Theodore Tso | 1 May 2009 05:42
Picon
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Beyond reproach, accountability and regulation

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 03:26:02PM -0700, David W. Hankins wrote:
> I was very dissatisfied with the IETF's performance towards its agenda
> until this occurred to me.  It would have helped me immensely if it
> were formally identified in this way (but then that would require the
> IETF carry a 'Philosophy Area'), and to some extent I imagine that
> this is also the problem some of the IETF's more vocal detractors are
> wrestling with; the belief that the IETF does or should follow a
> Socratic, Aristotelian, or even Democratic methodology, and the
> resulting confusion and hurt feelings to discover that blatantly
> Sophist rhetoric has succeeded where their deductions or even
> elections have failed.

That's a rather interesting, and dare I say it, insightful way of
looking at it.  Maybe (and I'm only half saying this in jest) "Zen and
the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" should mentioned as recommended
reading to the "Tao of the IETF" --- and that what we are after, is
"Quality" in our standards.  

Quoting from a description of that book:

   Much of the book focuses on a rather surprising topic: quality. We
   think of quality as a measure of a product or a person, and we feel
   the right to make judgments about it because it is clear when
   something is of quality or is not. The narrator recounts taking his
   motorcycle to a workshop and reluctantly handing it over to a crew
   of young men playing loud music. Instead of fixing the machine,
   they butcher it, and he learns a lesson: it is the attitude towards
   a technological problem, not simply rational knowledge of how a
   thing works, that makes all the difference. Merely going by the
   manual is a clumsy, low-quality approach. Thereafter, he did the
(Continue reading)

Thomas Narten | 1 May 2009 06:53
Picon
Favicon

Weekly posting summary for ietf <at> ietf.org

Total of 31 messages in the last 7 days.

script run at: Fri May  1 00:53:02 EDT 2009

    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
  6.45% |    2 |  8.56% |    17475 | bernard_aboba <at> hotmail.com
  6.45% |    2 |  7.00% |    14291 | hallam <at> gmail.com
  6.45% |    2 |  6.38% |    13026 | denghui02 <at> gmail.com
  6.45% |    2 |  5.71% |    11666 | remi.denis-courmont <at> nokia.com
  6.45% |    2 |  5.62% |    11472 | tim.polk <at> nist.gov
  6.45% |    2 |  5.31% |    10835 | alexey.melnikov <at> isode.com
  3.23% |    1 |  5.01% |    10228 | doug.mtview <at> gmail.com
  3.23% |    1 |  4.39% |     8955 | spencer <at> wonderhamster.org
  3.23% |    1 |  4.28% |     8732 | hardie <at> qualcomm.com
  3.23% |    1 |  4.00% |     8175 | narten <at> us.ibm.com
  3.23% |    1 |  3.97% |     8114 | mathis <at> psc.edu
  3.23% |    1 |  3.72% |     7599 | jun <at> wide.ad.jp
  3.23% |    1 |  3.65% |     7452 | tytso <at> mit.edu
  3.23% |    1 |  3.55% |     7244 | jari.arkko <at> piuha.net
  3.23% |    1 |  3.51% |     7167 | david_hankins <at> isc.org
  3.23% |    1 |  3.35% |     6831 | ben <at> estacado.net
  3.23% |    1 |  3.26% |     6663 | magnus.westerlund <at> ericsson.com
  3.23% |    1 |  2.64% |     5395 | john-ietf <at> jck.com
  3.23% |    1 |  2.62% |     5355 | huitema <at> windows.microsoft.com
  3.23% |    1 |  2.59% |     5280 | john <at> jlc.net
  3.23% |    1 |  2.31% |     4709 | msa <at> moth.iki.fi
  3.23% |    1 |  2.24% |     4577 | housley <at> vigilsec.com
  3.23% |    1 |  2.20% |     4494 | paul.hoffman <at> vpnc.org
  3.23% |    1 |  2.12% |     4328 | joelja <at> bogus.com
(Continue reading)

Thierry Moreau | 1 May 2009 15:57

Re: Beyond reproach, accountability and regulation


David W. Hankins wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 02:03:00PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> 
>>In theory we have a consensus based organization. In practice we have
>>a system where it is rather easy for some people to take strategic
>>offense as a tactic to shut down debate.
> 
> 
> 'Establishing (rough) consensus' is, at its root, Sophistic debate.
> 

What about "Who controls the process controls the outcome." ?

 From time to time, this is my mental representation of IETF processes.

- Thierry Moreau
Ben Niven-Jenkins | 1 May 2009 14:51
Favicon

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal (MPLS Generic Associated

Support. Ben

-- 

Ben Niven-Jenkins
IP, Data & Content Architect
Network Infrastructure Architecture, BT

E-mail: benjamin.niven-jenkins <at> bt.com
Office: +44 (0)1473 648225
Mobile: +44 (0)7918 077205
   Fax: +44 (0)1332 578827

British Telecommunications plc. Registered office:  81 Newgate Street London
EC1A 7AJ   Registered in England no:  1800000

>> From: The IESG <iesg-secretary <at> ietf.org>
>> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 06:16:19 -0700 (PDT)
>> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce <at> ietf.org>
>> Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal (MPLS Generic Associated
>> 
>> Channel) to Proposed Standard
>> Reply-to: ietf <at> ietf.org
>> CC: <mpls <at> lists.ietf.org>
>> 
>> The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
>> (mpls) to consider the following document:
>> 
>> - 'MPLS Generic Associated Channel '
>>    <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard
(Continue reading)

Tom.Petch | 1 May 2009 11:12

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

Since about March 2009, most if not all, IETF Last Calls have included the text

"The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:"

I assume that this is telling us that there are no IPR Declarations relating to
this I-D and that if there were, then they would be listed.

My question is, is this a change of practice?  I have a folk memory that there
has always been a requirement for IETF Last Calls to disclose IPR claims but
cannot find anything to support this; eg RFC3979 only requires a statement in
the published RFC.

Tom Petch
Richard Shockey | 4 May 2009 22:02
Picon

How should ICANN spend its money ..

Give it to the IETF obviously ...

http://blog.icann.org/2009/04/have-an-opinion-on-where-icann-should-spend-it
s-money/

Richard Shockey
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us>
skype: rshockey101 

LinkedIn : www.linkedin.com/in/rshockey101
John Levine | 5 May 2009 01:18

Re: How should ICANN spend its money ..

>Give it to the IETF obviously ...
>
>http://blog.icann.org/2009/04/have-an-opinion-on-where-icann-should-spend-its-money/

Well, sure, since it's out of the question to refund it to the people who
they overcharged to collect it in the first place.

R's,
John
Magnus Westerlund | 5 May 2009 11:12
Picon
Favicon

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-behave-nat-behavior-discovery (NAT Behavior Discovery Using STUN) to Experimental RFC

Hi,

I got a comment regarding my statement below. I missed making it clear
that this concerns what it possible to do using a single IP address on
the client side, even if there are more possibilities if you have
multiple ones.

Magnus Westerlund skrev:
> Hi,
> 
> After having reviewed all the last call comments I like to make a
> consensus call on this document.
> 
> I think there is rough consensus for publication of this document given
> that it is updated to make the following clear:
> 
> - Make the applicability statement more clear on that any determination
> is transient and may contain error requiring a user to have a fall back.
> 
> - Make the proposed experiments clearer on how they can utilize the
> mechanism. Especially the P2P needs to make clear why this could be
> applicable given the limitations.
> 
> - Make clear that the algorithms are proposals of what can be determined
> using the STUN attributes and their behaviors

using a single IP address on the client side.

 Additional determinations
> are possible.
(Continue reading)

Florian Weimer | 5 May 2009 20:22
Picon

Re: Status of the 16-bit AS Number space

* Steve Crocker:

> I strongly advise against quick reallocation of returned AS numbers.
> Returned AS numbers should stay out of service for a substantial
> period of time.

Why?

It seems to be consensus among operators that it's fine to use other
people's ASNs in the global routing table, so such reuse shouldn't
pose any additional problems.
john heasley | 5 May 2009 21:53

Re: Status of the 16-bit AS Number space

Tue, May 05, 2009 at 08:22:27PM +0200, Florian Weimer:
> * Steve Crocker:
> 
> > I strongly advise against quick reallocation of returned AS numbers.
> > Returned AS numbers should stay out of service for a substantial
> > period of time.
> 
> Why?
> 
> It seems to be consensus among operators that it's fine to use other
> people's ASNs in the global routing table, so such reuse shouldn't
> pose any additional problems.

It IS fine to use an ASN that has been assigned or loaned to you.

The question is why there should be moratorium on returned ASNs.  I can
think of one reason that could be of dis-service to a new assignee, but
all we have so far is handwaving from the proponents.

Gmane