IAB Chair | 4 May 18:02 2016

IAB sent comments on ICANN draft bylaws

Dear colleagues,

The IAB sent a response to ICANN in response to their call for
comments on their proposed new bylaws.  The IAB announcement is at
https://www.iab.org/2016/05/04/iab-comments-on-draft-new-icann-bylaws/
and you can see the posting in the ICANN forum at
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00001.html.

Best regards,

Andrew
(for the IAB)

--

-- 
IAB Chair (Andrew Sullivan)
iab-chair <at> iab.org

Eggert, Lars | 4 May 08:56 2016
Picon
Gravatar

CFP: ACM, IRTF & ISOC Applied Networking Research Workshop 2016

Submission deadline is in less than two weeks!

 ACM, IRTF & ISOC Applied Networking Research Workshop 2016

                     Berlin, Germany
                 Saturday, July 16, 2016
               https://irtf.org/anrw/2016/

*** CALL FOR PAPERS ***

The inaugural ACM, IRTF & ISOC Applied Networking Research Workshop
2016 (ANRW’16) is an academic workshop that provides a forum for
researchers, vendors, network operators, and the Internet standards
community to present and discuss emerging results in applied
networking research. It is sponsored by ACM SIGCOMM, the Internet
Research Task Force (IRTF) and the Internet Society (ISOC).

Researchers should consider submitting early/emerging results that
illustrate the scientific and engineering principles underlying the
Internet architecture, protocols and applications; that demonstrate
new capabilities, features, or extensions to the Internet protocol
layers; that enhance our understanding of how Internet protocols work
in real-world deployments or realistic test-beds; or that improve
Internet security and privacy, scalability, performance, and
robustness.

The ANRW’16 particularly encourages the submission of results that
could form the basis for future engineering work in the IETF, that
could change operational Internet practices, that can help better
specify Internet protocols, or that could influence further research
(Continue reading)

Ted Hardie | 3 May 19:28 2016
Picon

Appointment to the Internet Society Board of Trustees

As set out in RFC 3677, the IAB is responsible for selecting a certain number of the Trustees who serve on the Board of the Internet Society. 

In fulfilment of that responsibility, we are happy to announce that Richard Barnes has been selected for a three year term, to begin at ISOC's annual general meeting in June.

The IAB had a very strong set of candidates this year, and we would like to express our appreciation to each of them for their willingness to serve.  We look forward to their continued engagement with the Internet Society and the IETF.

Ted Hardie & Suzanne Woolf
Selection committee chairs
For the IAB
Picon

Community Input Requested on Update to Trust Records Retention Policy

The Trustees of the IETF Trust are considering updating the IETF
Trust Records Retention and Management Policy that was adopted in
2007 and would like community input before making changes. 

The objectives of the Policy are:
  a.  Ensure compliance with legal and regulatory obligations;
  b.  Reduce storage costs and increasing efficiency;
  c.  Retrieve current information or important archives more easily and 
       reliably;
  d.  Minimize litigation costs; and
  e.   Provide a more accurate and reliable record of the IETF Trust’s 
        actions and decisions.

The Policy addresses the following matters:	

  a.  Storage and access of physical records
  b.  Storage and access of electronic records
  c.  Access to historic electronic records
  d.  Records Destruction
  e.  Document Retention, if required, during Litigation and Other Proceedings

The Trustees would like to receive community input by 9 May for its
consideration.

The Draft policy dated 23 March 2016 is located here:
http://trustee.ietf.org/policies-and-procedures.html  

There is also a Diff file reflecting the proposed changes in 2016.

Comments should be sent to trustees <at> ietf.org.

Thanks

Ray
Trustee
IETF Administrative Director

Casey Farrell | 23 Apr 20:50 2016
Picon

A kwik brcwn fcks jamps ovur ya leizi dcg ( Developer seeks FUNDING )



Casey Farrell
lrg_pizza_xtra_chz_plz <at> aol.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Casey Farrell <caseyfarrell26 <at> gmail.com>
To: Keisi Feral <lrg_pizza_xtra_chz_plz <at> aol.com>
Sent: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 11:44 am
Subject: Fwd: A kwik brcwn fcks jamps ovur ya leizi dcg ( Developer seeks FUNDING )


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Casey Farrell <caseyfarrell26 <at> gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 11:42 AM
Subject: Fwd: A kwik brcwn fcks jamps ovur ya leizi dcg ( Developer seeks FUNDING )
To: OP-ED Dept <oped <at> nytimes.com>



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Casey Farrell <caseyfarrell26 <at> gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 11:42 AM
Subject: A kwik brcwn fcks jamps ovur ya leizi dcg ( Developer seeks FUNDING )
To: info <at> waldenvc.com


   revised to KELUFORNIA ("Keh-'LOVE'-fornyuh") PHONETIC TRANSCRIPTION of ENGLISH

A veritable 'Morse Code' for ENGLISH LANGUAGE texting- WORLD's FASTEST WRITING SYSTEM

KELUFORNIA Copyright 2016 Casey Farrell
 
                ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

The Author seeks venture capital funding in San Francisco, of $4.5M for development locally.

Thank you-

 Casey Farrell

tel: 415/690-9883


nalini.elkins | 23 Apr 17:57 2016

Re: draft-arkko-ietf-trends-and-observations-00


All,

Great to have this document put out for community discussion.   After reading the document, I feel that there
are a few additional things that we may want to discuss:

1.  In the Introduction, there is no discussion of globalization and the economic / political context.  I
will give my thoughts below.

2.  The issues of "Culture" and "Renewal and Diversity" are discussed in Section 4.  I feel that these are some
of the most important issues facing us today.  (My thoughts below)

3.  Section 3 discusses "Funding".  Again, IMHO, a core issue.  My thoughts below.

My thoughts:

1.  The changing financial balance in the world and how it impacts the IETF

2.  The impact of diversity and what it means to the IETF

3.  The increased importance and reliance of the world on the Internet

4.  The need to get and spend money wisely in a way that reflects the importance of the IETF to the continuing
success of the Internet

Let me discuss each.

Changing Financial Balance
--------------------------
With money, comes power.  The unquestioned dominance of the West is declining.  It seems clear that other
parts of the world: China, India, Latin (and South) America, and certain parts of Africa are developing
rapidly and gaining technical sophistication.  The context we find ourselves in is that of fundamental
transitions taking place in the world.  The IETF is not immune from the changes that it itself has helped to
create: that is, the Internet and how it has exponentially increased the rate of change.

You may wish to read an interesting article from the World Bank which discusses what may be happening in 2025:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTDECPROSPECTS/EXTGDH/0,,contentMDK:22915409~menuPK:7935744~pagePK:64167689~piPK:64167673~theSitePK:7933464,00.html

If you look at the IETF Chair report for IETF95: 
https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/IETF%20Chair's%20Report.pdf 

on page 3, you will see the attendee split for IETF95.  

This split does not match the population of the world.   If you assume that intelligence and technical talent
is evenly distributed across cultures and ethnic groups, it is likely that over time, the makeup of IETF
will also shift to more closely match that of the makeup of the world. Today, China and India both have about
1.3 billion people, the United States has about 320 million.  Today, the IETF is dominated by the United
States and Western Europe.

Certainly, the problems which come with high population, entrenched poverty, political corruption,
educational systems which need improvement, and so forth cannot be ignored.   Yet, the gains in economic
power made by China, India, Latin (and South) America and so forth, also cannot be ignored.

So, what do we do?  If this indeed is the case, and we are looking, over time, at a very changed IETF attendee
composition, how do we handle it gracefully?    What are the problems that may arise?

The Impact of Diversity
------------------------
Diversity and culture need much more discussion.  These are among the most important issues facing us if we
want to navigate this transition gracefully.  I live in the United States in the State of California.  There
is no racial group that has over 50% in California. 

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-raceethnicity/

In California, we are all minorities.  This is likely to be where the IETF is going.

So, what does this mean?

The IETF has a culture, which IMHO, works quite well to support innovation.  Having said that, the IETF
culture is redolent of the culture of Berkeley in the 1970s (with some of the political correctness of
Northern California in 2016 thrown in for good measure!).   Some of us (esp. those of us who live in Northern
California) find that familiar and feel quite comfortable in that culture.  Others, not so much.

We have much experience with issues of diversity in California.  Battles over what language(s) will be
spoken in schools, dress codes and other issues are constantly on the ballots in local elections.  As is the
inevitable backlash over the sharing of power that is entailed.  Hence, the Trump reality show disguised
as a primary contest.

Obviously, this issue is not unique to California or the United States.   Consider Germany with their
generosity and kindness in taking many, many refugees.   They are now dealing with the impacts of their generosity.

To truly deal with diversity, requires sensitivity and awareness as well as having the right people be a
part of that conversation.  Moving forth, sensitivity about culture, language, food preferences, what
is "affordable", venue, etc, will become more and more important.   I would submit that this actually
requires a draft co-authored by a number of people on how best to navigate these waters.

Increased Importance of the Internet
------------------------------------
In a very few years, the Internet has become extraordinarily important to the world.  There is no reason to
think that this will become less so.  If we did not have standards by which network equipment could
interoperate, there would be no Internet.  Our role in creating these standards is critical to the
successful operation of the Internet.

We need to have the best people available (whatever "available" means) to create the best standards
possible.   This implies the best engineering talent, management, training programs, events, and so on.

The need for money
------------------
To support the best engineering talent needs money.   Serious money. Much more money than is budgeted today.

Having said that, most people have absolutely no idea what the IETF does and why they might want to pay more
money to support it.  This needs to change.

This issue, along with diversity, IMHO, are THE issues that we need to be talking about.

Next Steps
----------
One thing that we do at my company retreat which helps us to think about where we might be going in the future
and thus decide on which product lines and initiatives to support today (and what new ones to plan for) is to
play a game called "Headlines".   The idea is that you put yourself 5 years into the future and write
newspaper (or blog) headlines which affect your company.

Let's play this for the IETF.   Here are some of my headlines.

Headlines for IETF110 (July 2020)
---------------------------------------------

New Movie Announced: Godzilla vs. Mothra
Yet another Network Gizmo vendor, this time from country nnn, sends 200 attendees to IETF.   IETF now up to
3,000 attendees.

Two-Week IETF Announced for IETF110
With 300 concurrent WGs, a one week meeting, long found to be inadequate, has finally been increased to two
weeks. 

Virtual Reality Meetups
Internet Draft review teams meet via holograms.  

Recap of IETF109: City vvv in Developing World Country nnn
109Attendees list flooded with comments about the shocking in-your-face poverty of City vvv.  Bird-poo
scam of IETF95 recalled fondly by grey beards.  

IETF under Microscope
The major Internet outage caused by the cyberterrorist attack which took down the Internet in 5 countries
for 3 days in December of 2019 highlighted the dependence that we have come to have on the Internet. The "I"
agencies (ICANN, IETF, ISOC) are being examined for effectiveness by the US Congress and the European Duo
(France and Germany).  You will recall that the European Union collapsed in early 2019.   The U.S. "60
Minutes" expose news show plans a series on "Who is the IETF and what does it do?"

Death Announcement: Sunset4 finally concluded
As IPv6 reaches 20% penetration globally, it is felt that the Sunset4 WG is no longer needed

I wonder if it might be a good exercise to have more "headlines" from the community.  Many a truth is spoken in
jest.  It may help us to think out where we are going in a spirit of camaraderie and good will.

Howard Hong | 22 Apr 11:44 2016
Picon

Spam catcher

Hello,

Would it help to stop spam by recording the IP address of the originating server when open SMTP relays collect mail? Record the IP address in the body of the e-mail, and record an IP address at each hop. Establish a chain of custody so I can track an e-mail back to the source IP address.

Thanks,
Howard Hong

html>

S Moonesamy | 22 Apr 11:44 2016

Re: Interim step on meetings site feedback for sites currently under active consideration (off-topic)

Hi Corinne, Ted,
At 01:48 19-04-2016, Corinne Cath wrote:
>Just a quick question: are you intending on providing feedback to 
>the IAOC? If so, maybe it makes sense to coordinate a bit in order 
>to prevent a duplication of entries? Or will it be useful if 
>multiple people point out the same themes?

The IAOC Chair requested comments about a future IETF meeting in 
Paris (France),
Montreal (Canada) or Copenhagen (Denmark) as the IAOC is considering 
whether the IETF can have a meeting in any of those countries.  It 
probably doesn't make much of a difference whether there is 
duplication of entries except to the person(s) who will be reading 
the messages to venue-selection <at> ietf.org to extract the points of concern.

At 05:02 19-04-2016, Ted Lemon wrote:
>The IETF has a very strong tradition of commenting at length on the 
>topic at hand and hoping either that IETF leadership will spend the 
>time to review the whole thread and extract the salient points from 
>it, or give up in despair.   So what you are seeing here is very 
>much the IETF tradition.   Asking people to do better probably won't 
>work, although it never hurts to try.

I read the 36 messages in this thread.  Although some of the content 
is interesting, it does not look like the messages are directly 
related to the subject line.  Even though two Area Directors read 
some of the messages, the discussion is on an unmanaged thread.  It 
is more of an effort instead of a problem to extract the arguments 
made on this thread.  The problem is what to suggest given that they 
may be related to multiple IETF policies.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy  

narten | 22 Apr 06:53 2016
Picon

Weekly posting summary for ietf <at> ietf.org

Total of 101 messages in the last 7 days.

script run at: Fri Apr 22 00:53:01 EDT 2016

    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
  4.95% |    5 |  6.81% |    67361 | nalini.elkins <at> insidethestack.com
  4.95% |    5 |  6.07% |    60101 | mellon <at> fugue.com
  4.95% |    5 |  4.44% |    43920 | sob <at> sobco.com
  4.95% |    5 |  4.20% |    41516 | phill <at> hallambaker.com
  4.95% |    5 |  3.07% |    30385 | ietf <at> meetecho.com
  1.98% |    2 |  5.50% |    54388 | dimitri.staessens <at> intec.ugent.be
  3.96% |    4 |  3.19% |    31595 | melinda.shore <at> gmail.com
  2.97% |    3 |  3.44% |    34010 | jari.arkko <at> piuha.net
  2.97% |    3 |  2.58% |    25564 | housley <at> vigilsec.com
  2.97% |    3 |  2.38% |    23599 | jordi.palet <at> consulintel.es
  1.98% |    2 |  3.04% |    30122 | vinays <at> cisco.com
  2.97% |    3 |  2.02% |    19947 | johnl <at> taugh.com
  1.98% |    2 |  2.60% |    25719 | abdussalambaryun <at> gmail.com
  1.98% |    2 |  2.30% |    22734 | christian.oflaherty <at> gmail.com
  1.98% |    2 |  2.22% |    21931 | adam <at> nostrum.com
  1.98% |    2 |  2.07% |    20495 | peter <at> akayla.com
  1.98% |    2 |  1.62% |    16071 | joe <at> cdt.org
  1.98% |    2 |  1.54% |    15246 | stewart.bryant <at> gmail.com
  1.98% |    2 |  1.51% |    14909 | dharkins <at> lounge.org
  1.98% |    2 |  1.29% |    12725 | john <at> jlc.net
  1.98% |    2 |  1.25% |    12331 | swmike <at> swm.pp.se
  0.99% |    1 |  2.12% |    20958 | bensons <at> queuefull.net
  0.99% |    1 |  1.75% |    17341 | spromano <at> unina.it
  0.99% |    1 |  1.64% |    16263 | dhruv.ietf <at> gmail.com
  0.99% |    1 |  1.44% |    14210 | stephen.farrell <at> cs.tcd.ie
  0.99% |    1 |  1.35% |    13312 | david.black <at> emc.com
  0.99% |    1 |  1.34% |    13268 | corinnecath <at> gmail.com
  0.99% |    1 |  1.32% |    13112 | magnus.westerlund <at> ericsson.com
  0.99% |    1 |  1.27% |    12532 | spencerdawkins.ietf <at> gmail.com
  0.99% |    1 |  1.22% |    12100 | mary.h.barnes <at> gmail.com
  0.99% |    1 |  1.18% |    11711 | narten <at> us.ibm.com
  0.99% |    1 |  1.17% |    11627 | gorry <at> erg.abdn.ac.uk
  0.99% |    1 |  1.00% |     9913 | fluffy <at> iii.ca
  0.99% |    1 |  0.98% |     9682 | aallen <at> blackberry.com
  0.99% |    1 |  0.97% |     9604 | stewe <at> stewe.org
  0.99% |    1 |  0.93% |     9177 | ldaigle <at> thinkingcat.com
  0.99% |    1 |  0.87% |     8604 | fred.clark <at> sit.gob.gt
  0.99% |    1 |  0.87% |     8589 | tnadeau <at> lucidvision.com
  0.99% |    1 |  0.84% |     8323 | rwfranks <at> gmail.com
  0.99% |    1 |  0.84% |     8285 | vinayakh <at> gmail.com
  0.99% |    1 |  0.83% |     8176 | rwfranks <at> acm.org
  0.99% |    1 |  0.81% |     8019 | dwm <at> xpasc.com
  0.99% |    1 |  0.80% |     7963 | harald <at> alvestrand.no
  0.99% |    1 |  0.80% |     7883 | adrian <at> olddog.co.uk
  0.99% |    1 |  0.79% |     7783 | ynir.ietf <at> gmail.com
  0.99% |    1 |  0.78% |     7726 | dave <at> taht.net
  0.99% |    1 |  0.78% |     7707 | tony <at> att.com
  0.99% |    1 |  0.77% |     7637 | sm+ietf <at> elandsys.com
  0.99% |    1 |  0.75% |     7387 | lee <at> asgard.org
  0.99% |    1 |  0.74% |     7313 | carlos <at> lacnic.net
  0.99% |    1 |  0.71% |     7062 | jared <at> puck.nether.net
  0.99% |    1 |  0.70% |     6929 | mcr+ietf <at> sandelman.ca
  0.99% |    1 |  0.68% |     6740 | paul <at> nohats.ca
  0.99% |    1 |  0.68% |     6734 | paul.hoffman <at> vpnc.org
  0.99% |    1 |  0.68% |     6680 | iad <at> ietf.org
  0.99% |    1 |  0.64% |     6370 | iaoc-chair <at> ietf.org
  0.99% |    1 |  0.64% |     6294 | finlayson <at> live555.com
  0.99% |    1 |  0.63% |     6276 | ietf <at> johnlevine.com
  0.99% |    1 |  0.57% |     5669 | llynch <at> civil-tongue.net
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |  101 |100.00% |   989628 | Total

Melinda Shore | 21 Apr 04:10 2016
Picon

Re: Interim step on meetings site feedback for sites currently under active consideration

On 4/20/16 5:07 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 4/20/16 08:26, thomas nadeau wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 2016, at 6:48 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald <at> alvestrand.no>
>>> wrote:
>>> If we don't see such a cohort, we need to dig deeper.
>> Or perhaps wonder why we should concern ourselves with this at all?
> Because it's their Internet, too.

I'm not sure that's actually responsive.  The internet "belongs
to" uncountable numbers of people who will never, ever participate
in making protocol standards.

If people are not participating in mailing lists, reviewing
documents, and so on, it's not at all clear to me why meeting
in their corner of the world is going to change anything.
Historically it does not seem to have been very effective.
I do think that what Nalini is doing (putting together
document review teams/study groups for new participants)
seems likely to be more effective than changing meeting
venues, and I'm very curious to see how that works out.

Personally, I'm completely unfunded and geographically
remote but still chair a working group, belong to directorates,
author drafts, and so on.  For me, the expectation that we
will attend meetings in person every single time is a
much bigger barrier to participation than having the meetings
someplace inconvenient (i.e. having to travel at all is far
more onerous than having to spend two days in transit if I do
travel), and I'd really like to see us let go of expectations
that IETF participation means going to meetings (particularly
since it's not how we're *supposed* to work, according to
our own process documents).

I expect that this discussion, coupled with the repeat-ad-
infinitum discussion of what's required of IETF leadership
positions makes it how clear just how deeply into the pockets
of the big network gizmo manufacturers the IETF really is.

Melinda

Russ Housley | 18 Apr 21:35 2016

Gen-ART review ofdraft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-03

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-03
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2016-04-18
IETF LC End Date: 2016-04-21
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary:  Almost Ready

Major Concerns:  None

Minor Concerns:

In several places, the document says: "These confidentiality protections
do not apply to data that is sent using data channels."  It took me a
moment to figure out what was being said.  I think it would really help
the reader to say at the beginning something like: "The confidentiality
protections ensure that media is protected from other applications, but
the confidentiality protections do not extend to traffic on the data
channels."

Section 3 includes this paragraph:

   Generally speaking, ensuring confidentiality depends on
   authenticating the communications peer.  This mechanism explicitly
   does not define a specific authentication method; a WebRTC endpoint
   that accepts a session with this ALPN identifier MUST respect
   confidentiality no matter what identity is attributed to a peer.

I understand why authentication and confidentiality are often used
together.  However, it is very unclear to me why there ought to be a
linkage between c-webrtc and authentication since this service really
is only a promise to not share media with other applications.

A similar discussion in the security considerations talks about
assurance that the "media was delivered to the user that was
authenticated."  Again, if there is no authentication, I do not see
how the assurance associated with this mechanism changes.

Nits:

After reading the whole document, I went back and read the Abstract
again.  I do not think it captures the real intent of the document.
I have tried to provide an alternative, but it probably needs further
work:

   This document specifies two Application Layer Protocol Negotiation
   (ALPN) labels for use with Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
   and Web Real-Time Communications (WebRTC).  With the first label, a
   DTLS session is used to establish keys for Secure Real-time Transport
   Protocol (SRTP), known as DTLS-SRTP.  The second label also uses
   DTLS-SRTP, but the peers also agree to maintain the confidentiality
   of the media by not sharing it with other applications.


Gmane