Picon

Juniper to Host IETF 96 in Berlin!

The IAOC is pleased to announce that Juniper Networks will be the Host for IETF 96 in Berlin.  
The meeting will be at the InterContinental Berlin July 17 - 22, 2016.  

Berlin will be the first of three meetings Juniper will host under its IETF Multi-Year Hosting 
Support Agreement.  Juniper hosted the IETF last at IETF 74 in San Francisco.  

Thanks Juniper.  We cannot support the RFC Editor, Secretariat and the IETF meetings without 
the commitment and contribution of our many Hosts and Sponsors.  

Many sponsorship opportunities are still available:  
<http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-Sponsorship-Opportunities-20132002.pdf>.  
If interested contact Andrew Dvorshak, dvorshak <at> isoc.org.

Only 103 days until IETF 91 in Honolulu!  See you there!

Ray
IAD

2014

IETF 91  Honolulu  Hilton Hawaiian Village  Nov 9 - 14  Host: Cisco

2015

IETF 92  Dallas          March 22 - 27      Host:  GOOGLE
IETF 93  Prague	         July 19 - 24       Host:  TBD
IETF 94  Yokohama         Nov 1 - 6         Host:  WIDE

2016

(Continue reading)

Phillip Hallam-Baker | 28 Jul 05:39 2014

IETF 91 T-shirt / Badge suggestion

Having been to Hawaii before I strongly suggest anyone venturing out
in public wear a badge or T-Shirt with words stating that they do not
wish to buy a Condominium, Time Share or other property.

Miles Fidelman | 26 Jul 17:45 2014
Picon

Re: Clueless

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> The other is the case where someone is clueless about IETF process or
> protocols but has a problem they need to solve. And most often they
> will present their problem in the form of a proposal for a solution.
>
> Reject the proposed solution as clueless without thinking about it and
> you also reject any attempt to solve the problem.
>
>
> A slight variant of that is when there is a tension between two
> different objectives and someone is defending one pole and rejecting
> any attempt to address the other.

Recent discussions of DMARC p=reject have flavors of these.

Miles Fidelman

--

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra

Aaron Yi DING | 24 Jul 22:43 2014
Picon
Picon

SIGCOMM and IETF work RE: v6 adoption

On 23/07/14 22:27, Mark Allman wrote:
A shameless flog as it seems like it could be of interest to some folks...

Surely relevant!  It benefits both sides to follow up the latest progress, either via conferences or IETF pipeline.

As part of the work for IETF diversity group, our joint paper between Cambridge and Helsinki got the best paper award from ACM - "Best of CCR", and to be presented in ACM SIGCOMM, August 2014:
http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2014/program.php

It could be relevant to IETFers, perhaps (including PDF, feedback from ACM Computing Review and chief editor):
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/yding/acm2014.html

Cheers,
Aaron

We have been assessing v6 adoption from a bunch of angles lately. We have written up a paper on the results of our analysis that will be presented next month at SIGCOMM. It is: Jakub Czyz, Mark Allman, Jing Zhang, Scott Iekel-Johnson, Eric Osterweil, Michael Bailey. <i>Measuring IPv6 Adoption</i>, ACM SIGCOMM, August 2014. To appear. http://www.icir.org/mallman/pubs/CAZ+14/ Comments certainly welcome. allman
Roni Even | 25 Jul 17:01 2014
Picon

Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-dname-04

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-ietf-dnsop-as112-dname-04

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2014–7-25

IETF LC End Date: 2014–7-29

IESG Telechat date:

 

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

 

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

 

 

Nits/editorial comments:

 

marcie | 25 Jul 07:03 2014

If I may inquire, what exactly does the IETF Organization stand for? Acronym aside. What is the goal? Who are you people?


Thomas Narten | 25 Jul 06:53 2014
Picon

Weekly posting summary for ietf <at> ietf.org

Total of 173 messages in the last 7 days.

script run at: Fri Jul 25 00:53:02 EDT 2014

    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
  0.58% |    1 | 13.38% |   228387 | aparambie <at> gmail.com
  5.78% |   10 |  5.23% |    89265 | hsantos <at> isdg.net
  5.78% |   10 |  4.00% |    68290 | johnl <at> taugh.com
  5.20% |    9 |  3.45% |    58902 | ted.lemon <at> nominum.com
  4.62% |    8 |  3.45% |    58953 | ned+ietf <at> mauve.mrochek.com
  4.05% |    7 |  3.20% |    54586 | brian.e.carpenter <at> gmail.com
  4.05% |    7 |  2.84% |    48491 | dot <at> dotat.at
  4.05% |    7 |  2.64% |    45068 | dhc <at> dcrocker.net
  3.47% |    6 |  2.72% |    46415 | presnick <at> qti.qualcomm.com
  3.47% |    6 |  2.06% |    35180 | ietf-dane <at> dukhovni.org
  2.89% |    5 |  2.22% |    37911 | mstjohns <at> comcast.net
  1.73% |    3 |  3.27% |    55824 | l.wood <at> surrey.ac.uk
  2.31% |    4 |  2.65% |    45242 | spencerdawkins.ietf <at> gmail.com
  2.89% |    5 |  2.06% |    35111 | jari.arkko <at> piuha.net
  2.31% |    4 |  1.85% |    31606 | phill <at> hallambaker.com
  2.31% |    4 |  1.82% |    31020 | sm+ietf <at> elandsys.com
  1.73% |    3 |  2.20% |    37501 | abdussalambaryun <at> gmail.com
  1.73% |    3 |  2.15% |    36668 | doug.mtview <at> gmail.com
  1.73% |    3 |  1.99% |    33982 | eckert <at> cisco.com
  2.31% |    4 |  1.39% |    23748 | chair <at> ietf.org
  1.73% |    3 |  1.94% |    33103 | vint <at> google.com
  1.73% |    3 |  1.58% |    26960 | mrex <at> sap.com
  0.58% |    1 |  2.70% |    46127 | tc <at> attochron.com
  1.73% |    3 |  1.45% |    24678 | john-ietf <at> jck.com
  1.16% |    2 |  1.93% |    32940 | paitken <at> cisco.com
  1.73% |    3 |  1.30% |    22168 | nico <at> cryptonector.com
  1.73% |    3 |  1.21% |    20724 | jack <at> metajack.im
  1.73% |    3 |  1.20% |    20462 | mfidelman <at> meetinghouse.net
  1.16% |    2 |  1.11% |    19015 | mhammer <at> ag.com
  1.16% |    2 |  0.85% |    14514 | mcr+ietf <at> sandelman.ca
  1.16% |    2 |  0.76% |    12997 | avri <at> acm.org
  1.16% |    2 |  0.74% |    12550 | ajs <at> anvilwalrusden.com
  0.58% |    1 |  1.13% |    19205 | eric.dot.travis <at> gmail.com
  0.58% |    1 |  1.10% |    18795 | skraza <at> cisco.com
  0.58% |    1 |  1.00% |    17031 | hassanzaheer <at> gmail.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.91% |    15498 | eburger <at> standardstrack.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.79% |    13408 | stbryant <at> cisco.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.68% |    11585 | benamar73 <at> gmail.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.68% |    11565 | sob <at> sobco.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.59% |    10056 | chelliot <at> pobox.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.58% |     9876 | narten <at> us.ibm.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.57% |     9771 | victor <at> jvknet.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.56% |     9493 | jhw <at> nestlabs.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.53% |     9054 | superuser <at> gmail.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.53% |     8971 | ynir.ietf <at> gmail.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.52% |     8925 | ted.ietf <at> gmail.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.51% |     8710 | iab-chair <at> iab.org
  0.58% |    1 |  0.49% |     8425 | emcho <at> jitsi.org
  0.58% |    1 |  0.48% |     8123 | dave <at> cridland.net
  0.58% |    1 |  0.47% |     8065 | tnadeau <at> lucidvision.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.45% |     7632 | akatlas <at> gmail.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.44% |     7575 | barryleiba <at> computer.org
  0.58% |    1 |  0.43% |     7375 | marka <at> isc.org
  0.58% |    1 |  0.42% |     7139 | lear <at> cisco.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.40% |     6888 | stuartb <at> 4gh.net
  0.58% |    1 |  0.40% |     6781 | scott.brim <at> gmail.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.39% |     6719 | lars <at> netapp.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.39% |     6702 | bmanning <at> isi.edu
  0.58% |    1 |  0.39% |     6585 | coverdale <at> sympatico.ca
  0.58% |    1 |  0.38% |     6570 | stephen.farrell <at> cs.tcd.ie
  0.58% |    1 |  0.38% |     6419 | scott <at> kitterman.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.37% |     6302 | jwn2 <at> qti.qualcomm.com
  0.58% |    1 |  0.37% |     6257 | mallman <at> icir.org
  0.58% |    1 |  0.36% |     6195 | ietf <at> trammell.ch
  0.58% |    1 |  0.34% |     5761 | tterribe <at> xiph.org
  0.58% |    1 |  0.33% |     5660 | casner <at> acm.org
  0.58% |    1 |  0.32% |     5519 | randy <at> psg.com
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |  173 |100.00% |  1707023 | Total

S Moonesamy | 24 Jul 20:02 2014

Clueless (was: Moderation on ietf <at> ietf.org)

Hi Phillip,
At 07:40 24-07-2014, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>Following up on some of the Plenary discussion:
>
>1) 'Newbies' and 'Clueless people'
>
>There are some folk who come to the list with proposals that are
>clearly deranged. The guy proposing that TCP/IP should switch from
>using square packets to round ones for instance.
>
>That said, if there is one thing that is likely to set me off it is
>when I see someone make a perfectly sensible proposal on the list and
>gets back a response of the form 'This is insane and if you understood
>anything about the subject area you would know why'.

What is considered as perfectly sensible is subjective.  I would not 
label someone as clueless as I consider it as a rude ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00251.html ).

>When I see people trying to pull rank to squish ideas, I think it is
>incumbent on the rest of us to respond.

That's not a good career move.

>2) 'Already agreed'
>
>I have great difficulty in determining what is 'already agreed' in an
>organization that has no democratic decision making process. The IESG
>can make decisions for the IESG but those are not necessarily
>decisions of the IETF. We don't have an architecture board any more
>since the legendary Kobe event.

I don't think that the architecture board pays much attention to 
architecture in IETF drafts.  Some years ago, it could be blamed on 
Kobe.  Nowadays, there isn't any incentive to do that 
work.  Architecture is left to industry consortiums.

>But another problem with 'already agreed' is that most often the
>people prating some dogma don't realize that (1) they are repeating a
>slogan summarizing what was a subtle, highly nuanced argument and (2)
>the Internet of 2 billion users is very different to the Internet of
>the 1970s when some of these slogans were coined.

Yes.

It is bad form to question an Area Director when he or she says 
"already agreed".

>3) Never the right time
>
>One of the process abuses that annoys me the most is when people find
>that there is never a right time to raise their objection. During
>charter formation they will be told that the focus must be highly
>restricted to get anywhere. During the Working Group they are told it
>is not in the charter. Then decisions get made that pre-empt their
>proposal completely and they are told that it is too late THEY SHOULD
>HAVE RAISED THEM EARLIER.

In my opinion the IESG would like to get feedback when they sent out 
a charter for review.  I don't know the level of feedback it 
receives.  If I had Recall privileges I would consider using it when 
there are process abuses.

The following question may be relevant:

   'Is the proposed work plan an open IETF effort or is it an attempt
    to "bless" non-IETF technology where the effect of input from IETF
    participants may be limited?'

And:

   The interest must be broad enough that a working group would not be seen
   as merely the activity of an industry consortium.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy 

Mark Allman | 23 Jul 21:27 2014

v6 adoption


A shameless flog as it seems like it could be of interest to some
folks...

We have been assessing v6 adoption from a bunch of angles lately.  We
have written up a paper on the results of our analysis that will be
presented next month at SIGCOMM.  It is:

    Jakub Czyz, Mark Allman, Jing Zhang, Scott Iekel-Johnson,
    Eric Osterweil, Michael Bailey.  <i>Measuring IPv6 Adoption</i>,
    ACM SIGCOMM, August 2014.  To appear.
    http://www.icir.org/mallman/pubs/CAZ+14/

Comments certainly welcome.

allman

Dave Crocker | 22 Jul 23:01 2014
Picon

Suggestion - unified plenary audience queue

G'day.

In order to give remote participants fair access to speak during group
discussions, the current process has the jabber scribe move to the queue
at various times, which gets in the way of their scribing.  In
interesting plenary discussions, the chair also tries to service the
multiple microphone queues, which can get confusing or unfair (and
usually both.)

In the scheme of IETF operatinal issues, this hassle rates low, but as
an aspect of the goal to integrate local and remote participants, it
could be a useful touchstone.

I propose an experiment for IETF plenaries:

     A single speaker queue, online through editpad and open to anyone
with an IETF login.[*]

The chair reads from the top of the list, downward, calling out the name
of whomever is next.

If you want to speak, add your name to the end; if your access requires
special handling, such as through jabber, note that.  (And type your
comment so it's fully-formed by the time you get to the top of the queue.)

It doesn't matter where you are.   When your name is called, start
speaking.  (If your access is jabber, then yes, it needs a designated
speaker to jump up to the mic.)

This mechanism works for anyone with online access, through any device.
 For those who do not have access during the plenary, we do need to
provide for some in-room folk to facilitate (although the person sitting
next to you probably will suffice.)

All of this could be packaged with spiffy integrated tools, but what
I've described is workable for the IETF community and would give us some
experience with the essential, specialized group remote participation
task of coordinating discussion.

This does not require extensive new infrastructure, with everyone
carrying something special, like RFID.  So it's not very sexy.  But it's
simple and useful.

And it automatically gives scribes the correct spelling of the speaker's
name.

d/

[*] Since the queue is publicly visible, abuse behaviors can be detected
immediately by anyone/everyone.  It could even be displayed to the room...

--

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

Pete Resnick | 22 Jul 21:51 2014

Re: Moderation on ietf <at> ietf.org

On 7/22/14 3:31 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> I think this is pretty close to what I meant.  Chide, correct or amend 
> would not be incorrect either.
>
> If the "moderator" steps in too early, too often, the back lash will 
> put paid to the experiment. So I expect that there will be an element 
> of correction from the formal "facilitators" or silence.

We have, over the years, have had chairs who only step in to working 
group discussions when it's time to chide or correct people. We've had 
other chairs who are very proactive, who guide this discussion by saying 
things like, "It sounds to me like the conclusion of this discussion is 
X. Anyone disagree with that, or are we done?" Which model gets used 
depends on the particular chair and their skill level, the participants 
and their interaction mode, and sometimes even the tone of a particular 
discussion. Sometimes "guidance" will work well, and sometimes 
"remonstration" is the only thing one can do.

I think on the IETF list, this will depend on the abilities of the 
moderator/facilitator/whateverator, and depend on the discussion being 
moderated/facilitated/whateverated.

pr

--

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478


Gmane