Spencer Dawkins | 30 Sep 21:29 2014
Picon

If you edit the BOF wiki, please "edit this page"!

The IESG uses the BOF Wiki to track requested BOFs, at 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki.

If you are editing a BOF request entry, it would be helpful to click on 
"edit this page" when you start editing.

We had an edit earlier that "clobbered" two BOF requests. These are 
easier to detect if you don't copy the entire wiki contents into an edit 
buffer, because other folk may also be making changes to the wiki page 
after you make your copy, and these changes can be lost when you copy 
everything back into the wiki.

Thanks,

Spencer, as one of the people who are looking at BOF requests this week ...

matthew.pearson | 30 Sep 10:43 2014

FROM or PAID international CLI

> Hello,
>
> I work on the international team for BT and I am trying to compose an 
> internal document showing standards for international CLI delivery, 
> both for C7 (TDM) and SIP, voice calls. I believe the IETF is the SIP 
> equivalent of the ITU standards, so hopefully you will be able to help 
> with my query.
>
> I am trying to understand when dialling an international destination 
> what is the correct CLI that should be displayed on the B end users 
> handset. Is it either the P-asserted Identity (PAID) or the FROM?
> Assuming both are sent, both are unrestricted, and the supplier used 
> is trusted.
>
> I have conflicted information from different suppliers, and it seems 
> to differ per country. If you can provide advice on what the standard 
> should be that would be really useful.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt


Matthew Pearson
International Traffic Management
Service Assurance

Group: 00800 8261 4354, opt 1, opt 1
Email: Matthew.Pearson <at> bt.com
Web: www.bt.com

(Continue reading)

Picon

Lawsuit Names ISOC & IETF: Glassey v. MicroSemi Inc.

On September 4th the Internet Society was served a complaint in a lawsuit titled "Todd S. 
Glassey vs MicroSemi Inc.” The complaint names, among others, the Internet Society and 
the IETF.  

The complaint <https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/Glassey-Microsemi-Complaint.pdf> 
as well as a motion to dismiss <https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/FiledMTDandProposedOrder73.pdf> 
the complaint, which was filed on behalf of the Internet Society and the IETF 
on September 25th, are published here in the name of transparency.
<https://iaoc.ietf.org/subpoenas.html>

We have been advised by our counsel that discussion of the merits of the 
complaint at this stage would be counterproductive, so no Internet Society 
employee or member of the IETF “management” (the IAB, IESG or IAOC) should 
engage in any discussion or answer any questions regarding the complaint or 
the motion while the case is active and we advise that the IETF community also 
refrain from such discussions.

Ray Pelletier
IETF Administrative Director
On Behalf of the IAOC

Hosnieh Rafiee | 29 Sep 13:47 2014

History behind RFC numbers

Hi, 
Anybody knows the history behind RFC numbers. How it started and which document explained this. Sometimes
I see it is not a sequential numbers for new RFCs.
Thanks
Best,
Hosnieh

Ted Lemon | 26 Sep 21:40 2014

Five softwires documents last called today.

I finished my AD review for five softwire documents that I believe are closely related, and last-called
them as a group so that interested parties could review them that way.   These documents all solve largely
the same problem, but in usefully (IMHO) different ways from an operational perspective.

If you intend to read all five documents and aren't currently very familiar with how this technology works,
I would suggest reading the lw4over6 document first, the map-dhcp document second, the map document
third, the map-t document fourth, and the 4rd document fifth.   This is just my personal opinion on how best
to bootstrap your understanding, and shouldn't be taken to mean that I prefer one document to another.

Mike Jones | 26 Sep 08:50 2014
Picon

JOSE -33 and JWT -27 drafts addressing Stephen Kent's JWK comments

Updated JOSE and JWT drafts have been published that address JSON Web Key (JWK) secdir review comments by Stephen Kent that were inadvertently not addressed in the previous versions.  Most of the changes were to the JWK draft.  A few changes also had to be made across the other drafts to keep them in sync.  I also added acknowledgements to several additional contributors.  No breaking changes were made.

 

The specifications are available at:

·        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-33

·        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-33

·        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33

·        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-33

·        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-27

 

Differences since the previous drafts can be viewed at:

·        http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-33

·        http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-33

·        http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33

·        http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-33

·        http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-27

 

HTML formatted versions are available at:

·        http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-33.html

·        http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-33.html

·        http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33.html

·        http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-33.html

·        http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-27.html

 

                                                                -- Mike

 

P.S.  This notice was also posted at http://self-issued.info/?p=1286 and as <at> selfissued.

 

Thomas Narten | 26 Sep 06:53 2014
Picon

Weekly posting summary for ietf <at> ietf.org

Total of 69 messages in the last 7 days.

script run at: Fri Sep 26 00:53:03 EDT 2014

    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 17.39% |   12 | 29.37% |   345525 | michael.jones <at> microsoft.com
  8.70% |    6 | 18.47% |   217231 | ve7jtb <at> ve7jtb.com
  7.25% |    5 | 12.87% |   151396 | ietf <at> augustcellars.com
  8.70% |    6 |  8.90% |   104726 | rlb <at> ipv.sx
  5.80% |    4 |  2.88% |    33912 | phill <at> hallambaker.com
  5.80% |    4 |  2.10% |    24659 | chair <at> ietf.org
  4.35% |    3 |  2.11% |    24778 | kivinen <at> iki.fi
  4.35% |    3 |  1.83% |    21503 | john-ietf <at> jck.com
  1.45% |    1 |  3.29% |    38753 | kathleen.moriarty.ietf <at> gmail.com
  2.90% |    2 |  1.49% |    17537 | scott <at> kitterman.com
  2.90% |    2 |  1.42% |    16717 | jari.arkko <at> piuha.net
  1.45% |    1 |  2.70% |    31729 | kmigoe <at> nsa.gov
  2.90% |    2 |  1.16% |    13701 | dhc <at> dcrocker.net
  2.90% |    2 |  1.04% |    12279 | melinda.shore <at> gmail.com
  2.90% |    2 |  0.99% |    11606 | rsk <at> gsp.org
  1.45% |    1 |  1.00% |    11808 | ggm <at> algebras.org
  1.45% |    1 |  0.92% |    10878 | narten <at> us.ibm.com
  1.45% |    1 |  0.79% |     9301 | mbehring <at> cisco.com
  1.45% |    1 |  0.76% |     8966 | eburger <at> cs.georgetown.edu
  1.45% |    1 |  0.71% |     8329 | fred <at> cisco.com
  1.45% |    1 |  0.70% |     8242 | nomcom-chair-2014 <at> ietf.org
  1.45% |    1 |  0.67% |     7838 | randy <at> qti.qualcomm.com
  1.45% |    1 |  0.66% |     7813 | linus <at> nordu.net
  1.45% |    1 |  0.60% |     7066 | ted.lemon <at> nominum.com
  1.45% |    1 |  0.56% |     6598 | mcr+ietf <at> sandelman.ca
  1.45% |    1 |  0.53% |     6215 | sm+ietf <at> elandsys.com
  1.45% |    1 |  0.50% |     5877 | julian.reschke <at> gmx.de
  1.45% |    1 |  0.49% |     5713 | ietf-dane <at> dukhovni.org
  1.45% |    1 |  0.49% |     5710 | paul.hoffman <at> vpnc.org
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |   69 |100.00% |  1176406 | Total

Melinda Shore | 26 Sep 04:34 2014
Picon

Data on internet drafts/year?

Do we have somewhere data on the number of drafts submitted per year?

Melinda

Phillip Hallam-Baker | 23 Sep 22:08 2014

Re: email standards (was: Re: facilitators at ietf <at> ietf.org)

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Randall Gellens <randy <at> qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> At 2:12 PM -0400 9/23/14, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>>  --On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:31 -0400 Phillip
>>  Hallam-Baker <phill <at> hallambaker.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>>  Case in point, did we really need to have two completely
>>>  separate email standards? There was absolutely no possibility
>>>  of common ground?
>>>
>>>  I have discussed it with the AD who made the decision and he
>>>  pointed out that before he made the two groups completely
>>>  separate there was no progress on either. But end to end email
>>>  has been hurt by the fact that we have two incompatible
>>>  standards and they are both IETF standards.
>>
>>
>>  In my capacity as the document editor for one of the
>>  specifications I assume you are referring to, I have to confess
>>  to having no idea what you are talking about.
>
>
> Surely PHB isn't saying that SMTP and the email format docs are
> incompatible?  That would be a nonsensical assertion, since they are
> separate layers (the one is used to transport the other).  Perhaps there are
> two different email standards that perform the same functions but are
> incompatible?  Perhaps S/MIME and PGP?  Or perhaps two different security
> related email specs?

I meant two secure email standards. Empirically we have two right now,
S/MIME and PGP.

Since I was talking about security, I thought it was obvious from the context.

IETF Chair | 23 Sep 14:40 2014
Picon

facilitators at ietf <at> ietf.org

In July, we had a discussion both on this list and at the plenary about this list, moderation, discussion
styles, tools, and participation in last call and other discussions.

We need to continue thinking about the role of this list and other bigger issues, but I plan to make one small
action regarding the list discussions now: adding facilitators. Or to be more exact, delegating some of
the facilitation role that I have to additional persons. Occasionally, discussions on the list get
heated, repetitive, or unnecessarily personal. When that happens, I have found that quick responses on
the list or to the persons often resolves the situation, and productive discussion can continue.
However, I am also finding that it is difficult for me personally to stay on top the threads in real time, and
late reactions are not as useful. As a result, I plan to ask two persons to help monitor the discussion and
steer it towards the most useful avenues.

This is not a change with regards to roles of ADs/shepherds and last calls, or a change to how we deal with
disruptive or inappropriate postings, such as PR-actions, sergeant-at-arms, or our spam tools. All
those mechanisms will stay in place. The facilitators will not be able to moderate or block posting from
anyone (except by reporting issues to the sergeant-at-arms, just like the rest of us can).

Comments appreciated, as always.

Jari Arkko
IETF Chair

IETF Chair | 22 Sep 08:30 2014
Picon

BoF proposals for IETF-91 due Friday!


If you want to propose a new working group at the IETF, now would be a great time to do so. The deadline for
Hawaii meeting proposals is on Friday. If you have proposals, please talk to your Area Director about them
as soon as possible.

http://www.ietf.org/blog/2014/09/hawaii-bof-proposals-due-soon/

You can also register for the meeting, if you have not done so yet.

Jari Arkko
IETF Chair


Gmane