Brian,
I think my comment still applies - it should be the IESG that appeals
against the Editor's final decision, not the other way round.
Ok. I have no problem placing the burden on initiating the formal
dispute resolution from the IESG side instead. For instance, if the
current text
Jim,
Is there a reason that RFC 5620 (RFC Editor Model Version 1) has not been
taken into account while doing this update? It would seem that this could
change some of the processes from what they are today.
I think we have taken it into account, or can you describe more exactly
what issue
Just try to clarify somethings here, check inline please:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Randall Gellens ra...@qualcomm.com wrote:
Personally, I have three specific concerns with a meeting in China:
(1) The law and associated hotel rule Marshall quoted could be violated by
what may appear
I just filled in the form.
The main potential issue I would have with such a meeting
is whether or not we'd have a normal meeting network
with normal Internet access. If there's anything that'd
be different about the meeting network and/or access to the
Internet, then I think the IAOC MUST bring
Steve,
If we don't go to China, we have charted a downhill course and the
rest of the world will come together without us. The IETF will lose
relevance.
If we do go to China and something bad happens, the consequences will
be much worse for China than for the IETF. The work of the IETF will
I have been in a couple of meetings in China, and everything always went
smoothly. Arrival process at the airport is one of the moat pleasant
that I've had outside Schengen area in EU. There is a lot of university
and commercial activity on new Internet technology, and going there
gives one
On Fri Sep 18 20:19:26 2009, SM wrote:
Some IETF participants might be considered as being disrespectful
towards the leadership. They can turn a meeting into a rowdy
party. If the above is implemented, there are risks, both internal
and external, of a public relations nightmare.
I
Rather than debate on whether this would have been or wouldn't have
been the case, can I suggest we actually approach the PRC government
and ask them? I'm sure they'd be willing to at least tell us. Their
purpose here is presumably to avoid contraversial topics being
discussed, rather than
At Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:28:06 -0700 (PDT),
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I don't think the rules were written with a group like the IETF in
mind. I also don't think, in fact I am pretty certain, that the hotel
staff would be the ones who decide to shut down the meeting or take
other action. I am sure
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
I'm not really following you here. I've read the stated contract
terms and I'm concerned that they prohibit activities which may
reasonably occur during IETF. Are you saying:
(a) No, they don't prohibit those activities.
(b) Yes, they do prohibit
On Sep 20, 2009, at 12:41 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Please try to keep in mind that (various organizations in) China has
been wanting to host an IETF meeting since 1997. One organization has
finally been given government approval to do so. This is a Big Deal
for them. Do you really think the
From: Dean Willis dean.wil...@softarmor.com
there are a lot of people in the world who will be looking for ways
to make the PRC government over-react against the IETF, resulting in
an international incident that is embarrassing or otherwise damaging
to the PRC.
I
As far as I know, IETF is not a political entity so it doesn't seem
appropriate for it to take a position on any of the issues brought up so
far.
Some IETF participants will invariably have strong political views. The
question is whether or not those views should influence their decision
to
Noel Chiappa wrote:
Are our members who are Falun Gong practitioners going to be
persecuted for their beliefs while attending IETF? Are our members
who are active in Tibetan or Taiwanese independence movements going
to be quietly picked up off the street outside our venue?
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 07:01:22AM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
My personal belief, and the belief of many of have attended meetings
in China is that the fear is unfounded.
When I attended APAN24 in China, I felt the discussions in each session
were very open.
As with the IETF, there was
Hi,
Here are my impressions regarding the areas of concern you raise.
(1) The law and associated hotel rule Marshall quoted could be
violated by what may appear to IETF participants as technical
discussion. For example, the manipulation/censorship of Internet
traffic by or under orders
That works for me.
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Emre Ertekin [mailto:emreertekin.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 8:29 PM
To: stang...@nkiconsulting.com; i...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Cc: r...@ietf.org; carl.knuts...@effnet.com
Subject: RE: Last Call:
Jari,
Aaron asked me to forward a comment I made on the IRSG list:
The text below seems to almost encourage the IESG to do an IETF last
call in the event of a dispute with the IRSG as to the content of an
IESG note. That LC should be limited to the content of the IESG note
I guess, and not to
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
We have received numerous suggestions and requests for an IETF meeting
in China and the IAOC has been working on a potential China meeting for
several years. We are now close to making a decision on a potential
upcoming meeting in China. However, the following issue
Could technical discussions about the following be considered political?
Internet censorship (including evading of it)
Data privacy
anonymization
Lawful intercept
Spyware
DRM
I have personally seen IETF presentations that explicitly talked about
on how encryption and anonymization are
[Trimming to just the IETF Discussion list, as this topic is going to
be one heck of a time sink and flame thrower accelerant]
Before we get all high and mighty, check out 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 and
18 U.S.C.A. § 2385.
Is it more likely such laws would be enforced in Beijing than in New
In the LEMONADE group we had the same initial thoughts (there is
another word for that phrase...) about attendance when we were
planning interim meetings.
Here are some stats:
Vancouver: no visa issues for anyone: about 10 participants
Dallas: a few visa troubles: about 15 participants
#1 - all the other meetings I've been in in China, including ones that
talked about 'unfriendly firewall traversal' seemed to be ignored. YMMV.
#2 #3 - this is very, very, very true. For those who remember the
conference hotel in Prague, Beijing air makes Prague look like a
bastion of
Hi, Pasi,
Thanks for your thorough review of our drafts. Please find our responses below.
1) None of the drafts really describe the reason why the ROHC ICV is
included. It was not present in the early drafts, and was added after
long and complex discussions. I would strongly encourage
Hi Bob,
Thanks for taking the time to read our draft.
We left out the Integrity Algorithm from the referenced list because
it is not a ROHC channel parameter, as defined in RFC 3095. Please
note that we did include a discussion on the Integrity Algorithm / Key
in the subsequent paragraph.
As
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your comments. Please find my response below:
All,
Sorry for my belated response. This last workweek didn't allow me time
to
respond on the date requested.
Comments:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-09.txt
- 2.1.2. ROHC Attribute
I have helped setup one and attended another conference in Beijing and
have attended one conference in Hong Kong.
All of them were technical by nature, but not nearly as large as the
IETF. Nor did any have the potential of political debate that might
arise in the IETF.
Personally I found the
Is there a reason that RFC 5620 (RFC Editor Model Version 1) has not been
taken into account while doing this update? It would seem that this could
change some of the processes from what they are today.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: rfc-interest-boun...@rfc-editor.org
Applying the same disclaimers Ross did (this is just me as an
individual) I'd like to generally agree with his risk/benefit
argument, and to add two more points to it. First, I don't see an
offsetting compelling benefit. Second, there would also seem to be a
risk of loss of productivity
--On Monday, September 21, 2009 11:56 +0300 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Brian,
I think my comment still applies - it should be the IESG that
appeals against the Editor's final decision, not the other
way round.
Ok. I have no problem placing the burden on initiating the
Marshall,
I think going to China would be a great opportunity and that we should
go for it and play by their rules. I agree with Bernard, attendees
should be responsible for their own actions no matter where in the world
we meet.
mike
-Original Message-
From:
At 5:45 PM +0800 9/21/09, Peny Yang wrote:
However, IMHO, your
experience may be the story 10 years ago. I am a smoker. When I would
like to smoke, I always go find the smoking corner.
Now, in Beijing, smoking is prohibited in most of public areas. From
my experience, the policies on
At 7:28 AM -0700 9/21/09, Wes Hardaker wrote:
What would happen to those discussions?
1) they would happen anyway, and nothing would happen (yay!)
(regardless of whether they went unnoticed or weren't offensive)
2) thew would happen anyway, and would get shut down
3) they
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 03:46:24PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
N.B. It is extremely unlikely that I'd attend a meeting in that slot,
regardless of where it was; my current $DAYJOB doesn't give me the
luxury of attending most IETF meetings.
To piggyback on this, much the same situation
Bernard Aboba allegedly wrote on 09/18/2009 3:33 PM:
The IETF does not and cannot make any warranties relating to the
political views, manners or behavior of attendees. The attendees are
responsible for their own actions, and the IETF has no ability ensure
their conformance to local laws or
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 15:11 -0400, Ross Callon wrote:
Speaking solely as an individual, providing only my personal opinion:
I think that this is not acceptable and we should not sign it.
I understand that no location is perfect. However, I think that this
goes well beyond what we
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:42:36 -0700, Randall Gellens ra...@qualcomm.com
said:
RG (1) The law and associated hotel rule Marshall quoted could be
RG violated by what may appear to IETF participants as technical
RG discussion. For example, the manipulation/censorship of Internet
RG traffic by or
Just a couple of comments regarding cost and visas, speaking from
personal experience.
Cost:
Once you wander out of the main, relatively expensive, International
hotel (any of the major chains), food is VERY cheap by US standards,
as are things like a bottle of beer in the local grocery store
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:03 PM
I just filled in the form.
The main potential issue I would have with such a meeting
is whether or not we'd have a normal meeting network
with normal Internet access.
It
ARF, or Abuse Report Format, is an email message format similar to DSNs
developed by ESPs and ISPs outside of the IETF. It is intended to be used by
service providers to automate the reporting of various kinds of messaging
abuse. Interested parties are seeking to create an IETF working group
--On Monday, September 21, 2009 10:10 -0700 Ole Jacobsen
o...@cisco.com wrote:
Just a couple of comments regarding cost and visas, speaking
from personal experience.
...
Visa:
If you are a US citizen, the visa fee is $130 here in the US.
For non-US citizens, the fee is only $30 :-)
You have captured the intent. I'm pleased to make that change if the
community aggress with the approach that is specified.
Russ
At 12:35 PM 9/21/2009, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Jari,
Aaron asked me to forward a comment I made on the IRSG list:
The text below seems to almost encourage the
At 11:00 AM -0400 9/21/09, David Harrington wrote:
I have not found avoiding smoke in China much worse than in Europe. I
find it much easier to avoid smoke in US cities.
In my experience, it no longer makes sense to talk about smoking in
Europe as the situation varies so much from country
On Sep 21, 2009, at 7:29 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
Ok - the problem I have, and the reason that I asked, is that it is
not
clear to me that the Independent Series Editor (ISE) is part of the
RFC
Editor any more than the ISRG is going to be. Thus it is the ISE
not the
RFC Editor that will be
On Sep 21, 2009, at 2:04 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
For the main hotel, do we know whether the cost will be
significantly different from what we normally spend on IETF hotels?
Less than the main hotel in San Francisco and Stockholm
Ray
I am assuming that VISA information will be provided on
Jari-
The draft says:
The RFC Editor reviews Independent Submission Stream submissions for
suitability for publication as RFCs. As described in RFC 4846 [I3],
the RFC Editor asks the IESG to review the documents for conflicts
with the IETF standards process or work done in the IETF
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Okay, so one advantage of having a meeting in the PRC is that the
majority of participants (including US and Canadian ones) who can
normally travel almost anywhere without VISAs will have to experience
some of the pain of getting a VISA.
But, if we
John,
I'm commenting specifically on your recollection of China requiring
people having visited China before it would consider a multi-entry visa.
It doesn't appear to be true - if it was true before. The visa
application form I downloaded from the Chinese Consulate in Chicago
(just now) lists
Health wrote:
all in all,
Since IETF only focus on and discuss technical issues, has the issue of
politics or human right been discussed in the past IETF meeting?
if the answer is NO, there should have none probles of hold a meeting in
China.
Direct you attention to the
On 18 sep 2009, at 21.46, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:12:59 -0500
Matt Crawford craw...@fnal.gov wrote:
On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
We are therefore asking for input from the community by two means -
by commenting on the IETF discussion list,
On 19 sep 2009, at 21.55, Steve Crocker wrote:
The choice is between engaging and not engaging. Engaging is
better. Not engaging isn't constructive. The Internet and the IETF
are all about engaging, expanding, communicating and being open.
Much of this dialog has been worried about
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Ross Callon wrote:
For the main hotel, do we know whether the cost will be
significantly different from what we normally spend on IETF hotels?
The rates are expected to be in line with normal IETF rates (if there
is such a thing). Hotel costs is certainly one of the
Hi,
A personal opinion:
I believe that the logistic concerns voiced here (cost, visa, air pollution,
freedom of network access for IETF business needs) should not be seen as a
deterrent and are not likely to be a practical problem. There are
associated problems and risks, and they are IMHO
There are multiple Chinese consulates in the US, and each one seems to
have its own rules regarding visas. So it really pays to work with an
experienced visa service.
Cheers,
Andy
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:38 PM, HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS
jhua...@att.com wrote:
John,
I'm commenting
Hi Jari,
At 01:34 19-09-2009, Jari Arkko wrote:
As you may recall, my conclusion of the discussion was that while
opinions were split, a dispute resolution model emerged as a potential
compromise. A week ago I promised that we would come up with a specific
[snip]
If dialogue fails to
OK. That may be the case, so I checked the Chinese Consulate in Houston and San
Francisco, as well as the Chinese Embassy (in addition to Chicago). All four
list multi-entry visa for 6 or 12 month without additional conditions. Note
that 6- and 12-month duration are the only ones available for
I am assuming that VISA information will be provided on the IETF web
site, and that we will need a letter of invitation which the IETF will
provide.
You really have to check with a local expert. For my last visit,
I needed not a letter of invitation from my host, but an official
invitation
--On Monday, September 21, 2009 18:42 -0400 HUANG, ZHIHUI
(JERRY), ATTLABS jhua...@att.com wrote:
OK. That may be the case, so I checked the Chinese Consulate
in Houston and San Francisco, as well as the Chinese Embassy
(in addition to Chicago). All four list multi-entry visa for 6
or 12
John, The link you provided is arrived at through my convoluted steps - only
because when I copied the link into a browser window, it didn't work. We are
looking at the exact same document and I would have quoted exactly the same
paragraphs as you did.
With that said, I'm not sure we are
On 2009-09-21 20:56, Jari Arkko wrote:
Brian,
I think my comment still applies - it should be the IESG that appeals
against the Editor's final decision, not the other way round.
Ok. I have no problem placing the burden on initiating the formal
dispute resolution from the IESG side
The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'Graceful Shutdown in MPLS and Generalized MPLS Traffic Engineering
Networks '
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-12.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG
The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Requirements for OAM in MPLS Transport Networks '
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements-03.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks,
The IESG has received a request from the Public-Key Infrastructure
(X.509) WG (pkix) to consider the following document:
- 'Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Additional Algorithms and
Identifiers for DSA and ECDSA '
draft-ietf-pkix-sha2-dsa-ecdsa-08.txt as a Proposed Standard
The
The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'An Inband Data Communication Network For the MPLS Transport Profile '
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-dcn-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the
The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'MPLS TP Network Management Requirements '
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-05.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
65 matches
Mail list logo
