Re: Issues in wider geographic participation
On 5/26/13 9:52 PM, John Levine wrote: I have to say that I don't see one or two meetings in South America addressing any of these. I don't, either. However, 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. 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. Melinda
Re: More participation from under-represented regions (was: IETF Meeting in South America)
Hi Abdussalam, At 16:38 26-05-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: I think they SHOULD have, and all of us should do the same, because IETF will expand and become stronger by increasing participants from ALL Internet community regions. The answers also based on IETF vesion. The question was about what was done in the past. It is not about what the IESG or IAB is doing or could do in future. At 16:51 26-05-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: There are some from Africa trying to find the way in, but they may not mention it, however, training is not important much to make people participate but the type of training and its period inside organisation not outside. For example, I notice that there was one African participant (not me), trying to participate in writing one draft for the community, so was he/she encouraged by the WGs, Does that participant reside in Africa? Will that participant implement the draft by writing code? Regards, -sm
Re: More participation from under-represented regions
Hi Joel, At 22:45 26-05-2013, joel jaeggli wrote: notable sucesses I don't think of it a fertile training ground for new IETF participants. I agree that it is not fertile ground for new IETF participants. People come to the IETF with work because they have a problem which the work product of their contribution through the IETF activity addresses. That's fairly expensive, time consuming, and has uncertain results. Yes. Regards, -sm
Re: financial fun with an IETF Meeting in South America
The financial and political current situation is more complex than just the manipulation and restrictions on currency exchange and payment of obligations. I feel that is totally OT but for example we have supporters of the current government like this one, claiming to be a writer, that if you are able to read in Spanish or helped by a translator to read his article, you will learn that he is propagating a message that says Internet is the secret weapon of the imperialism. http://sumateacristina.net/m/blogpost?id=6438092%3ABlogPost%3A524963 His view is shared by many, so in the event IETF gets to meet in Buenos Aires, if the meeting becomes public, don't be surprised to see some coordinated political manifestation. Funny thing, does he realize what is he using to propagate his message ? I'd really love to see folks from my country become more involved with IETF, the opportunity for more outreach and engagement, and also visit my country, but as Dave said IETF is not in the tourism business and there could be more effective ways to develop some program with long term effects to drive more regional participation. As I said before, just a meeting won't do. Regards, -Jorge
Re: financial fun with an IETF Meeting in South America
On 27 May 2013, at 05:15, John Levine jo...@taugh.com 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
Re: IETF Meeting in South America
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: More participation from under-represented regions
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 jul...@braga.eti.br 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?
Fwd: [IRTF-Announce] Applied Networking Research Prize 2013 presentation at IETF-87
Begin forwarded message: From: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com 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-annou...@irtf.org, irtf-disc...@irtf.org irtf-disc...@irtf.org Reply-To: a...@irtf.org 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, ATT 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
Participation per Region of Authoring IETF documents vs Marketing
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
Re: Participation per Region of Authoring IETF documents vs Marketing
On May 27, 2013, at 12:10, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com 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
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 jo...@taugh.com 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: Issues in wider geographic participation
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
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
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
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
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
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 aser...@lacnic.net 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
Ditto. On 27 May 2013 14:33, Nthabiseng Pule np...@lca.org.ls 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 aser...@lacnic.net 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: Participation per Region of Authoring IETF documents vs Marketing
On 5/27/13, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote: On May 27, 2013, at 12:10, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com 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
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 np...@lca.org.ls 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 aser...@lacnic.net 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: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
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 iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet) to consider the following document: - 'Security Threats for NHDP' draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt 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
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: Issues in wider geographic participation
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
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
On May 27, 2013, at 5:23 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net 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: financial fun with an IETF Meeting in South America
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: Last Call: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard
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' draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt 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: Issues in wider geographic participation
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 aser...@lacnic.net 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: Participation per Region of Authoring IETF documents vs Marketing
On May 27, 2013, at 15:31, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: On 5/27/13, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote: On May 27, 2013, at 12:10, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com 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
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: Issues in wider geographic participation
Hi Jari, On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net 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: Participation per Region of Authoring IETF documents vs Marketing
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 abdussalambar...@gmail.com 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
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: WebRTC and emergency communications (Was: Re: IETF Meeting in South America)
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 r...@ipv.sx wrote: Indeed, there has already been some coordination between the groups, going back about a year: http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/84/slides/slides-84-ecrit-0.pdf http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-aboba-rtcweb-ecrit-00.txt 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 john-i...@jck.com wrote: --On Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:10 +0300 Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net 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: financial fun with an IETF Meeting in South America
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 jo...@taugh.com 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: Issues in wider geographic participation
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: Issues in wider geographic participation
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
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: More participation from under-represented regions
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: WebRTC and emergency communications (Was: Re: IETF Meeting in South America)
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.eduwrote: 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 r...@ipv.sx wrote: Indeed, there has already been some coordination between the groups, going back about a year: http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/84/slides/slides-84-ecrit-0.pdf http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-aboba-rtcweb-ecrit-00.txt 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 john-i...@jck.comwrote: --On Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:10 +0300 Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net 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)
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 r...@ipv.sx 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 r...@ipv.sx wrote: Indeed, there has already been some coordination between the groups, going back about a year: http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/84/slides/slides-84-ecrit-0.pdf http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-aboba-rtcweb-ecrit-00.txt 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 john-i...@jck.com wrote: --On Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:10 +0300 Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net 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: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
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 yi.ji...@gmail.com 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 abdussalambar...@gmail.com 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 iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet) to consider the following document: - 'Security Threats for NHDP' draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt 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: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
On 5/27/13, Jiazi YI yi.ji...@gmail.com 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: Last Call: draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02.txt (IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters) to Best Current Practice
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 iesg-secret...@ietf.org 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' draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02.txt 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: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
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: WebRTC and emergency communications (Was: Re: IETF Meeting in South America)
On May 27, 2013 10:56 AM, Henning Schulzrinne h...@cs.columbia.edu 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 r...@ipv.sx 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 r...@ipv.sx wrote: Indeed, there has already been some coordination between the groups, going back about a year: http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/84/slides/slides-84-ecrit-0.pdf http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-aboba-rtcweb-ecrit-00.txt 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 john-i...@jck.com wrote: --On Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:10 +0300 Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net 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,
Re: financial fun with an IETF Meeting in South America
On 27 May 2013, at 16:37, John R Levine jo...@taugh.com 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: Issues in wider geographic participation
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: Issues in wider geographic participation
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: More participation from under-represented regions
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Juliao Braga jul...@braga.eti.br 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
Hi, On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net 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
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 jul...@braga.eti.br mailto:jul...@braga.eti.br 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: Last Call: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard
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
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
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)
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 r...@ipv.sx 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 r...@ipv.sx wrote: Indeed, there has already been some coordination between the groups, going back about a year: http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/84/slides/slides-84-ecrit-0.pdf http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-aboba-rtcweb-ecrit-00.txt 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 john-i...@jck.comwrote: --On Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:10 +0300 Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net 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
Great job Julião, thanks for sharing. -Jorge On May 27, 2013, at 8:34 PM, Juliao Braga jul...@braga.eti.br 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: Last Call: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com 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
