Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF

2009-10-02 Thread Hui Deng
Dave, Thanks for your clarification, now I understand this has converged to a more contract language issue. At this stage, I may not be able to help on the detail languages since I guess the hoster or IAOC already have been deeply involved in it. Anyhow, I apprecaite that you make everybody more

Re: [sasl] Last Call: draft-ietf-sasl-scram

2009-10-02 Thread Alexey Melnikov
On 9/23/09, Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 07:54:56PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > > I have noticed an additional problem related to additional data in > > SCRAM. RFC 4422 section 5 item 2b says: > > > > b) An indication of whether the server is expected to provide

Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF

2009-10-02 Thread Noel Chiappa
> From: Hui Deng > Lastly, I think that everybody have to self-censor about what he does. It's not clear that (self-)censorship is going to be the worst problem from an IETF in the PRC. One of the things I would be most concerned about is the PRC government using this meeting for propoga

Re: IPv4 addresses eaten by... what? (was: IPv6 standard)

2009-10-02 Thread Phillip Hallam-Baker
The use of market mechanisms to allocate radio spectrum is now pretty much the norm around the world. The only countries that might object to such mechanisms on ideological grounds are either powerless to object (Cuba, North Korea) or considerably more concerned about ensuring access to IP addresse

Re: Last Call: draft-weiler-rsync-uri (The rsync URI Scheme) to Informational RFC

2009-10-02 Thread Samuel Weiler
I think the point is that the IESG should probably refer the doc to the uri-review team to look for any red flags. Mistakes in URI specs are common (speaking has one that has made some). The editors asked the uri-review list for feedback in July of this year, as required by RFC 4395. -- Sam

Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF

2009-10-02 Thread John C Klensin
--On Friday, October 02, 2009 11:55 -0400 Noel Chiappa wrote: > It's not clear that (self-)censorship is going to be the worst > problem from an IETF in the PRC. One of the things I would be > most concerned about is the PRC government using this meeting > for propoganda purposes (either intern

Results of Venue Contract Survey

2009-10-02 Thread Bob Hinden
On 18 September 2009 the IAOC requested input via the IETF list and a survey regarding a venue contract provision concerning the hotel's right to terminate the IETF meeting under certain conditions. We sought to determine the impact of this provision on the meeting and the potential fina