Re: Last Call: 'A Lightweight UDP Transfer Protocol for the the Internet Registry Information Service' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-crisp-iris-lwz)
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 11:55:58AM -0400, Andrew Newton wrote: > Harald Alvestrand wrote: > >There's nothing in the document that says "if you want to send 4000 > >requests, and 70 out of the first 100 get lost, you should slow down > >your sending rate to that server". > > I just checked the simple user-drive, cli client I wrote and it doesn't > retransmit at all (perhaps not the best UI experience). I'll check with > the other implementers to see what they did. But you are right, guidance > needs to be given, especially if these things get embedded into automated > scripts. s/if/when/ -- Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: About cookies and refreshments cost and abuse
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 03:08:39PM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > I strongly prefer the new dinner schedule, and I personally > don't think the theft of cookies is a serious matter. The whole discussion seems mildly droll to me... :-) > My feeling is that the refreshments are for _us_, to use for _our_ > refreshment, > and if people feel they need a sugar cookie mid-way through a > session, they should be allowed to have one. IMO they should have as many as they want. For real: Low blood sugar => Grouchy participants; grouch reduction is a useful goal in itself, and worth the price of a few cookies... -- Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FW: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:20:15PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > > Eventually you end up with multiple groups on a list: those who > irritate others, those who want to censor the ones they find > irritating, and--sometimes--a minority of people who are grown-up > enough to stay out of both of these groups and continue their normal > work, cheerfully ignoring the children at play on the list. > > > When this happens, I've only ever seen two possible outcomes. Either > > the smoke generators are ejected, or the productive members leave. > > There's a third possible outcome: The productive members are smart, > they ignore the smoke, and they continue to work efficiently. A fundamental aspect of group decision making is defining the group making the decision. Uncoordinated individual procmail rulesets don't cut it if there is any kind of accountability requirement. IETF lists are frequently required to make group decisions, and those decisions do have an accountability requirement. Decisions have to stand on the public record, not the filtered view of some hypothetical elite. When an IESG member examines the archive of a list to review some decision, that review won't tell the IESG member who is filtering who. I've been on lists where I thought there was limited and mostly intelligent traffic, until I looked at the archive. > But the > productive members do have to be _smart_, and unfortunately that's > more the exception than the rule, even on lists where the members like > to believe themselves smart. Would that things were so simple. -- Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: EARLY submission deadline - Fact or Fiction?
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:10:39AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > If I understand correctly, you want to retain a deadline, but give the wg > chair authority to override it. This certainly is reasonable, but I think > it is not practical because it adds administrative overhead (and probably > delay) in the Internet-Drafts processing mechanism. > > A simpler rule is that the working group gets to decide its deadlines and > what will be discussed at the meeting. (All of this is predicated on > moving towards fully automated I-D issuance.) If I understand the two choices you present are: 1) the wg has to decide to overrule a default deadline; 2) the wg has to decide on all of its own deadlines. It seems to me (granted I have limited experience) that the administrative overhead is actually higher in the second case -- frequently it is simplifies things to just have a default case. Kent -- Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 09:27:46PM +, Stewart Bryant wrote: > We need to change the publication process so that we can move away > from 1960's improvisations to clear diagrams using modern > techniques. Anything less leaves us without the ability to > describe protocols using the clearest methods currently > available. The clearest methods currently available might include visio diagrams or powerpoint slides -- at least according to some people. -- Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: On PR-actions, signatures and debate
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 06:46:22AM +0200, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > How? People who cannot tolerate disagreement are very poor at > discussing most things, anyway, since they become upset as soon as > anyone expresses an opinion different from their own. Toleration of disagreement has almost nothing to do with it. Instead, it's more a matter of signal to noise ratio on a limited bandwidth channel. If you fill up a list with ignorant drivel, people who don't have time to deal with drivel will go away, leaving the list to those who produce the drivel. That's the problem. I've seen it happen many times. -- Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 05:40:24AM +0200, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > Paul Hoffman writes: > > > You talk as if you were a root operator and you know what they would > > do. In fact, you run an alternate root, not a real root, so it seems > > that you knowing what real root operators would do is particularly > > unlikely. > > There really isn't any such thing as a "real root" or "alternate root" > on the Internet, just as paper currency and coins have no "real > value." It all depends on what the majority decides to do. If > everyone switches to an "alternate root" tomorrow, then the "real > root" won't matter. That's sounds good, but in fact, it's utter nonsense. It's like saying that the only difference between rowboat and a cargo ship is what people believe about them. In fact, if everybody started using one of the alternate roots, it would simply collapse. There is far more to the real root system than just human sentiment. There is heavy duty infrastructure, both human and physical, involved. -- Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Voting (again)
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 04:03:02PM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > > I also believe the nomcom process does provide > > accountability. I think that the nomcom interview process > > was more comprehensive than any job interview process I've > > gone through. > > I think you make a fundamental error here, accountability is determined > by whether we can get rid of someone, not by how they are appointed in > the first place. Oh. Therefore voting has nothing to do with accountability, since it is a mechanism for selecting people in the first place, and therefore the premise of this thread is vacuous. -- Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: bandwidth (and other support) required for multicast
On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 04:48:16PM +0100, Lloyd Wood wrote: > On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Keith Moore wrote: > > > let's stamp out proprietary data formats (and patent profiteering) > > in our lifetime. > > and then the incentive to innovate is what, exactly? 1) profit clearly isn't the only incentive to innovate. 2) there are innumerable ways to make a profit that do not require "proprietary data formats and patent profiteering". 3) dislike of "patent profiteering" is not the same as dislike of patents. Patents and other intellectual property instruments are (historically) justified indirectly by their social utility, not because of any obvious direct or intrinsic moral notion of "intellectual property". As you imply, the social utility is that society benefits from the innovation fostered by patents. But if patents and copyrights are used to stifle innovation, then they lose legitimacy. I don't want to put words in Keith's mouth, but I think he would say that the core of his concern is that patents are now being used to stifle creativity. -- Kent Crispin "Be good, and you will be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: Topic drift Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 11:30:00AM -0700, Bob Braden wrote: [...] > *> PS - i let the draft in question expire because i wanted to. > *> that's the nice thing about expiry - the author retains a tiny > *> modicum of control over something. the notion that people > *> other than the author can usurp control and publish it anyway > *> is repugnant and is plagarism, pure and simple, no matter > *> whether the author gets listed or not. you didn't have permission, > *> it's plagarism, if not theft. > *> > *> > Agreed. It clearly is *not* plagerism -- the author is correctly identified. Whether it is theft or not depends on the meaning of the term "expires", and I submit that the definition is simply not clear. Consider the following case: The drafts were put out for six months in public view, and explicitly or implicitly, the intent was that those drafts could be copied at will and studied at will, and that copying and studying was certainly not limited to six months, because a draft or portions of it could at any time be emailed or otherwise copied and be used. The IETF obviously had no control over who could copy that work, and moreover the author *certainly* knew that the IETF had no control over who could copy it. That is, the author of the draft made it available with the clear knowledge that it could be copied freely. Under those circumstances the author would have a hard time trying to claim that everyone who made a copy of that draft for their own purposes during that time must now go and destroy them, and that would include the IETF itself. Just because something is removed from the drafts directory after 6 months (which is what "expires" means) doesn't mean it gets erased everywhere else, and everyone knows it, including the authors. I suppose that if the draft contained language that claimed stronger rights, and the IETF accepted it, then the IETF would be bound by whatever language was in the particular draft in question, and those authors might be able to make some claim against the IETF. But in the default case no such claim would be possible. I'm sure it would be an interesting legal case... -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: Topic drift Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 08:57:14PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > > It's not merely that I-D's are already archived, albeit inconveniently > > and obscurely. > > yes, but IETF isn't (yet) maintaining public archives, so IETF doesn't > (yet) have the liability of breaking its agreement to expire the draft > after six months. > > I agree that anyone who expects an I-D to completely disappear is naive. It seems to me that you are simply discussing the meaning of the term "expires". The straightforward meaning of the term is "no longer available in the I-D directory". Having removed it from the I-D directory, I would argue, the IETF has discharged it's obligation to comply with any implied agreement to "expire" the drafts. The IETF has faithfully upheld its end of that bargin. We are now left with the issue of the legal status of the mass of archived expired drafts. This is an archive that could, in principle, have been kept by anyone, not just the IETF: During it's 6 months, every draft was published to the world, for the world to study, and anyone in the world could have archived it during that 6 months. Questions for lawyers: Is the legal status of the IETF materially different from a third-party archiver, concerning making the archive available to the public? [eg, if a search engine keeps cached copies of pages referring to I-Ds, and those cached copies persist long after the I-D expires, is the search site liable for some kind of copyright infringement?] If there is some legal exposure, can it be mitigated by providing a mechanism by which I-D authors of old drafts can elect to keep their IDs more private? One final note -- I thought the analogy with WG emails was useful -- that is, that expired drafts should be about as easy to search as the email archives for a WG. But I think that would happen almost automatically -- the archive is not going to be easy to search unless significant indexing and organizational work is done up front -- and the effort is actively maintained. The use of IDs for demonstration of prior art raises an interesting possibility: forged or altered IDs being used to challenge patents. That's another reason to have a definitive archive available. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: IPv6 Migration (and back...)
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 02:53:25PM -0500, Tim Salo wrote: > So, if anyone else has any suggestions for getting IPv6 to run on my > Windows 98 laptop let me know. Install linux; install ipv6 support in linux; install vmware; install win 98 as a guest os. I've never tried this, of course... :-) -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users by ICANN
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 08:02:11AM -0700, Greg Skinner wrote: > Lloyd Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > William Allen Simpson wrote: > > >> The users of the Internet have access to several free browsers that > >> support frames on a dozen platforms. Folks that are unable to use > >> the Internet are not an appropriate electorate. Lazy kindergartners > >> are not the target audience for ICANN membership. > > > I do hope this isn't the official ICANN view. I imagine that > > a disability discrimination lawsuit would soon follow. > > > how many text-to-speech audio browsers support frames well? > > Support for the disabled does seem to be a concern in some quarters; > for example, see > > >http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Internet/World_Wide_Web/Browsers/Lynx/ > > The secure registration page requires https, which isn't available in lynx > as far as I know. 1) The web page does NOT use frames -- as far as I know, there are no frames in the entire ICANN site; 2) the secure registration page is OPTIONAL; you can register through a nonsecure path. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: Internet vs internet
On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 02:56:54PM +0859, Masataka Ohta wrote: > Vint; > > > >the capital I meant the public Internet - nothing to do with countries - > > >just that this was the global, publicly accessible Internet. > > > > > >"internet" meant a private network that used IP technology. > > In many RFCs, "internet" is used as adnoun. "adnoun"? Is that like an adverb? -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational
On Fri, Dec 31, 1999 at 02:09:39PM +0100, Patrik Fältström wrote: > --On 99-12-31 02.39 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > but think that the title should be "The NSI Registry Registrar Protocol, > > version 1.1.0", to avoid confusion with any competing Registry/Registrar > > protocol that may appear later. > > Agreed! Likewise. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: Email messages: How large is too large?
On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 04:27:36PM -0600, Richard Shockey wrote: [...] > > Excellent idea... HTTP Push to a defined directory with email notification > of an appropriate URL. One problem. > > > http://www.patents.ibm.com/patlist?icnt=US&patent_number=5790790 You would be hard pressed to come up with a more absurd patent... -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: Email messages: How large is too large?
On Thu, Dec 16, 1999 at 06:00:09PM -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Customers are generally much happier when you give them what they ask for > instead of forcing them to use something else; if people want to be able to > mail full DVDs to each other, it's our job to determine how to make that > technically feasible and (hopefully) efficient. To switch analogies from sidwalks back to the postal service: therefore, it is the postal services job to determine how to send pianos from your mailbox... But it seldom does any good to push analogies too far :-) SMTP is not a file transport protocol, and it will always be less efficient at transporting files than a protocol that is designed for that purpose. Not to say that some new protocol couldn't be designed that had the desirable addressing features of email, and the efficiency of FTP. But that would be a new protocol... Kent -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: Multihoming in IPv6 (Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information?)
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 12:28:46PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > At 16:02 13.12.99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote: > >On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 03:38:44PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > I don't think this is a problem for the routing system. > > > > > > indeed, you seem to be pushing a lot of routing decisions to the host. and > > > i am worried about where in the host's stack those decisions are > > supposed to > > > be made. > > > >Application layer. > Not in my 5-line client, it's not. > Source/destination address choice inside whois? inside finger? NO. That was a flip remark for entertainment purposes, and it begs the question of what you mean, precisely, by "application layer" in a non ISO world. That being said, it would be straightforward to bury something like this in libraries, so your 5 line application just loads with the multihoming library code, which would be, in practical terms, an integrated resolver/socket library that cached performance metrics for IP addresses associated with a particular domain name, and automatically switched to different IP addresses when performance became bad. You would want to have it periodically ping the other addresses, as well. I'm not proposing from a position of advocacy, you understand, but from a pure implementation point of view, it seems straightforward, and you could easily write 5 line clients that used it. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information?
On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 03:38:44PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: > > I don't think this is a problem for the routing system. > > indeed, you seem to be pushing a lot of routing decisions to the host. and > i am worried about where in the host's stack those decisions are supposed to > be made. Application layer. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
