Among the results are:
>>> 1.  Slightly more than 25% say their laptop is compatible with 802.11a.
>>> [Note the IETF 65 NOC for Dallas recommends 802.11a]
>>> 
>>> 2.  Nearly 60% (with an additional 23% undecided) prefer dinner following
>>> all sessions of the day.
>>> 
>>> 3.  Only 23% prefer a full day schedule for Fridays.
>>> 
>>> 4.  Cookies are not the only craving for breaks -- 74% want more healthy
>>> choices.
>>> 
>>> 5.  Only 1/3 of the respondents expressed satisfaction with the wireless
>>> connectivity.
>>> 
>>> And given the opportunity to say what they liked and didn't - 130 told us
>>> how they felt.
>>> 
>>> Read it for yourselves:
>>> http://www.surveymonkey.com/Report.asp?U=165657447306
>>> 
>>> I and NeuStar Secretariat Services will review these results and make
>>> adjustments as possible for IETF 65 Dallas, March 19 - 24.  And we look
>>> forward to seeing you there.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your participation.
>>> 
>>> Ray Pelletier
>>> IETF Administrative Director.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Ietf mailing list
>>> Ietf@ietf.org
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>> 
>> Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
>> Slides available at:
>> http://www.ipv6-es.com
>> 
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
>> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
>> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
>> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
>> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




**
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that 
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, including attached files, is prohibited.




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://ww

Misha Wolf supports PR-action against Jefsey Morfin

[Misha Wolf]

I strongly support the proposed RFC 3683 PR-action against Jefsey
Morfin.

Misha


To find out more about Reuters visit www.about.reuters.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except 
where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Proposal for keeping "free speech" but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)

[Jeroen Massar]

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> Pekka Savola writes:
> 
>> Why must each and every WG member be required to filter a person's
>> postings?  Much more convenient to do so in one place.
> 
> Because each and every WG member is an individual, with his own ideas
> of what he does or doesn't want to read, and imposing the same rules
> upon everyone prevents members from making their own decisions.  It
> also imposes the decisions of a small minority upon the majority.

Here goes for a try... flame me off list if required.

As it is indeed quite controversial to 'block' people, maybe there can
be a solution that, though it will have overhead for listadmins, it will
help the process that the workinggroup is actually for in the first place.

In the several messages there have been brought up a number of solutions
 to the problem where one or multiple entities are (deliberately)
flooding/overloading the mailinglists of workinggroups and other places
with off-topic messages.

There seem to be a couple of solutions, amongst which:
 - Filtering based on source address at the receiver
 - Filtering based on keywords, which has really bad side-effects.
 - Blocking the sender at the mailinglist level.
 - 3683 PR for complete full blockage of posting rights.

The first is reasonably fine, as you don't see the message of the entity
that one finds not useful, but you might see responses of others thus
this is still intrusive and you still get those messages which you
wanted to filter out. The second option might filter out messages which
you did want to read. Both still will get these messages in the
mailinglist archive, even though there was a consensus that those
messages are unwanted.

The third and fourth option are pretty definitive, no more messages from
that entity, but this might be seen as silencing this persons freedom of
speech.

My proposal to solve this issue but keeping everybody happy:

Two mailinglists: @ietf.org + full.@ietf.org

full.@ is completely open, anybody can post anything they want
though hopefully on topic on the subject of the workinggroup and of
course based on the source address having a subscription *1
full.@ is subscribed to @ thus full.wg gets everything
preserving, at least parts, of the freedom of speech that is wanted and
for the people who want to read a lot of mail everyday.

Initially everybody who signs up to the @ list can post to it.
When the consensus on the list is that a member is not participating
correctly, ignoring warnings etc, like currently this member can be
banned from the list for a temporary amount of time. The member can
still voice his opinions on the @ list. This thus allows him to
voice his concerns to the members that do want to read them. Like the
current 3683 PR the ban can become effectively indefinitely for the main
list, while the poster is still and always allowed on full.@.


The big concern here is of course that one could say that if you get
booted out of the group that your voice won't be heard as they are not
reading the other list. This is of course true, but one can raise their
concerns on the full list, for instance Google won't differentiate
between them and there will always be folks who will listen to it and
forward these concerns when they have valid argumentation. By posting
'good' messages to the full.@ list a member can also demonstrate
that he is really willing to contribute instead of disrupt. One of the
nicest controversies is of course what to determine good and bad,
starwars as an example, how bad are the jedi and how good are the sith,
it completely depends on the side you are on, nothing else. That all
boils down to trust and other factors, any mailinglist admin could abuse
his position to set the sender of an address to silently discard, SMTP
can have a CC: in the header and mailman will not forward the message to
that person and various other nice tricks.

I hope the above might give a better point to discuss all this over
instead of seeing replies like "that is not good" "see above" and other
comments without effective constructive arguments.

Greets,
 Jeroen

*1 = to avoid the large amount of spam flowing to the various lists
which nicely get blocked because of subscription regulation.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

[william(at)elan.net]

I'm against the PR action. From links included with PR action, I do
not see that Jefsey's actions include anything that maybe deemed as 
personal attacks or similar actions clearly prohibited by IETF and

his posts seem to be an advocacy and representing his views and IETF
as organization is based on free participation and representation of 
everyone's views to arrive at consensus. Free speech is at the core

of discussions at IETF and those representing minority positions
should not be prevented from expressing it and most definitely it
should not cause such global IETF-wide ban as PR action represents.

--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Proposal for keeping "free speech" but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On 24. januar 2006 20:46 +0100 Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


My proposal to solve this issue but keeping everybody happy:

Two mailinglists: @ietf.org + full.@ietf.org

full.@ is completely open, anybody can post anything they want
though hopefully on topic on the subject of the workinggroup and of
course based on the source address having a subscription *1
full.@ is subscribed to @ thus full.wg gets everything
preserving, at least parts, of the freedom of speech that is wanted and
for the people who want to read a lot of mail everyday.


In fact this has been implemented at least once that I know of - on the 
DNSO GA mailing list. The "full" version had relatively few subscribers.


You can find the archives of that experiment at 
 - it's probably difficult to 
guess from the archives whether it was successful; better ask someone who 
was there at a time whether they think it worked.


Another variant is the ietf-censored version of the IETF list that I ran 
for a while, but left to others when becoming IETF chair - google claims 
that  is a 
current page for it. Some people liked it; I don't know what filters are 
currently in place for it, but it doesn't seem to be working - archives 
have spam in them, but no IETF list traffic, so I guess it's not working.


   Harald









pgpREHaCB1uXV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Proposal for keeping "free speech" but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)

[Dassa]

|> -Original Message-
|> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
|> On Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand
|> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:10 AM
|> To: Jeroen Massar; ietf@ietf.org
|> Subject: Re: Proposal for keeping "free speech" but 
|> limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan 
|> supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> --On 24. januar 2006 20:46 +0100 Jeroen Massar 
|> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> 
|> > My proposal to solve this issue but keeping everybody happy:
|> >
|> > Two mailinglists: @ietf.org + full.@ietf.org
|> >
|> > full.@ is completely open, anybody can post anything they want 
|> > though hopefully on topic on the subject of the 
|> workinggroup and of 
|> > course based on the source address having a subscription 
|> *1 full.@ 
|> > is subscribed to @ thus full.wg gets everything preserving, at 
|> > least parts, of the freedom of speech that is wanted and for the 
|> > people who want to read a lot of mail everyday.
|> 
|> In fact this has been implemented at least once that I know 
|> of - on the DNSO GA mailing list. The "full" version had 
|> relatively few subscribers.
|> 
|> You can find the archives of that experiment at 
|>  - it's probably 
|> difficult to guess from the archives whether it was 
|> successful; better ask someone who was there at a time 
|> whether they think it worked.


I was a subscriber to both of the DNSO GA mailing lists and I do think the
experiment worked for the most part.  I've seen this a few times and it does
take a load of the main list but there are dangers in the "full" list becoming
a dumping ground for garbage.  Both lists need dedicated people to keep them
functioning correctly. It all boils down to how much traffic and noise
individuals can handle.  It appears there are large numbers of participants
who need to be sheltered a little more than others to retain their
participation, not a bad thing, just a fact.  Anything that can be done to
improve participation is a good thing.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch 

PS...I've known Jefsey online since those early DNSO and IDNO days and whilst
I don't always agree with him I respect his right to opinions.  I haven't
followed his postings to other lists but haven't seen anything here I object
to with regard to posting rights.  I wouldn't like to see a blanket ban placed
on his postings so a "full" list experiment would be a preference for me.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Morfin

[Marshall Eubanks]

Hello;

On Jan 24, 2006, at 1:08 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:


Marshall Eubanks wrote:


P.S. I was not appointed "ombudsman for the IETF list" and would not
claim that honor.

Sorry- wrong word.  Sargeant at Arms (my own sleeplessness).

Eliot


Nope, that that either.

Please note that I claim neither special knowledge nor special  
position in this matter.


Regards
Marshall 


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Softwires Interim Meeting

[James M. Polk]

Mark

I'm not an interested party here, and I don't mean to throw a monkey wrench 
into your plans, but I'm observing that this seems to be within the 30 days 
of moratorium of when we cannot have an interim, where (loosely) 'interims 
shall not be within 30 days of the next IETF meeting'.


The Dallas IETF starts on March 19th, so I would think the cutoff would be 
Feb 19th for the last of an interim.  What am I missing?


At 03:38 PM 1/24/2006 -0500, Mark Townsley wrote:

The meeting will be Feb 23-24 in Hong Kong. Participants should plan to
arrive Feb 22 for an early start on Feb 23. We will finish by 2pm on Feb
24. Accomodation information coming shortly (watch the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list).

Thank you,

- Mark

___
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Softwires Interim Meeting

[Marshall Eubanks]

March 19 - 30 days = Feb 17th.

On Jan 24, 2006, at 4:19 PM, James M. Polk wrote:


Mark

I'm not an interested party here, and I don't mean to throw a  
monkey wrench into your plans, but I'm observing that this seems to  
be within the 30 days of moratorium of when we cannot have an  
interim, where (loosely) 'interims shall not be within 30 days of  
the next IETF meeting'.


The Dallas IETF starts on March 19th, so I would think the cutoff  
would be Feb 19th for the last of an interim.  What am I missing?


At 03:38 PM 1/24/2006 -0500, Mark Townsley wrote:
The meeting will be Feb 23-24 in Hong Kong. Participants should  
plan to
arrive Feb 22 for an early start on Feb 23. We will finish by 2pm  
on Feb

24. Accomodation information coming shortly (watch the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list).

Thank you,

- Mark

___
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Softwires Interim Meeting

[James M. Polk]

At 04:52 PM 1/24/2006 -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

March 19 - 30 days = Feb 17th.


oops



On Jan 24, 2006, at 4:19 PM, James M. Polk wrote:


Mark

I'm not an interested party here, and I don't mean to throw a
monkey wrench into your plans, but I'm observing that this seems to
be within the 30 days of moratorium of when we cannot have an
interim, where (loosely) 'interims shall not be within 30 days of
the next IETF meeting'.

The Dallas IETF starts on March 19th, so I would think the cutoff
would be Feb 19th for the last of an interim.  What am I missing?

At 03:38 PM 1/24/2006 -0500, Mark Townsley wrote:

The meeting will be Feb 23-24 in Hong Kong. Participants should
plan to
arrive Feb 22 for an early start on Feb 23. We will finish by 2pm
on Feb
24. Accomodation information coming shortly (watch the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list).

Thank you,

- Mark

___
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Softwires Interim Meeting

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi James,

This was already discussed in the WG, and I guess the AD has taken measures
to avoid this being a real problem.

Right now it will be a real problem canceling the meeting, as some people
has already got non-refundable and very expensive flights after so many
weeks of lack of adequate planning.

I've insisted in Vancouver, when the plan for this meeting was drafted, to
fix it at that time, unfortunately was repeatedly ignored, with the
consequence of the meeting being first fixed at the end of January in San
Jose with a non-clear consensus from the participants, and now in dates
which are also unfortunate for some of us, but as said is too late now to
start changing it again.

In order to avoid this happening again, I'm working in some more clear
suggestions for rules on how to adequately plan Interim meetings. I will
circulate them ASAP.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: "James M. Polk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:19:27 -0600
> Para: Mark Townsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "ietf@ietf.org" 
> Asunto: Re: Softwires Interim Meeting
> 
> Mark
> 
> I'm not an interested party here, and I don't mean to throw a monkey wrench
> into your plans, but I'm observing that this seems to be within the 30 days
> of moratorium of when we cannot have an interim, where (loosely) 'interims
> shall not be within 30 days of the next IETF meeting'.
> 
> The Dallas IETF starts on March 19th, so I would think the cutoff would be
> Feb 19th for the last of an interim.  What am I missing?
> 
> At 03:38 PM 1/24/2006 -0500, Mark Townsley wrote:
>> The meeting will be Feb 23-24 in Hong Kong. Participants should plan to
>> arrive Feb 22 for an early start on Feb 23. We will finish by 2pm on Feb
>> 24. Accomodation information coming shortly (watch the
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list).
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> - Mark
>> 
>> ___
>> IETF-Announce mailing list
>> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




**
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that 
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, including attached files, is prohibited.




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meeting Survey Results

[Odonoghue, Karen F CIV B35-Branch]

Jordi,

With the RF characteristics of 802.11b/g (including the fact that
there are only three non-overlapping channels (in the US) and they all
exist in the already overcrowded 2.4 GHz freq range) and the density
of users in the meeting rooms at the IETF, you cannot "warrantee" 
a level of performance. I attend both IEEE 802 and IETF meetings and 
both struggle with wireless coverage at those densities for this 
very basic physical reason. The more transmitters you have 
transmitting on the same frequencies in the same space, the more noise 
you will have. The more noise you have the more performance issues
you will experience. Technology and product evolution will improve
the situation, but we have to work with what we have. 

While 802.11a hasn't overtaken 802.11b/g in general, it is much 
better suited for our environment. There are more non-overlapping 
channels, it operates in the less crowded 5 GHz range, and the 
range is shorter. Thus you can deploy more APs in the same space 
without contributing to the overall noise issue.  

We are suggesting that users that are willing and able should
consider investing in 802.11a cards for a happier IETF network
experience.  Anything we can do to reduce the level of noise at
will make the experience better for the remaining users. 

Past and current NOC teams plan to deploy the best network they 
can with the resources available. Donations of equipment and
expertise are always welcome. 

Karen

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 13:44
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Meeting Survey Results
> 
> 
> Hi Jonne,
> 
> I'm not sure if I got it. My MUST was on the other way 
> around: We really
> need to warrantee good coverage for b/g to 75% of the participants.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > De: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Organización: NET/ST/IED
> > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Fecha: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:35:13 +0200
> > Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > CC: "ietf@ietf.org" 
> > Asunto: Re: Meeting Survey Results
> > 
> > Hi Jordi,
> > 
> > the preference for .11a was stated because we want to make sure that
> > everybody who has the possibility for it would use it. It makes the
> > network much more reliable. Of course b and g are provided as well.
> > 
> > It is a recommendation not a MUST, like the mail says.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Jonne.
> > 
> > On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 22:57 -0400, ext JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> >> Hi Ray,
> >> 
> >> I'm not sure if we need some clarification on this:
> >> 
> >>> 1.  Slightly more than 25% say their laptop is compatible 
> with 802.11a.
> >>> [Note the IETF 65 NOC for Dallas recommends 802.11a]
> >> 
> >> According to the survey, only 25.5% of the participants 
> have 802.11a, which
> >> in my opinion means that 11b/g MUST be reliable for 75% of 
> the participants
> >> in the next meeting.
> >> 
> >> Remember that if we don't have an 802.11a interface in our 
> laptops is
> >> because *THEY DONT'T HAVE IT*.
> >> 
> >> In my own case, having a Mac is not easy to get built-in 
> 802.11a. I can of
> >> course buy an external card, but is not reasonable (more 
> power consumption,
> >> more things to carry, etc.). There is one more reason, is 
> that in most of
> >> the world is not (today) widely used, so buying it almost 
> only for IETF
> >> meetings, don't make too much sense.
> >> 
> >> Even do, if it is just me, I will consider buying it, but 
> I don't really
> >> agree to get this asked for 75% of the participants. It is 
> not a choice !
> >> 
> >> So the clarification is ... what we actually will get at 
> IETF65, and if
> >> something must be changed now for getting good 802.11b/g 
> support, please,
> >> make sure about that now !
> >> 
> >> Regards,
> >> Jordi
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> De: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> Fecha: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:45:07 -0500 (EST)
> >>> Para: "ietf@ietf.org" 
> >>> Asunto: Meeting Survey Results
> >>> 
> >>> All;
> >>> 
> >>> More than 300 responded to the Meeting Survey conducted 
> following IETF 64
> >>> in Vancouver.
> >>> 
> >>> See survey results link below.
> >>> 
> >>> Among the results are:
> >>> 1.  Slightly more than 25% say their laptop is compatible 
> with 802.11a.
> >>> [Note the IETF 65 NOC for Dallas recommends 802.11a]
> >>> 
> >>> 2.  Nearly 60% (with an additional 23% undecided) prefer 
> dinner following
> >>> all sessions of the day.
> >>> 
> >>> 3.  Only 23% prefer a full day schedule for Fridays.
> >>> 
> >>> 4.  Cookies are not the only craving for breaks -- 74% 
> want more healthy
> >>> choices.
> >>> 
> >>> 5.  Only 1/3 of the respondents expressed satisfaction 
> with the wireless
> >>> connectivity.
> >>> 
> >>> And given the opportunity to say what they liked and 
> didn't - 130 told us
> >>> how they felt.
> >>> 
> >>> Read it for yourselves:
> >>> http://

Re: Meeting Survey Results

[Marshall Eubanks]

Just consider it a big experiment in 802.11a robustness.

Regards
Marshall

On Jan 24, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Odonoghue, Karen F CIV B35-Branch wrote:


Jordi,

With the RF characteristics of 802.11b/g (including the fact that
there are only three non-overlapping channels (in the US) and they all
exist in the already overcrowded 2.4 GHz freq range) and the density
of users in the meeting rooms at the IETF, you cannot "warrantee"
a level of performance. I attend both IEEE 802 and IETF meetings and
both struggle with wireless coverage at those densities for this
very basic physical reason. The more transmitters you have
transmitting on the same frequencies in the same space, the more noise
you will have. The more noise you have the more performance issues
you will experience. Technology and product evolution will improve
the situation, but we have to work with what we have.

While 802.11a hasn't overtaken 802.11b/g in general, it is much
better suited for our environment. There are more non-overlapping
channels, it operates in the less crowded 5 GHz range, and the
range is shorter. Thus you can deploy more APs in the same space
without contributing to the overall noise issue.

We are suggesting that users that are willing and able should
consider investing in 802.11a cards for a happier IETF network
experience.  Anything we can do to reduce the level of noise at
will make the experience better for the remaining users.

Past and current NOC teams plan to deploy the best network they
can with the resources available. Donations of equipment and
expertise are always welcome.

Karen


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
Behalf Of

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 13:44
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Meeting Survey Results


Hi Jonne,

I'm not sure if I got it. My MUST was on the other way
around: We really
need to warrantee good coverage for b/g to 75% of the participants.

Regards,
Jordi





De: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organización: NET/ST/IED
Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fecha: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:35:13 +0200
Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: "ietf@ietf.org" 
Asunto: Re: Meeting Survey Results

Hi Jordi,

the preference for .11a was stated because we want to make sure that
everybody who has the possibility for it would use it. It makes the
network much more reliable. Of course b and g are provided as well.

It is a recommendation not a MUST, like the mail says.

Cheers,

Jonne.

On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 22:57 -0400, ext JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

Hi Ray,

I'm not sure if we need some clarification on this:


1.  Slightly more than 25% say their laptop is compatible

with 802.11a.

[Note the IETF 65 NOC for Dallas recommends 802.11a]


According to the survey, only 25.5% of the participants

have 802.11a, which

in my opinion means that 11b/g MUST be reliable for 75% of

the participants

in the next meeting.

Remember that if we don't have an 802.11a interface in our

laptops is

because *THEY DONT'T HAVE IT*.

In my own case, having a Mac is not easy to get built-in

802.11a. I can of

course buy an external card, but is not reasonable (more

power consumption,

more things to carry, etc.). There is one more reason, is

that in most of

the world is not (today) widely used, so buying it almost

only for IETF

meetings, don't make too much sense.

Even do, if it is just me, I will consider buying it, but

I don't really

agree to get this asked for 75% of the participants. It is

not a choice !


So the clarification is ... what we actually will get at

IETF65, and if

something must be changed now for getting good 802.11b/g

support, please,

make sure about that now !

Regards,
Jordi





De: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fecha: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:45:07 -0500 (EST)
Para: "ietf@ietf.org" 
Asunto: Meeting Survey Results

All;

More than 300 responded to the Meeting Survey conducted

following IETF 64

in Vancouver.

See survey results link below.

Among the results are:
1.  Slightly more than 25% say their laptop is compatible

with 802.11a.

[Note the IETF 65 NOC for Dallas recommends 802.11a]

2.  Nearly 60% (with an additional 23% undecided) prefer

dinner following

all sessions of the day.

3.  Only 23% prefer a full day schedule for Fridays.

4.  Cookies are not the only craving for breaks -- 74%

want more healthy

choices.

5.  Only 1/3 of the respondents expressed satisfaction

with the wireless

connectivity.

And given the opportunity to say what they liked and

didn't - 130 told us

how they felt.

Read it for yourselves:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/Report.asp?U=165657447306

I and NeuStar Secretariat Services will review these

results and make

adjustments as possible for IETF 65 Dallas, March 19 -

24.  And we look

forward to seeing you there.

Thanks for your participation.

Ray Pelletier
IETF Administrative Director.


___
Ietf mailing li

Re: Softwires Interim Meeting

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On 24. januar 2006 18:08 -0400 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



In order to avoid this happening again, I'm working in some more clear
suggestions for rules on how to adequately plan Interim meetings. I will
circulate them ASAP.


I wonder if that's the right approach.

the original impetus for the "30 day rule" was a situation where we had a 
non-US IETF (I think it was Adelaide), and suddenly were hit by a flurry of 
requests for "interim" meetings a week or two before or afte the IETF 
meeting - all of them intending to be in the US.


The interpretation of some was that this looked like an attempt by US 
participants to avoid the expense of going overseas, leading to a 
perception that they thought it was fair that overseas participants always 
paid the cost of participating in US meetings, but not vice versa.


In this case, the IETF meeting is in the US, and the interim meeting is not 
- so the foot may be in the other mouth, as the saying goes.


If making rules, I'd say "30 days is the norm. It's a rule unless the AD 
says otherwise; the AD's decision has to be published" (so that we can see 
who to blame if the community thinks it's not OK.


But be careful what's a rule and what's advice, and don't mix too many 
topics into one document. it destroys the ability to get finished.


  Harald







pgpZEBt0swhHb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

[Noel Chiappa]

> From: "william(at)elan.net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Free speech is at the core of discussions at IETF and those
> representing minority positions should not be prevented from
> expressing it 

OK, I'll bite. How do you reconcile this principle with defending someone who
has tried to get people penalized for saying what they think? It seems to me
that there's a logical contradiction there: Jefsey gets to say whatever he
wants, but others can't?

I refer you to the most interesting:

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ltru/1033

especially where it says things like "Reuters, my employer, received the
following message today" and "'We will contact tomorrow the Reuters legal
department in Paris we will then copy and ask an acknowledgment from.'" (And
anyone who thinks that message to Reuters was not an attempt to create trouble
for someone with their employer is being deliberately obtuse.)

Noel

PS: The IETF is *not* here to provide free speech. It's here to write
protocols. Speech is subsidiary to that goal.

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Softwires Interim Meeting

[James M. Polk]

Jordi

Please don't misunderstand me, I have no pension for making trouble here, I 
was just observing something that seemed a little out of place is all.  I 
have no interest in forcing any changes to your plans.


At 06:08 PM 1/24/2006 -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

Hi James,

This was already discussed in the WG, and I guess the AD has taken measures
to avoid this being a real problem.

Right now it will be a real problem canceling the meeting, as some people
has already got non-refundable and very expensive flights after so many
weeks of lack of adequate planning.

I've insisted in Vancouver, when the plan for this meeting was drafted, to
fix it at that time, unfortunately was repeatedly ignored, with the
consequence of the meeting being first fixed at the end of January in San
Jose with a non-clear consensus from the participants, and now in dates
which are also unfortunate for some of us, but as said is too late now to
start changing it again.

In order to avoid this happening again, I'm working in some more clear
suggestions for rules on how to adequately plan Interim meetings. I will
circulate them ASAP.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: "James M. Polk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:19:27 -0600
> Para: Mark Townsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "ietf@ietf.org" 
> Asunto: Re: Softwires Interim Meeting
>
> Mark
>
> I'm not an interested party here, and I don't mean to throw a monkey wrench
> into your plans, but I'm observing that this seems to be within the 30 days
> of moratorium of when we cannot have an interim, where (loosely) 'interims
> shall not be within 30 days of the next IETF meeting'.
>
> The Dallas IETF starts on March 19th, so I would think the cutoff would be
> Feb 19th for the last of an interim.  What am I missing?
>
> At 03:38 PM 1/24/2006 -0500, Mark Townsley wrote:
>> The meeting will be Feb 23-24 in Hong Kong. Participants should plan to
>> arrive Feb 22 for an early start on Feb 23. We will finish by 2pm on Feb
>> 24. Accomodation information coming shortly (watch the
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list).
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>> ___
>> IETF-Announce mailing list
>> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




**
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, including attached files, is prohibited.





___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Softwires Interim Meeting

[Mark Townsley]

Marshall Eubanks wrote:


March 19 - 30 days = Feb 17th.


This date was chosen, understanding that it bends the rules a bit, to 
increase the greater goal of global participation by coinciding with the 
APRICOT conference the following week (so at least some of the 
non-asiapac members will be on the correct side of the globe).


- Mark



On Jan 24, 2006, at 4:19 PM, James M. Polk wrote:


Mark

I'm not an interested party here, and I don't mean to throw a  monkey 
wrench into your plans, but I'm observing that this seems to  be 
within the 30 days of moratorium of when we cannot have an  interim, 
where (loosely) 'interims shall not be within 30 days of  the next 
IETF meeting'.


The Dallas IETF starts on March 19th, so I would think the cutoff  
would be Feb 19th for the last of an interim.  What am I missing?


At 03:38 PM 1/24/2006 -0500, Mark Townsley wrote:

The meeting will be Feb 23-24 in Hong Kong. Participants should  
plan to
arrive Feb 22 for an early start on Feb 23. We will finish by 2pm  
on Feb

24. Accomodation information coming shortly (watch the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list).

Thank you,

- Mark

___
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf





___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

[Anthony G. Atkielski]

Noel Chiappa writes:

> OK, I'll bite. How do you reconcile this principle with defending someone who
> has tried to get people penalized for saying what they think? It seems to me
> that there's a logical contradiction there: Jefsey gets to say whatever he
> wants, but others can't?
>
> I refer you to the most interesting:
>
>   http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ltru/1033
>
> especially where it says things like "Reuters, my employer, received the
> following message today" and "'We will contact tomorrow the Reuters legal
> department in Paris we will then copy and ask an acknowledgment from.'"

You're confusing messages sent to this list with messages sent
out-of-band to a different destination.  The question here concerns
only traffic to this list, not other activities carried out by members
of the list in other venues.

> And anyone who thinks that message to Reuters was not an attempt to
> create trouble for someone with their employer is being deliberately
> obtuse.

Poison-pen messages to employers are very risky, and they are usually
defamatory, and if anything bad happens as a result of the messages
thus sent, the sender can find himself in considerable trouble.

At the same time, an employer who acts upon a mere poison-pen e-mail
or letter in an inappropriate way can find himself in trouble, too.

And finally, someone who sends messages under the cover of a corporate
e-mail address, domain, etc., runs the risk of implicitly dragging his
employer's name into purely personal disputes, which is why many
employers require that their employees not use corporate e-mail
addresses or other identifiable resources when expressing their own
opinions online.

> PS: The IETF is *not* here to provide free speech. It's here to write
> protocols. Speech is subsidiary to that goal.

From what I've seen lately, it's here to argue about who should be
censored, and to chat about which hotel should be equipped with what
equipment, and other matters that seem utterly foreign to anything
like "Internet engineering."  It sounds eerily like a typical,
ineffectual bureaucratic agency.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Survey Results

[Bill Sommerfeld]

On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Among the results are:
> 1.  Slightly more than 25% say their laptop is compatible with 802.11a.
> [Note the IETF 65 NOC for Dallas recommends 802.11a]
> 
> 5.  Only 1/3 of the respondents expressed satisfaction with the wireless
> connectivity.

Is there any correlation in the survey results between "satisfied with
wireless" and "has 802.11a"?

- Bill



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

[william(at)elan.net]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Noel Chiappa wrote:


   > From: "william(at)elan.net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

   > Free speech is at the core of discussions at IETF and those
   > representing minority positions should not be prevented from
   > expressing it

OK, I'll bite. How do you reconcile this principle with defending someone who
has tried to get people penalized for saying what they think? It seems to me
that there's a logical contradiction there: Jefsey gets to say whatever he
wants, but others can't?


Jut to explain, my original draft text was larger and I removed some
(most) of its text before posting to ietf list; it may have helped if
I did not do it ... (although I think it was too verbose). The reason
why I left last sentence was actually because I strongly disagree
with idea of baning somebody from entire ietf because of how he's
been advocating his position on one (or two) mail list - that was
the core of that sentence (rather then free speech issue).

In regards to free speech, I understand that certain limitations must
be made in the way we post, so it does not disturb entire process
(i.e. I do have right to free speech, but its bad idea to exercise
that right in the middle of the highway). If I did not remove some
of the other text, it would have been clear that what I was more
concerned with is how these limitations are being put in place and
that precedents offered by PR actions allow what could be described
as "IETF elite" to have even bigger way to control the activities
and to get rid of anyone they do not like and this could lead to
other people not being entirely open for the fear of being banned
(which is what I meant by such actions being against free speech).
I think this is bad idea and PR action should be used very very very 
reluctantly and I do not see it as being the right case here.


--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On 25. januar 2006 00:39 +0100 "Anthony G. Atkielski" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



I refer you to the most interesting:

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ltru/1033

especially where it says things like "Reuters, my employer, received the
following message today" and "'We will contact tomorrow the Reuters legal
department in Paris we will then copy and ask an acknowledgment from.'"


You're confusing messages sent to this list with messages sent
out-of-band to a different destination.  The question here concerns
only traffic to this list, not other activities carried out by members
of the list in other venues.


thanks for informing us that you're discussing that the IETF Last Call 
that started this debate was concerned with behaviour on the ietf-languages 
and ltru lists, not the IETF list. Read the Last Call:




It does not refer to the IETF list at all, except that it refers to "other 
IETF mailing lists".


Does this mean that you have no opinion on the actual content of the Last 
Call?


 Harald





pgp1ZdrELDWxc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

[Gray, Eric]

Noel,

I think you may have bitten into a bear-trap.  :-)

First, the site you cite speculates that  is
the "author" of this note.  That may be the case, but there 
is no evidence - contained at that site - to support that 
speculative assertion.  It certainly is possible, maybe even 
very likely, that the letter originated at that 's 
direct request or complaint.  It may even have been the case 
that the same  had a direct hand in the phrasing the
words used in the "letter" - but all of that is speculative.  
We need more direct evidence that this  actually did
"author" the "letter" in question, before we should act as if
we are convinced.

Second, the "letter" complains not about something that
 said, but something that  was 
doing.  Specifically, it appears to me, that  is 
accused of trying to effectively silence the original .

I believe that responding to a specific action of this 
sort is absolutely consistent with a belief in the right to
be heard.

Which is a good segue into one of your other points: I
absolutely agree that the IETF is not here to provide free
speech.  However, the IETF MUST be an open forum in which
people from different cultural and corporate backgrounds can
be heard (as long as they can make even a weak case for the
relevance of what they are saying) - when it comes to how we
write protocols and how this process and effort is going to
impact on them.

We can't just create a cluster of "good guys" and go 
off into hall-way meetings to make decisions that affect 
many millions of people and many billions of dollars in the
businesses and economies of the whole world.  The "bad guys"
also have a right to be heard - at least to the extent that
they only want to be heard.

I think the problem is that a lot of people want to 
send a message to a specific individual that they have 
"heard" him enough.  And the only hammer lying near-by that
is big enough to send that message is RFC 3683.  In this
case, this is definitely not the right thing to do.  

Use the tool that was intended for this purpose.  If
it doesn't work, then fix it.  Don't just pick up the next
bigger hammer without regard for the message that everyone
else is going to get.

--
Eric

--> -Original Message-
--> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
--> On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 6:18 PM
--> To: ietf@ietf.org
--> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--> Subject: Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"
--> 
--> > From: "william(at)elan.net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--> 
--> > Free speech is at the core of discussions at IETF and those
--> > representing minority positions should not be prevented from
--> > expressing it 
--> 
--> OK, I'll bite. How do you reconcile this principle with 
--> defending someone who
--> has tried to get people penalized for saying what they 
--> think? It seems to me
--> that there's a logical contradiction there: Jefsey gets to 
--> say whatever he
--> wants, but others can't?
--> 
--> I refer you to the most interesting:
--> 
-->   http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ltru/1033
--> 
--> especially where it says things like "Reuters, my employer, 
--> received the
--> following message today" and "'We will contact tomorrow the 
--> Reuters legal
--> department in Paris we will then copy and ask an 
--> acknowledgment from.'" (And
--> anyone who thinks that message to Reuters was not an 
--> attempt to create trouble
--> for someone with their employer is being deliberately obtuse.)
--> 
--> Noel
--> 
--> PS: The IETF is *not* here to provide free speech. It's 
--> here to write
--> protocols. Speech is subsidiary to that goal.
--> 
--> ___
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf@ietf.org
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Survey Results

[rpelletier]

-Original Message-
From: "Bill Sommerfeld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 6:44 pm
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Meeting Survey Results

On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Among the results are:
> 1.  Slightly more than 25% say their laptop is compatible with 802.11a.
> [Note the IETF 65 NOC for Dallas recommends 802.11a]
>
> 5.  Only 1/3 of the respondents expressed satisfaction with the wireless
> connectivity.

Is there any correlation in the survey results between "satisfied with
wireless" and "has 802.11a"?

Nearly 55% of those who said they had 802.11a said wireless was adequate
or better.
Ray

- Bill





___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Free speech? Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

[grenville armitage]

william(at)elan.net wrote:
[..]

Free speech is at the core
of discussions at IETF [...]


Must admit I always thought it was constructive speech (in the sense
of attempting to engineer solutions, new architectures, protocols or
clarity of understanding) that was at the core of discussions at IETF.

How things change.

cheers,
gja

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Richard Shockey supports IETF "renditioning" the Jefsey Morfin problem to the CIA

[Richard Shockey]

Now can we get back to our regularly scheduled rants on the pro's an
con's of ASCII in RFC's?


--



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

[Anthony G. Atkielski]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes:

> thanks for informing us that you're discussing that the IETF Last Call
> that started this debate was concerned with behaviour on the ietf-languages
> and ltru lists, not the IETF list. Read the Last Call:
>
> 
>
> It does not refer to the IETF list at all, except that it refers to "other
> IETF mailing lists".
>
> Does this mean that you have no opinion on the actual content of the Last
> Call?

Out of band means not sent to e-mail lists at all, so my comments
apply to all mailing lists, and not just this particular list.

My opinions are general and don't apply to any specific censorship
attempt.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Free speech? Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

[Anthony G. Atkielski]

grenville armitage writes:

> Must admit I always thought it was constructive speech (in the sense
> of attempting to engineer solutions, new architectures, protocols or
> clarity of understanding) that was at the core of discussions at IETF.

Then I suppose that threads such as "Meeting Survey Results," which
have nothing to do with these goals, are out of order?

Decisions as to what counts as "constructive" are subjective, unfortunately.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Questions for those in favor of PR-Actions in general

[nick . staff]

There are a couple of arguments consistently used as by the pro-ban/anti-filter camp  that kind of confuse me and maybe someone could explain:
Claim:  The claim that all the good people will leave if the noise level is too great and if stubborn people with limited technical ability aren't banned.
Question:  Since the first PR-Action was only a few months ago are you saying that all the good people have been gone for a long time and everyone still here are the people the good engineers left because of?
Claim:  Filtering by sender doesn't help because you see all the repsonses to their mail.
Question a:  If the responses are part of the problem then aren't the people who sent them part of the problem as well?  They are equally (probably more disruptive), so why not ban them?  Are they incapable of controlling their responses?  Are they lemmings? 
Question b:  If so many people whose email you don't want to filter are replying to the person that you do, then maybe you  are in the minority in thinking their comments aren't worthy of discussion?
Question c:  If so many people whose email you don't want to filter are replying the person that you do then maybe you're the only one who's filtering them?
Question:  If there was rough consensus on banning someone then if that same rough consensus individually filtered all mail to or from that individual wouldn't the same effect be acheived? Roughly?
Question:  Has no one made a dynamic filter that logs the subject of all email sent from an address and then filters all future email with the same subject, regardless of sender or recipient?
Question  How many responses will not be able to refrain from making fun of the Clain/Question format I used?
nick
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Survey Results

[David Kessens]

Jordi,

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:44:15PM -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure if I got it. My MUST was on the other way around: We really
> need to warrantee good coverage for b/g to 75% of the participants.

We hope to offer good connectivity to the other 25% of the participants as well.

You can help us by bringing a configured 802.11a card.

David Kessens
---

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

FOR the PR re: JFC

[Martin Hannigan]

See the subject. -M<
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Free speech? Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

[Brian E Carpenter]

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

grenville armitage writes:



Must admit I always thought it was constructive speech (in the sense
of attempting to engineer solutions, new architectures, protocols or
clarity of understanding) that was at the core of discussions at IETF.



Then I suppose that threads such as "Meeting Survey Results," which
have nothing to do with these goals, are out of order?


On *this* list, my attitude is to be more tolerant about scope; the test
is RFC 3005, and that is deliberately liberal.

On WG lists, and specialist lists of other kinds, the test is relevance
to the charter or purpose, and that is much narrower.

Of course, it goes without saying that insults and unprofessional
language of any kind are to be avoided on all lists; and sarcasm and
irony can easily be misunderstood.


Decisions as to what counts as "constructive" are subjective, unfortunately.


They are, but one thing that is clearly not constructive is endless
debate over issues where the responsible chair or moderator has already
declared a rough consensus. As others have pointed out, rough consensus
is different from unanimity. Once we have established rough consensus
in the IETF, we accept it and move on. That means some people accepting
things they don't agree with.

Brian


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf