In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brian Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I notice that we have stopped being interested in running code.
I think that is to our community's detriment.
I confess that while I've watched the IETF from afar for about a
decade, I am relatively new to actually doing anything in
--On tirsdag, august 09, 2005 16:33:46 -0400 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And the notion of an AD who has contributed
technically to a WG in some significant way then pushing back
during IESG review if the WG reaches some other conclusion is
pretty close to intolerable. Changing
On 7-aug-2005, at 1:07, Brian Rosen wrote:
I notice that we have stopped being interested in running code.
I think that is to our community's detriment.
[...]
Probably more importantly, I think we should be VERY suspicious of
new,
complex specifications before we have running code.
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure, trying to implement something brings out bugs in the
specification, but those are usually relatively minor things that
don't go to the design of the protocol. And wide deployment generally
shows that a protocol could have been better in
Date: 2005-08-09 09:16
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The question on the table since RFC 3774 is: why don't we
execute the transition to Draft Standard more often,
otherwise known as: why are there so few implementation
reports at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html
I am away on vacation until Aug 8 and will get back to you after that. Thanks
Your message reads:
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (unverified [132.151.6.71]) by
hdflem01.fl.hostdepot.net
(Vircom SMTPRS 4.1.361.21) with ESMTP id [EMAIL PROTECTED] for [EMAIL
PROTECTED];
Wed, 10 Aug 2005
--On onsdag, august 10, 2005 02:46:57 -0500 wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The working group was shut down because no consensus could be
reached. I think the lack of working code was one of the core causes
of the lack of consensus.
Don't be shy about naming names
The MARID WG had one
Dave Crocker wrote:
...
What is especially problematic is when the working group has late-stage
process and project management difficulties, leading to the obvious
question of what happened in the earlier stage?
Having a non-cognizant AD press late-stage issues leads to the question
of why
Bruce Lilly wrote:
Date: 2005-08-09 09:16
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The question on the table since RFC 3774 is: why don't we
execute the transition to Draft Standard more often,
otherwise known as: why are there so few implementation
reports at
Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald --On tirsdag, august 09, 2005 16:33:46 -0400 John C
Harald Klensin
Harald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And the notion of an AD who has contributed technically to a WG
in some significant way then pushing back
On 10-aug-2005, at 11:14, Love Hörnquist Åstrand wrote:
I don't agree, several IETF protocols that I've implemented while
still
drafts have had major design changes done them because of an
implementation
exposed serious flaws in them (secsh-gss, pk-init).
Hm, I'm not familiar with those.
It seems to me that the *primary* responsibility for ensuring that
the WG considers everything it should consider, at an early enough
stage, lies with the WG Chair(s).
Certainly, the AD has an oversight and mentoring role here,
especially for first-time WG Chairs, but your obvious question
morning experts,
(Note that I haven't implemented any IETF protocols myself, but I
did once do an implementation of a badly designed protocol.)
a, is this why you think that there is no need for any new or
old protocol at all ?
have a great day
marcM.
--
Reality is what, when
I think a big part of the issue is that the IETF has been taken over
little by little by corporate interests. Before it used to be for the
love of doing it. Today it is more for the benefit of one.
Chuck Wegrzyn
Marc Manthey wrote:
morning experts,
(Note that I haven't implemented any IETF
--On Wednesday, 10 August, 2005 09:49 -0400 Sam Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Another point. I think that John needs to do a bit more work
explaining when this situation is intolerable. I have no
doubt there are cases where it would be bad. However I'm also
thinking of cases where
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
There are also specifications that would have been good to have
implementations before leaving the WG, because they are not
implemented-able as is (spkm).
Is that because the designers did a bad job or because there was no
way to anticipate the implementation
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--On onsdag, august 10, 2005 02:46:57 -0500 wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The working group was shut down because no consensus could be
reached. I think the lack of working code was one of the core causes
of the lack of
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 02:00:04PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
So, Ted, please forgive me for using your posting to note a pattern,
but I'm sufficiently tired of the very regular and usually
hyperbole-filled pattern of misreading that happens in this realm,
so that I feel the need to take
I think that is a good point. A variation on that theme is that the
IETF is no longer run by people who actually implement protocols. The
relevance and impact of the IETF on what is actually used on the
Internet is marginalized through that change of membership. The
attitude of That is not how
HOWEVER, it does seem that you seem to believe that the _primary_
responsibility of an AD is as a project manager and a process
manager/cop.
Yes...
RFC 2026, The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3:
14. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
...
Area Director - The manager of an IETF Area. The
I hear the opposite complaint enough to believe that the truth lies
somewhere in between (the ietf is dominated by academics who have no
idea what it takes to design, deploy, and maintain large complex
networks). I only see a tiny portion of the ietf myself, agreed (I
doubt many people see
On Aug 10, 2005, at 6:36 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I think that is a good point. A variation on that theme is that the
IETF is no longer run by people who actually implement protocols. The
relevance and impact of the IETF on what is actually used on the
Internet is marginalized through that
My experience has been that implementations help improve the quality of
the specifications, and formal security analyses help fix design
errors. I implemented two recent SEC area protocols, but unfortunately
in both cases, my implementations were partial (due to lack of time,
interest etc.,),
Dear All,
I don't mean to chime in here, but if we can agree that nobody is asking
ADs to be only process mavens, and nobody is asking ADs to refrain from
making technical contributions, we could probably make some progress.
I've worked for plenty of managers with technical skills. Some were
From my experience over the last 25 years I have seen the number go from
almost all academics (and some truly impressive geeks) to more a mix
like OSI The people that attend are there to represent the position of
their management (or manager) and their companies not look for the best
solution. The
C Wegrzyn wrote:
Hey, we not only had code that ran we also had bake-offs to make sure
all the stuff worked together. The idea was to work out the nuances (the
20% of the inaccuracies) and produce a damn good system. Today the idea
is to slap something together - damn the interop - and get out
Don't forget the organizations that adopt IETF specs. ISMA has a
regular interop and conformance program for RTSP + RTP + the codecs
used, both 'virtual' over the internet and face to face at most
meetings. Likewise IMTC does testing of 3GPP SA4 multimedia specs,
again using RTSP, RTP,
The next SIPit event is in about a month; see http://www.sipit.net/
There was a GIMPS (now GIST) + NSIS NSLP interop event just before the
IETF meeting (pre-RFC).
I wish there were more, but there are some.
C Wegrzyn wrote:
Perhaps they are more regionalized. I know there are some labs like
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'Internet Code Point Assignments '
draft-gray-rfc1888bis-01.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
he said I'd be crazy
to have my wallet in the backpocket and urged me to put it somewhere
inside my jacket because that would be much more difficult to get.
when my wallet was lifted, 2 months ago in the Paris metro, it was in my front
left pocket.
much more difficult is simply not
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 12:55:42PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
when my wallet was lifted, 2 months ago in the Paris metro, it was in my
front left pocket.
much more difficult is simply not correct.
I am not that experienced in that kind of security business.
Book reference:
Bambi
Having a threat analysis was brought up at the plenary by Steve
Bellovin as being a Good Thing(tm). At the MASS/DKIM BOF we are
being required to produce such a thing as a prerequisite to even
getting chartered as a working group. The problem that I have (and
Dave Crocker at the plenary) is that
At 12:55 -0700 10/08/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
he said I'd be crazy
to have my wallet in the backpocket and urged me to put it somewhere
inside my jacket because that would be much more difficult to get.
when my wallet was lifted, 2 months ago in the Paris metro, it was
in my front left
Date: 2005-08-10 15:41
From: Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Having a threat analysis was brought up at the plenary by Steve
Bellovin as being a Good Thing(tm).
[...]
So, if this is going to be yet another hoop that the IESG and IAB
sends working groups through like problem statements,
Dave Michael,
In the DoD environment, a threat analysis for a system identifies the
classes of adversaries that the author believes are of concern, and
describes their capabilities and motivations. Russ's three questions
are a concise way of stating this:
- The bad actors are
Bruce Lilly wrote:
Date: 2005-08-10 15:41
From: Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Having a threat analysis was brought up at the plenary by Steve
Bellovin as being a Good Thing(tm).
[...]
So, if this is going to be yet another hoop that the IESG and IAB
sends working groups through like
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Crocker writes:
Having a threat analysis was brought up at the plenary by Steve
Bellovin as being a Good Thing(tm). At the MASS/DKIM BOF we are
being required to produce such a thing as a prerequisite to even
getting chartered as a working group. The problem
The IESG has received a request from the Secure Shell WG to consider the
following document:
- 'Secure Shell (SSH) Session Channel Break Extension '
draft-ietf-secsh-break-04.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4005
Title: Diameter Network Access Server Application
Author(s): P. Calhoun, G. Zorn, D. Spence, D. Mitton
Status: Standards Track
Date: August 2005
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4004
Title: Diameter Mobile IPv4 Application
Author(s): P. Calhoun, T. Johansson, C. Perkins,
T. Hiller, Ed., P. McCann
Status: Standards Track
Date:
40 matches
Mail list logo
