RE: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09
Randall Gellens [mailto:ra...@qualcomm.com] writes: At 10:06 AM +0700 8/30/10, Glen Zorn wrote: Are there any smoke-free restaurants near the site, or even anywhere in Beijing? Don't worry: the Disneyfication of the planet continues apace the Chinese, being good capitalists, have also discovered the profit advantages in controlling human behavior as opposed to actual air quality. I'm sure that you will be able to find many places to soak up your preferred mixture of toxic pollutants without any offensive additions. Of course different people see things differently, but I find it hard to see how you can compare not being forced against one's will to smoke to Disney's bland entertainment. A little less hyperbole would go a long way toward making this conversation productive: nobody is forcing you against your will to do anything, let alone smoke. Everybody makes choices every day, always choosing those things they perceive as preferable (if possible). Maybe Qualcomm is actually forcing you against your will to go and breathe the abysmal air in Beijing for a week but I doubt it: they would probably be happy to save the expense you could always resign. Even if there were no non-smoking restaurants anywhere in China you would have a number of options for feeding yourself for the week. If, in that situation, you were to enter a restaurant I doubt strongly that it would be because you were in chains with a gun to your head; rather, it would be because you found it preferable to the alternatives. Personally, I have no interest in controlling anyone's behavior, *except* that I prefer that someone else's choice not drag me into it. A one-man spaceship sounds like the only answer, then, since other people's choices 'drag you into it' virtually constantly. If you want to drink, shoot heroin, skydive, whatever, I don't care at all unless you try to force me to do the same. When someone smokes in public, every else is forced to smoke as well. Nonsense: there is always, at least, the option to move away. If you want to inject nicotine during an IETF session or at dinner, I could not care less. Just don't force me to as well. I can only assume that you never actually been forced to do anything; I cannot otherwise explain your cavalier use of the word. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins. Again, refraining from hyperbole would be helpful. Only in the most fevered imagination could a person smoking 25 feet away be equated with a personal, physical attack. I really cannot figure out what what you are saying about the Chinese. I am not aware of them controlling smoking in public, so I assume you're talking about something else, but what? Can you please clarify? Sorry for the lack of clarity: I really thought that my meaning was obvious. Anyway, especially since they cleaned up the town in the run-up to the Olympics there are (in my experience) lots of non-smoking restaurants in Beijing. For example, all of the restaurants in the Shangri-La have non-smoking sections. Here is a link to a non-smoking ( cheap) 4* hotel closer than the Nikko: http://www.agoda.com/asia/china/beijing/jiu_zhou_commercial_hotel.html. ... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
On 28 aug 2010, at 3:04, James M. Polk wrote: I'm going to pile on what Michael and Mary have already said, by saying the comparable list of cities (Minneapolis, Orlando, Vancouver, Barcelona, Prague) isn't even remotely close to including Maastricht. Each of the above cities are accessible internationally via air (as in: on intercontinental flights), and from many cities. Maastricht has a very small airport that I'm not sure you can get to it outside of NL and Germany (I'm sure I'm wrong, but I'm not wrong by much). You certainly can't get to Maastricht from North America or Asian directly. I've been critical about this beforehand, but let me defend Maastricht a little here. You guys are applying American thinking here. Don't think of Maastricht as a town with an unusably small airport, but rather think of it as having a nice big airport (that would be schiphol, often called amsterdam airport) that happens to be unusually far away from the city. If you fly into New York ground transportation is going to take a good while, too. From schiphol to Maastricht is worse, but only by a factor two or so. Actually much of the confusion regarding travel was because there was more choice than usual: people were flying into three airports (AMS, FRA, BRU). From Frankfurt and Brussels the train travel was international, and as some people have experienced, the combination of international flying and international train travel is less than ideal. But apparently people preferred this to flying through schiphol. That's their choice. I'm pretty sure that as someone who doesn't drive going to the Anaheim meeting would have been more problematic for me than Maastricht. Although I'm from the Netherlands I had never really visited Maastricht before, and I must say it's a very nice city. I'm looking forward to going back for a repeat visit. The main thing I ended up disliking about this meeting venue was the location of the conference center in the middle of nowhere. Having to travel for at least 15 minutes just to buy a soda or a sandwich (outside lunch hours) was REALLY annoying. All in all Maastricht is getting a passing grade from me, but I certainly hope that we can do a bit better in the future. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 04:02:00PM -0700, Randall Gellens wrote: I think Mary is right. (I also don't like the attitude in some replies that if anyone had a poor experience with Maastricht it is their own fault for being a dolt.) FWIW, I don't like the attitude in some of the messages that if one doesn't agree Maastricht was a poor venue, one is an insensitive clod. It seems to me that some people found the venue less good, and some found it acceptable. (I found it acceptable, for instance. But I like trains. Even crowded short hop ones on a Friday afternoon when I am very tired.) Moreover, several of the dissatisfied seem to feel that anything less than total agreement requires yet another frontal assault on that disagreement. The present thread, if memory serves, got started by someone who decided that, since his ranting on another list didn't achieve the desired gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, he'd try again on the IETF list. I believe the IAOC has heard the complaints. We can stop now. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Yeah - we should stop, but you're just perpetrating the mentality that has caused alot of the debate. Unfortunately, folks have mis-interpreted the concerns a minority of us experienced at the IETF (since we are a minority in terms of IETF participation) as a dislike of Maastricht or lack of appreciation for the graciousness of the host. It has nothing to do with either. I personally found Maastricht to be a charming city and the social was one of the best I've attended. But, those two things IMHO have nothing to do with having an effective business meeting that involves a diverse group of people. The concerns raised have to do with the fact that the meeting venue did not satisfy the most basic requirements for a meeting that is attended by a diverse group of people (who unfortunately are in the minority) - access to food for people that are on restricted diets for medical reasons, personal safety and easy/convenient access to the meeting venue (I can't fathom how someone that might be in a wheelchair could have managed attending this meeting). The fact that we had lots of train hops wasn't that critical (although inconvenient), but I do have issue that the meeting was in city that is not setup to handle international travelers that might arrive at odd hours in the night. I totally understand why the majority don't get why this is a concern for some of us, but to dismiss it because it wasn't an issue you personally have to deal with is the reason this thread has gone on and on. Clearly, the concerns (of the minority) are not considered important to others, which is a sad reflection on an IETF that professes to be an open organization promoting participation from a diverse group of people. Best Regards, Mary. On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 04:02:00PM -0700, Randall Gellens wrote: I think Mary is right. (I also don't like the attitude in some replies that if anyone had a poor experience with Maastricht it is their own fault for being a dolt.) FWIW, I don't like the attitude in some of the messages that if one doesn't agree Maastricht was a poor venue, one is an insensitive clod. It seems to me that some people found the venue less good, and some found it acceptable. (I found it acceptable, for instance. But I like trains. Even crowded short hop ones on a Friday afternoon when I am very tired.) Moreover, several of the dissatisfied seem to feel that anything less than total agreement requires yet another frontal assault on that disagreement. The present thread, if memory serves, got started by someone who decided that, since his ranting on another list didn't achieve the desired gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, he'd try again on the IETF list. I believe the IAOC has heard the complaints. We can stop now. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Andrew Sullivan wrote: Moreover, several of the dissatisfied seem to feel that anything less than total agreement requires yet another frontal assault on that disagreement. The present thread, if memory serves, got started by someone who decided that, since his ranting on another list didn't achieve the desired gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, he'd try again on the IETF list. While the original post in the train thread may or may not have been unpleasantly whiny, I think some excellent points have been raised and the discussion hasn't deteriorated to such an extent that it needs a moderator. Some really nice places are terrible meeting locations and some places that aren't that well-liked as tourist destinations are excellent meeting locations. Trying to understand the differentiators strikes me as a completely worthwhile exercise. But in the meantime the discussion has thrown some light on the requirements definition process, eh? Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Attendance by continent
I also certainly didn't see consensus for 1 1 1. I got the sense there was a good bit of support for 2 1 1 and some for 3 2 1. BTW, the survey that just went out lacks 2 1 1 as choice, a seemingly glaring error given that many on this thread seemed to support it and it most closely matched the meeting attendance. David On Aug 27, 2010 2:56 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote: On Aug 27, 2010, at 12:18 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 8/26/2010 2:08 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:... I didn't get that this was the consensus, and for me at least, although I'm technically in Asia, getting to Europe or North America is much easier than getting to any of the East Asian countries. I think 3:2:1 is still the way to go, although 2:1:1 is also acceptable. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
Folks, We really need to get these surveys produced by someone with training in survey design. The intent of the survey is quite reasonable, but that the construction of it is not. Survey's are quite sensitive to wording and context. This suffers from serious problems with both. From the survey: 2. Meeting Preferences 1. It is important to me to have the meeting venue be easy to get to: It is important to me to have the meeting venue be easy to get to: Very unimportant Slides What does slides mean? I'm guessing it's an extraneous entry, since it throws off the apparent model of a balanced 5-choice set of responses. 2. Do you prefer a meeting in a gateway city, I believe the underlying problem with this question, as demonstrated by the postings about it so far, is the lack of consistent criteria for defining gateway and secondary. I'll offer the view that a gateway city is a principle hub of international air travel, while a secondary city should have at least some international air access. I think that's a useful distinction, but it means that more than one of the examples of secondary, in the survey, really would be classed as tertiary or worse, and there's a reasonable chance that Vancouver would count as primary. At the least, please clarify the criteria for secondary. I should note that it's probably still possible to get useful data from that survey question, simply based on respondents' subjective reactions to the terms gateway and secondary. Over the years, including recently, there's been enough chatter about the basic distinction to make the specific lists of cities secondary. Just knowing folks' preferences between gateway and 'other' might be helpful. That said, primary hub might be a better choice than gateway; I would not be surprised to find some inconsistency in the meaning different people impart to the word. (There's also some question about sampling for this survey. The main ietf list is widely subscribed to, of course, but not as widely as this survey ought to target. I suggest sending the notice also out to ietf-announce, at the least. Perhaps some other lists, such as for nanog, apnic, and ripe...) 3. Do you prefer going back to venues or trying new venues? As phrased, this question probably biases responses toward 'new', since they sound more interesting, and possibly biases it strongly. Presenting a statement of implications about the tradeoffs -- e.g., risks of new, reliability of returns -- would have set the stage for the response much better. 5. Would you be willing to pay a higher registration fee to have the meeting in a gateway city? This is a fundamentally biased (distorted) question. It is predicated on a factual assertion that is unsubstantiated and very probably false. Gateway cities have many more travel choices and many more lodging choices. This very probably means that total travel costs can be /lower/ than for secondary cities. At the least, this means that the relationship between cost and city 'class' is an open question. Further, the registration fee is only one of a set of costs. What is important is the total cost, not just the narrow, localized registration fee. The set of responses provided also is rather oddly constrained. 8. Would you attend if we held the IETF in Africa? 9. Would you attend if we held the IETF in South or Central America? This is yet another example of a question lacking foundation. What is the basis for having a meeting in a region that produces few IETF active participants? Perhaps the reason is compelling. But a question like this, lacking any premise, can only get a random sampling of spontaneous reactions. And given the way humans provide such reactions, the odds are high that repeating the survey in a month would produce different answers to this question. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 8/28/2010 12:54 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: I have not seen an IETF meeting where people have not complained about the layout of the venue,... A primary requirement for participating in a open environment like the IETF is the ability to apply damping filters, rather than getting distracted by what is often merely noise. The single biggest example of being distracted is tending to class everything as noise and then complaining about the noise. The complaint, itself, serves as another distraction. It gets in the way of serious discussion about legitimate issues. Yes we always have complaints about venues. That does not make all of them silly or wrong. We merely have to look for real patterns of complaints. Some venues have had significant problems. Not merely irritants or points of small inconvenience, but serious deficiencies. Typically, careful venue selection could avoid most or all of these. Maastricht is a delightful town... for tourism. But for the IETF meeting, Maastricht displayed a strikingly large number of serious problems and there seems to be some consensus about this. What is impressive to me is that a venue having displayed so many serious limitations and problems would garner any vigorous defense. Perhaps the largest problem with venue discussions is the failure to identify salient, objective criteria and discuss meaningful implications of the criteria. That basic failure reduces these exchanges to mere expressions of personal preference about a venue. In other words, it makes it a popularity contest. Mike St. Johns' posting: https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6rid=49gid=0k1=933k2=53120tid=1283016769 is quite excellent, for its attempt to describe what he wants from a venue, in terms of participating in a meeting. I suggest we should try to develop some language like his that garners meaningful consensus in terms of convenience, /total/ cost, functionality, reliability, and other core criteria. Convenience covers travel, lodging, food, and other resources local to the venue. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 8/27/2010 2:19 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: However, I also believe that the outreach component is an important one to the viability/goodwill of/towards the organization. Olaf, I don't understand this assertion. It's the sort of statement that is easy to make and sounds good, but it's practical meaning is not at all clear. Or worse, it is counter-productive in its effect. At a minimum, this is exactly the sort of goal-creep that dilutes the focus on getting primary work done. List a small set of goals for a meeting venue, that are indisputably within the IETF's goals, and there is already a challenge in satisfying them. Add more goals, like these, and it merely makes things more difficult? Outreach for what? What is its effects on the IETF's work? What is the basis for claiming those effects? Goodwill? Either that means that the IETF's goals are not restricted to the development of useful technical specification or it means that the process of developing those specifications is significantly politicized. Please clarify. Perhaps the assertion of these added goals is based on deep and pragmatic analysis. However when others have made similar assertions over the last 15 years, the justification has not withstood serious review, IMO. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Is this true?
Well I really would hope that if there were such an award that the people awarding it would bother to review the actual presentation rather than one journalists account of it. In this case the speaker gives a heads up talk on IPv6 to DEFCON and instead of thanking him you start accusing him of being ill informed without bothering to read his presentation. So who is really the uninformed party here? I did bother to read the slides and they are on a par with more than a few IETF technical plenary talks I have sat through. I would also hope that the security of IPv6 is given rather more serious review than 'someone is looking at it'. I find that less than inspiring to be honest. The consensus IETF view of security is not necessarily my view of security. In particular, I do not care very much about the theoretical equivalence of the protocols. Proof by analogy is a very dangerous form of security argument. It has led to many security catastrophes. So I would not accept the argument that IPv4=IPv6. A real security specialist knows that even if IPv6 changes nothing in principle, its use will exercise new code paths that have seen far less use than their IPv4 equivalents. That in turn creates new opportunities for the cracker. The security of a system is the security of the system as implemented, and not according to the theory. The issue of exposing MAC addresses is a very important security concern. It was not a security issue in OSI or Decnet Phase V because they were dead as a parrot before the security issues could become significant. It is something I would hope that a speaker would raise in a security talk. He does and he tells people to make sure they have the privacy shield on so they are not exposing their MAC address - good advice. The issue about firewalls is that a lot of appliances cannot cope with IPv6 so they just bypass all IPv6 packets. This creates a real security hole in many systems that can be exploited as a means of firewall bypass. I would imagine that the practical part of the talk involved attacking actual firewalls that were not quite as IPv6 ready as the manufacturers claimed. Back in the day more than a few firewalls have shipped that fail open circuit when overloaded. So all that was necessary to bypass the firewall was a flooding attack. And the same is now true of many 'application firewall' products. On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote: On Thu Aug 26 22:37:42 2010, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: It's true that someone said all that. It's probably true that the firewall your boss bought in 2006 doesn't support IPv6. It's probably even true that some people consider this a problem of IPv6 rather than of the firewall. The rest is all bullshit. Conferences with presentations should have a most bullshit per minute prize, with some sort of plaque. Could we award it in the plenary, like the Postel Award? Only problem is who to name it after. Without being sued for defamation, I mean - there's no shortage of candidates. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - 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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Is this true?
IPv6 made code to support IPSEC a requirement in the stack. Actual use of IPSEC has never been a requirement because it still lacks a key distribution mechanism for its original intended purpose of being a pervasive security mechanism. In practice, IPv6 will have NAT just like IPv4 had NAT even when the IETF tried to prohibit it as an abomination. There will be no transition from IPv4 to IPv6 without seamless address conversion v4-v6 and v6-v4. So anyone who writes an application for IPv6 who relies on the address being constant end to end is probably going to find it is of no use in practice. On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de wrote: * Brian E. Carpenter: the basic model for IPv6 is not fundamentally different than IPv4; why would the underlying security vulnerabilities be fundamentally different? Lack of NAT and an expectation of end-to-end reachability seem quite fundamentally different from IPv4 as it is deployed to day. (I'm not saying that NAT is a security feature, I'm just pointing to a rather significant difference.) IPv6 also make IPsec mandatory, which seems a significant change over IPv4, too. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Is this true?
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Fernando Gont ferna...@gont.com.ar wrote: Florian Weimer wrote: Lack of NAT I am told that NAT for v6 is (ironically) among the most asked for IPv6 features... Nevertheless, it wouldn't be a surprise to me that stateful v6 firewalls take NAT's place, such that only return traffic is allowed. That is one security use made of NAT, but reducing the amount of information leaked about the internal configuration of the network is another. I don't have to make my network 100% secure to be secure, all I need to do to reduce my number of attacks is to make my network a bit harder and a bit more expensive to attack than your network. and an expectation of end-to-end reachability seem quite fundamentally different from IPv4 as it is deployed to day. As ironic as it may sound, some people are actually *concerned* about this. (no, not *me*) It is hardly ironic. Pretty much all functionality can be employed by the bad guys as well as the good ones. So increasing the benefit to the good guys will inevitably increase the functionality for the bad ones. That is why security conscious people think twice before adding functionality that they do not intend to use. And very security conscious people run default-deny networks where 'nothing should happen without a reason (SM)'. Looking at this thread,we have two ex-chairs who are not security specialists attacking a security specialist as 'ill-informed' when in fact they are merely repeating an ideological view of security that has negligible support outside the IETF. That is a really bad way to approach security. There is more to security than throwing cryptography at packets. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Is this true?
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 3:26 AM, Paul Ferguson fergdawgs...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Fernando Gont ferna...@gont.com.ar wrote: Agreed. I just meant that even without v6 NATs, it shouldn't come as a surprise if end-to-end connectivity is *not* restored by IPv6. It is refreshing to hear someone actually say that out loud. Agreed. One of the biggest obstacles to deployment of IPv6 is the people who imagine that this is an opportunity for them to establish their model of the Internet architecture. Ironically we are returning to the original model of the Internet. Only we are returning to the 1970s model of Clark, Cerf et. al. in which the only constant is that every network uses the Internet Protocol for communication across the Internetwork. IP to the endpoint was actually a later idea. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Dedicated list for technical discussions
IETF in Rome? Do I need a visa, is there a subway? On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Mark Nottingham m...@mnot.net wrote: Touche. When in Rome... On 29/08/2010, at 6:12 PM, Glen Zorn wrote: Mark Nottingham [mailto://m...@mnot.net] writes: I know it's been brought up many times before, but I'd appreciate a separate list for technical discussions regarding drafts, etc., since this list seems to have become a travel tips forum. I'm sure that if you have some specific technical topics to discuss at least some of us would be willing to join in. I must note, however, that your own posts to this list over the last month or so have been about the Maastrict venue, IETF Logo wear and this complaint (not exactly rocket science ;-). ... -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
Ah so the salt lake city model where everyone stayed at the same hotel and there was only one bar in town would be ideal... On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Dan Harkins dhark...@lounge.org wrote: Hi Hannes, Maastricht is definitely an interesting city and I'm glad I can say I've been there (Aachen was cool too!). But the venue there sucked. It was in the middle of a cultural dead zone (which says something because Maastricht has lots to offer) and the hotels were all scattered around town. My hotel was great and well situated from a city-center perspective (I would consider staying there if I went back as a tourist) but to get to the venue required a 20 minute hike or a bus. Coordination among people to go out to dinner or meet up after dinner was a pain-in-the-ass because everyone scattered out in a 5km radius to freshen-up/stow-bags/whatever. And then there's the multi-stop cab ride back to everyone's dispersed hotels, not very conducive to extra-IETF activities which are helped by close hotel proximity. Yea, I did see my fellow IETFers but that holds true anywhere (if you hold an IETF in city X then there will be lots of IETFers in city X) so that is hardly a positive aspect about the particular IETF venue. Don't take it as a negative about the city. It's the venue in the city and the displacement of hotels that matter. For instance, I've been to San Diego, California, USA for different meetings and some were great and others really sucked because the venue was not convenient and/or in a cultural wasteland or to get to/from there was a pain-in-the-ass. Same city, different conference, totally different experience. Two hops plus a train or 3 hops or whatever may be a negative but to me that's a one-off (actually a two-off since I have to leave too) and I really don't care too much about that. More important, to me, is the overhead required for day-to-day activities during the IETF-- effort to get to the venue from my hotel, how easy is it to find food during the day, what's required to coordinate extra-IETF meetings with fellow IETFers in the city, that kinda stuff. regards, Dan. And yes, I did see alot of my IETF friends again. On Sat, August 28, 2010 12:54 am, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: Hi Jordi, Hi all, I have not seen an IETF meeting where people have not complained about the layout of the venue, how to get there, the city itself, the proximity to some nearby countries, the weather, the hotel, the number of offered hotels, the high crime rate, etc. etc. The place that makes 95% of the typical IETF meetings participants happy does not even exist. Maybe it would be useful to highlight the positive aspects of traveling instead. Maastricht is an interesting city and you saw lots of your IETF friends again. Ciao Hannes ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
At the risk of turning this into a string of competing anectdotes It turned into that long ago. In terms of the tone in these discussions, folk continue to believe that their personal experiences are relevant for deciding logistics policy in choosing IETF meetings. Unfortunately, such folk constitute a remarkably skewed sample of what is typically touted as the target population of IETF attendees. The premise to these anecdotes appears to be that IETF meetings are designed for people who have: * hefty corporate travel funding-- so money is largely no object * extensive travel experience -- therefore accepting requirements to handle complex travel details * frequent travel schedules -- so extraneous, 1/2-day incremental time and cost doesn't mean much * a full week at the meeting-- so remote locations have minor impact * a desire to use meetings for tourism -- which is more important than venue convenience or reliability * complete lack of empathy for anyone not fitting into this category Lack of empathy is typically being demonstrated by overt hostility, but certainly dismissive handwaves. The concerns of others simply do not matter and are to be classed as petty, naive, or the like. It's difficult to imagine a more elitist demographic, particular for a community that has been predicated on diversity and inclusiveness. At the least, the IETF should be honest and re-cast its community culture as being tailored for well-funded professional meeting goers... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hotel Nikko (overflow) distance from Shangri-La Hotel
Am I correctly reading that the overflow hotel for Beijing is approximately eight (8) kilometers away from the primary hotel? If so, why? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tourist or business visa from US?
On 30 aug 2010, at 02:41, Worley, Dale R (Dale) dwor...@avaya.com wrote: So at the least, one should consider getting a tourist visa ONLY IF one has set aside time for sightseeing before or after the meetings. Can people please try to get a visa, speak with the Chinese consulate or embassy of their choice, explain the purpose if their travel, and stop guessing. Patrik - with a visa after very friendly reception at Chinese embassy in Stockholm...took one hour ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
At 4:23 PM -0400 8/27/10, Michael StJohns wrote: I object to the way gateway/secondary cities are defined here and specifically equating Maastricht with Minneapolis seems somewhat stacking the deck. I agree! They are totally different in ease of access and availability of co-located hotel and meeting space. What I'm looking for in a meeting location is a venue with both formal and informal meeting spaces where I stand a good chance of having a good technical discussion with random people at pretty much any time of the day or night - that's my view of what has contributed to the IETF's success over the years. (Although the marathon session for the first draft of the Host Requirements document was probably stretching it) That generally means a central large hotel with attached conference space with access to non-hotel food and drink in close proximity. Yes, very well put. I attend an IETF for the work. I'll vacation on my own. I'll add to this that, to me, ability to breathe is extremely important. That means a smoke-free venue and some chance of finding a smoke-free restaurant somewhere, plus air pollution that isn't too severe. Although personally I detest going to cold places, and would never do so for vacation, I'm happy to go to an IETF in Minneapolis or Vancouver in the winter, because it's not hard to get to, the venue works well, and restaurants are smoke-free. With respect to getting there - I'm finding the trend of getting off an international plane in a gateway city and then getting onto a train for 2-5 hours somewhat worrisome. I spent more time online for Maastricht trying to research how to get to Maastricht that I did reading IDs Me, too, and I enlisted others to help, so it can't all be blamed on me being stupid. I don't know how to categorize Maastricht vs Minneapolis except to say that air connectivity is better to Minneapolis and the meeting venue has more of what I'm looking for in an IETF setup - and I can't see any way to indicate that on your survey. Yes. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well. --Joe Ancis ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
At 3:53 PM -0500 8/27/10, Mary Barnes wrote: I agree 100% that the question is pretty useless if Maastricht is considered secondary. A survey of the number of hops (planes, trains and automobiles) that participants have to take to each of those secondary venues would highlight the distinct difference IMHO. It's not even the number of hops but the difficulty of figuring them out and doing them, plus elapsed time. I also added a comment about the fact that some of the differences in responses in terms of tourism opportunities likely depends upon how many sessions the individual needs to attend, how many WGs they chair and how many WGs they are presenting in. Asking folks that question would really help with the analysis. My guess is that it's those of us that need to be in sessions pretty much solid starting as early as 7:30 am and going to beyond 10pm on the majority of the days are the ones that are most concerned about efficiencies and the conveniences in getting the basics of food, a safe/clean place to sleep and Internet. A good observation. It's been perplexing how many people seem to prefer what I find to be difficult venues that don't work well for the core purpose. I think your explanation makes sense: some people go for only a few WGs and hence have lots of time to be a tourist. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion. --John Lawton ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tourist or business visa from US?
At 8:51 AM -0700 8/24/10, Dave CROCKER wrote: Let me get this straight. You are going to go to China and you are /not/ going to do ANY site-seeing? If the answer is yes, I think you have deeper problems than the visa... I disagree. I'm not planning on any sight-seeing in China. I prefer to do my sight-seeing in places where I can breathe. I have no idea how common it is, but for personal travel (which I do a lot of) I only go to places with smoke-free restaurants. More and more of the world is available under this criteria. If you are doing some site-seeing, you are a tourist. Saying you are a tourist is, therefore, not lying. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it depends on the primary purpose of the visit. If it is a personal trip that I choose, then I am a tourist. If my company sends me or I am attending a conference, then it is business. Are you planning on making sales pitches, signing contracts, getting paid by locals for work, writing code? The concern for business visas is that conduct of these sorts of business activities. That is, commerce. Merely having conversation that are work-related is not (really) conducting business. I've been advised the opposite of this when getting visas for various countries. I've been told that technical discussions are work, and that if I am not on vacation then it is work. In my own case, my company's travel department prefers to err on the side of caution. They do not want to have employees get in trouble overseas. Maybe very few visitors are ever asked the purpose of their visit in China. (In my own experience, I've found New Zealand and Canada to be perhaps the most paranoid about such things.) But I want to be careful (even more so in some countries). -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- There are advantages to having a sane person run a government. --Character in TV series Wiseguy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09
At 12:58 AM -0700 8/28/10, Fred Baker wrote: Hiroshima, Barcelona, and Maastricht are equally secondary to me. I take a commuter flight, I take a flight between hubs, and I do something else (flight or train, and the train's a lot more comfortable than flying), and I'm there. If I'm on three flights or two and a train, to me that's pretty normal. Leaves me wondering what the fuss is about. I'm glad it was so easy for you to get to Maastricht and Hiroshima. I know that a number of people had equally easy access. However, others had much more difficult journeys, involving multiple trains/taxis, and confusing and conflicting information. If you're arguing against Maastricht on the basis of it being secondary, do you really want to go there? Maastricht is not well-connected to international airports in the summer. I agree they need to be good venues. Was Hiroshima a good venue, by your analysis? It seemed very good to me. So did Maastricht, although we had to fix the Internet access in the conference hotel. My only complaint there, to be honest, is that I used Swisscom in the Crowne Plaza and several other hotels while in Europe, and with the exception of the NH Airport Brussels, they all had loss rates on the order of 1% or greater for the duration that I was measuring. I thought Maastricht was a great city. In Hiroshima, we met in a large hotel in a dense area. In Maastricht, there was only one hotel close to where we met, and the Internet access required a Herculean effort that I don't think we have a right to demand. (It was difficult to find smoke-free food in Hiroshima, except for the nearby department store's food court, but I can live with that.) So, I'd say both Maastricht and Hiroshima were hard to get to, and Maastricht additionally had less good facilities. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. --Blaise Pascal ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
+1 on all of the analysis/ observations below. Couldn't say it better myself and have tried. john --On Sunday, August 29, 2010 17:10 -0700 Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote: At the risk of turning this into a string of competing anectdotes It turned into that long ago. In terms of the tone in these discussions, folk continue to believe that their personal experiences are relevant for deciding logistics policy in choosing IETF meetings. Unfortunately, such folk constitute a remarkably skewed sample of what is typically touted as the target population of IETF attendees. The premise to these anecdotes appears to be that IETF meetings are designed for people who have: * hefty corporate travel funding-- so money is largely no object * extensive travel experience -- therefore accepting requirements to handle complex travel details * frequent travel schedules -- so extraneous, 1/2-day incremental time and cost doesn't mean much * a full week at the meeting-- so remote locations have minor impact * a desire to use meetings for tourism -- which is more important than venue convenience or reliability * complete lack of empathy for anyone not fitting into this category Lack of empathy is typically being demonstrated by overt hostility, but certainly dismissive handwaves. The concerns of others simply do not matter and are to be classed as petty, naive, or the like. It's difficult to imagine a more elitist demographic, particular for a community that has been predicated on diversity and inclusiveness. At the least, the IETF should be honest and re-cast its community culture as being tailored for well-funded professional meeting goers... d/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Is this true?
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com I don't have to make my network 100% secure to be secure, all I need to do to reduce my number of attacks is to make my network a bit harder and a bit more expensive to attack than your network. Also known as the 'you don't have to be able to run faster than the bear/lion/tiger, you only have to be able to run faster than your fellow hiker' principle! :-) Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Is this true?
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com Ironically we are returning to the original model of the Internet. Only we are returning to the 1970s model of Clark, Cerf et. al. in which the only constant is that every network uses the Internet Protocol for communication across the Internetwork. IP to the endpoint was actually a later idea. Say what? Internetwork packets directly to the end-host (with TCP on top) was a constant in the internet architecture from before IP even existed (i.e. TCP 1, TCP 2, etc). Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tourist or business visa from US?
At 5:50 PM -0700 8/27/10, Randall Gellens wrote: I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it depends on the primary purpose of the visit. ...even though the first answer on the FAQ on the IETF site says otherwise? http://www.ietf.org/meeting/79/faq.html --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tourist or business visa from US?
--On Monday, August 30, 2010 08:46 -0700 Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote: At 5:50 PM -0700 8/27/10, Randall Gellens wrote: I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it depends on the primary purpose of the visit. ...even though the first answer on the FAQ on the IETF site says otherwise? http://www.ietf.org/meeting/79/faq.html Paul, As has already been pointed out, there is some history of different consulates giving out different advice on this subject and, perhaps independently, of nationals of different countries being given different advice about requirements in practice. Those differences may be the result of different people asking at different times and getting different snapshots of evolving policies or they may be substantive and contemporary -- I have no way tell. All I am sure of if that one follows the advice of the IETF Secretariat or host on an IETF website and consular and/or immigration officials disagree, the positions of the latter are going to prevail and that protesting that one followed IETF's advice is unlikely to be helpful. FWIW, I don't believe that continued circling around on the issue and more reporting of anecdotal experience is helpful (especially when the anecdotal experience is that of nationals of countries whom the Chinese clearly treat differently from US citizen applications). YMMD, as always. Perhaps just as a corollary of that, I continue to believe that the _only_ sound advice is for people to get the application process started as early as feasible, put any questions directly to the relevant visa agency or consulate, and, preferably and if possible, explain to them exactly how time will be spent in China and let the consulate make the decision about visa types. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 8/30/10 8:08 AM, Mary Barnes wrote: Yeah - we should stop, but you're just perpetrating the mentality that has caused alot of the debate. Unfortunately, folks have mis-interpreted the concerns a minority of us experienced at the IETF (since we are a minority in terms of IETF participation) as a dislike of Maastricht or lack of appreciation for the graciousness of the host. It has nothing to do with either. I personally found Maastricht to be a charming city and the social was one of the best I've attended. But, those two things IMHO have nothing to do with having an effective business meeting that involves a diverse group of people. The concerns raised have to do with the fact that the meeting venue did not satisfy the most basic requirements for a meeting that is attended by a diverse group of people (who unfortunately are in the minority) - access to food for people that are on restricted diets for medical reasons, personal safety and easy/convenient access to the meeting venue (I can't fathom how someone that might be in a wheelchair could have managed attending this meeting). The dutch interpret article 1 of their constitutions as guaranteeing full access to participation in society. Both the rail system and the civic venues are fully accessible. The fact that we had lots of train hops wasn't that critical (although inconvenient), but I do have issue that the meeting was in city that is not setup to handle international travelers that might arrive at odd hours in the night. I totally understand why the majority don't get why this is a concern for some of us, but to dismiss it because it wasn't an issue you personally have to deal with is the reason this thread has gone on and on. Clearly, the concerns (of the minority) are not considered important to others, which is a sad reflection on an IETF that professes to be an open organization promoting participation from a diverse group of people. Best Regards, Mary. On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 04:02:00PM -0700, Randall Gellens wrote: I think Mary is right. (I also don't like the attitude in some replies that if anyone had a poor experience with Maastricht it is their own fault for being a dolt.) FWIW, I don't like the attitude in some of the messages that if one doesn't agree Maastricht was a poor venue, one is an insensitive clod. It seems to me that some people found the venue less good, and some found it acceptable. (I found it acceptable, for instance. But I like trains. Even crowded short hop ones on a Friday afternoon when I am very tired.) Moreover, several of the dissatisfied seem to feel that anything less than total agreement requires yet another frontal assault on that disagreement. The present thread, if memory serves, got started by someone who decided that, since his ranting on another list didn't achieve the desired gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, he'd try again on the IETF list. I believe the IAOC has heard the complaints. We can stop now. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
At 1:46 PM +0200 8/30/10, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: Although I'm from the Netherlands I had never really visited Maastricht before, and I must say it's a very nice city. I'm looking forward to going back for a repeat visit. I think most people liked Maastricht as a city. I can't think of anyone who said Maastricht as a city was ugly or smelled bad or had rude people. There are a lot of truly delightful cities that would be great places to visit but are not good choices for an IETF. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- Reporter (to Mahatma Gandhi): Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
On Aug 29, 2010, at 8:10 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: At the risk of turning this into a string of competing anectdotes It turned into that long ago. In terms of the tone in these discussions, folk continue to believe that their personal experiences are relevant for deciding logistics policy in choosing IETF meetings. Unfortunately, such folk constitute a remarkably skewed sample of what is typically touted as the target population of IETF attendees. The premise to these anecdotes appears to be that IETF meetings are designed for people who have: * hefty corporate travel funding-- so money is largely no object As someone who frequently pays for IETF travel out of my own pocket, I can assure you that this is not true for me. Ditto for meeting and travel time sinks. However, 90% of life consists of simply showing up, and that is especially true for the IETF; to participate, you have to show up, and that requires travel. Regards Marshall * extensive travel experience -- therefore accepting requirements to handle complex travel details * frequent travel schedules -- so extraneous, 1/2-day incremental time and cost doesn't mean much * a full week at the meeting-- so remote locations have minor impact * a desire to use meetings for tourism -- which is more important than venue convenience or reliability * complete lack of empathy for anyone not fitting into this category Lack of empathy is typically being demonstrated by overt hostility, but certainly dismissive handwaves. The concerns of others simply do not matter and are to be classed as petty, naive, or the like. It's difficult to imagine a more elitist demographic, particular for a community that has been predicated on diversity and inclusiveness. At the least, the IETF should be honest and re-cast its community culture as being tailored for well-funded professional meeting goers... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Is this true?
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com What made the Internet unique was the fact that it was the only inter-network that was designed to play nice with other networks that existed at the time. You could run DECNET or SNA or anything you chose on your campus and still exchange mail with the rest of the world. IP to the edge was a special case. Ah, no. There were eventually tweaks to the _email_ system to enable it to interoperate with other email systems (others will remember those far better than I), but that has nothing to do with the network/transport layers. The vast bulk of the early Internet work was focused on just the people using TCP/IP - and to run any of that, you needed IP to the edge. (I am remembering of the pain we suffered at LCS before we got an IMP port so we could bring up our first IP gateway to the rest of the world...) And as for ability to run DECNET and IP on one's campus at the same time as IP - that was not the original direction taken at many places. Certainly at MIT we spent (wasted, to be honest) a lot of time trying to create an underlying data-carriage layer to carry both IP and CHAOS (and other stuff) before we went with the 'ships in the night' approach, and the multi-protocol router. But this is getting a bit off track. If you want to continue, let's move this to 'internet-hist...@postel.org'. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
At 10:17 AM -0700 8/28/10, Dave CROCKER wrote: From the survey: 2. Meeting Preferences 1. It is important to me to have the meeting venue be easy to get to: It is important to me to have the meeting venue be easy to get to: Very unimportant Slides What does slides mean? I'm guessing it's an extraneous entry, since it throws off the apparent model of a balanced 5-choice set of responses. I took it to mean depends on other factors but wasn't at all sure. The problem is that most of the questions had no clear answer in isolation, but depended on other factors. 2. Do you prefer a meeting in a gateway city, I believe the underlying problem with this question, as demonstrated by the postings about it so far, is the lack of consistent criteria for defining gateway and secondary. I'll offer the view that a gateway city is a principle hub of international air travel, while a secondary city should have at least some international air access. I think that's a useful distinction, but it means that more than one of the examples of secondary, in the survey, really would be classed as tertiary or worse, and there's a reasonable chance that Vancouver would count as primary. From an air travel point of view, Vancouver is a gateway. There are non-stop flights on multiple major carriers within multiple alliances to multiple cities on multiple continents. It's commonly used as a transfer point. However, I'm not aware of any major carrier that uses it as a primary hub (e.g., LAX, DFW, ORD, JFK, LHR, AMS, HKG), so if this is the criteria then it doesn't qualify. 8. Would you attend if we held the IETF in Africa? 9. Would you attend if we held the IETF in South or Central America? Like the question on an earlier survey about Quebec City, I think it requires more information and more individual research to have a good answer. Which venue in which city? How hard is it to get to the city and venue? Could I get an airfare that my company would approve? Would we be in a central facility with a lot nearby, or would we be scattered around? (I would personally want to know what the rules are for smoking, but I understand only a few other participants would care.) -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- Nice guys finish last, but we get to sleep in. --Evan Davis ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
At 10:43 AM -0700 8/28/10, Dave CROCKER wrote: Mike St. Johns' posting: https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6rid=49gid=0k1=933k2=53120tid=1283016769 is quite excellent, for its attempt to describe what he wants from a venue, in terms of participating in a meeting. I suggest we should try to develop some language like his that garners meaningful consensus in terms of convenience, /total/ cost, functionality, reliability, and other core criteria. Convenience covers travel, lodging, food, and other resources local to the venue. An excellent suggestion. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. --H. L. Mencken ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Attendance by continent
At 3:35 PM -0700 8/28/10, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 8/27/2010 2:19 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: However, I also believe that the outreach component is an important one to the viability/goodwill of/towards the organization. Olaf, I don't understand this assertion. It's the sort of statement that is easy to make and sounds good, but it's practical meaning is not at all clear. Or worse, it is counter-productive in its effect. I thought there was consensus from years ago that ISOc would do the outreach and the IETF would focus on technical work. Maybe this has changed over time and I haven't been following. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- American Non Sequitur Society -- We don't make sense, But we do like pizza. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
On 30 aug 2010, at 19:57, Randall Gellens wrote: 8. Would you attend if we held the IETF in Africa? 9. Would you attend if we held the IETF in South or Central America? Like the question on an earlier survey about Quebec City, I think it requires more information and more individual research to have a good answer. Which venue in which city? How hard is it to get to the city and venue? Basically the only thing the survey gives us is how many people would never go to a meeting on those continents regardless of the particular circumstances. There wasn't even a why not. A few months ago the IEEE had its ICC conference in Cape Town. I believe around 800 people attended. For me this was about 13 hours of flying (MAD-AMS-CPT), although there was no timezone change. For someone from North America that would probably be a lot longer. My flight was affordable, but only available during weekends so I was forced to stay a few extra days. I would say that the security situation in Cape Town was barely acceptable, the mobile phone infrastructure wasn't acceptable at all (almost impossible to make international calls over the mobile network, including calls to colleagues also in Cape Town) and internet access was also a huge problem but presumably the IETF or host would take care of that if we were to meet in such a place. If things are so problematic in the safer of the two biggest cities of the richest country of the continent I can't imagine the IETF having a succesful meeting elsewhere on the continent. Of course I can't know for sure after only vi siting one city in Africa once. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
At 9:34 AM -0700 8/30/10, Joel Jaeggli wrote: (I can't fathom how someone that might be in a wheelchair could have managed attending this meeting). The dutch interpret article 1 of their constitutions as guaranteeing full access to participation in society. Both the rail system and the civic venues are fully accessible. In both directions between BRU and Maastricht I had to change trains multiple times, and several of the stations required me to carry my luggage up and down non-trivial staircases. I wondered at the time how someone in a wheelchair or who had mobility difficulties could manage. I realize these stations were in Belgium, not the Netherlands, so perhaps this explains it. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- Invention is the mother of necessity. --Thorstein Veblen ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Dedicated list for technical discussions
On Sun Aug 29 09:12:31 2010, Glen Zorn wrote: Mark Nottingham [mailto://m...@mnot.net] writes: I know it's been brought up many times before, but I'd appreciate a separate list for technical discussions regarding drafts, etc., since this list seems to have become a travel tips forum. I'm sure that if you have some specific technical topics to discuss at least some of us would be willing to join in. I must note, however, that your own posts to this list over the last month or so have been about the Maastrict venue, IETF Logo wear and this complaint (not exactly rocket science ;-). I would note that these items are precisely the kinds of things that we, as an organization, are utterly ill-equipped to handle. We cannot use our tried and tested bureaucratic techniques to mitigate time-consuming discussion - we cannot insist people write a draft, propose a BOF, etc before actually discussing the issue. Therefore, I suggest - and quite seriously, as I assure you I would never joke about something so serious as this - that a new area be formed forthwith to tackle what's obviously more important than any mere technical issue. This new area - perhaps entitled the Hotel Organizational Logistic Strategies area, could be home to a number of key working groups, aimed at solving these fundamental issues that plague us all. With this in mind, I firmly look forward to seeing a requirements document for the area, such that we can progress by initiating BOFs, with a view to forming working groups to create further requirement documents. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - 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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 30 aug 2010, at 20:25, Randall Gellens wrote: In both directions between BRU and Maastricht I had to change trains multiple times, and several of the stations required me to carry my luggage up and down non-trivial staircases. I wondered at the time how someone in a wheelchair or who had mobility difficulties could manage. I realize these stations were in Belgium, not the Netherlands, so perhaps this explains it. In the Netherlands more modern stations have elevators. Intercity trains have an elevated entrance, so wheel chair users must inform the Dutch Railways of their travel plans so a ramp can be positioned for ingress and egress. The journey from schiphol airport to the Maastricht main station required at least one change, but that one could be done as a cross/same platform change. I haven't heard of any wheel chair accessible planes, though. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Dedicated list for technical discussions
On 08/29/2010 08:17 EDT, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: IETF in Rome? Do I need a visa, is there a subway? and even a Pizza Hut ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IETF Attendance by continent
I also feel that 3:2:2 is about the right ratio. Ross -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 12:28 PM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent And even closer to 3:2:2 ? - Original Message - From: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu To: Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Cc: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 5:14 PM Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent Noel == Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu writes: I suspect that a more nuanced analysis would have this as 1.7 and shrinking : 1 and stable : 1 and stable. Noel and his conclusion: I would support 2:1:1 for the present, with an intention to review that in 2-3 years. Noel seems to me to be right on, given those 1.7:1:1 numbers - 1.7 is closer to 2 Noel than it is to 1... +1 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Attendance by continent
I also feel that 3:2:2 is about the right ratio. Actually, the correct ratio is pi:e:sqrt(2). Furthermore, one can prove that, given enough IETFs, we can converge to this close enough that we'll be within _everyone's_ error margin! Robert ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 30 aug 2010, at 21.46, Robert Kisteleki wrote: I also feel that 3:2:2 is about the right ratio. Actually, the correct ratio is pi:e:sqrt(2). Furthermore, one can prove that, given enough IETFs, we can converge to this close enough that we'll be within _everyone's_ error margin! I was expecting something like: pi:e:sqrt(-1) Patrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 8/30/10 1:53 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: On 30 aug 2010, at 21.46, Robert Kisteleki wrote: I also feel that 3:2:2 is about the right ratio. Actually, the correct ratio is pi:e:sqrt(2). Furthermore, one can prove that, given enough IETFs, we can converge to this close enough that we'll be within _everyone's_ error margin! I was expecting something like: pi:e:sqrt(-1) Given the irrationality this topic evokes, that seems about right. ;-) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
The recent remark on bias against individuals[*] made me think about weighing the location preference by number of participants from certain regions. Suppose an individual from Asia attends all IETFs then her costs are that for attending 6 IETFs she gets to travel 1x regional and 5x interregional. While an individual from the US travels 3x regional and 3x interregional. Clearly there is a bias agains our Asian colleague in with respect of the costs. Using participation/contribution numbers to weigh locations minimizes the global costs (total amount of miles flown, carbon spend, lost hours by the collective, total amount of whining) but nothing of that flows back to the individual engineer that attends every time. If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting fairly large error bars on the costs but isn't the X-Y-Z distribution where X= approx Y= approx Z the closest optimum? (or finding one place that sucks equally for everybody) Am I missing something? --Olaf (strictly personal) [*] Independent consultants, somebody not financially backed up by big corporations. Olaf M. KolkmanNLnet Labs Science Park 140, http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 30 aug 2010, at 21.57, Olaf Kolkman wrote: If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting fairly large error bars on the costs but isn't the X-Y-Z distribution where X= approx Y= approx Z the closest optimum? (or finding one place that sucks equally for everybody) I agree with this finding. Am I missing something? If you do, then I do as well. [*] Independent consultants, somebody not financially backed up by big corporations. Also big corporations do have limited budget for IETF participation, so this would I claim be valid also for other participants. Although limited budget is a different thing than the non-negotiable situation of do not have the money at all. Patrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On Aug 30, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: On 30 aug 2010, at 21.57, Olaf Kolkman wrote: If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting fairly large error bars on the costs but isn't the X-Y-Z distribution where X= approx Y= approx Z the closest optimum? (or finding one place that sucks equally for everybody) I agree with this finding. It seems to me that a process like that would tend to lead to incorrect results. There's already bias in the population of meeting attendees - do you, and, if so, how do you account for people who are already not attending because of costs? And region can be tricky and misleading, and it's hard to know how to account for corner cases. I'm in the United States but travel from interior Alaska has very little in common with travel from NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, etc. I think it's very difficult to find really great meeting facilities as it is, and it seems to me that that should be the primary focus. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 30 aug 2010, at 22.10, Melinda Shore wrote: On Aug 30, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: On 30 aug 2010, at 21.57, Olaf Kolkman wrote: If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting fairly large error bars on the costs but isn't the X-Y-Z distribution where X= approx Y= approx Z the closest optimum? (or finding one place that sucks equally for everybody) I agree with this finding. It seems to me that a process like that would tend to lead to incorrect results. There's already bias in the population of meeting attendees - do you, and, if so, how do you account for people who are already not attending because of costs? What Olaf wrote, if I did not misunderstand him, was that X=Y=Z, so that people living in the three regions each have to travel to say four meetings outside their region while getting two meetings inside their own region. No connection to who goes to the IETF meetings today. Part from of course that we do not have Africa or South America as regions, and the poor people in Australia have to travel far for all meetings. Patrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
If there was a meeting with 1,000 participants from one location (say Stockholm), and one participant from a very distant location (say, Sydney Australia), then this argument would put half of the meetings in Stockholm, and half of the meetings in Sydney Australia. Another possible criteria would be to minimize the total cost paid for travel, without regard for who is paying. With this model, if there were 1,000 participants from Stockholm, and 999 participants from Sydney, we would have all meeting in Stockholm. Of course, in this case a change of two participants could cause all meetings to switch to the other location. In practice we compromise between these two considerations, plus others (such as where companies are willing to sponsor a meeting). Thus we mostly have meetings in locations proportionately to where people are coming from. Ross -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Olaf Kolkman Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 3:58 PM To: IETF-Discussion list Subject: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent The recent remark on bias against individuals[*] made me think about weighing the location preference by number of participants from certain regions. Suppose an individual from Asia attends all IETFs then her costs are that for attending 6 IETFs she gets to travel 1x regional and 5x interregional. While an individual from the US travels 3x regional and 3x interregional. Clearly there is a bias agains our Asian colleague in with respect of the costs. Using participation/contribution numbers to weigh locations minimizes the global costs (total amount of miles flown, carbon spend, lost hours by the collective, total amount of whining) but nothing of that flows back to the individual engineer that attends every time. If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting fairly large error bars on the costs but isn't the X-Y-Z distribution where X= approx Y= approx Z the closest optimum? (or finding one place that sucks equally for everybody) Am I missing something? --Olaf (strictly personal) [*] Independent consultants, somebody not financially backed up by big corporations. Olaf M. KolkmanNLnet Labs Science Park 140, http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
That is a well defined target metric. It is defensible. It is not the one the community has used up till now. One could also aim to minimize total cost (or total pain). Arguably, that would place all the meetings in california. Up to till now, we have worked on a balance between those two objectives. To take an extreme example, Olaf's argument would be equally valid if 1/10th of our active participants were from North America. But it would seem pretty silly to put 1/3 of the meetings in the North America in that case. Yours, Joel Patrik Fältström wrote: On 30 aug 2010, at 22.10, Melinda Shore wrote: On Aug 30, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: On 30 aug 2010, at 21.57, Olaf Kolkman wrote: If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting fairly large error bars on the costs but isn't the X-Y-Z distribution where X= approx Y= approx Z the closest optimum? (or finding one place that sucks equally for everybody) I agree with this finding. It seems to me that a process like that would tend to lead to incorrect results. There's already bias in the population of meeting attendees - do you, and, if so, how do you account for people who are already not attending because of costs? What Olaf wrote, if I did not misunderstand him, was that X=Y=Z, so that people living in the three regions each have to travel to say four meetings outside their region while getting two meetings inside their own region. No connection to who goes to the IETF meetings today. Part from of course that we do not have Africa or South America as regions, and the poor people in Australia have to travel far for all meetings. Patrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 30 aug 2010, at 21:57, Olaf Kolkman wrote: If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting fairly large error bars on the costs but isn't the X-Y-Z distribution where X= approx Y= approx Z the closest optimum? (or finding one place that sucks equally for everybody) Am I missing something? Yes. Optimizing for min(X+Y+Z) WITH the constraint X=Y=Z is almost certainly going to produce a higher X+Y+Z than without that constraint. In other words, if you want to be fair the total expense for the entire community will be larger. Contrary to popular belief, distance is not the most important factor in travel expenses. My flight from Madrid to Dublin cost almost what I paid to fly from Amsterdam to Minneapolis a few years before. Hotel rates have a much bigger impact, especially now that the official IETF hotels seem to be getting more expensive every time we meet. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Dedicated list for technical discussions
At 7:42 PM +0100 8/30/10, Dave Cridland wrote: I would note that these items are precisely the kinds of things that we, as an organization, are utterly ill-equipped to handle. We cannot use our tried and tested bureaucratic techniques to mitigate time-consuming discussion - we cannot insist people write a draft, propose a BOF, etc before actually discussing the issue. Therefore, I suggest - and quite seriously, as I assure you I would never joke about something so serious as this - that a new area be formed forthwith to tackle what's obviously more important than any mere technical issue. This new area - perhaps entitled the Hotel Organizational Logistic Strategies area, could be home to a number of key working groups, aimed at solving these fundamental issues that plague us all. Well, we have in the past dealt with process and organizational issues using a WG (although I can't recall which area). But I'm not sure we need a new area. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- If you attack stupidity you attack an entrenched interest with friends in government and every walk of public life, and you will make small progress against it. --Samuel Marchbanks ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
Marshall Eubanks tme at americafree dot tv wrote: However, 90% of life consists of simply showing up, and that is especially true for the IETF; to participate, you have to show up, and that requires travel. I'll have to keep this in mind the next time I feel tempted to participate in a WG on the belief that mailing-list-only participation is important to the IETF. I am neither funded by my company to go on round-the-world junkets, nor wealthy enough to afford them out-of-pocket. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
It depends what you want to do. Technical participation in a working group by email works pretty well. But if you want to talk in person to WG chairs of ADs or the IANA or RFC Editor staff or be eligible for NomCom or have more impact at BoFs, etc., being there is important. See also RFC 4144. Donald On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote: Marshall Eubanks tme at americafree dot tv wrote: However, 90% of life consists of simply showing up, and that is especially true for the IETF; to participate, you have to show up, and that requires travel. I'll have to keep this in mind the next time I feel tempted to participate in a WG on the belief that mailing-list-only participation is important to the IETF. I am neither funded by my company to go on round-the-world junkets, nor wealthy enough to afford them out-of-pocket. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
The obvious answer is to pick a location that is equi-distant or equally expensive for most people, and does not meet too often in one contintent. There is such a place: Hawaii. It is fairly mid-point between APAC and the Americas, and just slightly farther from Europe (well, a lot farther if you can't fly direct, but that's just due to airline routes, not distance-between-two-points). Furthermore, it's not in any continent, and thus equal for all in that regard. And it's a great tourist destination, and has plenty of meeting facilities, restaurants, Internet bandwidth, and no trains. So this seems to address everyone's concerns. Therefore, I propose we meet in Hawaii (and Kauai in particular) from now on. We can even rotate islands if people get bored. Problem solved. -hadriel On Aug 30, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting fairly large error bars on the costs but isn't the X-Y-Z distribution where X= approx Y= approx Z the closest optimum? (or finding one place that sucks equally for everybody) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 30 aug 2010, at 23:47, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: Therefore, I propose we meet in Hawaii (and Kauai in particular) from now on. We can even rotate islands if people get bored. No, we'd still have to rotate oceans. Iceland is nice and close to both NA and EU (farther north generally helps), but we still need something in the Indian Ocean. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
I vote for Mauritius. I'm sure AfriNIC would be glad to host. --Richard On Aug 30, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 30 aug 2010, at 23:47, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: Therefore, I propose we meet in Hawaii (and Kauai in particular) from now on. We can even rotate islands if people get bored. No, we'd still have to rotate oceans. Iceland is nice and close to both NA and EU (farther north generally helps), but we still need something in the Indian Ocean. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
At 5:47 PM -0400 8/30/10, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: The obvious answer is to pick a location that is equi-distant or equally expensive for most people, and does not meet too often in one contintent. There is such a place: Hawaii. It is fairly mid-point between APAC and the Americas, and just slightly farther from Europe (well, a lot farther if you can't fly direct, but that's just due to airline routes, not distance-between-two-points). Furthermore, it's not in any continent, and thus equal for all in that regard. And it's a great tourist destination, and has plenty of meeting facilities, restaurants, Internet bandwidth, and no trains. So this seems to address everyone's concerns. Therefore, I propose we meet in Hawaii (and Kauai in particular) from now on. Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island. We can even rotate islands if people get bored. Well, there are extensive conference facilities on Oahu, the Big Island, Maui, and Kauai. I have no information as to if they would work for a group of our size and with our need for breakout rooms. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- The chance of forgetting something is directly proportional to.touh.. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Dedicated list for technical discussions
On Aug 30, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Randall Gellens wrote: Well, we have in the past dealt with process and organizational issues using a WG (although I can't recall which area). But I'm not sure we need a new area. These have been in the General area. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check
On 8/24/10 6:38 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote: I reviewed draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check. Thanks. To ensure appropriate review, I've copied the discussion lists of the working groups that were asked to look at this I-D (PKIX and TLS), as well as the author of draft-daboo-srv-email (which normatively references this I-D). In a number of instances, this document is vague on the verification of an SRV-ID, and in one instance, it appears to contradict RFC 4985, even though it does not update that document. Section 2.1 states: o An SRV-ID can be either direct (provided by a user) or more typically indirect (resolved by a client) and is restricted (can be used for only a single application). This is consistent with RFC 4985 Section 2.1 which states: The SRVName, if present, MUST contain a service name and a domain name in the following form: _Service.Name Yet, Section 5.1 states: When the connecting application is an interactive client, the source domain name and service type MUST be provided by a human user (e.g. when specifying the server portion of the user's account name on the server or when explicitly configuring the client to connect to a particular host or URI as in [SIP-LOC]) and MUST NOT be derived from the user inputs in an automated fashion (e.g., a host name or domain name discovered through DNS resolution of the source domain). This rule is important because only a match between the user inputs (in the form of a reference identifier) and a presented identifier enables the client to be sure that the certificate can legitimately be used to secure the connection. However, an interactive client MAY provide a configuration setting that enables a human user to explicitly specify a particular host name or domain name (called a target domain) to be checked for connection purposes. [BA] As I understand RFC 4985, the SRV-ID provided in the target certificate is to be matched against components (service name and domain name) of the SRV RR obtained via lookup within the source domain. As a result, I don't believe that RFC 4985 is consistent with this advice (e.g. the reference identifier is not matched against the SRV-ID). I think the issue here is an ambivalence in the assumptions underlying RFC 4985, because an SRV record can be used for two quite different purposes: 1. To point from an application service name to a particular host/domain name in the same administrative domain (e.g., _imap._example.com points to mailhost.example.com for its IMAP service). 2. To delegate an application service name to a hosting provider outside in the administrative domain of the application service (e.g., example.com delegates its IMAP service to apps.example.net). (I freely grant that it's not always easy to tell up front which of these is happening, and that the concept of administrative domain is itself a bit vague -- e.g., what if the same provider runs both example.com and apps.example.net?) As I see it, RFC 4985 glosses over the foregoing distinction. Some folks seem to like the SRV-ID construct because it enables them to more tightly scope the certificates issued to an administrative domain, so that they can limit a cert to usage within the context of their email service or IM service or HTTP service or whatever (the IM cert can't be used for the email service, etc.). That's the usage Jeff Hodges and I had in mind for this I-D. However, the question arises: what is the client supposed to check if an SRV lookup for _imap._example.com yields apps.example.net? My reading of RFC 4985 leads me to think that the certificate presented by apps.example.net is supposed to contain an SRV-ID of _imap.example.com, which means roughly this certificate indicates that this provider is authorized to provide IMAP service for the example.com domain. (How the certification authority determines that the delegation is indeed authorized is outside the scope of this I-D.) That is my reading of RFC 4985 because: 1. RFC 4985 defines Name as The DNS domain name of the domain where the specified service is located. (In RFC 2782, Name is defined as The domain this RR refers to.) 2. RFC 4985 states of the name form _Service.Name that The content of the components of this name form MUST be consistent with the corresponding definition of these components in an SRV RR according to RFC 2782. 3. RFC 2782 defines the format of the SRV RR as follows: _Service._Proto.Name TTL Class SRV Priority Weight Port Target Note well that the name form in RFC 4985 is *not* _Service.Target, it is _Service.Name. Using the terminology that Jeff and I defined in draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check, this means that the name component of the SRV-ID is the source domain, not the target domain. Now, perhaps I am horribly mistaken about RFC 4985 and the intent is to present an SRV-ID of the form _Service.Target, but if so then I think that RFC 4985 needs to be revved
RE: Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check
Peter St. Andre said: an SRV record can be used for two quite different purposes: 1. To point from an application service name to a particular host/domain name in the same administrative domain (e.g., _imap._example.com points to mailhost.example.com for its IMAP service). 2. To delegate an application service name to a hosting provider outside in the administrative domain of the application service (e.g., example.com delegates its IMAP service to apps.example.net). As I see it, RFC 4985 glosses over the foregoing distinction. [BA] It took some adjustment for me, but as I understand it, the underlying assumption of RFC 4985 is that if the certificate is considered valid by RFC 5280 path validation (e.g. chains to a valid trust anchor, etc.) then delegations both within and outside the source administrative domain can be validated. This logic, if pursued, could apply beyond SRV RR validation, to things like NAPTR validation via a URI/IRI in the certificate. Scoping (EKUs, name constraints, etc.) is a different question. Peter also said: However, the question arises: what is the client supposed to check if an SRV lookup for _imap._example.com yields apps.example.net? My reading of RFC 4985 leads me to think that the certificate presented by apps.example.net is supposed to contain an SRV-ID of _imap.example.com, which means roughly this certificate indicates that this provider is authorized to provide IMAP service for the example.com domain. (How the certification authority determines that the delegation is indeed authorized is outside the scope of this I-D.) [BA] That's also my reading of RFC 4985, but I'll let others more knowledgeable (like the author) weigh in. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IETF Attendance by continent
From: Ross Callon rcal...@juniper.net And even closer to 3:2:2 ? I also feel that 3:2:2 is about the right ratio. Well, 5:3:3 (a ratio of .833, NA/others) is even closer to the 1.7:1:1 (.850) of the data than 3:2:2 (.750, off by .100). (2:1:1 of course gives 1.0, a variance of .150 from the .850 ratio of the data.) Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Attendance by continent
To add my 5 cents as well: In some ways the continued discussion of this topic reflects the fact that we are moving from one equilibrium to an other. I still remember the discussions we saw before we moved to 3:2:1. Although it may soften the argument to start with my personal conclusion, but it may be easier to read: My vote is strongly in favor of 1:1:1. 3:2:2 can also be a solution for the next interval of 2-4 years (effectively the difference to 1:1:1 is not that big). (And actually the problem raised by others with the time horizon of 2.3 years for 3:2:2 is not a big deal - we have only three meetings a years so whether we plan for 6 events or seven events shouldn't break anybody's brain to solve that.) Now for the reasons: 1. First, the location _is_ a significant barrier to entry for newcomers and other contributors. Optimizing only for the current status quo does create a strong perpetual cycle of self reinforcing structure of contributors from the favored location(s). Consider that contributors usually start as newcomers, attend several meetings, then write a draft, join more WGs and maybe chair a WG. But if you make it hard for newcomers to attend several meetings they are at a severe disadvantage to become future contributors. Part of the value of the IETF derives from its global scope, it's global acceptance and the wide range of ideas and involving the best minds on this planet to solve our problems. If we exclude people from this process we deprive ourselves from part of this rich resource. This leads me to the first part of an answer: we need a wide inclusion and allow future contributions from all areas (which requires meetings on different continents to some degree). 2. Cost for contributors: Having said that, of course we need to consider the costs for the current contributors doing our work today. For most current contributors their experience allows them to judge and to justify higher travel costs (as they come by long-distance travel) much better as they can already demonstrate the benefits of working with the IETF to their employers or for themselves. 3. As I said at the beginning, we are not in a stable equilibrium. Many of the arguments to keep 3:2:1 or for 2:1:1 may be true today if we would be, but this is not the case. We are moving from a mono-polar (US centric view) to a multi-polar and someday hopefully truly international work form. Before we moved from 4:1:1 to 3:2:1, the percentages were not yet fully in favor of the move either, but they significantly shifted over the last years. And they will continue to shift further. So we should consider that although currently 1:1:1 is not representing the current ratios, it may well represent the future ratios if we allow them to go this way. And that is what we should do. We should avoid to lock ourselves into a biased situation where travel costs reinforce the status quo and deprive us of a future wider international participation. So my proposal would be to balance the cost pressures of current contributors with the future contributions we expect from the different areas and choose a future oriented ratio with 1:1:1. (North America:Europe:Asia) Many greetings, Tobias On 08/30/2010 08:28 PM, Ross Callon wrote: I also feel that 3:2:2 is about the right ratio. Ross -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 12:28 PM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent And even closer to 3:2:2 ? - Original Message - From: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu To: Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Cc: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 5:14 PM Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent Noel == Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu writes: I suspect that a more nuanced analysis would have this as 1.7 and shrinking : 1 and stable : 1 and stable. Noel and his conclusion: I would support 2:1:1 for the present, with an intention to review that in 2-3 years. Noel seems to me to be right on, given those 1.7:1:1 numbers - 1.7 is closer to 2 Noel than it is to 1... +1 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
The island that would probably best address most of the concerns brought up recently is Oahu. Large hotels on the neighbor islands tend to be resorts, where the idea is to keep you in the one hotel while not sightseeing. While there are several large hotels on Oahu that have meeting facilities, there is also the Hawaii Convention Center (http://www.hawaiiconvention.com/). Honolulu International Airport (HNL) has extensive direct connections to North America and Asia. The hotels in Waikiki are an easy taxi/bus/shuttle/rental car ride away. There are many restaurants and bars (of various repute) an easy walk from the Convention Center, as well as a major shopping center. There are several large hotels within 10 minutes walk. Hotel and airline prices will depend on the season. Spring and Fall would probably be the least expensive. The main problem would probably be finding a sponsor. Robin Uyeshiro Inst. for Astronomy Univ. of Hawaii -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randall Gellens Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:21 PM To: Hadriel Kaplan Cc: IETF-Discussion list Subject: Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent At 5:47 PM -0400 8/30/10, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: The obvious answer is to pick a location that is equi-distant or equally expensive for most people, and does not meet too often in one contintent. There is such a place: Hawaii. It is fairly mid-point between APAC and the Americas, and just slightly farther from Europe (well, a lot farther if you can't fly direct, but that's just due to airline routes, not distance-between-two-points). Furthermore, it's not in any continent, and thus equal for all in that regard. And it's a great tourist destination, and has plenty of meeting facilities, restaurants, Internet bandwidth, and no trains. So this seems to address everyone's concerns. Therefore, I propose we meet in Hawaii (and Kauai in particular) from now on. Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island. We can even rotate islands if people get bored. Well, there are extensive conference facilities on Oahu, the Big Island, Maui, and Kauai. I have no information as to if they would work for a group of our size and with our need for breakout rooms. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- The chance of forgetting something is directly proportional to.touh.. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
First I like the idea of Hawaii because flights and hotels can be inexpensive even from Europe (although Hilo might be cheaper and just as easy to get to as Honolulu). However I still think we need to account for actual participation in the equation to decide which places to hold meetings. Participation is more than just registering. Scott On Aug 30, 2010 7:54 PM, Robin Uyeshiro uyesh...@ifa.hawaii.edu wrote: The island that would probably best address most of the concerns brought up recently is Oahu. Large hotels on the neighbor islands tend to be resorts, where the idea is to keep you in the one hotel while not sightseeing. While there are several large hotels on Oahu that have meeting facilities, there is also the Hawaii Convention Center (http://www.hawaiiconvention.com/). Honolulu International Airport (HNL) has extensive direct connections to North America and Asia. The hotels in Waikiki are an easy taxi/bus/shuttle/rental car ride away. There are many restaurants and bars (of various repute) an easy walk from the Convention Center, as well as a major shopping center. There are several large hotels within 10 minutes walk. Hotel and airline prices will depend on the season. Spring and Fall would probably be the least expensive. The main problem would probably be finding a sponsor. Robin Uyeshiro Inst. for Astronomy Univ. of Hawaii -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randall Gellens Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:21 PM To: Hadriel Kaplan Cc: IETF-Discussion list S... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Hotel Nikko (overflow) distance from Shangri-La Hotel
I just searched at google map, The result shows it is 1.6 kilometers away from the meeting venue hotel, or 1 mile, 20 minutes walk. Google map shows me three Nikko hotels around there, a bit confusing, luckily the map at Nikko hotel website http://www.newcenturyhotel.com.cn/en/hotel.html indicates the right one. Best Regards, Xiangsong -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 1:06 PM Cc: i...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Hotel Nikko (overflow) distance from Shangri-La Hotel Am I correctly reading that the overflow hotel for Beijing is approximately eight (8) kilometers away from the primary hotel? If so, why? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Hotel Nikko (overflow) distance from Shangri-La Hotel
At 9:28 AM +0800 8/31/10, Xiangsong Cui wrote: I just searched at google map, The result shows it is 1.6 kilometers away from the meeting venue hotel, or 1 mile, 20 minutes walk. Google map shows me three Nikko hotels around there, a bit confusing, luckily the map at Nikko hotel website http://www.newcenturyhotel.com.cn/en/hotel.html indicates the right one. Also, from the IETF site: NOTE: Distance between the Hotel Nikko and the Shangri-La Hotel is approximately 10 minutes by cab or bus (depending on traffic) and 20 minutes walking (though not recommended, it may be rather cold). A shuttle bus will be provided between the two venues running continually between the hotels for 1 hour prior and 1 hour after the event everyday from November 7 - 12, 2010. During the conference hours on November 8 - 12, 2010 the shuttle bus will be running between the two hotels every 1 hour. Cab prices between the two venues will cost approximately RMB 10-15 (approximately USD 2.20; EUR 1.75; JPY 186). --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Last Call: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-04.txt (Unicast Transmission of IPv6 Multicast Messages on Link-layer) to Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Unicast Transmission of IPv6 Multicast Messages on Link-layer' draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-04.txt as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the i...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2010-09-27. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast/ No IPR declarations were found that appear related to this I-D. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Protocol Action: 'IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators' to Proposed Standard
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators' draft-ietf-behave-address-format-10.txt as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance Working Group. The IESG contact persons are David Harrington and Lars Eggert. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-address-format/ Technical Summary This document discusses the algorithmic translation of an IPv6 address to a corresponding IPv4 address, and vice versa, using only statically configured information. It defines a well-known prefix for use in algorithmic translations, while allowing organizations to also use network-specific prefixes when appropriate. Algorithmic translation is used in IPv4/IPv6 translators, as well as other types of proxies and gateways (e.g., for DNS) used in IPv4/IPv6 scenarios. Working Group Summary This document represents the WG consensus that accommodates different approaches for the different scenarios Behave was chartered to solve. Document Quality This document is not a protocol, but there are implementations in progress, e.g. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg08102.html Several vendors are actively implementing the specification. Special reviewers are listed in the document's acknowledgement section. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Dave Thaler Who is the Responsible Area Director? David Harrington The document doesn't require IANA experts. RFC Editor Note Please be sure IPv6 hex addresses are represented in lowercase hex, as per draft-ietf-6man-text-representation. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Protocol Action: 'Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers' to Proposed Standard
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers' draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12.txt as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance Working Group. The IESG contact persons are David Harrington and Lars Eggert. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful/ Technical Summary This document describes stateful NAT64 translation, which allows IPv6-only clients to contact IPv4 servers using unicast UDP, TCP, or ICMP. The public IPv4 address can be shared among several IPv6-only clients. When the stateful NAT64 is used in conjunction with DNS64 no changes are usually required in the IPv6 client or the IPv4 server. Working Group Summary The document represents WG consensus Document Quality several vendors are actively implementing the specification. Personnel Responsible AD: David Harrington Dave Thaler (dtha...@microsoft.com) is the document shepherd. The document doesn't require IANA experts. RFC Editor Notes 1. Please provide an informational reference to RFC 5245 for ICE, and RFC 5389 for STUN, and expand the terms on first use. 2. Among the contributors, s/Parreault/Perreault/ 4. Please be sure IPv6 hex addresses are represented in lowercase hex, as per draft-ietf-6man-text-representation. 5. in 3.5.1.1 and in 3.5.2.3 OLD: In all cases, the allocated IPv4 transport address (T,t) MUST NOT be in use in another entry in the same BIB, but MAY be in use in the other BIB (referring to the UDP and TCP BIBs) NEW: In all cases, the allocated IPv4 transport address (T,t) MUST NOT be in use in another entry in the same BIB, but can be in use in other BIBs (e.g., the UDP and TCP BIBs) ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Document Action: 'MIKEY-TICKET: Ticket Based Modes of Key Distribution in Multimedia Internet KEYing (MIKEY)' to Informational RFC
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'MIKEY-TICKET: Ticket Based Modes of Key Distribution in Multimedia Internet KEYing (MIKEY)' draft-mattsson-mikey-ticket-05.txt as an Informational RFC This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG contact person is Tim Polk. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mattsson-mikey-ticket/ Technical Summary This specification describes a MIKEY modes that relies on a centralized key management service. The mode uses a trusted key management service and a ticket concept, similar to that in Kerberos. The new mode also supports features called forking where the exact identity of the other endpoint may not be known at the start of the communication session, which is required by some applications, Working Group Summary This is not the product of an IETF wg, but was presented to the msec wg and reviewed by the chairs. Document Quality There are no existing implementations of the protocol, but the protocol is one option under consideration by 3GPP. Personnel Vincent Roca is the Document Shepherd for this document. Tim Polk is the Responsible Area Director.' RFC Editor Note Please insert the following paragraph at the beginning of Section 12: This specification includes a large number of optional features, which adds complexity to the general case. Protocol designers are strongly encouraged to establish strict profiles defining MIKEY-TICKET options (e.g., exchanges or message fields) that SHOULD or MUST be supported. Such profiles should preclude unexpected consequences from compliant implementations with wildly differing option sets. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Protocol Action: 'Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification' to Proposed Standard
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification' draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-10.txt as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Transport Area Working Group. The IESG contact persons are David Harrington and Lars Eggert. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel/ Technical Summary This document redefines how the explicit congestion notification (ECN) field of the IP header should be constructed on entry to and exit from any IP in IP tunnel. It updates RFC3168, aligning this with RFC4301 for IPsec ECN processing. It also updates RFC4301 to add new behaviours for previously unused combinations of inner and outer header. This update is thought to benefit work on PCN and align IP tunnel behaviour with that of IPSec. Working Group Summary The WG contributed to this work and participated in review of this document. It has the support of the TSVWG. Document Quality There are no implementation reports for this specification, but interoperability issues were discussed in the WG and the current specification is thought ready for deployment. Most of the final discussion was on good engineering practice for the future use of the ECN codepoints. David Black assisted in performing this review and in review of the normative wording. Personnel Document Shepherd: Gorry Fairhurst, TSVWG Chair Responsible Area Director: David Harrington No IANA experts are needed for this document. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Document Action: 'Trust Anchor Management Requirements' to Informational RFC
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Trust Anchor Management Requirements' draft-ietf-pkix-ta-mgmt-reqs-06.txt as an Informational RFC This document is the product of the Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Tim Polk and Sean Turner. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pkix-ta-mgmt-reqs/ Technical Summary A trust anchor represents an authoritative entity via a public key and associated data. The public key is used to verify digital signatures and the associated data is used to constrain the types of information for which the trust anchor is authoritative. A relying party uses trust anchors to determine if a digitally signed object is valid by verifying a digital signature using the trust anchor's public key, and by enforcing the constraints expressed in the associated data for the trust anchor. This document describes some of the problems associated with the lack of a standard trust anchor management mechanism and defines requirements for data formats and push-based protocols designed to address these problems. Working Group Summary This document entered the working group following the Trust Anchor Management BOF and was a successor to the problem statement developed for that BOF. The working group discussed the requirements at length and set the draft aside following working group last call pending completion of work on technical specifications that fulfill the requirements in this draft. Now that work on the specifications is nearing conclusion, this draft is being progressed as informational to capture the discussion that preceded and accompanied the development of the technical specifications. Document Quality The document is reasonably well-written. Personnel Steve Kent is the Document Shepherd; Tim Polk is the Responsible Area Director. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Document Action: 'ASN.1 Translation' to Informational RFC
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'ASN.1 Translation' draft-ietf-pkix-asn1-translation-03.txt as an Informational RFC This document is the product of the Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Tim Polk and Sean Turner. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pkix-asn1-translation/ Technical Summary This document is intended to provide guidance to specification authors and to implementers converting ASN.1 modules written using one version of ASN.1 to another version, without causing changes to the bits on the wire. This document does not provide a comprehensive tutorial of any version of ASN.1. Instead, it addresses ASN.1 features that are used in IETF security area specifications with focus on items that vary between the two ASN.1 versions of interest (1988 and 2002). Working Group Summary The document was produced per working group request following debate focused on the draft-ietf-pkix-new-asn1 draft. Some working group members voiced concern that not all ASN.1 compilers currently in use support the 2002 syntax. The document aims to explain the differences between ASN.1 versions, allowing specification authors and implementers to target the desired version of ASN.1. Document Quality The document does not define a protocol, so there are no implementations per se. Steps described in the document are consistent with those used by the authors of draft-ietf-pkix-new-asn1 to migrate from older syntax to new syntax. Personnel Steve Kent is the Document Shepherd; Tim Polk is the Responsible Area Director. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Document Action: 'Suite B Profile of Certificate Management over CMS' to Informational RFC
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Suite B Profile of Certificate Management over CMS' draft-turner-suiteb-cmc-03.txt as an Informational RFC This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG contact person is Tim Polk. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-suiteb-cmc/ Technical Summary This is a profile of RFC 5272-5274 (Certificate Management over CMS) that is specific to the United States National Security Agency's Suite B Cryptography specification. In essence, it profiles RFC 5272-5274 to meet the Suite B requirements. Working Group Summary The document was announced on the PKIX WG mailing list, and some off-list comments were sent to the document authors. There was also a short presentation on the document at IETF 77. It was not appropriate to discuss it in the WG itself. Document Quality It is expected that this document will be widely adopted by vendors for the organization that wrote this profile. Most if not all of the algorithms specified in this profile are already in at least one popular open-source package. Personnel Sean Turner is the Document Shepherd; Tim Polk is the Responsible Area Director. RFC Editor Note (1) In section 5.1., paragraph 1 sentence 1 s/if they are not, the CA MUST reject those/if they are not, the RA MUST reject those/ In section 6.1., paragraph 3 OLD When processing end-entity generated SignedData objects, RAs MUST NOT NEW When processing end-entity generated SignedData objects, CAs MUST NOT ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
