Re: Montevideo statement

It was pointed out that I got the RFC numbers wrong. Sorry. I should have RFC 6220 (role of IETF protocol parameters operators) and RFC 2850 (IAB charter). Jari

Re: Montevideo statement

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > I think that is a better approach actually. The CC TLDs are in effect > members of a bridge CA and ICANN is merely the bridge administrator. It is an interesting way to say it, and put that way, I like it. One activity that I believe is an NSA attack on goo

Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)

Thank you for your frank and honest response John. -Jorge > On Oct 11, 2013, at 3:18 PM, John Curran wrote: > >> On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: >> >> Just to start, there is no clear consensus of what "Internet Governance" >> means and entails. > > You are correct. The t

IETF 88 Final Agenda

88th IETF Meeting - Vancouver, BC, Canada November 3 - 8, 2013 The final agenda has been posted. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/88/agenda.html https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/88/agenda.txt While this is considered the final agenda for printing, changes may be made to the agenda up un

Re: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

Fred, On 12/10/2013 08:56, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Hi Brian, > >> -Original Message- >> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:50 PM >> To: Fernando Gont >> Cc: Templin, Fred L; Ray Hunter; 6man Mailing List; ietf@ietf.org >> Sub

Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)

On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: > Just to start, there is no clear consensus of what "Internet Governance" > means and entails. You are correct. The term "Internet Governance" is a term of art, and a poor one at that. It is the term that governments like to use, and in fact,

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

Hi Brian, > -Original Message- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:50 PM > To: Fernando Gont > Cc: Templin, Fred L; Ray Hunter; 6man Mailing List; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Last Call: > (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Heade

Re: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

On 12/10/2013 06:04, Fernando Gont wrote: ... > P.S.: Reegarding enforcing a limit on the length of the header chain, I > must say I symphatize with that (for instance, check the last individual > version of this I-D, and you'll find exactly that). But the wg didn't > want that in -- and I did rais

Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)

Hi John, On 12/10/2013 05:02, John Curran wrote: ... > In my personal view, it is a very important for the IETF to select leadership > who can > participate in any discussions that occur, Without obsessing about the word "leadership", but following up on a comment made by Noel Chiappa on the "le

Re: Last Call: (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC

On 10/11/13 2:04 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: At this point, a working week through the four week last call, I am wondering whether the volume of comments and changes merit waiting for a revised version before I do a last call review, or whether I should dive in with the current version and risk rais

RE: Last Call: (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC

Hi Pete, At this point, a working week through the four week last call, I am wondering whether the volume of comments and changes merit waiting for a revised version before I do a last call review, or whether I should dive in with the current version and risk raising a number of points already cov

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

Hi Fernando, > -Original Message- > From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 10:04 AM > To: Templin, Fred L; Ray Hunter; brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com > Cc: 6man Mailing List; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Last Call: > (Implications of Oversized IPv

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

Hi Ray, > -Original Message- > From: Ray Hunter [mailto:v6...@globis.net] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 9:59 AM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com; ietf@ietf.org; 6man Mailing List > Subject: Re: Last Call: > (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Propos

Re: Last calling draft-resnick-on-consensus

On Oct 11, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Scott O Bradner wrote: > The process in the ID is not what was followed when I was an AD and it not > what I have described by the meaning of the term "rough consensus" in my > newcomers tutorials (which I have been giving since at least IETF 57 in > 2003). Perhap

Re: Last Call: (Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)) to Proposed Standard

draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05 and draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-00 are in conflict with each other. From draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05: When used with MPL, Realm-Local scope is administratively defined and used to define the boundaries of multicast message dissemination by MPL.

Re: "The core Internet institutions abandon the US Government"

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 10/12/2013 5:25 AM, John Levine wrote: > >> ICANN has a long running fantasy that they are a global >> multi-stakeholder organization floating above mere politics, and not a >> US government contractor incorporated as a California non-pro

Re: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

On 10/11/2013 12:36 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: >> FWIW, my idea of the I-D is that it says "look, if you don't put all >> this info into the first fragment, it's extremely likely that your >> packets will be dropped". That doesn't mean that a middle-box may want >> to look further. But looking furt

Re: "The core Internet institutions abandon the US Government"

On 10/12/2013 5:25 AM, John Levine wrote: ICANN has a long running fantasy that they are a global multi-stakeholder organization floating above mere politics, and not a US government contractor incorporated as a California non-profit. What's most interesting about your sentence is that both pa

Re: "The core Internet institutions abandon the US Government"

Until ICANN becomes a "member" based organization where you have real constituents that can fire a director, the organization is only representative of itself and its ecosystem. -J On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM, John Levine wrote: > >Just few quick questions, > > > >In what part of Fadi Che

Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)

Just to start, there is no clear consensus of what "Internet Governance" means and entails. Several organizations just as ICANN, ISOC, ARIN, etc, play a specific role in the development and operations of the Internet, but by no means are "representative" of the Internet as a whole, even if you cla

Re: Improving the ISOC Fellowship programme to attract people from under-represented regions into the IETF

I did not like the change of the title which was suggested in diversity list. the first title was related to IETF, because we need to attract more other regions in IETF or to facilitate the improve of other region's participation. The draft's solution was to recommend fellowship (should not be the

Gen-ART Review of draft-resnick-on-consensus-05

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05 Reviewer: Ru

Re: "The core Internet institutions abandon the US Government"

>Just few quick questions, > >In what part of Fadi Chehad� mandate at ICANN this falls ? And who >sanctified him as representative of the Internet Community ? > >He is just an employee of ICANN and these actions go way beyond ICANN's >mission and responsibilities. ICANN has a long running fantasy

Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)

Folks - As a result of the Internet's growing social and economic importance, the underlying Internet structures are receiving an increasing level of attention by both governments and civil society. The recent revelations regarding US government surveillance of the Internet are now greatly

Re: Last Call: Adding a fragment identifier to the text/csv media type (see )

Le 2013-10-11 17:52, Barry Leiba a écrit : > This is an Independent stream document, and the IETF doesn't have > change control of the document. > > The authors can certainly accept your comments at their discretion. > But this last call isn't for comments on the *document*. It's only to > assess

Re: Last Call: Adding a fragment identifier to the text/csv media type (see )

> This draft's premise is interesting, but the implementation leaves to be > desired. That is, I like the idea of fragment identifiers for CSV, but > row/column/cell-based selection doesn't address my need. This is an Independent stream document, and the IETF doesn't have change control of the doc

RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

Hi Fernando, > -Original Message- > From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 1:36 AM > To: Ray Hunter; Templin, Fred L; brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com > Cc: 6man Mailing List; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Last Call: > (Implications of Oversized IPv6

RE: RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

Hi Ray, > -Original Message- > From: Ray Hunter [mailto:v6...@globis.net] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:49 AM > To: Templin, Fred L; brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com > Cc: ietf@ietf.org; 6man Mailing List > Subject: Re: RE: Last Call: 08.txt> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains

Re: leader statements

On Oct 10, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > I really think we need to stop behaving as if the IETF is a > small group of people who know each other well. Consensus > decision-making does not scale well with the number of > participants, and if we're going to require consensus on > every

Re: RE: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

Templin, Fred L wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Responding in a slightly re-arranged order: > >> The problem is that you are asserting that middleboxes that a tunnel >> passes through are expected to examine the complete header chain of >> the encapsulated packet even if the encapsulated packet is a fragmen

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-karp-ops-model-07

> "Ben" == Ben Campbell writes: Ben> Hi, thanks for the response. Comments inline. I've removed Ben> sections that do not appear to need further comment. Ben> On Sep 17, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: >> genart> -- This abstract claims that this draft is a discussi

Re: Last calling draft-resnick-on-consensus

Pete, On 10/10/2013 11:08 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 10/7/13 7:48 AM, Lou Berger wrote: >> I think it misses two >> important points that should be addressed prior to publication: >> >> 1) The role WG/IETF mailing lists play in building and >> gauging consensus >> > > Yeah, as I just

Re: Improving the ISOC Fellowship programme to attract people from under-represented regions into the IETF

> we need to keep the flexibility of bringing in someone new agree > But my main issue is that the draft sounds like its trying to take over and > redefine an ISOC program, which I don't think the IETF can or should do. The > ISOC program has a purpose, a history and at least from my perspecti

Re: Improving the ISOC Fellowship programme to attract people from under-represented regions into the IETF

Hi, On Oct 11, 2013, at 14:43, Jari Arkko wrote: > I do have a question for Lars though. What are your opinions on this? (You > said that there is no consensus, but I'd like to hear also your thoughts.) so one key question is what influence the IETF actually has on an ISOC program. We can cert

Re: Improving the ISOC Fellowship programme to attract people from under-represented regions into the IETF

First, lets keep the discussion on topic and not at personal level. Thank you. (This isn't addressed to you SM or Lars; it is a general comment based on some of the mails that I see.) Secondly, this is an interesting and important topic, thank you SM for writing a draft. I do agree with at leas

Re: leader statements

> From: Randy Bush > we are in a big problem, and this is one major part. two decades of > lack of coherent architectural oversight is another symptom of this. I have two issues with your observation. First, while I agree we've been deficient in architecture, from personal experienc

Re: Last calling draft-resnick-on-consensus

As Dave Crocker pointed out, this document is, at best, revisionist history. Dave's original RFC 1603 text (that I carried forward into RFC 2418) bears little resemblance to the process/considerations described in this ID. This ID may be describing how we should start to view the meaning of th

RE: Improving the ISOC Fellowship programme to attract people from under-represented regions into the IETF

> I am part of the community design team as well ... as being the coauthor of a MANET RFC! Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/

Re: "The core Internet institutions abandon the US Government"

Just few quick questions, In what part of Fadi Chehadé mandate at ICANN this falls ? And who sanctified him as representative of the Internet Community ? He is just an employee of ICANN and these actions go way beyond ICANN's mission and responsibilities. Cheers Jorge On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at

Re: Last calling draft-resnick-on-consensus

Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun Date: 11.10.2013 Last Call For the General Area I-D reviewed: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05 ++ Hi Pete and Jari, The documents provide important examples which are real within IETF, and needs to be studied/analysed more as case studies. Su

Re: leader statements

Randy Bush wrote: >> What I am saying is that if we that we want our leaders to only >> moderate discussion we are in a big problem. > > we are in a big problem, and this is one major part. two decades of > lack of coherent architectural oversight is another symptom of this. > i'm surprised tha

Re: Review of: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05

A minor point inline, rest snipped Tom Petch - Original Message - From: "Pete Resnick" To: Cc: "IETF Discussion" Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 11:48 PM > Finally back to this original review. > > On 10/6/13 7:03 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > >>Note that this portrays rough con

Re: Last calling draft-resnick-on-consensus

AB, I'm very close to take offense by the statement "...WGs' Chair just follow room's consensus, or f2f participants arguments". We have maybe 200+ working group chairs, ADs and other people that need at a rate, from several times a week to maybe once a months make a "consensus calls". I'm certa

"The core Internet institutions abandon the US Government"

> http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/11/the-core-internet-institutions-abandon-the-us-government/? "The core Internet institutions abandon the US Government | IGP Blog" I'm not quite sure I read the Monte

Re: Last Call: Adding a fragment identifier to the text/csv media type (see )

This draft's premise is interesting, but the implementation leaves to be desired. That is, I like the idea of fragment identifiers for CSV, but row/column/cell-based selection doesn't address my need. My need is based on the CSV files generated from IANA registries. Here's one: https://www.iana.o

Re: leader statements

- Original Message - From: "Brian E Carpenter" To: "Noel Chiappa" Cc: Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:38 PM > On 11/10/2013 07:52, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > > From: Arturo Servin > > > Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless. > > > > I'm not sure this

Re: Improving the ISOC Fellowship programme to attract people from under-represented regions into the IETF

Hi, On Oct 11, 2013, at 10:41, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > I am part of the community design team as well because I participate with > community more than the private hidden groups. I think that the draft is a > true work open to IETF. I haven't said that anything to the contrary. I am simply poi

Re: Last calling draft-resnick-on-consensus

Hi Pete, I object if the draft excludes remote participants opinions/feedbacks, the IETF WG list is the main place for measuring consensus not a physical limited room located in a region. Some WGs' Chair just follow room's consensus, or f2f participants arguments, which is not best practice relati

Re: Improving the ISOC Fellowship programme to attract people from under-represented regions into the IETF

I am part of the community design team as well because I participate with community more than the private hidden groups. I think that the draft is a true work open to IETF. I still did not get a reply to my request to know what is the DT authority, very strange name without any procedure in IETF, p

Re: Last Call: (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard

On 10/11/2013 04:48 AM, Ray Hunter wrote: > > I think the draft does what it can in a pragmatic manner, but might > benefit from some acknowledgement that this security approach of > applying parsing at a single perimeter can never ever catch all variants > of transporting FOO over BAR. FWIW, my

Re: Improving the ISOC Fellowship programme to attract people from under-represented regions into the IETF

Hi, I'm part of the design team. SM has written this document to begin a discussion with the broader IETF. The document does not have the consensus of the design team, and it is therefore obviously not a recommendation by the design team. Lars On Oct 10, 2013, at 20:10, S Moonesamy wrote: >