Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

[Randy Bush]

>> while i appreciate joe's listening to my other comments on the draft, i
>> still strongly object to publication of this draft as an rfc for the
>> reasons made very clear in the sec cons.  please read the summary
>> section of rfc 2804.
> 
> While the RFC should not be materially misleading, I don't think there
> is a requirement for Informational RFCs to guarantee any particular
> level or security or privacy.

that the draft now tries to slide by as info does not change that it
specified protocol elements and how they are to be used.  and the draft
makes very clear that this is juristiction specific and a serious
privacy problem.

> RFC 2804 is about

i am very well aware what 2804 contains

> RFC 2804 doesn't seem to me to be particularly applicable.

i disagree.  i believe the first two bullets in section one are very
applicable to joe's draft.

   - The IETF, an international standards body, believes itself to be
 the wrong forum for designing protocol or equipment features that
 address needs arising from the laws of individual countries,
 because these laws vary widely across the areas that IETF standards
 are deployed in.  Bodies whose scope of authority correspond to a
 single regime of jurisdiction are more appropriate for this task.

   - The IETF sets standards for communications that pass across
 networks that may be owned, operated and maintained by people from
 numerous jurisdictions with numerous requirements for privacy.  In
 light of these potentially divergent requirements, the IETF
 believes that the operation of the Internet and the needs of its
 users are best served by making sure the security properties of
 connections across the Internet are as well known as possible.  At
 the present stage of our ignorance this means making them as free
 from security loopholes as possible.

randy

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

[Dave Crocker]

On 5/27/2013 11:38 PM, Christian O'Flaherty wrote:

I would like to follow up on this proposal. Having a meeting in South
America scheduled two or three years in advance will let us engage
local organisations and individuals on a "project". We did several
activities in the region trying to encourage IETF participation, but
we're going to be much more effective if they're part of a plan with a
strong commitment (and effort) from the IETF community.



Such a project sounds like an excellent idea and it could be interesting 
to pursue it with coordination from the IETF community.


One point worth noting is that the primary work of the IETF is conducted 
over email.  Consequently, the project does not require an in-person 
meeting with the IETF community.  In fact, relying on an in-person 
meeting for the effort is counter-productive training for being 
effective in the IETF.  I don't mean that such meetings aren't useful, 
but that I believe they are secondary to the work that is done over the 
rest of the time.


d/

--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

[Donald Eastlake]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
> while i appreciate joe's listening to my other comments on the draft, i
> still strongly object to publication of this draft as an rfc for the
> reasons made very clear in the sec cons.  please read the summary
> section of rfc 2804.

While the RFC should not be materially misleading, I don't think there
is a requirement for Informational RFCs to guarantee any particular
level or security or privacy.

RFC 2804 is about the security of communications content, not the
security of statically stored address information. I'm not denying the
applicability of some security considerations, I'm just saying that
RFC 2804 doesn't seem to me to be particularly applicable. In any
case, the final part of the summary section of RFC 2804 calls for the
publication of specifications that might affect security.

Thanks,
Donald
=
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e...@gmail.com

> randy

Re: More participation from under-represented regions

[Jorge Amodio]

Great job Julião, thanks for sharing. 

-Jorge

On May 27, 2013, at 8:34 PM, Juliao Braga  wrote:

> Thank you, Jorge.
> 
> I did this when I wrote a article about IETF, in Portuguese, named "The
> ISOC, the IETF and the Internet Infrastructure:
> http://ii.blog.br/2013/01/03/a-isoc-o-ietf-e-a-infraestrutura-da-infraestrutura-da-internet/
> 
> and, also in Portuguese, "Understanding RFCs:
> http://ii.blog.br/2013/02/03/entendendo-rfcs/
> 
> Julião
> 
> Em 27/05/2013 21:58, Jorge Amodio escreveu:
>> 
>> Tell them to start at http://www.ietf.org/tao.html
>> 
>> It is available in few languages 
>> 
>> -Jorge
>> 
>>> What I said is that they do not know the processes involved in the
>>> production of what they read. In other words, they do not know the IETF.
>>> 

Re: WebRTC and emergency communications (Was: Re: IETF Meeting in South America)

[Richard Barnes]

Keep in mind, though, that the binary decision is usually per site.  So if
the PSAP is web-enabled, the user can provide location to 911.gov, and not
anyone else.

That seems like a solution that's more likely to deploy than something that
requires the browser to distinguish emergency from non-emergency web apps.

--Richard


On Monday, May 27, 2013, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> Agreed - this is not so much about standards, but developer awareness. If
> we write any "how to" or similar informational documents, they should
> probably contain that type of discussion.
>
> There is a browser aspect, however: Right now, users only have a binary
> choice about location disclosure, even though I suspect many users would be
> fine with "location disclosure for 911 only", not "disclose my fine-grained
> location for any purpose you like".
>
> On May 27, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Richard Barnes  wrote:
>
> Even for location delivery, there's not that much to say at the standards
> layer.
>
> For *delivery*, the story is the same as with signaling.  Either the
> RTCWeb VoIP service can translate the location information to comply with
> RFC 6442, or the PSAP can just build a web app that collects it however it
> likes.
>
> For *determination*, it's about the browser.  You can do browser-based
> geolocation today, to "OK" quality.  Or the browser could implement the
> GEOPRIV protocols to benefit from network-provided location.
>
> All that's about implementation/deployment though.  I don't really see any
> new standards there.
>
> --Richard
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Henning Schulzrinne  > wrote:
>
> The most difficult part for any emergency calling system is location
> delivery. WebRTC probably doesn't have much impact on emergency calls if
> all the calls traverse a server of some kind and if the caller location can
> be looked up based on caller IP addresses, but once you have the end system
> involved in location determination (e.g., for mobile devices or for
> DHCP-delivered location), it has to know when a call is an emergency call
> as you otherwise end up providing location for every call, which is
> non-ideal from a privacy and battery perspective.
>
> At least in the US, many of the WebRTC services would be considered
> "interconnected VoIP", so they are indeed subject to 911 obligations.
>
> Henning
>
> On May 26, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Richard Barnes  wrote:
>
> Indeed, there has already been some coordination between the groups, going
> back about a year:
> 
> 
>
> So my read of the situation is much less dire than James's.  As I
> understand it, the upshot of the initial coordination discussions is that
> there's not a single, clear "RTCWEB+ECRIT" story.  Instead, there are a few
> ways you can put them together.  In the short run, without upgrading PSAPs,
> RTCWEB VoIP services can bridge RTCWEB signaling to ECRIT-compliant SIP,
> either at the server, or at the client using something like
> SIP-over-WebSockets.  In the long run, PSAPs can just advertise an RTCWEB
> service like they would advertise a SIP service today (in LoST).  Neither
> of these is incompatible with RTCWEB or ECRIT as they're being specified
> today.
>
> I expect there are probably some ECRIT considerations that aren't
> naturally supported in RTCWEB.  Things like real-time text come to mind.
>  However, it doesn't seem to me that there's gross incompatibility.
>
> --Richard
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
>
> --On Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:10 +0300 Jari Arkko
>  wrote:
>
> >...
> > I didn't know about the details of the emergency
> > communications situation. But it is always difficult to
> > balance getting something out early vs. compl
>
>

Re: More participation from under-represented regions

[Juliao Braga]

Thank you, Jorge.

I did this when I wrote a article about IETF, in Portuguese, named "The
ISOC, the IETF and the Internet Infrastructure:
http://ii.blog.br/2013/01/03/a-isoc-o-ietf-e-a-infraestrutura-da-infraestrutura-da-internet/

and, also in Portuguese, "Understanding RFCs:
http://ii.blog.br/2013/02/03/entendendo-rfcs/

Julião

Em 27/05/2013 21:58, Jorge Amodio escreveu:
> 
> Tell them to start at http://www.ietf.org/tao.html
> 
> It is available in few languages 
> 
> -Jorge
> 
>> What I said is that they do not know the processes involved in the
>> production of what they read. In other words, they do not know the IETF.
>>

Re: More participation from under-represented regions

[Jorge Amodio]

Tell them to start at http://www.ietf.org/tao.html

It is available in few languages 

-Jorge

> What I said is that they do not know the processes involved in the
> production of what they read. In other words, they do not know the IETF.
> 

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

[Randy Bush]

while i appreciate joe's listening to my other comments on the draft, i
still strongly object to publication of this draft as an rfc for the
reasons made very clear in the sec cons.  please read the summary
section of rfc 2804.

randy

Re: More participation from under-represented regions

[Juliao Braga]

Hi Scott,

They know RFCs => they read, learn and understand.

If they have problems, have any restrictions or see any gap on the
content of the RFCs, I don't know, unfortunately.

What I said is that they do not know the processes involved in the
production of what they read. In other words, they do not know the IETF.

But this is not a general rule! Occurs with much people. I don't have
the slightest idea how many would.

Best Regards,

Julião

Em 27/05/2013 18:31, Scott Brim escreveu:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Juliao Braga  > wrote:
> 
> 2. Our people know RFCs, but are far from knowing about the IETF. 
> 
> 
> Juliao, you say they know RFCs. Do they have problems with the RFCs? 
> Do they see gaps in what they can do, or problems with what the RFCs
> recommend? 
> 
> If they do not, then there is no reason for them to be involved in the
> IETF.  If they do, then you can point them to specific working groups
> that are working in that area.  

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

[Christian O'Flaherty]

Hi,

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Jari Arkko  wrote:
> I'm not quite sure the currency exchange issues are key for this discussion. 
> FWIW, I think you can still budget in Euros for the Berlin meeting,
> but I'm only 97% sure :-)
>
> Anyway, I wanted to highlight that, as has been pointed out by many, just 
> meeting at some place makes little sense. But the question on the
> table is not just that. We're asking both about the meeting and about what 
> other forms of getting additional participation from the region would
> be useful. My personal opinion is that we need to do multiple things to make 
> an impact. And again IMO, meetings should be a part of that set.
> But definitely not alone. I know many of you have been very willing to help 
> out in going out to new areas of the world to speak, gather input,
> and get familiar with more people. Thank you. I certainly plan to do that as 
> well.
>

I would like to follow up on this proposal. Having a meeting in South
America scheduled two or three years in advance will let us engage
local organisations and individuals on a "project". We did several
activities in the region trying to encourage IETF participation, but
we're going to be much more effective if they're part of a plan with a
strong commitment (and effort) from the IETF community.

Since this opportunity was announced, there were several contacts and
proposals from different groups asking for additional information,
suggesting things to do, asking for details, etc. We now have a much
more fertile ground to do multiple things.

> The other thing that was mentioned was political pressure to appear 
> international. My opinion is that doing something purely based on that
> would be silly and potentially harmful. However, I think we have a situation 
> where we simultaneously need wider involvement from different
> organisations & areas, are reaching out to new types of participants 
> (including, shock! even regulators in cases like PAWS), and do face
> some pressures about how we are perceived. An IETF that is open, has broad 
> participation that is based on actual technical substance is in a
> very good position to continue to be perceived as the authority it is. This 
> is not to say we are not already about all those things; we are. But I
> think we definitely need to go even further.

Going further will also enrich the IETF work and community (making it
more international becomes a side effect). In this region there are
many engineers, software developers, people at Universities, etc. that
could provide new ideas and energy to the IETF.

Christian

> A few other responses:
>
> Randy wrote:
>
>>  (1) "need-based" evangelism.  Outreach efforts are more
>>  effective if they sincerely address specific needs of
>>  the target community.  Does face-to-face participation in
>>  the IETF offer things practitioners in under-represented
>>  regions feel they need?  As long as we focus on how it
>>  could help *us*, rather than what needs it would address
>>  for them, it'll be far less effective than it could be.
>
>
> Very true.
>
> Melinda wrote:
>
>> The industry sector bias in IETF participation is
>> possibly compounding the regional bias.
>
>
> Yes.
>
> Jari
>

Re: More participation from under-represented regions

[Scott Brim]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Juliao Braga  wrote:

> 2. Our people know RFCs, but are far from knowing about the IETF.


Juliao, you say they know RFCs. Do they have problems with the RFCs? Do
they see gaps in what they can do, or problems with what the RFCs
recommend?

If they do not, then there is no reason for them to be involved in the
IETF.  If they do, then you can point them to specific working groups that
are working in that area.

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Scott Brim]

I would prefer that people come to the IETF because they have a problem and
they are looking for ways to solve it ... as opposed to wanting to work
with the IETF for some reason and looking for something "the IETF" wants
them to work on.  The former feels like engineering, the latter like
professional standards going.  Therefore, if someone says they are looking
for a problem to work on, I ask them to bring a problem with them.

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[David Morris]

On Sun, 26 May 2013, Melinda Shore wrote:

> It also seems unlikely to me that that million dollars is otherwise
> available.
> 
> I like the idea of setting up a remote participation center (doubly-
> so if one or more very experienced IETFers who spoke the local language
> could be on-site) but it seems very unlikely to me that, say, a Frobnitz
> Networks employee would be able to convinced Frobnitz Networks to send
> the $400 saved by not going to Buenos Aires to such an undertaking.

Your are likely right, but the discussion hasn't included the negative
impression on Frobnitz management re. the added expense.

Just because the money can't be 'recovered' for other use, doesn't
make it rational to spend it.

Re: financial fun with an IETF Meeting in South America

[Tim Chown]

On 27 May 2013, at 16:37, John R Levine  wrote:

>> Is this above advice from Tripadvisor correct?
> 
> I believe so, but when I was there a few years ago for the ICANN meeting, 
> excess cash was not a problem.  It wasn't hard to estimate how much cash I'd 
> need, and whatever was left I spent at the airport.  The wine they drink in 
> Argentina is often better than the stuff they send to the UK (which isn't 
> bad) and much cheaper.  Take some home in your suitcase, even if you have to 
> pay duty it's a bargain.

It's not necessarily so easy over the course of seven days. But I guess we 
could also just give all our leftover cash to a deserving Argentinian IETF 
attendee.  Fernando may like that approach :)

> This still doesn't mean I think a meeting in South America is a good idea, 
> though.  See other messages.

I think Jari's views are spot on. There's a bigger picture question to address, 
regardless of the meeting venues, and not just for that region. 

Tim

Re: WebRTC and emergency communications (Was: Re: IETF Meeting in South America)

[cb.list6]

On May 27, 2013 10:56 AM, "Henning Schulzrinne"  wrote:
>
> Agreed - this is not so much about standards, but developer awareness. If
we write any "how to" or similar informational documents, they should
probably contain that type of discussion.
>
> There is a browser aspect, however: Right now, users only have a binary
choice about location disclosure, even though I suspect many users would be
fine with "location disclosure for 911 only", not "disclose my fine-grained
location for any purpose you like".
>

WebRTC is just a website in many respects.

I would like to see telcos get out of this starngely engineered and
regulated world and just be a "dumb pipe" for smart emergency services

And, in its place, the relevant emergergency response stakeholders
deblvelop 911.gov and when i need help i go to 911.gov and have a webrtc
call to my relevant emergency agency, or sip://h...@911.gov .

And like  root CA certs, the location disclosure is already approved by the
browser vendors (giving user choices is not advised in emergencies)

CB
> On May 27, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Richard Barnes  wrote:
>
>> Even for location delivery, there's not that much to say at the
standards layer.
>>
>> For *delivery*, the story is the same as with signaling.  Either the
RTCWeb VoIP service can translate the location information to comply with
RFC 6442, or the PSAP can just build a web app that collects it however it
likes.
>>
>> For *determination*, it's about the browser.  You can do browser-based
geolocation today, to "OK" quality.  Or the browser could implement the
GEOPRIV protocols to benefit from network-provided location.
>>
>> All that's about implementation/deployment though.  I don't really see
any new standards there.
>>
>> --Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <
h...@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> The most difficult part for any emergency calling system is location
delivery. WebRTC probably doesn't have much impact on emergency calls if
all the calls traverse a server of some kind and if the caller location can
be looked up based on caller IP addresses, but once you have the end system
involved in location determination (e.g., for mobile devices or for
DHCP-delivered location), it has to know when a call is an emergency call
as you otherwise end up providing location for every call, which is
non-ideal from a privacy and battery perspective.
>>>
>>> At least in the US, many of the WebRTC services would be considered
"interconnected VoIP", so they are indeed subject to 911 obligations.
>>>
>>> Henning
>>>
>>> On May 26, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Richard Barnes  wrote:
>>>
 Indeed, there has already been some coordination between the groups,
going back about a year:
 
 

 So my read of the situation is much less dire than James's.  As I
understand it, the upshot of the initial coordination discussions is that
there's not a single, clear "RTCWEB+ECRIT" story.  Instead, there are a few
ways you can put them together.  In the short run, without upgrading PSAPs,
RTCWEB VoIP services can bridge RTCWEB signaling to ECRIT-compliant SIP,
either at the server, or at the client using something like
SIP-over-WebSockets.  In the long run, PSAPs can just advertise an RTCWEB
service like they would advertise a SIP service today (in LoST).  Neither
of these is incompatible with RTCWEB or ECRIT as they're being specified
today.

 I expect there are probably some ECRIT considerations that aren't
naturally supported in RTCWEB.  Things like real-time text come to mind.
 However, it doesn't seem to me that there's gross incompatibility.

 --Richard




 On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, John C Klensin 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --On Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:10 +0300 Jari Arkko
>  wrote:
>
> >...
> > I didn't know about the details of the emergency
> > communications situation. But it is always difficult to
> > balance getting something out early vs. complete. I know how
> > much pressure there is on the working groups to keep up with
> > things actually happening in the browsers and organisations
> > setting up to use this technology. Do you think the retrofit
> > will be problematic, and do you have a specific suggestion
> > about what should be included today?
>
> Jari,
>
> James will probably have a different answer and perspective, but
> I suggest that retrofits of security-sensitive features are so
> often problematic to make "always" not much of an exaggeration.
>
> I don't think there is any general solution to the "early vs.
> complete" tradeoff [1], nor, as long as we keep trying to deal
> with things as collections of disconnected pieces rather than
> systems, to the issues created by WGs with significant overlaps
> in either scope or 

Re: [manet] Last Call: (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC

[Melinda Shore]

On 5/27/13 10:39 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> I also didn't see objection of my comments from the WG. I also didn't
> see support of your reply from the WG.  (WG decisions are
> WG-rough-consensus, not the editors opinion).

Chairs call consensus.

Re: Last Call: (IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters) to Best Current Practice

[Donald Eastlake]

The first part of Section 2.1 should have a sentence added like "An
RRTYPE code has been assigned so 48-bit MAC addresses can be stored
using the DNS protocol." with an appropriate reference. A similar
sentence for 64-bit MAC addresses should be added to the first part of
Section 2.2.

The lists of Ethertypes in Appendix B should be brought up to date.

Thanks,
Donald
=
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e...@gmail.com


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:07 AM, The IESG  wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
> - 'IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE
>802 Parameters'
>as Best Current Practice
>
> 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
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-04. 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.
>
> Abstract
>
>
>Some IETF protocols make use of Ethernet frame formats and IEEE 802
>parameters.  This document discusses some use of such parameters in
>IETF protocols, specifies IANA considerations for assignment of
>points under the IANA OUI (Organizationally Unique Identifier),
>provides some values for use in documentation, and obsoletes RFC
>5342.
>
>
>
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis/ballot/
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
>

Re: [manet] Last Call: (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC

[Abdussalam Baryun]

On 5/27/13, Jiazi YI  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think those comments have been addressed/answered in my previous reply
>
>   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15274.html
>
> I didn't see the support of your comments from other WG participants.

I also didn't see objection of my comments from the WG. I also didn't
see support of your reply from the WG.  (WG decisions are
WG-rough-consensus, not the editors opinion). If there was WG
objection then I will report that in my reviews to IESG as
information.

AB

Re: [manet] Last Call: (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC

[Abdussalam Baryun]

Hi,
Reviews at this stage don't need supports from WG when it is in the
IETF Last Call, the comments are sent as per request of iesg.

AB

On 5/27/13, Jiazi YI  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think those comments have been addressed/answered in my previous reply
>
>   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15274.html
>
> I didn't see the support of your comments from other WG participants.
>
> best
>
> Jiazi
>
>
> 2013/5/27 Abdussalam Baryun 
>
>> Reply to your request dated 24/05/2013
>>
>> Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:27/05/2013
>> Reviewer Comment A1: Previous comments in WGLC
>> +++
>>
>> Related to your request below please read my previous review comments
>> [1] and I will continue with additional messages/comments.
>>
>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15254.html
>>
>> Regards
>> AB
>>
>> On 5/24/13, The IESG  wrote:
>> >
>> > The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG
>> > (manet) to consider the following document:
>> > - 'Security Threats for NHDP'
>> >as Informational RFC
>> >
>> > 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
>> > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-06. 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.
>> >
>> > Abstract
>> >
>> >This document analyses common security threats of the Neighborhood
>> >Discovery Protocol (NHDP), and describes their potential impacts on
>> >MANET routing protocols using NHDP.
>> >
>> > The file can be obtained via
>> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/
>> >
>> > IESG discussion can be tracked via
>> >
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/ballot/
>> >
>> >
>> > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>> > ___
>> > manet mailing list
>> > ma...@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>> >
>>
>

Re: WebRTC and emergency communications (Was: Re: IETF Meeting in South America)

[Henning Schulzrinne]

Agreed - this is not so much about standards, but developer awareness. If we 
write any "how to" or similar informational documents, they should probably 
contain that type of discussion.

There is a browser aspect, however: Right now, users only have a binary choice 
about location disclosure, even though I suspect many users would be fine with 
"location disclosure for 911 only", not "disclose my fine-grained location for 
any purpose you like".

On May 27, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Richard Barnes  wrote:

> Even for location delivery, there's not that much to say at the standards 
> layer.
> 
> For *delivery*, the story is the same as with signaling.  Either the RTCWeb 
> VoIP service can translate the location information to comply with RFC 6442, 
> or the PSAP can just build a web app that collects it however it likes.
> 
> For *determination*, it's about the browser.  You can do browser-based 
> geolocation today, to "OK" quality.  Or the browser could implement the 
> GEOPRIV protocols to benefit from network-provided location.
> 
> All that's about implementation/deployment though.  I don't really see any 
> new standards there.
> 
> --Richard
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Henning Schulzrinne  
> wrote:
> The most difficult part for any emergency calling system is location 
> delivery. WebRTC probably doesn't have much impact on emergency calls if all 
> the calls traverse a server of some kind and if the caller location can be 
> looked up based on caller IP addresses, but once you have the end system 
> involved in location determination (e.g., for mobile devices or for 
> DHCP-delivered location), it has to know when a call is an emergency call as 
> you otherwise end up providing location for every call, which is non-ideal 
> from a privacy and battery perspective.
> 
> At least in the US, many of the WebRTC services would be considered 
> "interconnected VoIP", so they are indeed subject to 911 obligations.
> 
> Henning
> 
> On May 26, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Richard Barnes  wrote:
> 
>> Indeed, there has already been some coordination between the groups, going 
>> back about a year:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> So my read of the situation is much less dire than James's.  As I understand 
>> it, the upshot of the initial coordination discussions is that there's not a 
>> single, clear "RTCWEB+ECRIT" story.  Instead, there are a few ways you can 
>> put them together.  In the short run, without upgrading PSAPs, RTCWEB VoIP 
>> services can bridge RTCWEB signaling to ECRIT-compliant SIP, either at the 
>> server, or at the client using something like SIP-over-WebSockets.  In the 
>> long run, PSAPs can just advertise an RTCWEB service like they would 
>> advertise a SIP service today (in LoST).  Neither of these is incompatible 
>> with RTCWEB or ECRIT as they're being specified today.
>> 
>> I expect there are probably some ECRIT considerations that aren't naturally 
>> supported in RTCWEB.  Things like real-time text come to mind.  However, it 
>> doesn't seem to me that there's gross incompatibility.
>> 
>> --Richard
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, John C Klensin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> --On Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:10 +0300 Jari Arkko
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> >...
>> > I didn't know about the details of the emergency
>> > communications situation. But it is always difficult to
>> > balance getting something out early vs. complete. I know how
>> > much pressure there is on the working groups to keep up with
>> > things actually happening in the browsers and organisations
>> > setting up to use this technology. Do you think the retrofit
>> > will be problematic, and do you have a specific suggestion
>> > about what should be included today?
>> 
>> Jari,
>> 
>> James will probably have a different answer and perspective, but
>> I suggest that retrofits of security-sensitive features are so
>> often problematic to make "always" not much of an exaggeration.
>> 
>> I don't think there is any general solution to the "early vs.
>> complete" tradeoff [1], nor, as long as we keep trying to deal
>> with things as collections of disconnected pieces rather than
>> systems, to the issues created by WGs with significant overlaps
>> in either scope or technology.  What I think we can do is to be
>> particularly vigilant to be sure that the two WGs are tracking
>> and frequently reviewing each other's work.   At least RTCWEB
>> and ECRIT are in the same area, which should make that
>> coordination easier than it might be otherwise.
>> 
>>john
>> 
>> 
>> [1] Watch for a note about this that I've been trying to
>> organize for about two weeks and hope to finish and post this
>> weekend.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: WebRTC and emergency communications (Was: Re: IETF Meeting in South America)

[Richard Barnes]

Even for location delivery, there's not that much to say at the standards
layer.

For *delivery*, the story is the same as with signaling.  Either the RTCWeb
VoIP service can translate the location information to comply with RFC
6442, or the PSAP can just build a web app that collects it however it
likes.

For *determination*, it's about the browser.  You can do browser-based
geolocation today, to "OK" quality.  Or the browser could implement the
GEOPRIV protocols to benefit from network-provided location.

All that's about implementation/deployment though.  I don't really see any
new standards there.

--Richard



On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Henning Schulzrinne
wrote:

> The most difficult part for any emergency calling system is location
> delivery. WebRTC probably doesn't have much impact on emergency calls if
> all the calls traverse a server of some kind and if the caller location can
> be looked up based on caller IP addresses, but once you have the end system
> involved in location determination (e.g., for mobile devices or for
> DHCP-delivered location), it has to know when a call is an emergency call
> as you otherwise end up providing location for every call, which is
> non-ideal from a privacy and battery perspective.
>
> At least in the US, many of the WebRTC services would be considered
> "interconnected VoIP", so they are indeed subject to 911 obligations.
>
> Henning
>
> On May 26, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Richard Barnes  wrote:
>
> Indeed, there has already been some coordination between the groups, going
> back about a year:
> 
> 
>
> So my read of the situation is much less dire than James's.  As I
> understand it, the upshot of the initial coordination discussions is that
> there's not a single, clear "RTCWEB+ECRIT" story.  Instead, there are a few
> ways you can put them together.  In the short run, without upgrading PSAPs,
> RTCWEB VoIP services can bridge RTCWEB signaling to ECRIT-compliant SIP,
> either at the server, or at the client using something like
> SIP-over-WebSockets.  In the long run, PSAPs can just advertise an RTCWEB
> service like they would advertise a SIP service today (in LoST).  Neither
> of these is incompatible with RTCWEB or ECRIT as they're being specified
> today.
>
> I expect there are probably some ECRIT considerations that aren't
> naturally supported in RTCWEB.  Things like real-time text come to mind.
>  However, it doesn't seem to me that there's gross incompatibility.
>
> --Richard
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --On Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:10 +0300 Jari Arkko
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >...
>> > I didn't know about the details of the emergency
>> > communications situation. But it is always difficult to
>> > balance getting something out early vs. complete. I know how
>> > much pressure there is on the working groups to keep up with
>> > things actually happening in the browsers and organisations
>> > setting up to use this technology. Do you think the retrofit
>> > will be problematic, and do you have a specific suggestion
>> > about what should be included today?
>>
>> Jari,
>>
>> James will probably have a different answer and perspective, but
>> I suggest that retrofits of security-sensitive features are so
>> often problematic to make "always" not much of an exaggeration.
>>
>> I don't think there is any general solution to the "early vs.
>> complete" tradeoff [1], nor, as long as we keep trying to deal
>> with things as collections of disconnected pieces rather than
>> systems, to the issues created by WGs with significant overlaps
>> in either scope or technology.  What I think we can do is to be
>> particularly vigilant to be sure that the two WGs are tracking
>> and frequently reviewing each other's work.   At least RTCWEB
>> and ECRIT are in the same area, which should make that
>> coordination easier than it might be otherwise.
>>
>>john
>>
>>
>> [1] Watch for a note about this that I've been trying to
>> organize for about two weeks and hope to finish and post this
>> weekend.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: More participation from under-represented regions

[Juliao Braga]

Hi Edwin,

I don't know about AfriNIC. I know the reality of Brazil and a little
about Lacnic. My answers and additional comments follow.

1. When you appended: "...and that I believe should start at the
grassroots leve & at the regional/national level." you touch a very very
significant point!

2. Our people know RFCs, but are far from knowing about the IETF. So I
thing the process of participation in local events must be systematic,
e.g. one WG that need to do some pre-meeting before an annual meeting of
IETF. I think the *absence of the IETF* is the reason for the decline in
participation.

3. ISOC chapters can help immensely. If can not happen WGs meetings, so
the chapter can do a meeting about IETF at events happening
traditionally: Lacnic, Nic.br, SBC, etc. This is the systematic and
continuous ways, in my view. That such movements may become, time will
tell.

4. I do not believe that language is a problem in local events, but
Lacnic, Nic.br and others events traditionally have simultaneous
translation from English to Spanish and Portuguese and vice versa.

5. I think stimuli help, certainly. But it is not essential. What is
important is the *participation of the IETF* locally. Perhaps an
interesting step is to link the ISOC Fellowships with local
participation. That is, give significant value to local participation
when  happen the selection process.

6. Also, you must remember that in Brazil the infratestrutura the
Internet is very good. I don't know about the Africa countries. But I
think that we can abstract about this.

7. Given the structure of the IETF (very complex) I would recommend that
there were regional and local liaison peoples  helping ISOC chapters in
th plans of participations.

Let me see if your questions have been answered, please.

Regards,

Julião


Em 27/05/2013 07:01, Edwin A. Opare escreveu:
> To borrow your words: > "the issue is to establish a systematic
> and effective process in under-represented regions", and that I believe
> should start at the grassroots level & at the regional/national level .
>
> Why does the numbers from the AfriNIC and LACNIC regions keep declining?
> Don't these regions operate networks like everyone else? Which areas/WGs
> of the IETF will they find particularly helpful/useful to subscribe
> to? Are the AfNOG annual meetings enough to encourage participation from
> the AfriNIC region? Could the IETF run "a day or two event" annually at
> the AfNOG meetings as part of the "AfNOG Tutorials Workshop" to create a
> lot more awareness and elicit participation? Could the institution of
> "IETF Champions" in the under-rep regions where ISOC has presence
> influence participation from these regions?
> 
> The ISOC Ghana Chapter for example runs a GhNOG workshop (4 day event)
> annually in the month of July where workshop participants are trained in
> a variety of areas relating to System Administration, Network Monitoring
> & Management, CERTs and many more.
> 
> Going into the next workshop this July, the Chapter plans to dedicate a
> day of the workshop to awareness creation about the IETF. Will this
> increase participation from Ghana in any way? If the approach is done
> right with a keen focus on the needs of participants it most definitely
> will. 
> 
> At best we all agree there is the need for active participation and
> inclusiveness from all the regions if the Internet is to develop and
> evolve to its fullest potential. Let's work together to get EVERY
> ENGINEER on board!!

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Arturo Servin]

The idea that I had for this remote participation hub was to "break the
ice". I saw no problem to provide some facilities to newcomers are more
comfortable. Perhaps, later that would encourage them to improve their
English and participate.

But these are just ideas.

.as

On 5/27/13 1:30 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>>> Translation ?? This a very old discussion and moot point, people that
>>> have interest to participate in this type of international forums and
>>> processes SHOULD learn English.
> 
>> Another barrier.
>>
>> Anyway we are talking about remote participation only.
> 
> You guys would know better than us gringos, but how likely is it that
> having translation available for live sessions would encourage people to
> use their limited English to work through drafts and try some e-mail?
> 
> Regards,
> John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Arturo Servin]

On 5/27/13 12:41 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> 
> Translation ?? This a very old discussion and moot point, people that have 
> interest to participate in this type of international forums and processes 
> SHOULD learn English.
> 
> -Jorge
> 

Another barrier.

Anyway we are talking about remote participation only.

.as

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[John R Levine]

Translation ?? This a very old discussion and moot point, people that 
have interest to participate in this type of international forums and 
processes SHOULD learn English.



Another barrier.

Anyway we are talking about remote participation only.


You guys would know better than us gringos, but how likely is it that 
having translation available for live sessions would encourage people to 
use their limited English to work through drafts and try some e-mail?


Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: financial fun with an IETF Meeting in South America

[Jorge Amodio]

You should double check, regulations about currency markets are changing
very often, custom/immigration officials will almost for sure ask you how
much currency you are bringing and for what, and as the trip advisor page
says don't expect to be able to convert back leftover pesos to foreign
currency.

There are several sites and news media pages where you can check the
current exchange rates, and expect some volatility on the prices

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1585934-sin-cambios-el-dolar-blue-comienza-la-semana-en-895

-J



On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:37 AM, John R Levine  wrote:

> Is this above advice from Tripadvisor correct?
>>
>
> I believe so, but when I was there a few years ago for the ICANN meeting,
> excess cash was not a problem.  It wasn't hard to estimate how much cash
> I'd need, and whatever was left I spent at the airport.  The wine they
> drink in Argentina is often better than the stuff they send to the UK
> (which isn't bad) and much cheaper.  Take some home in your suitcase, even
> if you have to pay duty it's a bargain.
>
> This still doesn't mean I think a meeting in South America is a good idea,
> though.  See other messages.
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
>

Re: WebRTC and emergency communications (Was: Re: IETF Meeting in South America)

[Henning Schulzrinne]

The most difficult part for any emergency calling system is location delivery. 
WebRTC probably doesn't have much impact on emergency calls if all the calls 
traverse a server of some kind and if the caller location can be looked up 
based on caller IP addresses, but once you have the end system involved in 
location determination (e.g., for mobile devices or for DHCP-delivered 
location), it has to know when a call is an emergency call as you otherwise end 
up providing location for every call, which is non-ideal from a privacy and 
battery perspective.

At least in the US, many of the WebRTC services would be considered 
"interconnected VoIP", so they are indeed subject to 911 obligations.

Henning

On May 26, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Richard Barnes  wrote:

> Indeed, there has already been some coordination between the groups, going 
> back about a year:
> 
> 
> 
> So my read of the situation is much less dire than James's.  As I understand 
> it, the upshot of the initial coordination discussions is that there's not a 
> single, clear "RTCWEB+ECRIT" story.  Instead, there are a few ways you can 
> put them together.  In the short run, without upgrading PSAPs, RTCWEB VoIP 
> services can bridge RTCWEB signaling to ECRIT-compliant SIP, either at the 
> server, or at the client using something like SIP-over-WebSockets.  In the 
> long run, PSAPs can just advertise an RTCWEB service like they would 
> advertise a SIP service today (in LoST).  Neither of these is incompatible 
> with RTCWEB or ECRIT as they're being specified today.
> 
> I expect there are probably some ECRIT considerations that aren't naturally 
> supported in RTCWEB.  Things like real-time text come to mind.  However, it 
> doesn't seem to me that there's gross incompatibility.
> 
> --Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, John C Klensin  wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:10 +0300 Jari Arkko
>  wrote:
> 
> >...
> > I didn't know about the details of the emergency
> > communications situation. But it is always difficult to
> > balance getting something out early vs. complete. I know how
> > much pressure there is on the working groups to keep up with
> > things actually happening in the browsers and organisations
> > setting up to use this technology. Do you think the retrofit
> > will be problematic, and do you have a specific suggestion
> > about what should be included today?
> 
> Jari,
> 
> James will probably have a different answer and perspective, but
> I suggest that retrofits of security-sensitive features are so
> often problematic to make "always" not much of an exaggeration.
> 
> I don't think there is any general solution to the "early vs.
> complete" tradeoff [1], nor, as long as we keep trying to deal
> with things as collections of disconnected pieces rather than
> systems, to the issues created by WGs with significant overlaps
> in either scope or technology.  What I think we can do is to be
> particularly vigilant to be sure that the two WGs are tracking
> and frequently reviewing each other's work.   At least RTCWEB
> and ECRIT are in the same area, which should make that
> coordination easier than it might be otherwise.
> 
>john
> 
> 
> [1] Watch for a note about this that I've been trying to
> organize for about two weeks and hope to finish and post this
> weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Arturo Servin]

On 5/27/13 11:15 AM, SM wrote:
> 
> Joel Jaeggli mentioned that a regional NOG is not fertile ground for new
> IETF participants.  Is LACNOG fertile ground for new IETF participants?

I guess so.

We have doing some efforts in the past and we are planning to do more.
You will see some recurrent participants to both places (ietf and lacnog).

> 
> The "sending email, comments, reviewing draft" is the really difficult
> part.  My uneducated guess is that it would takes months of work.  It's
> not as negative as it sounds if you consider that overcoming the barrier
> of entry might usually take over a year.

It is no negative in deed. It is just plain hard.

> 
> Could you ask the people who attended the talk (
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_zacX9DcZA ) to provide some feedback
> about it to edu-discuss mailing list?

Sure, I will do that.

Regards,
as

Re: Participation per Region of Authoring IETF documents vs Marketing

[Arturo Servin]

But also remember, writing I+D is just part of the equation. We also
need reviewers and comments.

Regards,
as

On 5/27/13 7:51 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> On May 27, 2013, at 12:10, Abdussalam Baryun  
> wrote:
>> Each IETF document mentions the authors place address (I may suggest
>> adding region, as a categorised by IETF), but not sure of history
>> statistics of how many IETF-documents produced by authors in South
>> America, Africa, or Asia, or others.
> 
> http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/d-countrydistr.html and related pages
> 
> Lars
> 

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Andy Bierman]

Hi Jari,

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Jari Arkko  wrote:

> John,
>
> > * People aren't aware the IETF exists, or what it does, or that it has
> > an open participation model
> >
> > * People don't read and write English well enough to be comfortable
> > participating
> >
> > * People are unaccustomed to and perhaps uncomfortable expressing
> > overt disagreement
> >
> > * People don't think they have anything to contribute to an organization
> > that is mostly people from rich countries
> >
> > * People don't have adequate Internet access for mail, or to use the
> > remote participation tools
>
> Thanks for sending out a list of potential issues.
>
> I think there may be one issue missing from the list. At the end of the
> day, what tends to drive people actual, concrete benefit to themselves or
> their organisations. A drive that is so big that it forces you to cross
> language and other barriers and make at least a time investment in
> participation. As an example, the number of Chinese participants has
> increased rapidly in the IETF. Why? We probably didn't suddenly get much
> better at welcoming new people at the IETF, but the new participants felt
> that work on the Internet is important to them personally, and their
> organisations felt that they need to be part of making Internet standards.
> This isn't very surprising, given, for instance, the rise of the Chinese
> technology industry to a very visible role in the world.
>
> So I feel that the issue in many cases is simpler than the ones in the
> list: "What's in it for me"? This obviously has to do with the role of
> vendors in the IETF and the distribution of tech industry in the world. It
> may also have something to do with doing things that are important. I'm
> sure we could be working on topics that are even better aligned to what the
> world needs… if the people who need them were here to tell us :-)
>
>

This is the most important factor and trumps all other combined.
If the standards work is relevant to your business or research then
the probability that you will participate in the IETF goes way up.

I think many people on this list forget how different doing engineering
in the IETF is from engineering for a private enterprise. Tasks that take
1 or 2 months in a private enterprise often take 1 or 2 years (or more!).
Competitors working on a standard have a completely different set
of incentives than employees working on a product, so agreement
on standards is much harder to achieve.

Newbies can have a hard time adjusting to these differences.




> The IETF can't change the distribution of industries in the world, but we
> can, for instance, focus on the vendors that are there or work more on
> topics that are interesting for the operational folks. The latter would be
> a good idea for the IETF, anyway.
>
> > For example, if language and net access is a problem, it might be
> > interesting to set up a remote participation center in B.A. during one
> > of the North American meetings (it's one time zone off from Toronto)
>
> We've been looking at setting up something like that (not for BA
> specifically).
>
> Jari
>
>

Andy

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[John R Levine]

On Mon, 27 May 2013, Yoav Nir wrote:


LCD?


LDC, Less Developed Country, what used to be called the third world, now 
that the second has been bought by the first.


Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Participation per Region of Authoring IETF documents vs Marketing

[Eggert, Lars]

On May 27, 2013, at 15:31, Abdussalam Baryun  wrote:
> On 5/27/13, Eggert, Lars  wrote:
>> On May 27, 2013, at 12:10, Abdussalam Baryun 
>> wrote:
>>> Each IETF document mentions the authors place address (I may suggest
>>> adding region, as a categorised by IETF), but not sure of history
>>> statistics of how many IETF-documents produced by authors in South
>>> America, Africa, or Asia, or others.
>> 
>> http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/d-countrydistr.html and related pages
> 
> I read that before, but does not show documents/RFCs per region. It
> shows drafts per countries. For example, does not show the drafts from
> South America. Does not show all regions in sequence of the most
> participated region.

That's why I wrote *and related pages*.

Clicking around Jari's pages, you will easily find 
http://www.arkko.com/tools/rfcstats/d-contdistr.html as well as many more stats.

As for "most participated region", look at the reports from the IAOC: 
http://iaoc.ietf.org/reports.html

Lars

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Jorge Amodio]

Translation ?? This a very old discussion and moot point, people that have 
interest to participate in this type of international forums and processes 
SHOULD learn English.

-Jorge

On May 27, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Arturo Servin  wrote:

> 
>Translation?
> 
>Also, it would be important that the "local" people/helpers could do an 
> introduction to what it is the ietf, how to send comments in the remote 
> participation, to the list, what's a WG etc. It may sound a bit bureaucratic, 
> but if we want to have these remote people to start sending emails, comments, 
> reviewing draft we need to break the "ice" somehow. It does not have to be 
> extensive, a short intro could be enough.
>
>About a serious proposal, are you thinking in an I+D, wg or something 
> coming from the IESG, IAOC?
> 
> /as
> 
> On 27 May 2013, at 09:07, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
>> On 5/27/2013 1:52 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>>About the remote hub I think it would be good to give it a try.
>> 
>> 
>> I'm increasingly intrigued by this idea.  It could be interesting to try to 
>> formulate a serious proposal for this, with enough detail to qualify as a 
>> functional specification.  The easy part is specifying audio/video streams 
>> support.  More challenging is to get the personal and personnel support 
>> figured out.
>> 
>> And should it have some means of assisting discussions outside of the 
>> bof/wg/plenary sessions?
>> 
>> What else?
>> 
>> d/
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net
> 

Re: Last Call: (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

[joel jaeggli]

On 5/20/13 6:44 AM, The IESG wrote:

The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS'
as Proposed Standard


I would direct the attention of the commentors to draft 04

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-04.txt

Which addresses concerns expressed in IETF last call over the intended 
status.


It also incorporates edits proposed by John Klensin in his review.

Notes: from the author:

 - changed intended status to informational

 - incorporation of John's suggestions in the Terminology section, to indicate 
that we're using 2119 keywords even though this is not a standards track 
document

 - added a couple of sentences to the security considerations sections to 
underscore the fact that this document specifies optional mechanisms that 
people might well not use if privacy considerations dictate otherwise



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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-17. 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.

Abstract


48-bit Extended Unique Identifiers (EUI-48) and 64-bit Extended
Unique Identifiers (EUI-64) are address formats specified by the IEEE
for use in various layer-2 networks, e.g. ethernet.

This document defines two new DNS resource record types, EUI48 and
EUI64, for encoding ethernet addresses in the DNS.






The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Re: financial fun with an IETF Meeting in South America

[John R Levine]

Is this above advice from Tripadvisor correct?


I believe so, but when I was there a few years ago for the ICANN meeting, 
excess cash was not a problem.  It wasn't hard to estimate how much cash 
I'd need, and whatever was left I spent at the airport.  The wine they 
drink in Argentina is often better than the stuff they send to the UK 
(which isn't bad) and much cheaper.  Take some home in your suitcase, even 
if you have to pay duty it's a bargain.


This still doesn't mean I think a meeting in South America is a good idea, 
though.  See other messages.


Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Yoav Nir]

On May 27, 2013, at 5:23 PM, Dave Crocker  wrote:

> On 5/27/2013 4:13 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> Anyway, What I found most useful when I was starting out 9 years ago,
> 
> 
> One might wish for a document that gives such guidance to folk who are new to 
> the IETF.
> 
> And indeed...
> 
> The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering
> Task Force
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/tao.html
> 
> If the content needs to be improved, let's do it!

Yes, and for extra credit you can read RFC 4144.

I find it hard to improve on the Tao, but I think that its target audience are 
people who are ready to plunge - review documents, attend meetings, write 
drafts. It took me over a year of mostly lurking and little discussion to get 
there. Others may be quicker. 

I've also found that it's hard to make generalizations about working groups and 
their associated mailing lists. Some are low-traffic, some have 50 messages a 
day. Some discuss protocols in abstract terms, while others take the "running 
code" part seriously. Some have dominant chairs that moderate the discussion 
such that all threads become dialogs with the chairs, while in others the 
chairs move out of the way to let the discussion flow. Some have dominant 
experts and everyone waits for their (final?) word on the subject, while at 
others not only everyone may speak, but almost everyone is listened to.

Regardless of what we would like groups to be like, I think it's important - 
particularly for a newcomer - to lurk for a while and get a "feel" for the 
working group. Otherwise you get into arguments with the local crank that 
everyone else knows to ignore (I've done this lots and lots of times).

Another think I've learned is that you don't necessarily end up being involved 
in the things you came into the IETF for. I came to the IETF to follow things 
that were important to my part of the company: IPsec, TLS, PKIX. I ended up 
contributing in MSec, and finally chairing the WebSec group, which is really 
far away from my day job. Interestingly, a lot of the same people show up in 
different working groups, so it works very well to do work in one group, while 
still following the groups that you came in for. IOW my ability to follow the 
groups that are related to my day job is enhanced by being active in other 
working groups. That was kind of surprising to me at first.

So like the Tao says, take the plunge. The more you're involved in something, 
the more you can do in other things. Much of being effective in the IETF is 
about knowing people and making yourself useful to them.

Yoav

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Michal Krsek]

Hi,


About the remote hub I think it would be good to give it a try.



I'm increasingly intrigued by this idea.  It could be interesting to 
try to formulate a serious proposal for this, with enough detail to 
qualify as a functional specification.  The easy part is specifying 
audio/video streams support.  More challenging is to get the personal 
and personnel support figured out.


I think most of research/university networks are facing same challenge. 
Remote class setup is exactly what we need (with support of back a/v 
channel). Not a rocket science, but can be expensive in case of support 
in number of parallel tracks.


There is also a question if IETF wants to cover only room-to-room setup 
or want to cover room-to-desktop scenario.




And should it have some means of assisting discussions outside of the 
bof/wg/plenary sessions?


Having a mechanism for "voting" has also some value.

my $0.02

Regards
Michal

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[SM]

Hola Arturo,
At 05:17 27-05-2013, Arturo Servin wrote:
Also, it would be important that the "local" people/helpers 
could do an introduction to what it is the ietf, how to send 
comments in the remote participation, to the list, what's a WG etc. 
It may sound a bit bureaucratic, but if we want to have these 
remote people to start sending emails, comments, reviewing draft we 
need to break the "ice" somehow. It does not have to be extensive, 
a short intro could be enough.


I like what you said about breaking the ice.  As mentioned above, 
having local people would help.  There is a Newcomers tutorial which 
explains what is a working group, what is the IETF, etc.


Joel Jaeggli mentioned that a regional NOG is not fertile ground for 
new IETF participants.  Is LACNOG fertile ground for new IETF participants?


The "sending email, comments, reviewing draft" is the really 
difficult part.  My uneducated guess is that it would takes months of 
work.  It's not as negative as it sounds if you consider that 
overcoming the barrier of entry might usually take over a year.


Could you ask the people who attended the talk ( 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_zacX9DcZA ) to provide some feedback 
about it to edu-discuss mailing list?


Regards,
-sm 

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Dave Crocker]

On 5/27/2013 4:13 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:

Anyway, What I found most useful when I was starting out 9 years ago,



One might wish for a document that gives such guidance to folk who are 
new to the IETF.


And indeed...

 The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering
 Task Force

 http://www.ietf.org/tao.html

If the content needs to be improved, let's do it!

d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

Re: [manet] Last Call: (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC

[Abdussalam Baryun]

Reply to your request dated 24/05/2013

Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:27/05/2013
Reviewer Comment A1: Previous comments in WGLC
+++

Related to your request below please read my previous review comments
[1] and I will continue with additional messages/comments.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15254.html

Regards
AB

On 5/24/13, The IESG  wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG
> (manet) to consider the following document:
> - 'Security Threats for NHDP'
>as Informational RFC
>
> 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
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-06. 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.
>
> Abstract
>
>This document analyses common security threats of the Neighborhood
>Discovery Protocol (NHDP), and describes their potential impacts on
>MANET routing protocols using NHDP.
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/ballot/
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> ___
> manet mailing list
> ma...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Yoav Nir]

LCD?

Anyway, What I found most useful when I was starting out 9 years ago, was to 
look over the list of areas and working groups ( http://tools.ietf.org/area/ ) 
and find out which of them are working on something that is of interest to me. 
In my case it was mostly the security area, and the IPsec working group, since 
that is what I was working on in my day job. I subscribed to that list and some 
others that were also related to what I was working on (TLS, PKIX).

So the best thing is to subscribe to the mailing lists, both those that 
interest you personally and those that are of interest to your employer (if 
there are such groups). 

Step 2 is to lurk for a couple of weeks at least, and just read what others are 
posting. If they're talking about a particular draft, it's easy to find on one 
of the IETF sites and read it. So you read the drafts, and read what people are 
saying about the drafts. This teaches you both about what the group is working 
on, and the (for lack of a better term) "political" part - who are the 
participants and what are they like.  You might also want to read the Tao 
document, although different groups have varying dynamics. 

After a while, you've read the drafts, you've read what some people are saying, 
and you may have formed an opinion, either about the draft itself, or about one 
of the comments. That's a good time to speak up by sending a message to the 
list. Maybe the draft got something wrong. Maybe the comment is only correct in 
certain contexts, but doesn't describe some situation you're familiar with. 
Maybe in reading the draft you find it hard to figure out what an 
implementation should do in a certain case, and you present the case, and ask 
that it be clarified. Maybe the proposed protocol would require clients, 
servers, or middleboxes to allocate more memory than implementations that you 
know can afford. Such comments, and even better, proposed fixes are how you 
build a reputation in the IETF for knowing your stuff. You can also volunteer 
to review a whole document, or volunteer to write a missing section. That is 
how you build a reputation for being useful. Both are necessary for success in 
the IETF.

Step 4 is when you have an idea of your own, or you read someone else's idea 
and you want to participate. In that case you either write your own draft or 
join someone else in writing one. It's often not enough to just write it. You 
also have to get people to read it, post about it to the correct lists, and in 
general "sell" it and gather support. It is at about that time that you start 
to feel the need to attend meetings, but you can get some things done even 
without it.

Hope this helps

Yoav

On May 27, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Nthabiseng Pule 
 wrote:

> as,
> 
> I am new to the IETF.  I would like to contribute any way I can, but the 
> learning curve seems steep indeed. I am from an LCD country.  I have the 
> necessary resources but I just don't know where to start.
> 
> Some guidance would be welcome. I am reading on stuff and hope that one day I 
> will be able to make some meaningful contribution.
> 
> 
> Nthabiseng Pule
> 
> 
> 
> On 27 May 2013, at 1:52 PM, Arturo Servin  wrote:
> 
>> John,
>> 
>>   Good summary.
>> 
>>   I would add a "steep learning-curve" to start participating. It takes time 
>> to get conformable in participating in mailing list and reviewing drafts for 
>> I think two reasons. One is to get know how the IETF works, and another to 
>> catch-up in knowing the topic in relation with other WG participants.
>> 
>>   About the remote hub I think it would be good to give it a try.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> as
>> 
>> On 27 May 2013, at 02:52, John Levine wrote:
>> 
>>> I think this is a summary of the issues people have mentioned that
>>> discourage participation from LDCs, in rough order of importance.
>>> 
>>> * People aren't aware the IETF exists, or what it does, or that it has
>>> an open participation model
>>> 
>>> * People don't read and write English well enough to be comfortable
>>> participating
>>> 
>>> * People are unaccustomed to and perhaps uncomfortable expressing
>>> overt disagreement
>>> 
>>> * People don't think they have anything to contribute to an organization
>>> that is mostly people from rich countries
>>> 
>>> * People don't have adequate Internet access for mail, or to use the
>>> remote participation tools
>>> 
>>> I have to say that I don't see one or two meetings in South America
>>> addressing any of these.  Given that the incremental cost to the
>>> participants, compared to meeting in North America, would likely be on
>>> the order of a million dollars, it seems to me very likely that there
>>> are better ways to spend the money.
>>> 
>>> For example, if language and net access is a problem, it might be
>>> interesting to set up a remote participation center in B.A. during one
>>> of the North American meetings (it's one time zone off from Toronto)
>>> with screens and cameras, paid interpreters, 

Re: Participation per Region of Authoring IETF documents vs Marketing

[Abdussalam Baryun]

On 5/27/13, Eggert, Lars  wrote:
> On May 27, 2013, at 12:10, Abdussalam Baryun 
> wrote:
>> Each IETF document mentions the authors place address (I may suggest
>> adding region, as a categorised by IETF), but not sure of history
>> statistics of how many IETF-documents produced by authors in South
>> America, Africa, or Asia, or others.
>
> http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/d-countrydistr.html and related pages

I read that before, but does not show documents/RFCs per region. It
shows drafts per countries. For example, does not show the drafts from
South America. Does not show all regions in sequence of the most
participated region.

AB

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Rumbidzayi Gadhula]

Ditto.

On 27 May 2013 14:33, Nthabiseng Pule  wrote:

> as,
>
> I am new to the IETF.  I would like to contribute any way I can, but the
> learning curve seems steep indeed. I am from an LCD country.  I have the
> necessary resources but I just don't know where to start.
>
> Some guidance would be welcome. I am reading on stuff and hope that one
> day I will be able to make some meaningful contribution.
>
>
> Nthabiseng Pule
>
>
>
> On 27 May 2013, at 1:52 PM, Arturo Servin  wrote:
>
> > John,
> >
> >Good summary.
> >
> >I would add a "steep learning-curve" to start participating. It takes
> time to get conformable in participating in mailing list and reviewing
> drafts for I think two reasons. One is to get know how the IETF works, and
> another to catch-up in knowing the topic in relation with other WG
> participants.
> >
> >About the remote hub I think it would be good to give it a try.
> >
> > Regards,
> > as
> >
> > On 27 May 2013, at 02:52, John Levine wrote:
> >
> >> I think this is a summary of the issues people have mentioned that
> >> discourage participation from LDCs, in rough order of importance.
> >>
> >> * People aren't aware the IETF exists, or what it does, or that it has
> >> an open participation model
> >>
> >> * People don't read and write English well enough to be comfortable
> >> participating
> >>
> >> * People are unaccustomed to and perhaps uncomfortable expressing
> >> overt disagreement
> >>
> >> * People don't think they have anything to contribute to an organization
> >> that is mostly people from rich countries
> >>
> >> * People don't have adequate Internet access for mail, or to use the
> >> remote participation tools
> >>
> >> I have to say that I don't see one or two meetings in South America
> >> addressing any of these.  Given that the incremental cost to the
> >> participants, compared to meeting in North America, would likely be on
> >> the order of a million dollars, it seems to me very likely that there
> >> are better ways to spend the money.
> >>
> >> For example, if language and net access is a problem, it might be
> >> interesting to set up a remote participation center in B.A. during one
> >> of the North American meetings (it's one time zone off from Toronto)
> >> with screens and cameras, paid interpreters, and a few volunteers to
> >> help explain what's going on.
> >>
> >> R's,
> >> John
> >
>

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Nthabiseng Pule]

as,

I am new to the IETF.  I would like to contribute any way I can, but the 
learning curve seems steep indeed. I am from an LCD country.  I have the 
necessary resources but I just don't know where to start.

Some guidance would be welcome. I am reading on stuff and hope that one day I 
will be able to make some meaningful contribution.


Nthabiseng Pule



On 27 May 2013, at 1:52 PM, Arturo Servin  wrote:

> John,
> 
>Good summary.
> 
>I would add a "steep learning-curve" to start participating. It takes time 
> to get conformable in participating in mailing list and reviewing drafts for 
> I think two reasons. One is to get know how the IETF works, and another to 
> catch-up in knowing the topic in relation with other WG participants.
> 
>About the remote hub I think it would be good to give it a try.
> 
> Regards,
> as
> 
> On 27 May 2013, at 02:52, John Levine wrote:
> 
>> I think this is a summary of the issues people have mentioned that
>> discourage participation from LDCs, in rough order of importance.
>> 
>> * People aren't aware the IETF exists, or what it does, or that it has
>> an open participation model
>> 
>> * People don't read and write English well enough to be comfortable
>> participating
>> 
>> * People are unaccustomed to and perhaps uncomfortable expressing
>> overt disagreement
>> 
>> * People don't think they have anything to contribute to an organization
>> that is mostly people from rich countries
>> 
>> * People don't have adequate Internet access for mail, or to use the
>> remote participation tools
>> 
>> I have to say that I don't see one or two meetings in South America
>> addressing any of these.  Given that the incremental cost to the
>> participants, compared to meeting in North America, would likely be on
>> the order of a million dollars, it seems to me very likely that there
>> are better ways to spend the money.
>> 
>> For example, if language and net access is a problem, it might be
>> interesting to set up a remote participation center in B.A. during one
>> of the North American meetings (it's one time zone off from Toronto)
>> with screens and cameras, paid interpreters, and a few volunteers to
>> help explain what's going on.
>> 
>> R's,
>> John
> 

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Jari Arkko]

John,

> * People aren't aware the IETF exists, or what it does, or that it has
> an open participation model
> 
> * People don't read and write English well enough to be comfortable
> participating
> 
> * People are unaccustomed to and perhaps uncomfortable expressing
> overt disagreement
> 
> * People don't think they have anything to contribute to an organization
> that is mostly people from rich countries
> 
> * People don't have adequate Internet access for mail, or to use the
> remote participation tools

Thanks for sending out a list of potential issues.

I think there may be one issue missing from the list. At the end of the day, 
what tends to drive people actual, concrete benefit to themselves or their 
organisations. A drive that is so big that it forces you to cross language and 
other barriers and make at least a time investment in participation. As an 
example, the number of Chinese participants has increased rapidly in the IETF. 
Why? We probably didn't suddenly get much better at welcoming new people at the 
IETF, but the new participants felt that work on the Internet is important to 
them personally, and their organisations felt that they need to be part of 
making Internet standards. This isn't very surprising, given, for instance, the 
rise of the Chinese technology industry to a very visible role in the world.

So I feel that the issue in many cases is simpler than the ones in the list: 
"What's in it for me"? This obviously has to do with the role of vendors in the 
IETF and the distribution of tech industry in the world. It may also have 
something to do with doing things that are important. I'm sure we could be 
working on topics that are even better aligned to what the world needs… if the 
people who need them were here to tell us :-)

The IETF can't change the distribution of industries in the world, but we can, 
for instance, focus on the vendors that are there or work more on topics that 
are interesting for the operational folks. The latter would be a good idea for 
the IETF, anyway. 

> For example, if language and net access is a problem, it might be
> interesting to set up a remote participation center in B.A. during one
> of the North American meetings (it's one time zone off from Toronto)

We've been looking at setting up something like that (not for BA specifically).

Jari

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Scott Brim]

Add: like many organizations around the world including the USA, they don't
think it's worth the huge effort to develop standards when they can rely on
others to do so well enough for their needs.

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Arturo Servin]

Translation?

Also, it would be important that the "local" people/helpers could do an 
introduction to what it is the ietf, how to send comments in the remote 
participation, to the list, what's a WG etc. It may sound a bit bureaucratic, 
but if we want to have these remote people to start sending emails, comments, 
reviewing draft we need to break the "ice" somehow. It does not have to be 
extensive, a short intro could be enough.

About a serious proposal, are you thinking in an I+D, wg or something 
coming from the IESG, IAOC?

/as

On 27 May 2013, at 09:07, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 5/27/2013 1:52 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>  About the remote hub I think it would be good to give it a try.
> 
> 
> I'm increasingly intrigued by this idea.  It could be interesting to try to 
> formulate a serious proposal for this, with enough detail to qualify as a 
> functional specification.  The easy part is specifying audio/video streams 
> support.  More challenging is to get the personal and personnel support 
> figured out.
> 
> And should it have some means of assisting discussions outside of the 
> bof/wg/plenary sessions?
> 
> What else?
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Dave Crocker]

On 5/27/2013 1:52 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:

About the remote hub I think it would be good to give it a try.



I'm increasingly intrigued by this idea.  It could be interesting to try 
to formulate a serious proposal for this, with enough detail to qualify 
as a functional specification.  The easy part is specifying audio/video 
streams support.  More challenging is to get the personal and personnel 
support figured out.


And should it have some means of assisting discussions outside of the 
bof/wg/plenary sessions?


What else?

d/

--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Arturo Servin]

John,

Good summary.

I would add a "steep learning-curve" to start participating. It takes 
time to get conformable in participating in mailing list and reviewing drafts 
for I think two reasons. One is to get know how the IETF works, and another to 
catch-up in knowing the topic in relation with other WG participants.

About the remote hub I think it would be good to give it a try.

Regards,
as

On 27 May 2013, at 02:52, John Levine wrote:

> I think this is a summary of the issues people have mentioned that
> discourage participation from LDCs, in rough order of importance.
> 
> * People aren't aware the IETF exists, or what it does, or that it has
> an open participation model
> 
> * People don't read and write English well enough to be comfortable
> participating
> 
> * People are unaccustomed to and perhaps uncomfortable expressing
> overt disagreement
> 
> * People don't think they have anything to contribute to an organization
> that is mostly people from rich countries
> 
> * People don't have adequate Internet access for mail, or to use the
> remote participation tools
> 
> I have to say that I don't see one or two meetings in South America
> addressing any of these.  Given that the incremental cost to the
> participants, compared to meeting in North America, would likely be on
> the order of a million dollars, it seems to me very likely that there
> are better ways to spend the money.
> 
> For example, if language and net access is a problem, it might be
> interesting to set up a remote participation center in B.A. during one
> of the North American meetings (it's one time zone off from Toronto)
> with screens and cameras, paid interpreters, and a few volunteers to
> help explain what's going on.
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> 
> 

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

[Abdussalam Baryun]

Hi John,

I agree and I will add, that What makes that participant continue to
volunteer, or even witness/read the ietf work process? Making someone
interested to do something freely is not an easy task. The difficulty
is how to make that individual participate with value, he/she may need
help to notice that *IETF needs* their regional-participation.

Example, I got once a response that IETF or WG chair's jobs are not to
educate others, but who said that IETF is better educated or that WG
chairs are better educated than others. It always depends on the
relativity of education with the region needs, not only eduaction
related to the Internet technology.

I think we *need* in IETF to gain all best educated people of
world-regions into IETF (volunteering), so that we make the Internet
better for the WORLD, because technology SHOULD follow the
community-regional *needs*. Not that we need to gain best
standard/technology experts to make all regions follow the
technology-product requirements, because will may never be *used* that
way :-)

Comments below,

AB

On 5/27/13, John Levine  wrote:
> I think this is a summary of the issues people have mentioned that
> discourage participation from LDCs, in rough order of importance.
>
> * People aren't aware the IETF exists, or what it does, or that it has
> an open participation model

Also IMHO, the IETF is not aware of existance of Internet
community-regional *needs* for their better Internet technology
future,

>
> * People don't read and write English well enough to be comfortable
> participating

That is not an issue, well educated people around the world know
english reasonably, but the problem is that many of current IETF
participants like to read correct english, hope they change to adapt
to the World's English.
>
> * People are unaccustomed to and perhaps uncomfortable expressing
> overt disagreement

That is true, but mostly Chairs and editors are responsible to make
that continue or stop.
>
> * People don't think they have anything to contribute to an organization
> that is mostly people from rich countries

This point is important, please read my addition above.
>
> * People don't have adequate Internet access for mail, or to use the
> remote participation tools

Yes that is true, but also we need people like old participants, or
98% of participants to get use to participating remotely at IETF
meetings. I don't want to see complains on journey expenses of money
but of spending-time is ok :Z
>
> I have to say that I don't see one or two meetings in South America
> addressing any of these.  Given that the incremental cost to the
> participants, compared to meeting in North America, would likely be on
> the order of a million dollars, it seems to me very likely that there
> are better ways to spend the money.

I don't care how much money spent, we SHOULD focus on how much time
gained by IETF and how much volunteer-time spent for IETF. Attendance
can spend the same time remotely, the World is well connected now,
>
> For example, if language and net access is a problem, it might be
> interesting to set up a remote participation center in B.A. during one
> of the North American meetings (it's one time zone off from Toronto)
> with screens and cameras, paid interpreters, and a few volunteers to
> help explain what's going on.

I think the problem is contribution access to IETF. We need centers to
increase access to documents-produced per regions, centers to increase
participants per region, centers to increase remote users per regions,
etc.

>
> R's,
> John
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Participation per Region of Authoring IETF documents vs Marketing

[Eggert, Lars]

On May 27, 2013, at 12:10, Abdussalam Baryun  wrote:
> Each IETF document mentions the authors place address (I may suggest
> adding region, as a categorised by IETF), but not sure of history
> statistics of how many IETF-documents produced by authors in South
> America, Africa, or Asia, or others.

http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/d-countrydistr.html and related pages

Lars

Participation per Region of Authoring IETF documents vs Marketing

[Abdussalam Baryun]

 Each IETF document mentions the authors place address (I may suggest
adding region, as a categorised by IETF), but not sure of history
statistics of how many IETF-documents produced by authors in South
America, Africa, or Asia, or others.

 I think it is a good marketing start for IETF to get more
Informational-RFCs input from regions by guiding their inputs.
Furthermore, if IETF helds a meeting in one region with very low
participation, then Why not that IETF encourages people to involve in
joining authors of interested documents to that region and interested
to IETF as well?

AB

Fwd: [IRTF-Announce] Applied Networking Research Prize 2013 presentation at IETF-87

[Eggert, Lars]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Eggert, Lars" 
> Subject: [IRTF-Announce] Applied Networking Research Prize 2013 presentation  
>  at IETF-87
> Date: May 27, 2013 12:01:01 GMT+02:00
> To: "irtf-annou...@irtf.org" , 
> "irtf-disc...@irtf.org" 
> Reply-To: "a...@irtf.org" 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> we are extremely pleased to report that for the 2013 award period of
> the Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP), 36 eligible nominations
> were received. Each submission was reviewed by eight members of the
> selection committee according to a diverse set of criteria, including
> scientific excellence and substance, timeliness, relevance, and
> potential impact on the Internet.
> 
> Based on this review, four submissions were awarded an ANRP in 2013,
> the first of which was already presented at IETF-86. 
> 
> The second and third awards will happen at IETF-87 in Berlin, Germany.
> They go to:
> 
>  *** Te-Yuan Huang *** for insights into the difficulties of rate
>  adaptation for streaming video:
> 
>Te-Yuan Huang, Nikhil Handigol, Brandon Heller, Nick McKeown
>and Ramesh Johari. Confused, Timid, and Unstable: Picking a
>Video Streaming Rate is Hard. Proc. ACM Internet Measurement
>Conference (IMC),November 2012, Boston, MA, USA.
> 
>  *** Laurent Vanbever *** for proposing a framework to allow seamless
>  BGP reconfigurations:
> 
>Stefano Vissicchio, Laurent Vanbever, Cristel Pelsser, Luca
>Cittadini, Pierre Francois and Olivier Bonaventure. Improving
>Network Agility with Seamless BGP Reconfigurations. Proc. IEEE/ACM
>Transactions on Networking (TON), To Appear.
> 
> Te-Yuan and Laurent have been invited to present her findings in the IRTF
> Open Meeting during IETF-87, July 28 - August 2, 2013 in Berlin, Germany.
> Join them there!
> 
> The call for ANRP nominations for the 2014 awards cycle will open in the
> fall of 2013. Read more about the ANRP at http://irtf.org/anrp.
> 
> Please subscribe to the IRTF-Announce mailing list in order to receive
> future calls for ANRP nominations and join ISOC to stay informed of
> other networking research initiatives:
> 
>  http://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/irtf-announce
>  http://isoc.org/join
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Lars Eggert, IRTF Chairhttp://irtf.org/anrp
> Mat Ford, Internet Society http://isoc.org/research
> 
> --
> 
> 2013 ANRP Selection Committee
> 
> Mark Allman, ICIR
> Marcelo Bagnulo, UC3M
> Lou Berger, LabN
> Olivier Bonaventure, UCL Louvain
> Ross Callon, Juniper
> Lars Eggert, NetApp
> Olivier Festor, INRIA
> Mat Ford, ISOC
> Lisandro Granville, UFRGS
> Volker Hilt, Bell Labs
> Suresh Krishnan, Ericsson
> Dan Massey, Colorado State
> Al Morton, AT&T Laboratories
> Jörg Ott, Aalto University
> Colin Perkins, University of Glasgow
> Stefano Previdi, Cisco
> Jürgen Schönwälder, Jacobs University Bremen
> Yang Richard Yang, Yale
> Lixia Zhang, UCLA

Re: More participation from under-represented regions

[Edwin A. Opare]

Juliao,

Thanks for the stats.

To borrow your words: > "the issue is to establish a systematic and effective
process in under-represented regions", and that I believe should start at
the grassroots level & at the regional/national level .

Why does the numbers from the AfriNIC and LACNIC regions keep declining?
Don't these regions operate networks like everyone else? Which areas/WGs of
the IETF will they find particularly helpful/useful to subscribe to? Are
the AfNOG annual meetings enough to encourage participation from the
AfriNIC region? Could the IETF run "a day or two event" annually at the
AfNOG meetings as part of the "AfNOG Tutorials Workshop" to create a lot
more awareness and elicit participation? Could the institution of "IETF
Champions" in the under-rep regions where ISOC has presence influence
participation from these regions?

The ISOC Ghana Chapter for example runs a GhNOG workshop (4 day event)
annually in the month of July where workshop participants are trained in a
variety of areas relating to System Administration, Network Monitoring &
Management, CERTs and many more.

Going into the next workshop this July, the Chapter plans to dedicate a day
of the workshop to awareness creation about the IETF. Will this increase
participation from Ghana in any way? If the approach is done right with a
keen focus on the needs of participants it most definitely will.

At best we all agree there is the need for active participation and
inclusiveness from all the regions if the Internet is to develop and evolve
to its fullest potential. Let's work together to get EVERY ENGINEER on
board!!

Best,

EAO

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Juliao Braga  wrote:

> SM, FYI:
>
> Inscriptions at IETF 86 [1]:
>
> ARIN RIPE APNICAFRINIC  LACNIC
>  671  258  23731   26
>   54.87%   21.10%   19.38% 2.53%2.13%
>
> Inscriptions since IETF 72 to IETF 85. For Year, RIR and Country:
> http://rfc.pegasus.com.br/ietf.php
>
> I think the local of the meeting no change the numbers. For me the
> apparent common sense prevails in the list and Dave Crocker pointed
> (...let's attack that...): the issue is to establish a systematic and
> effective process in under-represented regions (countries, I think).
>
> Regards,
>
> Julião
> 1. http://rfc.pegasus.com.br/ietf86.php (including, year, RIR and Country)
>
>
> Em 26/05/2013 20:01, SM escreveu:
> > AfNOG has trained hundreds of people in Africa.  Those people do not
> > participate on the mailing list.  There are some people from Africa who
> > have attended IETF meetings.  They don't participate in the IETF.  Why
> > is it that there are some participants from South America whereas there
> > aren't any participants from Africa?
>

Re: IETF Meeting in South America

[Jari Arkko]

I'm not quite sure the currency exchange issues are key for this discussion. 
FWIW, I think you can still budget in Euros for the Berlin meeting, but I'm 
only 97% sure :-)

Anyway, I wanted to highlight that, as has been pointed out by many, just 
meeting at some place makes little sense. But the question on the table is not 
just that. We're asking both about the meeting and about what other forms of 
getting additional participation from the region would be useful. My personal 
opinion is that we need to do multiple things to make an impact. And again IMO, 
meetings should be a part of that set. But definitely not alone. I know many of 
you have been very willing to help out in going out to new areas of the world 
to speak, gather input, and get familiar with more people. Thank you. I 
certainly plan to do that as well.

The other thing that was mentioned was political pressure to appear 
international. My opinion is that doing something purely based on that would be 
silly and potentially harmful. However, I think we have a situation where we 
simultaneously need wider involvement from different organisations & areas, are 
reaching out to new types of participants (including, shock! even regulators in 
cases like PAWS), and do face some pressures about how we are perceived. An 
IETF that is open, has broad participation that is based on actual technical 
substance is in a very good position to continue to be perceived as the 
authority it is. This is not to say we are not already about all those things; 
we are. But I think we definitely need to go even further.

A few other responses:

Randy wrote:

>  (1) "need-based" evangelism.  Outreach efforts are more
>  effective if they sincerely address specific needs of
>  the target community.  Does face-to-face participation in
>  the IETF offer things practitioners in under-represented
>  regions feel they need?  As long as we focus on how it
>  could help *us*, rather than what needs it would address
>  for them, it'll be far less effective than it could be.


Very true.

Melinda wrote:

> The industry sector bias in IETF participation is
> possibly compounding the regional bias.


Yes.

Jari

Re: financial fun with an IETF Meeting in South America

[Tim Chown]

On 27 May 2013, at 05:15, "John Levine"  wrote:

>> The move appears to be related to new, restrictive 
>> regulations the Argentine government has imposed on currency exchanges.' 
>> According to the Telegraph, 'The new regulations required anyone wanting 
>> to change Argentine pesos into another currency to submit an online 
>> request for permission to AFIP, the Argentine equivalent of HM Revenue & 
>> Customs. ..."
> 
> This isn't likely to change soon.

Going into the country isn't the problem, more importantly it seems that if you 
don't spend all your pesos in Argentina, you can't change them back to your own 
currency:

http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Travel-g294266-s601/Argentina:Banks.And.Money.html
(see last paragraph)

I just keep a pool of Euros and dollars (US and Canadian) which I never change 
back to my own currency, as I visit these countries a fair bit, but it is a 
concern to pick a venue where any cash I get in advance is lost if unspent.

Is this above advice from Tripadvisor correct?

Tim