Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again

+1 Very productive venue, easy to access city, several hotels near the venue for alternatives, walkable area around the venue, lots of options for restaurants, good public transit system, etc. And I enjoyed the social & social venue as well (thanks DENIC)! I really do hope we return in the futu

Re: IAB Statement on Dotless Domains

On 7/12/13 12:24 PM, "Phillip Hallam-Baker" mailto:hal...@gmail.com>> wrote: Unfortunately the IAB is not going to give that advice. They seem to have passed on advising ICANN not to issue .corp which is going to be a total security meltdown. The report at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/do

Re: IAB Statement on Dotless Domains

There must be something similar to Godwin's Law whereby any IETF discussion can devolve into a debate over NAT. ;-) Jason On 7/12/13 10:13 AM, "Phillip Hallam-Baker" mailto:hal...@gmail.com>> wrote: Keith, read my words, I choose them more carefully than you imagine. solves their problems at

Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6

On 3/29/13 12:58 PM, "John Levine" wrote: >>As a result, it is questionable whether any IPv6 address-based >>reputation system can be successful (at least those based on voluntary >>principles.) > >It can probably work for whitelisting well behaved senders, give or take >the DNS cache busting is

Re: travel guide for the next IETF...

On 1/2/13 1:44 PM, "Donald Eastlake" wrote: >>Good... but how to get there? >> >> We appear to be stuck in the middle of a monster hotel with a single >> boulevard and nothing at all nearby (except that there is a shuttle >> to Disney) > >There are some things on the other side of World Drive.

Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

suppose = support (if you were an auto-correct program) G... On 11/4/12 5:59 PM, "Livingood, Jason" wrote: >Same here. I'm noncom-eligible and suppose the recall. > > >Jason Livingood > >On 11/4/12 11:45 AM, "Arturo Servin" wrote: > >>

Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

Same here. I'm noncom-eligible and suppose the recall. Jason Livingood On 11/4/12 11:45 AM, "Arturo Servin" wrote: > > Thanks for the information to have a better decision. > > I am Nomcom-eligible and you can add me to the signature list. > > >/Arturo Servin > > >On 04/11/2012 12:

Re: So, where to repeat? (was: Re: management granularity)

BTW, if anyone finds the venue question extremely compelling / interesting -- consider seeking a spot on the IAOC during the next nominating period. - Jason

Re: management granularity (Re: Meeting "lounges" at IETF meetings)

On 8/4/12 1:31 PM, "Dave Crocker" wrote: >However the tendency of the community has been to express preference for >the tourism of going to new places. > >If we really want venues to function towards some ideal, we need the >benefit of a multi-visit learning curve. > >And it means we stop being t

2012 ISOC Board of Trustees Election Results (IETF List)

On behalf of the Internet Society¹s Election Committee, I wish to extend our appreciation and thanks to all of the nominees and final candidates for the Board of Trustees. We are quite honoured to have such well-qualified people so interested in serving the Internet Society! The election results w

Re: Last Call: (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

On 5/10/12 2:30 AM, "SM" wrote: >There are times when it is difficult to keep assuming that people are >acting in a responsible fashion given the high levels of >unpleasantness. The situation can be such that simple gentle paths >are ignored. This is IMO perhaps more a reflection of the bizarre

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

On 2/21/12 2:54 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote: I think the suggested change does not go far enough. The "high-service-level domains" that prompted this draft to be written, and all the implementers I'm currently aware of, are decommissioning the practice. So the paragr

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

To be more specific, at least section 5.5 ("it is unclear how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing will be for discontinuing this practice") is now incorrect. It *is*

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

On 8/23/11 3:09 PM, "Fred Baker" wrote: >I wouldn't discount the effect of the value of the dollar on hotel rates >as measured in US dollars. I suspect Fred is spot on -- current exchange rate fluctuation is undoubtedly a huge issue. I would speculate that most hotels would negotiate for payment

Re: Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 *(formal for apps area)*

.) On 5/29/2011 7:54 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote: [JL] Duly noted in my previous emails. I'm keeping the naming as an open issue in the –04 and will be seeking WG and WG co-chair guidance one way or the other. One of the reasons for cross-area review is to look for cross-area problems

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 *(formal for apps area)*

On 5/31/11 12:00 PM, "Tony Finch" mailto:d...@dotat.at>> wrote: Speaking of confusing, the first sentence of the abstract and introduction in the current revision of the draft is an abomination that should be taken out and shot. [JL] Great feedback – I just did it. Here's the updated Abstract (ca

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 *(formal for apps area)*

On 5/31/11 2:48 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote: On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Joel Jaeggli mailto:joe...@bogus.com>> wrote: But you've contributed to this document, so have others from that list. I don't want to contribute to the document While you have not contrib

Re: Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

Hi – Thanks for the feedback and see a few selected responses inline below. A –04 update is coming soon. Thanks JL On 5/3/11 4:43 AM, "SM" mailto:s...@resistor.net>> wrote: Hi Jason, At 11:48 02-05-2011, Livingood, Jason wrote: In any of the various IPv6 fora (including v6ops a

Re: Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

Hi John - Thanks for the detailed review. I'm planning a -04 update soon, FWIW. Specific responses inline below. Thx, Jason On 5/2/11 7:44 PM, "John Leslie" mailto:j...@jlc.net>> wrote: Livingood, Jason mailto:jason_living...@cable.comcast.com>> wrote: To: John

Re: Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

Thank you for your thorough review, Dave. Changes will be made in an upcoming –04 revision. Some more specific comments can be found inline below. Thanks! JL PS – I have at least one other email from you in my queue for this I-D – I've not forgotten about it. :-) On 4/29/11 7:32 PM, "Dave CROC

Re: [v6ops] Review of draft-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

In the case at hand, the list does not contain RRs as the abstract suggests, it contains IPv6-capable resolvers. The whitelist isn't published in the DNS, so it doesn't match the existing use of the phrase "DNS whitelist". [JL] Oops! Thanks for noticing this – I have corrected it in the Abst

Re: Last Call: (IPv6 AAAA DNS Whitelisting Implications) to Informational RFC

Thank you for your review, and a –04 revision is coming soon. Other comments inline below. Thanks! Jason On 4/26/11 5:51 AM, "Pekka Savola" mailto:pek...@netcore.fi>> wrote: On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to consider th

Re: Last Call: (IPv6 AAAA DNS Whitelisting Implications) to Informational RFC

Hi Bernard – I've finally found the time to close out the last bits of feedback in this version of the draft. Your comments will be incorporated shortly into a –04 version of the document. Please see specific replies inline below. Thanks! Jason On 4/18/11 2:08 PM, "Bernard Aboba" mailto:berna

Re: TSVDIR review of draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications

Hi Joe – Thank you for your thorough review and detailed response. Your feedback will be incorporated into a –04 update with other changes received in last call and from the IESG. (I'm still working through all of the changes though.) In any case, see my detailed responses inline below. I appre

Re: Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

>Perhaps the document could include the arguments for and against this >practice? That way, someone who is new to IPv6 >deployment theory can quickly get up to speed. > >I'm very much in favor of documents which say "don't do this -- but if >you have to, here's how." But they have to include enou

Re: Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

As I read it, this says that certain DNS servers will be configured to _not_ return records to queries by default. This strikes me as a really-strange transition mechanism. Depends on a number of factors for a content provider. The more traffic a domain receives the more likely t

Re: Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

In any of the various IPv6 fora (including v6ops at the IETF) "DNS Whitelisting" is how this practice is typically labeled. When writing the draft I felt this could be confusing outside of IPv6 circles and so lengthened it to "IPv6 DNS Whitelisting" in the title. In any case, "I don't like wh

Re: World IPv6 Day and Us

>Parts of the challenge here is that turning on IPv6 (publishing a ) >can also cause brokenness for users that have no IPv6 connectivity, e.g., >those relying on broken 6to4 relays. This has been documented all over >the place, for example here: >

Re: can we please postpone the ipv6 post-mortem?

+1 On 10/8/10 1:02 PM, "james woodyatt" wrote: >everyone-- > >IPv6 may have been born with a developmental disability, but we're not >dealing with a corpse yet. The patient is still alive, getting better, >and with a bit of love and proper care, might yet grow up to make better >and brighter m

Re: [ietf] DNS spoofing at captive portals

>> >> c) draft-livingood-dns-redirect and draft-livingood-dns-malwareprotect draft-livingood-dns-malwareprotect concerns what is primarily an opt-in service to block known malware sites for end users. Hopefully that is less controversial than the redirect one, but who knows. draft-livingood-dns

Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474

>>This sounds like there is potential for crowd sourcing here. >> >> For example, I can tell you nothing about Vonage, but a fair >> amount about Cox Cable Internet. What you want to know is >> known, just not (yet) in a way you can easily access. >> >> Would a Yelp type model be appropriate ? >

Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474

>He's not saying that. He's effectively saying what I'm saying: payment >models are outside the scope of the standards, which don't require any >particular payment model in order to perform their job. +1 to that. It seems the press struggles to understand that the IETF does technical standards an

Soliciting Comments: draft-oreirdan-mody-bot-remediation

I¹m looking for direct comments on an updated document, Recommendations for the Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks, available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-oreirdan-mody-bot-remediation-03. I¹m asking here as this doesn¹t really fit neatly into any existing WGs. (Though we¹ll be posting sho

Re: BOFs for Hiroshima

Is there a standard interval for such deadlines before an IETF meeting? As you noted, this one seems particularly early this time. Jason On 8/24/09 12:16 PM, "Marshall Eubanks" wrote: > I just wanted to bring to people's attention this (fairly early) cut > off date for Hiroshima : > > - 2009

Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format

> 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 been ignoring the thread, > hopefully the new subjec

Call for Participation: "homegate" List

This is an open call for participation in the new ³homegate² mailing list, which is dedicated to discussing issues relating to broadband home gateway devices. There has been a BoF request submitted relating to this, which you can find at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/attachment/wiki/WikiSta

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-livingood-woundy-p4p-experiences-07

Thanks for the detailed review, Spencer! I'll set aside some time next week to review your comments and then make necessary changes as needed in the draft to address this in a -08 version. Regards Jason On 5/27/09 9:55 PM, "Spencer Dawkins" wrote: > I have been selected as the General Area Re

Re: Abstract on Page 1?

+1 - great idea. On 3/4/09 10:33 AM, "Margaret Wasserman" wrote: > > I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that > the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the > draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1. > > I don't believe that there are any le

FW: [IP] TODAY: Stop IETF Enactment of Patented Standard for TLS

This campaign continues: -- Forwarded Message From: Dave Farber Reply-To: Dave Farber Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:20:23 -0500 To: ip Subject: [IP] TODAY: Stop IETF Enactment of Patented Standard for TLS Begin forwarded message: From: Seth Johnson Date: February 11, 2009 7:48:37 AM EST To

RE: [73attendees] Is USA qualifiedfor2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?

I recall stats from IETF 71 (which may be out of date). I believe at that time, 48% of attendees were from the U.S. Next was Japan with 9%, then China with 5.7%. If I recall correctly, this was a good number of attendees from China, but I do not know how that compared to IETF 72 or to IETF 73.

RE: Announcement: New Boilerplate Text Required for allnewSubmissions to IETF

+1 Jason > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David B. Nelson > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 11:49 AM > To: 'Ed Juskevicius' > Cc: 'IETF Discussion' > Subject: RE: Announcement: New Boilerplate Text Required for > allnewSubmissio

RE: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)

> -Original Message- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Keith - I encourage you to consult with several very large > scale email domains around the world to see if they think > that DNSxBLs are useful, effective, and in widespread use or not. > > Jason - I encourage you

RE: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)

John C Klensin wrote: > I've got two separate and unrelated incidents in the last 10 > days in which RBL lists have decided to block some (but not all) > of Comcast's outbound mail servers. Interestingly, this draft is about both blacklists and whitelists. Many large domains maintain whiteli

RE: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)

-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Keith Moore Sent: Sat 11/8/2008 2:50 PM To: John Levine Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists) Keith Moore wrote: >and there's a billion and a half users wh

RE: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)

> Incidentally, although it may still be the conventional > wisdom in the IETF that DNSBLs don't work and aren't useful, > in the outside world where 95% or more of mail is spam, > they're essential tools to run a mail server. Although there > are indeed lots of stupid DNSBLs, those aren't th

Social Event - Transportation / Final Logistics Update

IETF 71 - Social Event Advisory The social begins at 7:00pm and runs until 10:30pm. This is a reminder regarding transportation from the Marriott to the Philadelphia Art Museum. We are providing buses (that look like trolleys, for what that's worth). These buses will run in a continuous loop

RE: Win Ice Hockey Tickets

winner. Regards Jason Livingood Comcast > -Original Message- > From: Livingood, Jason > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 1:42 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Win Ice Hockey Tickets > > Thanks to HP, our business partner in releasing Comcast > SmartZone, we ar

RE: 71st IETF - Hotels and Social Event

Due to high demand for the already sold-out social, the wait list will close today. We will probably have fewer cancellations than people already on the wait list, which is why we are taking this step with AMS. Regards Jason Livingood Comcast > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTE

RE: 71st IETF - Early Bird Registration Cutoff

BTW, the direct payment URL is https://www.amsl.com/ietf/ietfpayment.py Jason > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of IETF Secretariat > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 6:02 PM > To: IETF Announcement list > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL

IETF 71 Social Ticket Update - Unpaid Tickets and Waitlist

As noted previously, the IETF 71 Social is currently "sold out." However, of the 500 tickets available, 105 people have reserved tickets but not yet paid. An email just went out to those people asking them to pay for their social ticket no later than 11:30 a.m. ET, Monday, March 10th. At 11:31 a.

IETF 71 Social Reminder: Just a Few Tickets Left

This is a reminder that if you have not already purchased your social ticket and would like to attend, you should do so *immediately.* This event is strictly limited to 500 people, and we currently have 467 registered. So just 33 tickets remain available as of a few minutes ago. To buy your soci

RE: IETF 71 - no room at the inn at all on Thursday

st further. Jason > -Original Message- > From: John L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:19 PM > To: Mikko Saarnivala > Cc: Livingood, Jason; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: IETF 71 - no room at the inn at all on Thursday > > >> I am

IETF 71 Microsite Down / Moving (was "no room at the inn")

In the other thread, I reminded folks of our IETF 71 microsite @ http://ietf71.comcast.net and the list of hotels there. Please excuse the fact that this site is off-line for a few hours right now, though it should be back up in a few hours if all goes according to plan (famous last words, I know

RE: IETF 71 - no room at the inn at all on Thursday

I am sure you can find something to stay for the duration. From http://ietf71.comcast.net/?page_id=5 some added suggestions: 1 - Loews, across the street 2 - Marriott Courtyard, 1/2 block 3 - Marriott Residence Inn, 1/2 block 4 - Hilton Garden Inn, 2-3 blocks and about 10 other suggestions as wel

RE: IETF 71 - no room at the inn on Thursday

You may want to check out the URL below on our IETF 71 microsite for some other hotel suggestions. Ray or Marcia may have more info but this list is pretty comprehensive. http://ietf71.comcast.net/?page_id=5 Jason > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

IETF-71 Social Reminder / Update

Just wanted to remind IETF-71 attendees that the social event will be strictly limited to 500 people. As of now, we are about 50% full, which means we're booking up somewhat more rapidly than expected. Thus, if you would like to attend, please consider registering soon. All of the details are a

IETF 71 - Hotel Booking Reminder

Since folks may have missed some of the traffic in December, please take note of the hotel booking advisory at our IETF-71 microsite @ http://ietf71.comcast.net/?page_id=5. Specifically ---> If you are considering arriving on the *Saturday* before IETF 71 (March 8, 2008), please be aware that the

RE: IETF71 hotel noise warning on Marriott web pages

> Is that going to be a large suite, a converted meeting room, > or a room large enough to accommodate several hundred of us > at the same time? The question is important if it is > reasonable to assume that all other small meeting spaces in > the hotel (at least those not specifically cove

RE: Westin Bayshore throwing us out

gt; To: Livingood, Jason > Cc: Fred Baker; Cullen Jennings; Pete Resnick; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out > > On 11/29/07 2:00 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote: > > ...[T]he renovation in Philly for IETF 71 (discovered after > the venue decision I believe) i

IETF 71 Info

FYI, in addition to the typical info that will be on the web in advance of IETF 71, we setup a site that will soon include additional logistical and city information. It's pretty basic at the moment, but you can subscribe to the RSS feed if you like. The hope is to provide a little extra info for

RE: Hotel selection

> From: Fred Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > One question I would ask the peanut gallery is: if we were to > pick a small set of venues to return to, which would we pick? > The ones I might think of would include our recent venues in > Paris and Prague, the Minneapolis Hilton, the facility we

RE: Westin Bayshore throwing us out

> For the record, Ray was aware of this renovation, and tells > us that there will be renovation ongoing in Philadelphia as > well. Ray can comment more, but the renovation in Philly for IETF 71 (discovered after the venue decision I believe) is of some of the common areas in the bar and does n

RE: Westin Bayshore throwing us out

> -Original Message- > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Actually, I'm interested in a more basic thing. We usually > put a large load on a hotel. Why don't our contracts insist > that the hotel not be undergoing significant renovation > during the meeting. One of the

RE: Geography briefiengs for IETF required

> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 3:53 AM > To: Livingood, Jason > Cc: Elisabeth Porteneuve (labo) > Subject: Geography briefiengs for IETF required > > Re your message posted to IETF list: > > > Subject: IETF 71: Results of Social Venue Survey > > From:

IETF 71: Results of Social Venue Survey

ddle East: 1% g. 2% lived "in the network," "on the moon," or in some other "secret" locale. Regards Jason Livingood > -Original Message- > From: Livingood, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 3:48 PM >

IETF 71: Social Venue Survey

Hello - I am on the planning team for the sponsoring organization of IETF 71. We are continuing to get ready for this event. We would like to solicit the community's feedback on the possible locations of the social venue and what is important to you for such events. There are 6 questions, so i

RE: Prague (Praha) street maps and hotels (was Re: IETF 68 hotel full)

Looks like the hotel is on the far eastern edge of the Jewish Quarter (or just to the east of it), so there may be other hotels in that area. The Old Town is also close by (Stare Mesto) and is probably a good area to look for hotels as well. Jason > -Original Message- > From: Elwyn Davie

RE: Interworking between 2 different vendors' Softswitches

You probably want to post your question to two different WG mailing lists. The first is speermint and the second is enum. http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/speermint-charter.html http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/enum-charter.html Regards Jason Fro

RE: IETF Meeting Network and Other Technical Requirements

Does this section mean that 802.11a is specifically not supported? Any idea if the wifi network at the Dallas meeting will be better than in Vancouver? Regards Jason 3.3. Wireless Network IEEE 802.11b/g service must be available in all the meeting rooms (as identified by the Secretariat)