Re: Montevideo statement
It was pointed out that I got the RFC numbers wrong. Sorry. I should have RFC 6220 (role of IETF protocol parameters operators) and RFC 2850 (IAB charter). Jari
Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com Reality is different - the outside world expects to hear from us. I would guess that nobody (almost nobody?)in the IETF objects to I* leadership representing our views at such things; in fact, I suspect most of us would find it positively very desirable for the I* to be represented there. (I certainly do.) The thing is that I (and I suspect much of the IETF) feel that such I* leadership attendees need to make it _very_ clear at such events that they are there to present (as best they can) the views of the IETF as a whole, but they cannot _commit_ the IETF to anything: only the IETF acting as a whole can do that. So, for instance, in signing a statement, they need to say John Smith, current Ixx chair, signing as an individual, or something like that - to make it clear to readers that their signature does not bind the organization as a whole. Noel
Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
Hiya, On 10/12/2013 01:02 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: The thing is that I (and I suspect much of the IETF) feel that such I* leadership attendees need to make it _very_ clear at such events that they are there to present (as best they can) the views of the IETF as a whole, but they cannot _commit_ the IETF to anything: only the IETF acting as a whole can do that. So fwiw I was there as Jari's sidekick-de-jour and I can confirm that both Jari and Russ repeatedly made it clear that anything substantive needed IETF community consensus. I realise that's not as good as a recording or set of minutes, but there ya go. Cheers, S.
Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
It is clear to me that the IETF cannot be away from Internet Governance discussions. Yes, it is politics and we do not like politics, but that is the way the Internet is these days. It is also appears that we do not have consensus of how to participate and what to say in those discussions (I do not mind the way it is today but it seems that some folk -and I understand them- prefer other ways). Inevitably, as John said we are in times of change and we need to figure out how to interact with other Internet ecosystem organizations, we like or not. By means of our current bodies (IAB, IESG), individual submissions or working groups we need to find a way to what say, where, and how. Regards, as On 10/11/13 5:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Hi John, On 12/10/2013 05:02, John Curran wrote: ... In my personal view, it is a very important for the IETF to select leadership who can participate in any discussions that occur, Without obsessing about the word leadership, but following up on a comment made by Noel Chiappa on the leader statements thread, I think we have to recognise that nothing in the NomCom process, the IAB Charter, or the IESG Charter, would cause us to select IAB or IETF Chairs who are particularly suited to this role. In fact I think that the plan of record is to leave such matters to ISOC. Reality is different - the outside world expects to hear from us. Brian
RE: Improving the ISOC Fellowship programme to attract people from under-represented regions into the IETF
Abdussalam Baryun said: I am part of the community design team as well because I participate with community more than the private hidden groups. I think that the draft is a true work open to IETF. I still did not get a reply to my request to know what is the DT authority, very strange name without any procedure in IETF, please explain, I don't understand your assertion that there is no procedure in the IETF to support the existence of a Design Team. Please read section 6.5 of RFC 2418 and the email from Lars and respond if you still believe that there is no procedure in the IETF to support the existence of a Design Team. Adrian
RE: Improving the ISOC Fellowship programme to attract people from under-represented regions into the IETF
On Oct 12, 2013 6:51 AM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote: I don't understand your assertion that there is no procedure in the IETF to support the existence of a Design Team. I'd be sorry to see this discussion dragged down a procedural rathole. Melinda
Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
On 10/13/2013 1:02 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com Reality is different - the outside world expects to hear from us. I would guess that nobody (almost nobody?)in the IETF objects to I* leadership representing our views at such things; For at least one of the items in the signed statement, there is no basis for claiming to know what the IETF's views are. When the IETF's views are clear, then of course having folks accurately represent those views publicly is dandy. The thing is that I (and I suspect much of the IETF) feel that such I* leadership attendees need to make it _very_ clear at such events that they are there to present (as best they can) the views of the IETF as a whole, but they cannot _commit_ the IETF to anything: only the IETF acting as a whole can do that. Here's where reality runs over theory. For mass-market public statements, such nuance is entirely lost. It is therefore misguided to believe that careful qualification will alter what is perceived by the public. Lest anyone dismiss this concern with something along the lines of we can't be responsible for other people's failure to listen carefully, I'll note that proactively anticipating and dealing with such likely failures is exactly the responsibility of anyone claiming to speak for an organization publicly. There's even professional media relations training typically given to executives, for just this purpose. So, for instance, in signing a statement, they need to say John Smith, current Ixx chair, signing as an individual, or something like that - to make it clear to readers that their signature does not bind the organization as a whole. Yeah, but the likely benefit of that isn't very high, given the strong predilection some folk have for stoking the political fires when the topic is already highly politicized. For example: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/11/the-core-internet-institutions-abandon-the-us-government/ Again, the nature of playing in such a sandbox -- as the Montevideo Statement attempts to do -- requires robust effort both to be accurate in what is said, but also to protect against misinterpretation. Montevideo Statement seems to have accomplished neither. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
new draft needed
pete, since you did such an excellent draft capturing our local customs on rough consensus, could we convince you to now do one on second guessing, micro-management, and creation of petty bureaucracy, which seem to be even more prevalent than rough consensus? thanks. randy
RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard
+1 Is there a way to decouple this discussion from draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain? I would be glad to discuss it in the context of a separate draft. Ron So, it wasn't necessarily the case that 1280 was a product of thoughtful analysis so much as the fact that **they were rushing to get a spec out the door**. So now, 16 years later, we get to put it back on the 6man charter milestone list. We could have that discussion in 6man, sure, but I don't believe that it's relevant to the question of whether draft-ietf-6man-oversized- header-chain is ready. This draft mitigates a known problem in terms of the current IPv6 standards.
Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard
At 11:55 02-10-2013, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to consider the following document: - 'Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains' draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the This document intends to update the IPv6 specification. I looked into some code (host) which would be affected by the RFC 2119 requirement in Section 5. The code is complex as it is. I am not sure whether the requirement can be implemented without too much difficulty. I have not looked into the code which processes inbound packets. Regards, -sm
