Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
The problem is not what actually each person said but what they say it was said and gets recorded into a statement that has no weight and it is not representative of the entire community. -Jorge On Oct 12, 2013, at 7:23 AM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote: 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)
There is an important difference between policy and politics. Promoting a politics discussion within the IETF arena will become the demise of the IETF. -J On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.comwrote: 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: The core Internet institutions abandon the US Government
Just few quick questions, In what part of Fadi Chehadé mandate at ICANN this falls ? And who sanctified him as representative of the Internet Community ? He is just an employee of ICANN and these actions go way beyond ICANN's mission and responsibilities. Cheers Jorge On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote: http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/11/the-core-internet-institutions-abandon-the-us-government/ ? The core Internet institutions abandon the US Government | IGP Blog I'm not quite sure I read the Montevideo statement the way this headline suggests. (The US government must feel so abandoned these days...) But that is the danger of saying anything at all. Grüße, Carsten
Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
Just to start, there is no clear consensus of what Internet Governance means and entails. Several organizations just as ICANN, ISOC, ARIN, etc, play a specific role in the development and operations of the Internet, but by no means are representative of the Internet as a whole, even if you claim that organizations such as ICANN are muti stakeholders. Each of the the leaders are leading each organization and the sum of the leaders does not make them leaders of the Internet No doubt each institution is important and has to play the role it has to play, but when you get into governance matters (which again is not clearly defined what governance of the Internet means) some institutions could be stepping out of their mission and role. Clear example is ICANN, I don't know who authorized or delegated any sort of mandate to Fadi to get into conversations about Internet Governance with the Government of Brazil. Yes he leads ICANN, but as such, he is just and administrative/executive employee. In your particular case as President and CEO of ARIN, clearly you lead that organization but it does not make you representative of the Internet or its users. I can't find anywhere in the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation of ARIN the word Governance. Nobody will deny any of the alleged leaders to participate in any meeting, conference, event, in their individual capacities, but NONE has any representation of the whole Internet. About NSA/Snowden/etc, mixing this matter with Internet Governance make things more complicated. It would be nice for all governments to come out clear of what kind of surveillance they do on the Internet (including the Brazilian Government). IMHO this is a complete separate discussion. Do we really want to create a government for the Internet ? How do you propose to select people to be representatives for all the sectors ? And in particular how do you propose to select an IETF representative and who/how it's going to give her/him its mandate to represent the organization on other forums ? My 0.02 Jorge
Re: The core Internet institutions abandon the US Government
Until ICANN becomes a member based organization where you have real constituents that can fire a director, the organization is only representative of itself and its ecosystem. -J On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote: Just few quick questions, In what part of Fadi Chehadé mandate at ICANN this falls ? And who sanctified him as representative of the Internet Community ? He is just an employee of ICANN and these actions go way beyond ICANN's mission and responsibilities. ICANN has a long running fantasy that they are a global multi-stakeholder organization floating above mere politics, and not a US government contractor incorporated as a California non-profit. This will never change, and everyone familiar with the situation knows it, but for internal political reasons ICANN likes to pretend otherwise. I suppose in the current political situation about the NSA there's no harm in the other groups going along with it for a while. R's, John
Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
Thank you for your frank and honest response John. -Jorge On Oct 11, 2013, at 3:18 PM, John Curran jcur...@istaff.org wrote: On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com wrote: Just to start, there is no clear consensus of what Internet Governance means and entails. You are correct. The term Internet Governance is a term of art, and a poor one at that. It is the term that governments like to use, and in fact, in 2005 several of them got together at the United Nations-initiated World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and came up with the following definition: Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf I happen to hate the term Internet Governance, but its use has become a common as shorthand for the discussions of governments expressing their needs and desires with respect to the Internet, its related institutions, and civil society. It might not be necessary for the IETF to be involved (if it so chooses), but I'm not certain that leaving it to ISOC would make sense if/when the discussion moves into areas such as structures for managing delegated registries of IETF-defined protocols (i.e. protocols, names, numbers) In your particular case as President and CEO of ARIN, clearly you lead that organization but it does not make you representative of the Internet or its users. I can't find anywhere in the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation of ARIN the word Governance. Nobody will deny any of the alleged leaders to participate in any meeting, conference, event, in their individual capacities, but NONE has any representation of the whole Internet. Full agreement there... No one has any representation of the entire Internet, and we should oppose the establishment of any structures that might aspire to such. Do we really want to create a government for the Internet ? How do you propose to select people to be representatives for all the sectors ? I do not, and expect others on this list feel the same. However, it is likely that more folks need to participate to make sure that such things don't happen. And in particular how do you propose to select an IETF representative and who/how it's going to give her/him its mandate to represent the organization on other forums ? That is the essential question of this discussion, and hence the reason for my email. I'd recommend that the IETF select leaders whose integrity you trust, you provide them with documents of whatever principles the IETF considers important and how it views it relations with other Internet institutions (could be developed via Internet Drafts) and ask them to report back as frequently as possible. Alternatively, the IETF could opt to not participate in such discussions at all, and deal with any developments after the fact (an option only if there is sufficient faith that the current models, structures, and relationships of the IETF are inviolate.) FYI, /John
Re: Equably when it comes to privacy
The other countries concerned did not employ torture as the US did under President Bush. You mean like Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia -J
Re: thoughts on pervasive monitoring
Will the discussion include the pervasive data mining from companies exploiting our Internet use for marketing and targeted advertising purposes ? -J On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 4:53 PM, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote: Here are some thoughts on reports related to wide-spread monitoring and potential impacts on Internet standards, from me and Stephen Farrell: http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/09/security-and-pervasive-monitoring/ Comments appreciated, as always. Jari Stephen
Re: Bruce Schneier's Proposal to dedicate November meeting to saving the Internet from the NSA
And who certify such agencies ? -J On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote: We do have a program in the world called Common Criteria. That certification program includes CCRA (CC Recognition Agreement) that implies that countries that run certification agencies agree that what is certified in one country by one such certification agency is also viewed as certified in all countries.
Re: Bruce Schneier's Proposal to dedicate November meeting to saving the Internet from the NSA
IMHO. There is no amount of engineering that can fix stupid people doing stupid things... on both sides of the stupid line. -J
Re: IETF Diversity
Yup he didn't apply the Y2K patch ... those missing bits ... -Jorge On Jun 23, 2013, at 7:27 AM, j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote: From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com there appears to be a problem with your mail system. mail which is clearly from the 1950s is appearing on the ietf list. You're right about it having fallen through a time warp - but you got the sign wrong. It's from the future, not the past. Noel
Re: financial fun with an IETF Meeting in South America
Carlos, I clearly stated that the comment was OT, ie didn't have to much relation with the discussion. I'm not overreacting or misrepresenting anything, it was just an OT comment about a blog article which IMHO I consider really stupid and completely out of lalaland. I didn't say a protest WILL happen, I said don't get surprised if some of these characters show up waiving the flags against the oppressing imperialism. Anyway this dialog will not contribute anything, the only point I keep making is while I consider a meeting in Buenos Aires a good idea, a better planned and thought approach may drive more long term participation, like finding the way to ensure that people that are already active participants in the IETF process and those who have the skills and motivation can go to the meetings wherever they take place without worrying too much about how to obtain the resources to do so. -J
Re: [IETF] RE: Time in the Air
Completely off-topic too, but since I live in the southernmost capital city of the world, and certainly not the best served by airlines When you moved to NZ ? ;-) -J
Re: financial fun with an IETF Meeting in South America
The existence of that article IS a fact -Jorge On May 31, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Carlos M. Martinez carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote: Whether OT or not you actively contribute to the mood of the discussion. And to have a fruitful discussion on the topic I believe we MUST accurately represent the facts, again, regardless of being OT or not. ~Carlos
Re: IETF Meeting in South America
ICANN constituencies, mission and participants are way different than IETF and an important number of folks receive financial support to participate. I believe the discussion is not really about if Buenos Aires is the right location or not but if by meeting in a particular region that will drive more engagement and participation from the people from that region. -J On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote: ICANN 48 is to be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 17-21 November 2013, and I am looking forward to it! Patrik On 29 maj 2013, at 04:27, Arturo Servin aser...@lacnic.net wrote: Perhaps not. Buenos Aires is also a big hub of technology in Latin America. In addition as it was mentioned it relatively close from Sao Paulo, Montevideo and Santiago. Also there are direct flights from other major cities in Peru and Colombia. Going to Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Mexico City or Santiago will always split audiences as these are the major tech hubs in the region (also add Bogota, Lima, San Jose and other cities). So, I think it is not comparable with Australia. as On 5/28/13 11:09 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 5/28/13 3:06 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: The centres for networking industry in Australia are Melbourne and Sydney, in that order. It's a bit like IETF 51 being held in Grimsby, not London or Cambridge. Okay. So, should we be extrapolating from this to what we can expect from Brazilians if we meet in Buenos Aires? Melinda
Re: IETF Meeting in South America
Just wondering if some folks realize that IETF meetings are not missionary trips, conferences, conventions or industry trade shows ... -Jorge
Re: financial fun with an IETF Meeting in South America
The financial and political current situation is more complex than just the manipulation and restrictions on currency exchange and payment of obligations. I feel that is totally OT but for example we have supporters of the current government like this one, claiming to be a writer, that if you are able to read in Spanish or helped by a translator to read his article, you will learn that he is propagating a message that says Internet is the secret weapon of the imperialism. http://sumateacristina.net/m/blogpost?id=6438092%3ABlogPost%3A524963 His view is shared by many, so in the event IETF gets to meet in Buenos Aires, if the meeting becomes public, don't be surprised to see some coordinated political manifestation. Funny thing, does he realize what is he using to propagate his message ? I'd really love to see folks from my country become more involved with IETF, the opportunity for more outreach and engagement, and also visit my country, but as Dave said IETF is not in the tourism business and there could be more effective ways to develop some program with long term effects to drive more regional participation. As I said before, just a meeting won't do. Regards, -Jorge
Re: Issues in wider geographic participation
Translation ?? This a very old discussion and moot point, people that have interest to participate in this type of international forums and processes SHOULD learn English. -Jorge On May 27, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Arturo Servin aser...@lacnic.net wrote: Translation? Also, it would be important that the local people/helpers could do an introduction to what it is the ietf, how to send comments in the remote participation, to the list, what's a WG etc. It may sound a bit bureaucratic, but if we want to have these remote people to start sending emails, comments, reviewing draft we need to break the ice somehow. It does not have to be extensive, a short intro could be enough. About a serious proposal, are you thinking in an I+D, wg or something coming from the IESG, IAOC? /as On 27 May 2013, at 09:07, Dave Crocker wrote: On 5/27/2013 1:52 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: About the remote hub I think it would be good to give it a try. I'm increasingly intrigued by this idea. It could be interesting to try to formulate a serious proposal for this, with enough detail to qualify as a functional specification. The easy part is specifying audio/video streams support. More challenging is to get the personal and personnel support figured out. And should it have some means of assisting discussions outside of the bof/wg/plenary sessions? What else? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: financial fun with an IETF Meeting in South America
You should double check, regulations about currency markets are changing very often, custom/immigration officials will almost for sure ask you how much currency you are bringing and for what, and as the trip advisor page says don't expect to be able to convert back leftover pesos to foreign currency. There are several sites and news media pages where you can check the current exchange rates, and expect some volatility on the prices http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1585934-sin-cambios-el-dolar-blue-comienza-la-semana-en-895 -J On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:37 AM, John R Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote: Is this above advice from Tripadvisor correct? I believe so, but when I was there a few years ago for the ICANN meeting, excess cash was not a problem. It wasn't hard to estimate how much cash I'd need, and whatever was left I spent at the airport. The wine they drink in Argentina is often better than the stuff they send to the UK (which isn't bad) and much cheaper. Take some home in your suitcase, even if you have to pay duty it's a bargain. This still doesn't mean I think a meeting in South America is a good idea, though. See other messages. Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY I dropped the toothpaste, said Tom, crestfallenly.
Re: More participation from under-represented regions
Tell them to start at http://www.ietf.org/tao.html It is available in few languages -Jorge What I said is that they do not know the processes involved in the production of what they read. In other words, they do not know the IETF.
Re: More participation from under-represented regions
Great job Julião, thanks for sharing. -Jorge On May 27, 2013, at 8:34 PM, Juliao Braga jul...@braga.eti.br wrote: Thank you, Jorge. I did this when I wrote a article about IETF, in Portuguese, named The ISOC, the IETF and the Internet Infrastructure: http://ii.blog.br/2013/01/03/a-isoc-o-ietf-e-a-infraestrutura-da-infraestrutura-da-internet/ and, also in Portuguese, Understanding RFCs: http://ii.blog.br/2013/02/03/entendendo-rfcs/ Julião Em 27/05/2013 21:58, Jorge Amodio escreveu: Tell them to start at http://www.ietf.org/tao.html It is available in few languages -Jorge What I said is that they do not know the processes involved in the production of what they read. In other words, they do not know the IETF.
Re: IETF Meeting in South America
Besides the language there is a big digital divide particularly in South America. Many of you know that actively participating in this type of forums requires a non trivial amount of time (plus skills and knowledge.) In developed countries some IETF members have a better financial situation or are being sponsored/supported by an array of organizations or other activities that help pay the bills. Researchers, students, engineers, you name it, in other parts of the world including South America are in a daily battle to subsist, including trying to survive some stupid regulations that do not help development, like restrictions or taxes on publications, tools, materials, etc. Often is very hard to obtain the resources to participate at international meetings like IETF, and in the particular case of Argentina travel expenses are very high and flight times are longer and with many stops. This is not something new, in the early days (when I lived in AR) we were always begging to get support to be able to participate on meetings or similar activities. One thing that could help is if some companies like Cisco, Google, Juniper, etc, with presence in the region start sponsoring some individuals that have been participating or are interested to participate at IETF so they can have more time and financial resources. Taking the IETF meeting to Buenos Aires is not a bad idea, but when the meeting is over the root problem will still be there. My .02 Jorge On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:02 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: On May 23, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote: So the question is why we aren't seeing more drafts, reviews, and discussions from people in Central and South America, Language? Regards, -drc
Re: WCIT outcome?
ITU was founded previously as the International Telegraph Union before AG Bell's phone was patented, no doubt the evolution of telecommunications and the Internet puts ITU with its current behavior in the path of becoming obsolete and extinct, but you can't discount many positive contributions particularly from the standards section. As the multistakeholder model and its associated processes, which is far from perfect, continues to evolve, ITU must be part of the evolution. The issue is that as an organization they must accommodate and realize that now they are part of it and not it anymore. There is also a big confusion and still lack of a clear consensus on what Internet governance means or entitles, and many take it as governing the Internet, hence governments want a piece of the action, and the constant and many times intended perception that the Internet is controlled by the USG and its development and evolution is US centric, which I believe at IETF we know since long time ago is not true. But many countries, and as you well say those where there was or still is a single telecom operator and controlled by government, see it that way. About the countries that signed, not many but most did it with reservations, and those that didn't sign probably represent 2/3 or more of the telecom market/industry. An interesting observation after spending countless hours following the meeting, some of the countries that were pushing the discussion for a reference to the universal declaration of human rights are the ones who don't care much about them, particularly in respect to women, and on the other hand others complaining about discrimination and restricted access to the Internet are the ones currently filtering on the big pipes and have the Internet as the first thing on their list to shutdown during internal turmoil. The same forces that pushed at WCIT will keep doing the same thing on other international fora to insist with their Internet governance agenda, the ITRs will become effective in Jan 2015, two years, which on Internet time is an eternity, and it will be only valid if those countries that signed ratify the treaty. Meanwhile packets keep flowing, faster, bigger and with more destinations, not bad for a packet switching network that was not supposed to work. (During WCIT I was wondering, could you imagine doing the webcast via X.25? ) I agree that it is not clear what the outcome of WCIT12 was, but something that is clear is that ITU needs to evolve, or as Vint characterized them, the dinosaurs will become extinct. Cheers, Happy Holidays and great start for 2013 Jorge http://about.me/jamodio On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.comwrote: We seem to have missed a discussion on the outcome of the Dubai WCIT conference, or rather the lack of one. The end result was a treaty that 54 countries refused to sign. The non-signatories being the major developed economies including UK, US, Japan, Germany, Canada. Many of the signatories have signed with reservations. Back at the dawn of the computer industry, IBM was a very late entrant but it quickly came to dominate the industry by building on the commercial base it had established in punchcard tabulator machines. There was a real risk that ITU might have managed to pull off something similar by convincing governments that there needed to be a global regulatory body for communications and that the ITU should be that body. Instead they seem to have pulled off the equivalent of OS/@ and microchannel architecture which were the marketing moves that were intended to allow IBM to consolidate its hold on the PC industry but instead lead to the rise of the Windows and the EISA bus clones. It now seems reasonably clear that the ITU was an accident of history that resulted from a particular set of economic and technical limitations. The ITU was founded when each country had exactly one telephone company and almost all were government controlled. One country one vote was an acceptable approach in those days because there was only one telephone company per country. The telephone companies were the only stakeholders needed to implement a proposal. The old telephone system is fading away. It is becoming an Internet application just as the pocket calculator has become a desktop application. And as it passes, the institutions it founded are looking for new roles. There is no particular reason that this must happen. The stakeholders in the Internet don't even align to countries. My own employer is relatively small but was founded in the UK, moved its headquarters to the US and has operations in a dozen more countries and many times that number of affiliates. The same is even more true of the likes of Google, Cisco, Apple, IBM, Microsoft etc. A standards process is a two way negotiation. There are things that I want other people to implement in their products and there are things that they want me
Re: Alternative To IPv6
I will send out notices as the release date in 2012 approaches. That's excellent, please send the notice before the Mayan calendar ends. Tnx. -J ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Pigeon flies past broadband in data speed race
Reminds me of an implementation report of RFC1149 Firewalling way back at IETF 55 (see http://bert.secret-wg.org/Trips/IETF55/ middle of the page) Ha !! Now we know who is shooting Google's fiber (reported via NANOG http://www.itnews.com.au/News/232831,us-hunters-shoot-down-google-fibre.aspx) BTW, I really like Bert's reports and pics at http://bert.secret-wg.org/, you should ask him to post some new ones :-) Cheers Jorge ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Fisking vs Top-Posting
Fisking ... it sounds naughty :-). No blogger jargon aqui (I mean me). J ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Fisking vs Top-Posting
Well afaik we should ask Robert Fisk about it. But Phillip has the tendency to also post comments (top, bottom, inline, sideways and upside down) without reading the source he is making the comment about, like @CircleID regarding Beckstrom's book The Starfish and Spider (read the book it's quite interesting). Perhaps we'll get a better picture about fisking with a video blog ... Cheers J PS. Upps I top posted, sorry :-S On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: On Sep 21, 2010, at 8:08 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: Fisking ... it sounds naughty :-). No blogger jargon aqui (I mean me). I'll admit it...I was really disappointed to learn how Phillip had defined that word. I think the word should be reserved for something naughtier. And yes, top posting really is inherently evil. :) There's no need to quote an entire (long) message for context, that's what the In-Reply-To field is for. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?
There were Arpanet folk who participated in standardizing X.25. But as technology comparisons go, X.25 versus Arpanet were probably as far as you can get apart and still be doing packet switching. So fart apart that when we started moving IP packets over dedicated lines in South America the telco guys were pulling their hairs off because they didn't know how to count IP traffic in kilo-segments ... J ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Pigeon flies past broadband in data speed race
sh don't say it out loud, the IGF may try to regulate the reproduction of pigeons ... BTW did each of the pigeons had a different class of service ? We need to start the fight for pigeon neutrality !!! J On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com wrote: Not even using the Avian Carriers RFC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11325452 Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's
Can we please, please, please kill Informational RFC's? I don't think it makes any sense to do so, the media, and even many in the networking industry don't even understand the ones that are standards, why we would expect a right on the money interpretation for the rest ? There will be always a gap between the people that generate the news and the ones that report them. There is not a reliable protocol yet to transmit what the IETF Chair said and what ended being printed. The IETF is not an obscure organization that requires a badge or credentials for participation and that is only focused on creating standard RFCs, if there is a good idea, best practice or an interesting thought that the community consider useful to put in an Informational RFC, it really helps to make the process much transparent, more people will be willing to participate and we keep an historic record of what worked and what no. Even the April Fool's which are also informational are part of the culture and tradition of the IETF ... My .02 Jorge ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's
I don't see what it is wrong with rfc5211, besides the IESG note pointed by Ronald nowhere the text says that the transition plan is IETF's plan or even that IT IS the plan. It is an informational piece of text, and I guess anybody who can read understands what is says starting with the abstract that says one possible plan which infers that there could be many possible plans and many others impossible. For that matter, would the world notice if the press release made the accurate statement, The RFC Editor, who publishes all IETF protocols, publishes IPv6 transition plan? Press release by whom ? have you seen any about this particular subject already ? There is no West Podunk, Elbonia, so don't worry the possible transition plan will not affect you ... J ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Logo Wear
The joke is: I pee on everything. That's right and it was hilarious to see three-piece suit wearing Vint show it up when we all were drinking beers outside the hotel at some sort of party during Inet-SFO. Cheers Jorge ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Logo Wear
or http://www.pdphoto.org/PictureDetail.php?mat=pg=7634 Given that the pun is based on Vint's observing that we had IP running over all sorts of different media, as I recall his comment was IP over Everything. d/ I remember Vint wearing the T-shirt on the SFO Inet meeting, I think it was 1993, and I believe is the same T-shirt when he was featured on the cover of Boardwatch Mag. The T-shirt clearly said IP on Everything, but I agree that in the context of those days it meant over everything, such as Ethernet, P2P, TDM, OCx, FR, ATM, SMDS, X.25, you name it. I like the Internet Staff with a variant, Internet Staff != ICANN employee Cheers Jorge ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Logo Wear
An updated version based on the 6LoWPAN and other fronts work could be: IP on Anything Cheers Jorge On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com wrote: Classic: IP over everything (dog optional) -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 8:05 PM To: Fred Baker Cc: wgcha...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: IETF Logo Wear That's going to be hard to fit on a t-shirt, Fred. *ducks* On 17/08/2010, at 8:34 AM, Fred Baker wrote: IEN 111, August 1979. The preface reads: This document describes the Internet Protocol. There have been three previous editions of this specification, and the present text draws heavily from them. There have been many contributors to this document both in terms of concepts and in terms of text. Jon Postel Editor I suspect that, as editor, he would blanch a bit at finding anything there attributed specifically to *him*; he would have said - and on occasion did say - I was there, but would go on to point out that there were many contributors and many contributions. That said, it is the first instance I can find of the Robustness Principle: The implementation of a protocol must be robust. Each implementation must expect to interoperate with others created by different individuals. While the goal of this specification is to be explicit about the protocol there is the possibility of differing interpretations. In general, an implementation should be conservative in its sending behavior, and liberal in its receiving behavior. That is, it should be careful to send well-formed datagrams, but should accept any datagram that it can interpret (e.g., not object to technical errors where the meaning is still clear). The comment, in various forms, is repeated in IENs 112, 123, 124, 128, and 129, and in RFCs 760, 761, 791, and 793. On Aug 16, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Sean Turner wrote: I like: Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you accept Jon Postel I'm sure somebody who has been around longer than me can offer up a date ;) spt Fred Baker wrote: There's no place like ::1 On Aug 16, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Philip Nesser wrote: We obviously need an IETF branded one of these: http://www.cafepress.com/+theres_127001_infant_bodysuit,88172 --- Phil On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:26 AM, IETF Administrative Director i...@ietf.org wrote: All; At the request of the community the IAOC and the IETF Trust have approved the establishment of an online store from which the community can buy IETF logo wear. The store is at CafePress at: http://www.cafepress.com/ietf The store is maintained by the Internet Society and is expected to generate a very modest income, which will be used to offset IETF operational expenses. Suggestions for products or designs may be directed to Steve Conte, co...@isoc.org. Shouldn't everyone in your family have an IETF logo wear t-shirt? Ray Pelletier IAD ___ 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 ___ 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 -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ ___ 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet upgraded to foil cyber crooks
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100729/tc_afp/usitinternetsoftwarecrimeicannblackhat I guess the next report after a noticeable increase of IPv6 deployment will be something like We made the Internet larger ... Cheers ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The anonymity question
Some people have argued that it should be possible to participate in some or all IETF processes while remaining partly or completely anonymous. Is this a reasonable expectation? Yes we should keep the anonymous ftp account available for download drafts and rfcs. I agree with Brian, anonymity does not match with an open and public standards development process. Regards ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The anonymity question
The ability of users to sign up from throwaway accounts doesn't seem to have been a big problem in practice, but it does make it hard to claim that the lists are free of submarine patent trolls. The problem is not hotmail, nor gmail, etc, I use gmail for email lists because it is convenient and free. The problem is people and their behavior, with or without hotmail, after somebody (no pun intended) wrote Internet for dummies and sniffing for ideas patentable stuff became a practice to make a quick profit, many lists and other services got plagued with dummies and trolls. Once again, there isn't necessarily anything to fix here, but a useful privacy policy needs to work in our environment where depending on the context a user can be entirely anonymous (download a web page), fairly well verified (pay with a credit card), and a lot of points in between. You don't need to register to download drafts/email archives/rfcs ... IMHO problem is with people that may try to divert/tweak the process looking for a potential way of making a buck in the future, if you let them operate in obscurity by letting them being anonymous. -J ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Ok .. I want my IETF app for my iPad ..
And what, pray tell, does an IETF app actually do? The 10 commandments of the IETF in a tablet sort to speak. J ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Ok .. I want my IETF app for my iPad ..
And what, pray tell, does an IETF app actually do? The 10 commandments of the IETF in a tablet sort to speak. One commandment for each layer? We will ever get past the 8th one ? http://www.ietf75.se/the-8th-layer-sunk-the-warship/ Cheers Jorge ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Ok .. I want my IETF app for my iPad ..
Everybody knows the future is web 2.0, and web 2.0 is now. Web 2.0 is also obsolete. Since today the future is iPad, IP mobility and social media. Cheers Jorge ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [77all] No Host for IETF 77
Get a dunk tank and some of the most famous IETF trolls and charge $20 for 3 tries to get the troll on the tank. If instead of water you use frying oil, charge $500 to cover additional liabilities. My .02 J ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Towards consensus on document format
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote: +1 Since nobody was using teleprinters 500 years ago the introduction of them here as a point of difference is ridiculous. And the idea that HTML is any less stable than the hacks people have developed to make non-ASCII characters work in ASCII is totally absurd. We can reasonably expect that within the next ten, twenty years, handwriting recognition will render such hacks obsolete and the memory of them will be as obscure as Morse code is today. I'd love to see you trapped in a basement after an earthquake with only a stick trying to remember how to tap S-O-S. Hard to believe but Morse is still in use and required for certain classes of radio operators. Cheers Jorge ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Towards consensus on document format
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote: I have submitted HTML into that Web form. And then what happened to it...? That is the real complaint here. Most of us are now writing documents in a process that uses XML for authoring and HTML for reviewing. Then the result is taken and reduced to 1960s teletype. And the most fascinating thing, you can still read the document if you have one !!! Cheers Jorge ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Periodic debates
Author: Jeffrey Williams ? J On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote: On 3/11/2010 7:32 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: Periodically, there are flame wars on the IETF mailing list that the IETF should / shouldn't... Mayhap we should create a FAQ wiki that captures the essence of these debates, so that we can simply cite the relevant entry when the topic arises, and revise the entry when (if) someone offers a new datum to the debate? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why the normative form of IETF Standards is ASCII
Besides your eyes, (only one in some cases), you don't need any extra junkware to be able to read the RFCs, even better, without eyes you still can do it since text to speech works very nicely with ASCII. There could be some compatibility problems with some ancient blueware still using EBCDIC. Keep the ASCII Cheers Jorge On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote: Periodically, there are flame wars on the IETF mailing list that the IETF should / shouldn't adopt the latest fad is document formats, postscript, PDF, whatever, since, after all, everyone uses them, claims they are too complicated and keep changing resulting in version/font/... problems are overblow, etc. As a data point, I would refer people to http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/031010-hackers-love-to-exploit-pdf.html Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA ___ 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
Re: Why the normative form of IETF Standards is ASCII
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote: On 11.03.2010 17:54, Jorge Amodio wrote: Besides your eyes, (only one in some cases), you don't need any extra junkware to be able to read the RFCs, even better, without eyes you still can do it since text to speech works very nicely with ASCII. ... I'd claim that accessibility for properly authored HTML will actually be better, for instance the markup can express whether something is prose or artwork. HTML uses ASCII as far as I remember, some tags, URIs and URLs may be impossible to decipher these days but still ASCII (I've to admit that some folks still use-abuse extended ASCII on HTML pages instead proper encoding and lang selection). About text to speech, it only takes a forward or going trough one of the stupid no context aware robo-translators and you will get your t2s interface reciting gee tee ampersand semicolon greater than eich ref equal lower than bee greater than ... I guess you get the point. And I agree with Martin, all other formats add a lot of unnecessary crap to the documents, embedded fonts, meta-crap data, hooks to track document changes. And ASCII is more eco-friendly :-) Cheers Jorge ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why the normative form of IETF Standards is ASCII
And ASCII is more eco-friendly :-) Simplified Chinese is even more eco-friendly ;-) Some times, encoding your example takes few bytes, HI only two. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Motivation to submit an idea in IETF?
I expect them, but I do get mad about patent trolls bleeding the golden goose. The only reason these patents have any value is because the Internet has value. When people who contribute nothing to that value then come along and parasitize it, Can I patent/copyright that statement ? :-). Abhishek, if your idea is a good one that can contribute to the networking community, I'd first make sure it is original, search/read drafts or associated papers to see if by any chance somebody already had the idea before, if you don't find anything you can publish a paper and propose a draft. If your idea is original, has value and represents an improvement or additional feature to a protocol after surviving the grueling process of peer reviews and discussions then you may have something worth the effort/cost/time to get a patent. I the implementation of your idea provides value in the sense that may help them sell more or provide a better service, vendors will include it in their products. If you are just for the money, then wrong forum. My .02 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All IETF posted email addresses MUST be real.
Now there is a court ruling on using fraudulent email addresses in any public process I've seen this in other lists and even on some discussions at ICANN. I'm amazed how some people are twisting around the decision of the court of appeals to come up with this type of generic and blank statements, including the one saying that now keeping your WHOIS data private is illegal. It's despicable ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: China blocking Wired?
Actually, they have world-class performers for the full range of musical instruments. non-musical too ... Jorge ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: reserved names draft, was Defining the existence of non-existent domains
On the table at 2.1.4 you need to add LATNIC that seems to be also reserved by ICANN, not sure why they missed it on the DAG but it's on every single Registry Agreement. For 2.2.4, I believe all the names listed in 2.1.4 are also reserved for second level domains and you are still missing a place where to record the names reserved by each Registry (if any) and listed on each individual Registry Agreement (http://www.icann.org/en/registries/agreements.htm), for example ABOUT.INFO, not sure if IANA has to be responsible to keep the list for them but it would be nice if they are all listed in a single place. What about tagged domain names like bq--1k2n4h4b or xn--ndk061n and one or two character names ? Regards Jorge On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:20 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: I've done another version of my reserved names draft. This time it proposes four registries: 1. Reserved and special top level names. ARPA is special, the others are reserved. 2. Reserved and special second level names. EXAMPLE.COM, ORG, and NET are reserved in the RFCs. ICANN has many more that I'd hope they would add to the regsistry, e.g., EXAMPLE.everything else. I'm not aware of any special 2LDs, but who knows what might be lurking. 3. Names in .ARPA. This updates the list in RFC 3172 and makes it a registry. They're all special unless SINK.ARPA is approved in which case it would be reserved. 4. Names that are special elsewhere. _service, _DOMAINKEY, etc. I'd be delighted to take this out if the project to codify service and protocol names agrees to include the handful of other _blah names defined in RFCs. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levine-reserved-names-registry-01.txt R's, John ___ 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
Re: Defining the existence of non-existent domains
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 01:02:54PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote: If you're proposing that the IETF document a list of names that has change control and authorship homed within ICANN, then I'm not sure what the benefit of that is. Setting aside the mind-bending metaphysical consequences of the subject line in this thread, I actually think it would be a good idea if there were, somewhere, a list of undelegated top-level names for which change control and (policy) authorship nevertheless lie within ICANN. At the moment, the canonical list of the reserved names from ICANN's point of view is buried inside a document that many people have no reason to consult, because they're not trying to get a new top level delegation. I believe that putting together a static list of something that is not clearly defined when there is no clear policy for adding/removing items from the list and no clear authority defined to execute the policy and responsible to keep the list updated will make the list useless on day D-1. Not only those reserved names are buried in an ICANN's *draft* document, as I mentioned on a previous message the current policy under discussion includes language to let registries of new gTLDs to create at its discretion additional reserved names within their gTLD, not specifying even at which level in the DNS tree the name might be. Also each registry agreement may include an specific appendix like in http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/verisign/appendix-06-01mar06.htm which states for each TLD/gTLD what names or particular constructs are reserved, such as one/two character or tagged domains with hyphens in the third and fourth char positions that I don't believe the proposed draft mentions. Perhaps instead of a static list a more complete fyi document could describe who has the authority to reserve names, how, and where the pertinent information can be obtained. I believe there is some work related to EPP about how registrars/registries exchange info about reserved names but I don't recall the specifics right now. My .02 Jorge ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Defining the existence of non-existent domains
I believe that putting together a static list of something that is not clearly defined when there is no clear policy for adding/removing items from the list and no clear authority defined to execute the policy and responsible to keep the list updated will make the list useless on day D-1. Which is why I think setting up an IANA registry makes sense: the setting up of the registry forces one to define all of that too. I see your point. We also need to remember that some names are based on rules and not static strings. I believe there is some work related to EPP about how registrars/registries exchange info about reserved names but I don't recall the specifics right now. AFAIK there is no definition of reserved names in any of the EPP specifications. Are you referring to some other forum other than the IETF? Didn't cross reference with any drafts or ietf-wg mailing lists, but the text of the proposed new registry agreement says (page 197 of DAGv3): quote 4.5 Object Statuses. RFC 4930 (EPP) and related RFCs, see [1], [2], [3], [4] indicate permissible status codes for various registry objects. Additionally the status “reserved” is allowed for domains; it is used to indicate a reserved name on behalf of the Registry or ICANN. 4.6 Reserved Name Handling. Registries typically have a set of names reserved on behalf of themselves or IANA. Reserved names must be included in the DOMAIN file, and have the special reserved status associated with them in the DOMSTATUS file to indicate that they are reserved. /quote For the references 1,2,3,4 the doc says: quote [1] Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4930.txt [2] EPP Domain Name Mapping, http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4931.txt [3] EPP Host Mapping, http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4932.txt [4] EPP Contact Mapping, http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4933.txt /quote Jorge ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Defining the existence of non-existent domains
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 1:56 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: It therefore seems to me to be not a bad idea to have an RFC or IANA registry for the reserved names, in ICANN parlance. It would also be good if some operational rules about what reserved names means were in an RFC somewhere (for instance, are there different classes of reserved names? Why? Yes, that's what I'm trying to get at. As far as I can tell, there are at least three different kinds of reserved names. Names like .INVALID and .TEST are reserved forever and will never be delegated. Names like .IETF and .RIPE are names of identified Internet infrastructure organizations who could in principle have the name delegated to them. Names like .QQ are reserved until some third party (ISO 3166 in this case) says something about them. Remove the leading dots, ICANN and IANA related names are reserved at 2nd and all levels. Current registry agreement says: Labels Reserved at All Levels. The following names shall be reserved at the second level and at all other levels within the TLD at which Registry Operator makes registrations Jorge ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Defining the existence of non-existent domains
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 3:20 PM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: Remove the leading dots, ICANN and IANA related names are reserved at 2nd and all levels. In ICANN's sTLD and gTLDs, yes, in most countries' ccTLDs, no, in .ARPA, who knows? That's right, ccTLDs are a different dimension. I've not checked or seen the agreements for the new IDN ccTLDs, can't remember now any discussions related to reserved names in that context, but the new IDN ccTLD operators will be now under a contractual relationship with ICANN so the new agreement may have some similarities with the new gTLD registry agreement. Again, just guessing since I've not seen any docs about the IDN ccTLD agreements. I'll look around. Jorge ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Defining the existence of non-existent domains
I think that in regards to the management and supervision of .ARPA I'd suggest to include RFC3172 and RFC2860 as a reference. I find that using the word Registry will IMHO create some confusion with ICANNland. The list of reserved names from ICANN's DAGv3 2.1.1.2 you included in your message applies only to potential gTLDs, this list may become very dynamic and multilingual, how do you expect to include these names in your draft ? There are some particular names that based on the criteria defined in your draft can be listed as Special and Reserved like WHOIS, WWW, etc. Also from the proposed ICANN's Registry Agreement Article 2, Registry (in ICANN's sense of the word) Operators may establish policies concerning the reservation or blocking of additional character strings within the TLD at its discretion, then how do you propose to incoporate also those names to the reserved list ? Who is or should be the authority that will be responsible and assigned the task to keep the list updated ? My .02 Jorge ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: this was passed on in the IETF email
yes and pigs will be flying tomorrow. this is an old scam/hoax and same/similar messages went to other forums. best thing you can do is just delete. Regards Jorge. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 23:56:37 EDT, Linda A. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I am forwarding this back to the list to be checked out... Umm... the guy asks *ON A PUBLIC MAILING LIST* for help laundering $152M and you *need* to check it out? Either (a) it's a scam (probably) to get your account number so they can clear it out, or (b) they're so incompetent that you don't want to be involved with them. /Valdis
Re: Why XML is perferable
Wang Xianzhu wrote:
to render XML documents to pure text presentation. There will be
^^^
converters from XML to HTML, ms word, ps, pdf and any other types of
presentation, suitable for any type of readers.
Meanwhile I stick with ASCII, which I can grep, cut paste.
Also I don't think it will be at all practical to drive email
discussions
for ietf drafts if we have to start using XML/HTML/SGML/*ML crap.
BTW, there are RFCs (1125, 1129, etc.) only available in ps format, and some
provided both text and ps versions. ASCII text is not enough to describe
information.
Well it worked fine for 2800+ documents and how many today ?
implementations
of tcp/ip protocols running on how many devices ?
I wonder if anyone can write a readable pure text version of ITU-T P.861.
What P.861 {Objective quality measurement of telephone-band (300-3400
Hz)
speech codecs} has to do with tcp/ip and rfc's ???
BTW, I hate to pay for ITU documents what are supposed to be public (I
still
remember the years old discussion when they ceased to exist available
for anon ftp)
Regards
Jorge.
