Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Wessels, Duane wrote:

>
> On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:28 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
[ snip ]


>
> Can you clarify, would you like to see a balance sheet, say, every meeting,
> every quarter, or once per year?
>
>
Meetings.

Best,

-M<
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Wessels, Duane wrote:

>
> On Sep 16, 2011, at 5:16 AM, Dave Temkin wrote:
>
> > Steve,
> >
> > Can you ensure that you have that budget available before the meeting,
> hopefully at least a week before?
> >
> > Also, can we have the numbers from NANOG 52 ASAP?
> >
>
> Dave and other Members:
>
> The slides for the financial report that I will give are now posted here:
>
> http://www.nanog.org/about/financial/documents/N53-Treasurer_000.pdf
>
>

Nice transparency.

Would it be possible to see a balance sheet as a standard going forward?
This is good. I'm more interested in a dashboard like report such as a
balance sheet than this board minutia. Not a complaint, suggestion. Thanks
kindly!

Best,

-M<
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Steven Feldman  wrote:

> [Apologies for cross-posting; it turns out many members are not on the
> nanog-futures list.]
>
> In our board meeting this week, we decided not to place this on this year's
> ballot.  We feel that as with other decisions regarding conference fees and
> discounts, this is best left as an operational policy decision rather than a
> corporate governance issue.
>
>

I lost the context in this thread related to this statement, but I'm not
sure why you need a ballot question related to day to day operations of the
organization. Less overhead == better.

Allowing volunteers that are elected and appointed to committee to have
their admission waived benefits the organization to some extent. It's likely
to widen the gene pool and provide NANOG v2 with some fresh meat, something
that we are sorely in need of and the main reason why I support this.

Best,

-M<
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Scott Weeks  wrote:
>
>
> --- s...@gibbard.org wrote:
>
> NANOG, or NewNOG, or whatever it ends up being called,
> --
>
>
>
> Has that already been decided?  It's most certainly not NA operators only.  
> GNOG? (global)
>
> scott
>



Gadi Evron actually had suggested that some number of years ago. :)

Best,

-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here

[Martin Hannigan]

[ snip ]


> The honorable thing for [snarf] to do would be to admit a mistake and
> donate the cost of membership to Merit
>

[ clip ]

If someone entered the meeting space without paying, I agree. If all of this
transpired in the hallways, I suggest that this topic is neither appropriate
for this or any other NANOG mailing list.

Both parties have their respective contact info and both live in the Bay
Area. Shouldn't be hard to get together and battle it out.

Best,

Marty
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here

[Martin Hannigan]

_All_ of the theoretically newnog presentations including the "pro forma"
presentation from 49 are still not online. If they are, they aren't in the
usual places (next to the agenda item). Sunday is. Monday is not.

Best,

-M<

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:

> > My issues are with how we got here.
>
> i have similar 'issues'.  quite serious ones.
>
> when i find a time machine, i plan to deal with them, among many other
> things.
>
> randy
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition Plan track will be webcast

[Martin Hannigan]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:

[ clip ]


>
> I tried to capture some notes from the session, but I'm sure I got people's
> names wrong; I posted my notes at
>
> http://kestrel3.netflight.com/~mpetach/2010.06.14-NANOG49-transition-panel.txt
>
> If you see names that are wrong, email me and I'll correct them; I'm sure
> there's lots of mistakes there.  ^_^;
>
>

Thanks for doing this!

Any chance we can get the presentation materials online so that they can be
reviewed remotely?

Best,

-M<
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition Plan track will be webcast

[Martin Hannigan]

When was the last time that they videotaped a security bof? I think you should 
go to the community meeting and rabble rouse there instead. They may need 
advice on pro formas. :)

Best Regards,

Martin



On Jun 14, 2010, at 12:16, Randy Bush  wrote:

>> For those interested, the "NANOG Transition Plan" session, scheduled
>> for 4:30-6:00pm Monday, will be webcast.
> 
> ahem.  i presume this will not interfere with the webcasting of the
> security session.
> 
> randy
> 
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Sean Figgins  wrote:

[ clip ]


>
>
> I believe that paid membership is the only way to actually have a real,
> valid membership.  Otherwise, it is just a crap shoot.  The way it
> currently is, we could have "members" that have no interest in NANOG as
> a organization.
>
>
Who is going to pay to join a mailing list?


Best,

-M<
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update

[Martin Hannigan]

Randy, you've made such a perfunctory action sound so important when it
really is not. Good work. :)

I'd be interested in hearing the vision, some high level idea of funding
needs and how they plan to satisfy that and how to go forward and when. All
while maintaining the key ingredient that made NANOG successful. Neutrality.
Anything more than that is premature and setting newnog and the rest of us
up for the bomb.

We're potentially losing the reputation, capital, credit and neutrality of
Merit. I guess we can walk away from Sunday thinking that this is reasonable
or "all your base are belong to us".


Best Regards and good luck,

-M<




On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:

> > Having served my maximum 4 years on the PC, I would characterize my own
> > experience with interaction between the respective parties SC PC and
> > merit as congruent with that of Dan's. I would observe that over my now
> > 13 year involvement with nanog that the community revolt that produced
> > the SC was probably the most important step in normalizing the the
> > various roles, raising the level of accountability, and eleminating the
> > arbirary exercise of power.
> >
> > while I'm disappointed with the progress so far I've been convinced that
> > the responsibility for the nanog activity needs ultimately to be
> > invested in the community and my opinion on suject hasn't changed since
> > the reform project began. Successful/unsuccessful interaction with the
> > merit organization has always been personalty driven, I have enourmous
> > respect for the work that carol and betty and david and sue have done,
> > but they work in this through the forebearance of merit.
>
> 
>
> but where the heck are pro forma financial projections for the new
> nanog?  we were to get them with lead time to actualy study and ask
> questions before now.
>
> randy
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update

[Martin Hannigan]

On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Andy Davidson  wrote:

>
> On 28 May 2010, at 08:15, Steve Feldman wrote:
>
> > The Transition Team would like to assure everyone that we are working
> hard to ensure a smooth transition from Merit to the new organization.
>  Members of the Transition Team flew up to Ann Arbor to meet with Merit in
> person, and planning is well under way.
>
> Please have a closed ballot all-community vote, if not open consultation
> before doing more work.  (I think the work you are doing is beneficial)
>
>
Is the meeting going to be broadcast and voting open to remote participants
following the "election" standards?

Best,

-M<
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Sean Figgins  wrote:

> On 5/31/10 7:44 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
[ clip ]

> Or are you talking specifically about a dedicated NANOG bank
> > account? If so, why? That seems like an implementation detail.
> >
> > Yes, I think that's right.
>
> I seriously doubt that there is a separate bank account for NANOG.  As
> part of Merit, this would not be needed unless someone outside of Merit
> was going to be spending the money.  Since all finances were handles by
> Merit in the past, and "account" would likely be a project ledger
> internal to Merit accounting.
>


The balance of the account, regardless of it's implementation, is probably
the [more] interesting issue.

Best,

-M<
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update

[Martin Hannigan]

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Joe Abley  wrote:

>
> On 2010-05-29, at 13:08, Daniel Golding wrote:
>
> > As I understand it, there is no merit nanog account. While such has
> > been talked about, it is evidently a myth.
>
> The fact that Merit have presented accounts for NANOG many times in the
> past demonstrates that there's a separate NANOG account at Merit, does it
> not?
>


Probably. It's likely that Merit has been talking about simple charts of
account or balance sheet accounts. These are standard accounting practices.
I've never seen anyone at NANOG state or imply through their presentations
that there were any seperation of funds from NANOG or Merit more than on the
books.



> Or are you talking specifically about a dedicated NANOG bank account? If
> so, why? That seems like an implementation detail.
>
>
>

Yes, I think that's right.

Best,

-M<
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG-announce] The Evolution of NANOG

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:56 PM, vijay gill  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Steve Meuse  wrote:
> > vijay gill expunged (vg...@vijaygill.com):
> >
> >> > I'll second that. I'll admit to my jaw dropping when I read the
> announcement, but I think it's the direction we need to go (and maybe even
> long overdue). Merit has done a great job, but I think the nature of the
> relationship has needed to change.
> >>
> >> Any specifics that required the nature of the relationship to change?
> >
> > Although Merit worked hard in recent years to take more of a community
> approach, in the end, Merit has final say on all things Nanog. In my
> personal opinion, that needs to change. Are we an independent community
> based organization, or a community based organization that has parental
> supervision?
>
> What were some specific issues.
>
>


+1



-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Moderated Post - SORBS...

[Martin Hannigan]

This thread is moderated from the perspective that there's a bunch of off
topic junk being spewed by some of the participants, or, this thread is
moderated and you are letting through relevant content?

SORBS is supposed to be an asset to network operators. They're integrated
into the network enough (mail, security, etc.) that we should be able to
discuss the shortfalls of SORBS.

I don't think that the SORBS discussion is all about email anymore. They
have become a liability to the network operator community and moderating
that discussion is FAIL, IMHO.

$.02


-M<




On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost <
mksm...@adhost.com> wrote:

> Hello Everyone:
>
> The thread "Sorbs on autopilot?" has been moderated.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Mike (on behalf of the NANOG CC)
>
> --
> Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP
> Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com
> w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050
> PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3  08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
>
>
>
>


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Disclaimers again (was Re: Fiber Cut in Italy)

[Martin Hannigan]

Deliberate top post. My non corporate account makes me do it.

I guess it's just as easy to craft your own filter, FWIW. Some of us don't
care about the disclaimers and would rather see the posters and choose to
ignore the disclaimers.

YMMV,

-M<




On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Jay Hennigan  wrote:

> Shrdlu wrote:
> > Top posting only because there's no point in making anyone who's already
> > seen it look at again. Can we please remind people in a friendly way
> > that a disclaimer of this length doesn't belong on a mailing list?
> > Frankly, if Hank hadn't responded by top posting, I'd have never seen
> > it, since it was trapped as spam at the server (which is as it should
> be).
>
> I usually append this to those who email me with such nonsense:
>
> http://www.west.net/~jay/disclaim.txt<http://www.west.net/%7Ejay/disclaim.txt>
>
> If it doesn't get their attention, I escalate to this:
>
> http://www.west.net/~jay/disclaim1.txt<http://www.west.net/%7Ejay/disclaim1.txt>
>
> --
> Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
> Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
> Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
>
> _______
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>



-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Jo Rhett  wrote:

> On May 1, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>> I think most of us are broad minded and appreciate common sense topics
>> related to network operations.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>  Most know what that is. No need to make
>> rules to assault the few, IMHO.
>>
>
>
> If they were few, this wouldn't be a topic.
>
> Perhaps you have time to sit and hit delete for a few hours every day
> before you find a single post relevant to your job.  I don't, and neither do
> any of the very clueful admins who don't even try to read Nanog once a
> month, like I do.  So the more noise, the less clueful content.
>

Email clients and newsreaders have been able to do this for the gentle
reader for at least a decade or more.  Hello?  spurred local
policy knobs for just about every protocol client out there and that was ~15
years ago now?

I use jzp's approach and have for some time. It is extremely effective "for
me". Try it.

Best,

Martin

-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Countermeasures for spam from "social networks"

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Joe Provo  wrote:

> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:51:45AM -0700, Steve Feldman wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> > Is this really enough of a problem to devote the MLC and Merit's
> > energy toward solving it?
> >
> > I do agree that if this really is worth the effort, filtering on the
> > subject will cause much less collateral damage than filtering on the
> > sender's domain.
> 
>
>
>
Eh. I think  has lost its relevance. You were there went it meant
something. It's (and other phraseology) cultural significance is less and
less everyday and is indicative of the nature of change that takes place on
the Internet, oh, every two years now I suppose. The more we can automate to
match "community" policy the easier it is to maintain and the more fair it
is to the users and the admins. No?

Best,

Martin

-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] observation on long delays

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:

> > SMS is probably the last line of defense for independent notifications
>
> but is not a very good broadcast/sbscribe medium, and is ridiculously
> expensive.
>
> randy
>



It can be. As far as the expense goes, I guess if you feel that it's worth
it to be notified of major events that are preventing your network from
emailing you the alert or you viewing them remotely is strictly "YMMV".

This economy is unlike dot com blowout of 2001. Then, we didn't see "much"
convergence of services to the net. Now, I think we are seeing a fairly
healthy amount of convergence push forward. That includes SMS. Fairly soon,
I suspect that nothing will be untouched by the sucess or failure of
Internet networking.

This thread, if continued, would probably be a good for the main list since
we're talking about messaging/alerting methods and realities now more so
than the future of the list, methinks.

Best,

Marty

-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] observation on long delays

[Martin Hannigan]

SMS is probably the last line of defense for independent notifications
of events, but even that uses the internet as an exchange mechanism
between carriers. The net is becoming on super SPOF. The recent CA
event comes to mind.

Lots of opportunities.

Best,

Marty






On 5/14/09, Randy Bush  wrote:
>> There must be a better way in 2009.
>
> interestingly enough, i am not sure there is.  maybe lucy's suggestion
> of twitter?  i have never looked at it.  but she says there are girls
> there!
>
> but i imagine twitter uses many of the same pipes and so forth that the
> rest of the net does.
>
> not an easy question.
>
> randy
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Countermeasures for spam from "social networks"

[Martin Hannigan]

The user does have to click on 'invite' and can select some or all
once the contact slurp occurs. My thought is that they opted to invite
everyone thus nanog getting invited. IIRC, Facebook, all mail portals,
and other like portals invite you to 'find' contacts on their system
this way. Mail portals will transition your mbox from one to another
using this method, FWIW. It is certainly a nice feature (no comment on
security).

Mailman can easily snatch phrases in subjects like stock social net
invites and 'out of office' or vacation messages. Probably with a very
high success rate as well requiring no intervention by admins.

Best,

Marty



On 5/15/09, Jay Hennigan  wrote:
> Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>> The NANOG list got hit this morning by spam from facebook, using
>> the forged address of a subscriber.  Any number of "social networks"
>> are using this tactic -- grabbing the address books of members and
>> then spamming every address in them on behalf of their latest
>> victmember.
>
> Which begs the question as to whether it was truly forged, or whether
> the subscriber followed the link to "Give us your email account password
> so we can spam your entire address book" which is default (mis)behavior
> on such sites.
>
>> They know that this approach will likely hit any/all mailing lists
>> in the address book, which is why they forge the sender address:
>> it's more likely to get through to lists which use the sender address
>> as a form of validation.
>
> I'm not sure if I would call that a forgery if the address owner
> willingly (albeit cluelessly) supplied the credentials to his email
> account and instructed the spa^H^H^Hsocial networking site to "invite
> all of these addresses".
>
> Yes, Facebook, etc. putting up a website asking for people to supply
> their email username/password is dead wrong.  Perhaps not as egregiously
> wrong as putting up a website asking for people's banking
> username/password, but wrong.  As Mr. Barnum observed, about every 60
> seconds someone will fall for either or both.  I am *somewhat* surprised
> that it would happen *here* of all places.
>
> --
> Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
> Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
> Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] observation on long delays

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Randy Epstein  wrote:

>
> >> NANOG was never meant to be an outages list.
>
> >[ citation needed ]
>
> Mission from the NANOG charter:
>
> "NANOG is a small venue in which technical matters pertaining to network
> operations and network technology deployment in Internet providers may be
> discussed among experts. Such discussions have in the past focused on, but
> are certainly not limited to, experiences with new protocols and backbone
> technologies, implications of routing policies on the Internet as a whole,
> measurement techniques and measurements of Internet health and performance,
> areas in which inter-provider cooperation can be mutually beneficial (such
> as NOC coordination or security incident response), and maintaining a
> competitive and level business environment."
>
> Maybe I misspoke or was at least too broad in my statement.  Suffice it to
> say that 40 messages with traceroutes to a website that is having server or
> software related (and not network or backbone related) issues generating
> 400,000 emails being sent out to NANOG list members (in a period of 2
> hours)
> is probably one of the reasons list emails are taking 40 minutes to reach
> some members.
>
> There must be a better way in 2009.


I'm surprised that anyone would think that NANOG _is_ a real time issues
list [anymore]. It's lost that luster for some time. It certainly used to be
and no clued NOC could get by without monitoring NANOG very closely.

http://www.irbs.net/internet/nanog/9510/0146.html



>
>
> I know Google is a significant website and relied upon by millions of
> end-users, but I just don't see value in seeing traceroute upon traceroute
> from users all over the globe to 10,000 members.


There isn't much value in the endless sea of traceroutes IMHO, but there is
value in being aware of a problem. It's reassuring to know that the hundreds
of thousands of phone calls that just started coming in related to a search
engine problem is not necessarily originating from your own network.
Regardless, the calls won't cease, you'll be able to handle them more
confidently which lends itself to a more cost effective global response, no?



>
>
> Maybe I'm wrong.  Open for discussion ..


Not wrong. Thanks!


>
>
> Randy
>

Marty



-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Randy Bush  wrote:

> > This problem has  become a cyclical event which seems to cause a rash
> > of finger pointing at the MLC whenever it pops up. This results in
> > some 'action'. That action is usually like using reload as a
> > workaround to a hardware problem instead of replacing the buggy code.
> > The result is what we keep discussing: same stuff different day and a
> > not so job for Kris et al.
> ^ (happy|good|pleasant|achievable|.*)
>
> i agree.  we set them up for abuse and a choice between failure modes.
> they can not win.
>
> > How about a filtered(proactive) -and- an unfiltered(reactive) feed?
>
> works for me, though i am not sure what you mean by "reactive" beyond my
> using the delete functions.
>
> randy
>


Dean.


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Martin Hannigan]

This problem has  become a cyclical event which seems to cause a rash
of finger pointing at the MLC whenever it pops up. This results in
some 'action'. That action is usually like using reload as a
workaround to a hardware problem instead of replacing the buggy code.
The result is what we keep discussing: same stuff different day and a
not so job for Kris et al.

How about a filtered(proactive) -and- an unfiltered(reactive) feed?

Best

Martin



On 5/12/09, Jared Mauch  wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2009, at 2:22 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> clearly we have returned to a regime where folk think that
>> censorship is
>> the way to improve what they see as the appropriate content of the
>> nanog
>> list.
>>
>> as part of that, the mlc is now saying "there is a list for that,
>> ."  if someone would do us a favor and accumulate a list of these
>> lists, one could subscribe to them, unsubscribe from nanog, and dump
>> the
>> new lists into the same inbox.
>>
>> i, for one, am ready.  i have a delete key for messages that do not
>> interest me.  but i do not have an undelete for messages which censors
>> do not think i should read.
>
> I am concerned about the recent trend of thread moderation.  I can
> assure you this has the attention of the SC.
>
>   - Jared
>


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Martin Hannigan]

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Jo Rhett  wrote:

> On May 1, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>> Loudness != majority
>>
>> I think most of us are broad minded and appreciate common sense topics
>> related to network operations. Most know what that is. No need to make
>> rules to assault the few, IMHO.
>>
>
>
> While I agree with your points in theory, Martin, I would ask that you do
> an actual analysis of useful content on NANOG.  I did one some months ago
> based on a week's backlog of Nanog in my mail folder, and found (quoted from
> an e-mail I sent to someone at the time)


Jo,

My analysis would come out dramatically different than yours. That's would
be the point.

Best Regards,

Martin


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] IPv6 and Home user allocations

[Martin Hannigan]

Feel free to come over to ARIN's PPML list and make the policy and the case.


Best,

Martin



On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Scott Weeks  wrote:

>
>
> --- si...@darkmere.gen.nz wrote: --
> From: Simon Lyall 
>
> Does anyone want to do a FAQ covering the issues as to why home users
> should get a /64 vs /56 vs /48 etc?
>
> Pop me an email.
> ---
>
>
>
> ARIN is in effect forcing it by not giving even close to enough addresses
> to give home users a /48.  I just got my IPv6 allocation today and am
> shocked.  What's all that crap about 'think big', so you only need one entry
> in the global tables in the forseeable (10-20 years) future?  I believed it.
>  :-(  Right now I have over 100,000 DSL customers with telephone numbers,
> more without TNs and a lot of leased line customers.  I received 65536 /48s.
>  All the folks that are core in this technology spouting /48s for everyone
> on the main list need to stop.
>
> scott
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
> -
>
> _______
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>



-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Martin Hannigan]

There are many 'websites' or apps relevant to netops.
-keystone
-rupe ncc monitoring
-potaroo
-large portals (mail, communities, etc)
-search engines

If "I"  had posted about equifax.com being down this would not be a
topic. If Rod Beck did it, he'd get banned. You can't moderate style
or personality tweaks for us. That's what killfiles are for. .

Two posts about websites? Guys. For real?

Can't we all...just...hit delete?



On 5/1/09, Scott Weeks  wrote:
>
>
>> --
>> exactly how many more posts do we want before it's stopped?
>> --
>
>> That's the subjective part, which we can discuss here on, perhaps, a
>> case by case basis.
> --
>
> The MLC will not be able to function effectively if it must first
> reach consensus with nanog-futures for each case. We are looking for
> community input into, and ongoing refinement of, the policies that the
> MLC operates under.
> ---
>
>
> Ok, I see that was an obvious DOH! on my part.  I guess it'll have to be
> up to you folks.  I believe if we do the below, though, a significant
> portion
> of OTN will stop.
>
> - First, tell everyone the thread needs to stop and give it a little time.
> - Tell everyone the thread will be moderated and give it a little time.
> - Do it.
>
> Fundamentally, though, as others have mentioned the delete key is fine.
>
> The above is only my suggestion for the *painfully* long OT threads. Some
> of those friggin` threads seem to be 100s of posts long over several days.
>
> scott
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
> ---
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Martin Hannigan]

Third-Fourthed.



On 5/1/09, Paul Ferguson  wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Gadi Evron  wrote:
>
>> Steve Feldman wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I honestly don't mind seeing the occasional newbie question,
>>> especially if there are polite and intelligent responses pointing to
>>> answers.  (See http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg17639.html
>>> for an example.)  And my delete key can deal with the occasional joke
>>> or otherwise off-topic comment.  (We already have a working process to
>>> deal with chronic abusers.)
>>>
>>> What bugs me is when these degenerate into long-lived off-topic
>>> threads, and that's where I'd like to see the MLC's effort focused.
>>>
>>>   Steve
>>
>> I think Steve's comments speak well for me as well. I second what he
>> said and believe it is representative of consensus from what we heard so
>> far.
>>
>> Anyone else seconding this?
>>
>
> I agree with Steve, too. :-)
>
> - - ferg
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003)
>
> wj8DBQFJ+3Tuq1pz9mNUZTMRAoTEAJ9pOZNtkKxeFt8s2YFYB2JgjAjtOwCgzbeB
> jg1ISfrEvQBF5+rj80ln8Yo=
> =Ipsj
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>
> --
> "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
>  Engineering Architecture for the Internet
>  fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
>  ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Martin Hannigan]

And

Loudness != majority

I think most of us are broad minded and appreciate common sense topics
related to network operations. Most know what that is. No need to make
rules to assault the few, IMHO.


On 5/1/09, James R. Cutler  wrote:
> On May 1, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
>>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't NANOG about network operations
>> rather
>> than routing? With routing naturally being the main point of interest?
>> --
>> Gadi Evron,
>> g...@linuxbox.org.
>
>
> Thanks, Gadi.
>
> Some on this list appear to believe that the NANOG list is only for
> router operations and only for large networks. Cisco and Jupiter user
> forums are places for this. Together, these suggest that the NANOG
> list should disappear.  THIS IS INCORRECT! ("Strongly worded message
> to follow.")
>
> "The North American Network Operators' Group! NANOG is an educational
> and operational forum for the coordination and dissemination of
> technical information related to backbone/enterprise networking
> technologies and operational practices."
>
> In my almost two decades involved in enterprise networking: Naming and
> Addressing Management, DNS Service, DHCP Service, Mail Routing both
> via MX, using directory services, and through firewall systems, and,
> mail delivery systems (post offices) were all network operations
> concerns, especially as the network evolved to meet changing
> technology and especially changing company and client needs.
>
> I do agree that some are lazy and prone to use the NANOG list as first
> resort in troubleshooting. As noted in other messages, a simple "This
> information is available at ." would be useful, but not repeated
> "This is off topic.", which to some extent itself is off topic for the
> NANOG list. Let the MLC send gentle reminders to keep us on track.
> That is a major part of the MLC responsibility. Is not mine or Bob's
> or Ted's or Alice's.
>
> James R. Cutler
> james.cut...@consultant.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Simon Lyall  wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > Not such a great idea. A down search engine is an operational problem
> > whether its application or network. It makes lots of phones ring and
> > finger pointing at our networks. This costs us money.  Same for major
> > mail products.
>
> I would expect these to be covered on the outages list and site:
>
> http://www.outages.org



There are lists for a ton of other nanog topics as well. And?


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Martin Hannigan]

Not such a great idea. A down search engine is an operational problem
whether its application or network. It makes lots of phones ring and
finger pointing at our networks. This costs us money.  Same for major
mail products.

Delete key?





On 4/30/09, Simon Lyall  wrote:
>
> A policy idea that has been put forward, thoughts (especially from
> lurkers) ?
>
> Simon
> NANOG MLC
>
> Policy re individual sites
> ==
>
> The availability and operation of specific Internet site such as websites
> and email services is off-topic unless:
>
> (a) The problems are caused by network reachability rather than problems
>  at the site hosting the service.
> (b) The Internet site is a route-server or similar service which
>  directly supports network routing and connectivity.
>
>
>
> --
> Simon Lyall  |  Very Busy  |  Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/
> "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
>
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] ADMIN: Reminder on off-topic threads

[Martin Hannigan]

Most of the gripes involving Gadi aren't about the content, they are
about the style. If Gadi wrote some of the sec-ops related posts for
Steve Bellovin to post to nanog-l we'd be nominating Steve for some
award that he hasn't already received..

If you don't want to read him, you really don't have to. Ignoring
posters is a discipline mastered with practice. :-)

Maybe we could try not to make issues about individuals, but content?
Much more of an interesting and intellectual discussion worthy of our
pressed and valuable time IMHO.



On 4/23/09, Jo Rhett  wrote:
>> On 23-Apr-2009, at 13:56, Jo Rhett wrote:
>>> Gadi, everyone here understands that you want NANOG to be a all-
>>> things-
>>> Gadi-wants-to-talk about.
>
> On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
>> Personally, I find the ad-hominem attacks against gadi (of which
>> this is a surely mild example) far more annoying than anything gadi
>> has posted to this list or the main one in the past few years.
>
>
> It wasn't meant as an attack.  I hope it wasn't interpretted that way.
>
> Gadi has fairly often made lists of things which he cares about, and
> thinks are relevant to network operations, that aren't strictly so.
> I was typing quickly and that was the phrase which popped out of my
> fingers in an attempt to refer to "all the things Gadi thinks are
> related".
>
> And it wasn't specific.  Nanog shouldn't be everything-Jo-wants-to-
> talk-about or everything-Randy-wants-to-talk-about or anything else.
> It's focus should be on the ONE topic, and related topics are better
> covered in their own mailing lists.
>
> --
> Jo Rhett
> Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
> and other randomness
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] ADMIN: Reminder on off-topic threads

[Martin Hannigan]

Moderation has never worked well. Personal choice, killfiles, are optimal IMHO.

Best,

Martin



On 4/23/09, Gadi Evron  wrote:
> Cat Okita wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Gadi Evron wrote:
>>> facts need to be aligned. What we are not happy with is how moderation
>>> works.
>>
>> Speak for yourself ;>  I'm quite sure that I'm not a part of the 'we'
>> you mention here.
>
> Indeed! ;)
>
> To be clear, "we" includes me and others who spoke here who believe
> moderation is not working well.
>
> But let us try and look at what we do agree on:
> 1. MLC is doing a good job.
> 2. Things are much better now.
>
> Does that narrow our disagreement to how moderation is done in practice?
>
>   Gadi.
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Fwd: ADMIN: Reminder on off-topic threads

[Martin Hannigan]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Gadi Evron  wrote:

> Simon Lyall wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> >> is the distinction the mailing-list-admin folk are making one of:
> >>
> >> 'you need to do X,Y, Z to make your website secure'  (on-topic)
> >>  vs
> >> 'your website is hacked' (not on topic)
> >
> > Well personally I meant:
> >
> > " Isn't this list about routing and BGP rather than writing your php
> >scripts correctly? "
>
> NANOG is a community.
>
> See how operators finally see it as relevant and email in on issues they
> actually deal with? Be it an attack or DSL subscribers handling.
>
> According to the charter list of acceptable topics (which I can't find
> anywhere, anymore), quite a few ISP operational issues were on topic,
> including security. Not just BGP/routing.


+1


[ clip ]


>
> I do like that all of us who have to / had to take care of large hosting
> operations can discuss major botnet threats.
>
>

 +1

-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Joel Jaeggli  wrote:

> So, in the distant past we (there are several we's in this case)
> experimentally deployed IDSes and or inline sniffers with the permission
> of merit staff under the requirement that all the data collected be
> destroyed when the meeting was over. Some of these experiments resulted
> in the announcement of results, some were simply to get an understanding
> of dense wireless network deployments, deal with rogue systems, or
> evaluate the technology.
>
> Like I said, I could see alternatives and circumstances were other
> approaches would be appropriate, But I would probably not avail myself
> of an experiment where the result to be for example a published set of
> flow data or catch-all packet traces from the meeting.
>
>
That's the beauty of full disclosure? :-) Seems like history warrants this
as well. I have been lucky enough to not have had my password captured (as
far as I am aware) during these experiments and then have it broadcast
during the meeting. :-)

I'm thinking opt-in with data required to be under CC licensing and shared
with attribution seems responsible and valuable to the community.


Thanks for the follow-up!


Best,

Martin

-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

[Martin Hannigan]

Its pretty easy to assign a Creative Commons license to the work and
share it, for example. What could the possible objections be?

Best,

Marty

On 4/9/09, Joel Jaeggli  wrote:
>
>
> Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Joe Provo > <mailto:nanog-...@rsuc.gweep.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback - please do keep it coming!  We'll pop out
>> an updated draft to reflect the concensus when some equilibrium is
>> reached, but just to comment on some of the questions and points
>> raised so far (both on-list and off):
>>
>>
>> - Costs were intended to be covered under the "Have finite and
>>  well-defined requirements for support [...]" (WRT static/sunk
>>  costs of labour, etc) and "a statement regarding resources the
>>  proposer is committing to supply" (WRT money or specific equipment
>>  needed for the experiment).  The draft will be updated to make
>>  both more explict.
>> -
>>
>>
>>
>> It would be interesting to suggest that a copy of all raw data collected
>> to be provided back to the community so that they too could share in the
>> research or create derivatives from it (with proper attribution for all
>> work product of course).
>
> As a goal that's exactly the opposite of how we've done it in the past.
> not sure that it's necessarily a bad idea, just saying.
>
>> Best,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
>> <mailto:mar...@theicelandguy.com>
>> p: +16178216079
>> Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> Nanog-futures mailing list
>> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
>> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

[Martin Hannigan]

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Joe Provo  wrote:

>
>
> Thanks for the feedback - please do keep it coming!  We'll pop out
> an updated draft to reflect the concensus when some equilibrium is
> reached, but just to comment on some of the questions and points
> raised so far (both on-list and off):
>
>
> - Costs were intended to be covered under the "Have finite and
>  well-defined requirements for support [...]" (WRT static/sunk
>  costs of labour, etc) and "a statement regarding resources the
>  proposer is committing to supply" (WRT money or specific equipment
>  needed for the experiment).  The draft will be updated to make
>  both more explict.
> -



It would be interesting to suggest that a copy of all raw data collected to
be provided back to the community so that they too could share in the
research or create derivatives from it (with proper attribution for all work
product of course).

Best,

Martin


--
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

[Martin Hannigan]

I agree with it as well. I think that a caveat related to "costs" should be
added though. Costs of experiments should be borne by the experimenters. Our
attendance fees are already high and should probably not support efforts
that all attendees are not going to participate in. If the costs are sunk,
like labor or volunteers, and Merit will allow it at no additional cost to
the budget that seems fine. If any other costs are to be borne in assuring
that we all have our work access available and the experiment split, those
costs should be covered by them, IMHO.

Best,

Martin


On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Brzozowski, John <
john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com> wrote:

> Joe,
>
> I for one am happy to see this proposal.  At a glance the policy appears to
> be reasonable.  Conducting experiments where so many qualified and
> interested participants are present is mutually beneficial to those
> participating as well as those organizing the activities.
>
> John
> ---
> John Jason Brzozowski
> Comcast Corporation
> e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
> m) 609-377-6594
> ---
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Provo [mailto:nanog-...@rsuc.gweep.net]
> Sent: Tue 4/7/2009 9:47 PM
> To: nanog-futures
> Subject: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy
>
> Heya,
>
> There have been periodic inquiries for network-based experiments
> on the NANOG conference network.  While there is a serious benefit
> to be gained by experimenters exposing their projects to the NANOG
> attendees, there is a need to balance that with meeting attendees
> having a functional network during the conference.
>
> We'd like to hear the community's opinion on this. The SC has
> drafted a "Network Experiments" policy based on prior experience
> and what we think our conference attendees need to have available
> while on-site.  Please see the attachment below and share your
> opinions and suggestions.
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> --
> RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
>
>
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>



-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] An opinion re:issues with heavy-handed moderation

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Jo Rhett  wrote:

> This message is intended for Joe Provo and other members of the
> steering committee.  I am not replying to Gadi.
>
> On Apr 6, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
> >   1. Threads are moderated with no notice to person or mailing
> >  list, or availability for examination.
>
> I have been moderated on the list recently.  I received notice that I
> was moderated, and on consideration of the topic I agreed with the
> moderation.   Honestly there should be more moderation rather than
> less ;-)



So the list is delayed for people to examine posts and let them through
after they've been read or is that something specific to a poster?

Best,

Martin
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG-announce] Election reminder - charter amendments

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Steve Gibbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Philip Smith wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Please take a moment to look at the current charter amendment proposals
>> for the October ballot at:
>>
>>  http://www.nanog.org/charter/
>>
>> If you have comments on the proposals, please post them on the
>> nanog-futures list or send them to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the next few days.
>
> A and B lok fine to me

Same.

> Most of the charter clean-up thing (C) looks fine to me.  I notice that
> the last clean-up point in C turns the power the membership has currently
> to recommend changes to the charter into the power to actually change the
> charter.

That sounds fine to me.

-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Let's Multiply!

[Martin Hannigan]

And Facebook, and LinkedIn, and Mocospace, and MySpace, and Spock, and
Flickr, and twitter, and

I've  wittled them down to three that I consider most useful or best
in class:. LinkedIn for business, Facebook for socializing, and
Multiply for pictures.  There are NANOG groups on LinkedIn and
Facebook.

Sounds like a great merger candidate to me.

-M<



On 6/4/08, Ren Provo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course there are many folks up at http://nanog.multiply.com if Alfred
> really wanted to connect...
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Jim Popovitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Alfred Farrington II (via Multiply)
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Check out my Multiply site
>>
>> Thanks Alfred, also thanks for the private request too.
>>
>> You're best defense on this is going to be a) claim stupidity, b)
>> claim someone got your password and took over your PC, c) claim it
>> wasn't you.
>>
>> Best wishes, (NOT!)
>>
>> -Jim P.
>>
>> ___
>> Nanog-futures mailing list
>> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
>> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>>
>

-- 
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG] [NANOG-announce] Mail List Committeeannouncement

[Martin Hannigan]

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:13 AM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Why should there be a political atmosphere? It's a conference
> and a mailing list.

Addressing the only valid point that you've had related to the list or
the conference in, oh, a decade or so, I'd say "bingo".

-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG] [NANOG-announce] Mail List Committee announcement

[Martin Hannigan]

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Jim Popovitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone wrote:
>> To resolve the issue of accuracy...
>
> How about, in order to progress, everybody (EVERYBODY!!) ignore
> how we got here and focus on the future.   These NANOG bickering
> sessions are making some here look like their own children.
>


They did the right thing, and yes, I agree. It's time to move on.

-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG] [NANOG-announce] Mail List Committee announcement

[Martin Hannigan]

Haha. I can't believe I'm going to respond to the ASR alias, but ok, I will.

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Paul Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:07 AM, Philip Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The Steering Committee has unanimously agreed to start afresh with the
>> composition of the Mail List Committee. There has been a long term, and
>> ongoing, conflict within the MLC that had made it essentially
>> dysfunctional. The SC would be derelict in our duty to allow this to
>> continue any longer.
>
> Why don't you just admit the truth, that the MLC was hijacked by a single
> out-of-control member, one Martin Hannigan. Rumor has it that Mr. Hannigan

Not quite accurate, Chip. I advocated my position that the community
didn't want certain things and stuck by the presentation that was made
in Albuquerque. I interpreted that to mean that what appeared to be
consensus was what y'all wanted as policy. Would you expect any less?

> has been busy trying to bring his lawyers onto the MLC calls, and has
> threatened to sue Merit for defamation if any of the actual minutes discussing
> the situation were published. Is that why the SC is taking the cowards way
> out, and trying to blame the entire MLC for the actions of one individual?

Well, not accurate again. :-)  Of course there was a "lawyer" comment,
but you're out of context. The actual comment was in something that
started out as fairly ridiculous to begin with. Here's my followup
quote:

"It was meant to be facetious. I think that some of this stuff has
gotten fairly ridiculous to be honest."

> Rumor also has it that the rest of the MLC voted and unanimously requested
> that Marty be removed on multiple occasions, but the SC and Merit weren't
> willing to step up to the plate and handle the situation. I can't imagine why

Not accurate again. Who's your source, Sparky? I volunteered to resign
at the last meeting in order to quell any sort of mass disruption
based on my perception of what y'all wanted in terms of list policy.
Trust me when I say that some of the things being proposed as list
policy behind the scenes was quite ridiculous. I'm completely at peace
with that. NANOG isn't the five of you who think that the world
revolves around you.

> anyone would want to volunteer for the MLC in the future considering this
> treatment, and I second Mr. Seastrom's calls for the SC to do the honorable
> thing and commit seppuku.

The symptom is a sore throat. It's been treated with a cough drop. The
problem is an infection. Shifting the blame is not the anti biotic.

All I can offer as an observance is that there are multiple commercial
conflicts with members of the SC, myself, other members, and the
community. Creating a political atmosphere in NANOG is not working
because of the commercial conflicts.

But I do think that the SC, finally -- /cough cough no hernia push
harder/, did the right thing.

Hey Paul, why don't you put your money where your big mouth is and
step up to the plate and try and make everyone happy being on the MLC?
Volunteer?


-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG] in the subject line

[Martin Hannigan]

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 5, 2008, at 10:39 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
>  > On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 07:20:17AM -0700, Lynda wrote:
>  >> It is something that mailman offers, but there was certainly no
>  >> need to
>  >> use it. I manage mailing lists that do, and ones that don't.
>  >> Personally,
>  >> I'm in favor of *not* doing it.
>  >
>  > I strongly concur.  Subject-line tagging is a poor practice and
>  > frequently
>  > results in confusion when messages are sent to multiple lists or are
>  > forwarded.  As in this very message, for example.  The right way to do
>  > this (and it's already being done for NANOG lists) is with List-Id in
>  > the headers.
>  >
>  > Further reasons why subject-line tagging is a bad idea are here:
>  >
>  >   Subject Header Tagging Considered Harmful
>  >   http://www.l33tskillz.org/writing/tagging-harmful/
>
>  
>
>  Is this a vote thing?  Perhaps should we just buttonhole the MailMan
>  admin @ NANOG and either ply him/her with alcohol until they see the
>  error of their ways, or beat them into submission?
>


I don't think that it's a problem to modify it, but we need to let the
list of needs/want/dislikes build a bit before we introduce another
change. I'm sure some people did opt to filter based on [NANOG] and it
will be yet another annoyance to them to modify the list behavoir
again.

Mailman does provide a tag for filtering and it's embedded in the
headers in the form of:

  List-Id: NANOG 

Is there anything else that people want to have considered related to
list behavoir? No guarantees, but we should be able to accomodate most
requests.


-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG] [NANOG-announce] NANOG43 in Brooklyn Registration & Hotel -- Cheap rates going going ...

[Martin Hannigan]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  On 28 Apr 2008, at 17:58, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>  > and telia I think also has v6 dualstack available, 701 does in some
>  > 'major markets' ... NYC being one I believe, Jason Schiller could
>  > comment on the correctness of this point.
>
>  My experience with 701 is that v6 is definitively available for the
>  purposes of responding to RFPs, but in practice when it comes to
>  implementation it's difficult to find the person who knows what it is,
>  or how to make it go.

Same for multicast, fwiw.


-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG] [NANOG-announce] NANOG43 in Brooklyn Registration & Hotel -- Cheap rates going going ...

[Martin Hannigan]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Todd Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> y'all,
>
>
>
>
>  > Until then, I'd appreciate it if some extra effort could be expended
>  > in figuring out how to get some v6 content into the program as we
>  > move forward.
>
>  yeah, i got that from your first question a couple of weeks ago.
>  noted.  we'll ask the usual suspects (again) if they have someting new
>  or interesting.


Thanks! I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG] [NANOG-announce] NANOG43 in Brooklyn Registration & Hotel -- Cheap rates going going ...

[Martin Hannigan]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Todd Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> y'all
>
>
>  On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 09:43:54AM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>  > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Todd Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > > randy,
>  > >
>  > >  On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 12:12:24PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
>  > >  > [ moved to futures ]
>  >
>  > [ snip ]
>  >
>  > >  marty:  did you submit or recruit any talk on anything at all that you
>  > >  think was misjudged by the PC? did you suggest to someone on the PC
>  > >  that we recruit a specific talk that we didn't follow up on?  if so,
>  > >  please let me know immediately and we'll try to get more on the ball
>  > >  for nanog 44 in LA.
>  >
>  >
>  > I think most people see this as a deflection and will take it for
>
>  defensive much?  :-)

No, but the copy of 'How to be a Gentleman' that I purchased last year
advised me that I should not stoop lower than the person who
egregiously addressed me. I think it worked. :-)

I understand that your views are differing from mine on this, I've
seen your anti-v6 talks, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't ask you
about it as the "program chair". I read the ABQ survey. I'm not sure
how you came up with a lack of interest on the attendees part. It
looked like a mandate to me.

If you want to continue to challenge me to come up with the v6
content, I'll be happy to.  Make it official. There's no need to
flame, bait, or attack otherwise. I'll be happy to suffer your abuse
in that capacity. Until then, I'd appreciate it if some extra effort
could be expended in figuring out how to get some v6 content into the
program as we move forward.


Best Regards,

Martin

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG] [NANOG-announce] NANOG43 in Brooklyn Registration & Hotel -- Cheap rates going going ...

[Martin Hannigan]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Todd Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> randy,
>
>  On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 12:12:24PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
>  > [ moved to futures ]

[ snip ]

>  marty:  did you submit or recruit any talk on anything at all that you
>  think was misjudged by the PC? did you suggest to someone on the PC
>  that we recruit a specific talk that we didn't follow up on?  if so,
>  please let me know immediately and we'll try to get more on the ball
>  for nanog 44 in LA.


I think most people see this as a deflection and will take it for that
so I'm not going to address any inference that I alone am responsible
for v6 content at NANOG.

If you would like me to champion ipv6 talks and ipv6 keynotes for
NANOG, you can always put me on the PC. Let me know when I start. I'm
probably willing to put up with more than Jordi was so drop me a line.

-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Fwd: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Please confirm (XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)]

[Martin Hannigan]

Obviously not intended to work this way.  There's some bugs to work
out in despamming. Merit is on it.  Majordomo was in place for a
decade plus so getting everything to match perfectly is a small
challenge.  So far, so good, and good to know about this. Thanks.

Marty



On 4/25/08, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 2008, at 8:31 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
> > It appears that "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is using a challenge/response
> > system
> > (see below).  This is an extremely bad idea -- so bad that I'm
> > surprised
> > that NANOG personnel aren't already well aware of it.  (It's common
> > knowledge among most of those working in the anti-spam field.)
>
> You didn't read the actual e-mail below, did you?  "To confirm that
> you sent the message below, simply reply to this email message."  So I
> guess your message did not get confirmed :)
>
> I'd call it a bad joke, but not a barrier to interaction with the
> admins.
>
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick
>
>
> > See, for example:
> >
> > Challenge-Response Anti-Spam Systems Considered Harmful
> > http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/challenge-response.html
> >
> > Vastly superior anti-spam methods which do not result in outbound
> > abuse are available, well-documented, and easily implemented.
> > If NANOG needs assistance with that, I'm sure any number of us
> > would be happy to help out.  But the C/R mechanism should be
> > disabled immediately, before it's used to abuse third parties.
> >
> > ---Rsk
> >
> > - Forwarded message from NANOG Admins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> >
> >> From: NANOG Admins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: Please confirm (X)
> >> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:59:37 UTC
> >>
> >>
> >> This is an automated message.
> >>
> >> The message you sent (attached below) requires confirmation
> >> before it can be delivered.  To confirm that you sent the
> >> message below, simply reply to this email message.  You
> >> do not need to modify anything in this message.  Once this is
> >> done, your original email will be forwarded and no more
> >> confirmations will be necessary for future messages.
> >>
> >>
> >> --- Original Message Follows ---
> >>
> >> Received: from taos.firemountain.net ([207.114.3.54])
> >> Received: from squonk.gsp.org (bltmd-207.114.17.169.dsl.charm.net
> >> [207.114.17.169])
> >> Received: from avatar.gsp.org (avatar.gsp.org [192.168.0.11])
> >> Received: from avatar.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> >> Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> >> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:56:11 -0400
> >> From: Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: In re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Never seen before! Gucci Prada
> >> Chanel,
> >> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>
> >> (Original message truncated)
> >>
> >
> > - End forwarded message -
> >
> > ___
> > Nanog-futures mailing list
> > Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
> >
>
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] default routes question or any way to do the rebundant

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:41 PM, David Barak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>  --- On Fri, 3/21/08, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > And the MLC didn't bother responding to either (until
>  > this). And
>  > probably won't respond further. Of course, my
>  > colleagues can say what
>  > they want, but I don't see any reason why someone
>  > can't ask for clue
>  > help.
>
>  Exactly.  We were all n00bs once, and we all benefited from folks 
> willingness to do things that aren't their job to help us learn.  As an MLC 
> member, I read the post and consciously decided not to consider it a problem. 
>  I think that gently answering questions and then pointing folks to more 
> relevant places is a good approach.



That's an even better idea. I don't know of any newb lists (although I
should be on a few :). Where would we point them? Isn't this what
cisco networkers is for, for example?

-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] default routes question or any way to do the rebundant

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Donald Stahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > By charter nothing is off-topic on -futures, but that doesn't mean the
>  > current content is not a ridiculous waste of time.
>  Rob,
>
>  The messages in question were posted to NANOG not -futures.


And the MLC didn't bother responding to either (until this). And
probably won't respond further. Of course, my colleagues can say what
they want, but I don't see any reason why someone can't ask for clue
help.


-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Charter and crossposting.

[Martin Hannigan]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Simon Lyall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
> > On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote:
>  > > On Mar 14, 2008, at 11:46 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>  > >
>  > >  > There's no new charter, just SOP's. But yes, it is against the AUP.
>  > >  > Let me see if the authors of these valuable reports can fix that with
>  > >  > a BCC.
>  > >
>  > >  BCC'ing the other lists is still cross-posting.
>  >
>  > The intent IIRC to discourage threads across multiple lists of
>  > thousands and thousands of people. BCC would seem to be consistent
>  > with that intent.
>
>  In that case people filtering by using the "To: " header so the emails
>  would not be correctly filtered.

Subject: ? Is there some reason why it will be so horrible to change
your filter?

>  Also what exactly is the need to send 3 emails to several lists every week
>  when no discussion on them is expected (at least not on most of the
>  lists) ?

Speaking for this list, we do occasionally see discussion and
sometimes resolution based on that discussion. Is there some reason
that this report should not come to the list?

>  Another type of email that might be sent to several lists would be CFPs
>  for Network Organisation meetings.

Ok.


>  In any case the current policy doesn't reflect current practice so one or
>  both needs to be modified.

Feel free to propose some language to do that.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Charter and crossposting.

[Martin Hannigan]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2008, at 11:46 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>  > There's no new charter, just SOP's. But yes, it is against the AUP.
>  > Let me see if the authors of these valuable reports can fix that with
>  > a BCC.
>
>  BCC'ing the other lists is still cross-posting.

The intent IIRC to discourage threads across multiple lists of
thousands and thousands of people. BCC would seem to be consistent
with that intent.

-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Charter and crossposting.

[Martin Hannigan]

There's no new charter, just SOP's. But yes, it is against the AUP.
Let me see if the authors of these valuable reports can fix that with
a BCC.

Thanks,

-M<




On 3/14/08, Simon Lyall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I notice that the charter (both and and the new proposal) explicitly bans
> crossposting to the list. However every week we get:
>
> The Cidr Report   - Crossposted to 4 others lists
> BGP Update Report - Crossposted to 5 others lists
> Weekly Routing Table Report   - Crossposted to 5 others lists
>
> Could either the policies (now and future) please be updated to either
> allow these or could the mailing list admins please take measures to stop
> them occuring.
>
>
> --
> Simon Lyall  |  Very Busy  |  Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/
> "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
>
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>

-- 
Sent from Google Mail for mobile | mobile.google.com

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Mailing list procedures for review by the NANOG community

[Martin Hannigan]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Martin Hannigan wrote:
>  > Folks, I'm seeking some commentary on the following document that may
>  > help us to make incremental improvements in the operation of the
>  > mailing list.
>  >
>  > http://www.fugawi.net/~hannigan/nanog-mlcp1-1.pdf
>  >
>  > Please reply here or privately.
>
>  Yeah, I object to the additional exposition present in the aup (page 2)
>
>  if I lay it (the proposed text) along side the existing text the tenor
>  of the former does not match the later.
>
>  the old is here.
>
>   Acceptable Use Policy
>
> 1. Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical
>  issues as described in the charter of NANOG.
> 2. Postings of issues inconsistent with the charter are prohibited.
> 3. Cross posting is prohibited.
> 4. Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and
>  lack of respect for other participants are prohibited.
> 5. Product marketing is prohibited.
> 6. Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are
>  prohibited.
> 7. Using list as source for private marketing initiatives is prohibited
> 8. Autoresponders sending mail either to the list or to the poster
>  are prohibited.
>
>  For some reason my feeble brain is having trouble extracting the text
>  from the current pdf so that's left as an exercise to the reader...

Not surprising, but what I am getting from your comment is that some
may think that this is  an AUP rewrite. Not. We already did that. I'll
add a reference to the existing AUP and make sure that the points are
one for one.


[ snip ]


-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] [BULK] Re: Mailing list procedures for reviewby the NANOG community

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:17 AM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>

>  I realize that the MLC doesn't issue a lot of warnings, but that
>  is partly because they don't want to feel like policemen. Perhaps
>  they would intervene more often, if they had some carrot-like
>  tools in their arsenal as well as the big stick.
>

The MLC issued SIX formal warnings last quarter.

-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] [BULK] Re: Mailing list procedures for review by the NANOG community

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 5:26 AM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  > http://www.fugawi.net/~hannigan/nanog-mlcp1-1.pdf
>  > http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0802/presentations/community-pilosov.pdf
>  >
>  > If you compare those, I think that's night and day, don't
>  > you?
>
>  Yes, I agree. If you look through Alex's presentation it says
>  things like:
>
> MLC is not the list police - we expect
> community to self-moderate
>
>  and:
>
> Guiding the conversation without stifling
> the discussion
>
>  and:
>
> New initiatives
> - Thread summaries - time-intensive
>
>  But your document about MLC procedures doesn't seem to cover
>  those things but focuses on POLICING activities.

Most of those phrases have been lifted from my earlier presentation(s)
since Las Vegas NANOG where we had the first mailing list report as a
de-facto MLC so I don't have any issues with it. Pro forma, I'm not so
sure that they belong in the procedural doc, but make the proposal
with the complaints.

This isn't my document. It's yours.


-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Mailing list procedures for review by the NANOG community

[Martin Hannigan]

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 12:34 AM, Adam Rothschild
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-03-02-18:05:11, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > Folks, I'm seeking some commentary on the following document that may
>  > help us to make incremental improvements in the operation of the
>  > mailing list.

http://www.fugawi.net/~hannigan/nanog-mlcp1-1.pdf
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0802/presentations/community-pilosov.pdf

If you compare those, I think that's night and day, don't you? Is
there something else that you meant to reference? I'd love to do a
diff of whatever people consider procedures from ABQ, to SJC, to this
current proposal.

Best,

Martin

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Mailing list procedures for review by the NANOGcommunity

[Martin Hannigan]

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 4:50 AM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://www.fugawi.net/~hannigan/nanog-mlcp1-1.pdf
>  >
>  > Please reply here or privately.
>
>  Law Enforcement and DMCA Designated Agent
>  NANOG Mailing List Committee
>  c/o Merit Network, Inc.
>  1000 Oakbrook Drive
>  Suite 200
>  Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-6794
>  Telephone: (734)764-9430
>  Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>  This is just plain weird. Is this some kind of legal requirement in the
>  USA? Has anyone ever posted any copyrighted material to the NANOG list?

Probably.

>  Given the short size of email messages, wouldn't any copyrighted
>  material be considered to be "fair use" quotations?

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know. It's in there for operational use. I
was using examples so I kept it. It may not be needed.

>  It wouldn't hurt to clarify the AUP with specific examples but the added
>  text in this document is wishy washy and detracts from the short punchy
>  nature of the AUP itself.

What specifically is wishy washy?

>
>  On the other hand, a statement like:
>No Differentiation
>The MLC will consider all policies equal.
>  isn't punchy at all. It's just meaningless and I wonder why it is in the
>  MLC processes.

Historically, there was a belief that some AUP items were more
important than others and it had been codified in other documents.

>  For that matter, given that this is an MLC operational procedure
>  document, why is it repeating the AUP at all?

It doesn't have to. It's there are a reference and I tried to make the
rationale give it some text so that there is a common understanding of
why an item may exist to make support decisions more consistent.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

[Nanog-futures] Mailing list procedures for review by the NANOG community

[Martin Hannigan]

Folks, I'm seeking some commentary on the following document that may
help us to make incremental improvements in the operation of the
mailing list.

http://www.fugawi.net/~hannigan/nanog-mlcp1-1.pdf

Please reply here or privately.


-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Countdown Timer

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Hannigan wrote:


>  > The question that is posed is do we want a professional and non
>  > intrusive method of indicating time to a presenter, and if that
>  > includes an improvement in broadcasting sound (mics), do we all agree
>  > that this is a worthwhile investment?
>

[ snip ]

>
>  Having a facility the helps the speakers is desirable in my mind.
>

Thanks.

-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Countdown Timer

[Martin Hannigan]

Thanks. The idea is to have a consistent, repeatable, staff run system
that is able to be used from the media station in the back of the room
independent of the PC. It's not their job to run the sound boards and
we pay for this service as part of the administration fee that Merit
charges against the revenue. The dsan (or other pro manufacturer)
systems are designed for conferences.

The question that is posed is do we want a professional and non
intrusive method of indicating time to a presenter, and if that
includes an improvement in broadcasting sound (mics), do we all agree
that this is a worthwhile investment?

I'd say yes.

-M<


On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Matt Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We could probably gain the countdown support with a hacked ybox2, see 
>    >.
>
>  As for the "lapel" mic support, I agree this would increase the
>  professional value.  Please see my ASIN ACSP request 2008.9 which
>  attempts to address this (FYI, ARIN contracts out to Merit to do their
>  webcast's with same gear)    >.
>
>  --Matt
>
>  On Feb 28, 2008, at 8:31 PM, William Norton wrote:
>  >
>  > They also found a way for the speaker not to have their laptop screen
>  > flipped open preventing the audience (or the video camera) from seeing
>  > their face.  They made sure the speaker didn't have their badge on, as
>  > it would flash the lights reflection to the video camera. I also like
>  > that they wired the clip on microphones under your shirt so you would
>  > see the wires nor pull out the microphone accidentally. Very
>  > professional.
>
>

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Hannigan wrote:

[ clip ]

>  > The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft
>  > lighting of cue lights seems "less" intrusive, but they sure are damn
>  > expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a
>  > system for < $10 + 9v.
>
>  Alternate attempts at improvisation are of course welcome... ;)
>


I did swing by Radio Shack. It can be done, but then I thought about
it and the professional queue system was < $1500. I think that Merit
should make an investment in it to improve the conference and speaking
experience. It would be well worth it in terms of making things run
smoother.

The name of what appears to be the leading company in cue lights is
DSAN, and I think that the PC could come up with the requirements and
then select a proper system.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

[Martin Hannigan]

>  >> It's distracting when the speaker
>  >> gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are
>  >> needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks.
>  >

[ clip ]

>  When I mc part of the program, I have a powerpoint slide deck with 10 5
>  and 1 minute markers which I place in the plane of view of the speaker
>  at the appropriate moments. Not sure if the lightning talks speakers
>  appreciate that but monday 12:00-13:00 ran smoothly.


Thanks for sticking your computer in front of us while we're talking?

The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft
lighting of cue lights seems "less" intrusive, but they sure are damn
expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a
system for < $10 + 9v.


-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Question about "permanent bans"

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen Wilcox wrote:
>
>  >> Assign right of review to the sc without guidelines as to when or how
>  >> review might occur.
>  >
>  > yes altho i would make sure that review occurs periodically.. these
>  > things are highly unusual (1 person in all these years) so i don't
>  > think it hurts to keep things in the discussion every few months. i
>  > was on that MLC and was disappointed it had to be that way
>   >
>  > you may even want to try unbanning some time just to test the water,
>  > that would seem to be within the spirit of things, no?
>
>  I would think that the basis for reconsidering an indefinite ban as the
>  individual having suitably rehabilitated themselves in the eyes
>  community. A ban should not be punishment for past misdeeds, rather a
>  preclusion from future ones.
>
>  The idea of a general amnesty at key inflection points is not a bad one.
>  But revolutionaries can decide on their own whether throwing open the
>  doors of the bastille is a good idea or not.
>

I'm not proposing that Dean come back. He's incorrigable. We need to
provide a method to allow for what we've done and to allow the SC to
do what they do. House cleaning. In the procedures doc that I am about
to post after I get initial thoughts on a few nagging questions, I
address just that and define a procedure that has a permanent ban
being "recommended" by the MLC but enacted upon by the SC. Blah blah
blah. Etc.

-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

[Nanog-futures] Question about "permanent bans"

[Martin Hannigan]

Do folks think that we ought to do a charter amendment to allow for
permanent bans? That seems like a huge issue and that we may want to
get an up or down vote. The way we would address it is either adding
it as a "power" of the MLC, or even the SC -- then right a non charter
procedure to develop "the how".

We have one person banned "for life and a day" and we don't seem to
have a way to address that. We addressed it in v.01 of the MLC where
we wanted the decks cleared of bans and added everyone back in, but
then we were forced to "re-ban" said miscreant.

Please advise.

Marty (MLC)

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Pete Templin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>  > Let me rephrase. I'm always skeptical when I hear terms like "a lot of
>  > people told us..." or "everyone feels like" or "there's support for
>  > xyz".
>  >
>  > Who feels like that? Who supports xyz? Who told us? One PC member just
>  > put someone into "context" so I think it's fair to make sure we put
>  > the entire issue into context.

>  Context?  Let's see if that commentary makes it into the survey.  If it
>  does, great.  If it doesn't, we have at least one datapoint that
>  indicates that hallway polling is beneficial feedback which is not being
>  captured (offered?) into the surveys.

That is a good point.

>  > I will restate it. I support the Peernig BoF. Can we now do other
>  > things like figure out how to not let marketing talks slip into the
>  > program?
>
>  Any ideas on how to achieve that?  Only thing I can think of is a PC

I'll try and think of a few. I think that the one I'm thinking about
was a surprise, and you can't really know what every speaker is going
to say or do when they get to the podium. It may not be solvable in
that "context".

>  post-conference review of the talks that were accepted and a comparison
>  to the PC's opinions and comments of the slide presentations submitted.

I did fill out a survey noting my concern. There was one other
concern, now that we are in context mode,  that I think could be
helpful for the PC to evaluate when reviewing all of the things that
they could review to get some more results.

The lightning talk expansion is great. The format is "ok". I think
that we should expand the time for lightning talks to include a 10
minute Q/A period at the end of the period instead of trying to cram
questions into the end of the 10 minute time slot. We could take
questions for all of the talks at the end period. I received questions
about my talk in the hallways that the entire group did not get the
benefit of (or the boredom in listening to) the answers. We might also
want to invest in a timer that moves from green/yellow/red based on
the alloted time. I noticed that some people were held to a rock solid
standard, others weren't. It's distracting when the speaker gets
verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are
needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks.

>
>  (Interesting observations come to mind though: ex-MLC members have told
>  me to 'put up or shut up' when trying to discuss how continental borders
>  should influence on/off-topicness, but now a current (last I checked)
>  MLC member thinks "we" should figure out how to police the talks.  Such
>  a varied group are we.)

I don't understand the correlation, but I'm not suggesting that we
police talks from down here in the castle moat.

Were you literally tossed out of the room? What's up with that?


Best Regards,

Marty

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Steve Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>  On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:51 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>  > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Ren Provo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  > wrote:
>  >> We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway
>  >> discussions.
>  >>
>  >
>  > I agree with the first two, but not the last. That's the clubby part.
>
>  I disagree with this assessment of the hallway discussions.
>
>  One of the things I really admire about the current PC is how they
>  actively engage people between and after sessions to solicit feedback.
>  It would be a mistake to ignore this, just as it would be a mistake
>  to ignore any other form of input.
> Steve


Let me rephrase. I'm always skeptical when I hear terms like "a lot of
people told us..." or "everyone feels like" or "there's support for
xyz".

Who feels like that? Who supports xyz? Who told us? One PC member just
put someone into "context" so I think it's fair to make sure we put
the entire issue into context.

I will restate it. I support the Peernig BoF. Can we now do other
things like figure out how to not let marketing talks slip into the
program?

Best,

Marty
-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

[Martin Hannigan]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Ren Provo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway
> discussions.
>

I agree with the first two, but not the last. That's the clubby part.

-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

[Martin Hannigan]

Joel spewed:

>I think it would be remiss of the pc to not review the status of
>program elements. That would be an abrogation of the >responsibility
invested the pc by the charter.

>Further I believe that PC review of a popular and successful >program
element would be with the goal of helping it grow.


Can we see the procedure that you're going to make up to do this first?


-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

[Martin Hannigan]

>Hallway discussions this past week in San Jose suggest some would
like to see a more diverse >selection of topics at the very least.
>Bill was asked on Wednesday not to make commitments until we, the
NANOG PC, are able to review >feedback and perhaps expand the cramped
format into a track.

Leave it alone. The one comment that I have to contribute for Bill is
he should attempt to see if there's a way to make it not so clubby.
Other than that, I support it being left alone unless there is a real
problem.

Bill should consider proposing the solution himself. I'm sure he can find one.

-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] [admin] Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal

[Martin Hannigan]

Sorry, I'm a only a member of Sports Club LA. Any other clubs will
have to get in line and be on topic while they wait.






On 1/26/08, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > [Randy removed, he's in my killfile]
> >
> > By all means, volunteer to serve on the MLC if you prefer to drive
> > from the front.
>
> The Montagnards prefer to sit in the middle at the back.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mountain
>
> I think the MLC actually works about as well as we envisioned when we
> fomented revolution.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/26/08, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Randy Bush wrote:
> >>> Martin Hannigan wrote:
> >>>> Folks, we'd like to ask that this thread die a quick and painful
> >>>> death. It's gone off topic and it seems to have run whatever short
> >>>> course that it tried. While what Europe does is interesting to us as
> >>>> network operators, this is European policy and off topic for NANOG.
> >>> right!  none of our packets go over there and vice versa.
> >> none of our packets have ip addresses in them ;)
> >>
> >>> randy
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Nanog-futures mailing list
> >>> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> >>> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>

-- 
Sent from Google Mail for mobile | mobile.google.com

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] [admin] Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal

[Martin Hannigan]

[Randy removed, he's in my killfile]

By all means, volunteer to serve on the MLC if you prefer to drive
from the front.





On 1/26/08, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randy Bush wrote:
> > Martin Hannigan wrote:
> >> Folks, we'd like to ask that this thread die a quick and painful
> >> death. It's gone off topic and it seems to have run whatever short
> >> course that it tried. While what Europe does is interesting to us as
> >> network operators, this is European policy and off topic for NANOG.
> >
> > right!  none of our packets go over there and vice versa.
>
> none of our packets have ip addresses in them ;)
>
> > randy
> >
> > ___
> > Nanog-futures mailing list
> > Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
> >
>
>

-- 
Sent from Google Mail for mobile | mobile.google.com

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Turning mime off???

[Martin Hannigan]

On Jan 2, 2008 12:16 PM, Sean Figgins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lynda wrote:
> > Okay, so we've moved to mailman for nanog. Mailman has a nice feature
> > that will turn all rich text/mime/html garbage into nice honest text.
> > Any chance that it will be implemented? It's one of the things I like
> > about mailman. It certainly makes mailing lists more pleasant, and has
> > the bonus of reducing the size of the archive (plaintext takes up far
> > less space).
>
> It also reduces the size of the digest version, if anyone chooses to use
> the digest instead.
>
> I just checked the headers, though, and believe that the main list is
> still using majordomo.  This list has been mailman for a while, so I
> assumed that it was being evaluated for function of mailman vs. majordomo.
>


We should be advertising the changes to the list and vet what few core
options need to be vetted.


-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Get those presenations in for NANOG42 please

[Martin Hannigan]

It was a legit question and I thought exactly the same thing about it
going to the list and was checking before I forwarded it.
  When I do speak as someone
from the MLC, Ill say so. I usually do.
   May have been easier to ask what I meant before jumping the gun.

On 12/4/07, Robert E. Seastrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Martin Hannigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is the second time someone from the Program Committee has posted
> > something that seemed to be asking for something to help our success
> > or informing people about standard (revenue generating even) functions
> > of NANOG and that they believe that these types of emails related to
> > the conference program are not relevant to the main list.
> >
> > Why is that?
>
> First, it was a post to -futures; whether or not it was off-topic for
> the main list is completely beside the point.  Even if it was on the
> main list though (and frankly, I think it SHOULD HAVE been posted to
> the main list), this is a CFP for *our own conference*.  How on earth
> could it be "not relevant to the main list"?
>
> Please do us all a favor and stop undermining the credibility of your
> colleagues on the MLC with this tripe.  Looking for opportunities to
> twist the words of the AUP does not serve anyone's interests.
>
> ---Rob (no longer on the MLC, no hat)
>
>
>

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Get those presenations in for NANOG42 please

[Martin Hannigan]

On Dec 4, 2007 1:19 AM, vijay gill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/3/07, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is the second time someone from the Program Committee has posted
> > something that seemed to be asking for something to help our success
> > or informing people about standard (revenue generating even) functions
> > of NANOG and that they believe that these types of emails related to
> > the conference program are not relevant to the main list.
>
>
> Marty, put down the rock made from crack.

Stop holding the torche then. Really, it's innocuous. I'm just asking.

-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Get those presenations in for NANOG42 please

[Martin Hannigan]

This is the second time someone from the Program Committee has posted
something that seemed to be asking for something to help our success
or informing people about standard (revenue generating even) functions
of NANOG and that they believe that these types of emails related to
the conference program are not relevant to the main list.

Why is that?

-M<




On Dec 3, 2007 1:09 PM, Ren Provo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> This is a reminder to submit presentations for NANOG42 in San Jose, CA
> to be held February 2008.  Quality abstracts have been arriving over
> the past month.  A few people promised to send along presentations in
> December.  If anyone has a work in progress to submit please do so
> now.  The program committee will meet this week to pull together the
> rough draft of the agenda for NANOG42.  We have confirmed a keynote
> speaker and several interesting panels are on the schedule already.
> We have some flexibility for tutorials on Sunday and a few general
> assembly speaker slots at this point.  There will be blocks for
> lightning talks each day and you may submit presentations in advance
> of February.  This is a good thing based on survey info.   Our goal is
> to set forth a solid agenda for folks to utilize when mulling travel
> requests this month.
>
> http://www.nanog.org/presentations.html is the best location to review
> for complete submission guidelines.
>

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage

[Martin Hannigan]

On Nov 28, 2007 1:33 PM, Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> > > To clarify this discussion, I'd like to point out that the bounce in
> > > quesiton was from a private email from Marty to J.Oquendo.
> >
> > In response to a post from the list. Same exact thing we have setup with
> > this autoresponder policy.
> Please don't confuzzle things. Was it an email *to* the list or was it
> private email to J.Oquendo?

Is his mail bouncing or not? You seem to like to apply standards to
things based on how you want to react. So far, I've been reading
Dillon, Bush, Oquendo, whine about being asked to be on topic. We've
had agreement on Bush's bad behavoir here before, Dillons as well, not
Oquendo, but he over-reacted based on a message that he did not see
which he didn't know about -- since he didn't see it. To date, nobody
has been warned. :-) It's amazing that challenging someones validity
causes such a ruckus.

>
> It doesn't matter what it was in response *to*. Private email between list
> members is not covered by AUP. In case this still isn't clear, if I send a
> private email response to someone in response to their list post that
> contains off-topic information, that's not the AUP violation. To insist
> that any email between list members need to comply to AUP is silly.

Um. That's what happens when someone elses mailer responds to yours
and mail doesn't route through Merit's mailer. It's conversation
between your assets and mine. If Merit were somehow involved, you
might be right.

To the list, as a result of a list post, etc. They work exactly the
same as far as I can tell.

-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage

[Martin Hannigan]

On Nov 28, 2007 1:18 PM, Gregory Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:11:14 -0800
> > From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage
> >
> > > Should we remove this person or not?
> >
> > why?  just because he calls you on your bs?  pfui!  pick on someone your
> > own size.
>
> It seems to be a cut and dried case of "mail bouncing".  If mail
> bounces, the address is "not good" and should be removed.
>
> I would NOT remove him for the content of the messages though but for
> mail connectivity.  (White listing could have solved the connectivity
> issue.)
>


Not for the content. Randy is a little excitable since he and the SC
have been marginalized for the most part. AUP Item #8 seems to apply.
I'm asking if it's what people really want.



-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage

[Martin Hannigan]

On Nov 28, 2007 1:17 PM, Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> > > So let me get this correct, I who decided to use an rbl/ubl/spam filter
> > > am in the wrong, or is it the provider who blacklisted the IP space in
> > > the wrong.
> >
> >
> > Should we remove this person or not?
> >
> > ---begin
> >
> > Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Technical details of permanent failure:
> > PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 13): 554 Service unavailable; Client
> > host [209.85.132.240] blocked using unconfirmed.dsbl.org;
> > http://dsbl.org/listing?209.85.132.240
> >
> > ---end
> To clarify this discussion, I'd like to point out that the bounce in
> quesiton was from a private email from Marty to J.Oquendo.

In response to a post from the list. Same exact thing we have setup
with this autoresponder policy.

-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage

[Martin Hannigan]

On Nov 28, 2007 8:20 AM, J. Oquendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>

[ clip ]

> Alright, let me clarify a lot of things here in regards to
> my posting and I hope you'll take the time to read it in order
> to get a glimpse of me and my posting(s).
>
> >> Technical details of permanent failure:
> >> PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 13): 554 Service unavailable; Client
> >> host [209.85.198.190] blocked using ubl.unsubscore.com; Sender has
> >> sent to LashBack Unsubscribe Probe accounts
>
> So let me get this correct, I who decided to use an rbl/ubl/spam filter
> am in the wrong, or is it the provider who blacklisted the IP space in
> the wrong.


Should we remove this person or not?

---begin

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Technical details of permanent failure:
PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 13): 554 Service unavailable; Client
host [209.85.132.240] blocked using unconfirmed.dsbl.org;
http://dsbl.org/listing?209.85.132.240

---end


-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Fascist police force or team of gardeners?

[Martin Hannigan]

On Nov 27, 2007 10:47 AM, Paul Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> >http://www.infiltrated.net/nanogpolice.jpg
>
> Hey, that's a keeper. ;-)

It's been around since my first go at the MLC, but I think it pre-dates me. :)

-M<

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: mail operators list

[Martin Hannigan]

But if such a list were created, I wouldnt participate in its
operation, mlc or otherwise. I have a day job.  Bill can use filters
to make his own life easier.

On 10/30/07, Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, William B. Norton wrote:
>
> > > 'people who actually matter' is hard even when we are talking about
> > > network operations, which doesn't attract kooks and heated opinions
> > > anywhere as much as any subject dealing with mail or spam. Let's try to
> do
> > > that with nanog-list first.
> > >
> > > alex [nanog mlc chair]
> >
> > Since you and Marty are both including the 'mlc' labels in your sigs,
> > I read your posts as the MLC position is to not allow such an
> > experiment.  Am I reading that correctly? (As opposed to just another
> > nanog-future voice chiming in with an opinion.)
> We haven't discussed it on -admin or voted, so it is not an official
> position of MLC. However, it is my opinion as MLC chair.
>
> That being said, there's no problem discussing it on -futures, I can
> always change my mind when confronted with a cogent argument :)
>
> In addition, my understanding is that MLC doesn't decide on adding new
> mailing list anyway - we just enforce the policy as set by SC and merit,
> reference charter 7.1.3: "The NANOG organization may also run other
> Internet-operations-focused mailing lists and/or bulletin boards, at the
> discretion of the Steering Committee and Merit."
>
> So, it doesn't really matter if it is my personal opinion, my opinion as
> ML chair, or MLC's voted-upon opinion, it isn't up to MLC ;)
>
> -alex
>

Re: PC idea

[Martin Hannigan]

Oh, misunderstood. Audience "dig". Nice idea.

-M<



On 10/16/07, Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> lightning talks PLUS(tm)(r)(c) - Steve Gibbard
>
> . Talk for 10 minutes, audience gets to vote for additional 5 minutes
>   should they wish the talk to continue and ask questions.
>
> - jared
>
> --
> Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.
>

Re: PC idea

[Martin Hannigan]

Maybe the candidates that are here could get to stand up and make a
pitch? They werent afforded that in the C/M.

-M<


On 10/16/07, Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> lightning talks PLUS(tm)(r)(c) - Steve Gibbard
>
> . Talk for 10 minutes, audience gets to vote for additional 5 minutes
>   should they wish the talk to continue and ask questions.
>
> - jared
>
> --
> Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.
>

Re: autoresponders, take 12345 (was Re: [nanog-admin] [Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: Sun Project Blackbox / Portable Data Center])

[Martin Hannigan]

> > And not helpful. The community needs to make up their mind.
>
> and the answer to my question?

Do you support the AUP or not?

Re: autoresponders, take 12345 (was Re: [nanog-admin] [Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: Sun Project Blackbox / Portable Data Center])

[Martin Hannigan]

On 10/15/07, Lucy Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Alex Pilosov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> >
> >> And to unconfuse you, consensus was reached with you in 100% agreement
> >> with myself, and Merit.
> > Not on autoresponders, sorry, Marty - you can feel free to ask Betty if
> > autoresponders were even discussed.
> >
> > This silliness is a direct result of not having documented minutes that
> > agreed upon by those present. I apologise to -futures readership for
> > having to wade through this and to clarify: Marty, me and Betty
> > representing Merit (3 out of 5 voting MLC members) have met prior to the
> > community meeting and have reached consensus on the proposed modified AUP,
> > which was subsequently presented by Marty at the community meeting. This
> > said AUP is now up for SC to be approved.
>
> URGH! This is why, in IETF land, decisions are discussed in meetings
> but consensus is reached on a mailing list (where you have some hope
> of a record). I'm confused now.

The last thing we need is IETF like processes. This is not the IETF.

> "I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to
> scorn human actions, but to understand them" -  Baruch Spinoza

And not helpful. The community needs to make up their mind.

-M<

Re: autoresponders, take 12345 (was Re: [nanog-admin] [Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: Sun Project Blackbox / Portable Data Center])

[Martin Hannigan]

On 10/15/07, Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> > On 10/15/07, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > As far as easily filterable - I will disagree. I do not have time to
> > > > maintain filters for each person's variation of the vacation email, or 
> > > > 'no
> > > > longer with the company'.
> > >
> > > the community has gone through this discussion twice and came to the
> > > same conclusion.  two meetings ago, the sc asked the mlc to adjust
> > > some wording slightly to meet the community agreement.  can we just
> > > execute?
> >
> >
> > This is better resolved through a formal vote that can include the rest
> > of us and I think that it should be proposed during the _next_ cycle.
> >
> > You already have a formal proposal and you have it in your hands
> > (submitted) to either accept or reject.
> To unconfuse everyone: Randy or SC doesn't have it in their hands yet - I
> haven't notified steering@ of the results of the votes on -admin yet.
> Doing so now.
>


And to unconfuse you, consensus was reached with you in 100% agreement
with myself, and Merit.

Re: autoresponders, take 12345 (was Re: [nanog-admin] [Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: Sun Project Blackbox / Portable Data Center])

[Martin Hannigan]

On 10/15/07, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As far as easily filterable - I will disagree. I do not have time to
> > maintain filters for each person's variation of the vacation email, or 'no
> > longer with the company'.
>
> the community has gone through this discussion twice and came to the
> same conclusion.  two meetings ago, the sc asked the mlc to adjust some
> wording slightly to meet the community agreement.  can we just execute?


This is better resolved through a formal vote that can include the
rest of us and I think that it should be proposed during the _next_
cycle.

You already have a formal proposal and you have it in your hands
(submitted) to either accept or reject.

It's all up to you now. And it is now time to show some leadership.


-M<

Re: [nanog-admin] [Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: Sun Project Blackbox / Portable Data Center]

[Martin Hannigan]

On 10/15/07, Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Sean Figgins wrote:
>
> > 1) Any auto responder message that is sent to the list will get the
> > sender of said vacation message kicked off the list.  They are welcome
> > to come back when they fix their mail program
> >
> > 2) Any auto responder message that is sent to the "owner" email address
> > will be treated as a bounce message, and the sender of the message will
> > be unsubscribed according to the bounce policy.  Again, they are welcome
> > to come back when they have their mail program fixed.
> >
> > 3) Any auto responder message that involves two subscribers of the
> > mailing list, but does not involve the list itself is not within the
> > realm of NANOG MLC, and is between the two individuals.
> >
> > That said, if a mail program is sending a "vacation" message to the
> > "From:" header address instead of the "Sender", "envelope sender" or
> > "return-path" addresses, then their mail program is broken.  If
> > operating properly, a list member should never see an auto-response from
> > anyone that they have not emailed directly as either the "To", "CC" or
> > "BCC" recipient.  Never should they see it if they are only sending to
> > the nanog@ or nanog-futures@ email addresses.
> ^^^this case is the one we are discussing. The mail program is broken ->
> does it merit removal of subscriber from the list until mail program is
> fixed?
>


Mail between two users is mail between users. Mail that hits the list
is mail that is list mail. All of these responses seem easily
filterable at the user level. In fact, it takes more effort to
complain to us than it does to complain to the user, which seems to
make it a waste of time for everyone involved. Again.




-M<

Re: proposed NANOG charter amendments

[Martin Hannigan]

On 9/27/07, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Openness and transparency is what I hope to achieve by having this
> > conversation here. I'm not withholding answers; I'm just not
> > understanding the question :-)
>
> perhaps we need a charter amendment that says there will always be
> someone to blame. the actual problem/proposal itself is uninteresting as
> long as we can scream at and excoriate someone.
>
> i suggest we get back to discussing the actual content of the proposal(s).

I've already said many times in the past that the MLC chair should be
a part of the SC in some capacity. This codifies it so that is a
requirement. That's fine.

The PC thing is window dressing.

The issue that arises from it is that there ought to be a requirement
that if you are going to make a proposal, claim that you have support,
etc. that we have names instead of broad statements like the one
above.

> in this case, as you know from my implication, i am more with bill; less
> code is better code.

There's less code. :-)

-M<

Re: proposed NANOG charter amendments

[Martin Hannigan]

On 9/27/07, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 27-Sep-2007, at 1716, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> > The authors of these things should be identified in case we want to
> > vote them out of whatever they were voted into.
>
> Could you be more specific? I'm not sure what "these things" means,
> in this context.
>


Wrong focus. Try open and transparent instead.


-M<

Re: proposed NANOG charter amendments

[Martin Hannigan]

On 9/27/07, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 27-Sep-2007, at 1618, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > if we need this level of detail, then
>
> Thanks, Randy.
>
> It has also been suggested (as you allude) that this level of detail
> is unnecessary micromanagement, and that a better approach is just to
> strike the whole paragraph, and leave the PC to organise themselves
> as they see fit.
>


The authors of these things should be identified in case we want to
vote them out of whatever they were voted into.

-M<

Re: AUP/autoresponders, rehashed

[Martin Hannigan]

On 6/13/07, Bill Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Sweet zombie jesus, this is the stupid thread that's ever, for lack of a
better term, graced this list, and I think I was even party to the
predecessor.

I am eternally in your debt for bringing us this new low.


Don't worry, Bill. Your off topic spew will never be beat. This
was an error in auto completion. Plain and simple.

http://atm.tut.fi/list-archive/nanog/msg37551.html

Please, by all means, carry on.


Cheers,

-M<

Re: AUP/autoresponders, rehashed

[Martin Hannigan]

On 6/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[ clip ]


> > If you disagree, and think that autoresponders are ok, I'll make sure
> > to set one up just for you ;)
>
> My argument is mostly social, in that we don't need, or want, the admins
> taking punitive positions on anything when the users can do it
> themselves.



Users can't remove others who have autoresponders from mailing list.


But they can killfile the most standard error messages "out of office"
and sink people who are repeat offenders. But that's if they even
post. This means that the vast majority of users are unaffected. All
but a few. And some that haven't posted in years. How are they getting
these messages?


> To put it bluntly, along with that, don't you have anything better to
> do?



This is the top thing on my todo list. :)



How unfortunate. You mischaracterize the original debate you weren't
present for, you infer that the SC is holding you back because of the
AUP, you received no consensus on any changes, Randy brought this
particular issue up at the meeting for about 5 seconds and consensus
was challenged in that there was barely anyone in the room _and_
nobody has done any work to get anyone to participate,  and you think
this is empowerment to act? You act on an issue that affects about 5
people once every 2 years and you ignore the massive overload on the
list of off topic posting?

This would be called a step backwards.

-M<

Re: AUP/autoresponders, rehashed

[Martin Hannigan]

On 6/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> On 6/12/07, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [ snip - nanog isn't the tvtf, and you are right, it's subjective ]
>
>
> > > I don't suppor it. I am disturbed by the language shift too. We made
> > > strides in eliminating things like "enforce" "ban" and "moderate"
> > > only to see them recently come back. I support getting the list to a
> > > state of usability. This does nothing to further that.
> >
> > We make all sorts of value judgments about how mta's and mua's are
> > configured anytime they connect to mail servers (is it any open relay,
> > does it have a bad reputation is it trying to relay through me etc).
> > Unsubscribing an adress because the mta or mua is poorly configured is
> > not a value judgment on the user and isn't censorship and doesn't
> > preclude them from resubscribing when they're sorted out their issue.
>
> I'm flattered by insistent arguments over defining my mailbox, but it's
> clear that some of you are overly hung up on shining the brass work to
> comprehend that this is not a problem for the vast majority of list
> subscribers and warrants little, if any, attention from the MLC.
>
> The point is that the MLC should spend their volunteer time doing things
> that result in an ROI and improves the usability of the list. This does
> neither and I don't see anyone disagreeing.
IMHO, this is a non-issue, and is clear enough that the behavior in
question is unwelcome. Your argument is 'its not annoying enough to care'.




I disagree. As a volunteer, I'd rather work on something more important
than argue than this minor problem is *somewhat* important enough for some
of us who want it fixed, it clearly is. There's been a dozen messages on
this subject already - none denying that it is *unwelcome behavior*.



I think volunteers should also work on stuff that they want to. If you
think this is important, then you are out of synch with the majority,
as far as I can tell. If you want to work on this "for fun", then by
all means, have at it, but there are some who don't think this is fun.


If you disagree, and think that autoresponders are ok, I'll make sure to
set one up just for you ;)


My argument is mostly social, in that we don't need, or want, the
admins taking punitive positions on anything when the users can do it
themselves.

To put it bluntly, along with that, don't you have anything better to do?


-M<

Re: AUP/autoresponders, rehashed

[Martin Hannigan]

On 6/12/07, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[ snip - nanog isn't the tvtf, and you are right, it's subjective ]



> I don't suppor it. I am disturbed by the language shift too. We made
> strides in eliminating things like "enforce" "ban" and "moderate" only
> to see them recently come back. I support getting the list to a state
> of usability. This does nothing to further that.

We make all sorts of value judgments about how mta's and mua's are
configured anytime they connect to mail servers (is it any open relay,
does it have a bad reputation is it trying to relay through me etc).
Unsubscribing an adress because the mta or mua is poorly configured is
not a value judgment on the user and isn't censorship and doesn't
preclude them from resubscribing when they're sorted out their issue.


I'm flattered by insistent arguments over defining my mailbox, but
it's clear that some of you are overly hung up on shining the brass
work to comprehend that this is not a problem for the vast majority of
list subscribers and warrants little, if any, attention from the MLC.

The point is that the MLC should spend their volunteer time doing
things that result in an ROI and improves the usability of the list.
This does neither and I don't see anyone disagreeing.


-M<

Re: AUP/autoresponders, rehashed

[Martin Hannigan]

On 6/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> On 6/12/07, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Awhile ago, we've had proposal to formally forbid autoresponders.
> > > The proposed language was to add following to AUP:
> > >
> > >8.  Challenge/response sender whitelisting software which
> > > requires interaction by any party to validate a post to the NANOG
> > > mailing list as non-spam shall be treated by the list administration
> > > team like any other condition that generates a bounce message.
> > > Subscribers with software (such as but not limited to TMDA) that is
> > > (mis)configured in this fashion are subject to removal from the list
> > > without notice, and are welcome to resubscribe at such time as their
> > > software is fixed.
> >
> > I support this.
> >
> > Software that responds to mess sent to a mailing list with challenge
> > response or out of office messages is badly written and disruptive.
> Per which RFC?
Aren't you bothered by silly autoresponders whenever you post to nanog-l?
Do you think this is OK? Doesn't need to be RFC, its just bad taste.


Obviously, I'm not bothered. That's because it happens infrequently
enough that it isn't worth my time to complain or do anything
otherwise. I am bothered by the almost 100% off topicness of the list
which impacts usability though.

What's next? Banning people for legal disclaimers? Using gmail? Voting
for John Kerry?


-M<

Re: AUP/autoresponders, rehashed

[Martin Hannigan]

On 6/12/07, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Awhile ago, we've had proposal to formally forbid autoresponders. The
> proposed language was to add following to AUP:
>
>8.  Challenge/response sender whitelisting software which requires
> interaction by any party to validate a post to the NANOG mailing list as
> non-spam shall be treated by the list administration team like any other
> condition that generates a bounce message.  Subscribers with software
> (such as but not limited to TMDA) that is (mis)configured in this fashion
> are subject to removal from the list without notice, and are welcome to
> resubscribe at such time as their software is fixed.

I support this.

Software that responds to mess sent to a mailing list with challenge
response or out of office messages is badly written and disruptive.


Per which RFC?



> Then, the proposal bounced between MLC, -futures and SC with unclear
> result (or rather, result being clear that it wasn't approved). I *think*
> the latest revised version is above.
>
> So, if you have any objections to the above, please voice them.


I don't suppor it. I am disturbed by the language shift too. We made
strides in eliminating things like "enforce" "ban" and "moderate" only
to see them recently come back. I support getting the list to a state
of usability. This does nothing to further that.

-M<