I find it amazing how many different ways there are to criticize DKIM for not
doing something it was never intended to do. DKIM is a small building block
that enables new functionality, but such functionality is beyond the scope of
DKIM.
DKIM does one thing, and one thing only: It uses a
I'd actually vote for NO meetings on Fridays. %90 of attendees fly home
on Friday if at all possible, especially since most of us have flown in on
Sunday. Unless you are local to the meeting, it is a major hassle leaving
after the meetings on Friday, especially if you are
Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote:
On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Something like this:
8:30-11:00 Session I
11:15-12:15 Session II
12:30-13:30 Session III
I really like it, as there are a bunch of post-IETF
Interesting proposal. It could be as proposed with 3 sessions or with 2
sessions and 1/2 hour break between Session I and II depending on the needs
(both would still give 4h30 of meeting):
08:30-11:00 Session I
11:30-13:30 Session II
Thanks,
-dimitri.
-Original Message-
From:
On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:39 AM, John Leslie wrote:
Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote:
On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Something like this:
8:30-11:00 Session I
11:15-12:15 Session II
12:30-13:30 Session III
I
On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:39 AM, John Leslie wrote:
For one, I suggest we take remote-participation _seriously_ for the
Friday meetings. Many of us are waiting-for-Godot at airports on Friday,
and could certainly wear a headphone/mike and watch our laptop screens.
Interesting idea...though would
On Aug 1, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
That may work, but it does require that someone be at the meeting venue
while the rest sit in the airport.
Or we could all just meet at the airport. :)
I suspect that one of the many problems with trying to depend on remote
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 02:22:08PM -0400, Dan Wing wrote:
It's trying to say that today, servers routinely log:
* timestamp
* source IPv4 address
* resource accessed
and that servers, compliant with RFC6302, need to additionally log:
* source port
at least the abstract says:
On 2011-07-30 03:06 , Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 4e3127f1.2030...@unfix.org, Jeroen Massar writes:
On 2011-07-28 01:36 , Mark Andrews wrote:
[..]
Is there *one* tunnel management protocol that they all support or
does a cpe vendor have to implement multiple ones to reach them
all? I'm
Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:39 AM, John Leslie wrote:
For one, I suggest we take remote-participation _seriously_ for the
Friday meetings. Many of us are waiting-for-Godot at airports on Friday,
and could certainly wear a headphone/mike and watch
On 8/1/11 5:14 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:39 AM, John Leslie wrote:
For one, I suggest we take remote-participation _seriously_ for the
Friday meetings. Many of us are waiting-for-Godot at airports on Friday,
and could certainly wear a
I am discussing the possibility with the Secretariat and the IESG. I will
report back to the community as soon as possible.
Russ
On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Something like this:
8:30-11:00 Session I
11:15-12:15 Session II
12:30-13:30 Session III
I really like
On 7/30/11 11:05 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
It seems to me that this does two things, both small but useful.
1) It makes a minor change in the advancement procedures so that they
are more reasonable. They may still not be sufficiently reasonable to
be used, but it improves them, and thereby
On Monday, August 01, 2011 08:48:04 AM Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
I find it amazing how many different ways there are to criticize DKIM for
not doing something it was never intended to do. DKIM is a small building
block that enables new functionality, but such functionality is beyond the
Hi All,
Within the IETF, it has become common to use the term a A Modest Proposal...
as a title for actual proposals for process change within the IETF. This
causes some cultural dissonance for me, personally, and I want to make sure
that people are aware of the origin of this term, and the
This update to the GDOI specification significantly improves clarity and
readability.
However, there is one issue that I think should be addressed prior to
publication:
At the top of page 11, the spec claims that a seq payload protects
against group members responding to groupkey-pull messages
Well, Margaret, thank you for the information (I am serious, not ironical).
I (and, I guess, many other IETFers) was not aware about this historical
usage of A Modest proposal... Although I did not make any proposal so far,
I would have used it out of modesty. You know, to say Listen, I have this
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Margaret Wasserman m...@lilacglade.orgwrote:
Hi All,
Within the IETF, it has become common to use the term a A Modest
Proposal... as a title for actual proposals for process change within the
IETF. This causes some cultural dissonance for me, personally,
Fascinating. I had no idea that there even *was* such a phrase in common
usage, let alone that there was known etymology for it. One learns something
new every day.
But I meant it quite literally: a moderate/humble/etc. proposal for Friday
meeting schedule.
-hadriel
On Aug 1, 2011, at
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Richard Shockey
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 7:19 AM
To: 'IETF Discussion'
Subject: RE: Review of: draft-ietf-iab-draft-iab-dns-applications-02
I would like to add my support here to Dave
Over the weekend I attempted to determine the rules for discussion of drafts
at IETF meetings and was surprised to discover that they are not actually
written down anywhere (other than on the meetings page). As a result we
appear to have an anomalous situation in which an author who misses the
My own recollection is that the working group originally had policy ideas in
its charter, but as we went through the work it became evident that doing DKIM
policy was increasingly hard to get right without creating something unreliable
or even damaging to the current infrastructure. Thus, I
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 02:31:13PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I suggest that this is a sub-optimal state of affairs. I see two solutions:
1) Codify the requirement that materials to be discussed at the meeting must
be submitted before the cut-off and that submissions made during
On Aug 1, 2011, at 2:50 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
My own recollection is that the working group originally had policy ideas in
its charter, but as we went through the work it became evident that doing
DKIM policy was increasingly hard to get right without creating something
unreliable
On Monday, August 01, 2011 02:50:27 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
My own recollection is that the working group originally had policy ideas
in its charter, but as we went through the work it became evident that
doing DKIM policy was increasingly hard to get right without creating
something
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 02:31:13PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I suggest that this is a sub-optimal state of affairs. I see two solutions:
1) Codify the requirement that materials to be discussed at the meeting must
be submitted before the cut-off and that submissions made during
+1
More flexibility, more chair accountability for the decisions
they make about that flexibility, fewer rules and fewer things
that require AD involvement except on appeal and other types of
high-level discussions about whether particular WGs are being
managed properly.
john
--On Monday,
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Hadriel Kaplan hkap...@acmepacket.com wrote:
Fascinating. I had no idea that there even *was* such a phrase in common
usage, let alone that there was known etymology for it. One learns something
new every day.
But I meant it quite literally: a
I think removing the cutoff is the right approach here.
I'd prefer that some date remain on the list of important meeting dates
to remind ourselves that revisions should be in in time for people to
read them.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
I just posted the draft minutes for the Administrative Plenary:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/plenaryw.txt
Many thanks to Dean Willis for taking notes.
Please notify me of any errors that need correcting.
Russ
___
Ietf mailing list
Russ,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 11:10:24AM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
I am discussing the possibility with the Secretariat and the IESG. I will
report back to the community as soon as possible.
I don't think this proposal should be pursued. The breaks fulfil an
important function and there is
On Aug 1, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Mark Atwood wrote:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Hadriel Kaplan hkap...@acmepacket.com
wrote:
Fascinating. I had no idea that there even *was* such a phrase in common
usage, let alone that there was known etymology for it. One learns
something new every
On Aug 1, 2011, at 3:59 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I think removing the cutoff is the right approach here.
I'd prefer that some date remain on the list of important meeting dates
to remind ourselves that revisions should be in in time for people to
read them.
If memory serves, the original
I'd like to join the sparse voices in speaking out against this plan. By
Friday, I'm pretty well on a local meal schedule. Pushing lunch back by
2 hours would pretty well on guarantee that I'd be sugar-crashed and
less coherent than normal by the end of Session II.
/a
On 8/1/11 10:10 AM,
Not to mention the strange grammatical usage that you hear in
Britain:
I am stood in front of the office.
We were sat on the runway for 20 minutes
(Something you say about chess pieces I suppose...)
or:
The Bank of England have announced an increase in interest rates
No wonder us
Speaking for myself, I *highly* value the existing twin cutoff dates.
It makes it possible to perform triage on the drafts before the meeting,
and to read a reasonable number of them that seem important with some care.
Allowing drafts to be posted right up to the start of the meeting would
make
+1 with Adam
- Original Message -
From: Adam Roach [mailto:a...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 04:38 PM
To: Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
Cc: IETF ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: A modest proposal for Friday meeting schedule
I'd like to join the sparse voices in speaking out
I invoke the end to end argument. The working groups know best
whether they will consider late contributions. Working groups already
go around the deadlines when they want to anyway, and some publish
even stronger deadlines, or exclude drafts for other reasons. The
draft process level cutoff
On Aug 1, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Aug 1, 2011, at 3:59 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I think removing the cutoff is the right approach here.
I'd prefer that some date remain on the list of important meeting dates
to remind ourselves that revisions should be in in time for people
Not all IDs are discussed at the upcoming IETF. It is inconvenient to
need to delay an update or new submission simply because there's an IETF
coming up.
And all I've seen the deadline accomplish is that people post non-posted
updates on local websites for discussion anyway.
Unless there's
Do I hear a call for a morning cookie break?
Tony hansen
On 8/1/2011 5:50 PM, Andrew Allen wrote:
+1 with Adam
- Original Message -
From: Adam Roach [mailto:a...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 04:38 PM
To: Russ Housleyhous...@vigilsec.com
Cc: IETFietf@ietf.org
On Aug 1, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Not all IDs are discussed at the upcoming IETF. It is inconvenient to need to
delay an update or new submission simply because there's an IETF coming up.
And all I've seen the deadline accomplish is that people post non-posted
updates on local
Perhaps. But it's difficult to escape the impression that this is
another example of IETF failing to solve an important problem by
focusing on a portion of the problem that's easy to solve, and ruling
the difficult part out of scope for the time being.
It's definitely a case of the best being
On Aug 1, 2011, at 6:57 PM, John Levine wrote:
Perhaps. But it's difficult to escape the impression that this is
another example of IETF failing to solve an important problem by
focusing on a portion of the problem that's easy to solve, and ruling
the difficult part out of scope for the time
I greatly prefer the current meeting schedule to one that packs meetings in to
a shorter time period on Friday. As another poster mentioned, I too am tired by
Friday, and I'm unlikely to stay focused through 5 straight hours of meetings,
especially if I'm expected to keep going two hours past
I have a different idea than trying to cram more meeting time into a busy week.
Is it possible that there are too many IETF working groups, or that IETF
working groups are taking on too much work?
I keep going to working group meetings that have overflowing agendas of mostly
presentations,
On Aug 1, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Over the weekend I attempted to determine the rules for discussion of drafts
at IETF meetings and was surprised to discover that they are not actually
written down anywhere (other than on the meetings page). As a result we
appear to
Margaret,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:02:22PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to conflicts,
I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the plenaries and hold meetings
during that time slot.
I was already planning to bring this up
Keith == Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com writes:
Keith On Aug 1, 2011, at 3:59 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I think removing the cutoff is the right approach here.
I'd prefer that some date remain on the list of important meeting
dates to remind ourselves that revisions
On 2011-08-02 11:35, David Kessens wrote:
Margaret,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:02:22PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to conflicts,
I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the plenaries and hold meetings
during that time slot.
Does it follow, then, that the Right Thing to do is to avoid
building any other parts of the system (even, say, the reputation
service query protocol) until the easiest part is finished?
If we knew what to build, we'd build it.
We published RFC 5518 for VBR, a reputation system that sits on
--On Monday, August 01, 2011 19:02 -0400 Margaret Wasserman
m...@lilacglade.org wrote:
...
If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to
conflicts, I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the
plenaries and hold meetings during that time slot.
Margaret,
FWIW, I personally
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like
Keith Moore wrote:
Perhaps. But it's difficult to escape the impression that this is
another example of IETF failing to solve an important problem by focusing
on a portion of the problem that's easy to solve, and ruling the difficult
part out of scope for the time being. Repeat as needed;
I'd like to add my voice to those who wouldn't like the proposed
compressed Friday schedule.
However, I do think there are things we could try to tweak the
schedule. For example, perhaps on one or two days, we could split
the morning slot into two slots of 1:10 with a ten-minute break.
Many
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6342
Title: Mobile Networks Considerations for IPv6
Deployment
Author: R. Koodli
Status: Informational
Stream: IETF
Date:
The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to
consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 in 3GPP Evolved Packet System'
draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-eps-03.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this
57 matches
Mail list logo
