Re: DRAFT-IETF-GEOPRIV-RADIUS-LO-23

aid out. D Anthony - so what - this is the IETF and there is nothing here mandating that any protocol work with another. If GeoPriv breaks RADIUS that is grounds for more standards work right ??? Nice... Todd Glassey -- Warning: This message contains information which may be confidential and/or

DNS Rule Transmission is a new tool in anti-spam controls

I want to point out that the ability and use of DNS to transmit policy statements is a valuable tool in dealing with certain types of DMA sponsored emails which many of us wish would go away. The idea of being able to send a statement of the use rules for a MX record for instance is a very pow

Re: SEARS - Search Engine Address Resolution Service (and Protocol)

> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Todd Glassey > [tglas...@certichron.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:30 AM > To: dn...@ietf.org; IETF Discussion Mailing List > Subject: SEARS - Search Engine Address Resolution Service (and Protocol) > &

SEARS - Search Engine Address Resolution Service (and Protocol)

So SEARS is a method of replacing the DNS roots with a well-known service portal providing a Google or other SE based access model. The session can interface with traditional HTTP or DNS-Lookup Ports to deliver content or addresses to a browser in the form of a HTTP redirection. The protocol spec

Re: Furthering discussions about BCP79 sanctions

On 2/12/2012 10:12 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi SM, So isnt the real issue that of informed consent? If you dont know that someone else has already existing work is it their fault for not telling the IETF? If so then there would also need to be some form of process identical to this for verifyin

Re: Yet Another Reason?

On 2/2/2012 3:05 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > Hides the screen, nervous, pays cash... Sounds to me like anyone > surfing pr0n at the "Internet Cafe" is now a suspected terrorist.z You should go spend a week in the border towns in Israel before you make such telling comments like that. Todd > >

Re: Commentary about IETF protocols which do not provide IP protection in their use.

On 1/29/2012 6:34 AM, Vinayak Hegde wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:27 PM, todd glassey wrote: >> Today virtually no IETF protocols take into account US or any other >> countries copyright laws with regard to Internet based content. Content >> like domain names, DNS events

Re: encouraging compliance with IPR disclosure rules

On 1/27/2012 9:41 AM, Scott Brim wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 14:01, SM wrote: >> "To support the efficient development of IETF standards and >> avoid unnecessary delays, chairs and ADs should look for >> opportunities to promote awareness and compliance with the >> IETF's IPR policies.

IPR statement... Intentionally creating derivatives which infringe on protected IP creates numerous claims and grounds for pain we don't need here.

a new problem with the IETF and that is that the participants and their sponsors are liable for this damage per these standards. Todd Glassey -- Todd S. Glassey This is from my personal email account and any materials from this account come with personal disclaimers. Further I OPT OUT of any an

IPR issues = Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt

ARE project in the DB team in Customer Support. You be happy to know that OA in and of itself is both covered by earlier IPR notices regarding my Location Based Services and the new patent which the Chair has not posted from my January 2012 IPR filings. As to these two new Jan 2012 briefs - the pate

Commentary about IETF protocols which do not provide IP protection in their use.

Today virtually no IETF protocols take into account US or any other countries copyright laws with regard to Internet based content. Content like domain names, DNS events, and BGP4 routes are also in addition to the obvious publication events like a websites content, are in fact also IP impinged. S

License Disclosure Protocol - a Research and then Standards Track Proposal

Folks - FIRST OFF THANKS FOR READING THIS - I want to propose a new thing here that we as technologists can provide the world with and that is a uniform method of disclosing the RIGHTS TO USE status with any Internet based service. You say what would that pertain to? The answer is that there are

Re: Second Last Call: (Sieve Notifica tion Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard

On 1/26/2012 9:15 AM, SM wrote: > Hi Pete, > At 08:08 26-01-2012, Pete Resnick wrote: >> As I've mentioned to others, since I'm one of the people who will have >> to judge the consensus on this question, my comments will remain >> strictly based on the facts of the events as I know them and on the

Re: Violation of IETF process

On 1/25/2012 11:57 PM, SM wrote: > Hi Adrian, > At 21:48 25-01-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> Why is Qian Sun still listed on the front page as an author. Wouldn't >> it be more >> appropriate to move the name to the Acknowledgements section where the >> text >> could read... > > As editorship is a

Re: Please remove draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed fromI-D repository

On 1/21/2012 10:53 AM, t.petch wrote: > Alessandro > > You could, of course, issue an updated version which simply says that its > predecessor should not have been filed for the reasons you give in the e-mail. > No need to include any other text whatsoever (except, of course, the relevant > boile

Re: ITC copped out on UTC again

On 1/20/2012 7:13 AM, Tim Bray wrote: > One consequence of your proposal, if adopted, is that there will need > to be a specification of the canonical Internet-time-to-Sidereal-time > function, No actually there isn't such a need Tim. Its one of the problems we face here in the timekeeping world

Re: ITC copped out on UTC again

On 1/20/2012 10:13 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: > >> "Phillip" == Phillip Hallam-Baker writes: > Phillip> If we are ever going to get a handle on Internet time we > Phillip> need to get rid of the arbitrary correction factors > Phillip> introduced by leap seconds. > > Philli

Re: Requirements for improving IETF remote participation

On 1/5/2012 2:05 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Greetings again. As Ray Pelletier said on this list earlier, I have been > tasked with creating a set of requirements for the IETF's remote > participation system (RPS). The first draft is now at >

Re: Protocol Definition

On 1/5/2012 6:48 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 1/4/2012 2:07 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote: >> A protocol is to communications what an algorithm is to computation. > > > The mantra that I was taught many years ago was that a process is a > program in execution. A program is the instructions. That

Re: Plagued by PPTX again

On 11/15/2011 9:14 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Should the system reject PPTX files ? If people can't read them, why are we accepting them ? Marshall Because the world has evolved since Office v0 was released unlike the IETF. PPTX is Office 2007 format and there are formal readers and format A

Re: The death John McCarthy

On 10/28/2011 1:25 PM, Randy Bush wrote: First, as someone who chartered the working group, who has implemented Lisp (the programming language) at least four times, and who views Dr. McCarthy as a hero I disagree that name is problematic or disrespectful. And I almost take offense in the claim th

Re: The death John McCarthy

On 10/27/2011 3:04 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Thursday, October 27, 2011 14:08 -0700 Bob Hinden wrote: ... I request that the relevant authors and IETF working group rename what it currently calls "LISP" to something else. To put it politely, the IETF should be standing on the shoulders

Expiring a publication - especially standards track documents which are abandoned

the rest of the IETF's relying parties. As such it is reasonable to put a BURN DATE on any Standards Track effort which has stalled or stopped dead in its tracks for years. Todd Glassey -- Todd S. Glassey This is from my personal email account and any materials from this account come with

Question about Policy Announcement and Query...

Would a general access policy lookup tool protocol be viable here? It could bolt-on to both DHCP and NEA but seems like the same additions would be good in both. The same is true with many other protocols. Especially (from my perspective) those being used in automation and testimony generation

You need to be aware that US Patent Laws have evolved and intentionally violating them is actionable no matter what the IETF tells you...

rotected from these issues in publishing the documents - its members are not. And the IETF's copyright exemptions under section 107 clearly do not apply to parties publishing that information as part of their commercial offerings years later after all of that research is completed...

Re: Drafts Submissions cut-off

On 8/2/2011 6:52 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: On 8/2/11 8:03 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Either don't have a cutoff at all or make it a requirement that all materials be submitted in advance of the meeting. Personally, I think chairs should have the discretion to allow or disallow discussion o

Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?

On 8/3/2011 9:40 AM, Peter Koch wrote: On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 09:35:16AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote: How do folk feel about having asking for subject_prefix to be set on the IETF Discussion List (AKA this one!) - this will prefix mail sent to this list with something like "[Discussion]" or "[IET

Re: Repetitions and consensus

On 7/12/2011 4:03 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote: think there is an important message there for the IETF, because the establishment of consensus is not by any objective measure and this science says that subjective measures can be influe The real issue is proving the consensus was reasonable after the

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

On 5/8/2011 3:31 PM, todd glassey wrote: On 5/8/2011 3:06 PM, Bob Braden wrote: I just discovered an astonishing example of misinformation, shall we say, in the IEEE electric power community. There is an IEEE standards

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

On 5/8/2011 3:06 PM, Bob Braden wrote: I just discovered an astonishing example of misinformation, shall we say, in the IEEE electric power community. There is an IEEE standards document C37.118, entitled (you don't care) "IEEE Standard for Synchropha

Re: Call for a Jasmine Revolution in the IETF: Privacy, Integrity, Obscurity

is part of ISOC and not registered as a political PAC or Lobbying Agency which it clearly has become in direct violation of the NTIA MOU which gave it (ISOC and its ARIN) the real power. Todd Glassey Please have a look at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00 Ciao Hannes

Re: Call for a Jasmine Revolution in the IETF: Privacy, Integrity, Obscurity

On 3/23/2011 12:02 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: On Mar 23, 2011, at 6:52 AM, SM wrote: The IETF can only address the technical problems. This is an argument I often hear. I do, however, believe that you cannot see technology in isolation. That's because you are being a political animal and

Re: What If....

On 2/25/2011 1:34 PM, bill manning wrote: The IANA function was split? http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf Then the IETF will find its world more tightly constrained (as it should be...). Todd --bill ___ Ietf

Re: IETF 83 Venue

On 1/21/2011 10:22 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Ole Jacobsen > wrote: Does anyone see the irony of us even discussing concerns about, of all things, FOOD when it comes to Paris? What else is there to discuss in Paris? Making

Re: what is the problem bis

what gets routed and what not, it also creates trememdous liability and opens all of the parties here to litigation based therein one would think... Todd Glassey Russ basically proposes too change the maturity warning label on IETF standard track RFCs -- remove baby before folding carria

Re: draft-iab-dns-applications - clarification re: Send-N

On 10/20/2010 2:15 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > I use telephone numbers, but I don't use a dial pad to dial. > > And I strongly suspect that my mode of use is the norm. > > > Since we are talking about an optimization here, as opposed to a functional > capability, I think it rather more imp

Fwd: [Geopriv] I-D Action:draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-09.txt

This is fine until any of this is done over an encrypted or byte-manipulated transport and then it will infringe into the Glassey Patent for which an already existing IPR Notice regarding geoGraphic Control Codes used in specifying location based services, is on file. Todd Glassey, IPR Owner

Re: Nomcom 2010-2011: READ THIS: Important Information on Open Disclosure

On 9/22/2010 12:28 PM, Ross Callon wrote: > --On Wednesday, September 22, 2010 08:53 -0700 Dave CROCKER > wrote: >> ...On the other hand, the practical reality is that getting an >> IETF login is easy >> enough to make this issue pretty minor, IMO. > > I have two thoughts on this: > > One the o

Re: Nomcom 2010-2011: READ THIS: Important Information on Open Disclosure

On 9/22/2010 8:53 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 9/21/2010 5:02 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: >> The list of accepted candidates should be posted on the IETF site like >> the >> rest of the noncom information. > > > +1 > > On the other hand, the practical reality is that getting an IETF login > is e

Re: Fisking vs Top-Posting

On 9/21/2010 5:49 AM, todd glassey wrote: > On 9/21/2010 1:44 AM, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote: >> On Sep 20, 2010, at 7:20 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> >>> One of the problems I have seen emerge on many IETF mailing lists is the >>> habit of fisking. >

Re: Fisking vs Top-Posting

On 9/21/2010 1:44 AM, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote: > On Sep 20, 2010, at 7:20 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >> One of the problems I have seen emerge on many IETF mailing lists is the >> habit of fisking. > > Please clarify what you mean by fisking. > >> By fisking I mean responding to a pos

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

On 9/13/2010 1:03 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > Frankly, I doubt we understood the issues that well back then. Remember, this I would disagree with that but Vint is still around and obviously with his partner Al Gore should be able to answer this one, or so one would think. Sorry - I grew up at SUAI

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

On 9/13/2010 11:19 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > There is an interesting discussion thread on the NANOG list > under this title that some people on this list might be interested in > following. > > Regards > Marshall Why not simply ask Len Klienrock the answer to this question. Todd > > __

Re: DNSSEC

(IETF Secretariat) Glen your real issue is why DNSSEC was released in this condition and the damage to the world in the form of wasted effort this causes. Something that for what its worth provides yet another black-eye for the IETF (and the parties maki

Re: Tourist or business visa from US?

intellectual properties so this is not a personal but specifically a business trip. Does Cisco's legal department condone that Fred? Todd Glassey > > On Aug 24, 2010, at 7:43 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > >> Is there a consensus that a tourist visa is sufficient t

Re: Contribution Corner Cases was Re: New Trust Copyright FAQ

ts head packed up its... well you get the point. Here we are again at the idea that the IETF cannot license content and technology it doesn't own the copyrights to. Todd Glassey > Same question, can I use the text, but what if the text comes from an e-mail > posted to a list but it is an I

Re: The anonymity question

On 7/25/2010 8:34 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > On 7/25/10 6:21 AM, Fred Baker wrote: >> On Jul 25, 2010, at 6:07 AM, John R. Levine wrote: >> >>> The ability of users to sign up from throwaway accounts doesn't >>> seem to have been a big problem in practice, but it does make it >>> hard to claim that

Re: IETF privacy policy - still a bad idea

is the IETF is formally acknowledging that its practices meet that existing privacy mandate and in a manner which provides a demonstration of how that process is implemented in the IETF. Todd Glassey > > R's, > John >

Re: Fwd: Re: Question - Can DNSSEC be operated in a manner which meets

On 7/21/2010 8:07 PM, Martin Rex wrote: > todd glassey wrote: >> On 7/21/2010 1:02 PM, Dan Schutzer wrote: >>> Can you briefly explain the relationship of Red Light Camera's to >>> DNSSEC? >> What that means is any and all DNSSEC records operated out of

Re: Question - Can DNSSEC be operated in a manner which meets Khaled mandates?

On 7/22/2010 7:25 AM, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:56:00PM -0700, todd glassey wrote: >> Folks - there is a Court Ruling from the 4th Appellate District which >> is turning off Red Light Camera's everywhere and there is a question as >> to whethe

Re: Question - Can DNSSEC be operated in a manner which meets Khaled mandates?

r parade but since they refused to address these issues or even allow the discussion of these issues long ago - the IETF is once again standing waste deep in its own sh*t. Sorry folks but reality is what it is and it that is that it's law that shapes technology not the reverse. Todd > &

Re: Question - Can DNSSEC be operated in a manner which meets Khaled mandates?

whether it produces > BTW, the appeals case number I read is: 30-2009-00304893. Please let > me know if there is another case you are referencing. No that's it. > Peter > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:56 PM, todd glassey wrote: >> Folks - there is a Court Ruling from the

Fwd: Re: Question - Can DNSSEC be operated in a manner which meets Khaledmandates?

ps... T Original Message Subject:Re: Question - Can DNSSEC be operated in a manner which meets Khaledmandates? Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:09:10 -0700 From: todd glassey To: Dan Schutzer CC: d...@fsround.org On 7/21/2010 1:02 PM, Dan Schutzer wrote

Question - Can DNSSEC be operated in a manner which meets Khaled mandates?

Folks - there is a Court Ruling from the 4th Appellate District which is turning off Red Light Camera's everywhere and there is a question as to whether that ruling would also effect how Secure DNS Services are run and if so what would it do. The ruling is called California v Khaled and is gettin

Re: Fwd: Historic Moment - Root zone of the Internet was just signed minutes ago!!!

27;s ruling on Court Admissible evidence in California v Khaled affects this... I can tell you - - the DNSSEC design sucks as an evidentiary source of anything and now evidence from it is inadmissible per Khaled in California Courts as 'untrustworthy'... it looks like Dean will

Re: The IETF Data Tracker and non-IETF streams for RFCs

but are all of the streams provided the same oversight processes? Is the IAB stream for instance also controlled under the IETF oversight controls and processes? how about the other streams? Todd Glassey > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org >

Re: IETF privacy policy - update

e IETF legally functional - they have the interest in providing as much smoke and mirrors as it takes to say "we have a policy so go away"... http://www.google.com/search?q=spoliation+sanctions&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe= and the above se

Re: Comments on

On 7/12/2010 2:52 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > On 7/12/10 2:34 PM, Martin Rex wrote: >> todd glassey wrote: >>> Martin Rex wrote: >>>> Some people seem to hope that creation of a "privacy policy" is going >>>> to improve things. Personally, I do

Re: Comments on

On 7/12/2010 1:37 PM, Martin Rex wrote: > Dave CROCKER wrote: >> On 7/9/2010 4:32 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: >>> The Fair Information Practices are a set of principles most of us are quite >>> likely to believe in, such as (copied from the Alissa's draft): >> Likely, yes. But do any of us know

Re: Back to authentication on the IETF network

On 7/12/2010 1:19 PM, Chris Elliott wrote: > On Jul 12, 2010, at 3:54 PM, Ted Hardie > wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Chris Elliott > > wrote: >> >>> I will suggest that in Beijing we may need to physically >>> authenticate peop

was Re: Privacy Terminology - this should not be complex...

rking group some time ago. Maybe now under the banner of eliminating the need for a formal privacy policy, this can be reviewed. Todd Glassey ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Comments on

ow who everyone else is representing in the IETF meaning that there is no direct privacy control possible. Todd Glassey ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Comments on

On 7/9/2010 5:15 AM, Hannes Tschenig wrote: WHAT specifically does "Openness and Transparency" mean - not in nebulous namby pamby terms but specific sets of "use rules and their oversight" - what exactly does this mean? > >> as far as i know >> >> o data collection has been done very rarely.

Re: What does a privacy policy mean ?

On 7/7/2010 8:53 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 7/7/2010 8:46 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: >> Having a privacy policy in place does two primary things IMO. It >> helps to >> inform and set policy and it gives others a metric to evaluate >> performance >> and a tool to improve performance. >> >> I

Re: What does a privacy policy mean ?

On 7/7/2010 8:46 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > Again, wearing no hats. > > On Jul 6, 2010, at 11:51 PM, John Levine wrote: > >> I think we all agree that having a privacy policy would be desirable, >> in the sense that we are in favor of good, and opposed to evil. But I >> don't know what it mean

Re: IETF privacy policy - update

On 7/6/2010 2:45 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: > On 2010-07-06 03:56, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >> On 5 jul 2010, at 18:05, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> 1) Respond on this list if you support the idea of the IETF having >>> a privacy policy (a simple "+1" will do). >> >> I'm torn between "good to have

Re: draft-douglass-timezone-xml-00 & Presence

On 7/6/2010 12:39 PM, James M. Polk wrote: > Doug/Cyrus > > How is this unique wrt to what Presence has provided in XML for 4-6 > years? A comparison is at least preferable to what already exists for > timezones in XML, IMO. The other issue is how Jurisdiction is specified inside of a Time Zone,

Re: IETF privacy policy - update

of intellectual property rights has provable cash money value, this is a real issue and it needs to be dealt with both professionally and in a manner which makes the IETF more transparent and less of a place where the politics of the day drive the contract-controls on participation or use of the IETF

Re: The point is to change it: Was: IPv4 depletion makes CNN

On 5/30/2010 3:52 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: We keep coming back to the same old problem and the same reasons we are going to hope it solves itself without having to change anything. 1) Its the wrong type of pain IPv4 exhaustion does cause problems, but not really enough problems or immedi

Re: open protocols

On 5/25/2010 11:46 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > It's all bit complicated but, yes, anyone can publish copies of RFCs, > including translations into other languages. (See > http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/archive/IETF-Trust-License-Policy-20091228.pdffor > latest provisions.) > > Patent questi

Re: open protocols

se (that's what the IETF produces its authority under) holds no power over things it does not own like TCP for instance. Todd Glassey > > Thanks, Victor > > > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ie

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

is an immediate >> practical concern, and it's really just more important that we have >> some rule than that we have a perfect one. Please let us not conflate >> these two matters. Doesnt then also attending a meeting through a video conference including streaming also qualif

Re: Formal SPAM Compliant filed against Anderson...

On 5/5/2010 11:46 AM, Fred Baker wrote: > > On May 5, 2010, at 11:37 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > >> Sending mail to people who clearly don't want it is discourteous and abusive >> at best and should not be encouraged in any way, especially by telling the >> recipients that they can always filte

Re: Formal SPAM Compliant filed against Anderson...

On 5/5/2010 8:05 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > On 05/03/2010 08:21 PM, todd glassey wrote: >> These are extensions for Sendmail. > > No. Sendmail is just one implementer. There's at least a dozen others. > >> The problem is that Dean created a >> list outs

Re: Formal SPAM Compliant filed against Anderson...

e this is a serious issue. What that means is like auditors NO email may be excluded from the history of the vetting process lest the practice be subjected to random and uncontrolled censorship. Todd > > Joe > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, todd glassey wrote: > >>

Re: Formal SPAM Compliant filed against Anderson...

On 5/3/2010 11:06 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > On 05/03/2010 07:48 PM, todd glassey wrote: >> Maybe Joe but I do not want to be a party to his mailing lists, and he >> will not allow me off of them, so I have no choice but to file the spam >> compliant. > > I direct y

Re: Formal SPAM Compliant filed against Anderson...

odd > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:28 AM, todd glassey wrote: > >> Folks - I have had it with Dean and his actions in spamming me after >> being thrown off of IETF lists. >> >> Mr. Anderson has created a set of IETF mirror lists which he calls >> "IETF

Formal SPAM Compliant filed against Anderson...

are 10 or 20 of them independently filed, the FTC will in fact take action on this abuse. http://www.ftc.gov/spam Have a nice day. Todd Glassey <>___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: OpsDir review of draft-zimmermann-avt-zrtp-17

On 4/24/2010 2:11 PM, Philip Zimmermann wrote: > David, thank you for reviewing our draft. Your suggestions were helpful. > > It was a pleasure talking with you on the phone. I'm glad we had a chance to > discuss the points you raised. > > We addressed all the issues you raised in the next dra

Re: another document categorization suggestion

On 4/22/2010 3:35 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > For what it's worth, there was (Once Upon A Time) a working group called > TCPIMPL ("TCP Implementation"), that published an "don't do it like > this" RFC (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2525.txt), that didn't call out > vendor X, but DID provide traces fr

Re: [PWE3] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to Cisco's Statement of IPR relating to draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-12

On 4/15/2010 1:57 PM, David Morris wrote: > > > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, todd glassey wrote: > >> Dean - I think the problem is that the individuals in the IETF who >> represent their sponsors are generally not licensed patent agents or >> attorneys (although there

Re: [PWE3] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to Cisco's Statement of IPR relating to draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-12

of a patent's status or filing. Individuals may have a personal opinion but I am betting that the legal opinion of the Sponsor as to some other party's patent filing is not something that the Sponsor's are willing to grant to their un-skilled and non-legally trained technology

Re: Public musing on the nature of IETF membership and employment status

gainst the IETF and WG members for their actions in either actively blocking or damaging initiatives in place, since neither are "Open and Fair" meaning that the IETF also is liable there IMHO. Just my two cents... Todd Glassey > > -- > Dean &

Re: Last Call: draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config (Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration) to Informational RFC

On 4/5/2010 9:04 AM, Scott Lawrence wrote: > On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 08:43 -0700, todd glassey wrote: >> >>>> Obviously you could make the expiration interval long, but however >>>> long you make it will be as long as the worst-case config-change time, >>&g

Re: Last Call: draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config (Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration) to Informational RFC

On 4/5/2010 8:00 AM, Scott Lawrence wrote: > On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 12:05 -0400, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Scott Lawrence [mailto:xmlsc...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 10:27 PM >>> To: Hadriel Kaplan >>> >>> If the UA is not behind a NAT, the

Re: Ok .. I want my IETF app for my iPad ..

On 4/4/2010 5:10 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > It presents a chart showing the proportion of IETF-ers who have bought an > iPad. > > Now in theory an iPad could be very useful. Only the application I am > working on (IETF-Roulette) requires Flash. is the IETF Roulette a method of demonstrati

Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht

On 4/2/2010 1:56 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: > So, with all this discussion, I'm still not clear what to expect. When > I walk up to a train ticket kiosk in Schiphol, should I expect to be > able to use my US-issued, non-chip credit card (AMEX, VISA - I don't > care as long as *one* of them works), or

Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht

On 3/30/2010 9:09 PM, Dean Willis wrote: > > On Mar 30, 2010, at 4:55 AM, Robert Kisteleki wrote: > >> On 2010.03.30. 11:41, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >>> I'll prepare information about all of this as soon as I know the >>> transition status during the IETF week. And in any event, there are no

Re: T-shirts?

On 3/27/2010 4:41 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote: > > On Mar 26, 2010, at 8:08 PM, Gregory Lebovitz wrote: > >> Ray, >> I was asked about 5-6 times this week whether you would be selling the >> famed IETF74 "rock concert" style shirt. Of course I enthusiastically >> answered "Yes!" But then they wanted

Re: Make the Internet uncensorable to intermediate nodes

On 3/24/2010 8:44 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On 24/Mar/10 09:38, Spencer Dawkins wrote: Because the IETF is about creating Intellectual Properties regarding networksing. Not a Political Action Committee... >>> >>> That's the worst definition of the IETF I've ever heard! I don't >>> be

Re: Above market hotel room rates

On 3/24/2010 8:36 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 07:53:33AM -0700, Lou Berger wrote: > >> AMS took over. If the problem is really as you suggest, that rates go >> down from the time of contract signing to when the meeting is actually >> held, then this can be easily addresse

Re: Make the Internet uncensorable to intermediate nodes

On 3/23/2010 2:39 PM, Dean Willis wrote: > Greg Daley wrote: > >> I would actually not encourage IETF to work on such a technology as this, >> particularly in the lead-up to IETF Beijing. That would be a serious affront >> to our hosts. It is quite important to ensure that the IETF particularly

Re: [77all] No Host for IETF 77

On 3/23/2010 10:20 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: > >> The corporate name on my nametag is there only because I filled that field >> in the registration form. Others haven't and don't have a corporation name. When a corporation sends a representati

Re: A state of spin ... presented in ASCII

On 3/19/2010 1:06 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > SM wrote: > >>> The IAB made a clear statement that we need i18n support, yet over a >>> decade after RFC 2130 or RFC 2825, the RFCs themselves still have a >>> strict ASCII limitation. Sure, that wasn't mentioned at the time, but >>> does nobody else f

Re: Make HTML and PDF more prominent, was: Re: Why the normative form of IETF Standards is ASCII

On 3/19/2010 3:29 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 19 mrt 2010, at 5:05, John Levine wrote: > > > xml2rfc does a pretty good job of capturing what needs to be in an > > RFC, so that is the strawman I would start from. > > The virtues (or lack thereof) of xml2rfc are a separate discussion. > The

Internet wins 2010 Nobel Peace Prize...

the little people (those at the bottom of the social food chain) from those who would prey on them. Todd Glassey <>___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Towards consensus on document format

On 3/15/2010 9:07 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 15.03.2010 17:00, todd glassey wrote: >> ... >> Sorry - but the IETF should have moved into Web Based automated document >> submission years ago. >> ... > > It did. > > Best regards, Julian Julian - if t

Re: What day is 2010-01-02

On 3/13/2010 3:35 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Saturday, March 13, 2010 15:21 -0500 "Phillips, Addison" > wrote: This is a prime example of the IETF's waste of time and energy. The ISO 8601 date standard is the obvious answer and yet this convo is still going... Todd > >> (from digest

Re: Towards consensus on document format

guing people about it will change their > personal relationships with the various technologies. I agree. The solution is to move past them and retire their actions so that they are not allowed to block the IETF's evolution with such idiotic and self-centered n

Re: Error in Security Considerations in an RFC

On 3/14/2010 9:16 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > An errata is the best way to have this type of change documented. At > least it will be captured for people to consider, and if the document is > ever updated, it will serve as a reminder. > > Russ Isn't this one of the risks with creating standards wh

  1   2   3   >