Applied Networking Research Prize awards for IETF-82

://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/irtf-announce http://isoc.org/join Regards, Lars Eggert, IRTF Chair Mat Ford, Internet Society http://irtf.org/anrp http://isoc.org/research -- ANRP Selection Committee Mark Allman, ICIR Marcelo Bagnulo, UC3M Lou Berger, LabN Olivier Bonaventure, UCL Louvain Ross Callon

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-eggert-successful-bar-bof-06

We need to run this past Jorge. The gist of that section of the text basically came from an email exchange we had. I'm not at all opposed to changing it, but if we change it, Jorge needs to OK it. On 2011-9-9, at 18:36, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > Lars, > > For what it's worth, I have the same qu

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-eggert-successful-bar-bof-06

Hi, thanks, Ben. We will incorporate most of your suggestions in the next revision. That said: On 2011-9-8, at 0:22, Ben Campbell wrote: > -- Section 6 suggests side meetings should be (somehow "informally") covered > by NOTE WELL. I think this is a very dangerous suggestion. The rest of the >

Call for Nominations: Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP) for IETF-82

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS: APPLIED NETWORKING RESEARCH PRIZE (ANRP) http://irtf.org/anrp *** Submit nominations until August 28 for the ANRP for IETF-82, *** November 13-18, 2011 in Taipei, Taiwan: *** http://fit.nokia.com/anrp/82/ The Applied Networking

[irsg] Final Agenda: IRTF Open Meeting at IETF-81

Hi, The final agenda for the IRTF Open Meeting is available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/agenda/IRTF.txt Please note that the meeting is *Wednesday* at 09:00 and not Thursday, as originally scheduled and still listed on the printed agenda. Lars smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptogra

Final Agenda: IRTF Open Meeting at IETF-81

Final Agenda IRTF Open Meeting Quebec City, Canada *Wednesday*, July 27, 2011, 9:00 - 11:30 (new time!) Slot lengths below indicate presentation+discussion time. State of the IRTF Lars Eggert 10+5 min Applied Networking Prize (ANRP) Awards 2x 20+10 min

Preliminary Agenda: IRTF Open Meeting at IETF-81

*PRELIMINARY* Agenda IRTF Open Meeting Quebec City, Canada July 11, 2011, 9:00 - 11:30 (tentative) Will be uploaded to the datatracker as soon as I have access rights. Slot lengths below indicate presentation+discussion time. State of the IRTF Lars Eggert 10+5 min Applied

Applied Networking Research Prize awards for IETF-81

Regards, Lars Eggert, IRTF Chair Mat Ford, Internet Society http://irtf.org/anrp -- ANRP Selection Committee Mark Allman, ICIR Lou Berger, LabN Ross Callon, Juniper Lars Eggert, Nokia Olivier Festor, INRIA Mat Ford, ISOC Andrei Gurtov, HIIT Al Morton, AT&T Bruce Nordman, LBL Jörg Ott, A

FIVE DAYS REMAINING: Call for Nominations: Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP)

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS: APPLIED NETWORKING RESEARCH PRIZE (ANRP) *** Apply until May 8, 2011 for the ANR Prize for IETF-81, *** July 24-29, 2011 in Quebec City, Canada! The Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP) is awarded for recent results in applied networking res

Call for Nominations: Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP)

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS: APPLIED NETWORKING RESEARCH PRIZE (ANRP) *** Apply until May 8, 2011 for the ANR Prize for IETF-81, *** July 24-29, 2011 in Quebec City, Canada! The Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP) is awarded for recent results in applied networking r

Re: Last Call: (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP

As one of the authors/editors, I am fine with this change. Thanks! On 2011-3-28, at 14:14, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > After discussing this new text with IESG and some participants of the TSVWG, > it became clear that while there is clear agreement for adding the first > sentence quoted above ("Th

Re: World IPv6 Day and Us

On 2011-2-15, at 19:45, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: > Noting the increasing length of the list > athttp://isoc.org/wp/worldipv6day/participants/ ...I mostly note that I see very few eyeball ISPs on that list (with the notable exception of two large US cable ISPs - great, guys!) Turning on IPv6

Re: Last Call: (Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic Status) to In

Hi, On 2011-2-3, at 17:03, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > While I fully agree with what this document proposes. This might be an > editorial comment but I 've noticed that RFC 1072 is not mentioned to be made > Historic despite the option specified by it is made obsolete. you mean it's missing fr

Re: Last Call: (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP

Hi, On 2011-1-31, at 16:51, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 1/31/11 12:23 AM, Lars Eggert wrote: >> On 2011-1-30, at 17:12, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> The above emphatic statements means that IANA can reject a request for an >>> IETF-approved protocol that needs two ports witho

Re: Last Call: (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP

On 2011-1-30, at 17:12, Paul Hoffman wrote: > The above emphatic statements means that IANA can reject a request for an > IETF-approved protocol that needs two ports without recourse. I don't follow. Assignments through IETF-stream documents do not go through expert review. And I've never witnes

Re: Last Call: (InternetAssigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Managementof the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port NumberRegistry) to BCP

On 2011-1-27, at 18:58, t.petch wrote: > And what happens when we have ProtocolX over SSH and ProtocolX over TLS? > > Must they share a port, with ProtocolX, which has been quietly using its > assigned port for > 20 years? No. The expert reviewer can obviously assign a second port in that case (i

Re: Last Call: (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP

On 2011-1-27, at 11:20, Carsten Bormann wrote: > With UDP-based protocols, it is harder to do this. > Please look at section 7.3 of > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-core-coap-04.html#section-7.3 > > and tell us whether this is how you would like this to be handled for > UDP-based

Re: Last Call: (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP

Hi On 2011-1-27, at 2:12, Cullen Jennings wrote: > Big Issues 1: I don't like mandating one port for secure and not secure > versions of a protocol > > I don't think this reflects IETF consensus given the number of protocols that > deliberately choses to use two ports. I also don't think that i

Re: [port-srv-reg] Last Call: (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Regi

I've made this change in our working copy. On 2011-1-21, at 14:50, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > t.petch skrev 2011-01-21 12:43: >> I would like to see more clarity in 8.1 >> " For assignments done through IETF-published RFCs, the Contact will be the >> IESG." >> in that I am unclear what IETF-publi

Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries

On 2011-1-18, at 17:15, Eric Rosen wrote: > The only way to avoid collisions > due to "squatting" is to adopt a policy that all codepoint fields be large > enough so that a significant number of codepoints are available for FCFS > allocations. That's certainly a suggestion we should follow for new

Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries

Hi, On 2011-1-18, at 16:32, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > That would work IF the reason this is happening is that people don't > understand that unassigned means reserved for future assignment. that *is* the reason, for at least those cases that I have been involved in. > But I rather suspect th

Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries

> Spencer > - Original Message - > From: Phillip Hallam-Baker > To: Lars Eggert > Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum ; paul.hoff...@vpnc.org ; ietf@ietf.org > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 7:51 AM > Subject: Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries > > >

Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries

Hi, On 2011-1-18, at 15:51, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >Using a term other than "unassigned" might prevent some instances of the > >latter. > > I don't see how changing the name is going to affect behavior for the > positive here. If you do succeed in confusing people as to which numbers are

Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries

Hi, On 2011-1-17, at 1:23, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > If people think that IANA is a tool they can use to impose their own > personal political agenda on the Internet, they are mistaken. that isn't the point of this thread. The point of IANA assignment is to avoid conflicting codepoint usage.

Re: Last Call on draft-ietf-pim-registry-03.txt

Hi, On 2011-1-13, at 22:43, Michelle Cotton wrote: > Many believe it makes it very clear to the users of the registry what is > available for assignment. Something we will be rolling out soon (for those > registries with a finite space) will be small charts showing how much of the > registry spac

Re: Poster sessions

Hi, On 2011-1-8, at 19:41, R. B. wrote: > I'm really in a rush, but I want to send my 0.02 too. I like the idea of a > poster session, since a single I-D could go unobserved in the churn of other > I-Ds. many areas have open meetings where folks already can present such ideas. It's up to the AD

CORRECTION: Beijing TSV area "office hours"

On 2010-11-8, at 11:32, Eggert Lars (Nokia-NRC/Espoo) wrote: > the TSV area "office hours" are Tue 15:20-17:00 in Diamond 3. Correction: Diamond *** 2 *** Lars smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org ht

Beijing TSV area "office hours"

Hi, the TSV area "office hours" are Tue 15:20-17:00 in Diamond 3. If you plan on stopping by, please send us (tsv-...@tools.ietf.org) a quick email beforehand. Lars smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf

Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

On 2010-10-27, at 2:10, John Leslie wrote: > I'm quite certain the IESG doesn't have such a blanket policy. Correct (of course). > The reported incident _may_ be accurate, but such a requirement > would have come from the WG Chair, not the responsible AD, least of > all some other AD. I'd be

Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

On 2010-10-26, at 23:54, Tony Hain wrote: > Did you miss James Polk's comment yesterday? The IESG is already changing > their ways!! They now require 2 independent implementations for a personal > I-D to become a WG draft. James characterization is inaccurate. See my other email. Lars smime.p7s

two independent implementations (Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels)

Hi, On 2010-10-26, at 6:37, James M. Polk wrote: > I'm not in love with the 3 maturity levels, especially when I was > asked by an AD during Maastricht to provide proof of 2 independent > implementations just to have an ID I was presenting be considered to > become a WG item. I was that AD, an

Fwd: [multipathtcp] Call for contribution to middlebox survey

Begin forwarded message: > From: Michio Honda > Date: October 3, 2010 2:30:57 GMT+03:00 > To: Multipath TCP Mailing List , "t...@ietf.org" > > Cc: Mark Handley > Subject: [multipathtcp] Call for contribution to middlebox survey > > Hi, > > We are surveying middleboxes affecting TCP in the

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-auth-06

Hi, where are we with regards to resolving this discuss? Lars On 2010-9-9, at 19:51, Roland Bless wrote: > Hi Russ, > > On 09.09.2010 16:56, Russ Housley wrote: >> Will any implementations be impacted? If not, we should ask the >> Security ADs for their best suggestion. > > At least we have

Re: tools location

On 2010-7-25, at 14:19, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Why? You've made it onto the IAB watch list. They like to geo-track the troublemakers. Lars smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.iet

Re: [78attendees] wanted: your old NAT home router

l attempt to look into this more deeply during the next phase of the study. Lars > > Thanks, > > Yuchung > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Lars Eggert > mailto:lars.egg...@nokia.com>> wrote: > Hi, > > a quick status update. We now have received over 100

Re: wanted: your old NAT home router

om outside the EU and North America, or any other model we may not have yet (see http://fit.nokia.com/lars/tmp/2010-hgw-study-devices.txt). And we're still lacking a CMTS for testing cable modems... See you in Maastricht, Lars On 2010-6-2, at 18:36, Lars Eggert wrote: > Hi, > >

Re: wanted: your old NAT home router

dd to the testbed and include in a follow-up study. If you have an unused, spare home gateway to donate to this effort, please contact us at nat-st...@fit.nokia.com. We're also interested in obtaining a DSLAM and a CMTS. Thanks, Lars On 2010-4-29, at 12:34, Lars Eggert wrote: > H

wanted: your old NAT home router

Hi, for a measurement study done together with Markku Kojo's team at the University of Helsinki, we're looking to collect as many different NAT home routers as possible. If you have an old clunker lying around somewhere, please contact me off-list. I'll cover shipping via DHL. Feel free to forw

Re: T-shirts?

Hi, On 2010-3-27, at 13:41, Ray Pelletier wrote: > We have been working with an online vendor to allow t-shirts and other > paraphernalia (coffee mugs, ball caps, etc) > to be purchased. The "rock concert" design has been a particular > challenge. why is this harder than uploading the variou

Re: Javascript timer for speakers

Here is mine. It's a hacked up (= simplified) version of some code that was apparently originally done by Rob Austein (I got it form someone else at some point). This reminds me that I still owe Rob the beer-ware beer... Title: Discussion Timer TimeRemaining  0:00 On 20

Re: Why the normative form of IETF Standards is ASCII

On 2010-3-17, at 8:48, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > I have actually written a few drafts that way. The text part isn't hard, but > the hard breaks at every line are, and the hard breaks at every page even > more so. Tools do create those don't exist in today's world. they do, e.g., something l

Fwd: NetFPGA tutorial with IETF in Anaheim

n, feel free to forward to > the IETF list. > > - Nick > > On 2/8/10 1:38 AM, Lars Eggert wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2010-2-5, at 16:52, Aaron Falk wrote: >> >>> Details about this event and registration information are posted on-line as: >>> h

Re: NetFPGA tutorial with IETF in Anaheim

Hi, On 2010-2-5, at 16:52, Aaron Falk wrote: > Details about this event and registration information are posted on-line as: > http://netfpga.org/tutorials/IETF2010/index.php the page says: "Cost of the tutorial is $200." I'm trying to understand if this is a for-profit event. The reason is that

Re: [BEHAVE] General Comments on xlate-stateful-07

Hi, On 2010-1-18, at 1:11, Reinaldo Penno wrote: > What I mean is that the sentence starts of with "In such cases...". These > 'cases' are those when the NAT cannot determine whether the endpoints of a > TCP connection are active, as written. right. I believe the thinking was that if you can det

Re: Review of draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-04.txt

On 2009-12-16, at 10:55, JP Vasseur wrote: > Yes you are right, that rings a bell. That said, I think that with the > added text, this should be clear now. So if we changed it to "overload" in the earlier documents, wouldn't it make sense to make the same change here for consistency? Lars smi

Re: Review of draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-04.txt

Hi, On 2009-12-15, at 17:50, JP Vasseur wrote: >> First it wasn't clear from the document if "congestion" was >> referring to the PCE itself or the corresponding LSPs. For clarity >> of discussion, I will assume LSP congestion. Even if that is not >> correct, my comments are general and there ar

Re: sctp multihoming query

Hi, you really want to be asking this on the TSVWG list. CC and Reply-To set accordingly. Lars On 2009-12-4, at 1:57, Sudhanva Mudigere Narayana Gowda wrote: > Hi, > I have a query regarding sctp multihoming behavior. > > I have setup a multihomed association and this is my observation > > H

Re: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures

FYI: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg02914.html On 2009-11-20, at 4:41, Randy Presuhn wrote: >> From: "Andrew Allen" >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM >> Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures > ... >> This transmission (including any atta

Re: IETF Plenary Discussions

FWIW, this source is my hacked up version of the original that commented out a bunch of stuff I don't need when I use this. YMMV. (And thanks to the guys who originally put this together! It's been helpful many times.) Lars On 2009-11-11, at 18:46, Scott Brim wrote: > Tony Hansen allegedly wro

Re: A session for resolving my DISCUSSes

Hi, On 2009-11-1, at 1:00, Dave CROCKER wrote: I haven't heard of an AD's doing this before. most areas have been scheduling "office hour" slots during the week for the last few years, for this and other purposes, but those usually only get announced to the area lists. Maybe we should ch

Re: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate

Hi, On 2009-10-28, at 11:53, SM wrote: At 02:28 27-10-2009, Lars Eggert wrote: The second URL points to a list of FTP mirrors, fully half of which are defunct in some way (don't respond, DNS name doesn't resolve, contains stale content, etc.) Again, nobody has been noticing this.

Re: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate

Hi, On 2009-10-27, at 14:33, Scott Brim wrote: While we're at it, these two sentences are contradictory. "Internet-Drafts are a specific thing" but "some Internet-Drafts may be something else". Since you have (reasonably) eliminated reference to areas and working groups, how about modifying

Re: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate

Hi, On 2009-10-27, at 14:39, Lars Eggert wrote: On 2009-10-27, at 14:09, Scott Lawrence wrote: On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 11:28 +0200, Lars Eggert wrote: The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/. Is a nice space-saving measure, but isn't true. Tha

Re: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate

On 2009-10-27, at 14:09, Scott Lawrence wrote: On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 11:28 +0200, Lars Eggert wrote: The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/. Is a nice space-saving measure, but isn't true. That URL leads to a query page, not a list of current d

request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate

Hi, I'm proposing a change to the ID boilerplate in order to save some lines on the first page. The current text says: Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute wor

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-10.txt

On 2009-10-16, at 15:54, John Leslie wrote: There have been a number of voices favoring what Jari tried to call as consensus, and I'd like to add mine. +1 Lars (assuming my voice counts) smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

On 2009-8-31, at 19:24, Joel M. Halpern wrote: But the same could be said all our experimental and informational RFCs. Should we insist that all experimental and informational RFC, even from IETF WGs, carry big warnings "THIS IS NOT AN IETF STANDARD." FWIW, this was exactly what I proposed a w

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Hi, On 2009-8-31, at 18:34, Adam Roach wrote: In particular, when a user accesses a document at a url of the form , there is going to be a strong presumption on their part that the document was produced by the IETF. In the cases that this presumption is in

Re: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers

Hi, looks good. I have one (probably stupid) question: who checks this and how? Will we use different colored paper for the name tags for different days? Will the secretariat patrol the hallways? Or is the abuse angle something that we don't think is a realistic issue? Lars On 2009-8-24

Re: One Day Guest Pass

Hi, On 2009-8-21, at 16:01, David Harrington wrote: Maybe we should have an RFID reader/recorder at the door to each session, and to send bills to people based on what they actually attend (plus a base fee). ... This approach might also cut down on people using sessions to just read email and

Re: 2nd Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP

On 2009-8-10, at 23:24, Joel M. Halpern wrote: Please, approve this document for publication as an BCP. Agreed. Lars smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [xml2rfc] Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3?

"Release early, release often." Can't we simply do a 1.35 whenever the upcoming changes have been finalized? Lars On 2009-7-7, at 0:30, Julian Reschke wrote: Marshall Rose wrote: julian, bill - i thought we were waiting on another revision for boilerplate changes? is that imminent? Some

xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format)

Hi, On 2009-7-5, at 16:24, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the silent majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine that the vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no problems with XML2RFC. So I'm assuming they've be

Re: Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3?

On 2009-7-5, at 16:20, Carsten Bormann wrote: Would it help to simply call it 1.34 now? (Then it would be picked up by distributions and packaging services such as macports, and people could stop installing by hand.) +1 I maintain the fink package for xml2rfc, and the committers asked me to

Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]

I agree with Sam and Jari. This is a good and overdue change. Lars On 2009-6-10, at 17:21, Jari Arkko wrote: I also support the publication of this document (modulo some nits that were discussed earlier). Yes, there are trade-offs. But having observed the process from various sides over the

Re: WG Review: Multiple InterFaces (mif)

On 2009-4-21, at 9:00, Sam Hartman wrote: Keith, I've considered your points and continue to disagree. I'm mostly replying in the interest of judging consensus. I believe that the primary use cases identified in the MIF BOF are use cases that are not going to go away. I think that saying "avoi

Re: WG Review: Multiple InterFaces (mif)

Hi, On 2009-4-22, at 2:19, Christian Vogt wrote: It seems that folks are considering two related, yet still orthogonal topics for inclusion in the MIF charter: - Conflicts between configuration parameters. - Issues with address selection. I agree that both of these are important and should b

Re: [tcpm] [OPSEC] draft-gont-tcp-security

Hi, On 2009-4-15, at 17:47, Todd Glassey wrote: Lars Eggert wrote: Nothing would be "tested", the IETF isn't in the business of auditing TCP stacks. Yo Lars Good-morning, let me respond. "Sure it is..." let me amplify - Don't the IETF standards processes &quo

Re: Security Assessment of TCP

Hi, On 2009-4-14, at 20:51, Fernando Gont wrote: Lars Eggert wrote: My personal take is that the IETF is responsible for the maintenance of its protocols, and this effort carried ut by the UK CPNI should be welcome, and the IETF should take the chance and benefit from this work to publish

Re: [tcpm] [OPSEC] draft-gont-tcp-security

Hi, Todd, On 2009-4-14, at 22:21, Todd Glassey wrote: Fernando Gont wrote: Lars Eggert wrote: I agree with Joe that some of the hardening techniques that vendors are implementing come with consequences (make TCP more brittle). To me, this is a *reason* this document should be published

Re: Security Assessment of TCP (was: draft-gont-tcp-security)

On 2009-4-13, at 21:24, Fernando Gont wrote: My personal take is that the IETF is responsible for the maintenance of its protocols, and this effort carried ut by the UK CPNI should be welcome, and the IETF should take the chance and benefit from this work to publish advice on TCP security/

Re: Your "favorite" network faults

Daisy-chaining a small number of hubs also causes interesting issues. Doesn't happen much anymore, now that switches have become prevalent. On 2009-4-13, at 4:49, Ole Jacobsen wrote: OK, I'll chime in: I got one of those key-chain sized Ethernet loopback connectors. The idea is that you attach

Re: [OPSEC] [tcpm] draft-gont-tcp-security

Hi, On 2009-4-14, at 1:38, Joe Touch wrote: Advice in making a hardened version of TCP would be useful to the implementation community. To a large extent this is what draft-gont-tcp-security is about. Implementation advice is outside the scope of the IETF. It's not even operational, IMO.

Re: Downloading a whole maillist's archive

ftp.ietf.org, in the "ietf-mail-archive" directory On 2009-3-31, at 5:41, Robert Moskowitz wrote: I want to download the whole lisp maillist archive and import it into Thunderbird. I have a plugin for Thunderbird that will take mbox format, and I have pulled in maillist archives from other org

Re: IETF speed -- was Re: Running Code

Hi, On 2009-3-4, at 15:39, a...@tr-sys.de wrote: I do not want to blame anybody, but in the TSV area I am aware of documents in at least two different WGs that describe common (and recommended) _existing_ implementation practice and have not even been submitted to the IESG after more than 4 year

Re: Running Code

Hi, On 2009-3-3, at 22:54, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I think adding any new mandatory section to all I-Ds is a bad idea. It will quickly become bureaucratic. We've had proposals for mandatory Management Considerations, IPv6 Considerations, and no doubt others that I've forgotten, and they all hav

Re: Security Assessment of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)

Hi, On 2009-2-14, at 0:25, Marshall Eubanks wrote: If I am reading this correctly the UK Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure wants the IETF (or some other body) to produce a "companion document to the IETF specifications that discusses the security aspects and implications of th

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-08.txt

On 2008-12-3, at 10:47, Fernando Gont wrote: (FYI, the draft originally aimed at Std. Track, and discussed other alternative approaches for dealing with the problem of long delays between connection establishment attempts. Then we changed the draft category to "Informational", to simply document

Re: Friday experiment

On 2008-11-28, at 12:49, Stewart Bryant wrote: We could maybe start earlier on Friday as well - say 8am - i.e. run 0800 till 1300 with only only a 10 min coffee break. That would put nearly 5 hours into the schedule. That overlaps with the IESG/IAB "what happened this week" breakfast. (But

Re: WG Review: Low Extra Delay Background Transport (ledbat)

Hi, On 2008-10-31, at 10:45, ext Robert Elz wrote: This looks like useful work to do, and to me, the charter mostly looks fine, just one point. The (proposed) charter says ... | * operate well in networks with FIFO queueing with drop-tail | discipline which in itself is OK, but doesn't say

Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)

On 2008-10-11, at 4:27, ext Enrico Marocco wrote: Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: It's difficult to write a charter without actually designing the solution. This is an interesting opinion. May I translate that to mean that there is already a solution in the minds of the people who wrote the ch

Re: WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)

Hi, On 2008-10-10, at 15:00, ext Marshall Eubanks wrote: considered for prioritizing standardization work, for example the number of operators and clients that are likely to be able to provide or use that particular data. In any case, this WG will not propose standards on how congestion is sign

Re: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05

On 2008-10-3, at 4:11, ext Joe Touch wrote: Agreed; I propose to take this over to TSVWG. It's more general than just TCP... I agree that the intersection of TSVWG and SAAG will probably more or less capture the correct set of folks, let's move the discussion there. I'll send another follow

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-08.txt

Hi, I believe the gen-art comments need to be discussed before this document can move before the IESG. Lars On 2008-8-21, at 23:30, ext [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see >

Re: new text for ID_Checklist sect 3, item 6

Looks good. My only comment is about where the justification is to be provided - the PROTO writeup is at least an alternative to putting this into the document itself, and IMO it's a better alternative. Lars On 2008-8-13, at 12:21, ext Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote: The revision 1.8 of the ID-C

Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist

Hi, On 2008-8-11, at 2:32, ext John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, August 10, 2008 6:03 PM +0200 Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: - check that if the document obsoletes or updates another document, that one appear in the references section, and make sure that the document actually says

Re: NATs necessary for IPv6, says IETF chair

On 2008-7-28, at 13:55, ext Marc Manthey wrote: > NATs necessary for IPv6, says IETF chair http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/072109-nat-housley-qna.html The quote form the article is: "They are necessary for a smooth transition from IPv4 to IPv6 so that the important properties of the I

IETF-75: sailing to Stockholm

Hi, IETF-75 takes place in Stockholm, Sweden, from July 26-31, 2009. A bunch of us are planning to sail from Finnland to Stockholm during the week before the IETF, and to sail back from Stockholm to Finnland in the week afterwards. Coordinating this with several boats and a bunch of inter

Re: I-D Action: draft-rosenberg-internet-wait-hourglass-00.txt

Hi, On 2008-2-16, at 0:58, ext Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: > So lets say I am building an application and I want to extend that > application to users that may be NATted. Now, I have a choice. I can > build that application to run on SCTP, which may be advtantageous. > In that case, I'll be ab

Re: Do you want the protocol DEPLOYED or not? Re: I-DAction:draft-rosenberg-internet-waist-hourglass-00.txt]

Hi, On 2008-2-14, at 18:38, ext Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > In particular there are many cases where you would like to establish a > 'lossy TCP connection'. That is you want the flow &ct. advantages that > you get from establishing a control channel session while accepting > the > fact that i

Re: I-D Action: draft-rosenberg-internet-wait-hourglass-00.txt

On 2008-2-15, at 16:21, ext Bernard Aboba wrote: > However, I would suspect that clearly specifying how SCTP and DCCP > work with NAT would eventually make it possible to obtain a home NAT > supporting those protocols, particularly if implementations were made > available within the popular distrib

Re: I-D Action:draft-rosenberg-internet-waist-hourglass-00.txt]

Hi, I enjoyed reading your draft, and I'm looking forward to discussing it in Philly. (We've asked Jonathan if he'd present at TSVAREA or INTAREA.) On 2008-2-13, at 15:44, ext Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: > I wrote this because of a discussion that happened during behave at > the > last IETF mee

Re: Eating our own dog food and using SIP for telephony... (was Re: My view of the IAOC Meeting Selection Guidelines)

On 2008-2-11, at 18:55, ext Dan York wrote: > Can we move some of this conversation in the bill below onto the > Internet using systems where our costs essentially go to $0? > (Obviously we still need to communicate to non-wired folks across > the PSTN, such as event location facilities, etc

Re: Deployment Cases

On 2008-1-3, at 11:11, ext Stewart Bryant wrote: Wouldn't Bittorrent fail congestion considerations review? Not necessarily. It does use a large number of TCP connections, because the goal is to fully saturate a user's up- and downlink. But because it uses TCP, it will correctly back off un

Re: IETF Eurasia

On 2007-11-29, at 6:28, ext [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with your reasoning. I should have asked, why do *ALL* IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive? They don't. Several WGs are holding interim meetings between the IETF meetings. I'm not sure if there have been joint inte

Re: IETF Hosting Opportunity - March 2009

On 2007-11-28, at 20:08, ext Russ Housley wrote: The IAOC plan for 2008 and 2009 is to have three meetings in North America, two meetings in Europe, and one meeting in Asia. This 3:2:1 ration will be repeated for 2010 and 2011. So far, we are on track to make this happen. I appreciate th

Re: IETF Hosting Opportunity - March 2009

On 2007-11-28, at 19:00, ext Ole Jacobsen wrote: Keep in mind that the locations are subject to change until a host has been identified and the hotel contract signed. This means that you could well see one of the OTHER meetings in 2009 take place in Europe. "TBD" and "Provisional" really does mea

Re: IETF Hosting Opportunity - March 2009

Hi, On 2007-11-27, at 22:20, ext Terry Monroe wrote: The event is now planned to take place in North America, specific location still to be determined. Similar to IETF-67, which moved from Europe to San Diego, we're again moving a meeting that was planned to happen in Europe to North Ameri

Re: Our deadlines are dizzyingly complex and confusing

On 2007-11-26, at 22:11, ext Henrik Levkowetz wrote: I agree on the general sentiment of *one* deadline time. I'd prefer it expressed in a TZ which iCalendar files and most calendar applications understand right off, though. UTC sounds good to me. Let me put in a plug for http://people.nok

Re: Lets be careful with those XML submissions to the RFC Editor

On 2007-11-25, at 23:51, ext Paul Hoffman wrote: They still should (strongly) consider checking the validity of the XML by comparing it to what the IESG approved. I agree with Paul. The IESG approves the text version of a draft, so the text version is definitive. Making the XML available t

  1   2   >