On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
Trying to eat my own dog food
I've always wondered how eat our own cooking became eat our own dog
food, which makes no sense at all. Ah, well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food
Here's a further suggestion: use the random draw as a starting point for an
RFC cluster. For example, if you get 5068, follow the normative references
toward the critical RFCs for mail and make sure those get done too.
Scott
___
ietf-privacy mailing
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Christian Huitema huit...@huitema.netwrote:
I wrote 6 of those. I could go on reviewing more stuff, but the lack of
feedback made me believe that the exercise was futile...
Channeling Stephen maybe ... the goal was not to get immediate feedback or
cause
Personally I got taken off on a severe sidetrack and I'm just getting back
to it.
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Hannes Tschofenig hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net
wrote:
Hi all,
I was wondering what the status of the review activities is.
Various folks expressed interest to do some reviews at
Thank you for the nudge, Hannes.
___
ietf-privacy mailing list
ietf-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
On Mar 23, 2014 9:25 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@huitema.net wrote:
I added a couple of tickets for the various DHCP RFC that I reviewed when
writing the DHCP draft. What is the process for picking new RFC to review?
Just pick one at random and write a provisional ticket in
On Mar 24, 2014 5:49 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.fr wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:49:10AM +0800,
Jiankang Yao ya...@cnnic.cn wrote
a message of 116 lines which said:
since there are thousands of RFCs,
IMHO, the work should be indexed by PROTOCOL not by RFC, since some
On Mar 24, 2014 5:53 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.fr wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 05:21:36PM -0400,
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote
a message of 29 lines which said:
We finally have a wiki page for tracking that activity. It is at
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/ppm
(I'm sending to both perpass and ietf-privacy for this announcement,
but follow-up should be only to ietf-privacy)
Greetings. At the London IETF we had a Monday lunch meeting to talk
about doing systematic reviews of existing RFCs. We finally have a
wiki page for tracking that activity. It is at
True, it was mostly a reaction to the IETF's tendency to over-proceduralize
everything, and an inclination to voting. The main issue I have been
concerned with since then, and something this draft helps with, is
redefinition of rough consensus to manipulate WG outcomes. WGs need to
get beyond the
Discursive debate in advance is for establishing principles, and
establishing the level of trust invested in someone. Then you let them go
to do the job you chose them for. If an issue is of such weight that it
requires a lot of discussion, and you chose the right people, they will
know that
+1. I've referred people to earlier versions already.
I like what Christian said. Also, perhaps we should figure out how to
unbundle services and monetize what we can.
On Sep 22, 2013 1:38 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com wrote:
Yes. $$$. Nobody makes much/any money off email because it is
so de-centralized. People who build wonderful
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no wrote:
I'd like to snippet Phil's suggestion to an abbreviated version of one
sentence, becaue I think this is right on.
On 09/19/2013 05:37 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The issue we need to focus on is how to
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
It is important to understand the limitations of technology in this
discussion. We can improve communications security, and in some cases reduce
the amount information communicated. But we cannot help a situation where
I'm glad the process aspects have been brought up again. When a WG is
finished with a draft, there is still a lot more work to do. WG last
call is or should be closer to the middle of a draft's development
trajectory than the end. I would say this is true not just for the
ones that someone
On Sep 19, 2013 12:01 PM, Hannes Tschofenig hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net
wrote:
PS: From my work in the IETF I am more worried about security privacy
unfriendly ideas individuals and companies come up with. Those obviously
help the NSA and others to intercept communication more easily.
Right,
On Sep 17, 2013 6:33 AM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
Based on the conversation below I converged to:
t
While less mature specifications will usually be published as
Informational or
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Pat Thaler ptha...@broadcom.com wrote:
Given this comment in John Levin's post: PS: Now that I think about it, you
can already put in a personal URL
in rfc2xml, so if someone wants to use an ORCID URL, they can do so
right now. it seems like there isn't any
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Michael Tuexen
michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de wrote:
I was always wondering the authors can't get an @ietf.org address, which is
listed
in the RFC and is used to forward e-mail to another account.
The email address associated with the draft, for example
It's a good idea but I would generalize it. Why have a system just for I*?
I would allow people to provide a pointer to their public information in
one (or more?) of many places. For example,
http://vivo.cornell.edu/display/individual8772 and if necessary we can
explore federated identity.
If anyone advise me on using gmail and PGP/GPG (unicast, don't spam
the list), I'd appreciate it. There's a plugin but it won't let me
import my keyring.
I wouldn't focus on government surveillance per se. The IETF should
consider that breaking privacy is much easier than it used to be,
particularly given consolidation of services at all layers, and take
that into account in our engineering best practices. Our mission is
to make the Internet
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
In other words, the IETF needs to assume that we don't know what will work
for end users and we need to therefore focus more on processing by end
/systems/ rather than end /users/.
... and do not close off any options
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
OK, one last nostalgic anecdote about Eudora before I go back to finishing
my spfbis Last Call writeup:
MacTCP (the TCP/IP stack for the original MacOS) required a handler routine
for ICMP messages for some dumb
On Sep 6, 2013 3:34 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
To what end? Their poor uptake clearly demonstrates some basic usability
deficiencies. That doesn't get fixed by promotional efforts.
Or rather, as we've seen in other cases, people just don't see potential
benefits large enough to
On Sep 6, 2013 4:33 PM, Roger Jørgensen rog...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Adam Novak interf...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
One way to frustrate this sort of dragnet surveillance would be to
reduce
centralization in the Internet's architecture. Right now, the way the
On Sep 6, 2013 10:06 PM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
From: Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com
LISP does nothing for decentralization. Traffic still flows
hierarchically
Umm, no. In fact, one of LISP's architectural scaling issues is that it's
non-hierarchical
On Sep 6, 2013 9:10 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Sep 6, 2013, at 8:21 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
when you vouch for someone's identity - in an authoritative
trust system - you're also vouching for the authenticity of
their transactions.
This is what
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
The only concern I have is that once we do this -- declare that PS is
always more mature than that -- we can't go back. Do we *really* want
to say that we will never again approve a PS spec that's partially
baked?
On Sep 3, 2013 5:47 AM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
At the other end someone who has a problem understanding what is being said
can contact the WG Chair or Area Director privately so that they can step
in and help.
Because there are communication problems every few minutes, this seems
+1. Well said.
Pete, what is that draft waiting on before becoming an Informational RFC?
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Aug 29, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
Interesting stuff, but more on-topic for the perpass list:
I think Deans point is precisely that it is _not_ a topic that can be
restricted to the
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
But the most rude behavior that ever occurs on IETF mailing lists is not
listening. Not trying to understand what the person who is speaking to
you has said. Not trying to figure out if what they said meaningfully
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
In pragmatic terms, the current operational model for a LC (and IESG)
review tends to enforce no rules or limits to what can be challenged or
suggested, while simultaneously expecting those who have been doing the
work to
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.comwrote:
Some folks have simply dismissively said, Go read the archive, without
pointers.
Pete, I like your position, but I believe go read the archive or the
equivalent will continue to be a standard response unless
Well, I've worked remotely for 16 years and in most meetings I don't get
to see the slides until the meeting starts. Usually I can only see them
via some conferencing tool. Sometimes I get a copy in mail the week
after. So I think the IETF is already doing pretty well at making
materials
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Chris Elliott chell...@pobox.com wrote:
My wallet supposedly has a RFID-blocking layer, but I've not actually tested
it. I think the only RFID-capable thing in my wallet is my US passport.
Take a look at what's in your passport with an NFC tool. For example,
I hope the RFID badges transmit (optional) pictures as well, so when I
harvest them I can use them to associate names with faces.
Right, but Fuyou was talking about *spoken* English being more
challenging than written English (if you can't *read* English fairly
quickly, drafts and mailing lists are impenetrable, and you're done in the
IETF). I'm told that it's easier for non-native English speakers to read
slides than to
On 08/05/13 07:31, Hadriel Kaplan allegedly wrote:
Yup, afaict we were doing ok until IETF 87... but at least one anonymous
jabber participant (named Guest) did remotely speak multiple times at the
mic on one of the RAI working group sessions this past week (at RTCWEB if I
recall). I was
On 08/05/13 07:51, Yoav Nir allegedly wrote:
On Aug 5, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/05/13 07:31, Hadriel Kaplan allegedly wrote:
Yup, afaict we were doing ok until IETF 87... but at least one anonymous
jabber participant (named Guest) did remotely speak
If one or two people are doing most of the posting to a list, that means
something is out of balance. Summary statistics can be used as an
indicator that something should be done to encourage diversity, or get
people back on topic, etc.
I'm less concerned about having slides than having the issues that need
discussion clear. An agenda of documents and issues tells potential
participants what they need. Slides are needed if and only if there is no
document.
AB, saving your entire message for context ... You're fixing the wrong
problem. The problem is not finding a way to cloak so some unspecified
person doesn't experience abuse. It's important that we all know who we
are dealing with. The problem, rather, is what is leading you to think
anonymity
On 08/03/13 05:48, Adrian Farrel allegedly wrote:
Have you considered not reading it?
+1. Especially during IETF week, people on various lists are losing
track of their delete key, or the ability to set mail filter rules.
What did you think of Pete Resnick's draft about hums.
On 08/02/13 13:02, Carsten Bormann allegedly wrote:
The venue for this meeting was very productive, with few things getting in
the way.
It also simply was pleasant.
Indeed, let's come again!
Grüße, Carsten
+1
It would work even in winter.
I'm completely against participating anonymously because of IPR issues.
I'm mostly against pseudonymous participation for the same reason. I
need to be able to know who I'm dealing with, in order to know if there
are IPR issues that should be brought up.
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Mary Barnes mary.h.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
I did have some annoyances with the housekeeping, in particular the
rewashing of glasses/mugs in the bathroom sink and someone else's soap bar
ending up in my bathroom.
I never ever use hotel glassware.
See draft-resnick-on-consensus for the art of running a group using hums
and other tools. With those nuances, I like hums.
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/intarea/trac/wiki/MeetingTimePrioritization
The point of having a separate list for participants was to avoid
spamming the ietf list.
It can be open to everyone to subscribe to, since anyone can see the
archives, HOWEVER I recommend that only registered participants be
allowed to post.
Scott
Brian: yes but non-registered thus non-ifentifiable subscribers, spammers
etc don't.
On Jul 24, 2013 3:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 25/07/2013 05:01, Scott Brim wrote:
The point of having a separate list for participants was to avoid
spamming the ietf list
Thanks, SM, for finding what I said back in 2010. I still think this
is architected wrong, conflating devices with communication endpoints
higher up the stack, and steers us toward a path toward eventually
needing to reduce privacy even more. However, 3GPP has apparently
already already started
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
Wrt privacy in general...
On 07/20/2013 02:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Any volunteers
to get in front of the mic lines?
I'd welcome that discussion. I'd love to see us have a
BCP61-like [1] RFC on the
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Hui Deng denghu...@gmail.com wrote:
I really don't know whether IETF should recommend Deng Hui or Hui Deng
That's the question! :-D
I believe the Chinese participants should reach this consensus
themselves and let the IETF know. Similarly for other groups, e.g.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
if one wanted to minimize
the odds of organizations trying to game the nomcom selection
process, it would be rational to do a two step draw, first
randomly selecting two volunteers from any organization offering
more than
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Should we consider changing it to not more than one in view
of today's data?
On it's face, that sounds like an absolutely Draconian rule.
However stepping back a bit, it should prompt a simple question: Is the
IETF so
Please someone find and share the UUCP message where the body said I don't
understand the concern about too many message headers.
On Sunday, June 30, 2013, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com javascript:;
Please someone find and share the UUCP message where the body said I
don't understand the concern about too many message headers.
I don't know about there being a UUCP one
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
Once scenario for this - both benign intentions and non-benign - is that a
company instead of sending one person to all the meetings starts rotating the
opportunity to attend the IETF among a number of people - say
These days I don't contribute much to the IETF, so I hesitate to say
much, but I care about it a lot and may contribute again someday.
IMHO ...
Once I lived in Japan for a year and got to think I understood
Japanese culture, but finally realized I had hardly scratched the
surface. Once, in
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Just as long as you understand that you are influencing the diversity of the
nomcom itself.
Yes, we need to cultivate more talent and more viewpoints while
simultaneously using hard-earned wisdom and encouraging
On Thursday, June 27, 2013, Scott Brim wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Michael Richardson
m...@sandelman.cajavascript:;
wrote:
Just as long as you understand that you are influencing the diversity of
the nomcom itself.
Yes, we need to cultivate more talent and more viewpoints
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
I DO NOT agree that 2119 is the only source of consequence here.
Sorry. RFCs are not written in English, they are written in RFCish, a
language based in English but with modifications (specified in RFCs).
2119
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
To me, it only matters in terms of implementation - should we waste time and
money on implementing a SHOULD/RECOMMENDED feature? Is it required to be
coded? Can it be delayed, for version 2.0? Is it really needed,
Every
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.eduwrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
their work has been ignored and/or shouted down since it doesn't fit
the narrative.
The usual fate of those who care more about the data than the herd-meme of
On Friday, May 31, 2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
So lets be explicit. This is a standards-setting body, which is
discussing
outreach, inclusiveness, wider participation outcomes, and the cost
consequences on attendance where the core motivation is standards
setting.
Yes, let's be
If people are interested, we could launch a new service: dirigible tours
with Internet access. We'll have multiple airships, one for each set of
related meeting rooms. Of course we'll have audio, jabber and all the
virtualization tools we have today. We'll amble along at some moderate
speed,
On Friday, May 31, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/31/2013 8:12 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
We'll have multiple airships, one for each set of related meeting rooms.
is dirigible a new term of endearment for an AD?
Obviously the ADs have a small helicopter so they can get between
dirigibles.
an IETF meeting in
your city, why would you come to the meeting? Can you give a specific
example of a problem that would you like to work on?
Thank you.
Scott Brim
Add: like many organizations around the world including the USA, they don't
think it's worth the huge effort to develop standards when they can rely on
others to do so well enough for their needs.
I would prefer that people come to the IETF because they have a problem and
they are looking for ways to solve it ... as opposed to wanting to work
with the IETF for some reason and looking for something the IETF wants
them to work on. The former feels like engineering, the latter like
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Juliao Braga jul...@braga.eti.br wrote:
2. Our people know RFCs, but are far from knowing about the IETF.
Juliao, you say they know RFCs. Do they have problems with the RFCs? Do
they see gaps in what they can do, or problems with what the RFCs
recommend?
If
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.sewrote:
It's my experience that non-native english speakers are more comfortable
exchanging text than speaking. I've met several people who write excellent
english but who it's difficult to communicate with verbally.
and in
Please distinguish between (1) making the system efficient and (2) making
individual documents go through it quickly. If you put time limits on
parts of the process, you're not allowing them to function correctly.
Putting arbitrary time limits on will hurry things up but it will not
produce
On Thursday, May 16, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
By the time the IESG schedules the vote, ADs need to already have educated
themselves about the document.
Oh, so you're suggesting adding another phase to the process: IESG
education. OK.
So here's a simple proposal that pays attention to AD
On 05/05/13 08:00, Hannes Tschofenig allegedly wrote:
while it is desirable to get wider reviews happen earlier in the process
there is obviously a challenge: You don't want to ask for reviews before
the document is stable and you cannot ask many times since good reviews
are expensive.
There
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/02/2013 02:40 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
I suggest that we budget for a number of WG drafts per year (say,
20 IETF-wide) to go through professional, paid-for heavy-duty
editing
My experience is that unless the editors have some background in
A draft does get cross-area review, at least once, often more than once.
Some drafts in some WGs get it earlier than others, by explicit
invitation. Others don't get it until the latest they can, when they go
to last call ... but a process point for cross-area review during WG
handling, already
On 05/01/13 17:43, Ralph Droms allegedly wrote:
On May 1, 2013, at 1:59 PM 5/1/13, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
I suspect that an earlier exercise at summarizing functional goals and
design approaches and issues will have a number of benefits, beyond enabling
earlier external
On 04/23/13 13:44, Eggert, Lars allegedly wrote:
CORRECTION: The list got created under irtf.org, i.e.:
Subscribe at https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/ericas and email the list
at eri...@irtf.org.
If you subscribe at ietf, you get a confirmation request from irtf. :-)
On 04/08/13 13:35, Lucy Lynch allegedly wrote:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
If the date is special then thoes RFCs SHOULD be *historical*.
I thought they should be classified as hysterical.
there is an echo (echo) ((echo) ) in here (here) ((here))
IETF humor has lots
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 too much time in our hands, boredom
for many, and even more
PORT 9 FROM OUTER SPACE
On 03/25/13 11:54, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com allegedly wrote:
So perhaps a little more guidance to authors and WGs about
acknowledgments would be in order.
or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section and not
subject to IETF guidance.
On 03/20/13 15:16, Jorge Contreras allegedly wrote:
I would strongly recommend that legal counsel be consulted before any
such list is produced or used by IETF/IESG/Nomcom.
Or don't generate it at all. Trying to have a complete list of human
attributes to diversify to looks like an engineer's
I want my badge to have my name and a small screen showing the room I
just came from.
On 03/19/13 19:50, Michael StJohns allegedly wrote:
There's a long history of martian badges at the IETF. During the Stanford
IETF many many years ago, there were something like a dozen Milo Medin
badges (and I seem to remember at one point Milo was wearing none of them),
as well as badges
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/19/13 20:38, Michael Richardson allegedly wrote:
Actually, I'd just settle for a badge that wasn't always
backwards.
It costs a lot more to get lanyards that attach at two corners.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Darwin)
On 03/14/13 08:23, Mary Barnes allegedly wrote:
One question I have is whether there isn't a list for newcomers to ask
questions that some of us can be on to help them before they get to
the meeting?
like
On 03/13/13 11:10, Stephen Casner allegedly wrote:
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Subject: Re: Martians
Martian is nice expression.
Weren't 'unusual' packets called 'Martians' at some early stage of Internet
work? It certainly has history in the IETF as a term of art,
On 03/13/13 14:51, Michael StJohns allegedly wrote:
At 02:27 PM 3/13/2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
So I suggest:
2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
determination of the requirements for the job, synthesized
from the desires expressed by the IAB, IESG
On 03/11/13 14:41, Mary Barnes allegedly wrote:
This year's set of nominees was far more diverse than in the past and
yet the IESG will still be entirely male and entirely North
American/European. Of course, only people that bothered to use the
tool to input comments would see that. So,
On 03/11/13 15:03, Mary Barnes allegedly wrote:
[MB] ... What I'm looking for is for IETF to recognize
that there may be a bias in how these decisions are made and to make a
conscientious decision to be aware of how this bias may impact their
decisions.
Sounds good. +1. Thanks.
On 03/10/13 09:12, Brian Trammell allegedly wrote:
Solve it with better management, not artificial barriers that are
imposed on everyone and that can be trivially routed around, albeit
without the benefits of using the I-D mechanism.
This seems like something that could be left to the
On 03/10/13 11:15, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
Please don't. Currently we receive a flood of a few hundred drafts two
weeks before each meeting, which gives time for some triage. I do not
wish to receive a few hundred drafts on the first day of the meeting,
with no time for triage, but
On 03/10/13 15:43, John Levine allegedly wrote:
- Each of the confirming bodies (the ISOC Board for the IAB, the
IAB for the IESG, and the IESG for the IAOC) could make a
public statement at the beginning of each year's nominations
process that they will not confirm a
1 - 100 of 296 matches
Mail list logo
