Comparison of ICAP and SOAP

[Wanghong Yuan]

HI, All

Where can I find some materials or dicussion on ICAP and SOAP? I think
both of them address somewhat the content adapation problem in Internet.
Thanks.

Wanghong

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Melinda Shore]

> From: Brian Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Neither "consensus" nor "democracy" by themselves produce good work.  It is 
> possible for the overwhelming majority (consensus) or bare majority 
> (democracy) to choose the mediocre over the good.  At least with consensus 
> a few can have a more significant effect.

There's a lot of confusion over what "consensus" means.
It's not simply unanimity or a modified form of voting, 
but a process that allows all voices to be heard and 
enables groups to come to decisions that most accurately 
reflect the views and values of the group members.  It 
specifically tries to prevent a majority (or loud minority, 
as so often happens in the IETF) from using their weight to 
force bad decisions through.  Used properly it allows groups 
to come to better decisions than they would otherwise.  
It's slow and tedious and requires investment in the process 
from all participants, and is particularly ill-suited, I think, 
for technical work.

> So, as I see it, it is the few rather than the many, who do the good 
> work.  TCP works as well as it does because of the work of handful of 
> people, not the democracy of the majority or the consensus of the 
> population of the IETF.

It's been my experience that even in the most popular (what
a concept) working groups only a handful of people actively
participate, anyway.  The primary disadvantages, to my mind,
of the size of the body pool in working groups have been 1) 
it's often difficult to get a seat in meetings, 2) mailing 
list management becomes more time-consuming, and 3) more time 
is wasted dealing with questions from people who haven't read 
the documents or working group charters.  I don't see any of
this as particularly onerous.

It seems as if the real question here is how to handle 
controversial working group proposals.  The OPES proposal
has a fair amount of support behind it and quite a bit of
objection to it.  In a consensus-oriented decision-making
framework everybody with an opinion would work together to
find some mutually acceptable (not loved - acceptable)
accomodation, whether it's sending the work off to another
standards body or modifying the charter and having the 
work done in the IETF.  That hasn't been the ways things
have worked during my short time with the IETF - noise is
made and the IESG goes off to think about it, work directly
with interested parties, and then make a decision.  Maybe
it's not that meaningful for us to be talking about consensus
or direct voting when what we've really got is a republic.

Melinda

Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:26:07 +0700, "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  said:

> However, I still have difficulties to understand the
> merit of having ".ip6.int" or ".ip6.arpa" or even
> ".mickey-mouse" for holding the reverse records. That 
> must be a 100 % political decision with no merit at all.

Well... we *DO* need to agree on what the root of the reverse tree will
be - otherwise it's hard to write tools that do reverse lookups. ;)

The politics starts when you realize that somebody owns the spot that
you're parking the tree.

Using .mickey-mouse is bad - there's *enough* Bad Karma attached to the
whole TLD issue via ICANN and the like.

Using .ip6.int or .ip6.arpa requires that the manager(s) of .int or .arpa
agree/consent/support that usage (which they may not, for a number of
reasons).   Looking at the SOA/NS entries for .INT and .ARPA is rather
revealing.  I'm pretty sure that the current set of NS entries for .INT
is sufficient to support reverse lookups under the current level of IP6
deployment, but will require some major upgrading in the future. ;)

-- 
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech
  

 PGP signature

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Keith Moore]

> In a consensus-oriented decision-making
> framework everybody with an opinion would work together to
> find some mutually acceptable (not loved - acceptable)
> accomodation, whether it's sending the work off to another
> standards body or modifying the charter and having the
> work done in the IETF.  That hasn't been the ways things
> have worked during my short time with the IETF - noise is
> made and the IESG goes off to think about it, work directly
> with interested parties, and then make a decision.  Maybe
> it's not that meaningful for us to be talking about consensus
> or direct voting when what we've really got is a republic.

For better or worse, we've never claimed to use consensus-based 
decision-making for deciding whether a working group gets created.
We do require that there be a significant show of interest for
doing that group's work, but other than that, our process leaves
those decisions to IESG and IAB.

One of the presumptions behind the choice of consensus-based
decision-making even for working groups is that the people
making the decision are technically competent.  Sometimes, the 
people proposing a new working group are unable to demonstrate
technical competence, which makes their proposals quite dubious 
indeed.  In such a case, the right thing to do is to send them 
elsewhere, but you'll never reach consensus with them about that.

Keith

"rough consensus" vs "consensus"

[Mike O'Dell]

there is a big difference between these two terms

the politically-correct notion of concensus that's
been used in a couple of postings is based on the
notion that everyone's opinion is equally important

they aren't - people should get over it 

rough consensus weights opinions based on the demonstrated
clue density of the opinion holder.  that means an effort can
come to closure when some others still don't understand what's
going on.  yup - it can be subjective, as are most design
decisions.  again, people should get over it. remember, when
doing its best work, the IETF is a *meritocracy* and some are
a lot more equal than others

and sometimes there *isn't* a "mutual accomodation", and that's
fine, but then someone has to make tie-breaking a decision
and move on.  again, the goal is forward progress doing
good work.  bare feet sometimes don't fare too well.

important note: 
the IETF excercise isn't about making people happy, 
it's about doing good work

when people strongly advocate doing less-than-good things,
they often end up unhappy

this is a feature

cheers
-Mike O'Dell

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Einar Stefferud]

At 23:35 -0700 24/06/01, grenville armitage wrote:
>Einar Stefferud wrote:
>   [..]
>  > Another is that IETF acts in many ways as though it is
>  > the only legitimate user of its well founded standards
>  > development methodologies,
>
>Which IETF does that? On the contrary, it appears the
>biggest problem is outsiders flocking to the IETF in
>the mistaken belief that creating a WG here will somehow
>bless one's work with pixie dust.
>
>cheers,
>gja

Which of course reinforces the notion that IETF must defend itself 
from the onslaught, for good reasons due to the general lack of space 
for new WG meetings.

But, more to the point, I am referring to the general reticence of 
non-IETF groups to use the IETF methods and processes in their own 
work related to developing standards for code for use on the Internet.

However, I know of a few others that have adopted the IETF WG 
processes, and I consider this a good thing to be happening.  In 
fact, I strongly encourage it.
And even lead the charge from time to time.

Cheers...\Stef

RFC-2001-06-25-000 - IPv16 SLD.TLD Immigration Scoring System (0:212 .BIZ)

[Jim Fleming]

Background
Many countries have scoring systems for immigration...
http://www.google.com/search?q=Canada+immigration+scoring
http://www.google.com/search?q=New+Zealand+immigration+scoring


Proposed...

RFC-2001-06-25-000 - IPv16 SLD.TLD Immigration Scoring System (Example:
0:212 .BIZ)

Owner of SLD.com - 10 points
Owner of SLD-BIZ.com - 10 points
Owner of SLD.BIZ.com - 10 points
Active NS Records in IPv4 POC Registry #1 - 10 points
Active NS Records in IPv4 POC Registry #2 - 10 points
Active NS Records in IPv4 POC Registry #3 - 0 points
18 Years or Older - 10 points
HS Education or Equivalent - 10 points
College Education or Equivalent - 10 points
Partnership, Corporation, etc. - 10 points
Servers in 0:212-.BIZ IPv8 Address Space - 10 points

Applicant with highest score obtains SLD.BIZ name in IPv16 .BIZ servers.

Glossary
-
HS - High School
IPv4 POC - Proof-of-Concept Service using public IPv4
NS Records - Domain Name Server records for NameServers


Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Einar Stefferud]

Keith -- I beg to differ.  There are a number of other groups that 
have considered taking their work to the IETF, but decided instead to 
just use the IETF WG Processes, as described in the relevant RFCs.

They have done this with good results, and I recommend often that 
this be done by others.  One of the benefits of this approach is 
complete avoidance of what is going on here in this mailing list;-)...

So, the answer is, if you want to do it the IETF way, then just use 
the WG working rules, and take the results to the IETF when you are 
done, if the results look good enough.

The only other reason to take work to the IETF is because you might 
draw in some additional useful talents from meeting attendees, and 
something then could rub off on your work.

But otherwise, there are no particular inhibitors.  IETF even allows 
outsiders to post IETF-DRAFTS, which serve to inform the larger IETF 
community about such non-IETF work.  All this add to the over all 
value of the work being done.

So, I read this mass of IETF mail to mean that the OPES work is just 
not ready for prime time, and so they should just settle down and get 
to work on making it ready for IETF prime time, or just do the work 
and be done with it.

The thing I marvel at is the size of the fuss about the question;-)...
Surely the readers of this list will not be offended by a few 
messages announcing the work!  That would beat the pants off what we 
see here now;-)...

Cheers...\Stef


At 10:52 -0400 25/06/01, Keith Moore wrote:
>  > In a consensus-oriented decision-making
>  > framework everybody with an opinion would work together to
>  > find some mutually acceptable (not loved - acceptable)
>  > accomodation, whether it's sending the work off to another
>  > standards body or modifying the charter and having the
>  > work done in the IETF.  That hasn't been the ways things
>  > have worked during my short time with the IETF - noise is
>  > made and the IESG goes off to think about it, work directly
>  > with interested parties, and then make a decision.  Maybe
>  > it's not that meaningful for us to be talking about consensus
>  > or direct voting when what we've really got is a republic.
>
>For better or worse, we've never claimed to use consensus-based
>decision-making for deciding whether a working group gets created.
>We do require that there be a significant show of interest for
>doing that group's work, but other than that, our process leaves
>those decisions to IESG and IAB.
>
>One of the presumptions behind the choice of consensus-based
>decision-making even for working groups is that the people
>making the decision are technically competent.  Sometimes, the
>people proposing a new working group are unable to demonstrate
>technical competence, which makes their proposals quite dubious
>indeed.  In such a case, the right thing to do is to send them
>elsewhere, but you'll never reach consensus with them about that.
>
>Keith

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Keith Moore]

> Keith -- I beg to differ.  There are a number of other groups that
> have considered taking their work to the IETF, but decided instead to
> just use the IETF WG Processes, as described in the relevant RFCs.

Indeed they have.  But that's orthogonal to the point I was making.

> So, the answer is, if you want to do it the IETF way, then just use
> the WG working rules, and take the results to the IETF when you are
> done, if the results look good enough.

No, that would be sheer lunacy.  Because it's quite often the case 
that such work:

- either doesn't consider the problem from enough different points 
  of view, or 

- suffers from a lack of technical competence, or

- was actually developed in a (semi-)closed environment in order 
  to favor certain stakeholders over others

It's one thing to say that other groups would do well to use certain 
parts of the IETF process, quite another to say that IETF should 
endorse the work of other groups.

Keith

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Gordon Cook]

>stef:> Keith -- I beg to differ.  There are a number of other groups that
>>  have considered taking their work to the IETF, but decided instead to
>>  just use the IETF WG Processes, as described in the relevant RFCs.
>
>Indeed they have.  But that's orthogonal to the point I was making.
>
>stef:> So, the answer is, if you want to do it the IETF way, then just use
>>  the WG working rules, and take the results to the IETF when you are
>>  done, if the results look good enough.
>
>No, that would be sheer lunacy.  Because it's quite often the case
>that such work:
>
>- either doesn't consider the problem from enough different points
>   of view, or
>
>- suffers from a lack of technical competence, or
>
>- was actually developed in a (semi-)closed environment in order
>   to favor certain stakeholders over others
>
>It's one thing to say that other groups would do well to use certain
>parts of the IETF process, quite another to say that IETF should
>endorse the work of other groups.

COOK:  good lord keith  Surely stef's whole point is that the 
Area Directors, IESG, and IAB need only accept work that WAS good 
enough from THEIR own point of view.

it sounds like you are saying that it simply is not possible to 
construct anything that could even merit IETF review unless you did 
the construction from scratch within all the channels of the IETF?
If so it sounds like you are determined to keep the views of the 
current AD's, IESG and IAB as a gate through which ALL ideas must 
pass and are saying that it is flat out impossible for anyone to 
develop working code that could pass the scrutiny test.  How do you 
know until, you see it?

sounds to me like doctrinaire rigidity.

>Keith

-- 

The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Index to 9 years
  of the COOK  Report at http://cookreport.com From now 
through Sept 30th
half price sale on university library site license and access to ALL 
back issues.
Site license $575 and all back  issues $300.  http://cookreport.com/sale.shtml

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Marshall T. Rose]

> But, more to the point, I am referring to the general reticence of
> non-IETF groups to use the IETF methods and processes in their own
> work related to developing standards for code for use on the Internet.
>
> However, I know of a few others that have adopted the IETF WG
> processes, and I consider this a good thing to be happening.  In
> fact, I strongly encourage it.
> And even lead the charge from time to time.

stef - historically, the ietf process worked because it was well-suited to
the competence of the personalities involved. adopting ietf-like processes
may be necessary, but it isn't sufficient, unless, of course, adopting
ietf-like processes introduces a darwinian selection for the historical
ietf-like personalities. ymmv.

mo and lloyd have made several cogent arguments explaining the current
disconnect, viz. the opes stuff. of course, opes isn't to blame, per se,
this is just the latest instance of a mismatch of expectations. perhaps, as
noted earlier, the turning point was when wg's were chartered to do
requirements documents instead of protocol documents. perhaps the problem is
even earlier...

/mtr

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Keith Moore]

> COOK:  good lord keith  Surely stef's whole point is that the
> Area Directors, IESG, and IAB need only accept work that WAS good
> enough from THEIR own point of view.
> 
> it sounds like you are saying that it simply is not possible to
> construct anything that could even merit IETF review unless you did
> the construction from scratch within all the channels of the IETF?

No, I'm only saying that it's wrong to encourage people to do their
work independently of IETF if they want/expect IETF to endorse it.

When other groups do standards work, that work should bear the name
of the group that did the work.  IETF's name should not be used to
lend credibility to other groups.

> If so it sounds like you are determined to keep the views of the
> current AD's, IESG and IAB as a gate through which ALL ideas must
> pass and are saying that it is flat out impossible for anyone to
> develop working code that could pass the scrutiny test.  

Not at all.  I'm just saying that we shouldn't call it IETF work when
it's done elsewhere.

Keith

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Gordon Cook]

>  > COOK:  good lord keith  Surely stef's whole point is that the
>>  Area Directors, IESG, and IAB need only accept work that WAS good
>>  enough from THEIR own point of view.
>>
>>  it sounds like you are saying that it simply is not possible to
>>  construct anything that could even merit IETF review unless you did
>>  the construction from scratch within all the channels of the IETF?
>
>No, I'm only saying that it's wrong to encourage people to do their
>work independently of IETF if they want/expect IETF to endorse it.
>
>When other groups do standards work, that work should bear the name
>of the group that did the work.  IETF's name should not be used to
>lend credibility to other groups.

OKnow to me at least your answer is clear and much harder to 
quibble with..

but did i misunderstand steff?

thought he was suggesting that work developed outside could be 
brought to the IETF structure that was well baked and mature and that 
the keepers of the structure might at least want to entertain the 
possibility  that it could be scrutinized and that, if found worthy, 
an IETF blessed version emerge?

>
>>  If so it sounds like you are determined to keep the views of the
>>  current AD's, IESG and IAB as a gate through which ALL ideas must
>>  pass and are saying that it is flat out impossible for anyone to
>>  develop working code that could pass the scrutiny test. 
>
>Not at all.  I'm just saying that we shouldn't call it IETF work when
>it's done elsewhere.
>
>Keith


-- 

The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Index to 9 years
  of the COOK  Report at http://cookreport.com From now 
through Sept 30th
half price sale on university library site license and access to ALL 
back issues.
Site license $575 and all back  issues $300.  http://cookreport.com/sale.shtml

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Jeffrey Altman]

> 
> COOK:  good lord keith  Surely stef's whole point is that the 
> Area Directors, IESG, and IAB need only accept work that WAS good 
> enough from THEIR own point of view.
> 
> it sounds like you are saying that it simply is not possible to 
> construct anything that could even merit IETF review unless you did 
> the construction from scratch within all the channels of the IETF?
> If so it sounds like you are determined to keep the views of the 
> current AD's, IESG and IAB as a gate through which ALL ideas must 
> pass and are saying that it is flat out impossible for anyone to 
> develop working code that could pass the scrutiny test.  How do you 
> know until, you see it?
> 

The whole point is that you will not know until you see the code.  But
what does that really mean?  Its not as if the IESG has infinite time
on their hands.  The IESG performs a review of the work that was done
by a working group, but it does that review knowing that the work that
is being reviewed was monitored by an AD and was performed with the
ability for any member of the IETF to comment on the work; raise
compatibility and security issues, etc.

It would be absurd to assume that the members of the IESG are all
knowing and powerful and could catch any or every design error that
might be incorporated into a protocol design.  Especially when it
comes to security considerations we often see problems in work that
was done by outside groups.  

There is no reason for a protocol whose authors plan to seek IETF
backing to be developed outside the IETF.

- Jeff



 Jeffrey Altman * Sr.Software Designer  C-Kermit 7.1 Alpha available
 The Kermit Project @ Columbia University   includes Secure Telnet and FTP
 http://www.kermit-project.org/ using Kerberos, SRP, and 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  OpenSSL.  SSH soon to follow.

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Brian Lloyd]

At 10:27 AM 6/25/2001, you wrote:
> > So, the answer is, if you want to do it the IETF way, then just use
> > the WG working rules, and take the results to the IETF when you are
> > done, if the results look good enough.
>
>No, that would be sheer lunacy.

Hmmm.  Seems to me that Stef speaks sense.

>Because it's quite often the case that such work:
>
>- either doesn't consider the problem from enough different points
>   of view, or

Then they "request for comment" and get feedback from others interested in 
the same problem.  Isn't that how all this got started?

>- suffers from a lack of technical competence, or

Assuming automatically that someone from outside the IETF is incompetent is 
just as arrogant as assuming that someone inside the IETF is competent. 
Even the work inside the IETF sometimes suffers from a lack of technical 
competence.  Cluefulness is not a prerequisite for attending an IETF 
meeting or attempting to participate in a WG.  No, the playing field is 
pretty level here.  We put up with cluelessness at the IETF because there 
is no metric for cluefulness that we can engage ahead of time.  You bring 
in the whole stalk of wheat and separate the wheat from the chaff in the 
threshing process.  I see entirely too little threshing going on in the 
IETF these days.  I think we worry to much that people will get their 
little feelers hurt.

>- was actually developed in a (semi-)closed environment in order
>   to favor certain stakeholders over others

That does not preclude the work from containing the seeds of good 
ideas.  Good ideas come from individuals, not from committees or 
organizations.  The IETF doesn't have a lock on good ideas.  If a solution 
applies to a subset of a problem it may have application to the larger 
problem and/or it may trigger something in someone else's mind to come up 
with the general solution.  Developing it within the committee doesn't 
guarantee anything.

>It's one thing to say that other groups would do well to use certain
>parts of the IETF process, quite another to say that IETF should
>endorse the work of other groups.

The IETF should endorse good work no matter where it comes from.  The 
"protocol by WG committee" approach espoused by the current IETF does not 
always produce good work.  It is the good ideas of a few which get adopted 
by the committee that makes a good protocol.

  Where is Bill Simpson saying, "You're wrong," (in that abrasive and 
melodious voice of his) and the strong, clueful WG chaircritter saying, 
"Bill's right, you don't know what you are talking about so sit down and 
shut up."  The IETF could use some more of that again.

Yeah, Mo, a meritocracy, and people with merit can come from anywhere.

So let 'em build their protocol, whatever it is, and bring it to the 
IETF.  The problems with a really bad protocol can be extremely educational 
and entertaining.  The elegance of a really good protocol can be extremely 
educational and entertaining.  I don't see how we can lose.


Brian Lloyd
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1.530.676.1113 - voice
+1.360.838.9669 - fax

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Keith Moore]

> > > So, the answer is, if you want to do it the IETF way, then just use
> > > the WG working rules, and take the results to the IETF when you are
> > > done, if the results look good enough.
> >
> >No, that would be sheer lunacy.
> 
> Hmmm.  Seems to me that Stef speaks sense.

No, because what Stef advocated would create an unrealistic expectation
that an external group's work would be published and/or endorsed by IETF.

It's not that IETF cannot possibly endorse such work, it's that the vast
majority of work done under those conditions does not merit an IETF 
endorsement, and encouraging other groups to operate in this manner 
would require that IETF spend valuable time and energy trying to
review this work.  This would distract IETF from more fruitful activities.

Other groups are quite free to develop their own reputations and to publish 
their own work using their own mechanisms.  For IETF to be compelled to lend 
its reputation to other groups' work, or its energies reviewing arbitrary
work from other groups, really is sheer lunacy.

> >- either doesn't consider the problem from enough different points
> >   of view, or
> 
> Then they "request for comment" and get feedback from others interested in
> the same problem.  

They're quite free to do so without involving IETF.

> >- suffers from a lack of technical competence, or
> 
> Assuming automatically that someone from outside the IETF is incompetent is
> just as arrogant as assuming that someone inside the IETF is competent.

Take a stress pill and carefully reread what I wrote.I didn't say that
work outside the IETF inherently suffered from a lack of competence,
I said that the majority of work submitted from outside groups for IETF 
approval tends to suffer from one or more of several common problems, one of
which is a lack of competence.  The statements are quite different.

There are other competent groups out there, but they're not routinely asking 
IETF to approve work which they've previously done in isolation to IETF.

To put it another way, other groups that have established their own competence 
don't need to ask IETF to lend its name to their work.

> Even the work inside the IETF sometimes suffers from a lack of technical
> competence.  

True enough.  But we accept responsibility for our own incompetence.
We're not trying to get other groups to endorse it.

> >- was actually developed in a (semi-)closed environment in order
> >   to favor certain stakeholders over others
> 
> That does not preclude the work from containing the seeds of good
> ideas.  

No, but it often does preclude it from being adopted by IETF without major
changes.  If the external group's purpose was to prototype and demonstrate
proof-of-concept, and it's willing to allow significant changes before 
standardization and deployment, the fact that the work was done prior
to bringing it to IETF can be a good thing.  OTOH if the external group
was trying to standardize a protocol and promote deployment of that protocol,
doing the work elsewhere and trying to fix it in IETF is usually a huge mess.

> >It's one thing to say that other groups would do well to use certain
> >parts of the IETF process, quite another to say that IETF should
> >endorse the work of other groups.
> 
> The IETF should endorse good work no matter where it comes from.  

The IETF exists to do work, not to endorse work that came from elsewhere.  
Expecting the IETF to pass any judgement on work done elsewhere detracts 
from IETF's purpose and amounts to a denial-of-service attack on IETF.

> The "protocol by WG committee" approach espoused by the current IETF does not
> always produce good work.  It is the good ideas of a few which get adopted
> by the committee that makes a good protocol.

I agree.  But if the folks develop those ideas in too much isolation
(as is often the case) it's not likely to be a good protocol.

> Yeah, Mo, a meritocracy, and people with merit can come from anywhere.
> 
> So let 'em build their protocol, whatever it is, and bring it to the
> IETF.  The problems with a really bad protocol can be extremely educational
> and entertaining.  The elegance of a really good protocol can be extremely
> educational and entertaining.  I don't see how we can lose.

Think of it this way:

We'll learn something useful from almost every good protocol we review, but
we'll only learn something useful from the first two or three bad protocols
we review.  After that it's a complete waste of time.  It's not even entertaining.

And if we encourage folks to design protocols outside of IETF and then 
submit them, most of those submissions will be bad.  Because it's far easier to 
design a bad protocol than a good one, and because the people with sufficient clues 
to design a good protocol (though they do exist outside of IETF) are far rarer 
than the people capable of designing a bad one.

Keith

"...we shouldn't call it IETF work..."

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message - 
From: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I'm just saying that we shouldn't call it IETF work when
> it's done elsewhere.
> 
--

What happens if people in the IETF take work from "elsewhere",
rewrite it, call it their own, and claim it is "IETF work" ??


Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Keith Moore]

> perhaps, as noted earlier, the turning point was when wg's were 
> chartered to do requirements documents instead of protocol 
> documents. perhaps the problem is even earlier...

in my experience, one reason that a WG is chartered to do only a requirements 
document (there are others *) is that the WG appears to lack basic competence, 
but there isn't the political will to entirely block creation of the group.
so the group is allowed to do a requirements document in the hope that doing so
will give the group more clue.  sometimes it even works, but quite often the
group ends up creating an immensely complex mess.

so the chartering of groups to do requirements documents may be a symptom
of the problem rather than the problem itself.  but it probably does correleate
in time with the "turning point".

Keith

* another reason is that the group's work needs to satisfy such a diverse set of
interests that the only way to get everyone on the same page is for the group
to jointly write such a document.

p.s. I wish we'd stop calling them requirements documents, because we tend
to treat them as if they were carved in stone rather than merely an exercise
in getting everyone to agree on a problem definition.  "design goals" is much better.

".biz top-level domains should be established in the DNS at this time for testing and evaluation purposes. "

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.iana.org/reports/biz-info-report-25jun01.htm

.biz top-level domains should be established in the DNS at this time for
testing and evaluation purposes.


http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
"Proof of Concept TLD Development...and Multiple TLD Clusters"


Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-NZ.com
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[grenville armitage]

Brian Lloyd wrote:
[..]
> The
> "protocol by WG committee" approach espoused by the current IETF does not
> always produce good work.

The concept of a Working Group Committee is revealing.

gja

Going elsewhere (was: Re: I am *NOT* a believer...)

[Stephen McHenry]

At 11:57 AM 6/25/2001, Jeffrey Altman wrote:

>There is no reason for a protocol whose authors plan to seek IETF
>backing to be developed outside the IETF.
Unless some vocal people have told them that

- their efforts are misguided
- they're stupid and incapable of coming up with anything good
- "Because I can't see a use for it, it shouldn't be done"
- "Because it could possibly be misused, it shouldn't be done"
- "Because I didn't think of it first, it shouldn't be done"
 (no one actually says this, however...
- "Because I don't have time to participate, it shouldn't be done" (ditto)
... or any of a thousand other things...

If enough crap is thrown in the way of people who want to accomplish 
things, eventually, they will find another way. Of course, what will happen 
if the OPES folks do as some suggest and develop it outside of the IETF 
(because they're frustrated with responses like have been exploding on here 
the last few days) and then try to bring it in for approval, then everyone 
is going to explode and say "Why wasn't this work done in the context of 
the IETF?"

Hmmm... Guess you just can't win

Another disturbing observation... in the past, every organization that 
really was a meritocracy (as I would call it) that I have been associated 
with, simply consisted of good people doing good work, without 
consideration for the "rules of participating" or "keeping the riff-raff 
out", etc. There was no discussion of it being a meritocracy, it just was. 
As soon as it got to the point where people were calling it a meritocracy, 
and debating rules about what was "meritous" enough to warrant "admission" 
and who owned what piece of technological ground, it was the beginning of 
the end. Soon, the people who were doing the good work went elsewhere where 
they could once again do good work, unencumbered by the "meritocracy".



Stephen

Stephen McHenry
VP, Engineering/CTO
Cacheware, Inc.
655 Campbell Technology Pkwy, Suite 150
Campbell, CA 95008
Ph:  (408) 540-1310
Fax: (408) 540-1305
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.cacheware.com

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Jim Fleming]

Does the IETF use the protocols it designs ?

Do these incompetent Working Groups you refer to use IPv6 ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html


- Original Message -
From: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Marshall T. Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Einar Stefferud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Marshall Rose"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.


> > perhaps, as noted earlier, the turning point was when wg's were
> > chartered to do requirements documents instead of protocol
> > documents. perhaps the problem is even earlier...
>
> in my experience, one reason that a WG is chartered to do only a
requirements
> document (there are others *) is that the WG appears to lack basic
competence,
> but there isn't the political will to entirely block creation of the
group.
> so the group is allowed to do a requirements document in the hope that
doing so
> will give the group more clue.  sometimes it even works, but quite often
the
> group ends up creating an immensely complex mess.
>
> so the chartering of groups to do requirements documents may be a symptom
> of the problem rather than the problem itself.  but it probably does
correleate
> in time with the "turning point".
>
> Keith
>
> * another reason is that the group's work needs to satisfy such a diverse
set of
> interests that the only way to get everyone on the same page is for the
group
> to jointly write such a document.
>
> p.s. I wish we'd stop calling them requirements documents, because we tend
> to treat them as if they were carved in stone rather than merely an
exercise
> in getting everyone to agree on a problem definition.  "design goals" is
much better.
>

Re: Going elsewhere (was: Re: I am *NOT* a believer...)

[grenville armitage]

Stephen McHenry wrote:
[..]
> Soon, the people who were doing the good work went elsewhere where
> they could once again do good work, unencumbered by the "meritocracy".

An alternative interpretation is that the good people started being
surrounded by less-good people who couldn't understand why their
less-good ideas weren't being praised and glorified. To explain
why less-good ideas weren't being praised simply for existing, the
good people's behavior is described as a "meritocracy". And if
the less-good people don't deal with that reality very well, the
good people go elsewhere to once again do good work, unencumbered
by the need to explain themselves as a meritocracy.

gja

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Einar Stefferud]

Well;-)...  A really good discussion has occurred;-)...

Gordon and Brian got it right in terms of my intentions.

Let me clarify.

Keith's fear of IESG being besieged with requests for IETF adoption 
of any work done outside the IETF without a WG Review is bogus as 
long as all work to be adopted must go through THE IETF WG process 
before it gets to the IESG.

But, to suggest that it must never have been worked on elsewhere, if 
you want the IETF to bless it, is a perfect example of my concern 
about the IETF Skin (i.e., Protective Membrane)  getting in the way 
of progress.

All you are really arguing about is whether the OPES BOF GROUP can 
have meeting space at the IETF meeting, not whether or not they can 
work on it elsewhere and bring the work forward when it is more fully 
baked.

Of course they can work on it anywhere they want, and time that they want.
But, the attitude displayed here clearly says that one should

"do it all inside the IETF!"

Now, if this quote is not what Keith and others mean to convey,
now is the time to correct the misinterpretations I and others are getting...

Of course, this notion of "do it all here" carries with it the right 
and ability of the IETF to control and regulate what is even 
discussed in other circles.
I am certain that this is an unintended consequence of the passage of 
time and circumstances, and that the result is clearly not desired. 
But there it is!

I agree that the points of confusion in this thread are subtle, and 
perhaps easily missed, but I have been observing the effects of the 
IETF skin (actually a pretty tough hide!) for many years now, going 
back to before the Boston Tea Party was held at the MIT IETF in 1992, 
and what I am seeing is a return to the pre-Tea Party days, when IETF 
had gravitated to a top-down control scheme, with a toughening hide.

It is interesting how such "skin" is mostly invisible to people 
inside organizations.  Of course, it is because the hide is 
protecting them from being bothered by or distracted by what is being 
blocked.

And, in the end, lots of people have come to see the IETF as being 
aloof or even hostile to many aspects of the internet.  I would name 
some, but I do not want to derail this discussion into an open 
discussion of those areas when it is the higher meta level problem 
that has surfaced here.

My hope is that all the smoke you are seeing here is a sign of a real 
fire that needs to be addressed.  My specific interests have no place 
in this discussion.

Cheers...\Stef

PS:  This is not the only case of organizational skin getting in the way of
  desired progress!  I see it in many volunteer groups that desperately
  want others to join, but which just cannot see how their skin is
  blocking the entrances...\s

At 12:01 -0700 25/06/01, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>At 10:27 AM 6/25/2001, you wrote:
>>  > So, the answer is, if you want to do it the IETF way, then just use
>>  > the WG working rules, and take the results to the IETF when you are
>>  > done, if the results look good enough.
>>
>>No, that would be sheer lunacy.
>
>Hmmm.  Seems to me that Stef speaks sense.
>
>>Because it's quite often the case that such work:
>>
>>- either doesn't consider the problem from enough different points
>>   of view, or
>
>Then they "request for comment" and get feedback from others 
>interested in the same problem.  Isn't that how all this got started?
>
>>- suffers from a lack of technical competence, or
>
>Assuming automatically that someone from outside the IETF is 
>incompetent is just as arrogant as assuming that someone inside the 
>IETF is competent. Even the work inside the IETF sometimes suffers 
>from a lack of technical competence.  Cluefulness is not a 
>prerequisite for attending an IETF meeting or attempting to 
>participate in a WG.  No, the playing field is pretty level here. 
>We put up with cluelessness at the IETF because there is no metric 
>for cluefulness that we can engage ahead of time.  You bring in the 
>whole stalk of wheat and separate the wheat from the chaff in the 
>threshing process.  I see entirely too little threshing going on in 
>the IETF these days.  I think we worry to much that people will get 
>their little feelers hurt.
>
>>- was actually developed in a (semi-)closed environment in order
>>   to favor certain stakeholders over others
>
>That does not preclude the work from containing the seeds of good 
>ideas.  Good ideas come from individuals, not from committees or 
>organizations.  The IETF doesn't have a lock on good ideas.  If a 
>solution applies to a subset of a problem it may have application to 
>the larger problem and/or it may trigger something in someone else's 
>mind to come up with the general solution.  Developing it within the 
>committee doesn't guarantee anything.
>
>>It's one thing to say that other groups would do well to use certain
>>parts of the IETF process, quite another to say that IETF should
>>endorse the work of o

Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP

[Mark Nottingham]

In a nutshell:

ICAP is a means of encapsulating HTTP inside of HTTP, to allow
messages to be 'vectored' from an intermediary to an ICAP server for
processing, and then sent on their way. It also defines where those
messages may be vectored from the intermediary. I believe that its
primary design goal is efficiency, but that's different depending on
who you talk to.

SOAP can IMHO best be thought of as an XML messaging convention, with
some protocol-like attributes (such as the RPC convention). SOAP is
designed to be transport-dependant; while its most common use is
across HTTP, it can be used with other underlying protocols like SMTP
or raw TCP. SOAP is designed to allow targetting of blocks of the XML
to be processed by specific intermediaries. Its primary use cases are
'Web Services', i.e., the machine->machine Web, e.g., stock quote
services, order queuing, etc.

So, SOAP could be used to implement ICAP, but then again so could
BEEP. Not too many of the ICAP people are interested in using SOAP,
though, as their requirement is to allow 'wire-speed' vectoring and
processing, and they find the overhead of XML unacceptable.

Cheers,



On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 04:11:01PM +0800, Wanghong Yuan wrote:
> HI, All
> 
> Where can I find some materials or dicussion on ICAP and SOAP? I think
> both of them address somewhat the content adapation problem in Internet.
> Thanks.
> 
> Wanghong
> 


Speaking for myself,

-- 
Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Keith Moore]

> Let me clarify.
> 
> Keith's fear of IESG being besieged with requests for IETF adoption 
> of any work done outside the IETF without a WG Review is bogus as 
> long as all work to be adopted must go through THE IETF WG process 
> before it gets to the IESG.

the conern isn't just about IESG resources, it's about IETF as a whole 
becoming even more bogged down than it already is by trying to fix 
mistakes made by people who were so lacking in clue that they couldn't 
get a WG created in the first place - so they decided to try and bypass 
the IETF process and get IETF to retroactively adopt their work later.

it's far easier to fix a mistake just after you make it than it is if
you invest a few more man-years in that same direction. 

> But, to suggest that it must never have been worked on elsewhere, if 
> you want the IETF to bless it, 

no, that's not what I said.  I said that it's a bad idea to encourage
people to take their work elsewhere if they want IETF to bless it.

in fact IETF has at least occasionally taken on work started elsewhere,
sometimes with good results.   it's not that it can't be done, but it's
not a blanket strategy that should be encouraged, as you seemed to imply.

> All you are really arguing about is whether the OPES BOF GROUP can 
> have meeting space at the IETF meeting, 

you're not even in the same solar system.

first, this discussion isn't just about OPES.

second, WGs take a LOT more resources than meeting space.  (though meeting 
space is indeed precious) they take the time of ADs who monitor the groups,
and chairs and participants who try to make sense of what is going on.
they divert energy from these individuals who might otherwise be working
on other (perhaps more useful) things.  they take resources from the 
secretariat.  and they take energy from folks within and without IETF who 
assume that the WG is somehow indicative of IETF direction in that subject area,
and who waste their energies trying to understand that WG's work and reconcile
it with sanity.

third, "problem" WGs - that can't figure out how to work and play well with
the rest of IETF - take FAR more than their share of resources.  get rid
of a few problem WGs and the organization as a whole becomes far more 
effective.

> not whether or not they can 
> work on it elsewhere and bring the work forward when it is more fully 
> baked.

of course people can do work elsewhere and bring it forward when it
is more fully baked.  but the best time to bring the work forward is
not when it is fully baked, but when it's still easy to change the
recipe.  and people who can't describe what they're trying to cook
in the first place probably aren't going to be able to convince IETF
to eat what they've cooked even after they claim that it's done.

> Of course they can work on it anywhere they want, and time that they want.
> But, the attitude displayed here clearly says that one should
> 
>   "do it all inside the IETF!"

Nope.  The attitude is: if you can't make a good problem definition and
a good case for working on it, you need to go off somewhere and do more 
work on *that* - NOT on the protocol design.


I'm not going to comment on the rest of Stef's message, except to say
that if you see any smoke here - it's coming from what he's smoking.

Keith

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Einar Stefferud]

I think that the meta issues under discussion here will not be helped 
by  diverting discussion to IETF evaluation of my specific examples.
The work often involves some kind of controversial issues, which would
take us way off target.

See below...

At 20:20 +0100 25/06/01, Lloyd Wood wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>
>  > Keith -- I beg to differ.  There are a number of other groups that
>  > have considered taking their work to the IETF, but decided instead to
>  > just use the IETF WG Processes, as described in the relevant RFCs.
>  >
>  > They have done this with good results, and I recommend often that
>  > this be done by others.
>
>which other groups have done so successfully, then?

I will only identify these others in private messages, because I do 
not want this discussion thread to turn into a feeding frenzy over 
the the specific work that was done.  Lets stick to the general meta 
issues.

And, of course, some of them have not turned into adoptable results, 
which must be expected and not therefore used to fault the concept of 
using IETF tools outside the IETF, and perhaps bringing work to the 
IETF after beginning elsewhere.  Failing to produce something useful 
in the IETF sense without bothering the IETF is not harmful to the 
IETF, and not a proper issue in this discussion.

>  > But otherwise, there are no particular inhibitors.  IETF even allows
>  > outsiders to post IETF-DRAFTS, which serve to inform the larger IETF
>  > community about such non-IETF work.  All this add to the over all
>  > value of the work being done.
>
>IETF allows _anyone_ to post an internet draft.

Certainly, and I loudly applaud this fact.

The only inconvenience I find with it is that the DRAFT publication 
process stops dead in advance of IETF meetings, which is unfortunate 
for anyone outside IETF who has a need to publish a draft during such 
times of "power outage".

It would really be nice if DRATS that are declared to not be related 
to the meeting could still be published without such interruptions. 
This is both a suggestion and a request, but not a demand.  I do not 
know all the aspects of this practice.  but, it is a part of the 
"skin" that encloses the IETF and protects it from outside influences.

>L.
>
>everyone's an outsider.

But some are more outsider than others;-)...  Maybe lots more;-)...

>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>PGP


Cheers...\Stef

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[RJ Atkinson]

It would be A Public Service if someone would setup
a separate mailing list elsewhere for this thread so that
we could return the IETF list to a normal mode.

Perhaps the new list could be named "ietf-politics",
just to make the list's topics clear to all.

Connecting IPv6 Routing Domains Over the IPv4 Internet

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/759/ipj_3-1/ipj_3-1_routing.html
Connecting IPv6 Routing Domains Over the IPv4 Internet
by Brian E. Carpenter, IBM & iCAIR
Keith Moore, University of Tennessee
Bob Fink, Energy Sciences Network
---

Was this done "inside" the IETF ?


Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

"a solution to the complexity problem "

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/759/ipj_3-1/ipj_3-1_routing.html

"The "6to4" transition mechanism, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4
Clouds without Explicit Tunnels" [6] , provides a solution to the complexity
problem of using manually configured tunnels by specifying a unique routing
prefix for each end-user site that carries an IPv4 tunnel endpoint address."

"It should also be noted that each end-user site with as little as a single
IPv4 address has a unique, routable, IPv6 site routing prefix thanks to the
6to4 transition mechanism."


"A solution to the complexity problem"

Is this an IETF solution to a "complexity problem" which the IETF created ?

If the IETF is so cluefull, how could it create complex problems in the
first place ?

Does the IETF create problems and then find solutions "elsewhere", and
then claim to have also created solutions to complex problems ?

--

"thanks to the 6to4 transition mechanism"

"thanks to" the IETF ?


Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>> However, I still have difficulties to understand the
>> merit of having ".ip6.int" or ".ip6.arpa" or even
>> ".mickey-mouse" for holding the reverse records. That
>> must be a 100 % political decision with no merit at all.
 
> Well... we *DO* need to agree on what the root of the reverse tree will
> be - otherwise it's hard to write tools that do reverse lookups. ;)

Fine, I have no problem with that statement.
 
> The politics starts when you realize that somebody owns the spot that
> you're parking the tree.

> Using .mickey-mouse is bad - there's *enough* Bad Karma attached to the
> whole TLD issue via ICANN and the like.

Sure, I also understand that there are many intercoursing
manureholes around there (is this term polite enough :-) ?
 
> Using .ip6.int or .ip6.arpa requires that the manager(s) of .int or .arpa
> agree/consent/support that usage (which they may not, for a number of
> reasons).   Looking at the SOA/NS entries for .INT and .ARPA is rather
> revealing.  I'm pretty sure that the current set of NS entries for .INT
> is sufficient to support reverse lookups under the current level of IP6
> deployment, but will require some major upgrading in the future. ;)

Therefore, I believe that meritocracy is fine at a WG
level. Unfortunately, it is not at the upper level like
IESG and IAB. Worse, requiring an ICANN BoD candidate
be highly technical skilled sounds like requiring Lou Gestner
(IBM, an ex cookie manager, http://www.ibm.com/lvg/ ) 
to understand the inner beauty of an IBM 360/91 pipeline 
processor.

Last, perhaps long time IETF participants (or whatever
the political term is), should take a sabbatical term: life 
is not just reading emails (especially on weekends)! Visiting 
South Africa is a good idea, to study on how a minority gave 
up its long time domination.

regards,

-- 
Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org
Get there in time:mirror on the wall-Genesis:tail -f trick

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/msg00136.html


- Original Message - 
From: "RJ Atkinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.


> 
> It would be A Public Service if someone would setup
> a separate mailing list elsewhere for this thread so that
> we could return the IETF list to a normal mode.
> 
> Perhaps the new list could be named "ietf-politics",
> just to make the list's topics clear to all.
> 
> 

Re: Connecting IPv6 Routing Domains Over the IPv4 Internet

[Ole J. Jacobsen]

Yes it was. See the references at the end of the article you refer to. It
clearly says that most of the documents were produced by the ngtrans
working group of the IETF.

Ole



Ole J. Jacobsen 
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972
GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj



On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Jim Fleming wrote:

> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/759/ipj_3-1/ipj_3-1_routing.html
> Connecting IPv6 Routing Domains Over the IPv4 Internet
> by Brian E. Carpenter, IBM & iCAIR
> Keith Moore, University of Tennessee
> Bob Fink, Energy Sciences Network
> ---
> 
> Was this done "inside" the IETF ?
> 
> 
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.unir.com
> Mars 128n 128e
> http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
> http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
> http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html
> 
> 

Re: Connecting IPv6 Routing Domains Over the IPv4 Internet

[Jim Fleming]

Are these the references you mean ?

[0] Fink, R., "IPv6-What and Where It Is," The Internet Protocol Journal,
Volume 2, No. 1, March 1999.

[1] IPng and IPv6 information, including formal specifications, can be found
at: http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html

[2] "The Case for IPv6," an Internet Draft of the IAB, can be found at:
http://www.6bone.net/misc/case-for-ipv6.html

[3] IETF IPv6 Transition Working Group (ngtrans) information, including
status of all its current projects, can be found at:
http://www.6bone.net/ngtrans/

[4] "Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers," RFC 1933, can be
found at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1933.txt

[5] The 6bone IPv6 Testbed Network is explained at: http://www.6bone.net

[6] "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds without Explicit Tunnels"
("6to4"), an Internet Draft of the IETF ngtrans WG, can be found at:
http://www.6bone.net/misc/6to4.txt

[7] "IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format," RFC 2374, can be
found at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2374.txt

[8] "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IPv4 Domains without Explicit
Tunnels" ("6over4"), RFC 2529, can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2529.txt

[9] "Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)," RFC 2461, can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2461.txt

[10] IETF IPv6 Working Group (ipngwg) information, can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipngwgcharter.html


- Original Message -
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "ietf@ietf. org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Connecting IPv6 Routing Domains Over the IPv4 Internet


> Yes it was. See the references at the end of the article you refer to. It
> clearly says that most of the documents were produced by the ngtrans
> working group of the IETF.
>
> Ole
>
>
>
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor and Publisher
> The Internet Protocol Journal
> Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems
> Tel: +1 408-527-8972
> GSM: +1 415-370-4628
> E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
>
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/759/ipj_3-1/ipj_3-1_routing.html
> > Connecting IPv6 Routing Domains Over the IPv4 Internet
> > by Brian E. Carpenter, IBM & iCAIR
> > Keith Moore, University of Tennessee
> > Bob Fink, Energy Sciences Network
> > ---
> >
> > Was this done "inside" the IETF ?
> >
> >
> > Jim Fleming
> > http://www.unir.com
> > Mars 128n 128e
> > http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
> > http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
> > http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
> > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html
> >
> >
>

Re: Connecting IPv6 Routing Domains Over the IPv4 Internet

[Jim Fleming]

Are all of the following people "in" the IETF ?

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/759/eboard.html
Editorial Advisory Board
  Dr. Vint Cerf
Sr. VP, Internet Architecture and Engineering,
MCI Communications, USA  
  Mr. David Farber
The Alfred Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunication Systems,
University of Pennsylvania, USA  
  Mr. Edward R. Kozel
Sr. VP, Corporate Development,
Cisco Systems, USA  
  Mr. Peter Lothberg
Network Architect,
Stupi AB, Sweden  
  Dr. Jun Murai
Professor, WIDE Project,
Keio University, Japan  
  Dr. Deepinder Sidhu
Professor, Computer Science & Electrical Engineering
University of Maryland Baltimore County
Director, Maryland Center for Telecommunications Research  
  Mr. Pindar Wong
Chairman and President,
VeriFi Limited, Hong Kong  

- Original Message - 
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "ietf@ietf. org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Connecting IPv6 Routing Domains Over the IPv4 Internet


> Yes it was. See the references at the end of the article you refer to. It
> clearly says that most of the documents were produced by the ngtrans
> working group of the IETF.
> 
> Ole
> 
> 
> 
> Ole J. Jacobsen 
> Editor and Publisher
> The Internet Protocol Journal
> Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems
> Tel: +1 408-527-8972
> GSM: +1 415-370-4628
> E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Jim Fleming wrote:
> 
> > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/759/ipj_3-1/ipj_3-1_routing.html
> > Connecting IPv6 Routing Domains Over the IPv4 Internet
> > by Brian E. Carpenter, IBM & iCAIR
> > Keith Moore, University of Tennessee
> > Bob Fink, Energy Sciences Network
> > ---
> > 
> > Was this done "inside" the IETF ?
> > 
> > 
> > Jim Fleming
> > http://www.unir.com
> > Mars 128n 128e
> > http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
> > http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
> > http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
> > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html
> > 
> > 
> 

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:01:03 PDT, Brian Lloyd said:
> threshing process.  I see entirely too little threshing going on in the 
> IETF these days.  I think we worry to much that people will get their 
> little feelers hurt.

Send them my way.  I'm renowned for my ability to tell almost anybody,
in excruciating detail, exactly why their idea is dumber than a box
of rocks. ;)

> So let 'em build their protocol, whatever it is, and bring it to the 
> IETF.  The problems with a really bad protocol can be extremely educational 
> and entertaining.  The elegance of a really good protocol can be extremely 
> educational and entertaining.  I don't see how we can lose.

Actually, a Really Bad Protocol is usually dreadfully excruciatingly
painful, unless somebody performs an MST on it.  For those not
familiar with it, see http://www.scifi.com/mst3000/ for the TV show,
or http://brie.bmsc.washington.edu/people/merritt/books/Eye_of_Argon.html
for an example of the concept.

Now, maybe if we had more protocol reviews like that... ;)

/Valdis

The IETF Sounds Like "The B.ORG"

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.trekcollective.com/borg.html

The IETF Sounds Like "The B.ORG"

http://www.trekcollective.com/borg.html
"The Borg are a species of half organic, half cybernetic organisms whose
sole purpose is to become perfect, and to offer others that perfection.
Offer is really the wrong word to use when referring to the Borg. They treat
all other races as inferior to theirs, and therefore assimilate, to use
their term, all species into their "Collective", believing that they are
giving that species what it really wants."

Does the IETF only develop perfect protocols ?

Is IPv6 perfect ?

Are -B.ORG Domain Names used by IETF Members ?

Is .ORG controlled by the ICANN BORG ?


Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html


- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brian Lloyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.


> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:01:03 PDT, Brian Lloyd said:
> > threshing process.  I see entirely too little threshing going on in the
> > IETF these days.  I think we worry to much that people will get their
> > little feelers hurt.
>
> Send them my way.  I'm renowned for my ability to tell almost anybody,
> in excruciating detail, exactly why their idea is dumber than a box
> of rocks. ;)
>
> > So let 'em build their protocol, whatever it is, and bring it to the
> > IETF.  The problems with a really bad protocol can be extremely
educational
> > and entertaining.  The elegance of a really good protocol can be
extremely
> > educational and entertaining.  I don't see how we can lose.
>
> Actually, a Really Bad Protocol is usually dreadfully excruciatingly
> painful, unless somebody performs an MST on it.  For those not
> familiar with it, see http://www.scifi.com/mst3000/ for the TV show,
> or http://brie.bmsc.washington.edu/people/merritt/books/Eye_of_Argon.html
> for an example of the concept.
>
> Now, maybe if we had more protocol reviews like that... ;)
>
> /Valdis
>

Need to do architecture. ???

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message - 
From: "RJ Atkinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.


> 
> It would be A Public Service if someone would setup
> a separate mailing list elsewhere for this thread so that
> we could return the IETF list to a normal mode.
> 
> Perhaps the new list could be named "ietf-politics",
> just to make the list's topics clear to all.
> 
> 

ftp://ftp.iab.org/in-notes/IAB/IABmins/IABmins.010508
12. IAB role/responsibilities

Revisiting our role -- we're not an IESG oversight committee; we're
not a politics body (no, really).  

Need to do architecture.  Need to reach across layers/boundaries
(which is sometimes hard; goes against grain).  Perhaps the IAB
could be the provoker of activities like writing up the APPS 
architecture, getting cross-pollination to happen.

Harald:  what is the picture that makes the pieces of architecture
we're asked to develop hang together?

Discussion has been interesting.  Should follow-up on it; perhaps
as an in-person discussion?  Ran suggests we could talk about
it in London, with a certain amount of pre-planning.  London is
a long time off, so we'll attempt to pursue on e-mail, as well.

--

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

[Einar Stefferud]

Hi Keith and all --

I have had my say, and will now exit the set,
so you can return to your preferred programs;-)...

I am an IETF outsider now by unilateral personal choice,
but I still truly love the basic principles that drove
the Internet while I was a directly engaged participant.

And I am doing what I can to employ those beloved IETF
principles in places more accepting of them, and of me.

Stay tuned;-)... News at 11;00;-)...

Cheers...\Stef

PS:  It was good to renew some old acquaintances
  in this thread, and I hope we don't have to
  wait another 5 years to connectg again;-)...

Cheers...\Stef

>At 19:33 -0400 25/06/01, Keith Moore wrote:

... ... ... ... ... ...