Ole Jacobsen | 1 Apr 01:12 2010
Picon

Re: stable, continuing meeting mailing list?

Dave,

I think there is actually a need for BOTH. A generic list (which I am 
told is being set up, stay tuned for the announcement) and 
meeting-specific ones.

Suppose you are NOT going to Maastricht, do you really want to read 
the daily messages about "dark beer" and "how can you tell we are not
in Belgium?" once the meeting starts?

On the other hand, generic discussions about meeting planning, travel
tips and Ole's Guide to Japanese Gadgets might be more appropriate on
a permanent list, right?

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole <at> cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> 
> 
> > I agree that we should move this to a new list: ietf-78 which I hereby
> > ask Ray to create.
> 
> 
(Continue reading)

Fred Baker | 1 Apr 01:16 2010
Picon

Re: stable, continuing meeting mailing list?

I can see this both ways. The value of a "meetings" list is that it has an obvious topic. The value of a
"specific meeting" list is that it has an obvious topic and the membership of it is well defined - those who
register for (and presumably attend) a given meeting and opt in. The down side of a "meetings" list is for
those who attend once and wander off; they will eventually be interested in a way to unsubscribe.

All things considered, I think I slightly prefer a per-meeting list.

On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> I agree that we should move this to a new list: ietf-78 which I hereby ask Ray to create.
> 
> 
> Is there some reason we need a new list for every meeting?
> 
> Why not have a single, stable, continuing mailing list for these postings.
> 
> ietf-meeting, for example.
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> 
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
(Continue reading)

Iljitsch van Beijnum | 1 Apr 01:27 2010

Re: stable, continuing meeting mailing list?


On 1 apr 2010, at 01:12, Ole Jacobsen <ole <at> cisco.com> wrote:

> On the other hand, generic discussions about meeting planning, travel
> tips and Ole's Guide to Japanese Gadgets might be more appropriate on
> a permanent list, right?

If only the IETF had a list for general discussions...

As for the per-meeting lists, mail filtering etc would be easier if it  
was the same list each time. People could then either permanently  
subscribe or choose to be auto-unsubscribed after the meeting.

Note that I still would have posted my message to the general  
discussion list because the point was to provide info to people  
deciding if/how to travel.

Iljitsch 
Dave CROCKER | 1 Apr 01:48 2010
Picon

Re: stable, continuing meeting mailing list?


On 3/31/2010 4:12 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> On the other hand, generic discussions about meeting planning, travel
> tips and Ole's Guide to Japanese Gadgets might be more appropriate on
> a permanent list, right?

I thought the IETF list was for discussion of things generic to the IETF.

As for the considerably more valuable discussion of gadgets and the like, it's 
not uncommon for a community to have a separate list for irrelevant but 
potentially interesting tidbits -- irrelevant to the reason for having the 
primary list.  An example of such related-non-relevant lists is '-offtopic'...

More broadly, we need to be careful to keep lists to the minimum, sufficient 
set.  Fancy tuning just creates more complexity is deciding what to post to.

d/

--

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
Sabahattin Gucukoglu | 1 Apr 02:42 2010

NAT Traversal With ICMP Replies

http://samy.pl/pwnat/

The idea is that NATs let back ICMP replies and send them to hosts behind them if they suspect them to be
responses to messages sent from those hosts.  So, by making the reply fixed and having a server behind a NAT
continuously sending the ICMP query that would elicit it, a server can learn a client's IP address, and
thus begin communication without a central rendezvous server.

An interesting idea, for sure.  It might not be super efficient, and there's the question of whose network
gets all these ICMP messages.  Are we using it anywhere already?

Cheers,
Sabahattin

Attachment (smime.p7s): application/pkcs7-signature, 3587 bytes
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Phillip Hallam-Baker | 1 Apr 02:56 2010
Picon

Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht

In theory it is possible to use a US issued credit card in Europe.

In practice, forget it unless you are willing to face the
embarrassment of 50% of places declining your card.

My experience in the UK is that outside London you are very likely to
find that the only cards they accept are chip and pin cards.

Now according to the VIsa and Mastercard agreements, this should not
be the case. Only the UK banks could not care less what Visa and
Mastercard want, they have zero intention of enforcing the requirement
on merchants. They are fed up with the fact that the US banks refusal
to deploy chip and pin means that they still face serious fraud losses
C&P has eliminated for card present transactions in the UK.

The attack presented by Ross Anderson is interesting, but fixable. The
hard part was insisting that everyone would use chips. As with SSL
2.0, the protocol has holes. They will be fixed. Meanwhile US cards
have no security at all.

I have a UK card just so I can spend money in the UK.
Fred Baker | 1 Apr 20:05 2010
Picon

Packet mood

So - does RFC 5841 update RFC 3514, or obsolete it?

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
Iljitsch van Beijnum | 1 Apr 20:07 2010

Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht

On 1 apr 2010, at 2:56, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> In theory it is possible to use a US issued credit card in Europe.

> In practice, forget it unless you are willing to face the
> embarrassment of 50% of places declining your card.

:-)

What you have to remember is that in many European countries, including the Netherlands, there is no
tradition of credit card use. Rather, people use debit cards. Of course restaurants, hotels etc that
cater to tourists accept them, and these days more places that sell expensive items do as well. But I would
be very surprised to find a super market in the Netherlands that accepts credit cards. And credit cards are
also not universally accepted in restaurants (the bigger / more expensive, the more likely they accept
credit cards). So you really need to carry enough cash to at least pay for a meal and a train ticket or taxi
ride. You can find ATMs with the Maestro and Cirrus logos all over the place, so this shouldn't be a problem.
(Although because of lack of regulations that forbid this, y
 ou're likely to pay a hefty commision for cash withdrawals and of course your bank has to allow them.)

> My experience in the UK is that outside London you are very likely to
> find that the only cards they accept are chip and pin cards.

I don't think places in the Netherlands that accept credit cards require a chip, mine didn't have one until
last year. Without having been able to test this, I'd say that in any place that accepts credit cards in the
Netherlands (logos on the window) you should be ok: since Dutch don't use them much and rarely if ever
depend on them, places that accept them do so mainly for the convenience of international travelers. Also
note that the most widely accepted credit card type is Mastercard, followed by Visa. With other cards,
your milage may vary even more.

> I have a UK card just so I can spend money in the UK.
(Continue reading)

Bob Braden | 1 Apr 20:47 2010
Picon

Re: Packet mood


Fred Baker wrote:
> So - does RFC 5841 update RFC 3514, or obsolete it?
> 

Silly question, Fred.  What possible relationship could a TCP option 
have to an IP option?

Bob Braden

> http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Richard Barnes | 1 Apr 20:56 2010
Picon

Re: Packet mood

I hear they were thinking about making it an IPv6 extension header,  
but they were afraid it would never get deployed that way.

--Richard

On Apr 1, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Bob Braden wrote:

>
>
> Fred Baker wrote:
>> So - does RFC 5841 update RFC 3514, or obsolete it?
>
> Silly question, Fred.  What possible relationship could a TCP option  
> have to an IP option?
>
> Bob Braden
>
>> http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf <at> ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Gmane