Re: Architecture

On Mar 23, 2013, at 1:02 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 23/03/2013 01:46, Keith Moore wrote: >> On 03/22/2013 03:03 PM, John Curran wrote: >>> On Mar 22, 2013, at 2:49 PM, Keith Moore >>> wrote: >>> I don't think we're in disagreement. I think that more diversity in IETF would

Re: History of protocol discussion or process in WG

to keep up with this discussion (and will miss next IETF to chat with people in person) On Feb 3, 2013, at 10:28 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Lixia" == Lixia Zhang writes: > > >Lixia> 5218 is a general document; I believe what AB suggested is a >

Re: History of protocol discussion or process in WG

On Feb 3, 2013, at 4:17 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > On 2/2/13, Scott Brim wrote: >> What? How about RFC 5218? >> >> This is done all the time through the WG process, and it changes all the >> time too, which is appropriate. > > Many WG open and close in IETF with no history-ID/report of

Re: 30th Anniversary of Transition to TCP/IP

On Dec 31, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: IETF Chair > >> The ARPANET transitioned to TCP/IP on 1 January 1983. That was 30 years >> ago, > > It's very hard indeed to fully grasp that it's only been 30 years. My kids > (now roughly 20) live in what is in some ways an entirely

Re: In Memoriam IETF web page -- a modest proposal

On Oct 22, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: > After watching the traffic on this, I'm thinking a memorial page is perhaps > not the first place to focus attention. Instead, write a memorial RFC for > each person you think made a significant contribution to the IETF. The RFC > Editorial

Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

On Aug 12, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > Dave > > If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care > more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than > taking steps to avoid Internet governance being > transferred by government decree to a secretive > agency of the

Re: Proposed IETF 95 Date Change

On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:06 AM, IETF Administrative Director wrote: > The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change for IETF 95 > scheduled for March 2016. > > Currently IETF 95 is scheduled for 27 March to 1 April 2016. 27 March is > Easter. > > The IAOC is proposing IETF 95

Re: Making the Tao a web page

On Jun 3, 2012, at 6:34 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > ... I further guess that > "on an ongoing basis" will be better for the document than > getting a new snapshot out as an RFC and seeing how long it > takes to get stale and how long after that it takes the > community to notice. ... I second th

Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

On Apr 24, 2012, at 2:16 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > I think I completely agree with that. >john + 1 > --On Tuesday, 24 April, 2012 19:55 + Christian Huitema > wrote: > >> We see here a tension between two goals, engineering the >> Internet and making standards for the Internet. In m

Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments

On Apr 19, 2012, at 3:26 PM, SM wrote: > Hi Adrian, > At 13:31 19-04-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> The IESG has been discussing how to tidy up after Experimental RFCs. > > [snip] > >> The IESG would welcome your thoughts on this draft before they approve >> the final text on April 26th. > > Co

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

On Mar 15, 2012, at 6:47 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Thursday, March 15, 2012 00:00 -0400 Ross Callon > wrote: > >> I don't like this proposal for two reasons: I frequently read >> email while not connected; When connected, bandwidths have >> gotten high enough that attachments on th

Re: Last Call: (The RPKI/Router Protocol) to Proposed Standard

hmm... since when did IETF last call start soliciting *company* support? I had thought the rule says that we all participate as individuals. confused, Lixia On Dec 21, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Keyur Patel wrote: > Folks, > > I like to voice my support (on behalf of Cisco Systems) as well. Cisco > Sy

Re: voting system for future venues?

top posting to make a small point: for the many IETF meetings I've gone to over the years, reserving hotel room took less than 10min in general. For this Taipei meeting however, because the primary hotel price is way above US federal allowance (that's how my employer reimburses me), and the only

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

On Aug 22, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > Hi folks - > > I just reserved with the hotel and was quite surprised at the cancellation > policy. > > Could you please confirm - Cancel before 1 Nov - no charge, 1-7 Nov 1 night, > after 7 Nov full amount? > > Seriously? This is extr

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-zhu-mobileme-doc-04

On Mar 4, 2011, at 6:01 AM, Roni Even wrote: > 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 >

Re: MHonArc mail archive line wrapping

good catch of the problem. I suffered when I read IETF email on the web. Would be great to see this fixed. Lixia On Feb 15, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Stuart Cheshire wrote: > In the MHonArc mail archive there are often super-long lines, which would be > wrapped to the window width when viewing in mos

Re: I-D Action:draft-white-tsvwg-netblt-00.txt

On Jan 11, 2011, at 1:09 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > --On Saturday, January 08, 2011 07:37 -0800 Lixia Zhang > wrote: > >> I am not sure why this rush to get a new internet draft out, >> without consultation to any of its original authors, and given >> the rough con

Re: I-D Action:draft-white-tsvwg-netblt-00.txt

On Jan 8, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > 08.01.2011 17:37, Lixia Zhang wrote: >> I am not sure why this rush to get a new internet draft out, without >> consultation to any of its original authors, and given the rough consensus >> on ietf mailing list

Re: Old transport-layer protocols to Historic?

On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > 07.01.2011 21:53, Bob Hinden wrote: >> Mykyta, >> >> >> On Jan 5, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> There have been a discussion on tsvwg mailing list about old transport >>> layer protocols - exactly

Re: Old transport-layer protocols to Historic?

On Jan 6, 2011, at 10:01 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > 06.01.2011 23:45, Doug Ewell wrote: >> >> Lixia Zhang wrote: >> >>> PS: on the other hand, what would a "historical status" imply? the ideas >>> obsolete? >> Every now and then, s

Re: I-D Action:draft-white-tsvwg-netblt-00.txt

I am not sure why this rush to get a new internet draft out, without consultation to any of its original authors, and given the rough consensus on ietf mailing list discussion is to keep NETBLT RFC as is (experimental). Lixia On Jan 8, 2011, at 3:00 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > A Ne

Re: Old transport-layer protocols to Historic?

On Jan 6, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Bob Braden wrote: > > Historic might imply that they were once in service, but have later been > replaced/deprecated. In fact, these protocols were always, and are still, > *experimental*. It would seem logical to assign them the Experimental > category and be do

Re: IETF Logo Wear

On Aug 18, 2010, at 8:28 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > But his T-shirt says "IP *on* Everything" which makes it funnier. > > http://jboss-uat.crn.com/channel-encyclopedia/definition-print.htm?term=IP+on+Everything&printType=image > > Ole my english is not good, but doesn't "on" carry more signific

Re: IETF Attendance by continent

On Aug 7, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > Fred said this much more eloquently than I could. > > On the IETF78 attendees list there's been a lot of discussion about where to > meet - with the primary consideration seeming to be "pretty and small".I > may be in the minority, but I

Re: Nomcom Enhancements: Improving the IETF leadership selection process

On Jul 18, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > Lixia, > > On 7/18/2010 1:14 PM, Lixia Zhang wrote: >> The comment: I support the idea of having a second 'expertise' pool of >> volunteers, but I wonder where comes this suggestion of selecting *3* members &

Re: Nomcom Enhancements: Improving the IETF leadership selection process

On Jul 17, 2010, at 8:48 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > Folks, > > Nomcom has been an integral part of the IETF for nearly 20 years. > > A number of us have been developing a set of recommendations designed to > adapt the Nomcom process to better match current realities of the IETF > community. T

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

On May 14, 2010, at 12:48 PM, The IESG wrote: > This is an update to the Last Call that is currently in progress. > > The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass > Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on > this statement, and the IESG actively

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

On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: Joe, 1) exposing the full list to the entire community invites lobbying the nomcom This probably already happens to some extent, but do we really want to encourage this? It's not clear this will lead to more lobbying than we

Re: Comment on draft-iab-ipv6-nat-00

Christian, I want to say thank you for the comments! In fact I wondered whether people noticed this draft as there had been no comment till this msg showed up. On Mar 18, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Christian Vogt wrote: Lixia, David, and all - I think it is very useful that IAB is taking position

Re: Comment on draft-iab-ipv6-nat-00

On Mar 18, 2009, at 5:07 PM, Christian Vogt wrote: Scott - Feynman is absolutely right, and certainly a network should enable future, unknown applications. But your conclusion that end-to-end locator transparency is a requirement to build such a network does not convince me. This said, there

Re: [IAB] SAVI/SHARA/BEHAVE/AUTOCONF/LISP conflicts (Was: Re: 74th IETF - Agenda)

On Mar 5, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Dave Thaler wrote: I would expect a big overlap in interest in SHARA vs V6OPS too (for example I need to be in both). So even if you move any one of SHARA/V6OPS/SAVI, there'll still be issues. scheduling is hard... if I could get my wishes: I wish to resolve the

adm plea: avoid/reduce massive cross-posting? (was: Can we have on NAT66 discussion?)

this thread has been posted to *4* mailing list. not sure whether other list adm had the same issue, but rrg adm keeps getting lots non-member posting warnings ... so the msg would not get delivered without manual intervention (i.e. defeating the intention of cross posting) wonder if there

Re: MP3 support for Friday afternoon

On Aug 3, 2008, at 9:39 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: MP3 service was lost during the RRG meeting Friday after lunch. There were several remote attendees, and they complained on jabber, so this was loss was felt. It really doesn't matter now whether this was planned or an accident, but I w

Re: About IETF communication skills

On Jul 31, 2008, at 9:52 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: I understand that IETF has not done a good job in communicating about our work and I appreciate that this is being improved, however I think we need to be very careful. Yesterday, during dinner, one of the discussions with my colleagu

Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing

On Mar 17, 2008, at 11:38 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > > On Mar 17, 2008, at 10:05 PM, Lixia Zhang wrote: > >> Call me an idealist:), I personally believe, generally speaking, it >> is better to put everything on the table, rather than partial info, >> between

Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing

On Mar 17, 2008, at 6:51 PM, Dan Wing wrote: And in order to make the confidentiality issue more concrete (ie, real) would folks offer some examples of what falls under it. >>> >>> "I accept the nomination of area director. The current area >>> director, Mr. J. Sixpack, has been a

Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing

On Mar 17, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:44:49 -0700 > Christian Huitema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And in order to make the confidentiality issue more concrete (ie, real) would folks offer some examples of what falls under it. >>> >>> "I ac

Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

On Dec 15, 2007, at 6:59 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: What's the worst that can happen - we have to listen to the plenary speakers without jabber sessions? That would be pretty major! We have had PWE3 contributors who were unable to be present in the meeting, listen on audio and use IM

Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

On Dec 2, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote: John C Klensin wrote: Of course, YMMD and, in particular, you might consider this potential problem to be important enough to have other criteria. The "enhanced NOOP" discussion on the SMTP list just reminded me that we're talking about pro

Re: Daily Dose version 2 launched

Hi Henrik, here is my 2 cents: every time when I go to tools page is because I'm looking for some tools, but not news. Assuming others go there for the same purpose, then one main goal is to ease the tool searching, right? instead of daily dose being the front page, what about treating the

Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)

On Sep 18, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Tony Hain wrote: Jari Arkko wrote: Lixia, I'm just catching up with this thread today: If I summarize my understanding from the above in one sentence: there seems a perceived difference between PI and ULA-C prefixes, which, as far as I can see, does not exis

Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)

On Sep 13, 2007, at 3:16 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: Roger, On 9/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/ula-global.txt has my thoughts on this, which i've appropriated without permission from hinden, huston, and narten and inaccurately failed to remove the

Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)

.. I think we've seen several examples of where the IETF has spent significant amount of energy, ranging from heated discussions to specification work, on solutions that simply won't fly. It would be useful if that energy waste could be reduced. Having 'running code' as a barrier for serio

Re: e2e

On Jul 26, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Scott Brim wrote: On 07/26/2007 19:20 PM, John Kristoff allegedly wrote: Responding to something just overheard in the plenary... No, it's not about complexity, but nor is it about robustness. It's about "functionality" and where to place it. A simple word sea

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

On Apr 14, 2006, at 8:52 PM, william(at)elan.net wrote: On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Masataka Ohta wrote: There was debate. But, 8+8 was rejected without any discussion or reasoning. Could someone tell me where I can read about "8+8"? a later version changed the name to GSE "GSE - An Alternate

Re: Audio streaming and slides suggestion

On Nov 15, 2005, at 10:27 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: Of course, I have suggested before on this list that the IETF consider using some sort of on-line whiteboard technology, which would allow for real time viewgraph production and annotating, which also has its uses. Whiteboard sounds good idea

a msg to someone who may not see it

starting Thursday 3PM I stopped receiving messages from all ietf- related mailing list. Turned out this was a result of megatron.ietf.org getting on spamcop's black list. I doubt our dept is the only place using spamcop's black list, wonder who else may be missing email without knowing it.

Re: Suggest new mailing list for IASA stuff

On Dec 9, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Michael StJohns wrote: The IASA, AdminRest et al discussions appear to be proceeding well, but perhaps it might make sense to craft a mailing list specifically for those discussions ? I would like to second this suggestion. Its possible the recent (last 2 week) upswi

Re: Datagram? Packet? (was : APEX)

Lets just get some FACTS straight out On 9/28/02 3:29 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 06:20:59 +0859, Masataka Ohta said: > >> RSVP establishes the per-flow state before the packets can flow. I missed Ohta Son's original post, thanks to Valdis for catch

Re: Bandwidth? BANDWIDTH. We don't need no stinking bandwidth

On 1/21/02 3:00 PM, "Dan Kolis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course its true: "no amount of QOS can generate any additional bandwidth" > > (That's what Multi Protocol Labeling Switching is for!) Hmm, wonder if "QOS" here might imply different things ... Put aside the history where it came f

Re: comments on Friday scheduling (and a "spam")

At 08:08 PM 1/19/2002, Ian Cooper wrote: >--On Saturday, January 19, 2002 17:32 -0800 Lixia Zhang ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>If talking personal preference... >>I would rather prefer not to have anything officially scheduled on Sunday >>since that fundam

Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)

On 1/17/02 12:03 PM, "Michael Mealling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ... >> The two negatives are that a) some people do not work on Sunday, and 2) >> those currently traveling to the IETF on Sunday would be forced to do it on >> Saturday. >> >> That said, there are enough people who take advan

Re: Helping the research community

At 02:32 PM 8/29/00, Beni Arazi wrote: >Somebody just made a comment: >"While the last thing I want to do is promote the use of the IETF list as >a network help line..." > >There is nothing wrong in giving, for free, good professional advices to >research students and start-up personnel, as a serv