Thomas Narten | 31 Oct 05:53 2014
Picon

Weekly posting summary for ietf <at> ietf.org

Total of 99 messages in the last 7 days.

script run at: Fri Oct 31 00:53:02 EDT 2014

    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
  7.07% |    7 |  5.23% |    47049 | dhc <at> dcrocker.net
  6.06% |    6 |  5.06% |    45597 | brian.e.carpenter <at> gmail.com
  5.05% |    5 |  3.23% |    29099 | johnl <at> taugh.com
  4.04% |    4 |  4.10% |    36871 | ynir.ietf <at> gmail.com
  4.04% |    4 |  3.22% |    28972 | jari.arkko <at> piuha.net
  1.01% |    1 |  5.77% |    51970 | david.black <at> emc.com
  3.03% |    3 |  3.35% |    30201 | matthew <at> kerwin.net.au
  1.01% |    1 |  4.77% |    42932 | mramalho <at> cisco.com
  3.03% |    3 |  2.60% |    23401 | daedulus <at> btconnect.com
  3.03% |    3 |  2.53% |    22768 | joelja <at> bogus.com
  3.03% |    3 |  2.46% |    22155 | andy <at> arin.net
  2.02% |    2 |  3.43% |    30911 | edward.lewis <at> icann.org
  3.03% |    3 |  2.24% |    20162 | loa <at> pi.nu
  2.02% |    2 |  2.91% |    26185 | rpelletier <at> isoc.org
  2.02% |    2 |  2.07% |    18658 | stephen.farrell <at> cs.tcd.ie
  2.02% |    2 |  1.74% |    15678 | marc.blanchet <at> viagenie.ca
  2.02% |    2 |  1.69% |    15199 | iab-chair <at> iab.org
  1.01% |    1 |  2.68% |    24122 | mattmathis <at> google.com
  2.02% |    2 |  1.64% |    14755 | sm+ietf <at> elandsys.com
  2.02% |    2 |  1.54% |    13884 | paul.hoffman <at> vpnc.org
  2.02% |    2 |  1.46% |    13131 | ajs <at> anvilwalrusden.com
  2.02% |    2 |  1.42% |    12757 | ned+ietf <at> mauve.mrochek.com
  2.02% |    2 |  1.39% |    12483 | ietf <at> rozanak.com
  2.02% |    2 |  1.23% |    11082 | randy <at> psg.com
(Continue reading)

IETF Agenda | 27 Oct 20:51 2014
Picon

IETF 91 Agenda Change


The NETVC BoF scheduled for Thursday, November 13, 2014 from 1300 - 1500 has been canceled. 

The following session has been moved:

RAI	ecrit	 Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies WG

- Moved from Monday at 1300 to Thursday at 1300 (Lehua Suite)

The web agenda has the most current information.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/91/agenda.html

Thank you!

IETF Secretariat

Ahmed Bakhat Masood | 27 Oct 18:32 2014
Picon

AUTO: Ahmed Bakhat Masood is out of the office. (returning 10/28/2014)


I am out of the office until 10/28/2014.

I will not be able to respond to your mail. For urgent queries, please
contact Mr. Shageel Ahmed Dy Director (ICT) at shargeel <at> pta.gov.pk or Mr.
Anwar Zeb IT Officer at anwar <at> pta.gov.pk

Note: This is an automated response to your message  "ietf Digest, Vol 77,
Issue 103" sent on 10/27/2014 9:11:46 PM.

This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away.

Nicole Armstrong | 27 Oct 17:10 2014

ISOC <at> IETF 91 Briefing Panel


We are pleased to announce the Internet Society Briefing Panel at IETF 91:

----------
SESSION ABSTRACT

Is Identity an Internet Building Block?

In the Internet’s early days, users often felt shielded behind an
electronic veil of anonymity, able to take on any persona they pleased.
Now, nearly every online service has adopted technologies that build user
profiles, offer product recommendations, and piece together personal
histories that go back farther than most of us even know.

Digital identifiers and the attributes tied to those identifiers are key
to establishing trust in any form of online communication. What are the
underlying identifiers we use on the Internet today? What are their
properties? How do these identifiers and attributes relate to our ideas of
"identity?" If we were to dream of an ideal world with multiple
interlinked and interoperable identity ecosystems, what would good look
like?

During this Briefing Panel, the Internet Society’s Chief Internet
Technology Officer Olaf Kolkman and four panelists from various layers of
the stack will discuss whether identity management is, or will be, a
fundamental building block for the Internet, the forces currently at play
in the identity sphere, the push for single sign-on, the role of mobile,
and more.

Moderator: Olaf Kolkman, Internet Society

Panel:
Leif Johansson, SUNET
Ken Klingenstein, Internet2
Jef Hodges, PayPal
Natasha Rooney, GSMA

----------
PANEL DETAILS

Date: Tuesday, 11 November 2014
Venue: Hilton Hawaiian Village
Time: 11:45 AM - 12:45 PM (local time)

----------
HOW TO PARTICIPATE

Pre-registration is required for onsite participation and begins on
Tuesday, 28 October 2014.  Due to high demand for limited seating,
registration will be open in two time blocks to account for the broad
range of home timezones of IETF participants.  Registration opens in two
phases for global fairness: 09:00 UTC and 21:00 UTC on 28-October 2014.

Look for the registration form link at the webpage below:

We also plan to have a live webcast of the event (no registration
required).

Information on the ISOC <at> IETF 91 Panel, webcast details, and an archive of
past ISOC <at> IETF Briefing Panels is available on our website.
internet-standards/briefing-panels

We hope you can join us!

----------

Nicole Armstrong, CMP, CMM
Internet Society

Eggert, Lars | 27 Oct 10:57 2014
Picon

DEADLINE ON FRIDAY! Call for Nominations: 2015 Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP)

       DEADLINE FOR 2015 NOMINATIONS: FRIDAY, OCT 31, 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------



                    CALL FOR NOMINATIONS:

         APPLIED NETWORKING RESEARCH PRIZE (ANRP) 2015

                    http://irtf.org/anrp


********************************************************************
***     Submit nominations for the 2015 award period of the      ***
***  Applied Networking Research Prize until October 31, 2014!   ***
***                                                              ***
***    (Please share this announcement with your colleagues.)    ***
********************************************************************

The Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP) is awarded for recent
results in applied networking research that are relevant for
transitioning into shipping Internet products and related
standardization efforts. Researchers with relevant, recent results
are encouraged to apply for this prize, which will offer them the
opportunity to present and discuss their work with the engineers,
network operators, policy makers and scientists that participate in
the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and its research arm, the
Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Third-party nominations for this
prize are also encouraged. The goal of the Applied Networking
Research Prize is to recognize the best new ideas in networking, and
bring them to the IETF and IRTF especially in cases where they would
not otherwise see much exposure or discussion.

The Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP) consists of:

• cash prize of $500 (USD)
• invited talk at the IRTF Open Meeting
• travel grant to attend a week-long IETF meeting (airfare, hotel,
 registration, stipend)
• recognition at the IETF plenary
• invitation to related social activities
• potential for additional travel grants to future IETF meetings,
 based on community feedback

The Applied Networking Research Prize will be awarded once per
calendar year. Each year, several winners will be chosen and invited
to present their work at one of the three IETF meetings during the
year.


HOW TO NOMINATE

Only a single person can be nominated for the award. The basis of the
nomination is a peer-reviewed, original journal, conference or
workshop paper they authored, which was recently published or
accepted for publication. The nominee must be one of the main authors
of the nominated paper. Both self nominations (nominating one’s own
paper) and third-party nominations (nominating someone else’s paper)
are encouraged.

The nominated paper should provide a scientific foundation for
possible future IETF engineering work or IRTF research and
experimentation, analyze the behavior of Internet protocols in
operational deployments or realistic testbeds, make an important
contribution to the understanding of Internet scalability,
performance, reliability, security or capability, or otherwise be of
relevance to ongoing or future IETF or IRTF activities.

Applicants must briefly describe how the nominated paper relates to
these goals, and are encouraged to describe how a presentation of
these research results would foster their transition into new IETF
engineering or IRTF experimentation, or otherwise seed new activities
that will have an impact on the real-world Internet.

The goal of the Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP) is to foster
the transitioning of research results into real-world benefits for
the Internet. Therefore, applicants must indicate that they (or the
nominee, in case of third-party nominations) are available to attend
at least one of the year’s IETF meetings in person and in its
entirety.

Nominations must include:

• the name and email address of the nominee
• a bibliographic reference to the published (or accepted)
 nominated paper
• a PDF copy of the nominated paper
• a statement that describes how the nominated paper fulfills the
 goals of the award
• a statement about which of the year’s IETF meetings the nominee
 would be available to attend in person and in its entirety
• a brief biography or CV of the nominee
• optionally, any other supporting information (link to nominee’s
 web site, etc.)

Nominations are submitted via the submission site at
http://irtf.org/anrp/2015/. In exceptional cases, nominations may
also be submitted by email to anrp <at> irtf.org.


IMPORTANT DATES

Applications close: October 31, 2014 (hard)
Notifications:      December 1, 2014


SPONSORS

The Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP) is supported by the
Internet Society (ISOC), as part of its Internet Research Award
Programme, in coordination with the Internet Research Task Force
(IRTF).


HELP PUBLICIZE THE ANRP

If you would like to help publicize the ANRP within your
organization, you are welcome to print and use the flyer at
http://irtf.org/anrp-2015-flyer.pdf


Florian Weimer | 27 Oct 09:58 2014
Picon

How to attend interim meetings

I'm trying to find authoritative documentation in interim meetings.
I've found this: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/agenda/91/>
But it does not say which time zone the schedule uses, and the
hyperlinks for the meeting rooms do not reveal further information.

There is some documentation here:

  <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html>

But it is silent on the default time zone or instructions how to
access the conference facilities.

Hosnieh Rafiee | 26 Oct 19:16 2014

suggestion for the next IETFs

Hello,

I have a suggestion for IETF meetings in the US and Canada. Unfortunately
sometimes a visa processing (to Canada and the US) might take 2 to 3 months.
Since invitation letters are usually necessary components to apply for a
visa,  sometimes the time for visa processing is not enough for planning for
this trip (reservation, buying a ticket, etc.)
Each IETF is usually every 6 months. I do not know whether there is any
possibility to change the start of registration date that at least there is
minimum 3 complete months before the IETF meeting (also after considering
possibility delay in opening registration, etc.)

Thanks,
Best,
Hosnieh
P.S. This of course applies to non US citizen 

IAB Chair | 26 Oct 17:06 2014

Reappointment of Nevil Brownlee as Independent Submission Editor

The Internet Architecture Board is pleased to announce the reappointment of
Nevil Brownlee as the Independent Submission Editor (ISE). The IAB received
a significant number of comments saying that Nevil is doing a superior job.
This appointment is for a two year term, beginning on 15 February 2015 and
ending on 14 February 2017.

On behalf of the IAB,
  Russ Housley
  IAB Chair

S Moonesamy | 24 Oct 19:30 2014

Re: Adapting/adopting RFC 7154 for International Conference on Open Repositories

Hello,

I received a message from the Open Repositories [1] to adopt or adapt 
RFC 7154.  The RFC is restricted to modifications within the IETF 
Standards Process.  Would it be an issue to allow the guidelines to 
be reused outside the IETF?

I would like to suggest proper attribution for the people who 
contributed text as I was merely the editor and to contact the IETF 
Trust for any usage of "IETF".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. http://sites.tdl.org/openrepositories/

Thomas Narten | 24 Oct 06:53 2014
Picon

Weekly posting summary for ietf <at> ietf.org

Total of 93 messages in the last 7 days.

script run at: Fri Oct 24 00:53:03 EDT 2014

    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
  5.38% |    5 |  9.10% |   113449 | edward.lewis <at> icann.org
  4.30% |    4 |  8.20% |   102273 | ivancic <at> syzygyengineering.com
  6.45% |    6 |  5.63% |    70171 | lizho.jin <at> gmail.com
  2.15% |    2 |  7.98% |    99532 | shollenbeck <at> verisign.com
  4.30% |    4 |  3.05% |    38026 | jmh <at> joelhalpern.com
  2.15% |    2 |  4.62% |    57659 | lloyd.wood <at> yahoo.co.uk
  4.30% |    4 |  2.31% |    28744 | mnot <at> mnot.net
  3.23% |    3 |  3.28% |    40855 | ron.even.tlv <at> gmail.com
  2.15% |    2 |  3.78% |    47143 | david.black <at> emc.com
  3.23% |    3 |  2.60% |    32394 | barryleiba <at> computer.org
  1.08% |    1 |  4.35% |    54211 | eclipticplane2002 <at> yahoo.co.uk
  2.15% |    2 |  3.06% |    38173 | kfall <at> kfall.net
  2.15% |    2 |  2.84% |    35382 | juanfraire <at> gmail.com
  2.15% |    2 |  2.72% |    33970 | sunqi.csnet.thu <at> gmail.com
  2.15% |    2 |  1.55% |    19328 | chair <at> ietf.org
  2.15% |    2 |  1.51% |    18806 | abdussalambaryun <at> gmail.com
  2.15% |    2 |  1.45% |    18024 | daedulus <at> btconnect.com
  2.15% |    2 |  1.19% |    14869 | sm+ietf <at> elandsys.com
  2.15% |    2 |  1.18% |    14656 | ietf-secretariat <at> ietf.org
  2.15% |    2 |  1.17% |    14638 | iab-chair <at> iab.org
  2.15% |    2 |  1.11% |    13872 | jari.arkko <at> piuha.net
  2.15% |    2 |  1.10% |    13656 | stephen.farrell <at> cs.tcd.ie
  2.15% |    2 |  1.08% |    13491 | mcr+ietf <at> sandelman.ca
  2.15% |    2 |  1.07% |    13333 | alexey.melnikov <at> isode.com
  2.15% |    2 |  1.01% |    12543 | d3e3e3 <at> gmail.com
  2.15% |    2 |  0.87% |    10899 | johnl <at> taugh.com
  1.08% |    1 |  1.86% |    23179 | ietfdbh <at> comcast.net
  1.08% |    1 |  1.63% |    20291 | william.d.ivancic <at> nasa.gov
  1.08% |    1 |  1.36% |    16906 | elwynd <at> folly.org.uk
  1.08% |    1 |  1.23% |    15359 | cpignata <at> cisco.com
  1.08% |    1 |  1.20% |    14995 | bje <at> apnic.net
  1.08% |    1 |  1.06% |    13222 | mls.ietf <at> gmail.com
  1.08% |    1 |  1.00% |    12476 | jmh.direct <at> joelhalpern.com
  1.08% |    1 |  0.94% |    11678 | scott.c.burleigh <at> jpl.nasa.gov
  1.08% |    1 |  0.85% |    10591 | andy <at> arin.net
  1.08% |    1 |  0.78% |     9717 | narten <at> us.ibm.com
  1.08% |    1 |  0.75% |     9400 | hsantos <at> isdg.net
  1.08% |    1 |  0.74% |     9206 | scott <at> kitterman.com
  1.08% |    1 |  0.73% |     9046 | zhencao.ietf <at> gmail.com
  1.08% |    1 |  0.71% |     8862 | joelja <at> bogus.com
  1.08% |    1 |  0.69% |     8612 | presnick <at> qti.qualcomm.com
  1.08% |    1 |  0.60% |     7522 | bob.hinden <at> gmail.com
  1.08% |    1 |  0.60% |     7493 | housley <at> vigilsec.com
  1.08% |    1 |  0.59% |     7376 | ned+ietf <at> mauve.mrochek.com
  1.08% |    1 |  0.59% |     7341 | olejacobsen <at> me.com
  1.08% |    1 |  0.58% |     7278 | kambe <at> jprs.co.jp
  1.08% |    1 |  0.58% |     7262 | ted.lemon <at> nominum.com
  1.08% |    1 |  0.57% |     7091 | rjsparks <at> nostrum.com
  1.08% |    1 |  0.56% |     6976 | tbray <at> textuality.com
  1.08% |    1 |  0.56% |     6931 | loa <at> pi.nu
  1.08% |    1 |  0.56% |     6930 | andy <at> hxr.us
  1.08% |    1 |  0.49% |     6109 | adrian <at> olddog.co.uk
  1.08% |    1 |  0.40% |     5048 | agenda <at> ietf.org
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |   93 |100.00% |  1246994 | Total

Barry Leiba | 23 Oct 16:13 2014
Picon

Re: Last Call: <draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-08.txt> (Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs) to Best Current Practice

Hi, SM, and thanks for the review.  Sorry for the delay in responding.

  "For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet
   Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [RFC2860]."

Given that there seems to be a service mark for "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", shouldn't there be an IPR disclosure?

Not that I can tell.  We use "IANA" and its expansion regularly, and I see no reason to change anything about that here (this also goes to your other comments about changing how we refer to IANA).

  "IANA services are currently provided by the International Corporation
   for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)."

According to www.icann.org there is an "Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers".

Yes, I mis-expanded it (or 5226 did; I'm not bothering to check).  Corrected in my working version.
 
  'For this document, "the specification" as used by RFC 2119 refers to
   the processing of protocol documents within the IETF standards
   process.'

There was a thread about registration policies (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg88598.html ).  My reading of the quoted text is that the key words do not apply to documents in the IRTF and Independent Streams.

This document is about the IETF stream.  It's up to the other streams to specify that this document applies to them as well, and I believe that they do.  There's a lot of stuff that is defined to apply to "the IETF standards process" that other streams also use.

  "In particular, when a registry policy that requires involvement of
   Working Groups, directorates, or other bodies to be actively involved
   and to support the effort, requests frequently run into concerns that
   "it's not worth doing a Standards-Track RFC for something this
   trivial," when, in fact, that requirement was created by the Working
   Group in the first place, by placing the bar that high."

Are directorates involved in registry policy?

They certainly could be.  I don't see a reason not to mention them.
 
I suggest changing "Standards-Track RFC" to RFC as even an RFC is a high bar and it is a non-trivial requirement.

It's an example of an argument I've actually heard, and I'm inclined to leave it.

In Section 3.3:

  "In order to allow assignments in such cases, the IESG is granted
   authority to override registration procedures and approve assignments
   on a case-by-case basis."

In other words the registry policy used is "IESG Approval".  There is already a good description of that in Section 4.10.  I do not see the need to emphasize that the IESG has the authority to do so.

It seems that Section 3.3 is trying to address a different problem than what is in RFC 7120, i.e. the registration procedure does not adequately cover the reality of registry operation.  For example, there was an RFC published because an email address had to be updated.  It is onerous to go through such an effort for an email address change.  If that happens a few times it is a sign that the registration procedure should be updated.

Indeed, and that's exactly what section 3.3 says: that it's a sign that an update is needed.  I think this section is valuable, and don't think it should be removed or changed.  It's important to talk about the IESG being able to override things where necessary.

Thanks again for the thorough review.

Barry


Gmane