Robert Sparks | 21 Nov 22:55 2014

Gen-art LC review: draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme-16

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme-16
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 21-Nov-2014
IETF LC End Date: 25-Nov-2014
IESG Telechat date: 4-Dec-2014

Summary: Almost ready, but has nits that should be addressed before publication as a Proposed Standard

Nits/editorial comments:

First: (For Barry as sponsoring AD and shepherd):

I think you might want to say more about how this and the related PWG documents are being handled cross-organization.

An RFC that normatively updates a document under some other organization's change control is an unusual thing. Usually there are parallel documents coordinating this. Is there such a parallel PWG doc this time?

Why aren't there RFC variants of the PWG docs (we've republished other organization's documents in the RFC series before...)

Second: The 6 step construction in section 3 is a little odd. Why aren't steps 3-5 collapsed into one step that says "go do what https: says to do"? Split this way, especially with the repeated guidance in the security considerations section pointing somewhat loosely to 7320 and 5246 for things that "can be used to address this threat" looks like an opportunity for someone to get creative with how they check the certificate supplied by the server against the name in the URI. If you don't want anything but what happens in https to happen, I think it needs to be more clearly stated. Otherwise, doesn't this go off into RFC 6125 territory?

Lastly (and much smaller nits):

There are several callouts from the text that look like references that are not represented in the references section.
ID nits complains about all of these, and should make them easy to find and fix.
For example (from section 1.2):
2) Some existing IPP Client and IPP Printer implementations of HTTP Upgrade [RFC 2717] do not perform upgrade at the beginning of
This reference is oddly constructed - please check early with the RFC Editor on whether they
will take this, or want something a little different.
[HTTP1.1] HTTP/1.1. See [RFC7230], [RFC7231], [RFC7232], [RFC7233], [RFC7234], and [RFC7235].
This line is wrong, and is causing idnits to complain once where it shouldn't.
(The thing in the [] should be RFC7235, not 4):
[RFC7234] Fielding, R., and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235, June 2014.







Thomas Narten | 21 Nov 06:53 2014
Picon

Weekly posting summary for ietf <at> ietf.org

Total of 67 messages in the last 7 days.

script run at: Fri Nov 21 00:53:01 EST 2014

    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
  8.96% |    6 | 22.19% |   141067 | ynir.ietf <at> gmail.com
 11.94% |    8 |  7.46% |    47449 | johnl <at> taugh.com
  7.46% |    5 |  6.97% |    44295 | joe <at> cdt.org
  5.97% |    4 |  4.83% |    30697 | superuser <at> gmail.com
  4.48% |    3 |  3.72% |    23662 | lear <at> cisco.com
  4.48% |    3 |  3.36% |    21375 | dougb <at> dougbarton.us
  4.48% |    3 |  2.95% |    18739 | ted.lemon <at> nominum.com
  2.99% |    2 |  3.61% |    22967 | lloyd.wood <at> yahoo.co.uk
  2.99% |    2 |  2.84% |    18080 | mnot <at> mnot.net
  2.99% |    2 |  2.70% |    17140 | lee <at> asgard.org
  2.99% |    2 |  2.40% |    15272 | huitema <at> microsoft.com
  2.99% |    2 |  2.25% |    14314 | mcr+ietf <at> sandelman.ca
  2.99% |    2 |  2.24% |    14233 | joelja <at> bogus.com
  2.99% |    2 |  2.19% |    13954 | iab-chair <at> iab.org
  2.99% |    2 |  2.13% |    13511 | dhc <at> dcrocker.net
  1.49% |    1 |  3.39% |    21527 | huseyin.abaci <at> adu.edu.tr
  2.99% |    2 |  1.80% |    11473 | iad <at> ietf.org
  1.49% |    1 |  2.30% |    14629 | donald.smith <at> centurylink.com
  1.49% |    1 |  2.07% |    13161 | ietf <at> trammell.ch
  1.49% |    1 |  1.87% |    11864 | eburger <at> standardstrack.com
  1.49% |    1 |  1.82% |    11580 | amanambrish <at> gmail.com
  1.49% |    1 |  1.67% |    10636 | barryleiba <at> computer.org
  1.49% |    1 |  1.58% |    10035 | narten <at> us.ibm.com
  1.49% |    1 |  1.35% |     8608 | brian.e.carpenter <at> gmail.com
  1.49% |    1 |  1.35% |     8599 | arjuna.sathiaseelan <at> cl.cam.ac.uk
  1.49% |    1 |  1.21% |     7670 | cyrus <at> daboo.name
  1.49% |    1 |  1.20% |     7618 | matthew <at> kerwin.net.au
  1.49% |    1 |  1.19% |     7597 | stephen.farrell <at> cs.tcd.ie
  1.49% |    1 |  1.19% |     7594 | inacio <at> cert.org
  1.49% |    1 |  1.16% |     7399 | ajaharuddin.mohammad <at> magnaquest.com
  1.49% |    1 |  1.10% |     6994 | abdussalambaryun <at> gmail.com
  1.49% |    1 |  1.01% |     6400 | phill <at> hallambaker.com
  1.49% |    1 |  0.89% |     5633 | housley <at> vigilsec.com
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |   67 |100.00% |   635772 | Total

Ajaharuddin Mohammad | 19 Nov 10:22 2014

Changes to the text

As per the comments made by joseph and others.

 

I think some text must be unchanged on the site.

 

Correct if I am wrong.

 

Ted Lemon | 18 Nov 18:33 2014

Re: IESG Teleconference Participation for November 25, 2014

Do we have a calendar to subscribe to yet?

Eric Burger | 17 Nov 14:56 2014

Internet Society Board Statement on NETmundial Initiative

Not technical, but does affect the Internet ecosystem:

http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-statement-netmundial-initiative

Internet Society Statement on the NETmundial Initiative

16 November 2014
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA] – 16 November 2014  – The Internet Society Board of Trustees today issued the
following statement:

Recently, the “I* Group” [1] was invited to participate in the NETmundial Initiative, which is
different from the one-time NETmundial meeting in which we participated in April 2014; we endorsed the
outcomes of that meeting. This new and different NETmundial Initiative has been organized by the
partnership of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN), and the World Economic Forum (WEF) [2]. This announcement has resulted in
considerable discussion and concern amongst various stakeholders regarding the purpose, scope, and
nature of the proposed activity or organization. 

The Internet Society Board discussed this proposed NETmundial Initiative in depth during its meeting
November 15 – 16, 2014. As a result, the Internet Society Board first emphasizes that the main priority
facing the Internet community right now is the IANA Functions’ Stewardship Transition and recommends
that all organizations in the Internet community should be highly focused on effectuating a successful
transition.  The Internet Society remains fully committed to the September 2015 milestone set for
completing a plan that will meet the criteria set by U.S. National Telecommunications & Information
Administration (NTIA).

With respect to the need for new groups, such as the NETmundial Initiative and its Coordination Council,
the Internet Society Board reiterates that the Internet Society’s longstanding position is that
there is no single, global platform that can serve to coordinate, organize or govern all the Internet
issues that may arise. At its heart, the Internet is a decentralized, loosely coupled, distributed
system that allows policies to be defined by those who require them for their operations and that ensures
that issues can be resolved at a level closest to their origin. The ecosystem draws its strength from the
involvement of a broad range of actors working through open, transparent, and collaborative processes
to innovate and build the network of networks that is the cornerstone of the global economy.[3]

Based on the information that we have to date, the Internet Society cannot agree to participate in or
endorse the Coordination Council for the NETmundial Initiative. We are concerned that the way in which
the NETmundial Initiative is being formed does not appear to be consistent with the Internet Society’s
longstanding principles, including:

	• Bottom-up orientation
	• Decentralized
	• Open
	• Transparent
	• Accountable
	• Multi-stakeholder
The Board has asked the Internet Society’s CEO, Kathryn Brown, to convene a dialogue within the Internet
Society community. This includes Internet Society Chapters from around the world, Internet Society
organization members, the IETF, the IAB, partners from the Internet technical community, and others.
The dialogue should consider whether any new initiatives or groups are needed at the current time and, if
so, to define the objectives for any such effort. 

In addition, Bob Hinden, Chairman of the Internet Society Board of Trustees has initiated a dialogue with
the Chairman of the ICANN Board, given ICANN’s leading involvement in the NETmundial Initiative. 

The Internet Society remains committed to a vision of the Internet that is open, inclusive, decentralized
and for the benefit of all people throughout the world.  

-------

[1]  The I* Group encompasses the Internet Society, IETF, IAB, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Regional
Internet Registries (RIRs), ICANN, and the regional Top Level Domain (TLD) organizations.

[2]  https://www.netmundial.org/press-release-1

[3]  The Internet Society’s position from the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) of 2003 and
2005, is “Many issues cannot be solved by new, overarching structures at a global level but rather by
building on today’s open, multi-stakeholder and cooperative processes.” And that the community
should “…consider whether new structures will bring truly measurable, positive change to the
functioning, stability, security and openness of the Internet.” (http://www.internetsociety.org/wsis).
Huseyin ABACI | 17 Nov 09:57 2014
Picon

Call for eBook Chapters on "Sustainable Computing"

Call for eBook Chapters on "Sustainable Computing"

We apologise if you get multiple copies of this message.

Please forward this message to your colleagues that might be interested.


Deadlines
Proposal Submission Deadline: 15 December 2014
Notification of Acceptance: 30 January 2015
Full Chapter Submission: 1 May 2015
Review Results Returned: 31 August 2015
Final Chapter Submission: 9 October 2015

Book Chapters for 
Sustainable Computing

Proposal Submission 
1-2 pages including abstract, chapter objectives and chapter outline, in Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format. Submit to huseyin.abaci <at> adu.edu.tr and c.peoples <at> ulster.ac.uk with the subject title “Sustainable Computing - Chapter Proposal" before 15 December 2014.

eBook Editors
Editor-in-Chief 
Huseyin Abaci Ph.D., Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Engineering at Adnan Menderes University, Aydın, Turkey
Email: huseyin.abaci <at> adu.edu.tr  

Co-Editor
Cathryn Peoples Ph.D., Teaching Fellow in the Faculty of Computing and Engineering at the University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom.  
Email: c.peoples <at> ulster.ac.uk

Description of the eBook on "Sustainable Computing"
Improvements in the operation of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) allows and encourages the provision of more effective and efficient facilities and services, such as bandwidth-intensive Video-on-Demand (VoD), Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), cloud computing, online multi-player gaming, and file sharing. These activities, however, come at the cost of higher energy consumption. Global warming and energy dependence are major international concerns today, not just for our government agencies, but also for the utilities that provide critical infrastructures for our digital economy.

This eBook will focus on the achievement of energy efficient computing, investigating energy efficient technologies and techniques in data centres, clouds, and more general wired/wireless networks. Of specific interest are the development of efficient data collection methods, algorithms and optimisation techniques which achieve energy reduction.

eBook Topics
Topics of interests include but are not limited to the following:

•        Energy efficiency methods for sustainable ICT
•        Energy efficiency in datacentres
•        Energy efficiency in cloud networks
•        Energy efficiency in wired metro-core networks
•        Energy efficiency in wireless networks
•        Energy efficiency in customer premises equipment 
•        Energy efficiency in network devices
•        Energy efficiency in optical networks 
•        Energy efficient topology/protocols/applications
•        Energy efficiency in integrated circuits and other computer components
•        Test bed setup to investigate proposed energy efficient network solutions.

Chapter Submission Procedure
Authors are invited to submit a 1-2 page chapter proposal before 15 December 2015. Authors of accepted proposals will be notified by 30 January 2015, and will be sent guidelines for preparation of the full chapter (between 5,000 and 12,000 words in length). Full chapters should be submitted by 1 May 2015 and will be reviewed on a double-blind review basis. Contributors may also be requested to serve as reviewers for this eBook.

Publisher
This book will be published by Bentham Science Publisher and is expected to be released before the end of December 2015.

Inquiries
If you have any inquiries about this call, please contact us at huseyin.abaci <at> adu.edu.tr orc.peoples <at> ulster.ac.uk.
Abdussalam Baryun | 15 Nov 03:47 2014
Picon

Phone Calls in the IETF meeting (was Re: [manet] Skype?)

Hi James,

I think it will be interesting to have that possibility of few
important call inputs in to WG sessions, but because of the limited
time each session has IMO input-questions by jabber is enough and it
is better if we avoid that skype-input in most situations. Remote
participants already can write input questions on the list and in to
meetings. If the attended participants are using the session time and
interacting then they have the priority in using the session (usually
we need meetings to be used mostly by attendees not by remote
participants, otherwise closing the session in that situation is
better for IETF to save money).

 I think only calls from related-wg-authors or WG co-chair or AD,
should be allowed to call in IETF sessions, because the participants
attended may need some feedback from authors of accepted drafts or
from some ADs that was not able to attend. IMHO, the time of the
sessions should be focused to assist the attended participants because
they are paying for the meeting session. I was happy that Adrian
accepted my skype call in his routing-area-office time at IETF meeting
(I think it was before a year or two). The idea that remote
participants can skype-call in office times of ADs with in IETF
meetings is IMHO very important for the IETF future.

Regards

AB

IETF Participant from Africa

On 11/13/14, James Nguyen <james.huy.nguyen <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there any Skype that we could call in?
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>

Picon

IETF 98 - Montreal!

The IAOC is pleased to announce Montreal as the site for 
IETF 98 from 26 - 31 March 2017.  The meeting will be held 
at the Fairmont Queen Elizabeth.

Montreal was the 5th preference for a meeting location in North America 
in the 2014 survey.
<http://ia1.ietf.org/documents/Venue-Preference-Survey-2014.pdf?>

The IETF was last in Montreal at IETF 66 in 2006, and before then, 
IETF 36 in 1996.  Check out the Proceedings if you are interested in 
what we were working on back then:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/36/
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/66/

Those who may be interested in hosting or sponsoring this or any future 
meeting are invited to contact Drew Dvorshak at dvorshak <at> isoc.org.  
See Host Opportunities below.

Ray Pelletier
IETF Administrative Director

2015                                  
92  Dallas  22 - 27 March    Google
93  Prague  19 - 24 July    TBD
94  Yokohama  1 - 6 Nov    WIDE

2016
95  Buenos Aires  3 - 8 April    TBD
96  Berlin  17 - 22 July    Juniper
97  Asia  13 - 18 Nov    TBD

2017  
98  Montreal    26 - 31 March    TBD
99  Europe       16 - 21 July        TBD
100  Asia         12 - 17 Nov       TBD

Picon

IETF 95 - Buenos Aires!

The IAOC is pleased to announce Buenos Aires as the site for 
IETF 95 from 3 - 8 April 2016.  This will be the first IETF meeting 
in Latin America.  The meeting will be at the Hilton Buenos Aires.

You may recall that in 2013 the IAOC asked the community in a 
survey and on the list for feedback about holding a meeting in Buenos 
Aires.

“Based on these survey results, we conclude there would be good 
attendance at a meeting in Buenos Aires overall, good attendance from 
people in the region, and that most active participants will attend. 
Active participants would attend at similar rates to their attendance 
at other IETF meetings. From this viewpoint, holding a meeting in 
Buenos Aires appears to be similar holding it in other locations 
around the world.” 
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/3QBP9abucJIpTIH12DTv35iaqmc>

Those who may be interested in hosting or sponsoring this or any future 
meeting are invited to contact Drew Dvorshak at dvorshak <at> isoc.org.  
See Host Opportunities below.

Ray Pelletier
IETF Administrative Director

2015
92  Dallas          22 - 27 March    Google
93  Prague         19 - 24 July        TBD
94  Yokohama    1 - 6 Nov           WIDE

2016
95  Buenos Aires  3 - 8 April         TBD
96  Berlin             17 - 22 July        Juniper
97  Asia               13 - 18 Nov       TBD

IAB Chair | 14 Nov 10:26 2014

IAB Statement on Internet Confidentiality

Please find this statement issued by the IAB today.

On behalf of the IAB,
  Russ Housley
  IAB Chair

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

IAB Statement on Internet Confidentiality

In 1996, the IAB and IESG recognized that the growth of the Internet
depended on users having confidence that the network would protect
their private information.  RFC 1984 documented this need.  Since that
time, we have seen evidence that the capabilities and activities of
attackers are greater and more pervasive than previously known.  The IAB
now believes it is important for protocol designers, developers, and
operators to make encryption the norm for Internet traffic.  Encryption
should be authenticated where possible, but even protocols providing
confidentiality without authentication are useful in the face of
pervasive surveillance as described in RFC 7258.

Newly designed protocols should prefer encryption to cleartext operation.
There may be exceptions to this default, but it is important to recognize
that protocols do not operate in isolation.  Information leaked by one
protocol can be made part of a more substantial body of information
by cross-correlation of traffic observation.  There are protocols which
may as a result require encryption on the Internet even when it would
not be a requirement for that protocol operating in isolation.

We recommend that encryption be deployed throughout the protocol stack
since there is not a single place within the stack where all kinds of
communication can be protected.

The IAB urges protocol designers to design for confidential operation by
default.  We strongly encourage developers to include encryption in their
implementations, and to make them encrypted by default.  We similarly
encourage network and service operators to deploy encryption where it is
not yet deployed, and we urge firewall policy administrators to permit
encrypted traffic.

We believe that each of these changes will help restore the trust users
must have in the Internet.  We acknowledge that this will take time and
trouble, though we believe recent successes in content delivery networks,
messaging, and Internet application deployments demonstrate the
feasibility of this migration.  We also acknowledge that many network
operations activities today, from traffic management and intrusion
detection to spam prevention and policy enforcement, assume access to
cleartext payload.  For many of these activities there are no solutions
yet, but the IAB will work with those affected to foster development of
new approaches for these activities which allow us to move to an Internet
where traffic is confidential by default.

Thomas Narten | 14 Nov 06:53 2014
Picon

Weekly posting summary for ietf <at> ietf.org

Total of 106 messages in the last 7 days.

script run at: Fri Nov 14 00:53:02 EST 2014

    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
  6.60% |    7 |  5.39% |    49163 | john-ietf <at> jck.com
  5.66% |    6 |  5.11% |    46643 | brian.e.carpenter <at> gmail.com
  4.72% |    5 |  4.86% |    44391 | rpelletier <at> isoc.org
  4.72% |    5 |  3.72% |    33991 | ted.lemon <at> nominum.com
  3.77% |    4 |  3.25% |    29703 | loa <at> pi.nu
  3.77% |    4 |  3.14% |    28646 | nico <at> cryptonector.com
  3.77% |    4 |  3.02% |    27607 | barryleiba <at> computer.org
  3.77% |    4 |  2.86% |    26115 | dhc <at> dcrocker.net
  2.83% |    3 |  2.83% |    25866 | adrian <at> olddog.co.uk
  1.89% |    2 |  3.65% |    33282 | serrhini <at> mail.ru
  2.83% |    3 |  2.68% |    24488 | jari.arkko <at> piuha.net
  2.83% |    3 |  2.52% |    23036 | fernando <at> gont.com.ar
  2.83% |    3 |  2.26% |    20607 | mcr+ietf <at> sandelman.ca
  2.83% |    3 |  2.16% |    19709 | hosnieh.rafiee <at> huawei.com
  1.89% |    2 |  2.98% |    27180 | abdussalambaryun <at> gmail.com
  0.94% |    1 |  3.86% |    35203 | james.seng <at> gmail.com
  1.89% |    2 |  2.50% |    22785 | spencerdawkins.ietf <at> gmail.com
  1.89% |    2 |  2.05% |    18714 | dromasca <at> avaya.com
  1.89% |    2 |  1.92% |    17506 | superuser <at> gmail.com
  0.94% |    1 |  2.79% |    25436 | chris.dearlove <at> baesystems.com
  1.89% |    2 |  1.50% |    13716 | alexey.melnikov <at> isode.com
  1.89% |    2 |  1.47% |    13456 | ajs <at> anvilwalrusden.com
  0.94% |    1 |  2.16% |    19763 | david.black <at> emc.com
  0.94% |    1 |  2.12% |    19327 | zaheduzzaman.sarker <at> ericsson.com
  0.94% |    1 |  1.69% |    15443 | kok.cheong.khoo <at> xip.net
  0.94% |    1 |  1.30% |    11838 | ggm <at> algebras.org
  0.94% |    1 |  1.24% |    11362 | christer.holmberg <at> ericsson.com
  0.94% |    1 |  1.18% |    10812 | watteyne <at> eecs.berkeley.edu
  0.94% |    1 |  1.05% |     9541 | dwm <at> xpasc.com
  0.94% |    1 |  1.03% |     9433 | joe <at> cdt.org
  0.94% |    1 |  0.96% |     8729 | lee <at> asgard.org
  0.94% |    1 |  0.93% |     8511 | fuyou.miao <at> huawei.com
  0.94% |    1 |  0.89% |     8115 | mary.h.barnes <at> gmail.com
  0.94% |    1 |  0.86% |     7896 | leeyoung <at> huawei.com
  0.94% |    1 |  0.86% |     7854 | rlb <at> ipv.sx
  0.94% |    1 |  0.85% |     7720 | mcr <at> sandelman.ca
  0.94% |    1 |  0.84% |     7699 | ietf <at> meetecho.com
  0.94% |    1 |  0.84% |     7686 | narten <at> us.ibm.com
  0.94% |    1 |  0.84% |     7625 | bob.hinden <at> gmail.com
  0.94% |    1 |  0.81% |     7415 | randy_presuhn <at> mindspring.com
  0.94% |    1 |  0.80% |     7319 | joelja <at> bogus.com
  0.94% |    1 |  0.80% |     7303 | amorris <at> amsl.com
  0.94% |    1 |  0.79% |     7182 | alh-ietf <at> tndh.net
  0.94% |    1 |  0.78% |     7150 | presnick <at> qti.qualcomm.com
  0.94% |    1 |  0.78% |     7096 | dcrocker <at> bbiw.net
  0.94% |    1 |  0.77% |     7062 | dcrocker <at> gmail.com
  0.94% |    1 |  0.76% |     6907 | lberger <at> labn.net
  0.94% |    1 |  0.75% |     6867 | phill <at> hallambaker.com
  0.94% |    1 |  0.74% |     6795 | martin.vigoureux <at> alcatel-lucent.com
  0.94% |    1 |  0.73% |     6678 | housley <at> vigilsec.com
  0.94% |    1 |  0.73% |     6640 | ynir.ietf <at> gmail.com
  0.94% |    1 |  0.71% |     6511 | swmike <at> swm.pp.se
  0.94% |    1 |  0.69% |     6263 | randy <at> psg.com
  0.94% |    1 |  0.69% |     6254 | ietf-secretariat <at> ietf.org
  0.94% |    1 |  0.67% |     6136 | ietf <at> rozanak.com
  0.94% |    1 |  0.66% |     6061 | arjuna.sathiaseelan <at> cl.cam.ac.uk
  0.94% |    1 |  0.60% |     5496 | marc.blanchet <at> viagenie.ca
  0.94% |    1 |  0.57% |     5195 | agenda <at> ietf.org
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |  106 |100.00% |   912927 | Total


Gmane