On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Randall Gellens ra...@qualcomm.com wrote:
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
John C Klensin [mailto://john-i...@jck.com] writes:
...
Two additional observations may be useful. In the US, someone
must appear in person at the embassy or consulate -- there is no
mail-in service, at least for US citizens. In practice, that
means that if one is in a city with a
John C Klensin wrote:
The difference between (1) and (2) is less significant in practice
because, while there are many important exceptions (with those East
Asian width variants probably heading the list), the vast majority
of compatibility characters are very hard to type in most
Hi,
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.
You may have meant this in a sarcastic way, but it
Emre Ertekin wrote:[mailto:emreertekin.i...@gmail.com]
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
summarizing those discussions in one
On Sep 22, 2009, at 12:35, pasi.ero...@nokia.com wrote:
3) According to RFC 4224, ROHC segmentation does not work over
reordering channels. Thus, it seems suggesting that ROHC
segmentation could be used instead of pre-encryption fragmentation
(e.g. ipsec-extensions, Section 3.3) -- and in
Carsten Bormann wrote:
OK, let me phrase my question in another way: why does the spec
contain a feature that does not really work? (Even as optional
feature?)
Well, it actually does work.
RFC 4224, section 5.2.1 tells us that when a channel is reordering
and you don't notice,
--On Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:43 +0200
pasi.ero...@nokia.com wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
The difference between (1) and (2) is less significant in
practice because, while there are many important exceptions
(with those East Asian width variants probably heading the
list), the vast
Comments inline, thanks
2009/9/3 Tero Kivinen kivi...@iki.fi:
Yaron Sheffer writes:
[YS] I see the merits of extending IKE_SA_INIT to support resumption, and in
fact an early version of our work did exactly that. But the working group
gave us a clear direction to use a separate exchange, and
Hi Hui,
Thank you for your comments. Regarding your second comment, please see
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-resumption-08#section-9.4
Regards,
Yaron
-Original Message-
From: Hui Deng [mailto:denghu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 17:40
Hi.
After a brief offlist conversation with Zhujui, I think I may
have added to the confusion, rather than clarifying.So let
me see if I can summarize my remarks and maybe his.
* There are, or have been, some countries that view visa
application requirements purely as revenue
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com writes:
Vulgar Fraction One Half (U+00BD)
Acute Accent (U+00B4)
Diaeresis (U+00A8)
That is important data. It seems to me that it implies:
* if entropy in passwords and/or properly reflecting
keyboards is more important than password
--On Tuesday, September 22, 2009 17:17 +0200 Simon Josefsson
si...@josefsson.org wrote:
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com writes:
Vulgar Fraction One Half (U+00BD)
Acute Accent (U+00B4)
Diaeresis (U+00A8)
That is important data. It seems to me that it implies:
* if entropy in
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com writes:
For SCRAM I believe we are stuck with SASLprep because there
are no drafts to provide a replacement that are close to being
mature.
Here we disagree _very_ slightly. Following part of the theme
of draft-iab-idn-encoding, I have become convinced that
--On Tuesday, September 22, 2009 17:58 +0200 Simon Josefsson
si...@josefsson.org wrote:
...
Personally (speaking as one of few SASLprep implementers) I
believe using NFC alone would be better from many perspectives
than SASLprep for passwords. But I can't point to any
substantial document
Aaron Falk wrote:
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
IMO, this is a close relative of a different problem, one that's old and
well-understood: Characters that shift to different keys when you cross
a boundary.
I (now) live in Germany and come from Norway. Germany has Y and Z
swapped. Shortly after I started travelling to Germany, I stopped
Given that the the current Location for IETF 79 is listed as Canada/
China, the correct questions to ask is would people prefer IETF 79 be
in Vancouver of Beijing.
On Sep 19, 2009, at 9:52 AM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
Hi Ole,
The IETF is highly ideological. Probably more so than most other
Cullen,
Well, nobody has officially announced that the proposed venue is
Beijing, although a lot of people seem to have assumed so and yet
more people copied the assumption. The announcent of the venue
is expected soon, within say 30 days.
But to the core of your question: The rotation would
On Sep 22, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Well, nobody has officially announced that the proposed venue is
Beijing,
Or Vancouver either, right? I assumed that Cullen
threw the city names out as straw proposals and that
the broader question is still valid - IETF 79 is only
a year off.
Yes, sorry I wasn't paying attention to that part.
Canada --- there are several options.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Tue, 22 Sep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Levity alert!
On 9/22/09 12:00 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Canada --- there are several options.
Indeed, Canada is a big country. How about Yellowknife? The famous ice
road would be open in November for IETF 79:
On 9/18/09 14:02, Sep 18, Paul Wouters wrote:
Pre-emptively excluding countries based on culture, (perceived) bias,
or other non-technical and non-organisation arguments is wrong. So if the
visa issues are not much worse then for other countries, and an internet
connection not hampered by a
I think we should meet in Tromsoe, Norway in January or February some
year. The lack of sunlight would make us more productive, the weather
would prevent people from wandering off and missing sessions.
(I think I will get a high Narten score this week :-)
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and
On 9/18/09 14:33, Sep 18, John G. Scudder wrote:
[T]here would also seem to be a risk of loss of productivity due to
self-censorship by people who do choose to attend.
+1
/a
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Sharam,
The draft describes network management requirements and at most states that OAM
must be configurable by network management. It presupposes nothing about the
OAM mechanism used or now the individual network elements (LSRs) recognise the
OAM packets themselves. So I don't understand your
Hi,
Just for clarification, does this draft require using a PID for BFD and
LSP-ping? If not how are the various OAM types identified?
Thanks,
Shahram
-Original Message-
From: mpls-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009
Hi Ben,
Basically I want to understand whether PID is required for OAM or not? Also is
OAM a type of MCC traffic?
Thanks,
Shahram
-Original Message-
From: benjamin.niven-jenk...@bt.com [mailto:benjamin.niven-jenk...@bt.com]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 4:32 PM
To: Shahram Davari;
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 asking for the IESG to review documents in the
future.
--On Tuesday, September 22, 2009 18:37 +0200 Harald Alvestrand
har...@alvestrand.no wrote:
...
I'd like to see the phrase in question removed or perhaps
clarified (say to include planned standards work or some
such).
That phrase was also present in RFC 3932, and, as you note, in
RFC 2026.
Applying the usual disclaimer- this is my personal opinion, and doesn't
reflect the views of any organization with which I may be affiliated:
I do believe this provision is counter to the values and spirit of
contribution toward the evolution of the Internet as a tool for open
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:34:22AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
I have no idea what this would mean for keyboards that don't
contain any Latin-based characters at all, which are the cases
I'm mostly been using when I try to think through these issues.
My keyboard is a U.S.-type keyboard. I
On 9/21/09 09:01, Sep 21, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
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
On 22 Sep 2009, at 19:10, Adam Roach a...@nostrum.com wrote:
On 9/18/09 14:02, Sep 18, Paul
The conversation would be equally valid (and probably contain many
of the same arguments) if we were being asked to make a
substantially similar agreement to meet in, say, Ireland.
Should the
On Sep 22, 2009, at 2:45 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
On 9/21/09 09:01, Sep 21, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/22/09 12:10 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
On 9/18/09 14:02, Sep 18, Paul Wouters wrote:
Pre-emptively excluding countries based on culture, (perceived) bias,
or other non-technical and non-organisation arguments is wrong. So if the
visa issues are
I'm sure that's great advise from the lawyers, but you don't typically
get to negotiate clauses that are required by national law. We'd
obviously love to have it removed or reworded since this would remove
any (some?) concern, but as Ray says, it's the law.
Ole
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Adam Roach
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document:
On Tue Sep 22 19:52:34 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
(I suppose that other SDOs and conference organizers have tried to
work
around this restriction in various ways, but it seems irresponsible
to
do so by ignoring the restriction altogether and letting presenters
say
anything they want,
Well, that's part of the problem in answering the survey ...
Doing half a question is not a good question !
If you ask me, you want to got to Vancouver or Quebec, but you don't inform
about the possible venues, it is USELESS, because I may have preferences
depending on the venue itself (for
On Sep 22, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I think we should meet in Tromsoe, Norway in January or February some
year. The lack of sunlight would make us more productive, the weather
would prevent people from wandering off and missing sessions.
Dear Ole;
Why stay so far South ?
I
At 11:23 AM 9/19/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
Hi Ole,
The IETF is highly ideological. Probably more so than most other SDOs.
We care deeply about the end to end principle, about net neutrality,
and (at least in the community I'm a member of) about
At 12:47 PM 9/22/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Cullen,
Well, nobody has officially announced that the proposed venue is
Beijing, although a lot of people seem to have assumed so and yet
more people copied the assumption. The announcent of the venue
is expected soon, within say 30 days.
But to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/19/09 10:23 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
Hi Ole,
The IETF is highly ideological. Probably more so than most other SDOs.
We care deeply about the end to end principle, about net neutrality,
and (at
I wonder if the situation deserves a look from another angle.
I'm certainly _not_ arguing that the restriction should be there. My
contention is that the restriction of don't criticize the Chinese
government and/or the Chinese culture (however that's defined) is not
such a high threshold.
On Sep 22, 2009, at 1:52 PM, HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS wrote:
The answer is probably 'No'. And that would be a correct answer
because
IETF meeting and podium are not the proper platform for such
discussions.
Actually, the correct answer is no because
those are all historical actions.
Jerry,
I agree with you, and just to inject a little humor, I also agree with
the e-Trade baby when he says it's not the venue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhfl4mFH1No
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com wrote:
Jerry,
I agree with you, and just to inject a little humor, I also agree with
the e-Trade baby when he says it's not the venue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhfl4mFH1No
It seems to me that there have been multiple
On Tue Sep 22 22:02:05 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I think we draw the line at restrictions on our freedom of speech.
There are a huge number of locations where freedom of speech is
restricted. Arguably, depending on how precisely one defines it, the
UK and much of the EU falls into
At 05:44 PM 9/22/2009, Dave Cridland wrote:
On the other hand, I can accept as valid the suggestion that some
people have made that the particular restrictions of speech that the
PRC impose may restrict the scope of discussion that the IETF
typically engages in. I suspect that it may not be so,
On Sep 22, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
On 9/18/09 14:02, Sep 18, Paul Wouters wrote:
Pre-emptively excluding countries based on culture, (perceived) bias,
or other non-technical and non-organisation arguments is wrong. So
if the
visa issues are not much worse then for other
You said:
Because in the free world, defaming the government, disrespecting a
culture, discussing human rights, and discussing religion might be
rude, or they might be the subjects of perfectly appropriate academic
discussions, but they are not illegal.
I agree, but I think you are arguing
On Sep 22, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
You said:
Because in the free world, defaming the government, disrespecting a
culture, discussing human rights, and discussing religion might be
rude, or they might be the subjects of perfectly appropriate academic
discussions, but they are not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/22/09 6:03 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
You said:
Because in the free world, defaming the government, disrespecting a
culture, discussing human rights, and discussing religion might be
rude, or they might be the subjects of perfectly
A couple of things so as not to lose sight of what's actually being discussed:
On 9/20/09 at 5:13 PM +0200, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
Pete Resnick wrote:
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Host (and the IAOC if faced
with similar text in a contract they need to sign) should simply
cross
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
As an example, does your definition of business as usual include the
topics, presentations, and discussions that occurred in the net
neutrality session during the technical plenary at IETF 75? That kind of
session is business as usual for the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/22/09 9:42 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Once again, I see nothing in the offending language that prohibits us
from either discussing or using encryption in any way we see fit. If
you want to host a BOF on how to circumvent certain rules and you
On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Disruptive as defined by whom? It seems to me that the contract we
might
sign cedes the definition of disruptive to a government about whose
laws
we know very little. Do correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know
the IETF has never
Aaron,
This morning I reviewed the IETF web pages, the Tao, the IRTF web pages,
and Wikipedia entries on these two organizations. The way this material
portrays the IETF and the IRTF, I'm having little trouble seeing a
problem with the phrase ... with the IETF standards process or work
done
On 9/18/09 14:33, Sep 18, John G. Scudder wrote:
[T]here would also seem to be a risk of loss of productivity due to
self-censorship by people who do choose to attend.
+1
/a
___
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
60 matches
Mail list logo
