Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to thePre-5378 Problem
Sorry for this Blackberry response. Neither 'wish' nor 'elects' is accaeptable to me because it seems to place a duty on the Contributor to ascertain the desires of the pre-5378 contributor, a tasking on the contributor that I wish to avoid with the language proposed. Ray Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -Original Message- From: "Contreras, Jorge" Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 17:52:46 To: ; ; Cc: ; ; ; ; ; Subject: Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to thePre-5378 Problem John - thanks for that clarification. Would "elect" be less value-laden than "wish"? - Original Message - From: John C Klensin To: Contreras, Jorge; Thomas Narten ; Ray Pelletier Cc: Trustees ; wgcha...@ietf.org ; ietf@ietf.org ; i...@iab.org ; i...@ietf.org ; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org Sent: Sun Feb 08 17:38:10 2009 Subject: RE: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to thePre-5378 Problem --On Sunday, February 08, 2009 5:24 PM -0500 "Contreras, Jorge" wrote: > Sorry for jumping into this thread late, but I would recommend > leaving 6.c and 6.c.iii as proposed in the TLP draft that was > circulated. > > 6.c.iii > >> OLD: >> >> > iii. If a Contribution includes Pre-5378 Material and the >> > Contributor does not wish to allow modifications of such >> > Pre-5378 Material to be made outside the IETF Standards >> > Process: >> >> "does not wish" is not right. The issue is that the current >> author of the document is unable (for whatever reason) to >> make assertions about the pre-5378 material. > > I think "does not wish" is right, as it gives the new > Contributor maximum flexibility in withholding the right to > make non-IETF derivative works if his Contribution includes > pre-5378 Material. I don't see any of the proposed changes > making this clearer or better. >... Jorge, I think people are trying to make two specific points. If you tell us that both are irrelevant, then I, for one, will accept that and move on. The points are: (1) This language should not let a submitting author (a term that is a tad more precise than "Contributor" for this purpose, but substitute as you like) off the hook for compliance with the letter and intent of 5378 for his or her one new, post whenever-November-10-is, contribution. If the Note Well, or 5378 itself, or something else, takes care of that regardless of what the workaround text says, it would be helpful to clarify that somewhere. (2) As a submitting author, I may be so convinced that 5378 is a wonderful thing that I would dearly wish, with all of my might, that I could offer a document in full compliance with its text and intent. But I may just not have enough rights to do that (something wishing is unlikely to cure) and hence have to opt for IETF use only. Some of us would like to avoid an assertion that we "wish" to not provide the broader rights as it may be counterfactual. That distinction may make absolutely no difference from an IPR standpoint, but some of us have an allergy to IETF procedural rules that require people to assert things that aren't true. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
Russ Congrats. The ripples from this are and will be significant. It certainly nudged ICANN Best for the experiment. Happy holidays Ray Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -Original Message- From: IETF Chair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:07:01 To:IETF Announcement list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc:[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org Subject: [IAOC] Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary Dear Colleagues: I had no idea that my previous announcement would generate such a long stream of responses. The lively discussion has been surprising, interesting, and also informative. I need to share some history, some plans, and some reactions to this lengthy discussion. The IETF meeting network supported IPv6 for at least the last five years. Both IPv4 and IPv6 routing have been available on all of the subnets in the primary meeting venue, and that there have been IPv6 transit to the greater Internet. The goal has been for this to be native IPv6 transit, but tunnels have been required in some venues due to upstream provider limitations or gross routing inefficiency in the native path. IPv6 addressing has recently employed a /32 that has been kindly made available for the IETF meetings by APNIC. Previously, IPv6 addressing employed a per-meeting /48 allocation. Local meeting services, such as DNS, NTP, LPR, and IPP, have been accessible using IPv6 via dual stack on-site servers, and recently DHCPv6 has been added to provide IPv6 nameserver information. Following the mail list discussion, we have considered several different configurations for achieving the desired network experiment environment. It is important that everyone have adequate opportunity for advance configuration, and it is important that severe impact on other network resources at the meeting venue be avoided. With these goals in mind, we intend to add an additional IPv6-only subnet, with a different SSID on the wireless network. The SSID will include some clever name that includes the string "v6ONLY". This SSID will be available on all the wireless access points throughout the venue for the entire week. Everyone is encouraged to try using this network well before the plenary session. Neighbors and friends are encouraged to help each other debug problems, and the kind folks at the help desk in the Terminal Room will also be happy to assist with any configuration challenges, IPv6-related or otherwise. During the plenary session, at a well advertised time, which will be after the host greeting and several other information packed presentations, all of the IPv4/IPv6 capable SSIDs (the usual ietf* ones that have been available at meetings for the last few years) will be disabled on the APs in and around the plenary room. Only the v6ONLY network will be accessible to the plenary session attendees for 30 to 60 minutes. The APs outside the plenary room area, including the lobby, the bar, and other public spaces, as well as the entire wired network, will remain unchanged. To ensure proper coverage of the public spaces with both IPv4 and IPv6, there is likely to be some leakage of the IPv4- enabled networks into the plenary room. The plenary attendees will be asked to refrain from using them. These resources will be overwhelmed if all of the plenary attendees attempt to use them, so please leave them for the people in the public spaces. If you are in the plenary, please participate in the experiment. We are trying to figure out how to display in real time the traffic statistics on the v6ONLY network during the plenary. I'm hoping it can be projected while the experiment is running. I should note that the IETF meeting network infrastructure will be running on IPv4. That is one reason that v6ONLY will be offered on the wireless network. Management traffic on the wired network needs IPv4. Consider this the first item on the "not quite ready" list that will be compiled during the experiment. During the experiment, a mechanism to capture notes on the experience will be made available. We have not figured out whether a wiki, mail list, jabber room, or something else will be employed. The idea is to gather the experience of the engineers that choose to participate in the experiment. Please note that the IETF meeting network will provide IPv6 connectivity, name resolution, and transit, but any additional services such as IPv6/IPv4 ALGs, are outside the scope of this experiment. If someone would like to use such a resource during this experiment, please hold that thought. A mail list will be set up and announced for this kind of coordination. This experiment is an opportunity for the IETF community to see what we can make happen by IETF 71. IANA has accepted the challenge to get records into the root zone. I sincerely hope that they are successful. Others are trying to get IPv6 service to servers that are often visited by IETF meeting attendees. I sincerely hope they are successful too. Activities like
IETF Meetings 68 & 69
IETF Meetings 68 & 69 The IETF 68 meeting scheduled for March 18 - 23 2007 will be held in Prague, the Czech Republic. The IETF 69 meeting scheduled for July 22 - 27, 2007 will be held in Chicago, Illinois, USA. You can expect specific Hotel information within the next 10 days. Possible sites in Asia, the Pacific Rim and North America are under review for IETF 70. Meanwhile, we look forward to seeing you in San Diego November 5 - 10. Please note that hotel reservations at the Sheraton are at 86% and the Hilton, 80% of the allocated room block. You may want to register and make hotel reservations soon. http://www.ietf.org/meetings/67-IETF.html Ray Pelletier IAD ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RFC Editor RFP Responses
The IAOC has received and accepted bids from three parties in response to the RFC Editor RFP. Those three are: 1. The Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Marina del Ray, California, USA, the incumbent 2. Standcore LLC, Trumansburg, New York, USA 3. Wipro Technologies, Bangalore, India The IAOC will review the proposals for consideration of advancement to the negotiation phase. Ray Pelletier IETF Administrative Director ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Siemens to Host IETF 67
The IAOC is pleased to announce that Siemens has agreed to be the Host of IETF 67 in San Diego being held this November 5 - 10. Siemens has supported our efforts to hold IETF 67 first in Europe and now San Diego, where the IETF began 20 years ago. I want to thank Max Riegel, Bob Ferrero and the entire Siemens team for their assistance and persistence. Siemens has exciting plans for a social that will be announced soon and has been working to integrate its network team with our talented and experienced IETF Volunteers. Please note, based on registrations to date we are expecting the largest attendance of the year. If you have not done so already, register and book a hotel room! Hotel rooms are scarce due to other conventions. We will be announcing 2 more hotels in the next 24 hours that have set aside about 150 rooms, but we cannot locate any more hotels with large room blocks available. Look forward to seeing you all in San Diego and thank you Siemens! Ray Pelletier IAD ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
25th Anniversary!
It was 25 years ago this month that IP and TCP were formally standardized by the publication of RFC 791 and RFC 793. "Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn are widely credited with the design of TCP/IP, and many others involved in the ARPANET project made significant contributions," says the Internet Society. "The core of the documents was RFC 675, published in December 1974 by Cerf together with co-authors Carl Sunshine and Yogen Dalal. The subsequent sequence of documents leading up to RFC 791 and 793 benefited from the participation of many people including Dave Clark, Jon Postel, Bob Braden, Ray Tomlinson, Bill Plummer, and Jim Mathis, as well as other unnamed contributors to the definition and implementation of what became the Internet's core protocols." You can learn more about this seminal achievement at the Internet Society web site: http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/060926pr.shtml. Many thanks to those who have gone before, those who continue to toil in this fruitful vineyard and those who will follow. All the best, Ray Pelletier IAD ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Meeting Survey Results
All; More than 300 responded to the Meeting Survey conducted following IETF 64 in Vancouver. See survey results link below. Among the results are: 1. Slightly more than 25% say their laptop is compatible with 802.11a. [Note the IETF 65 NOC for Dallas recommends 802.11a] 2. Nearly 60% (with an additional 23% undecided) prefer dinner following all sessions of the day. 3. Only 23% prefer a full day schedule for Fridays. 4. Cookies are not the only craving for breaks -- 74% want more healthy choices. 5. Only 1/3 of the respondents expressed satisfaction with the wireless connectivity. And given the opportunity to say what they liked and didn't - 130 told us how they felt. Read it for yourselves: http://www.surveymonkey.com/Report.asp?U=165657447306 I and NeuStar Secretariat Services will review these results and make adjustments as possible for IETF 65 Dallas, March 19 - 24. And we look forward to seeing you there. Thanks for your participation. Ray Pelletier IETF Administrative Director. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: hotels for Dallas?
Today. Of course, the sun never sets on the Internet. Really today 24 Jan 2006. Ray -Original Message- From: "Adam Roach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:52 am To: "Ray Pelletier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0"Tim Chown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0"IETF Discussion" Subject: Re: hotels for Dallas? Ray Pelletier wrote: > > Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > >> >> We understand that the new registration system is taking time to get >> working, and I doubt that's a big problem for many people. But as of >> this writing, there is no information on the IETF web site about the >> meeting venue or hotels. Any idea when that will change? >> >> -- Jeff > > > I expect it to change Monday 23 January. > Ray Pelletier > IETF Administrative Director Do we have a new ETA? /a ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meeting Survey Results
-Original Message- From: "Bill Sommerfeld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 6:44 pm To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Meeting Survey Results On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Among the results are: > 1. Slightly more than 25% say their laptop is compatible with 802.11a. > [Note the IETF 65 NOC for Dallas recommends 802.11a] > > 5. Only 1/3 of the respondents expressed satisfaction with the wireless > connectivity. Is there any correlation in the survey results between "satisfied with wireless" and "has 802.11a"? Nearly 55% of those who said they had 802.11a said wireless was adequate or better. Ray - Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
