Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment
On 11/8/10 10:57 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2010-11-08 15:26, The IESG wrote: First, schedule all BOFs for Monday afternoon. Hmm. How many non-overlapping time slots? It would be extremely frustrating if there was a lot of overlap between BOFs. Some of us are interested in almost any new topic. My first reaction is to prefer the BOFs spread out. I'm not sure that concentrating them will reduce the problem of clashes. Strongly agree! --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
irtf-discuss list
Just a reminder that there's a relatively new list for discussing topics relating to the IRTF, including proposals for new research groups, at https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/irtf-discuss . --aaron IRTF Chair ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Nomcom Enhancements: Improving the IETF leadership selection process
On 7/30/10 9:46 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Mary Barnes wrote: Just to add my two cents to this discussion from a (past) noncom chair perpsective, having more experienced IETF participants on the Nomcom helps tremendously. It makes it far easier for the noncom chair and non-voting members (previous nomcom chair and liaisons) to stick to the roles as specified in RFC 3777 in terms of facilitatng and ensuring the integrity of the process and not influencing the decisions of the nomcom. In the end, each voting member gets one vote (using a methodology agreed by the voting members), so the positives of ensuring the nomcom has experienced members far outweigh any perceived negatives in my experience. I was discussing this with various people yesterday - maybe it would be useful to have a moving average NOMCOM, with a two year term, and 50% replacement each year. Once that was set up, I think that the need for experienced hands would diminish - one year on the NOMCOM seems to be quite a bit of experience. I don't think Mary is talking about members with previous nomcom experience but rather more IETF experience. I agree. In fact, why should we have nomcom members with little IETF experience picking our leadership? --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Nomcom Enhancements: Improving the IETF leadership selection process
Hi Donald- You present an interesting idea and I appreciate your desire to avoid a two-class nomcom. If you were to take that approach, I'd suggest allocating points as below: High points (e.g., 10) - served as a working group chair - served on the IESG or IAB Medium points (e.g., 5) - served as a liaison - authored an IETF Stream RFC - shepherded an IETF Stream RFC - served on a directorate or liaison (there are probably others) Low points (e.g., 1 per meeting) - meeting attendance Giving meeting attendance points 1 per meeting without bound seems like a good idea since someone who has attended 20 IETF meetings may be a lot more plugged in than someone who has attended 5 or some of the 'medium points' items. Just a thought, --aaron On 7/30/10 11:23 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: I can see the desire to have some more experience on the nomcom. However, I am completely opposed to invidious schemes to divide the nomcom voting members into two (or more) classes. And I think the desired results can be obtained without doing so. The current qualification is attendance 3 out of the last 5 meetings but no one notices or cares whether any particular nomcom volunteer attended 3, 4, or 5 meeting. If you want more experienced members, just tighten the attendance criteria a bit but give points for other experience. As an example, set a threshold of 4 or 5 points where you get one for each meeting you attend out of the last six, one point for being on either of the two most recent nomcoms, and one point for having been a working group chair in the past two years. You could even make the probability of selection non-uniform based on points and I'd be willing to modify the code normally used to allow that, but I don't think it would be necessary. This way you will get more experience without the dominance effects of some nomcom members being labeled Senior and some Junior or whatever. Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com mailto:d3e...@gmail.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
New IRTF research group on virtual networks (VNRG)
A new IRTF research group on virtual networks has been created. Charter included below. --aaron IRTF Chair --- Virtual Networks Research Group (VNRG) Chairs Joe Touch to...@isi.edu mailto:to...@isi.edu Martin Stiemerling stiemerl...@nw.neclab.eu mailto:stiemerl...@nw.neclab.eu Mailing List The email list is v...@irtf.org mailto:v...@irtf.org. You need to be a list member to send mail to the list. To subscribe, visit the VNRG mail page http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnrg or send an email to vnrg-requ...@irtf.org mailto:vnrg-requ...@irtf.org. An archive of the email list is available at VNRG mail archive http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/vnrg. Wiki Site See http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/vnrg. Charter A recent trend in networking is the concurrent use of a single physical network for multiple variants or instances of networks, e.g., IPv4 and some experimental protocol suite, or VLANs. These networks, called Virtual Networks, provide isolation between network instances or types and support shared use of the same infrastructure for different purposes. Virtual networks attempt to better utilize networking infrastructure by reusing individual routers or links (i.e., either physical or logical networking resource) for multiple concurrent network instances, or to aggregate multiple such resources to obtain increased capabilities. These resources can be any network component, including routers, hosts, links, and services, (e.g., name mapping services). Increased capability can refer to aggregate capacity provided by bundles of links or groups of routers, or increased fault tolerance of a cluster of primary and backup service systems. Important properties of Virtual Networks (VNs) are i) that each resource can be used concurrently by multiple VN instances, ii) the clear isolation of any VN from all others, and iii) abstraction, in which a given virtual resource (host, link, router, service) need not directly correspond to its component resources. These properties need to be supported down to each physical component, such that each router, host, and link supports concurrence, isolation, and abstraction. In the network community, Virtual Networks is a very broad term, including running multiple wavelengths over a fiber, MPLS, virtual routers, and overlay systems. VN technologies are widely used in parts of the Internet and other IP-based networks, but the community lacks a common understanding of the impact of virtualized networks on IP networking, or how VNs are best utilized. As a result, virtualization has been difficult to integrate across various systems, such as network operators, vendors, service providers and testbed providers (e.g. GENI, FEDERICA, etc). One current challenge with existing VN systems is the development of incompatible or competing networking techniques in the Internet, causing deployment issues in the future (or even now). For instance, there are numerous ways to virtualize routers and their internal resources (e.g., multiple, isolated routing and forwarding tables) and to virtualize core networks (e.g. MPLS, LISP), but end host virtualization has not been addressed (e.g., beyond the need for virtual interfaces). Few virtual network systems allow a particular virtual machine in an end host to control its attachment to a specific private network. The end host virtualization architecture also determines whether virtualization is per virtual machine, per process, or per connection -- and this difference can determine exactly how the end host can participate in VNs. Similar issues arise for virtual services, virtual links, etc. The VNRG will consider the whole system of a VN and not only single components or a limited set of components; we will identify architectural challenges resulting from VNs, addressing network management of VNs, and exploring emerging technological and implementation issues. Initial set of work items: * concepts/background/terminology * common parts of VN architectures * common problems/challenges in VN * descriptions of appropriate uses * some solutions (per-problem perhaps) The RG will initially focus on VNs but at a later stage the RG will also be open to related topics, such as system virtualization. Organization The Virtual Networks Research Group (VNRG) provides a forum for interchange of ideas among a group of network researchers with an interest in network virtualization in the context of the Internet and also beyond the current Internet. The VNRG will encourage the organization of the work in smaller design teams focused on specific areas of research. The design teams will use the general mailing list in order to allow the broader community to follow the evolution of their topics. Most of the communication inside the VNRG will be done through use of mailing lists, however, the group will hold regular
NetFPGA tutorial with IETF in Anaheim
Forwarding on behalf of the organizers. -- Aaron Falk Chair Internet Research Task Force http://www.irtf.org We are pleased to announce an upcoming NetFPGA tutorial co-located with IETF in Anaheim, CA on March 21, 2010. An open platform called the NetFPGA has been developed at Stanford University. The NetFPGA platform enables researchers and instructors to build high-speed, hardware-accelerated networking systems. The platform can be used in the classroom to teach students how to build Ethernet switches and Internet Prototcol (IP) routers using hardware rather than software. The platform can be used by researchers to prototype advanced services for next-generation networks. By using Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), the NetFPGA enables new types of packet routing circuits to be implemented and detailed measurements of network traffic to be obtained. During the tutorial, we will use the NetFPGA to determine the amount of memory needed to buffer TCP/IP data streaming through the Gigabit/second router. Hardware circuits within the NetFPGA will be implemented to measure and plot the occupancy of buffers. Circuits will be downloaded into reconfigurable hardware and tested with live, streaming Internet video traffic. Attendees will utilize a Linux-based PC equipped with NetFPGA hardware. A basic understanding of Ethernet switching and network routing is expected. Past experience with Verilog is useful but not required. Details about this event and registration information are posted on-line as: http://netfpga.org/tutorials/IETF2010/index.php A list of future and past NetFPGA tutorials is available on-line as: http://netfpga.org/php/events.php --- If you have any questions or concerns let us know. Thanks. --Adam C. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ICSI Netalyzr measurement project
Of possible interest to this list. --aaron Original Message Subject:[IMRG] ICSI Netalyzr measurement project Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:54:08 -0800 From: v...@ee.lbl.gov To: i...@ietf.org CC: Christian Kreibich christ...@icir.org, Nicholas C. Weaver nwea...@icsi.berkeley.edu Netalyzr is a Java applet you can run by surfing to netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu (or to netalyzr.com). It measures a bunch of the properties of an end user's network access, particularly looking for transparent modifications (e.g., hidden proxies or blocking), connectivity restrictions, DNS modifications, and some security issues (e.g., whether the DNS resolver is vulnerable to the Kaminsky attack). You can see a sample report at: http://netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/restore/id=example-session Netalyzr forms the foundation for a large-scale measurement study of the Internet's edge. We did a beta run six months ago, and have subsequently made a bunch of changes and improvements. We already found a lot of interesting behavior such as unexpected proxies (unexpected = the network operators themselves didn't know they were there), DNS manipulation, significant buffering problems, and the like. To this end, we would like to get as many users to run the latest version as possible. Thus, if you're willing to do so and/or spread the word, we'd much appreciate it. Thanks, - The Netalyzr Crew: Christian, Nick and Vern ___ IMRG mailing list i...@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/imrg ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [rfc-i] path forward with RFC 3932bis
Jari- The draft says: The RFC Editor reviews Independent Submission Stream submissions for suitability for publication as RFCs. As described in RFC 4846 [I3], the RFC Editor asks the IESG to review the documents for conflicts with the IETF standards process or work done in the IETF community. Similarly, documents intended for publication as part of the IRTF Stream are sent to the IESG for review for conflicts with the IETF standards process or work done in the IETF community [I2]. I'm concerned about the phrase or work done in the IETF community. Unbound it can cover much, much more than IETF standards work. In fact, one could make the case that it covers the IRTF (since much IRTF work is done in the standards community. I don't believe IESG review should cover conflicts in the IRTF (or IAB or IETF Trust or ISOC or with other Independent Submissions authors...) The IESG's authority in this paragraphs derives from RFC2026 which is pretty clear: To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor, may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the IETF community. I'd like to see the phrase in question removed or perhaps clarified (say to include planned standards work or some such). --aaron -- Aaron Falk Chair Internet Research Task Force http://www.irtf.org ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
update on draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl
Here's an update on how this draft will be handled: Discussions about what to do have taken place with the author, the doc shepherd, the sponsoring AD, and several interested folks in the IAB. The current plan is that the ASRG is going to publish it and the other, usage- oriented document as IRTF RFCs describing current practice. Barry Leiba, IAB member and ASRG participant, has agreed to work with the authors to ensure that the Security Considerations section is represents points raised in the IETF review. Barry (cc'ed) has asked for text contributions to include in the Security Considerations section be sent to him with DNSBL in the subject. Further, Barry will raise the question of whether there is interest in the IETF developing a reputation service at the DKIM meeting this thursday. (This does not mean that the work would necessarily take place in DKIM.) regards, --aaron --- Aaron Falk Chair Internet Research Task Force http://www.irtf.org ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Vancouver schedule
--On November 10, 2005 8:11:33 AM -0800 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me that it might be more productive to, e.g., cut the current morning slot to two hours and insert an hour slot in the morning. yes. Ditto. Maybe we need to ask Ray and Marcia to see if a guideline that we don't have two consecutive ten minute breaks could be made to work. At the least, make short breaks 15 minutes. Were the schedule generally less dense, making all breaks 30 minutes would make sense, to leave real time for the followup discussions. The latter sounds preferable but may be unworkable. One of the reasons I'm unhappy is that I used to have four opportunities to meet with folks: lunch, coffee, dinner, after the late session. Now I have three: lunch, break, dinner. This makes it a bit harder for me. Extending the 10 minute break to 30 would be quite valuable, imo. Regardless, breaks of 10, 15, or 30 minutes should include coffee. --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Vancouver schedule
Am I the only one dissatisfied with the meeting schedule? I find that the run of meetings from 1300 to 1930 is just too long, especially the four hour period from 1300 - 1710. I would strongly prefer our 'traditional' schedule over the current one. Even if I can't know which continent I'll be meeting in, it would be nice to know that the daily schedule is one I can live with. ;) --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
missing mouse
I seem to have left a small wireless mouse somewhere, probably the terminal room. Has anybody seen it? --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
in Paris with kids?
My wife is here with our girls (ages 3, 9) and is interested in hooking up with other families with kids. We've scoped out some nice parks, etc, over the last week. Drop me a private email if interested. --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Cautionary tale: Paris pickpockets
--On July 24, 2005 12:57:02 AM -0700 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is quite a bit of publicity about pickpockets around Paris generally, and especially in Metro stations. In the Versailles chateau, they make regular public-address announcements about it. Indeed. Yesterday my wife's purse was picked, at the Eiffel Tower train station, lightening our load of cash and several credit cards. --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: improving WG operation
--On May 1, 2005 9:04:12 AM -0700 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in general I think the issue is stricter meeting planning and management, where the goals and process are more explicit. Sorry for coming very late to this discussion. I might suggest scheduling a (preferably voice) conversation between the AD and the chairs of each working group before an IETF meeting to discuss the issues and objectives surrounding the next wg meeting. I'm finding that voice chats with IRTF RG chairs have been very useful for me to sync up on the RG activities and to give some nudges on moving forward. --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Important protocol development
Dave Crocker wrote: Ole May I suggest that we consider starting a working group on this: iRtf, perhaps, but not iEtf, yet. It's still in the research phase. Hmm. Dave, are you suggesting a research group on wheel-reinvention protocols? Or perhaps, snail-paced transport? --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF63 wireless
Bill Sommerfeld wrote: Stateful DHCP lease tracking was clearly causing more trouble than it's worth to the IETF network. Ya' know, I'd be happy if I received a static IP address with my meeting registration confirmation. I'd even be happy to supply my wireless MAC address... --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What? No PPT or wireless? [Re: IETF63 wireless]
Carsten Bormann wrote: (The best WG meeting I ever attended was one where Tony Li hammered out most of the IP-over-firewire details in one session by asking the attending firewire experts all the right questions in one sitting. I'm still wowed for life. But you can't do this for something as complex as VPLS.) Carsten- You've given an example for something that I've been wanting to articulate. WG chairs have *lot* of influence over how productive a meeting is. It takes thought and preparation to decide what the best use of the wg time should be. I've seen a tendency for wgchairs to make agendas = list of drafts in development. A better practice would be to start the hard questions that need to be discussed (to take advantage of the face time) and back into background reading from there. I think the emphasis on tourists, surfing, and powerpoint is a red herring. --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
test?
List sure it quiet. I wonder if it's broken? If you receive this, please don't respond. Please. --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
request for stable meeting noc address
(bcc'ing the secretariat to generate a trouble ticket) I'd like to request a stable (from meeting to meeting) email address and web page for network operations at IETF meetings. Thanks, --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG+BOF chatrooms
Peter Saint-Andre wrote: FYI, I have just set up chatrooms at ietf.xmpp.org for all the BOFs which are currently listed on the IETF 62 agenda page: Peter- Many thanks! Can you confirm that users will be able to set the Subject: in the chatrooms? On teleconferences I've found that very useful to keep track of the topic. I imagine it makes the jabber logs more useful. In the past, I've found that when I tried to set/change the subject line I received an authorization error. Thanks, --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: BCP and IASA IRTF support
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: Margarets rev 01 drafts, in Section 1, 3rd para starts: The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) provides the administrative structure required to support the IETF standards process and to support the technical activities of the IETF, including the IESG, the IAB, IETF working groups and the IRTF. I believe that current admin support for IRTF is pretty meager. It seems that the above text makes IASA more explicitly responsible for admin support for IRTF. I personally think this is fine, but we should be aware that that is what is being proposed by this text. Bert- It appears (to me) that IRTF RGs are meeting before and after IETF meetings increasingly more often. Is there additional cost to this? Is that expense currently borne by IETF meeting registration fees? (Personally, I think it would be fine if it were. I think interaction between IETF and IRTF participants is a good thing and benefits the IETF.) If the IETF is not currently paying for these meetings, does the change you refer to above imply that it would in the future? --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: DC Restaurant Ideas
This hotel is in walking distance of some of the best Ethiopian cuisine you'll find in the US. If you have never tried Ethiopian cuisine and are feeling adventurous, I can highly recommend two restaurants: Faskika's 2447 18th Street http://www.fasikas.com Roha 1212 U Street http://www.roharestaurant.com --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
I'd like to suggest that this thread move to the internet-history list. (For those unfamiliar with this list, information is available at http://www.postel.org/internet-history.htm) --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
is there an email for the IETF61 NOC?
___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Administrative Reorganization: What was that problem anyway?
John- Thanks for your note. A good reset of the discussion, IMO. Some chiming in and a question below... On Sep 14, 2004, at 2:12 PM, John C Klensin wrote: We have exactly two problems: (1) For a number of policy and budgetary reasons, having two revenue sources that have to be kept isolated from each other lies on a scale between suboptimal and nuts. (2) The IESG perceives that they are not getting adequate support for their work, and the standards process more generally, from the Secretariat and that, despite considerable effort, there has been little progress on solving that problem. Yes, my understanding as well. And the guarantee of responsiveness, in _any_ organizational structure in which administrative/financial management are separated from standards management, lies in mutual trust and mutual understanding of goals and objectives, not in discussions of, e.g., who can blow whose bolts. strongly agree. The question, then, is whether we can devise a scenario that addresses the critical path questions without inventing any more administrative structure than needed, without depending on unreasonable expectations of the skills of the IETF _technical_ leadership, and without compromising the apparent and actual independence and ability of the IETF to develop good technical standards without undue influence from funding sources. Agreed. To reprise, the criteria for that alternative administrative organizational structure should include: (i) The IETF volunteer (standards process) leadership and, for that matter, anyone with responsibility for steering the standards process, is at arms-length from financial dealings with particular donors who might be assumed to be influencing the IETF's standards process. (ii) Nomcom appointments to IETF volunteer technical/ standards process leadership positions are not expected to require that candidates have significant administrative or financial skills, nor are candidates expected to acquire those skills on appointment. (iii) We put as much IETF energy into organization-creation as is actually needed to solve identifiable and real problems, and no more. In particular, we don't try to create elaborate structures to handle hypothesized problems that have not occurred and probably will never occur, nor do we try to use IETF Administration as a way to develop and carry out unnecessary social experiments. john So, from this I guess you don't like scenarios C D? :) Does this mean you do like scenarios A B? Or are you suggesting that some other as-yet-unspecified solution will meet criteria (i) - (iii) above and solve problems (1) (2)? --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: National network harmonization efforts?
Erik- Just curious: do you see draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-04.txt as a useful contribution to this effort? My understanding is that the it is motivated to be helpful input to the task you describe. --aaron On Sep 8, 2004, at 5:14 AM, Erik Huizer wrote: My government has concluded after various complains, that with the advance of broadband connections some providers in the market deliver not-so-compatible-and-transparant services. E.g. NATs are used inside the network, ADSL2+ and VDSL don't fit together very well etc. This would not be bothersome if we had a clean and open market situation, as the consumers would vote with their feet and make it right. However we don't. Thus my government has decided to ask a small committee to make an inventory of may shoulds and musts for broadband infrastructure in order to educate people providing the service, to inform the the consumers and to help the content providers. (And no, it will not be enforced with a conformance test center :-). I have been asked to participate in this effort, and will do so, but I was wondering wether other countries have gone through the same excercise. I already got hold of an article describing a similar effort in Italy. if you know of a similar effort in your country please mail me privately with answers and references. I will compile a summary for the IETF list. Thanks, Erik Huizer University Utrecht/Twente ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
On Sep 5, 2004, at 4:15 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: I do not think that recommendation 7 in scenario B is a good idea. I believe that plenary time is full enough without crowding it more. What about a 'business meeting' that is scheduled in wg slot or even on Sunday? I understand that there may be conflicts between people who want to go to a working group and the business meeting but we live with those in working groups. Hopefully, with a smaller group (compared to the plenary) and largish block of time a good f2f dialog could take place. --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
On Sep 3, 2004, at 3:06 PM, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: If we were to go for option C, then in my personal view, it would have the serious benefit that we are ALWAYS (from day 1) responsible to make sure things work well. And we need to re-negotiate every so often if we want to keep the relationships that we have or if we want to change them. So in my view we would run far less risk to ever get in a similar situation as where we are today. Yep... initially it will cost us some more money and effort I suspect. But I think it is worth the price. Bert- It seems to me that this is an argument for option B as well as C. My take from the history you laid out is that what was missing was a clearly articulated set of relationships which defined roles and responsibilities (and possibly instructions for disentangling if things went bad. AFAICT, this could just as easily be put into option B without creating an (imo undesirable) increased distance between IETF and ISOC. --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: survey on Friday IETF sessions
On Jul 22, 2004, at 6:30 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: I think it comes back to: a) some groups probably shouldn't meet as often b) some groups perhaps shouldn't exist at all c) some groups need 6-10 hours of continuous face-time in which they can actually get things done. We have pushed such things to interim meetings, sometimes with success, sometimes without. The problem is that these groups get 4 hours at IETF, easily fill that, and still feel that they didn't get everything done. Perhaps we should raise the bar on what it takes to get a slot at the IETF meeting. For example, try to come up with some objective criteria for what deserves a 1hr slot, 2hrs, multiple, etc. This might even nudge groups into making some additional progress (you can't have your meeting if you don't hit a/some milestones). BTW, regarding the survey: there's only been 80 responses so far. My take is that people don't care about the issue enough to voice their opinion. --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
survey on Friday IETF sessions
One of the issues we seem to be running into is an increased number of conflicts in meeting slots at IETF meetings. For instance, two years ago the meeting slots predominantly were used for 6-7 meetings, whereas the agenda for the upcoming meeting has no slot except for Friday without 7-8 meetings. There has been some discussion about IETF meetings on Fridays, possibly extending the agenda to later Friday afternoon. In the interest of creating a more informed discussion, we've put together a short questionnaire to gather some data on attending meetings from IETF participants. See http://ietf.levkowetz.com/survey/attendance/ --aaron (for Aaron Falk, Henrik Levkowetz, and Mark Allman) PS. Please don't complain about the questions. If you have better, feel free to build your own -- more data is good! :) ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: STD series of documents
On May 27, 2004, at 1:19 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: May I suggest that a URL like: http://www.ietf.org/std/std0051.txt be made that can refer to the STD series of documents? Not sure what's motivating your suggestion. However, here's one that works: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/std/std51.txt Is that sufficient? --aaron ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF59 Network Tear Down Starts at 12:00 Noon Friday
Woohyong- Thank you for such a well-run network! One question: do you know if the free wireless in the rooms (essid: lottehotel) will continue after the IETF network teardown? --aaron On Mar 4, 2004, at 4:43 PM, Woohyong Choi wrote: Seoul meeting participants, We'll begin tearing down gears and wires right after 12:00 noon on Friday. Terminal room will also be closed at 12:00. Access points in the 1st floor will probably be the last ones to remain active, but still they have be removed during the afternoon. We hope you had an enjoyable access during your stay here. Please make a safe trip back! Regards, Woohyong Choi, on behalf of the entire IETF59 NOC crew ___ This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML Administrator ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
smtp server won't accept from hotel room
smtp.ietf59.or.kr won't accept mail from the wireless access in the hotel rooms. Not sure what the address block is but it would be nice to have. Keep up the good work. --aaron
Re: dris mailing list
What's dris? Not on the IETF agenda. --aaron On Mar 1, 2004, at 2:01 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: I realize that the DRIS BOF was put together somewhat quickly, but the mailing list situation is a little frustrating. 1) there's no mailing list archive at the URL given on the agenda 2) there are no subscription directions on the agenda 3) mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] bounces 4) mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] bounces 5) mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] bounces Because of the IETF's tradition of both working and making decisions on mailing lists, it's really important that there be a functioning mailing list for each of the various efforts. It would be helpful in the future if stuff like this can be verified before it's announced. Thanks, Melinda ___ This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML Administrator ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Re: power in Korea..
On Feb 26, 2004, at 2:15 AM, Joe Abley wrote: Also, for GSM subscribers: http://www.etechkorea.info/articles/20020601001.php These are CDMA phones which are specially designed for GSM roamers (you stick your GSM SIM in the back of them). I used a KTF CDMA phone with my Microcell GSM SIM last August, and it worked fine. The cost of renting the phone was very low, and picking up the handset at ICN was painless. Has anybody tried this kind of trick (putting the SIM in another phone) with a T-mobile sim? I know that T-mobile binds the phone to the sim but don't know if they bind the sim to the phone. --aaron
Re: Do we or don't we need a visa for the Korean IETF?
On Jan 29, 2004, at 9:47 AM, John Stracke wrote: It sounds like you might be safest contacting the Korean embassy yourself and asking for a visa. If they say you don't need one, you're on firmer ground than if the IETF says you don't need one. I believe the risk is in how one characterizes what an IETF meeting is and why one is attending. I would prefer that we had all had the same instructions on what to say, vetted by the embassy. --aaron
when is the wireless going away?
-in the Austria Center? -in the Crowne Plaza? Inquiring minds want to know. --aaron
Re: what's a PWG?
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: PMTUD was approved as a WG yesterday, so it's probably Probably a WG or Proto-WG. Proto was my first guess, too. However, I've changed my mind and now think it's pending. Interestingly, I received a some private responses indicating other folks didn't know either and hoping for a conclusive definitions. Suggest either expanding or avoiding this new acronym. --aaron
what's a PWG?
Appears twice in http://www.ietf.org/meetings/agenda_57.html (pmtud lemonade). --aaron
Re: Fwd: Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Margaret Wasserman wrote: We could attempt to increase fundraising for ISOC/the IETF. Good idea. I suggest a bakesale. Everyone bring a baked good to Vienna...
Re: Text Conferencing for the 56th IETF meeting in San Francisco
Marshall- Is there a way to browse available IETF jabber conferences? --aaron
Re: IETF: v6 works, v4 is broken
Tom Marshall wrote: I have found that IPv6 seems to have a much longer round trip delay than IPv4 for just about every site that I have tried. For example, pinging www.rfc-editor.org from here gives me this: IPv6: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 589.174/678.001/1109.953/117.776 ms IPv4: rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 8.346/48.524/130.290/37.593 ms See note to ietf list from yesterday that IPv6 routes all go to Europe before going anywhere else. :( Also, note that I cannot get an HTTP response from www.rfc-editor.org using IPv6. The connection is established fine, but the server does not respond to requests. Works for me. What browser are you using? There were some problems with the routing earlier today which appear to have been fixed. Try again and email me privately if you still have trouble? --aaron
weird (broken?) IPv6 routing
Is anybody else noticing this? --aaron = C:\Documents and Settings\falktracert6 dns.postel.org Tracing route to dns.postel.org [3ffe:801:1000:0:2d0:b7ff:c0de:1] from 2001:460:410:8128:61ba:b359:9d3a:1f81 over a maximum of 30 hops: 12 ms 4 ms 5 ms 2001:460:410:8128::1 2*** Request timed out. 3 196 ms 202 ms 197 ms INXSv6.eurocyber.net [2001:650:f807::20bb:1] 4 bb2-rkp-s5-1-0.muc.ipv6.eurocyber.net [2001:768:f:1::1] reports: No route to destination. Trace complete. = or = C:\Documents and Settings\falktracert6 www.kame.net Tracing route to apple.kame.net [2001:200:0:4819:210:f3ff:fe03:4d0] from 2001:460:410:8128:61ba:b359:9d3a:1f81 over a maximum of 30 hops: 12 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2001:460:410:8128::1 2*** Request timed out. 3 195 ms 193 ms 195 ms INXSv6.eurocyber.net [2001:650:f807::20bb:1] 4 194 ms 348 ms 194 ms bb2-rkp-s5-1-0.muc.ipv6.eurocyber.net [2001:768:f:1::1] 5 287 ms 196 ms 198 ms decix-tu0.fra.de.ipv6.eurocyber.net [2001:768:d:1::2] 6 198 ms 194 ms 198 ms fe0-1-2-0.br1.ixfra.de.easynet.net [2001:7f8::11ed:0:1] 7 364 ms 360 ms 381 ms so0-1-1-0.gr0.ixfra.de.easynet.net [2001:6f8::59:11:1] 8 358 ms 358 ms 358 ms so0-1-2-0.gr0.bbpar.fr.easynet.net [2001:6f8::59:10:2] 9 358 ms 359 ms 363 ms so0-1-1-0.gr0.bllon.uk.easynet.net [2001:6f8::65:11:1] 10 357 ms 447 ms 358 ms so0-1-0-0.gr0.bwnyc.us.easynet.net [2001:6f8::25:10:1] 11 357 ms 358 ms 356 ms nyc6-gate0.iij-america.net [2001:458:26:2::200] 12 462 ms 462 ms 471 ms otm6-bb0.IIJ.Net [2001:240:100:fffc::ff] 13 462 ms 463 ms 462 ms otm6-gate0.IIJ.Net [2001:240:100::204] 14 537 ms 784 ms 619 ms pc6.otemachi.wide.ad.jp [2001:200:0:1802:2d0:b7ff:fe88:eb8a] 15 605 ms 552 ms 669 ms gsr1.fujisawa.wide.ad.jp [2001:200:0:1c04:201:64ff:fea3:ec55] 16 535 ms 536 ms 545 ms pc3.yagami.wide.ad.jp [2001:200:0:1c04::1000:2000] 17 922 ms 581 ms 587 ms gr2000.k2c.wide.ad.jp [2001:200:0:4819::2000:1] 18 637 ms 645 ms 536 ms 2001:200:0:4819:210:f3ff:fe03:4d0 Trace complete. =
Re: Information on Directorates and Finances
Well done, Harald! I applaud this move towards 'transparency.' One question. In the sentence on the finance page where you wrote: In the US, this is one way in which hotels recover the cost of meeting rooms; in one recent query, the secretariat got a quote on meeting rooms without food for USD 238.000 (at 50% off list price). At a similar meeting where we got the meeting rooms for free, our food and beverages bill was approximately USD 250.000. I'm a little confused as to whether the decimal has been substituted for a comma or whether it's just in the wrong place or both. --aaron Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: I have put two web pages up at the following URL: http://www.ietf.org/u/chair/ One details the directorates that currently exist in the IETF, with memberships of most of them. The other one is the IETF finances for 2001. The presentation format is subject to modification - if you find things unclear or hard to understand, drop me a line! Harald ___ This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
I've only heard secondhand about the activities in the sub-ip area and so I can't offer direct feedback. However, in http://www.ietf.org//mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg18130.html, John Klensin makes the following point: (4) There is a class of WG for which the bounded outcome model will, fairly clearly, fail. And, unfortunately, such WGs seem to be on the increase. It has become common to have a situation in which a group of people with narrowly-focused interests come together and insist, quite loudly and persistently, that they want to do a particular piece of work within the IETF. Such groups are often approved by the IESG: whether to give them a chance, or because turning them down is too painful, or because the work might actually be useful. But, unless we can devise rules that prevent such groups from being chartered, or that kill them immediately if they cannot involve a broad spectrum of the IETF community in their work (and involve them actively), then presuming that their output represents community approval, is extremely dangerous to the goal of producing only IETF protocols that are competent on the public Internet. My observations of such groups is that it is often difficult or impossible to get them to focus on even the applicability (or security or scaling) boundaries of their work; it is difficult to hold the time delays that occur when the IESG identifies and tries to remedy those problems in order to produce a competent, or competently-bounded and documented, protocol as an IESG failure because of excessive processing time. I would like the IESG to consider if the work in the sub-ip area could be considered to meet the description above and, if so, whether it is endemic to the area. (I can easily imagine this is so, although, as I say above, I have no facts to back this up.) If sub-ip represents technologies that don't, and will never, get involvement from a broad spectrum of the IETF community, we shouldn't institutionalize it. In this case, I would be in favor of letting the area expire when the working groups complete their current charters (option 3). --aaron
Re: Introducing the ID tracker
Robert Elz wrote: And a request - could the system be extended, sometime, so that it could send e-mail to the working group, where there is one, or the (first) author in other cases, when a doc changes state? That would avoid the need for continually polling the web page every day to find out if anything has happened. An excellent suggestion. --aaron
Re: anyone remember when the root servers were hi-jacked? (fwd)
Craig Simon wrote: I've got a lot of information on this which I'd be happy to share and exchange, but I still need and want more details. I'm not sure the IETF list is the best place to discuss this matter, however, and if anyone can suggest an alternative site, I'd gladly participate there. Consider the internet-history list. More info at http://www.postel.org/internet-history/. --aaron
Re: Looking ahead to IETF 54
--On Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:54:05 AM -0800 Ole J. Jacobsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Meanwhile, please mark your calendar for: 1. Akihabara (electronics town) Geek Tour, Sunday July 14. On Sundays, the Main Drag aka Chuo Dori is closed to cars and Akihabara will be full of people shopping for the latest gadgets. Meet at entrance to Landmark shopping center at 11am. We will return before 5pm in time for the welcome reception. I'm planning on going on the Akihabara Geek Tour. Does anyone have recommendations on accomodations for a night or two in Tokyo? --aaron
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt
On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 08:14, Dave Crocker wrote: That other working group is already being not served. Holding a working group to its milestones makes the situation more explicit. Query to the group: If we believe we should not hold working groups to their milestones, why bother to have those milestones? Dave- Milestones are useful not just for the when but also for the what. In my opinion, working group charters have their impact on the quality of the IETF output through scoping what the working group should and (especially) should not do. In the charter discussions I've participated in this is made most explicit through the specification of a set of deliverables (e.g., protocols, recommendations, etc). This is of enormous benefit from a managerial standpoint in that the key players agree a priori on what is in and out of scope and the nature of the work to be done. I'd be very concerned that, if we pushed working groups to deliver faster, the first thing we'd lose would be the review from cross-functional experts. These folks are already very busy but their commentary can be of enormous value. It may contribute to longer development of protocols but probably reduces the mess that would result if protocols interact poorly on the Internet (which, as I mentioned in an earlier email, is my criteria for IETF success). One area I think we can improve is in finding ways to do more iterations between IETF meetings. My observation is that many working groups operate on a four month clock, synchronized with the next face-to-face meeting. I think maybe we rely too much on working group meetings to drive the schedule and to indicate consensus so as to move to the next task. --aaron
Re: Netmeeting - NAT issue
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 08:23:15AM -0800, Tony Hain wrote: My question was directed at Noel's assertion that security requires a site border router as the implementation. Just because that may be cheaper than fixing all the current hosts, wouldn't we be better off in the long run if all future hosts protected themselves? Tony- I think one can make the case that having border protection may prevent a DOS attack from consuming interior network resources and allowing interior hosts to communicate amongst themselves. We've recently had some fierce DOS attacks on our ISP but I'm still able to run NFS without a problem. This is a good thing. ---aaron
Re: comments on Friday scheduling, etc.
--On Thursday, January 17, 2002 07:03:21 PM -0500 Ran Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doing something on Sunday might create more options. Quite separately, it was true in the past that IETF would have one or more morning plenary meetings (which could be attempted again). - Reception Social might be merged together on Sunday evening. - Sunday's social might be followed by one of the plenary meetings. - Sunday's social might be followed by a short administrative plenary, covering routine topics (e.g. local host/IANA/RFC- Editor/Secretariat updates). - Sunday's social might be followed by one of the plenary meetings, with the routine topics (e.g. IANA/RFC-Editor/local host/Secretariat) covered at a (possibly shorter than usual for modern plenaries) Monday morning plenary meeting. This list if helpful. Personally, I would much rather either combine the social with the reception on Sunday or have it follow later Sunday night. The quality of the social events has been declining, IMO, and is rarely worth the cost. I'd rather spend $35 on a nice restaurant dinner with my friends. I can do that *and* attend an IAB plenary on Thursday night. --aaron
Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 07:44:49PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote: On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 03:05:24PM -0500, Gene Hastings wrote: Using NAT to connect several of your own computers is one thing. Using it to connect your neighbors and buddies is quite another. Many ISP agreements have clauses forbidding resale, even if you don't get anything in return. Getting nothing in return is not a sale. Isn't this like going to an 'all you can eat' restaurant and giving food to your friends? --aaron
Re: participation in IETF meetings
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 11:23:06AM -0700, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: The advantage of multicast vs. tape-and-archive is the real-time aspect for the viewer. However, this is rarely, rarely used. If it turns out that switching from multicast to tape-and-archive can get more camera operators in more rooms, that would be a win for more WGs. This is a great idea! I think I've attended about fifteen IETF's now and at each one I've been to many multicast sessions but I've never, NEVER heard a live question from a multicast viewer. Now, perhaps viewers have been posting questions to their repective mail lists (I've never seen that, either). But, it seems to me that history indicates the record is much more valuable than the live interaction. --aaron
