Re: Fwd: Pingsta Invitation
Stephen Casner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote... I don't know anything about Pingsta or its credibility. However, I am currently reading a boot... Yes, this has to be a new and innovative communication method :-) Adrian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
DOS boot?
Adrian Farrel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Stephen Casner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote... ... I am currently reading a boot... Yes, this has to be a new and innovative communication method :-) Not really; the concept of printing certain instructions on the heel has been around for a long time. -- Dave Aronson Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein Work: http://www.davearonson.com/ Play: http://www.davearonson.net/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Pingsta Invitation
On 26-Mar-2007, at 05:55, Adrian Farrel wrote: Stephen Casner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote... I don't know anything about Pingsta or its credibility. However, I am currently reading a boot... Yes, this has to be a new and innovative communication method :-) It's standard practice here in Canada. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Pingsta Invitation
If you read the terms there is a good reason why EVERYONE associated with the IETF should NOT join Pingsta. I quote: -- Proprietary Rights You agree that all content and materials delivered via the Service or otherwise made available by Pingsta at the Site are protected by copyrights, trademarks, service marks, patents, trade secrets or other proprietary rights and laws. Except as expressly authorized by Pingsta in a separate signed writing, you agree not to sell, license, rent, modify, distribute, copy, reproduce, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, publish, adapt, edit or create derivative works from such materials or content. Systematic retrieval of data or other content from this Site to create or compile, directly or indirectly, a collection, database or directory without separate written permission from Pingsta is prohibited. Reproducing, copying or distributing any content, materials or design elements on the Site for any other purpose is strictly prohibited without the express prior written permission of Pingsta. Use of the content or materials for any purpose not expressly permitted in these Terms of Use is prohibited. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved. --- Not to mention that they reserve the right to change the terms at any time without notice. H. Starting to sound like Gangsta. ...George George Swallow Cisco Systems (978) 936-1398 1414 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough, MA 01719 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Problems with xml.resource.org
Hi, [non xml2rfc users look away] I'm seeing xml.resource.org timing out today, and it seems consistent on one of the two returned IPv4 addresses I see for it (192.20.225.40). $ telnet xml.resource.org 80 Trying 168.143.123.173... Connected to xml.resource.org. Escape character is '^]'. Connection closed by foreign host. But then $ telnet xml.resource.org 80 Trying 192.20.225.40... This seems enough to hamper my attempts to update a draft with xml2rfc. I don't see a contact address for this resource on the web site apart from a mail list. Anyone able to check it? :) -- Tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Fwd: Pingsta Invitation
Observation: Many IETF-ers have entries in Linked-In Observation: So far I have spent many hours establishing my personal linked in network Observation: Apart from a certain degree of persistence I am not sure what value I am getting from this exercise. All of my contacts are people I already have as contacts. Suggestion: I think that it is very useful for networking engineers to take a look at the potential for such technologies and look for ways in which similar features can be added to the open, standards based, unencumbered, non-proprietary Internet. Regret: We did not get out ahead of the curve with Instant Messaging. We should have done Jabber in 1995. Speculation: Social networking is looking for its killer application. Communication filtering appears to me to be the most likely such application. But we should be looking beyond email and the problem of email-spam to the filtering requirements of a multi-modal communications infrastructure. I think that [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be the only communications identifier I need. From a personal perspective I prefer to eliminate the vendor lock in and have an RFC822 address where I own the DNS portion of the identifier. Perhaps we should be looking at some form of rich multimodal second generation of SIP in which social networking is a built in technology, introductions are a first class message type, etc. etc. Identity 2.0 then becomes an instance. The key being that any such technology must be based on DNS names and RFC 822 addreses. -Original Message- From: John Levine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 11:40 AM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Pingsta Invitation It does appear to be a legitimate attempt at a niche social networking site targeting networking engineers, but I'm not sure we need one. If we can't do social networking via existing communication channels like, you know, e-mail, we're pretty lousy networking engineers. Regards, John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies, Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor More Wiener schnitzel, please, said Tom, revealingly. ___ 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: Fwd: Pingsta Invitation
--On Monday, 26 March, 2007 11:02 -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Observation: Many IETF-ers have entries in Linked-In ... Regret: We did not get out ahead of the curve with Instant Messaging. We should have done Jabber in 1995. Depends on what you count and a whole series of questions about timing and expectations. SEND/ SAML/ SOML provided a network-based instant message facility by 1982. The TALK protocol dates from very early version of U**x. And, until people started considering it to be a security and privacy risk, the finger protocol provided a fairly decent indication of presence. Observation: Serious work on issues in social networks and influence dates back to work done in the mid-1950s (although the key papers were largely circulated semi-privately for many years thereafter). In much the same way that it can be argued that the web has yet to catch up with some of the ideas about hypertext expressed in the Bush paper of the 1940s, contemporary social network tools haven't caught up with that work. In particular, none of them permit me to maintain, with a single nominal identity, different circles of acquaintances for different purposes and with different trust and influence relationships between and within each, an issue that was clearly understood in the literature by the time I started reading it in the first half of the 60s. Speculation: Social networking is looking for its killer application. Communication filtering appears to me to be the most likely such application. But we should be looking beyond email and the problem of email-spam to the filtering requirements of a multi-modal communications infrastructure. While I suspect that, if we got down to the details we would find we are talking about different things, I agree with the above (and have been arguing for more recipient control of communications for a very long time. That possible difference in vocabulary is one of the difficulties with the social networking field. I think that [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be the only communications identifier I need. From a personal perspective I prefer to eliminate the vendor lock in and have an RFC822 address where I own the DNS portion of the identifier. ... The key being that any such technology must be based on DNS names and RFC 822 addreses. Of course, as soon as you tied your identity to email addresses and domain names, you get entangled with the identifier internationalization issues that were discussed in last Thursday's plenary. Perhaps using an internationalized identifier, by itself, increases the odds that the only people who are likely to be able to try to contact you are already part of your social (or at least cultural and linguistic) network, but I doubt that is what you had in mind. regards, john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Fwd: Pingsta Invitation
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --On Monday, 26 March, 2007 11:02 -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Observation: Many IETF-ers have entries in Linked-In ... Regret: We did not get out ahead of the curve with Instant Messaging. We should have done Jabber in 1995. Depends on what you count and a whole series of questions about timing and expectations. SEND/ SAML/ SOML provided a network-based instant message facility by 1982. The TALK protocol dates from very early version of U**x. By 'getting ahead of' I meant in deployment. Clearly IRC was on the table and successful. But not really ready for prime time (and still is not). And, until people started considering it to be a security and privacy risk, the finger protocol provided a fairly decent indication of presence. The response to the security issues was to drop the protocol entirely, not fix it. Of course, as soon as you tied your identity to email addresses and domain names, you get entangled with the identifier internationalization issues that were discussed in last Thursday's plenary. Perhaps using an internationalized identifier, by itself, increases the odds that the only people who are likely to be able to try to contact you are already part of your social (or at least cultural and linguistic) network, but I doubt that is what you had in mind. I don't quite see I18N issues the same way. I think that we can have muiltiple addresses. For practical purposes we accept a restriction in the telephone world to the numbers 0-9 with a couple of control characters (+, *, #). I suspect we end up with a practical requirement for a LATIN-1 plus alphanum address as a commonly supported minimum standard indefinitely. If I can also be reached via a UNICODE address so much the better. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Fwd: Pingsta Invitation
On Mon Mar 26 20:15:02 2007, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I don't quite see I18N issues the same way. I think that we can
have muiltiple addresses.
I think that's reasonable, too. Aside from anything else, for many
people, their email address is distinct from their JID in XMPP,
and/or SIP address, etc. So such a system would need to specify full
IRIs, or full URIs, as well as a short description of purpose
(typically Home, Work, etc). That probably extends across other,
non-contact, {I|U}RIs, too, like homepages, so you'd end up with
something like my signature.
[I admit that relatively few people are likely to have an ACAP URI
available, of course...]
For practical purposes we accept a restriction in the telephone
world to the numbers 0-9 with a couple of control characters (+, *,
#). I suspect we end up with a practical requirement for a LATIN-1
plus alphanum address as a commonly supported minimum standard
indefinitely.
Not really needed. We can just list multiple addresses, some of which
in the short term will be legacy addresses. EAI should hopefully
result in us having reasonable unicode email addresses.
If I can also be reached via a UNICODE address so much the better.
You can; the gmail address you quoted is, for the purposes of XMPP,
unicode. For the purposes of email, however, it's ASCII.
In XMPP terms, what we're saying is that I might be able to obtain
limited access to my contacts' rosters, and obtain from my contacts,
or rather their servers, the ability to further peek into my
contacts' contacts.
An obvious option here is that my client sends a stanza to my
contacts, looking for a Phillip Hallam-Baker, and my contacts
forward this, with some form of signature, onto their contacts, and
so on, until a policy on the number of hops (signatures) is exceeded.
I'm personally curious to follow this on further - I'm guessing that
both the XMPP and SIP communities might be interested, but given a
generalized structure, one might consider other channels of
communication.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Fwd: Pingsta Invitation
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, John C Klensin wrote: In particular, none of [the social network tools] permit me to maintain, with a single nominal identity, different circles of acquaintances for different purposes and with different trust and influence relationships between and within each, an issue that was clearly understood in the literature by the time I started reading it in the first half of the 60s. LiveJournal allows you to subset your friends to provide relatively fine-grained access control to your posts, but it doesn't let you encode the more complicated relationship topologies that you're hinting at. In practice most people can't be bothered with complicated privacy arrangements and stick with friends-only or public in almost all cases. Facebook has an intermediate level of locality-based networks which let you reveal more to people physically near you (at the same university) than to the unwashed masses, but still keep things back for your friends. http://nymag.com/news/features/27341/ is an interesting article about young people's attitude to privacy. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dotat.at/ NORTH UTSIRE: EAST OR SOUTHEAST 3 OR 4, OCCASIONALLY 5 IN SOUTH LATER. SLIGHT OR MODERATE. FAIR. MODERATE OR GOOD. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: identifying yourself at the mic
On Monday, March 19, 2007 11:56:07 AM -0400 Steve Silverman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be simpler, cheaper, and more reliable to have one guy with a whistle in each meeting who could blow the whistle and ask for the speaker's name when appropriate. That guy is called the chair. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: identifying yourself at the mic
Jeffrey Hutzelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday, March 19, 2007 11:56:07 AM -0400 Steve Silverman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be simpler, cheaper, and more reliable to have one guy with a whistle in each meeting who could blow the whistle and ask for the speaker's name when appropriate. That guy is called the chair. Bad idea: the chair has too many other responsibilities. OTOH, we might consider issuing whistles to every jabber scribe: if they can't figure out who's talking, blow the whistle... (I speak as one who declines to volunteer as jabber scribe because I'm so weak at recognizing IETF folks by voice. If we had a situation where I could that easily request that a name be stated clearly, I'd be willing to volunteer...) In practice, alas, many of those who _do_ state their name mumble it so thoroughly that I'm not sure even repeated passes at the audio record could decipher it. My prejudice is that I don't want to spend a lot of time listening to folks I can't figure out how to contact by email. YMMV. I don't know what the mythical IETF consensus might be about this... -- John Leslie [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Fwd: Pingsta Invitation
--On Monday, 26 March, 2007 23:21 +0100 Tony Finch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, John C Klensin wrote:
In particular, none of [the social network tools] permit me
to maintain, with a single nominal identity, different
circles of acquaintances for different purposes and with
different trust and influence relationships between and
within each, an issue that was clearly understood in the
literature by the time I started reading it in the first half
of the 60s.
LiveJournal allows you to subset your friends to provide
relatively fine-grained access control to your posts, but it
doesn't let you encode the more complicated relationship
topologies that you're hinting at. In practice most people
can't be bothered with complicated privacy arrangements and
stick with friends-only or public in almost all cases.
I would have phrased that, at least in part, as the human
factors/ human interface considerations associated with managing
a large number of relationship categories in an explicit way are
very hard. The difference is that we know, from years and
years of research on contact networks, that people really do
perceive these differences. A simple experiment in which a
questionnaire is administrated with collection of more or less
personal questions (the ones used by the popular social network
or dating sites would do reasonably well) are asked against
categories of would tell... { parents, spouse, boyfriend,
girlfriend, best friend, lover, office mate, fellow employee,
boss, subordinate, person met in park, person met in
recreational activities, work-related acquaintance,
religion-related acquaintance, person met on net, ... } will
turn their existence up in a hurry, even though it might not be
helpful in actually building category definitions and rules.
Facebook has an intermediate level of locality-based
networks which let you reveal more to people physically near
you (at the same university) than to the unwashed masses, but
still keep things back for your friends.
http://nymag.com/news/features/27341/ is an interesting
article about young people's attitude to privacy.
Nice piece. Thanks. FWIW, in the most recent round when I was
trying to do this sort of stuff seriously, the key issue wasn't
privacy in the usual sense but interruption and
attention-getting. So the key questions didn't pivot around
who would you tell... but, e.g., around who are you willing
to have interrupt you at 3AM and who would you prefer to send to
voicemail. And the problem arises if neither answer yields a
null set and your caller definition is such that calling
number is not an adequate filter. If, e.g., the answer to the
3AM question is no one, then there is an easy solution. But
the mixture usually requires that the phone ring and you or your
agent decide whether to pick up.
best,
john
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
