RE: IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6)

Keep your head in the sand. Efforts towards convergence to a post mortem are rarely fast and rarely painless. -Original Message- From: Richard L. Barnes [mailto:rbar...@bbn.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 10:05 PM To: Michel Py Cc: Keith Moore; Noel Chiappa; ietf@ietf.org Subject:

RE: IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6)

Fine, remove me. -Original Message- From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 11:02 PM To: rbar...@bbn.com; Michel Py Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Keith Moore; Noel Chiappa Subject: Re: IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6) Yes, please, s

Re: IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6)

Yes, please, stop immediately this thread (at least the "personal" way it is going on) or I will be forced as sergeant-at-arms to remove the participants from the IETF mail exploder. Regards, Jordi > From: "Richard L. Barnes" > Reply-To: > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 22:04:46 -0700 > To: Michel Py

IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6)

NEW NON-IETF LIST ANNOUNCEMENT IETF Ad Hominem Discussions This group is dedicated to the discussion of the personal flaws of IETF participants. -- Airing of old grievances -- Arguments about who gets credit for what -- Revelation of hidden conflicts of interest / conspiracies

Re: existing (and questionable) application designs [was Re: US DoD and IPv6]

The problem with such opinions is that a bunch of purple are deploying ipv6, so that in a couple of years you will have to extend your NAT draft to cover communicating with v6 nodes anyway, and what's the point then? Arnt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@iet

RE: US DoD and IPv6

> Michel Py wrote: >> Has it occurred to you that, if it was not for your >> blind opposition to NAT, we could be living in a world >> of 6to4 implemented in the ubiquitous NAT box? > Keith Moore wrote: > Why do you think I proposed 6to4 in the first place? There > was no vendor interest in puttin

Re: existing (and questionable) application designs [was Re: US DoD and IPv6]

Brian E Carpenter wrote: > The problem is that the creation of disjoint addressing realms > (due to NAT and to IPv4/IPv6 coexistence) has made distributed > application design almost impossible without kludges. That's why we shouldn't use IPv6. With port restricted IPv4 (such as A+P, E2ENAT, PE-

existing (and questionable) application designs [was Re: US DoD and IPv6]

On 2010-10-07 13:57, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 06/10/2010 05:40 p.m., Keith Moore wrote: > It's perfectly reasonable for applications to include IP addresses and port numbers in their payloads, as this is the only way that the Internet Architecture defines to allow applications

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On 06/10/2010 05:40 p.m., Keith Moore wrote: >>> It's perfectly reasonable for applications to include IP >>> addresses and port numbers in their payloads, as this is the only >>> way that the Internet Architecture defines to allow applications >>> to make contact with particular processes at part

Re: [TLS] [certid] review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-09

Double sorry, I meant to sent this only to the cer...@ietf.org list: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid On 10/6/10 2:53 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > Sorry about the delayed reply, still catching up on list traffic here... > > On 9/22/10 4:11 PM, Henry B. Hotz wrote: >> >> On Sep 22,

Re: [certid] review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-09

Sorry about the delayed reply, still catching up on list traffic here... On 9/22/10 4:11 PM, Henry B. Hotz wrote: > > On Sep 22, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> 2. A human user has explicitly agreed to trust a service that >> provides mappings of source domains to target domai

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:46 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Oct 6, 2010, at 7:43 AM, Keith Moore wrote: >> DNS has never been, and never will be, suitable as a general endpoint naming >> mechanism. > > What do you mean by "a general endpoint naming mechanism"? It's a good question, but it might take

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 6, 2010, at 3:38 PM, Fernando Gont wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Keith Moore > wrote: > >>> When applications that e.g. include point of attachment addresses in the >>> app protocol break in the presence of NATs, one should probably ask >>> whether the NAT is breaking the app

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:59 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > And what would we say of architects who continued to build to their original > plan after the bombs had been flying for twenty years and showed no sign of > stopping? which architects would those be? I see little sign of architectural

Re: [ietf] DNS spoofing at captive portals

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:34:15PM -0400, John R. Levine wrote: > >Hmm. Are you talking about SiteFinder-like services? > > Not really. There turn out to be a significant number of domains, > in the hundreds of thousands at least, that are purely evil. IMHO, "tens of millions" is closer to rea

Re: US DoD and IPv6

And what would we say of architects who continued to build to their original plan after the bombs had been flying for twenty years and showed no sign of stopping? I would prefer the architects with the plans for a bomb shelter. On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > > On Oct 6, 20

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > The central problem with the Internet seems to be that nearly everybody who > routes traffic thinks it's okay to violate the architecture and alter the > traffic to optimize for his/her specific circumstances - and the end users > and their wid

RE: US DoD and IPv6

Gentlemen: The IPv6 deployment is what it is and nobody is to blame that it isn't greater or less than it is. It should not surprise anybody that IPv6 hasn't been more widely deployed to date, because, after all, I explained back in 1993 in RFC 1687 why that would happen. Going forward, there

RE: Gen-ART LC/Telechat Review of draft-ietf-isis-genapp-03.txt

Ben - The points you make below make sense to me - but I am not sure how we get the stronger review process associated w "Expert Review" and at the same time require that some public document exist for each application. Are you saying that we can require both? I actually thought that was the inten

Re: Gen-ART LC/Telechat Review of draft-ietf-isis-genapp-03.txt

On Oct 6, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: [...] >>> >>> From RFC 5226: >>> >>> "Specification Required - Values and their meanings must be >>> documented in a permanent and readily available public >>> specification, in sufficient detail so that >> intero

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: RJ Atkinson > >> It seems so incredibly unlikely that end-to-end connectivity (i.e. >> without NAT, NAPT, or other middleboxes) is going to increase in > future. > > Indeed. It seems that the likelihood of IPv6 being used ub

RE: Gen-ART LC/Telechat Review of draft-ietf-isis-genapp-03.txt

Ben - > -Original Message- > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 7:10 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: draft-ietf-isis-genapp@tools.ietf.org; General Area Review > Team; The IETF > Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC/Telechat Review of draft-ietf-

Re: Gen-ART LC/Telechat Review of draft-ietf-isis-genapp-03.txt

Thanks for the quick response. Comments inline: On Oct 6, 2010, at 7:55 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > Ben - > > Thanx for the review. > Inline. > >> -Original Message- >> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 12:06 PM >> To: draft-ietf-is

RE: Gen-ART LC/Telechat Review of draft-ietf-isis-genapp-03.txt

Ben - Thanx for the review. Inline. > -Original Message- > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 12:06 PM > To: draft-ietf-isis-genapp@tools.ietf.org; General Area Review Team > Cc: The IETF > Subject: Gen-ART LC/Telechat Review of draft-ietf-i

Gen-ART LC/Telechat Review of draft-ietf-isis-genapp-03.txt

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-isis-genapp-0

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Keith Moore wrote: >> When applications that e.g. include point of attachment addresses in the >> app protocol break in the presence of NATs, one should probably ask >> whether the NAT is breaking the app, or whether the NAT is making it >> clear that the app was a

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Keith Moore > wrote: > The central problem with the Internet seems to be that nearly everybody who > routes traffic thinks it's okay to violate the architecture and alter the > traffic to optimize for h

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 6, 2010, at 7:43 AM, Keith Moore wrote: > DNS has never been, and never will be, suitable as a general endpoint naming > mechanism. What do you mean by "a general endpoint naming mechanism"? Regards, -drc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org h

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 06/10/2010 01:43 p.m., Keith Moore wrote: > >> Honestly, I don't think we can tell. In the short term, it certainly >> doesn't look good for end-to-end transparency.But unlike 10 years >> ago, today there's a widespread understanding of

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On 06/10/2010 01:43 p.m., Keith Moore wrote: > Honestly, I don't think we can tell. In the short term, it certainly > doesn't look good for end-to-end transparency.But unlike 10 years > ago, today there's a widespread understanding of the problems caused > by lack of transparency, and much le

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 6, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: Keith Moore > >> Do you actually have a point to make > > That depends. Are you still of the opinion that IPv6 will, in our lifetimes, > become ubiquitously deployed, thereby restoring us to a world of transparent > end-end, or do you t

Re: US DoD and IPv6

> From: Keith Moore > Do you actually have a point to make That depends. Are you still of the opinion that IPv6 will, in our lifetimes, become ubiquitously deployed, thereby restoring us to a world of transparent end-end, or do you think we should acknowledge that that's not going to hap

RE: US DoD and IPv6

> From: "Michel Py" > you are one of the main persons behind the failure of IPv6. I think that's unfair. To my mind (when I sat and did a long post-mortem after the IETF adopted IPv6 almost two decades ago, trying to understand why I hadn't been able to convince people to do something d

Re: Pigeon flies past broadband in data speed race

Actually nobody's shooting Google's fiber, the NANOG story was "clarified" by Google HQ: http://bit.ly/ds512g RB On 9/23/2010 12:49 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote: Reminds me of an implementation report of RFC1149 Firewalling way back at IETF 55 (see http://bert.secret-wg.org/Trips/IETF55/ middle of

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:10 AM, Michel Py wrote: >>> Noel Chiappa wrote: >>> The interesting question, of course, is whether (and if so, when) the > IETF >>> will deign to notice this reality - or will it continue to prefer to > stick >>> its collective fingers in its ears and keep going > 'neener-ne