Re: Excellent choice for summer meeting location!

It's a start at balancing out all the Minneapolis-in-winter meetings we have had. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: TCP bandwidth usage was: Yahoo is not using ESMTP

At 9:14 PM -0800 11/16/04, Michel Py wrote: And it's not such a big deal to run a big site, apparently: TorrentBits.org is situated on a dedicated server in the Netherlands. > For the moment we have monthly running costs of approximately ¤ 213. Another popular music torrent site (not based in the

Re: TCP bandwidth usage was: Yahoo is not using ESMTP

What Michael said. This is probably below the radar for now because, so far, BitTorrent trading of large files (regular TV shows and pirated movies) is more popular in Asia and Europe than in the US. Even on the well-known BitTorrent ports, there is a *huge* amount of trading going on. To make

Alexander Calder and Joan Miró in walking distance from IETF 61

If you feel like a seeing an art museum but don't want to go to one of the bigger, better-known museums in DC, consider the Phillips Collection, which happens to be about four blocks from the Hilton. They have a fairly nice permanent collection of modern American art, and the current special ex

Re: Metro to the hotel, maybe not...

At 8:39 PM +0100 11/5/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote: FYI: the metro stop for the IETF hotel is Dupont Circle on the Red Line. But there was a crash one station north a couple of days ago, and service is not yet back to normal. Hmmm. I had no problem about an hour ago coming from the National Airport

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt

Sorry, but it is inappropriate for anyone, even a lawyer, to say on an open mailing list "While this shouldn't be viewed as legal advice" and follow it with scary legal-sounding advice. We've heard it before in the IETF on various issues, mostly patent law, and it has often turned out to be wro

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

At 2:18 PM -0400 10/21/04, Michael Richardson wrote: Bill> Many IPR claims are bogus. yet, I've tried to have this conversation SEVERAL times in the IPsec WG wrt both the Certicom claim and the Microsoft NAT-T claims. In both cases, I've been told that I'm not a lawyer. Which is still true,

Re: Reminder: Poll about restructuring options

At 2:30 PM +0200 9/28/04, Eliot Lear wrote: Just to be clear, I trust the leadership to decide better than I can. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have a day job that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with IETF governance. I'd like to have the time to go over all this fun stuff,

Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....

Is this re-flogging a good use of our time right now? "The other parts of the report" seem much more important than this. Maybe we can defer this until we know who/what/how/why the future of the IETF administration is. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium __

Please help us revise of Tao of the IETF

Greetings. Susan Harris and I have begun another round of work on "The Tao of the IETF", RFC 3160. The new version is at . We would like to get comments and suggestions on how to make this document as useful as possible for newcom

Re: On the difference between scenarios A and B in Carl's report

At 7:57 PM +0200 9/6/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: It seems to me that we are rapidly converging on one point of total IETF consensus: Putting the IETF administrative function under ISOC requires a documented IETF-ISOC agreement (call it an MoU, a contract or something else - it IS a docu

RE: YATS? Re: T-shirts, and some suggestions for future ietf meetings

Even mediumly-constructed canvas bags can be more useful than a t-shirt. I have no problem using my Networld '91 canvas bag to schlep groceries around. And canvas bags are great for lab equipment. Or beach gear. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _

Re: Names of standards-track RFCs

At 12:08 PM -0400 7/14/04, John C Klensin wrote: Again, am I the only one who is bothered by this? No, not all. The RFC Editor is about to release revisions to the S/MIME specs where "MIME" is spelled out, for example. And, if not, can we ask the IESG to think a bit about this matter going forw

Re: Defining Internet services/service levels?

At 9:29 PM +0200 6/23/04, Hadmut Danisch wrote: OK, there was some discussion about different levels of Internet services and categories. So should the IETF publish a definition? No: it's not the kind of engineering we do best. Yes: we are about the only group that can get the level of review need

Summary of the ad-hoc WiFi problems at IETF meetings?

Greetings again. I was at a conference this week that offered WiFi. They had the same problems we had at the past two IETFs with a few folks doing ad-hoc mode, thereby knocking out access for many of us. Was there any writeup from the IETF NOC teams about the problem and how we fixed it? If so,

Re: Not sure if this is the right place for this

At 2:18 AM -0500 5/11/04, Eric A. Hall wrote: I'm not even sure they are similar arguments. I mean, the argument against SSL is that *if* an SSL connection is blocked, and *if* an alternative clear channel exists, and *if* that channel accepts clear-text logins, and *if* the client fallsback throug

Re: Not sure if this is the right place for this

At 9:38 AM -0500 5/10/04, Eric A. Hall wrote: On 5/10/2004 3:02 AM, RL 'Bob' Morgan wrote: So a "secure ports only" policy has very little to do with security and very much to do with organizational power relationships, and making your computing environment dysfunctional. Somebody check my math

Re: IESG review of RFC Editor documents

At 12:29 PM -0800 3/30/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On 30. mars 2004 09:51 -0800 "Paul Hoffman / VPNC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Requirement on the RFC Editor - doesn't sound unreasonable, but out of scope for this document. Not really. Currently, when the IESG

Re: IESG review of RFC Editor documents

At 7:32 AM -0800 3/30/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On 27. mars 2004 15:53 -0800 "Paul Hoffman / VPNC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The material in draft-iesg-rfced-documents-00.txt can be greatly improved with a few changes: - Require that all documents published withou

Re: IESG review of RFC Editor documents

At 4:21 PM -0500 3/26/04, Keith Moore wrote: Part of the problem is the familiar one that RFCs are often used as standards even when they carry the Informational or Experimental label. With respect to Informational RFCs, that was more true five years ago than it is now. The IETF has been largely

Re: WG review: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (l2vpn)

At 10:15 AM +0200 6/18/03, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: I can think of some possible reasons, not necessarily exclusive - this is a bad idea/impossible to do well, so we shouldn't do it - some other organization is already doing it, so we shouldn't - we're too stupid to get it right, so we shoul

RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)

At 1:38 PM -0800 3/26/03, Tony Hain wrote: I am not arguing that every app need to know about topology. If this is such a big deal, we should simply fix the API so that by default it only returns global scope addresses, then add a new function for those apps that are interested in the limited scope

Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area

At 1:03 PM -0800 12/10/02, Yakov Rekhter wrote: I think it would be worthwhile to ask the following three questions: 1. Are we discussing whether to shut down asap the WGs that are presently in the sub-IP area ? 2. Are we discussing whether to move these WGs from one area to another, w

Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area

Er, toning down the rhetoric a bit, it is worthwhile to ask two questions: - Does keeping the WGs in one area help significantly? - Does keeping the WGs in the IETF help significantly? --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium

Paying for what is "required"

At 11:09 PM -0800 1/26/02, Kyle Lussier wrote: >I seem to be getting two conflicting viewpoints: > > #1 Vendors can only be trusted to be interoperable on their own, > and can not be forced to conform. > > #2 Vendors absolutely can't be trusted to be interoperable, > without conforma

Documentation for 169.254?

Sorry to barge in with a technical, standards-related question. It seems that there is a common practice that when a host asks for an IPv4 address, such as through DHCP, but the host isn't attached to the network, that the software gives it an address of 169.254.x.y. Is this documented in any RFC?

Re: IETF logistics

At 11:20 AM -0600 12/19/00, Pete Resnick wrote: >How about it? Other chairs wish to join me in this mission? Yup. As someone who chaired a meeting where we had three presentations on three drafts that had already been on the list, and the discussion was all around topics that could have been br

Re: can vpn's extended to mobility

At 4:09 AM +0200 9/24/00, Fred Baker wrote: >A VPN is, by my definition, any case where one overlays the global >Internet with another private Internet using tunneling. Tunneling >procedures today include MPLS, IPSEC, IP/IP, GRE/IP, and probably >several others. Others might have a very differ