Re: Charging remote participants

[Turchanyi Geza]

Keith,

Fortunately sympathy is unidirectional, therefore I keep all my respect
towards you while totally disagree with your opinion...


On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Keith Moore wrote:

>  On 08/16/2013 09:38 AM, Janet P Gunn wrote:
>
> >
> ...I want it from
> > people who can't get approval for even a $100 expense, from people
> > who are between jobs, people from academia, and even from just plain
> > ordinary users rather than just vendors or big corps.
>
> I agree.
>
> The realities of internal politics/funding being what they are, it is
> sometimes  going to be just as hard to get $100 "remote" fee approved as it
> as to  get the whole f2f trip approved.
>
> As someone who just spent $3.5K out of pocket to show up in Berlin, I have
> a hard time being sympathetic to someone who won't participate because he
> has to spend $100 out of pocket.
>
> Keith
>
>

Re: Martians

[Turchanyi Geza]

Hi,

"Martian” is nice expression.


Top level Hungarian physicists working in various aspects of nuclear
physics in the early forties in the States were called Martians as they
used a funny language amongst themselves, i.e. Hungarian. This group
includes John von Neumann, Leo Szilard, Ede Teller and Jeno Wigner...

Geza


On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Spencer Dawkins
wrote:

> On 3/12/2013 1:45 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>  In any event, I've gotten some feedback that some people thought
>> I was identifying them as Martians and were offended.  No
>> offense was intended and I used the "Martian" terminology
>> precisely to avoid that possibility.   I obviously failed and
>> apologize to anyone who didn't hear or understand what I was
>> trying to say in the way I intended to say it.  I'll try to
>> watch my choice of vocabulary even more in the future.
>>
>
> At least some of the nerdier nerds were probably thinking "how could *I*
> become a Martian? because that would be so cool!" ...
>
> But just to your point that this wasn't about native English speakers ...
> Doesn't Alfred HÎnes still have the indoor record for accepted RFC
> editorial(*) errata in the history of, like, ever? :)
>
> Spencer
>
> (*) and non-editorial errata, too, but that's a different story ...
>

Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

[Turchanyi Geza]

All,

Many tahanks for the clarification, the situation is clear enough.

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Russ Housley  wrote:

> John:
> 
>
> At the end of our visit, I believe that Marshall understood that there
> were three possibilities:
>
> 1) Tell the community that he intends to resume participation;
> 2) Resign;
> 3) Do nothing, which would very likely result in a recall.
>
> Russ


There will be enough people to sign the petition, and the sanity of the
IETF will be kept.

Will be any one helping Marshall Eubanks to recover from his shocked state?

I would be very gratefull,

Géza

Re: I* Member Removal Process

[Turchanyi Geza]

Noel,

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:

>
>



> And he's definitely "unable to serve". But I guess the IETF would rather
> deploy the most onerous, heavy-weight bureacratic process it can find (one
> intended for entirely different circumstances), as opposed to using the
> capability _already in its process documents exactly for cases like this_.
>
> Noel
>

Marshall was clearly unable to serve in the past three months. The question
is: Would it be possible for him to return within a couple of weeks, or not.

I wish he could. However, this is unclear for me and I has no information
at all.

Best,

Géza

Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

[Turchanyi Geza]

Brian,

I would like to express my sadness as well, adding that I am most probably
not NomCom eligible.

I was only 23 when one of my freinds, community activist in the students
circle of the university, committed a suicide. Three years later it
happened again, by one other freind of us.

I feel that there is a danger that this might happen again, especially in
this case.

Apparently Marshall still think that he could return to his IETF work in
the near future. How could we help him, this is my question, How can we
taylor the rules of our work, allowing to go for a sabbatical period and
return later, with quick reintegration?

Á bientot,

Géza




On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/11/2012 21:45, Sam Hartman wrote:
> ...
> > At this point, I believe the recall process is the correct process to
> > follow unless there is an approved BCP update.
> > In a case where there's been no contact and there's an argument we've
> > found a gap in the procedures I can see the argument for creativity.
> > However, according to Bob's note, Marshall has been contacted and rather
> > than resigning, said he would consider resigning.
> > I hope he does.
> > Until he does, though, by considering resigning rather than resigning,
> > he has implied that there might be a reason not to resign.
> > In my mind that moves us out of a situation where creative
> > interpretations of vacancy are appropriate.
>
> I agree, with some sadness.
>
> (I am, as it happens, not NomCom eligible right now.)
>
>  Brian
>

Re: IAOC Request for community feedback

[Turchanyi Geza]

Olaf and all,


> First: I cannot help to think there is a personal tragedy behind all this.
> I hope Marshall makes it back to this community because I will miss him.
>
> [ deep breath ]
>
>
> Exactly. This is why I hope that some of his best freinds will try to
contact him personally, or at least figure out when it would be possible to
contact him personally.

Should not we help Marshall to come back? Unfortunately, I can not,
however, there are no others?

Best,

Géza

Re: [IETF] Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

[Turchanyi Geza]

Hello,

I am glad to see that apparently there are no more supporters of this
proposal.

Please be more tolerant to Marshall Eubank.

Best,

Géza


On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Warren Kumari  wrote:

>
>
> Warren Kumari
> --
> Please excuse typing, etc -- This was sent from a device with a tiny
> keyboard.
>
> On Oct 31, 2012, at 9:15 PM, Melinda Shore 
> wrote:
>
> > On 10/31/12 1:21 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> >> Fellow IETF'rs
> >> below is a recall petition that I plan on submitting soon if there is
> >> enough support.
> >
> > I regret having to do it this way,
>
> +1
>
> > but since it seems to be necessary
> > and there is no agreed-upon alternative, I support this.
> >
>
> As do I.
>
> :-(
>
> W
>
> > Melinda
> >
> >
>

Re: In Memoriam IETF web page -- a modest proposal

[Turchanyi Geza]

Dick and Steve,


On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Dick Franks  wrote:

> On 22 October 2012 21:25, Steve Crocker  wrote:
> > After watching the traffic on this, I'm thinking a memorial page is
> perhaps not the first place to focus attention.  Instead, write a memorial
> RFC for each person you think made a significant contribution to the IETF.
>  The RFC Editorial process will provide some vetting on quality.  Use
> Informational, Historic(!) or create a new class.
> >
> > The memorial page can then list those who have memorial RFCs written for
> them.
>
> OBITWG will need a charter, chair and mailing list.
>

I like Steve's idea, however, not exactly like the idea to set up a
permanent working group. Perhaps it would be better to form a "working
group" case by case, each "wg" focusing only on the merits of one
individual. However, I am not sure, that a wg would be a right form, anyhow,

I would prefer individual submissions, may be more than one
submission/person.

Géza
(author of a book about heros of networking in Hungary)

Re: In Memoriam IETF web page

[Turchanyi Geza]

Randy,

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:

> i started the thread on nanog.  i am not sure abha or jon would want to
> be on such a list.  remember them and honor and carry on their work,
> don't memorialize them.
>

I fully agree with you. However, unfortunately, a few years later some
people might not know that you meant Jon Postel, saying simple: Jon...

It is also a good question, who should write an "official" memorial page.
And, who should not.

 Any book about the heroes of the Internet would keep their memories. In
any language.
Mentioning just one conventional medium: book.



> randy
>

Géza

Re: shared address space... a reality!

[Turchanyi Geza]

Hello,

This is really good news, however, I did not know it before.

Extending the reusable address space is a good idea, I think, however, the
scope of the address space should be well-defined.

I wrote a draft in 2007 and a Japonais group wrote a draft in 2008. The
similarity of the drafts included the extension of the reusable address
space by IANA, and both drafts explained how and why this space should be
used in the IPv4->IPv6 transition.

My draft had been lost as I changed job and email address (and nobody
explained me that this is a problem).

The Japanaise draft was discussed in the Internet area meeting in Dublin,
but then it was no room for continuing the discussion.

Probably we should continue it.

Géza
(one of the contributors of RFC1918)

2012/3/14 Roger Jørgensen 

> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Måns Nilsson 
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:22:04AM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> >> NetRange:   100.64.0.0 - 100.127.255.255
> >> CIDR:   100.64.0.0/10
> >> OriginAS:
> >> NetName:SHARED-ADDRESS-SPACE-RFCTBD-IANA-RESERVED
> >
> > GOOD.
> >
> > Now I can BOTH keep sticking my head in the sand AND get NEW RFC 1918
> > space to number my devices!
>
> This is really "good" news for some people, that already have address
> conflict within RFC1918 and don't want to get public address space :p
>
>
> --- Roger J ---
>
> >
> > Trailing edge WINS!
> >
> > Congrats, all you people who joined the ietf mailing list to get your
> > VOTE through. You can sign off now and continue non-contributing to the
> > developement of the future.
> >
> > --
> > /Måns, pissed off.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Roger Jorgensen   |
> rog...@gmail.com  | - IPv6 is The Key!
> http://www.jorgensen.no   | ro...@jorgensen.no
>

Re: Repetitions and consensus

[Turchanyi Geza]

Brian,

I repeat, you are right.

Your statement might receive even full consensus ;-)

Regards,

Géza



On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We quite often discuss here how to judge rough consensus. In a completely
> non-IETF
> context, I came upon a reference to an article published in 2007 with the
> catchy title
> "Inferring the Popularity of an Opinion From Its Familiarity: A Repetitive
> Voice Can
> Sound Like a Chorus". Here's an extract from the abstract:
>
> "...people do not always correctly estimate the distribution of opinions
> within their group. One important mechanism underlying such misjudgments
> is people’s tendency to infer that a familiar opinion is a prevalent one,
> even when its familiarity derives solely from the repeated expression
> of 1 group member. Six experiments demonstrate this effect and show that
> it holds even when perceivers are consciously aware that the opinions come
> from 1 speaker."
>
> The article by Weaver et al was in the Journal of Personality and Social
> Psychology, 2007, Vol. 92, No. 5, 821–833. I found it at
> http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-925821.pdf
>
> --
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
>
>
>
> ___
> 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: [v6ops] 6to4 to Experimental? (was: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic)

[Turchanyi Geza]

+1

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Mohacsi Janos  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Ole Troan wrote:
>
>  Keith,
>>
>>  The alternative that I proposed to IESG and to the chairs (and never
>>> received any feedback about) was to reclassify 6to4 as Experimental.
>>> Experimental seems completely appropriate for a protocol that is useful, but
>>> only in corner cases.  And I think it's also appropriate and useful to try
>>> to learn from the experience with 6to4, even if we realize that 6to4 will
>>> never be a generally applicable IPv6 transition solution again.
>>>
>>> And maybe, just maybe, Experimental will be enough of a "slap" at 6to4 to
>>> mollify the "kill it yesterday" crowd.  For one thing, it clearly indicates
>>> that 6to4 is no longer a standard.
>>>
>>> But in order to quieten down the discussion here, I suggest that people
>>> reply to me privately if they can't live with this.   If I get lots of those
>>> replies, I'll know that it's not worth pursuing.
>>>
>>
>> "Experimental" is certainly better than:
>> - nothing
>> - spending months on hold as appeals are processed.
>>
>
> I proposed experimental also when discussion started about future of 6to4.
> I support the idea.
>Best Regards,
>Janos Mohacsi
>
>
> __**_
> v6ops mailing list
> v6...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/v6ops
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Alternative To IPv6

[Turchanyi Geza]

Hi,

Quite a few people reminded me for the date of your message, which was All
Fool Day.

Oh yes, I surely forgot to check this! Then I realised one more thing: I
surely forgot to translate "jaibuduvin"! "J'ai bu du vin" is in French, that
I know at least, and translates to "I was drinking wine"!

My serious congratulation to your jokes!

Mes felicitacions serieux!

Amitié,

Géza

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Jorge Amodio  wrote:

> > 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
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Alternative To IPv6

[Turchanyi Geza]

 and of course you will have a magic transition scenario as well, and
all the content providers will adapt within 3 months, without any problems
of load balancing what we have today

IF NOT, your announcement just will provoque more delay in transition to
IPv6, the only viable and urgent solution ahead of us.

Regards,

Géza

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:43 PM, J. C. Jones  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Those associated with the IETF and those with interest in computer
> networking might be interested to know that a new, clean-slate network
> protocol stack, an alternative to the IPv4 and IPv6, is due out in 2012.
> This new protocol stack will provide the following features:
>
>
>1. A generalized solution to *naming*, *numbering*, and *addressing 
> *problems,
>where domain names and IP addresses have been given a sound, theoretical
>basis, with particular emphasis on rethinking the nature of domain names
>with respect to IP addresses. Well-known port numbers would become
>unnecessary for many applications.
>2. A generalized solution to the *mobility *problem, where networks of
>networks may be mobile, with continuously optimal routing from source to
>target and ultra-fast handover over multiple wireless technologies existing
>within the same node that allows PDA's to easily be used as cell phones
>while making and breaking of Wi-Fi links.
>3. A generalized solution to the *multicast *problem, where a PDA might
>serve as the root of a *1,000,000,000*-node multicast tree, and where
>an application sourcing the multicast can be written by a programmer in one
>afternoon whose possesses a near-minimum understanding of computer
>networking.
>4. A generalized solution to the *security *problem, where each feature
>commonly provided by an underlying security framework [hiding, signing,
>etc.] might be independently enabled or disabled without affecting the
>operation of cooperative features.
>5. A generalized solution to the *access control* problem, where
>specifying access control parameters makes sense to technical neophytes,
>where username/passwords are essentially non-existent, and where it is
>plainly evident from the model that it is regular and persistent.
>6. A gratuitous, parasitic framework that, if it were so chosen, would
>allow for the *elimination of the majority of email spam* and similar
>nuisances on the Internet.
>7. A strictly* 99.8% portable* reference implementation for most
>multi-threaded OS's, written in C++.
>8. A network application *library *that presents *persistent primitives
>of computer networking* [C++ classes].
>9. *International support* for almost all of the world's languages, not
>only for domain names, but for all textual processing under the purview of
>the protocol stack. Specifically, almost equal weight will be given for
>non-English languages as for English.
>10. A total executable size of l*ess than 1MB* [without a GUI] for a *
>full-featured* stack destined for small-footprint devices.
>11. *Initial compatibility with IPv4* routing, where new, disruptive
>applications may be created over the new protocol stack without requiring
>changes to existing IPv4 routing. A full-break from IPv4 would require no
>human intervention [renumbering] at the point of change-over, and after
>change-over, said disruptive applications would continue to function,
>unaware that change-over has occurred.
>12. *Simplicity*. The new stack should be understandable in its
>entirely by a single software engineer after 3 months of study.
>
> I will send out notices as the release date in 2012 approaches.
>
> Warm Regards,
> -JC
>
> ___
> 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: Retention of blue sheets

[Turchanyi Geza]

Pekka,

E-mail address are useful data. Anyhow, I would not able to replay to
you without using your address ;-)

 and how to know which "John Smith" is the real participant?

+1 for Brian Carpenter

Thanks,

Géza

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Alissa that having an explicit privacy policy would be a
>> good idea, but the fact of participation in an open standards process
>> certainly cannot be considered a private matter. Exactly the opposite,
>> in fact.
>
> Indeed, but why do the blue sheets ask for an email address?  I'm not
> interested in receiving any mail (e.g. product advertisements loosely
> related to the IETF protocols) based on my writing my email on the blue
> sheets.  I accept it's good for disambiguation though asking for affiliation
> might achieve the same.  If anyone would be able to get the blue sheets,
> they probably shouldn't get the email addresses. Having to write a privacy
> policy would require ironing out these small details which might be a goog
> thing.
>
> --
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> ___
> 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: IPv6 traffic stats

[Turchanyi Geza]

Harald,

Your Half percent is great!

When Tim Berners-Lee presented the www at the JENC conference in
Insbruck in 1992, he said that according to the traffic mesurement
statistics, the www-related trafic is around half percent.

What was the ratio two years later? 40%

Half percent is a good "start" for a real revolution.

The question is: where is any similar movement to those pushed the web
development in the early nineties?

Best,
 Géza

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Kessens wrote:
>>
>> Joe,
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:20:11AM -0800, Joe St Sauver wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not aware of DNS block lists which cover IPv6 address spaces at
>>> this time, probably in part because IPv6 traffic remains de minimis (see
>>> http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/8/the-end-is-near-but-is-ipv6/
>>> showing IPv6 traffic as constituting only 0.002% of all Internet
>>> traffic).
>>>
>>
>> For the record:
>> It seems that arbornetworks estimates are extremely low to the point
>> where one has to ask whether there were other issues that caused such
>> a low estimate.
>>
>> There is no question that IPv6 traffic is quite low in the Internet.
>> However, many other reports that I have seen recently measure multiple
>> orders of magnitude more IPv6 traffic (for an easily accesible example
>> see: http://www.ams-ix.net/technical/stats/sflow/)
>
> Google's measurements indicate that when faced with a dual-stack host (one
> with both an  and an A record in the DNS), 0.5% of all hosts will access
> that host using IPv6.
>
> (As presented at the RIPE meeting in Dubai last month.)
>
>   Harald
>
> ___
> 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