Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
On 31 May 2012, at 09:16, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > Sounds like a difficult thing to do with any kind of predictable or > measurable outcome, although it might be fun to ask the Brits if they > understand everything the Americans are saying and vice versa :-) I don't really have any issues understanding American English but I'm regularly gobsmacked by how many North Americans struggle to understand some things that I say :-) Ben
Re: RFC production center XML format usage, was: [IAOC] xml2rfc and legal services RFPs
On 24 Feb 2011, at 16:25, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: >> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henrik >> Levkowetz [hen...@levkowetz.com] >> >> Only errors will prevent an automatic draft submission from going through; >> ignore the warnings and comments to your heart's content for that purpose. > > Are you saying that one can order the draft submission process to > continue even if the submission tool considers the draft to violate > idnits? I had no idea that was possible; I believe (from memory) that > that is not clear from the error output. > idnits reports 3 categories of nits: errors, warnings & comments. Only errors prevent automatic submission AFAIK. HTH Ben ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text versions of ID and RFCs
On 11 Nov 2010, at 08:33, Yaakov Stein wrote: > Sure I can ftp. But usually I search for the draft I want using my browser, > and it would be clumsier to have to shift to ftp instead of clicking. > > It is easier to retrieve them from any of the mirror sites > that download them via my browser in CR-LF format. > Only the official site gives me in "Unix" format. > > It would be great to enable choosing the format desired by right-clicking. Given the Secretariat announced they would start digitally signing I-Ds from 8th Nov and that RFC5485 states "In accordance with the NVT standard, the sequence MUST be used to denote the end of a line of text" [for text/XML formats], I suspect the problem you are facing may go away naturally? Ben ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Time Shifting of Internet Traffic
On 14 Sep 2010, at 02:46, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > I am not finding the net neutrality debate according to K-Street to be very > useful or stimulating. > > At the end of the day we have a limited amount of bandwidth available and we > can help matters if people co-operate where it is in their interests. Whether > or not we choose to do so does not in any way justify using the fact that I > have limited choices in bandwidth provider to ensure that my options for > content and/or VOIP telephone service are similarly limited. > > > One area that might be fruitful for cooperation is in bulk time shifting of > traffic. I am not so much talking about packet level prioritization here. I > am thinking more of when I choose to back up my systems over the net. > > The way I look at it, the net is a bit like the power grid in that there is > an opportunity to reduce capacity requirements by shifting tasks from peak to > off-peak. In particular I have several RAID arrays that I would like to back > up with a total of something like 2Tb of data. > I know of ISPs in the UK that have seen success by building their Broadband packages around an incentive to do exactly that. Two models I have seen are: 1) Package X has a transfer cap of Y GB/month but only transfers between 08:00 and 24:00 count towards the cap. 2) Package X has traffic shaping applied where different protocols are shaped to different maximum throughputs (per customer) depending on protocol & time of day. One then selects the package that provides the application performance one wants for the applications one uses. See http://www.plus.net/support/broadband/speed_guide/download_speeds.shtml for an example. Ben ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474
On 4 Sep 2010, at 06:17, Patrik Faltstrom (pfaltstr) wrote: > On 4 sep 2010, at 07:06, "Randall Gellens" wrote: > >> The idea being that a regulated or even municipal entity builds and >> maintains the outside plant, with any Internet provider able to use it to >> offer service. That way all details of the service are open to competition. > > This is what for example us happening in Sweden all over the place. Most well > known project in Sweden is the City of Stockholm where STOKAB is providing > dark fiber (as a product) and nothing more. > > In a similar way many villages and individual home owners dig down their own > fiber. > > I am sure it happens in other parts of the world as well. http://www.openreach.com For a regulated approach. Although part of BT, Openreach owns the outside plant and is regulated separately (& more tightly) than the Wholesale and other divisions. Open access to Openreach products to any ISP/network provider, Openreach must sell to BT on exactly the same terms as it does to its other customers including release of product plans etc. If one needs more than "wires only" type access to the outside plant can be accessed through the (also) regulated Wholesale division. It leads to many ISPs differentiating themselves from each other in a variety of ways so if you want a download cap >X GB or an ISP that doesn't mess with P2P you can probably find one. Some of the ISPs don't even own any infrastructure of their own and are really just branding & billing functions. How well it works I leave as an exercise for the reader, however... http://www.samknows.com/broadband/statistics/regional has some stats on the number of distinct providers (i.e. those that operate some form of actual network rather than just reselling) with the numbers ranging from ~11 per Exchange (Central Office) on average in London to ~2 per exchange on average in Scotland. ben ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal (MPLS Generic Associated
Support. Ben -- Ben Niven-Jenkins IP, Data & Content Architect Network Infrastructure Architecture, BT E-mail: benjamin.niven-jenk...@bt.com Office: +44 (0)1473 648225 Mobile: +44 (0)7918 077205 Fax: +44 (0)1332 578827 British Telecommunications plc. Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no: 180 >> From: The IESG >> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 06:16:19 -0700 (PDT) >> To: IETF-Announce >> Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal (MPLS Generic Associated >> >> Channel) to Proposed Standard >> Reply-to: ietf@ietf.org >> CC: >> >> The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG >> (mpls) to consider the following document: >> >> - 'MPLS Generic Associated Channel ' >> as a Proposed Standard >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-05-14. Exceptionally, comments may be >> sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning >> of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >> >> The file can be obtained via >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-04.txt >> >> >> IESG discussion can be tracked via >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=18034>> & >> rfc_flag=0 >> >> ___ >> IETF-Announce mailing list >> ietf-annou...@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >> -- End of Forwarded Message ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
