Re: List of standards
--On 17 August 2004 09:20 -0700 Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Why is the list of internet standards so hard to find? * * It seems to me this list deserves top ranking on the first page at * www.ietf.org, but that's certainly not the case. (Try to find it and * see what I mean.) * It's not hard to find, actually. Try: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html Seems to me one needs to know a lot about the differences between what's hosted by the IETF and the RFC Editor sites in order to know that for the material in question the user needs to go to the RFC Editor site (and then on to the RFC Database rather than any of the other options). ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt
--On Thursday, March 28, 2002 12:25 -0800 Mark Atwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Stracke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And the authors do caution that their numbers are blind to the quality of the RFCs. Their point, though, is that looking at the easy metrics is better than not measuring anything at all; it gives a first-order approximation. I disagree. Some metrics (lines of code written per day, number of bugs found per person, etc) are *actively* harmful to gather report. True, though I thought LOC counting was done as an initial metric until (much) better things were found. Counting RFCs looks like it's bad the same way that pure LOC counts are bad. Saying we must measure *something* is the Politician's Fallacy (we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this.) I found the parts of the document that would enable more subjective measurements (like documenting the progress of documents within the group) more interesting than the actual counting.
Author's details in RFCs
Since the RFC Editor has a draft out that will update the instructions to RFC authors (draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-00.txt) this seems a reasonable time to bring up a query. Section 10 of RFC2223 reads: 10. Author's Address Section Each RFC must have at the very end a section giving the author's address, including the name and postal address, the telephone number, (optional: a FAX number) and the Internet email address. Section 4.11 of the draft reads: 4.11 Author's Address Section Each RFC must have at the end a section giving the author's address, including the name and postal address, the telephone number, (optional: a FAX number) and the Internet email address. Er, OK, so they're identical :) But why must the author(s)/editor supply addresses and telephone numbers? And what should an independent author/editor with no affiliation provide? (Please don't tell me they should use their residential details - that's unacceptable.) I understand that in rare cases the RFC Editor will allow publications with only a persistent email address, but in that case I'm curious as to why we don't just go that route and do away with physically bound points of contact altogether. After all, they don't appear to serve any useful purpose (other than to provide headhunters a number to call). Answers? Comments? Flames?
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 15:59 + Paul Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In addition, I still find it amazing that people are justifying costs due to the number of breakfasts and cookies being served. The word 'ludicrous' is overused on this list, but I think I've found a situation it applies to - please, ask yourself whether the cookies are really needed. :-) Yes, they are - serious brain food is necessary. Breakfast on-site makes it possible for folks to meet and talk before the meeting starts; afternoon coffee and cookies help keep you awake because you were meeting late into the night the night before, and also provide another venue where you can meet and talk about things. For those on a limited budget, it's also just about possible to survive on pre-paid food and dinner, cutting out the costs associated with lunch. (Thanks again to those folks that bought me lunches in SLC.) Actually, like I suggested in my previous mail, I suspect that certain individuals involved with the IETF are quite happy with hob-nobbing with the big multi-nationals and don't give a damn what lone consulants and developers who actually have to deploy the technologies think, I'll admit that it does sometimes feel that way and that as an individual it becomes very hard to be involved (I'd echo some of Graham Klyne's comments here). and I'm beginning to strongly suspect that if all individual participants crawled under a rock and never showed any further interest in the IETF, many people would break open the champagne. Shame really. Ho-hum. I don't quite get that feeling, but I think it's something that needs to be considered.
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 08:17 -0800 Kevin C. Almeroth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, slightly better than just not showing up is watching the multicast feed. In fact, the more people who choose to participate this way will indeed serve to make a justification to make this better, i.e. real-time feedback from the network, etc. And before anyone starts whining about not having multicast access, the alternative is to send out unicast streams. And of course this creates an immense cost in terms of additional bandwidth needed out of the hotel. Point taken, but as an individual contributor I don't think I'm going to have much luck talking to SBC/PacBell... and I don't think individual contributors on the end of 56k dialup are going to be able to get much either.
Re: IETF Meetings - High Registration Fees
--On Monday, March 18, 2002 12:25 -0800 Bonney Kooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bonney - 1) the meeting fee is USD 425. You pay an USD 150 penalty for forcing us to staff the registration desk with people authorized to handle credit card transactions and so forth; I don't have numbers on whether the penalty is enough to pay for the overhead. For a fee of $425, a late fee of $150 doesn't seem reasonable to me at all in the percentage term. All they do at the counter is charge to the credit card and print the tag. No more than five minutes to process. And those people cost money. And so does the credit card machine. And so do the desks they're working behind. And irrespective of I suspect the hotels might even charge some premium for extra heads being added to the catering requirements. I can still do most this stuff on line a day before - if you would let me do it with no or small late fee. But by then the badges have already been pre-printed and shipped to the hotel I believe. So you'd still have to pay the premium for someone to handle your badge and registration in a different way, most likely printing the badge when you arrive. Only argument may be that it lets you plan in advance for sponsor hand bags - but I for one don't care if i get those conference bags and tee shirts if the counter runs out them. Big deal. That's irrelevant since the sponsor bags/t-shirts (if any) are not included in the registration cost (so far as I understood it). The average fee paid in 2001 was USD 431 - most people preregister. 2) Of the USD 2.7 million taken in on meeting fees last year, USD 1.38 million shows up as direct meeting costs - the largest single item is food and beverages - breakfast and cookies. I think that can be reduced substantially. As most people stay in Hotels any way, and some of them include breakfast as part of the room stay. It is pretty much a duplication, and only beneficiaries are near by Hotels!. And many hotels *don't* include a free breakfast, especially not for conference block bookings (in my experience of attending conference hotels). Irrespective of that, I'd rather not have to get up even earlier in order to stand in line in an overcroweded (read: full beyond capacity if this were to happen) hotel restaurant before the 9am start. Informal nibbles and coffee (or soda) makes it a *lot* easier to hold ad-hoc meetings before the sessions start. Funds can definitely be better used to fund secretariat activities or building reserve funds for the IETF. All we need is to offer plain english tea and coffee during breaks, And water, and soda of a variety of types... and simple crackers and of course, people are free to order any thing from coffee shop if they are into eating sandwitches or gourmet cakes and pastries etc. But then it is me - others may feel the need of more sugar calories after each sessions. I don't eat cookies so couldn't care. And a couple of thousand of people searching for empty calories (or the better sort in fruit or ice cream) in an area around the event hotel during a half hour break ... is not going to work. 3) The rest of the meeting fee covers the cost of keeping us with a secretariat. We have people working full time on running the IETF - a lot of those people behind the desk are working for you full time, all year. Internet-drafts don't publish themselves. I think it will be a good idea to have a fresh look at how to fund IETF activities in a way that increase the individual/ Graduate student/ University researchers participation. I think corporations can bear more of the cost after all they do make billions in profit thanks to IETF standards, and can afford mega million packages for CEOs. If there is a need to sponsor individual sessions so be it as long as that only gets them (sponsors) a mention, and perhaps a display board (this sesion sponsored byxyz.) and doesn't affect independance of technical discussions. Just Say No.
Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
Without wishing to drag this thread on yet longer... --On Wednesday, January 23, 2002 08:49 -0800 Kyle Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The entire process will certainly have an impact on the organization, even if certification is never revoked. The process of developing test specifications is slow, tedious, and about as alluring as the prospect of writing a MIB. It tends to attract relatively few people As I said... no test specifications. Just $100, say you are complying, boom you have the logo and the trust of IETF. US$100 is still a lot of money for some people. *Any* amount of money may be too much for some people, especially if they're in part of the world where wiring US$100 would be difficult/impossible. It's up to an IETF working group to challenge that trust and threaten to yank the logo, which is the one true mark of that trust. Is this a working group that's there just to oversee mark value? If so I'm not sure I see how it would work, given the massively diverse set of knowledge that would be required. If you mean the current working groups, then what happens when there isn't a current working group to oversee something that can carry a mark? No one wants to be bogged down with bureaucracy, but I don't mind filling out an application, sending in $100, and getting the logo. If I become a bad vendor, then people in an IETF WG can move to yank my logo. There should be a process for the yanking of the logo that is very fair, and arguably should happen over a period of time, be pretty lenient and give vendors more than ample time to do the right thing. The goal here isn't to punish vendors, rather, to promote standards, and created a trusted one true mark that says you have the trust of the IETF. CIOs can use that mark as a differentiator with products and can choose to not buy from vendors that lose that trust... The problem here is that while presence of logo is still pretty meaningless, non-presence of logo is totally meaningless. If there's no logo it can mean that the product is very very bad and doesn't work properly, or it could equally mean that the product is perfect and the author just hasn't done the certification. Or is there a requirement for folks that have had their marks pulled to instead display a logo saying we're broken?
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
--On Saturday, January 19, 2002 17:32 -0800 Lixia Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If talking personal preference... I would rather prefer not to have anything officially scheduled on Sunday since that fundamentally requires we leave for the trip one day earlier. Friday is not too good either. How about moving the social to Monday evening, and have Tue and Wed evening for the two plenaries? So those who don't go to the meetings on a Monday night get to go to the social, but if your group is in that 2.5 hour slot you don't get to go...?
Re: 3D technology? I'm afraid to ask, but I am too curious not too
At 22:48 -0400 2001-10-23, Dan Kolis wrote: Why isn't the Internet and 3D technology used for the IETF meetings ? The Next Generation IPv8 Internet has that. Why is the IPv4 Internet Ok. MBone or not, Mime type or not, whatever. Is there some 3D imaging thing that actually exists for teleconferencing actual people I don't know about? A holographic Codec for H.323? From the first moment I say the post, I thought What is this about, actually? If its nothing, that's cool. If its something, that's cooler. Pretty sure I saw an Internet2 project doing something like that. CAVE or something? Not sure. Can't really see why an IP version number has anything to do with it though ;-) --
Re: for anyone in london on friday...
[Sorry for the noise folks] At 16:43 8/1/2001 -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote: There's the opportunity picket outside the US Embassy... protests against the imprisonment of Dmitry Sklyarov, starts at the Hyde Park tube stop (blue line so you can go direct from heathrow ;)) at 12:30 and marches to the US Embassy... For those of you with colour defective vision or who might note that London actually has more than one blue line, I assume you mean the Piccadilly line. (As a gentle hint, use the names not the colours ;-) As a second hint, that I think Jon Crowcroft has mentioned somewhere, you should also use the Road, Street etc. suffixes. Asking how to get to Tottenham or Oxford may result in rather different destinations to that planned.) It's the Hyde Park Corner you're after if you're interested.)
RE: OPES charter proposal again.
At 21:43 7/4/2001 -0700, Tomlinson, Gary wrote: On Wednesday, July 04, 2001 @5:06 PM Michael W. Condry wrote: out of interest, did any other groups need to have these restrictions? At 11:03 PM 7/3/2001 -0700, James P. Salsman wrote: I hope that the latest attempt at the OPES charter is resoundingly rejected by the IESG. If it is not, though, I would suggest these three special requirements for an OPES working group: This is a most unusual request. In fact, I have no idea where you are coming from. 1. The Security Considerations section could be required to be placed at the front of all OPES drafts, following the legend, This OPES working group publication is required to have a Security Considerations section that meets certain requirements [cite BCP]. Readers are encouraged to confirm for themselves that the Security Considerations section requirements have been met. And why would this be? It is recognized by OPES that security is a fundamental issue to be addressed. Please read the current charter. In that case the documents should self-reference the group's own security considerations document at the start of other work, to ensure (so far as possible) that folks are aware of the issues surrounding any protocols and deployment of the systems. 2. Another section, Ethics Considerations, could follow immediatly thereafter, and explore the ethical implications of the technology being described, in terms of privacy, disclosure and other terms of service requirments, and impacts upon common carrier feasability. OPES services MUST be authorized by the party they are being provided for. How can this not be ethical? I think the key in James's point there is disclosure. Remember, once an OPES device is present in the network it's all too easy for the network operator to install a new service and flick the yeah, yeah, all my users agreed to let me do this switches. 3. A third section, Legal Considerations, could survey and cite the laws that could be inadvertently violated by careless implementation or use of the technology described, such as the U.S.'s Electronics Communications Privacy Act. This one is even more puzzling. OPES services acting in behalf of clients MUST be authorized by them. Such a OPES service may in fact improve privacy from those over aggressive cookie trackers. Bad choice of example perhaps - a clueful end user can easily disable use of cookies at all or select sites. I may prefer to keep my state with me, rather than letting my network provider hold it for me. (And of course, taking my state with me lets me change network providers without having to get that state transferred to the new network provider...) Anyhow, with respect to legal considerations and authorization - even if an end user has said that an intermediary system can change the format of a page I think you'd still be in a slightly awkward position wrt. copyright - especially if you stored that transcoding for use by others. Cheers, James Michael W. Condry Director, Network Edge Technology An area many seem to forget about in these diatribes is the Enterprise (intranets). These are wholly contained within an Administrative Domain which renders most if not all the issues raised above irrelevant. I'm not so sure. From memory the use cases that have been provided would seem to be nonexistent in a closed environment. Where an enterprise network meets the Internet there may be some uses - but that then gets back to the issues of ethics and law. Sure, it's the enterprise's network. But in some territories they're only allowed to snoop things so far. Heck, with the right configuration an enterprise could certainly make things very interesting for employees making used of web-based email systems in the office.
Re: WG Review: Open Pluggable Edge Services (opes)
At 07:55 6/19/2001 -0700, Michael W. Condry wrote: Keith- Our interest in OPES and the interest of the folks we are working with are not with services such as unrequested ad insertion or other items that might be viewed as offensive. Lots of things can be mis-used, SPAM email is a better example; we even get it on the working group mailing lists, ever read the WEBI mailing list? I don't think this is a fair example. Unless you're comparing OPES services with open-relay SPAM filters? (OK, sorry, that's probably another Pandora's box I just opened on this list...) Although you have made many comments on the charter as well as your thoughts during the open area applications meeting I have not seen you at the OPES BOFs or OPES workshops. *cough* not everyone can make it to physical meetings, and while I suspect that Keith (since that's who you are addressing) is physically present at the IETF meetings it's very possible that he's actually sat in another meeting that's take place at the same time. That's why we have the mailing lists. There you could hear a diverse set of applications that I would be surprised if you would feel to be offensive. We plan to have a 'Deployment Scenarios document that describes a range of applications and constructive comments from you would be appreciated. Offensive services can be done at the server end of things as well, such as ad-insertion; so the edge architecture is not the issue. We have recorded your key point that is doing modifications on the content without the permission of the ends (client and server) of the operation. OPES is quite clear about this requirement. I don't think that's quite the objection, though of course I could be wrong. I haven't seen anyone state *clearly* what the objection is to OPES-stuff with relation to the end-to-end nature of the Internet (and why it's still applicable even when you have an end-to-end connection between browser and OPES proxy). So here's an attempt (with thanks to the work on the midtax document for getting me thinking about this)... The problem with OPES when deployed in the general Internet is that as an end user I may experience substantially different experiences (receiving very different content) depending on my entry point. So, for example, I may suddenly find that I'm using a network that doesn't have that virus scanning service I was relying on. Or the French-to-English translation service I needed would suddenly be unavailable, so I couldn't browse a favorite site any more. And yes, general caching proxies cause problems too - I can experience different views because of aggressive caching or the absence of caching. That said, it's possible that as a user I could authenticate myself with my home/usual Web intermediary so that I could still get at my services. If they're available of course (what happens if I'm at home and the OPES proxy goes down - I don't get my virus scanning any more do I...)
Re: WG Review: Open Pluggable Edge Services (opes)
At 12:29 6/15/2001 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do the charter authors intend that this group's purview include bridges, routers, NATs, proxies, firewalls, gateways, etc? The charter covers none of these things. *cough* I'd seriously hope it would cover proxies and gateways, for some definitions of those terms anyhow!!!
Re: 49th IETF-San Diego
At 12:18 10/11/00 -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: "Randall" == Randall Gellens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Registration, Hotel and Airline Discount information for the 49th IETF meeting is now available at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/IETF-49.html Randall The hotel is near the airport, not downtown. Personally, I Randall suggest that attendees may want to consider renting a car. It's That is a wholy silly suggestion. You damn yourself to traffic congestion near the hotel by doing this. True. The hotel is within sight of the airport, and they told me that would happily provide free shuttle to the trolley if you ask. I believe that Randy's suggestion is more for those folks that want to get away from the hotel for food/entertainment. But, no matter, that hotel is full already. :(
Re: Rechartering WREC
Mark, many thanks for your comments; I've had very similar thoughts and
concerns myself.
At 12:54 10/8/00 -0700, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Recently, there's been a lot of discussion in various places about the
status of WREC, particularly since there are a few other proposals for new
working groups (currently at the BoF request stage) that need to define a
relationship, or lack thereof, to WREC before they can move forward.
I've received requests for clarification on WREC's plans by some of the
folks involved in those other groups. I'm very aware that they would like
some kind of decision on our position as soon as possible in order that the
ADs can make decisions as to whether the BoF requests should be accepted.
(WREC folks, that means we want your input!)
WREC has a somewhat difficult past, and is currently somewhat dormant. This
may lead people to believe that the sensible thing to do is to close the
group down and split any work items off to the new groups; I'd like to
dispute this, and open more public discussion about the future of WREC.
The group's past has been difficult because it had some work items (the
taxonomy, and the known problems document) that had to be completed before
"real" work could be started. Additionally, the interception proxy issues
and misconceptions have plagued the group for some time; it's only recently
that a clear consensus about them seems to be forming.
However, these work items are nearly finished,
To further clarify, the taxonomy has been approved and is currently in the
rfc-editor queue.
and interception proxies are
an issue that can be resolved (either within the group, or in another
non-Application group). The main reason for domancy of the group is the fact
that there have been no further milestones identified for it, so that we're
stuck at re-chartering.
I'd argue that now is an excellent time for WREC to become an active and
useful working group; there are many potential work items for it, including:
* content peering
* enhanced coherence mechanisms (invalidation)
* log summary formats
* surrogate role clarification
* semantic transparency issues in intermediates
* coordination with content negotiation, other groups which affect
intermediates
* proxy discovery (very important, in light of interception proxies)
That's a useful list. Thanks!
More to the point, there's a real need in the IETF for a group that can
address the Web infrastructure as a whole. Highly focused groups, while
usually productive, can miss out on the bigger picture.
To this point, I'd propose that WREC re-charter as soon as possible, with the
above work items as well as others that come to light. In particular;
* I'd like there to be open discussion with the Content Alliance
participants on the best forum for content peering. I very much appreciate
the fact that they've opened their mailing list and documents for public
view; this is a good first step.
At first glance, it seems confusing that they are proposing a separate
working group, as content peering is squarely within the charter of WREC.
While I can understand that this avoids some problems for them, I think it
would be interesting to explore how their work and resources can be
integrated into WREC.
Info on the group at: http://www.content-peering.org/
* A relationship should be established with the EPSFW effort, if it evolves
into a WG (as it appears it may). EPSFW doesn't seem to have as much
overlap with WREC, except in that it affects proxies and involves semantic
transparency issues. These need to be coordinated.
Info on the group at: http://www.extproxy.org/
The EPSFW folks("Extensible Proxies" - have you guys finalized on a name
yet? :) ) gave a presentation in Pittsburgh, and the group consensus there
was that this wasn't something that WREC should take on (that said I don't
recall any followup discussion on the mailing list, so we shouldn't assume
anything.)
To my knowledge the Content Alliance/Peering work hasn't had any such
review to date, and I think that it's vital we have some discussion before
any decision is made. I agree with Mark that at first glance it seems
confusing that there's a proposal for a separate group and would find it
useful - purely from a WREC management perspective - on why that proposal
was made.
