Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus

Now we're close to side veering off into process issues, but rather than going into that rat-hole, I'll just pose a question: do you think p2p protocol authors would have any motiviation to create a Security Considerations section that would pass IESG review? a security considerations section

Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Morfin

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I mean really, has anyone ever had their opinion changed because of something someone said during these PR-Actions? This is in fact only the second last call ever on a PR-action. I can assure you that the IESG reads the opinions expressed carefully and does not tak

Re: suggestion on distributed systems

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:44:11AM +0530, Neil Harwani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 128 lines which said: > I am not sure whether this idea that I am about to write has been > implemented before The idea is interesting but it is clearly underspecified. Before a serious discussion can

Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Morfin

-- Original message -- From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  > I can assure you that the IESG reads the opinions expressed > carefully and does not take such decisions lightly, one way > or the other. > > Brian Brian, I was not questioning the IESG's decisions nor d

Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus

John Loughney writes: > People who suggest ignoring or hitting delete don't seem to > really get it ... People who insist that this doesn't work don't seem to really get it. It has worked for me for decades. The reality is that some people are irritated by the need to do anything they don't want

Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus

Robert Sayre writes: > I suspect the IESG will find that the folks actually trying to get > work done in the presence of JFC's emails all feel the same way. Most > of the objections seem to be coming from people concerned with > designing the perfect bureaucratic process. In any WG, there are > im

Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus

John Loughney writes: > Now we're close to side veering off into process issues, but > rather than going into that rat-hole, I'll just pose a question: do > you think p2p protocol authors would have any motiviation to create > a Security Considerations section that would pass IESG review? Do you

Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Can you imagine if during every murder trial they had a debate on > the humanity of capitol punishment? Can you imagine if, in every business meeting, people who disagreed decided to sue each other? > Please, if you don't have an opinion specifically related to > Jefs

John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin

I wish to state my strong support for the proposed RFC 3638 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin. Jefsey has made life nearly intolerable for those of us on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] lists. Banning him on a monthly basis is insufficient; as soon as the ban is lifted, he returns to hi

Re: suggestion on distributed systems

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:44:11AM +0530, Neil Harwani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 128 lines which said: I am not sure whether this idea that I am about to write has been implemented before "Operating Systems, Design and Implementation" by Andrew S

P2P protocols (Re: Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus)

--On 23. januar 2006 06:26 +0200 John Loughney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 01/22/2006 22:27 PM, John Loughney allegedly wrote: > Look at various peer-to-peer protocols as a good > examples of things that people use everyday, but wouldn't stand a > chance of getting an RFC. Why not? Now

Re: suggestion on distributed systems

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:49:21PM +0100, Peter Dambier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 112 lines which said: > ucspi-tcp-0.88 > > provides a different tcp/ip stack No, it is not a TCP/IP stack (just a framework and library to develop network applications). Sometimes, I really wonder i

Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus

> Robert Sayre writes: > > I suspect the IESG will find that the folks actually trying to get > > work done in the presence of JFC's emails all feel the same way. Most > > of the objections seem to be coming from people concerned with > > designing the perfect bureaucratic process. In any WG, ther

Re: suggestion on distributed systems

--On 23. januar 2006 00:44 +0530 Neil Harwani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My suggesionts: 1. Have a variable system built into all OSes which have internet interface which can allocate space and resources as per what amount of space and resources are free on the OS. 2. Let a separate new inte

Re: suggestion on distributed systems

Peter Dambier writes: > "Operating Systems, Design and Implementation" by > Andrew S. Tannanbaum and Albert S. Woodhull, > ISBN 0-13-638677-6 Prentice Hall > > Not only do the discuss every aspect of an operating system but > they include as an example and for homework practice the complete > Mini

Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin

John Cowan writes: > Filtering him out individually, as I do, is insufficient: one still must > read the polite or exasperated responses of others. I am almost at the > point where I will filter any posting that so much as *mentions* him. Why don't you do that, then, so that he need not be banne

Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you imagine if during every murder trial they had a debate on the humanity of capitol punishment? As a non-US citizen, I am a little hazy about some details of the US legal system. Do I assume that this punishment requires the malefactor to sit through a set

Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 04:36:11PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 31 lines which said: > and the inconvenience you suffer from having to press the delete key It is not just a matter of personal inconvenience: if the filtering is done at the edges and not in

Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > John Cowan writes: > >> Filtering him out individually, as I do, is insufficient: one still must >> read the polite or exasperated responses of others. I am almost at the >> point where I will filter any posting that so much as *mentions* him. > > Why don't you do t

Re: P2P protocols (Re: Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus)

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes: > >let's veer off... this is much more fun than other current discussions :-) >Since a major problem for "illegal" P2P networks at the moment is dealing >with content that is inserted maliciously (the file named "Britney Spears' >lat

Re: suggestion on distributed systems

>> "Operating Systems, Design and Implementation" by >> Andrew S. Tannanbaum and Albert S. Woodhull, >> ISBN 0-13-638677-6 Prentice Hall >> >> Not only do the discuss every aspect of an operating system but >> they include as an example and for homework practice the complete >> Minix operating sys

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria- 04.txt

Brian, This seems to me to be somewhere on the continuum from "no brainer" to "rocket science" - with a high likelihood of not being too near the "rocket science" end. It would be good to caution the IETF Secretariat and meeting sponsors to consider the potential for difficulty i

RE: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Morfin

Eliot, Plenty of time to ask why, once it becomes clear what the prevalent opinion is. I personally find the question a bit on the obnoxious side prior to that. When seeking consensus, it is usually necessary only to determine what the issues are in the minority opinion, and lar

OT: The case of sysop twit

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > banned just for your convenience? Are you sure that you have read and understood ? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Morfin

Marshall's not just some person with a random opinion, but the ombudsman for the IETF list. And so he speaks with some authority. Also, he doesn't come to rash conclusions, and so I for one value his considered opinion. And that's why I prodded him for more. And I'm more enlightened because of

RE: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus

Ned, It is certainly fair to say that implementors do participate in mailing list discussions, and that their participation is very valuable. However, many times the number of participants that are "active" (read - vocal) are those that "lurk" and it is my opinion - supported by observati

what happened to America's internet Future? - a pointer to an essay

that I hope you will enjoyHere with the first two paragraphs  -Capitalism in the United States in the 21st century has not moved forward with the rest of the world. We are still embedded in the post World War II mindset of America as the great economic power at the peak of the industrial age. While

RE: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Morfin

Eliot, Ideally, nobody is "just some person with a random opinion" and the implication associated with asserting that someone stands out because of this is disingenuous - to say the least. If we do in fact learn anything from the reply you elicited, it is that there is more than

Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin

Jeroen Massar writes: > And then suddenly somebody makes a seriously good contribution and your > filter accidentally filters out that message which does have a lot of > value and thus importance for the working group. Banning someone has the same effect, if that person has ever made any useful c

Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin

Stephane Bortzmeyer writes: > It is not just a matter of personal inconvenience: if the filtering is > done at the edges and not in the IETF mailing list engine, it also > means that public email archives (which are a very important tool for > the IETF) are polluted by the useless messages sent by

Re: suggestion on distributed systems

Steven M. Bellovin writes: > Nonsense. Tanenbaum has forgotten more about operating systems than > most of us will ever know. He has apparently forgotten a lot of things that I remember, or, more likely, he just has never been exposed to them. In his book he writes about the things he knows, wh

Re: OT: The case of sysop twit

Frank Ellermann writes: > Are you sure that you have read and understood > ? I'm sure that I'm not interested in it. It has nothing to do with the IETF. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.

List archives and copyright [WAS Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin]

If you post to a list with a publicly announced public archive -- and even more so if you are informed about the archive at the time you join the list (hint: you usually are) -- then I think it's pretty clear under US law (and, I'd imagine but don't actually know, also the law of most civili

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

On 1/20/06 at 1:20 PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Tim Chown wrote: If you look back over past agendas, it's typically a day with around 3-5 meetings in one session to 11.30am, of which half or more are BoFs. Friday morning is part of the IETF. It's true that generally we schedule about

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

Three comments on Friday scheduling: 1. In my scheduling struggle as AD, I've always needed Fridays pretty desperately, though I'm hopeful that with the RAI/TSV split, things will be better. 2. Some of us wondered if Friday would be more attractive if the net didn't come down at noon, so that if

Re: List archives and copyright [WAS Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin]

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law writes: > If you post to a list with a publicly announced public archive -- and even > more so if you are informed about the archive at the time you join the > list (hint: you usually are) -- then I think it's pretty clear under US > law (and, I'd imagine b

Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Morfin

Let me preface this by saying that I have no direct interest in ietf-languages or LTRU, nor do I have technical expertise in this area.  I have also been on a temporary hiatus from active participation in IETF.   That said, I overcome my usual reluctance to engage in IETF list discu

Re: List archives and copyright [WAS Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin]

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > > > If you post to a list with a publicly announced public archive -- and > even more so if you are informed about the archive at the time you join > the list (hint: you usually are) -- then I think it's pretty clear under > US law [..] IANAL but

Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Morfin

I vote in favor of keeping Mr.Morfin as a member of IETF. The greater number of intelligent contributors, the better...   This has been enough of a waste of time that we need to shift gears and focus on important issues.   Regardless of whether or not a differing viewpoint is respected, consens

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

On Jan 23, 2006, at 17:07, Allison Mankin wrote: 2. Some of us wondered if Friday would be more attractive if the net didn't come down at noon, so that if you commit to staying for the WG meeting on Friday morning, and you have a late flight, or fly out the next morning, you can get some work or

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

On Jan 23, 2006, at 23:07, Allison Mankin wrote: Some of us wondered if Friday would be more attractive if the net didn't come down at noon, so that if you commit to staying for the WG meeting on Friday morning, and you have a late flight, or fly out the next morning, you can get some work or ema

Re: List archives and copyright [WAS Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin]

Jeroen Massar wrote: [..] (Who wonders that now I've quoted mr Atkielski if I am in violation of his copyright...) Well, you certainly caused some his blather to make it past my receiver-side filters ironic, given the context of the thread. cheers, gja

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

Ken Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Jan 23, 2006, at 17:07, Allison Mankin wrote: >> 2. >> Some of us wondered if Friday would be more attractive if the net >> didn't come down at noon, so that if you commit to staying for the WG >> meeting on Friday morning, and you have a late flight, o

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

2. Some of us wondered if Friday would be more attractive if the net didn't come down at noon, so that if you commit to staying for the WG meeting on Friday morning, and you have a late flight, or fly out the next morning, you can get some work or email done during the rest of the day. Anyone els

Meeting Survey Results

All; More than 300 responded to the Meeting Survey conducted following IETF 64 in Vancouver. See survey results link below. Among the results are: 1. Slightly more than 25% say their laptop is compatible with 802.11a. [Note the IETF 65 NOC for Dallas recommends 802.11a] 2. Nearly 60% (with an

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

On Monday, January 23, 2006 02:26:31 PM -0800 Eric Rescorla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ken Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: On Jan 23, 2006, at 17:07, Allison Mankin wrote: 2. Some of us wondered if Friday would be more attractive if the net didn't come down at noon, so that if you com

Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 04:36:11PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > > Filtering him out individually, as I do, is insufficient: one still must > > read the polite or exasperated responses of others. I am almost at the > > point where I will filter any posting that so much as *mentions* him. >

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

To the extent possible, BOFs should be early in the week so that they can be chewed on during the week. This strikes me as a singularly useful point: Some meetings, such as BOFs, can be expected to generate (and warrant) follow-on hallway discussion. We should try to schedule those

Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin

At 17:32 23/01/2006, Jeroen Massar wrote: Thus in your opinion you tolerate the behavior where people contact your boss for actions you take personally (IETF is on personal basis not on business basis, at least in theory) on a public forum!? I do not want to add to the triggered DoS. I only su

Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Morfin

Unlike the previous matter of an individual who clearly engaged in threats and ad-homenem attacks, this appears perilously close to being an attempt to suppress a minority viewpoint. There is a basic difference between preventing the expression of an opinion, idea or the like, versus pre

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:10:04PM -0500, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > As do I. Of course, agreeing that the net should stay up the rest of > Friday is the easy part. The hard part is getting the volunteers who do > the work to commit to staying around that long... ... not to mention the cost of

posting privileges vs receiver-side filtering

It seems we regularly miss some simple points: Receiver-side filtering: - protects the sanity of an individual mailinglist recipient (for their own personal definition of sanity). Revocation of posting privileges: - protects agains dilution of a WG's historical record

Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Morfin

Hello; Receiving multiple queries as to why I made a decision makes me wonder if I made it properly and articulated it properly. Thus, in the course of a sleepless night fueled by jet-lag, I looked into the matter further with the results as you have seen. I still think that a simple suppor

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

On Jan 23, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Allison Mankin wrote: Three comments on Friday scheduling: 1. In my scheduling struggle as AD, I've always needed Fridays pretty desperately, though I'm hopeful that with the RAI/TSV split, things will be better. 2. Some of us wondered if Friday would be more attr

Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin

Assuming I have properly understood Mr. Morfin's email, the best argument I have seen for permitting all IETF email list adminsitrators to ban him as they deem necessary is his own description of his behavior. Mr. Morfin appears to have stated that if he feels an opinion is important he will p

Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus

-- Original message -- From: Elwyn Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Can you imagine if during every murder trial they had a debate on the > > humanity of capitol punishment? > > > As a non-US citizen, I am a little hazy about some details of

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

> An afternoon social would not be out of place, either, I suspect. Maybe > a beer and gear could be arranged with sponsors. > What a fine idea! Maybe since it would be after the working IETF time, we could get away with the gear part; to my knowledge (not perfect) we've historically not agreed

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

On Jan 23, 2006, at 9:30 PM, Allison Mankin wrote: An afternoon social would not be out of place, either, I suspect. Maybe a beer and gear could be arranged with sponsors. What a fine idea! Maybe since it would be after the working IETF time, we could get away with the gear part; to my kn

Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> From: Elwyn Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> a debate on the humanity of capitol punishment? >> Do I assume that this punishment requires the malefactor to sit >> through a set period of congressional filibusters? > Capitol punishment is barbar

Re: Meeting Survey Results

Hi Ray, I'm not sure if we need some clarification on this: > 1. Slightly more than 25% say their laptop is compatible with 802.11a. > [Note the IETF 65 NOC for Dallas recommends 802.11a] According to the survey, only 25.5% of the participants have 802.11a, which in my opinion means that 11b/g

Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Morfin

At 22:42 23/01/2006, Grossman Dan-LDG004 wrote: Unlike the previous matter of an individual who clearly engaged in threats and ad-homenem attacks, this appears perilously close to being an attempt to suppress a minority viewpoint.   Minority viewpoints need to be heard, regardless of whether the

Should we ban people who say they will appeal a WG Chair decision

Dear Joel, I am afraid you rebuild the rules while I respect them. A WG Chair is not God the Father. In its wisdom the IETF has devised an appeal mechanism. I oppose positions of a WG-Chair and of a Mailing List Owner. So, I use and respect that mechanism. I always respected its decisions. All

Re: Meeting Survey Results

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Ray, In my own case, having a Mac is not easy to get built-in 802.11a. I can of course buy an external card, but is not reasonable (more power consumption, more things to carry, etc.). There is one more reason, is that in most of the world i

Re: List archives and copyright [WAS Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin]

Jeroen Massar writes: > IANAL but one really doesn't have to bother with US law, that really > doesn't apply to many folks (fortunately :) The laws of other developed countries are frequently even more restrictive when it comes to copyright. > There is a much better thing > than US law, it's cal

Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin

Theodore Ts'o writes: > The problem with the "just filter" approach is that if you then fail > to respond to something of substance that got inadvertently filtered > out, it is trivially easy to claim rough consensus. The problem with prior restraint, such as a ban, is that nobody ever gets to re

Re: Meeting Survey Results

On Jan 23, 2006, at 21:57, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: In my own case, having a Mac is not easy to get built-in 802.11a. I can of course buy an external card, Are there cards with Mac OS X drivers nowadays? If I knew where to get one, I'd consider it, given the condition of the 802.11b/g

Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Morfin

Dave Crocker writes: > There is a basic difference between preventing the expression of an opinion, > idea or the like, versus preventing what is effectively a denial of service > attack on the conduct of group business. Yes. A denial of service attack is a technical attack on a server or networ

Re: posting privileges vs receiver-side filtering

grenville armitage writes: > - protects agains dilution of a WG's historical record (archives > that soak up all posts to the WG's mailing list) Stop blindly archiving every message, and this ceases to be a problem. > - improves the 'signal to distraction' ratio of traffic on the list > (particu

Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin

Joel M. Halpern writes: > Assuming I have properly understood Mr. Morfin's email, the best argument I > have seen for permitting all IETF email list adminsitrators to ban him as > they deem necessary is his own description of his behavior. > > Mr. Morfin appears to have stated that if he feels an

Re: Meeting Survey Results

Hi Jordi, the preference for .11a was stated because we want to make sure that everybody who has the possibility for it would use it. It makes the network much more reliable. Of course b and g are provided as well. It is a recommendation not a MUST, like the mail says. Cheers, Jonne. On Mon, 2

Re: junior lawyers, was List archives and copyright

>The key phrase here is "you are informed." You have to be informed >and agree to it. ... Can I politely encourage people who are not lawyers to refrain from expressing legal opinions here, or even worse stating legal opinions as though they were facts? I know just enough about copyright law to

Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin

>Replace "Mr. Morfin" with "Dr. King" and see how it sounds. Have we just discovered a new corollary to Godwin's Law? R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Survey Results

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Ken Raeburn wrote: On Jan 23, 2006, at 21:57, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: In my own case, having a Mac is not easy to get built-in 802.11a. I can of course buy an external card, Are there cards with Mac OS X drivers nowadays? If I knew where to get one, I'd consider it,

Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin

On 24 Jan 2006 05:18:45 - John Levine wrote: > >Replace "Mr. Morfin" with "Dr. King" and see how it sounds. > > Have we just discovered a new corollary to Godwin's Law? or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator,_you_are_no_Jack_Kennedy but all of this is so way off-topic, it's pitiful to see

Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: John Cowan writes: Filtering him out individually, as I do, is insufficient: one still must read the polite or exasperated responses of others. I am almost at the point where I will filter any posting that so much as *mentions* him. Why don't y

Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Morfin

Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > P.S. I was not appointed "ombudsman for the IETF list" and would not > claim that honor. Sorry- wrong word. Sargeant at Arms (my own sleeplessness). Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/lis