Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 9/16/13 6:49 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > > That's not to say you can't put any particular URI against your name in > > an RFC, mind, but I'd be rather hesitant to leap at mandating a > > registration procedure for authors. > > I think it's an intere

Re: [DNSOP] Practical issues deploying DNSSEC into the home.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: > > On Sep 10, 2013, at 8:17 PM, David Morris wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > >> On 11/09/2013 09:59, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: > >> ... > &g

Re: Practical issues deploying DNSSEC into the home.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 11/09/2013 09:59, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: > ... > > My colleagues and I worked on OpenWrt routers to get Unbound to work there, > > what you need to do is to start DNS up in non-validating mode > > wait for NTP to fix time, then check if the

Re: pgp signing in van

On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Ted Lemon wrote: > It might be worth thinking about why ssh and ssl work so well, and PGP/GPG > don't. Umm, I question a conclusion that either ssh or ssl work well. ssh works reasonably well around me because I can help everyone get the details aligned. Even knowing all t

Re: Bruce Schneier's Proposal to dedicate November meeting to saving the Internet from the NSA

On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Sep 6, 2013, at 6:02 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > > How about a BCP saying conforming implementations of a wide-variety of > > security-area RFCs MUST be open-source? > > So clearly we should do all our crypto on devices built out of 7400-series > logic.

Re: Charging remote participants

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013, Keith Moore wrote: > On 08/16/2013 09:38 AM, Janet P Gunn wrote: > > > > > ...I want it from > > > people who can't get approval for even a $100 expense, from people > > > who are between jobs, people from academia, and even from just plain > > > ordinary users rather than j

Re: IETF 87 Registration Suspended

On Thu, 5 Jul 2013, John Levine wrote: > >It seems that the rules might be somewhat similar all over europe: > > > > http://www.tmf-vat.com/vat/german-vat.html > > You would think so, which leads to the question about what's different > in Berlin from Paris and Prague and Maastricht. Somebod

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

It seems to me that you have missed the fact that the IETF is a volunteer organization. The vast majority of us appreciate that Thomas creates this summary. If you feel different information would be useful, then create your own report and share the results, to at least to see if your version is d

Re: IETF Diversity

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > I am getting my ietf@ietf.org on my gmail account. > > I have no filters that delete mail, no mails with 'ietf' in them in my spam > folder and no copies of 80% of the mails to this list. That reads like you are missing 80% of the email distri

Re: Content-free Last Call comments

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Pete Resnick wrote: > Much as I would like what Stephen says to be true, I think Lloyd's probably > right: People give more weight to opinions coming from people with dots on > their name badges. One has to be able to see the dots for it to possibly matter. Out here at the

Re: Content-free Last Call comments

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 10, 2013, at 5:52 PM, "Bradner, Scott" wrote: > > I do not see all that much help in having someone list reasons they support > > publication unless > > there is some particularly wonderful feature or the prose is particularly > > clear > > I do

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: David Morris > > > I've wondered for some time whether the reported bytes is the whole > > message I send included context quotes, or if there is an attempt by > > the summary logic to factor

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

As long as the summary has been brought up ... I've wondered for some time whether the reported bytes is the whole message I send included context quotes, or if there is an attempt by the summary logic to factor out quoted content. Dave Morris

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

On Sun, 26 May 2013, Melinda Shore wrote: > It also seems unlikely to me that that million dollars is otherwise > available. > > I like the idea of setting up a remote participation center (doubly- > so if one or more very experienced IETFers who spoke the local language > could be on-site) but

Re: p1: Via and gateways

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 20/04/2013, at 5:21 PM, David Morris wrote: > > > > I don't care about MUST, but I think the Via header can be useful for > > problem determination. A smart content server could also adjust for > > a det

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Dan Harkins wrote: > > On Thu, April 18, 2013 3:24 pm, Pete Resnick wrote: > > So, do we need to start this entire conversation over, overtly stating > > that we are not interested in looking at *intentional* gender (or > > corporate affiliation or other sorts of) bias? >

Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013, Scott Brim wrote: > On 04/06/13 11:52, Hector Santos allegedly wrote: > > Hi Abdusalam, > > > > You should consider all APRIL 1 published I-D as "SPAM" and the > > electronic mail follow ups generated in the IETF list as more wasted > > bandwidth, time and spam. We have to

Re: Missing requirement in draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch? (was Re: New Version Notification - draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-05.txt)

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, SM wrote: > Hi Eric, > At 05:13 28-03-2013, Burger Eric wrote: > > Rather than guessing all of the bad things that could happen, I would offer > > it would be better to say what we mean, like: > > The IMAP interface MUST NOT provide any IMAP facilities that modify >

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections (was: Re: [manet] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-02.txt)

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013, John Curran wrote: > On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:42 AM, Abdussalam Baryun > wrote: > > > You mean the editors of this draft (I will note them as not > > acknowledging participants, for my future review). I am a MANET WG > > participants, but if you mention the names that made e

Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today

On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Roberto Peon wrote: > I think you mean backup solution, source control won't help on its own :) Source control, assuming the traditional server implementation, is one form of backup solution ... but I agree, the requirement is a backup solution where the backup is protected

Re: CRLF (was: Re: A modest proposal)

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, John Day wrote: > > > > IIR, Multics from several years earlier. I'd have to dig > > through old manuals to remember what CTSS did, but that system > > (and the IBM Model 1050 and 2741 devices often used as terminals > > with it) were somewhat pre-ASCII (and long before EC

Re: A modest proposal

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013, Melinda Shore wrote: > > And too bad we can't have the IESG implement it while > > reviewing it. > > There we go. That would cut down on the "I'll support your > awful idea if you support my awful idea" horse trading. No, it just means that I have to implement my awful i

Re: WCIT outcome?

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: > At one point there was something that said one phone in each home had to be > directly wired without a plug. I don't know if this was a regulation, a phone > company rule, or just a suggestion, but it also fell by the wayside after > Carter

Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...

On Mon, 3 Dec 2012, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: > I support this idea, but I think that free software should also be considered > as part of this experiment (free software and open source are not synonymous). > Using the acronym FOSS and defining it as Free or Open Source Software in the > docu

Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba > wrote: > > >... > > So here's my question: > > Does the community want us to push back on those situations? > > Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on > > the mai

Re: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2012, Arturo Servin wrote: > SM > > On 09/11/2012 19:42, SM wrote: > > > > Fred Baker mentioned that: > > > > "The issues are now related to success in finding affordable venues." > ICANN finds them, the IGF does it, the RIRs do it. Why not the IETF? > > > The IAOC Chair c

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 11/6/2012 12:38 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:25 > AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > > > > > > > { the directive here is remarkably soft. much too soft, IMO. a > > > sentence structure that's a bit too complicated. so...} > > > >

Re: Just so I'm clear

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Actually I haven't seen that. I've seen people assert that our process > doesn't document the case of a non-responsive absentee member, but I > haven't seen anyone deny that we have an empty seat. I don't believe the seat is vacant or empty. Witho

Re: IETF Trust Chair -- 25 Oct 2012

Does the resolve the issue, or only move Marshall from the role of Trust Chair to Trustee? On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, IETF Administrative Director wrote: > The Trustees of the IETF Trust took two actions today: > 1. Removed the current IETF Trust Chair > 2. Elected a new IETF Trust Chair > > The T

Re: [whatwg] New URL Standard from Anne van Kesteren on 2012-09-24 (public-whatwg-arch...@w3.org from September 2012)

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Ian Hickson wrote: > Having multiple specs means an implementor has to refer to multiple specs > to implement one algorithm, which is not a way to get interoperability. > Bugs creep in much faster when implementors have to switch between specs > just in the implementation

Re: don't overthink, was Just so I'm clear

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, John Levine wrote: > >The legal issue raised by a previous reply that resonates with me is > >that someone unsatisfied with a business decision by the adjusted > >IAOC membership could sue based on documented process not being > >followed to appoint the membership. > > Are

Re: [RFC 3777 Update for Vacancies]

I see several issues a) To my reading RFC 3777 only deals with IAB and IESG membership b) Neither this draft nor 3777 defines 'IETF body' c) Consindering that someone would be a member until removed, and assuming IAOC is meant to be considered an IETF body, 2/3 of members approving c

Re: don't overthink, was Just so I'm clear

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, John Levine wrote: > >I agree with you that removing him would be the simplest approach, but I > >can see possible situations where NOT following the process could lead > >us into legal trouble. > > Anyone can sue in the US for any reason, but this is silly. > > The IAOC

Re: IAOC Request for community feedback

dy defined. We might also want to consider a documented procedure like the 25th ammendment for temporary removal. David Morris

Re: Antitrust FAQ

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 10/10/2012 9:41 PM, John Levine wrote: > > > directs two people who are at an IETF meeting to refrain from one having > > > a sales discussion with the other in private. > > > > Um, could you identify which item under 2 or 3 would describe a > >

Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, tglassey wrote: > The IETF needs total transparency and a way to process alternative standards > so that it is not actively involved in anything dark and covert. > Todd That makes no sense ... something can't be an IETF standard if it doesn't get created and adopted using T

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Dave Crocker wrote: > > While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal > > at any time, > > They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy was the > regular 6-month timeout. Can't the author replace the repository version at

Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Vinayak Hegde wrote: > Also it might be useful for the submitter to sign (rather tick a > tickbox/radio button) an indemnification clause for the IETF before > submitting an I-D. As an individual, I'd never consider agreeing to indemnify the IETF, even if I had created the

Re: IETF 92 in Dallas! ... vetting of alternatives

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, joel jaeggli wrote: > On 8/17/12 12:20 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > > > > Hotel contracts by their nature need to be negotiated under mutual > > > NDA unless you want all the vendors in the region to mysteriously > > > arrive at the same lower bound. > > > > All hotel rate

Re: [IAOC] Feedback Requested on Draft Fees Policy

Yeah, with what the lawyers in the room are getting per hour, there is no reason to volunteer as an expert wittness. Ever. Even if you are there on behalf of the IETF, if the IETF prevails, they can only recover costs they incurred and if they don't, make a donation. On Sun, 22 Jul 2012, John R

Re: Proposed Update to Note Well

I agree .. Peter's version is clear and concise. On Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Sam Hartman wrote: > I like Peter's rephrasing for a number of reasons. > > 1) Clearly states who is responsible for making the disclosure happen > (the IETf contributor) > > 2) Defines IETf contribution in its own sentence

Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

delayed approximately the same amount of time as the current manual process. Propably with some form of the failed login approach ... maximum requests per week or other similar unit of time. David Morris

Re: a favor from the list about Jon Postel

I don't think it helps the case against this page to have "Likes" by W3C, Tim Berners-Lee, Vint Cerf, ARIN and ICANN ... of course, there is no reason for me to know that those aren't frauds as well. On Tue, 8 May 2012, Joe Touch wrote: > Hi, all, > > My apologies for contacting this list with

Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

. David Morris On Sun, 6 May 2012, IETF Chair wrote: > David: > > The list of participants and their addresses are already part of the > proceedings. The incremental difference shows which participants signed in > at each session. > > Russ > > > > On May

Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

>From my following of the topic, that concensus was really rough, in particular the part about publishing the scans on-line. That represents a significant difference in ease access which I think required more than the very very rough concensus you seem to think you found. On Sun, 6 May 2012, IET

Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Dave Crocker wrote: > However as much as I appreciate the benefits of privacy and the detriments of > eroding it, I think there is an odd conceptual confusion taking place here: > This is an entirely public event. It makes no sense to participate in a > formal portion of th

Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Yoav Nir wrote: > Again, this is a different level of information. On the streets, Legally > I don't have an expectation of privacy. The police, or anyone who cares > to, may follow me around, and see where I'm going. There is, however, a > huge const involved in this, and t

Re: IAB responds to ICANN questions concerning "The interpretation of rules in the ICANN gTLD applicant guidelines"

Please be advised that this page does not print correctly using IE8 on XP/SP3 ... this is the sort of thing I reserve for study when I'm not online or trying to give my eyes a break. On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, IAB Chair wrote: > The IAB has responded to ICANN questions concerning "The interpretation

Re: Trade show at IETF

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "IAOC" == IAOC Chair writes: > > IAOC> QUESTION: What do you think about doing a Beer and Gear > IAOC> style of event on an evening that does not conflict with other > IAOC> IETF activities? > > I think that hallway conversations,

Re: Trade show at IETF

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Russ Housley wrote: > Thursday is gone, we have given the host the Monday lunch slot. So, > there are no more slots in Paris. But is also shows that we could > probably get sponsorship dollars for the Monday lunch slot on an ongoing > basis. Another slot to consider ... br

Re: Issues relating to managing a mailing list...

Sounds like a good idea ... I'd add one more question to the list below ... How would these attachments appear in the archive? Are they already linked objects, must be I guess, would that change? On Thu, 15 Mar 2012, Robert Raszuk wrote: > Hello Russ, > > IMHO this is a great idea and I fully

Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-02-22 08:04, David Morris wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Barry" == Barry Leiba writes: > &g

Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > "Barry" == Barry Leiba writes: > Barry> OAuth is an authorization framework, not an authentication > Barry> one. Please be careful to make the distinction. > > Barry> What we're looking at here is the need for an HTTP >

Re: [IETF] Travel/Attendees list FAQ

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Dec 8, 2011, at 8:31 AM, David Morris wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > > >> On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > >> > >>> Actually,

Re: [IETF] Travel/Attendees list FAQ

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > Actually, I meant wiki according to its classic, collaborative meaning: > > > > > > > > What you folks are describing is a web page, not really a wiki. > > Ex

Re: Travel/Attendees list FAQ

On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 12/07/2011 10:33 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > > The flip side of this argument is that it could be viewed as a helpful > > guide for the hosts/sponsors at any given venue. ("This is the kind of > > information you should provide.") > > I don't see any

Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, Sam Hartman wrote: > I support the general approach you outline in terms of process. > However it would really help me if you could write a non-normative > paragraph describing what you think is involved in an anti-trust policy? Yes, please! Also, why it would be a different

Re: Plagued by PPTX again

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011, John R. Levine wrote: > > > * - "You don't want to get locked into open source", credited to an IBM > > > salesman > > > > Because once you try an open source mail reader, you'll never want to go > > back to Lotus Notes? :-) > > That was way before IBM ever thought of bu

Re: Plagued by PPTX again

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011, Robinson Tryon wrote: > > If authors take on the responsibility of creating and verifying the > fidelity of exported versions, then I think everything will be peachy. > What can we do to encourage this practice? Start by compensating them for the work required to conform t

Re: Plagued by PPTX again

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, Yoav Nir wrote: > On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > Please can everybody who doesn't upload PDF to the meeting materials page > > at least take care to upload PPT instead of PPTX? > > > > Not everybody has paid the ransom necessary to open PPTX f

Re: LISP, HIP & GSE

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Hector wrote: > Joel jaeggli wrote: > > > We don't control the internet... > > ... we define the internet controls. ;) And tend to make it difficult for others to assume control of the Internet. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.

Re: [IAOC] I-D Action: draft-barnes-healthy-food-04.txt

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > Dear Mary; > > Which is the appropriate community mailing list for discussion of this > draft ? IETF@ietf.org ? A more limited traffic alternative might be useful ... my wife is a Registered Dietician and might be willing to provide feedback and

RE: IPv6 support in hotel contract?

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011, George, Wes wrote: > > From: Joel jaeggli [mailto:joe...@bogus.com] > > > > At least, we should start *trying* to get IPv6 service from hotels. > > > We may have a very hard time getting it, but the fact that customers > > > are starting to *ask* for it will help make hotel

Re: SORBS blacklist

I checked IP: 12.22.58.30 using the dnsstuff site which I subscribe to and find: SORBS DNSBL 127.0.0.2 "Aggregate zone See: http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?12.22.58.30"; http://www.de.sorbs.net/overview.shtml SORBS-SPAM 127.0.0.6 "Spam Received See: http://www.sorbs

Re: Expiring a publication - especially standards track documents which are abandoned

I would note that progression to Internet Standard seems to have more to do with availability of interested folks to do the work and little to with acceptance of the protocol. HTTP has been hanging at DS for many years and that hasn't stopped its wide acceptance. Yes, there is now a WG working t

RE: Routing at the Edges of the Internet

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: > > From: Adam Novak [interf...@gmail.com] > > > > "Say I wanted to send data to my friend in the flat next to mine. It is > > idiotic that nowadays, I would use the bottleneck subscriber line to > > my upstream ISP and my crippled upload speed

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

Reasonable has to be measured on the basis of what the venue might expect for alternative customers at the time of negotiation, not our world view of hotels at the time of meetings. For this to be a meaningful disccusion re. the success or lack there of, we need to compare what we have vs. simil

Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?

On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Warren Kumari wrote: > I seem to remember discussions about this a long time ago, but searching > through archives gets no love... > > How do folk feel about having asking for subject_prefix to be set on the > IETF Discussion List (AKA this one!) - this will prefix mail sent

Re: Confidentiality notices on email messages

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Wes Hardaker wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:39:17 -0400, John C Klensin > > said: > > >> Ooh, I like this proposal. We can also have noise-types for > >> exhortations to not print the email. > > JCK> If one starts down that path, there is a real possibility f

Re: SORBS blacklist

On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jul 1, 2011, at 4:48 AM, John Leslie wrote: > > > Hey, folks! > > > > mail.ietf.org[64.170.98.30] got listed on SORBS for spamming. > > > > It's not that hard to get off... Fix it! > > > It's also not that hard not to use poorly-managed bla

Re: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Russ Housley wrote: > It does not sound like the shutdown of the MEAD team was smooth. > However, the closure of a design team when their output is being handled > by a working group is quite normal. >From following this thread, it sounds like the wrong IETF organization u

Re: Poster sessions

On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Yoav Nir wrote: > A poster session sounds cool, but it works well when the presenters are > companies, rather than individuals. To get a good A0 poster, you need > access to printing services (which are not cheap, but doable) and > graphic design talent, which is neither chea

Re: BCP request: WiFi at High-Tech Meetings

On Wed, 29 Dec 2010, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: > I'm curious what the largest *successful* deployment has been (measured > in number of participants in a single room/hall/stadium/...) that > anybody has seen, within the IETF or beyond. The NYC article hints at > the fact that the limit may be h

Re: [Full-disclosure] IPv6 security myths

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Michael Richardson wrote: > Partly. I also expect "VPN" use to get reduced, since 90% of VPNs are > really just remote-access systems necessary due to NAT, not security. In my experince, VPNs are used for secure connections between two private networks ... the existance of

Re: Re-routing

H ... bug detected to repair latency ? ... Man in the middle protocol vulnerability ? ... no end-end encryption? On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Richard L. Barnes wrote: > I'm trying to imagine what the IP analogy is here. Prefix hijacking? If only > Monoprix were using the RPKI! > --Rich

Re: Fisking vs Top-Posting

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, George Michaelson wrote: > > So its a combination of pathological behaviours, UI, and dominance behaviour Or perhaps they find the ability to quickly regain context useful give the continuous variety of topics they handle ... or perhaps they feel that trimming is quoting o

Re: All these discussions about meeting venues

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Fred Baker wrote: > As to food issues, I think the hosts of recent meetings at least have > done a pretty good job of pointing people to travel and food options in > the host web sites. I find myself wondering, though, if the data should > be organized in a different way.

Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's

On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > In one word: archival. > > In several words: systematic archival rather than the vagueness > of transient URLs and search engine caches. +1 ... for all that was wrong with it, the original Netscape Cookie spec is no longer available fr

Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > > So in my view the problem here is that when I pay for an X Mb/sec > > connection at the moment I have no real way of knowing whether that is > > really X Mb/sec all the time or X/n Mb

Re: IETF Attendance by continent

If the pattern was static, that might matter, but using 3:2:2 creates a 2.3 year cycle while 2:1:1 depends on a 1.3 year cycle. An easier pattern to adjust to as it changes. The cycle used should resemble the time period for which future venues are chosen. On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Adrian Farrel wrote

Re: IETF Attendance by continent

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > On 8/8/10 11:48 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote: > it also means conference facilities have availability, just a small > detail of course. notwitstadning the fact that if you've got 3 evening > spaced meetings per year one of them is going to fall in that perio

Re: IETF privacy policy - update

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Larry Smith wrote: > Appears to me this conversation/thread is leaning toward "open" being > used synonymous to "anonymous" Not to me ... open means any can participate ... doesn't mean that other participants can't know who they are. People come with experience and res

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

On Fri, 14 May 2010, Michael StJohns wrote: > My $.02 worth. > > 1) For the purposes of the upcoming Nomcom, the decision to not count a > day pass as "attending" is reasonable and timely and within the purview > of the IESG (or for that matter the IETF chair) to decide. > > 2) The IESG/IAOC c

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

On Mon, 10 May 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote: > On 5/10/2010 11:08 AM, David Morris wrote: > > On Mon, 10 May 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > Given that the argument for /ex/clusiveness pertains to competence at > > > rendering judgment about IETF leadership cand

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

On Mon, 10 May 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote: > Given that the argument for /ex/clusiveness pertains to competence at > rendering judgment about IETF leadership candidates, can you explain why > lowering the bar helps produce better leadership selection? Because from my own experience, I've demonstr

Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht

On Mon, 10 May 2010, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 10 mei 2010, at 5:01, ty...@mit.edu wrote: > > > I talked to a cab driver in Boston, and he's not very happy with > > credit cards, because he was forced to use a new system for credit > > cards, and it takes what he considered an unfairly l

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

On Fri, 7 May 2010, John C Klensin wrote: > Finally, as Dave Crocker pointed out, complexity in our > operating rules rarely serves us well. Whether the discussion > is about this case or about Nomcom qualifications more > generally, we should not try to do enough hair-splitting to > cover eve

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

On Fri, 7 May 2010, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > I think that, as a temporary measure to deal with the current > experiment, the IESG taking a decision is acceptable. Excluding > day-pass-only people is completely defensible because the rules were > written in a period when day passes didn't exist.

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

I think the number of meetings 'registered' for is a poor criteria for familiarity with IETF culture and more important familiarity with the participation of the potential nominees being considered for leadership roles in the IETF. In the pre-day pass days, I paid full fare more than once but onl

Re: [PWE3] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to Cisco's Statement of IPR relating to draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-12

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, todd glassey wrote: > Dean - I think the problem is that the individuals in the IETF who > represent their sponsors are generally not licensed patent agents or > attorneys (although there are a couple of exceptions to this last one) > and so its really hard for someone who h

RE: spam emails from antonyjeyase...@gmail.com

I'm more impressed that my spam filter caught it and the only reason I known about it is this blowback complaint discussion. On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Yoav Nir wrote: > You have to admit, though, that sending spam in a link to Google docs is > impressive. Shows real ingenuity and innovation from th

Re: Public musing on the nature of IETF membership and employment status

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Dean Willis wrote: > Flip side: I could see the IETF requiring all participants use ietf.org email > addresses hosted on ietf.org servers with ietf.org-issued > authentication/signature certificates, and quite possibly (with some > exceptions) restricted delivery to/from non

Re: On Day Passes..

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Julian Reschke wrote: > > And yes, one-day passes do not make a lot of sense for people coming from far > away. Sure the do, they optimize the overall cost picture if you have no reason to participate for the full week. You may either make the trip shorter, include other

Re: On Day Passes..

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Yoav Nir wrote: > > I have to wonder about this. Unless the meeting happens to be close to > home, the travel costs are going to dominate your expenses. If you are > from California, getting to Anaheim may be cheap, but getting to > Maastricht in July is different. I tried

Re: On Day Passes..

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > If the goal is to provide access to the IETF for first-time attendees, maybe > we should make day passes available for first-time attendees. I think that would be the wrong goal, though I'll admit it motivated the original experiment. The goal sho

Re: On Day Passes..

Yes ... in fact if you look at early announce mataterial vs. later I believe the 'limit one' was added after I rattled the cage. On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > On Mar 24, 2010, at 10:10 PM, David Morris wrote: > > > > > Multiple-days should b

Re: On Day Passes..

Multiple-days should be allowed ... it makes no sense to offer day passes to folks with just one day to attend but not to those with 2 or even 3. I used a day pass this year and didn't participate in a 2nd WG because two day passes weren't allowed. Don't know if I could justify paying the full

Re: Above market hotel room rates

If you care about hotel pricing, there is no excuse for complaining about IETF rates in a location like Anaheim with dozens of alternatives within walking distance. Using Orbitz, several weeks ago, I got a cheaper rate across the street in the Mariott. Could have save more a couple miles south.

Re: Towards consensus on document format

On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > On Mar 16, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote: > > > I'd love to see you trapped in a basement after an earthquake with > > only a stick trying to remember how to tap S-O-S. > > That's easy. Three shorts and three longs, repeat until the water

Re: Error in Security Considerations in an RFC

I sense from the earlier comments that there may be hesitation to document the flaw for fear that such documentation would facilitate exploitation before remediation is in place. It that is a possiblity, public documentation should wait until some form of private peer review can occur. I'm not sp

  1   2   3   >