On Jul 30, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> It's been pointed out before that in a group with very diverse languages,
> written words are usually better understood than speech. It's a fact of life
> that you can't have a full-speed cut-and-thrust discussion in a group
> of 100 people
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/intarea/trac/wiki/MeetingTimePrioritization
Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
I can't imagine how I could implement the frame buffers in VP8 in VLSI without
having an upper limit on both the width and height of the image. How do you
deal with that?
The one hardware VP8 decoder I have any experience with so far is mostly
throughput-limit
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/07/2013 05:21, Melinda Shore wrote:
> > On 7/30/13 7:59 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> >> I don't think that's the problem; I think the problem is that most
> >> users don't realize how much lack of transpar
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 08:38:26AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> It's been pointed out before that in a group with very diverse languages,
> written words are usually better understood than speech. It's a fact of life
> that you can't have a full-speed cut-and-thrust discussion in a group
>
Just to make sure we have good data, can we go back a few more years?
Specifically, did we not previously have a restriction forbidding references
FS->DS, and {FS,DS}->PS? RFC3967 was in Dec. 2004, but I thought that we
had some other work more recently (2008?) that attempted to unjam things.
> From: Joe Touch
> "what people want" (ISP operators, or at least some of them), was an
> artificial way to differentiate home customers from commercial
> providers.
> I.e., they wanted to create a differentiation that wasn't part of the
> Internet architecture, so they p
On 7/30/2013 6:23 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
The IETF doesn't have a police force, or any enforcement mechanism. If we're
going to head off these boxes, the only tool we have to do that is to build
better mousetraps - i.e. design stuff that does what people want, is more
cost-effective, and is bet
On 7/30/2013 5:17 AM, Roland Bless wrote:
Hi,
my impression from several presentations seen this week at the IETF
as well as at the ISOC Panel on "Improving Internet Experience"
is that we probably need to do something on reducing the number
of _broken_ middleboxes (or their implementations re
Hi Noel,
On 30.07.2013 15:23, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> I hear you, but... this is not a simple problem.
Yes, and I wasn't expecting it to be simple...
> I think we need to start by understanding what drives the creation and
> deployment of these devices. I think the answer to that has to be that so
On 7/30/2013 11:00 PM, SM wrote:
The hurdle in moving a specification (not a RFC) from PS to IS is that
the draft goes through IESG Evaluation again. As for public review, it
can be a hurdle too as the pervious discussions can be rehashed.
And, of course, if it "can" be reshashed, in the IETF
On 7/30/13 12:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Users want applications to just work, but they (and many business
> managers in our "industry") don't understand that when applications
> fail unpredictably, it's often because of glitches in what we call
> transparency.
I suspect applications are no
At 11:27 30-07-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
Disclaimers and possible small classification errors aside and
being careful to avoid making causal assumptions, I believe that
the implication of the above is that there is no evidence that
the 3 -> 2 transition has increased the number of documents
bei
On 31/07/2013 05:47, Bob Braden wrote:
> On 7/30/2013 9:35 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>>
>> Easy fix: 'slide' (well, nobody uses real slides anymore :-) rationing.
>>
>> E.g. if a presenter has a 10 minute slot, maximum of 3 'slides'
>> (approximately; maybe less). That will force the slides to be 'di
On Jul 30, 2013, at 7:47 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
> On 7/30/2013 9:35 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>>
>> Easy fix: 'slide' (well, nobody uses real slides anymore :-) rationing.
>>
>> E.g. if a presenter has a 10 minute slot, maximum of 3 'slides'
>> (approximately; maybe less). That will force the slid
On 31/07/2013 05:21, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 7/30/13 7:59 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> I don't think that's the problem; I think the problem is that most
>> users don't realize how much lack of transparency is harming them.
>> So "transparent Internet access" isn't a commodity.Transparency
>> wo
On 31/07/2013 06:27, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 16:41 +0200 IETF Chair
> wrote:
>
>> Last night there was a question in the plenary about how many
>> PS->IS transitions have occurred since RFC 6410 was published
>> in October 2011. That RFC changed the three-step stand
--On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 16:41 +0200 IETF Chair
wrote:
> Last night there was a question in the plenary about how many
> PS->IS transitions have occurred since RFC 6410 was published
> in October 2011. That RFC changed the three-step standards
> process to two steps. There was also a questio
On 7/30/2013 9:35 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Easy fix: 'slide' (well, nobody uses real slides anymore :-) rationing.
E.g. if a presenter has a 10 minute slot, maximum of 3 'slides'
(approximately; maybe less). That will force the slides to be 'discussion
frameworks', rather than 'detailed overview
On 7/30/13 7:59 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> I don't think that's the problem; I think the problem is that most
> users don't realize how much lack of transparency is harming them.
> So "transparent Internet access" isn't a commodity.Transparency
> would be cheaper if there were more demand for it,
On Jul 30, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> {{citation-needed}} - I've only ever seen specification conformance in
> procurement documents for military systems, never for anything else.
It's quite common to see a list of supported RFCs in the spec sheet for a piece
of network hardware.
> From: Keith Moore
Great message. One idea:
> WG meeting sessions aren't scheduled to encourage discussion, but to
> discourage it. At meeting after meeting, in several different areas, I
> see the lion's share of the time devoted to presentations rather than
> discussion.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > The IETF doesn't have a police force, or any enforcement mechanism.
>
> That's true, but people do sometimes cite IETF specifications as
> requirements for equipment procurement. And in m
On Jul 30, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
> Keith Moore wrote:
>
>> Rooms are set up not to facilitate discussion, but to discourage it. The
>> lights are dim, the chairs are facing forward rather than other participants,
>> the projector screen (not the person facilitating
>>
>> Personally I would characterise this as a demand-side problem, not
>> supply-side: most users plainly aren't willing to pay for Internet
>> transparency.
>
>I don't think that's the problem; I think the problem is that most users
>don't realize how much lack of transparency is harming them.
Keith Moore wrote:
> But earlier today I realized that the problem isn't just the cost of
attending
> meetings - it's the value that we get in return for those meetings.
I've been
> taking notes about how ineffectively we use our meeting time. Most of
what
> I've observed w
On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Josh Howlett wrote:
>>
>> Though of course an underlying problem is that no vendor wants to sell
>> hardware that will obsolete itself, unless of course it obsoletes itself
>> by requiring the customer to purchase even more expensive hardware than
>> it replaces.
On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> We have discussed diversity at the IETF at length. Yesterday, Pete Resnick
> and I wrote an article about what we think the goal for the IETF should be,
> as well as listing some of the early activities that we have taken at the
> IETF. Our goal
>
>Though of course an underlying problem is that no vendor wants to sell
>hardware that will obsolete itself, unless of course it obsoletes itself
>by requiring the customer to purchase even more expensive hardware than
>it replaces.It's hard to see how IETF could fight against vendors who
>we
Hi Jari, Pete,
At 06:53 30-07-2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
We have discussed diversity at the IETF at length. Yesterday, Pete
Resnick and I wrote an article about what we think the goal for the
IETF should be, as well as listing some of the early activities that
we have taken at the IETF. Our goal i
On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> From: Roland Bless
>
>> we probably need to do something on reducing the number of _broken_
>> middleboxes (or their implementations respectively) - I'm not focusing
>> on NAT boxes here.
>> ...
>> I think it's clear that we will not get rid o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/30/13 4:44 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> On 7/30/13 4:42 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 7/30/13 4:40 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>
>>> Captchas? Recaptchas?
>>
>>> Also, AFAIK WordPress has some good anti-spam add-ons.
>>
>> Yes, Akismet help
On 30/07/13 16:44, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 7/30/13 4:40 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Captchas? Recaptchas?
Also, AFAIK WordPress has some good anti-spam add-ons.
the obvious one is simply a requirement to use your ietf tools
credientials to post.
+1. the best current practice so far.
On 30/07/13 16:34, Jari Arkko wrote:
Arturo:
Now, something general related to the blog. Perhaps it would be good to
enable comments, isn't it?
understandable. based on the experience running one blog for a
organization, if such posts are in English, easily ended up with loads of
On 7/30/13 4:42 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 7/30/13 4:40 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> > Captchas? Recaptchas?
>
> > Also, AFAIK WordPress has some good anti-spam add-ons.
>
> Yes, Akismet helps a lot.
>
> But this is probably a better topic for the tools-discuss list, eh? ;-)
>
> Peter
>
Pet
On 7/30/13 4:40 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> Captchas? Recaptchas?
>
> Also, AFAIK WordPress has some good anti-spam add-ons.
the obvious one is simply a requirement to use your ietf tools
credientials to post.
>
> Regards,
> as
>
>
>
>
> On 7/30/13 4:34 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> Arturo:
>>
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/30/13 4:40 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> Captchas? Recaptchas?
>
> Also, AFAIK WordPress has some good anti-spam add-ons.
Yes, Akismet helps a lot.
But this is probably a better topic for the tools-discuss list, eh? ;-)
Peter
- --
Peter Sain
Last night there was a question in the plenary about how many PS->IS
transitions have occurred since RFC 6410 was published in October 2011. That
RFC changed the three-step standards process to two steps. There was also a
question of how this compared to previous times before that RFC got approv
Captchas? Recaptchas?
Also, AFAIK WordPress has some good anti-spam add-ons.
Regards,
as
On 7/30/13 4:34 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Arturo:
>
>> Now, something general related to the blog. Perhaps it would be good to
>> enable comments, isn't it?
>
> Yes, that has been issue that h
Arturo:
> Now, something general related to the blog. Perhaps it would be good to
> enable comments, isn't it?
Yes, that has been issue that has bugged me as well. The IT team tells me that
it is problematic from a spam perspective, and they do not want me spending my
time approving/remo
Jari, Peter
Thanks for the article. It is really welcomed to see that "diversity"
is something that the IETF is taking really seriously.
Now, something general related to the blog. Perhaps it would be good to
enable comments, isn't it?
I think that it would be good to int
We have discussed diversity at the IETF at length. Yesterday, Pete Resnick and
I wrote an article about what we think the goal for the IETF should be, as well
as listing some of the early activities that we have taken at the IETF. Our
goal is making the IETF more inclusive for everyone who needs
> From: Roland Bless
> we probably need to do something on reducing the number of _broken_
> middleboxes (or their implementations respectively) - I'm not focusing
> on NAT boxes here.
> ...
> I think it's clear that we will not get rid of them, but if I hear
> about b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I raised the need for this transparency in this writeup:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tschofenig-hourglass-00
The document also points to some projects / paper I am aware of that are
relevant. There may be more.
Ciao
Hannes
On Jul 30, 2013,
Hi,
my impression from several presentations seen this week at the IETF
as well as at the ISOC Panel on "Improving Internet Experience"
is that we probably need to do something on reducing the number
of _broken_ middleboxes (or their implementations respectively)
- I'm not focusing on NAT boxes he
Dave,
> I've been finding discussion and actions about newcomers far more interesting
> this year, than most previous ones. So I think it's worth pressing on
> several fronts, to see how we can both accommodate such folk better, as well
> as be clear about when and where and how such accommoda
46 matches
Mail list logo
