On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 21:47 +, Greg Skinner wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:11:19 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 07:03 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Without solutions to these four problems on the horizon, I can't
voice any enthusiasm that the larger address space in
Since I and a number of other posters have been asking that the
AdminRest document move up a step or two and articulate the
basic principles that we want the IETF administrative functions
to operate under rather than continue to focus on teh operational
details I've tried to put together a set of
Hi.
As we try to raise other things back to the level of principles,
I want to address one that seems to underlie some of the
thinking that has led to what I believe to be too-specific, and
probably misguided, provisions in the draft.
That underlying theme is, more or less, Suppose ISOC goes
in these principles I have not directly addressed the feeling of some
people that the IETF needs to be able to blow the bolts (as I put it
a while back) with the ISOC quickly if things go bad in some way. I
have not done so not because I want to dismiss or ignore such feelings
but because I
Carl asks:
how about
section title=Community Consensus and Grant of Authority
t
The IETF is a consensus-based group and authority to act on behalf
of the community is an act that requires a high degree of consensus
and the continued consent of the community
After a
--On Friday, 26 November, 2004 20:08 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:16:58 EST, Sam Hartman said:
Personally, I do believe that stating some details would help
me evaluate whether IASA is seperable and would require the
IETF's consent in order to change the details.
--On Friday, 26 November, 2004 16:40 -0500 Sam Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the IESG's concern here is that they, rather than the
IAOC would like to designate who the executive director is.
The executive director is very involved in making the IESG and
process functions run
I'm sorry to reply so long after the fact, but...
On 23-nov-04, at 3:12, Hans Kruse wrote:
However, most SOHO sites look for a zero-order level of protection
against the random worm trying to connect to an open TCP port on the
average windows machine (especially one set up for file/print sharing
The IETF is supposed to gather everyone concerned and there is here a
controversy on this real life and key/vital point. So the best is to ask in
here. If no one says yes, it will mean either there is no felt shortage
yes, or that those suffering from shortage do not share in the IETF (why
An earlier comment from Brian Carpenter, to which several people agreed,
indicated that we should consider the need for an IETF sunshine law
separately from the IASA structure.
i didn't agree but i didn't want to use everybody's time arguing about it,
and i still don't. but it turns out that
all i'm asking for at the moment is that transparency be mentioned
whenever consensus is mentioned. what kind of transparency, or what
kind of consensus, we mean can be defined elsewhere. changing consent
to informed consent might also be a good idea but is inadequate alone --
we talk a lot
At 10:16 AM -0500 11/28/04, John C Klensin wrote:
Hi.
As we try to raise other things back to the level of principles,
I want to address one that seems to underlie some of the
thinking that has led to what I believe to be too-specific, and
probably misguided, provisions in the draft.
snip...
(2)
An observation, speaking as an individual (not as doc editor):
As far as I can tell, the decision about whether or not the IETF is
trusting ISOC as our partner in the IASA effort was settled by the
apparent consensus that we should follow the Scenario O path. I'd
respectfully suggest that,
At 12:15 AM 27/11/2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
In revision draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-00.txt we have text in sections
5 through 5.4 about IASA funding and where the money needs to
be kept. Specifically, the current text suggests that there
is/are one or more IASA specific bank accounts. Namely:
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeroen Massar) wrote on 23.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This really isn't a problem of the IETF. The problems is at the ISP's
who should charge for bandwidth usage and not for IP's.
Actually, they do - with some qualifications - at least over here, in
Germany.
That is, if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Margaret Wasserman) wrote on 23.11.04 in [EMAIL
PROTECTED]:
The average Internet user (home user or enterprise administrator)
does not care about the end-to-end principle or the architectural
purity of the Internet.
Maybe not the average usr, but a pretty large subset
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Johansson) wrote on 27.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 10:11 +0100, Leif Johansson wrote:
For somebody administering a network of 100 machines, the hassle cost of
IP renumbering would be twenty times larger. Given this, how
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 22.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I submit that if your environment is at all like mine, you don't actually
configure 192.168.whatever addresses on the equipment in your house. You
run DHCP within the home and it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JFC (Jefsey) Morfin) wrote on 21.11.04 in [EMAIL
PROTECTED]:
packet-switch networks. The internet (small i) is not even defined in the
French law where the word is broadly used and understood as the generic
support of the on-line public communications and the digital
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Sprunk) wrote on 21.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thus spake Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Sprunk) wrote on 20.11.04 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ISTR that the local competition (the one who's laying down cables like
crazy, pretty much
Re: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-strombergson-shf-03.txt
The Last-Call for this document caught my eye when it went past on the
IETF mailing list and I'm interested (having written too many Intel-HEX
and S-record parsers in the past).
I'm ignorant of whether there is a deployed base
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:11:19 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 07:03 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Without solutions to these four problems on the horizon, I can't
voice any enthusiasm that the larger address space in IPv6 will
eliminate NAT in home or enterprise networks.
Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Oh, sorry. Not *exactly*. It's the DHCP *server* which does the DNS
update.
My DHCP server is firmware in my Linksys :-).
--
a href=http://www.catb.org/~esr/;Eric S. Raymond/a
___
Ietf mailing list
A new IETF working group has been formed in the Applications Area. For
additional information, please contact the Area Directors or
the WG Chairs.
Sieve Mail Filtering (sieve)
Current Status: Active Working Group
Chairs: Cyrus Daboo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alexey
24 matches
Mail list logo
