If you have received this digest without all the individual message
attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list
subscription. To do so, go to
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get
MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME. You can set this option
globally for all the list digests you receive at this point.
Send Ietf mailing list submissions to
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ietf-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
You can reach the person managing the list at
ietf-owner(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Ietf digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Adventures in IPv6 (Sabahattin Gucukoglu)
2. Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-kitten-digest-to-historic-03
(Ben Campbell)
3. Test, please ignore (Glen Barney)
4. Re: Call for a Jasmine Revolution in the IETF: Privacy,
Integrity, Obscurity (todd glassey)
5. Re: Adventures in IPv6 (Doug Barton)
6. Re: Adventures in IPv6 (Masataka Ohta)
7. GEn-ART last call review of
draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-07 (Roni Even)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sabahattin Gucukoglu <mail(_at_)sabahattin-gucukoglu(_dot_)com>
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:41:48 +0100
Subject: Adventures in IPv6
This is just a blog posting, but I think it has valid illustrative points
of the general frustration in it:
http://bens.me.uk/2011/adventures-in-ipv6
Of course, I think the conclusion is basically wrong, *not* doing IPv6 is
much worse than breaking the finger-pointing circle, and making it work by
whatever means necessary. We won't make the situation better by not doing
anything. And yes, I know how tired this all is, but it's starting to look
like some people in this world just aren't going to be convinced until
there's an actual, real crisis on top of us.
Cheers,
Sabahattin
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ben Campbell <ben(_at_)estacado(_dot_)net>
To:
draft-ietf-kitten-digest-to-historic(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:56:23 -0500
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-kitten-digest-to-historic-03
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-kitten-digest-to-historic-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-04-11
IETF LC End Date: 2011-04-15
Summary: This draft is essentially ready for publication as an
informational RFC. I have a couple of editorial comments that should be
considered prior to final publication.
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
-- Note following abstract:
Will this note stay in the RFC? The note makes me unsure whether the
resulting RFC is intended to actually execute the deprecation, recommend
deprecation, or start a discussion about deprecation. I assume from the IANA
section, you intend the first.-
-- Section 1, 7B. "Lack of hash agility."
Can you elaborate on what this means? (I think I know, but I don't know if
it will be obvious to all readers)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen Barney <glen(_at_)amsl(_dot_)com>
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:45:18 -0700
Subject: Test, please ignore
Test, please ignore.
Glen
Glen Barney
IT Director
AMS (IETF Secretariat)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: todd glassey <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:56:11 -0700
Subject: Re: Call for a Jasmine Revolution in the IETF: Privacy, Integrity,
Obscurity
On 3/23/2011 12:02 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
On Mar 23, 2011, at 6:52 AM, SM wrote:
The IETF can only address the technical problems.
This is an argument I often hear. I do, however, believe that you cannot
see technology in isolation.
Yeah - sure you can... if you want to be totally about the original design
and practice of the IETF and its vision. It was built to advance protocol
standardization and not to decide what protocols it would allow on the
Internet and which it wouldn't. But lately many have forgotten this and
are using the IETF as a formal lobby for technological policy advancement
and that's a no-no.
Bluntly the IETF members are becoming more and more aggressively
politically and this statement is based on IAB and other publication on what
the IETF does and does not allow through its frameworks. In doing so their
statements about allowing protocols or not allowing protocols to be
standardized based on their stated perception of "what damages the Internet"
or what they personally want to see as a "free access to all information and
ideas" model, creates a real serious divergence from the Standards Practice
this organization was set up as, and IMHO is one which is designed clearly
to destroy global Intellectual Property law and practice.
However, in many cases the technology, regulatory environment, business
aspects, and the social context gets mixed together.
No Hannes - it doesn't unless the Chair allows it to - meaning that the
Chair in this instance has allowed political materials to be fielded (filed
in this instance) into the IETF and trust me I am already filing a formal
complaint with the Treasury about ISOC's becoming a formal PAC and its
locking out protocol efforts based on its own desires therein...
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00
I suggest that the Chair immediately post a formal statement that the IETF
is a-political and will not do anything but standardize technology. Also
that ONLY technology drafts can be accepted since the IETF is part of ISOC
and not registered as a political PAC or Lobbying Agency which it clearly
has become in direct violation of the NTIA MOU which gave it (ISOC and its
ARIN) the real power.
Todd Glassey
Please have a look at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00
Ciao
Hannes
Hannes - this is the issue with the IETF and the gross number of flaming
idiots inside of it. The IETF is not a Social Reform Agency, nor is it a
freaking political action group since its financial filings prevent this.
Todd Glassey
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Doug Barton <dougb(_at_)dougbarton(_dot_)us>
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:39:39 -0700
Subject: Re: Adventures in IPv6
On 04/11/2011 13:41, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
This is just a blog posting, but I think it has valid illustrative
points of the general frustration in it:
http://bens.me.uk/2011/adventures-in-ipv6
Of course, I think the conclusion is basically wrong, *not* doing
IPv6 is much worse than breaking the finger-pointing circle, and
making it work by whatever means necessary.
"Much worse" for who? Just because we (may) believe that IPv6 is the way
forward doesn't mean that the providers or consumers of Internet services
will agree with us. The consumers just want to watch their videos and read
their mail. The providers just want to sell them that capability. IPv6 needs
to solve more problems than it creates, or else it's not the right answer.
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Masataka Ohta
<mohta(_at_)necom830(_dot_)hpcl(_dot_)titech(_dot_)ac(_dot_)jp>
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:10:56 +0900
Subject: Re: Adventures in IPv6
Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
Of course, I think the conclusion is basically wrong, *not* doing
IPv6 is much worse than breaking the finger-pointing circle,
and making it work by whatever means necessary.
The problem is that, operationally, IPv6 does not work.
We won't make the situation better by not doing anything.
Insisting on IPv6 is worse than not doing anything, because
it gives people insisting on IPv6 false feeling of doing
something.
And yes, I know how tired this all is, but it's starting to
look like some people in this world just aren't going to be
convinced until there's an actual, real crisis on top of us.
That's so true for you and other people insisting on IPv6.
Masataka Ohta
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Roni Even <Even(_dot_)roni(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com>
To:
draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:40:36 +0300
Subject: GEn-ART last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-07
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-softwire-dual-stack-lite-07
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011–4–10
IETF LC End Date: 2011–4–12
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as standard track RFC.
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
1.& bsp; In section 8.3 NAT-44 appears without any reference or
terminology expansion.
2. In section 8.5 “liefetime” should be “lifetime”
3. I am not sure what the recommendation in section 8.5 is. Is keep
alive required or using PCP is recommended.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf