not replying specific to this mail but to the tons that have arrived
lately, are there some confusion out there that it is the amount of
votes on ietf@ that make a do/do not on a draft? ... or just me
missunderstanding this?
anyway, great to see people participate :-)
--- Roger J ---
On Tue,
Greg,
That is fine with me.
Best regards
Matthew
On 15/02/2012 22:14, Gregory Mirsky
gregory.mir...@ericsson.commailto:gregory.mir...@ericsson.com wrote:
Dear Matthew, Authors, et al.,
I think that new text of fourth para in Section 5.3 adds some confusion. If
intension is to stop sending
On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 19:26 -0600, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 2/14/12 2:35 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
what silliness. it will be used as rfc 1918 space no matter what the
document
says.
[...]
any thought that this is not just adding to rfc 1918 is pure bs.
Of course it will be used
Having spoken to a number of the authors at length
I think the text changes that Matthew has proposed
are correct (with Greg's change) and thank the authors
for picking this up.
I propose to let this sit until a week tomorrow (23/Feb)
and provided that there are no technical issues with the
A current Last Call has apparently brought on another of the
please tell all your friends to send in supportive notes, even
if they don't say much of anything substantive campaigns that
we see from time to time. When those notes come from people who
do not routinely participate on IETF lists,
Subject: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at
09:04:03AM -0500 Quoting John C Klensin (john-i...@jck.com):
...
first appearance of many no-information I support this
endorsements from people and constituencies who are not regular
participants on the IETF list
On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
Subject: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at
09:04:03AM -0500 Quoting John C Klensin (john-i...@jck.com):
...
first appearance of many no-information I support this
endorsements from people and constituencies
On 2/16/2012 6:09 AM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
Yes, I see the difficulties in figuring out the details of such
a rule and implementing it and am mostly joking. Mostly.
I support this.
You support the joking?
Or is it that you support vague rules that are unenforceable and will generate
On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:04 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
A current Last Call has apparently brought on another of the
please tell all your friends to send in supportive notes, even
if they don't say much of anything substantive campaigns that
we see from time to time. When those notes come from
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
snip
I think that an endorsement like I work for Cisco and we intend to implement
this in every one of our products is useful. But it's not nearly as useful
as this is a terrible idea, and doing this will prevent IPv6 from
On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
snip
I think that an endorsement like I work for Cisco and we intend to
implement this in every one of our products is useful. But it's not nearly
as useful as this is
From: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
When those notes come from people who do not routinely participate on
IETF lists
Well, that's the $64 million question, right? I mean, I don't personally
subscribe to every IETF-related list, so I have no idea if the people who are
posting
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 03:43, Martin Millnert mar...@millnert.se wrote:
This is 100% matched by an allocation of globally unique space from a
RIR, shared by whoever the interested parties are.
The IETF *need not* specify any BCP on how to improve NAT444
CGN-scale alone, because such action
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 02:34, Roger Jørgensen rog...@gmail.com wrote:
not replying specific to this mail but to the tons that have arrived
lately, are there some confusion out there that it is the amount of
votes on ietf@ that make a do/do not on a draft? ... or just me
missunderstanding
For what it is worth, those who I've seen commenting in the +1 fashion
recently are primarily people I've known to be active in the IETF for
years - including some WG chairs.
I don't think this is an effort to round up external voters - but
rather encouragement to others inside IETF to publicly
Hi John,
At 06:04 16-02-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
A current Last Call has apparently brought on another of the
please tell all your friends to send in supportive notes, even
if they don't say much of anything substantive campaigns that
we see from time to time. When those notes come from
Dear Chris,
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 08:43 -0700, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 03:43, Martin Millnert mar...@millnert.se wrote:
This is 100% matched by an allocation of globally unique space from a
RIR, shared by whoever the interested parties are.
The IETF *need not*
I support the current draft-weil as recently updated. I believe the updated
draft is more flexible, and would satisfy additional use cases that don't work
with RFC1918 space.
Thanks
Scott Griffith
GCI Product Manager
Anchorage, AK
___
Ietf mailing
This is less a substantive comment but one more on process..
Here is the history of WGLC:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core/current/msg02427.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core/current/msg01414.html
Here is the history:
Dear Matthew, Authors, et al.,
I think that new text of fourth para in Section 5.3 adds some confusion. If
intension is to stop sending 'all clear' after three one-second intervals went
unacknowledged but before refresh timer expires then perhpas new text can be
more explicit:
NEW:
To clear a
On 2/16/12 6:59 AM, Alia Atlas wrote:
For what it is worth, those who I've seen commenting in the +1 fashion
recently are primarily people I've known to be active in the IETF for
years - including some WG chairs.
I tend to be involved with different working groups from the ones
John is, and
On 16/02/2012 16:35, Martin Millnert wrote:
You seem to want me to believe that:
- there is a fixed set of networks, who are going to deploy either:
- a sucky IPv4 network, or,
- a less sucky IPv4 network,
- it would be entirely depending on the passing of this draft,
- the
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 09:35, Martin Millnert mar...@millnert.se wrote:
Dear Chris,
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 08:43 -0700, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 03:43, Martin Millnert mar...@millnert.se wrote:
This is 100% matched by an allocation of globally unique space from a
Hi Nick,
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 16:58 +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
There is no particular reason to allocate this space on a regional
basis, unless for some reason you believe that you can force carriers
only to use this shared address space for specific purposes - and I
cannot see why you
Hi John.
Turns out Jari sent a message with an overview of the changes. But it
only went to the lisp mailing list, to which I'm not subscribed.
See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg03674.html
That is the sort of explanation I was looking for.
But since re-chartering is an
Hi Chris,
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 10:09 -0700, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 09:35, Martin Millnert mar...@millnert.se wrote:
snip
you seem to be of the opinion that improving the feasibility of CGN, by
making it suck less, will not have any impact on potential set of
Hi Thomas,
On Feb 15, 2012, at 4:31 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
A WG Review message for this WG already went out a month ago.
What has changed to necessitate another Last Call?
Could the-powers-that-be please make it easier for those who might
care to understand if there is something here
Thanks, Thomas. In case it's not obvious, Jari's message isn't responsive to
the points I raised in my own message so I'll look forward to discussing those.
--John
On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:10 PM, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Hi John.
Turns out Jari sent a message with an overview
So SEARS is a method of replacing the DNS roots with a well-known
service portal providing a Google or other SE based access model. The
session can interface with traditional HTTP or DNS-Lookup Ports to
deliver content or addresses to a browser in the form of a HTTP redirection.
The protocol
everyone--
My position on this draft remains unchanged. It is far too forgiving of the
6to4-PMT [I-D.kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel] proposal, which I
regard as abominable. That reason alone, in my judgment, is sufficient grounds
that it should not be published. I also share
Hi Don,
thanks for the feedback.
link-format has been essentially stable for the better part of a year now (as
the result of dispatching of the comments on the first WGLC in -03, IIRC). It
has been used in a number of informal interop events, and the feedback always
was that it did its job
--On Thursday, February 16, 2012 07:49 -0900 Melinda Shore
melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/16/12 6:59 AM, Alia Atlas wrote:
For what it is worth, those who I've seen commenting in the
+1 fashion recently are primarily people I've known to be
active in the IETF for years - including some
How do you find the well-known service portal if DNS isn't working?
Dale
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Todd Glassey
[tglas...@certichron.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:30 AM
To: dn...@ietf.org; IETF Discussion
From: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
people who haven't participated and haven't studied the drafts
This isn't exactly about a complicated protocol: it's about whether to assign
an address block or not.
Noel
___
Ietf mailing list
On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
The bottom line for this ID is that address space will be required for CGN,
and rfc1918 doesn't cut it for reasons described in the ID. This means
that the address space must come from somewhere else. The choices are:
1. one or more shared
On Feb 16, 2012, at 19:52, Don Sturek wrote:
Hi Carsten,
Somehow, luck is not how I would have described the process.
I think if you thought it important enough to do a WGLC in November 2011,
you maybe should have made it for longer than a week
I did.
and avoided the US
Thanksgiving
In message 9bbaf712-d199-4950-a516-33c830756...@checkpoint.com, Yoav Nir
writes:
On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Roger J=F8rgensen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
snip
I think that an endorsement like I work for Cisco and we intend to impl=
On 16/02/2012 19:42, David Conrad wrote:
One implication of draft-weil not being accepted is that it will likely
accelerate IPv4 free pool exhaustion as the folks interested in
draft-weil will simply go out and get blocks from their RIRs while they
still can. I will admit a small part of me
On 16/02/2012 19:42, Noel Chiappa wrote:
This isn't exactly about a complicated protocol: it's about whether to assign
an address block or not.
It's a quintessential bike-shed problem. The only reason that people are
moaning about it so much is that they understand the concept of address
Until now, the IRTF didn't have a clearly formulated statement of how IPR is
handled by the organization. For the last year, the IRSG has been discussing
this topic with the IETF's legal counsel and other community members with a
deep understanding of the issues.
The result of this discussion
Todd Glassey wrote:
So SEARS is a method of replacing the DNS roots with a well-known
service portal providing a Google or other SE based access model. The
session can interface with traditional HTTP or DNS-Lookup Ports to
deliver content or addresses to a browser in the form of a HTTP
Steven Bellovin wrote:
Thus, IPv6 was mortally wounded from the beginning.
The history is vastly more complex than that. However, this particular
decision
was just about the last one the IPng directorate made before reporting back to
the IETF -- virtually everything else in the basic
If I may separate issues for a moment,
the absence of milestones is because Terry and I have to come up with a
proposal for them which matche sthe revised goals.
If you read the rest of the differences, you will see that the general
question of what LISP is aimed at providing is indeed still
On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:30 39PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Steven Bellovin wrote:
Thus, IPv6 was mortally wounded from the beginning.
The history is vastly more complex than that. However, this particular
decision
was just about the last one the IPng directorate made before reporting back
Total of 227 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Feb 17 00:53:02 EST 2012
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
7.49% | 17 | 5.04% |94840 | j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
7.05% | 16 | 4.74% |89192 |
It's a quintessential bike-shed problem. The only reason that people are
moaning about it so much is that they understand the concept of address
allocation.
exactly. they understand the concept. and, like many things where the
surface seems easy, everyone thinks they're an expert.
randy
The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'Elliptic Curve DSA for DNSSEC'
draft-ietf-dnsext-ecdsa-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.
At many IETF meetings, the rooms used for the Administrative and Technical
plenaries are constructed out of the same rooms used for the working sessions,
with moving walls taken down to create one large space. These rooms have power
strips in them because we lay power for the all-day working
48 matches
Mail list logo
