http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/535 <pre>The Yet Another Mail (yam) working group in the Applications Area has concluded. The IESG contact persons are Pete Resnick and Peter Saint-Andre. The mailing list will remain active. </pre> IESG Secretary 2011-11-28T17:57:44 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/534 <pre>Hi Leonidas, As one of the YAM mailing list moderators, I consider the content you posted as inappropriate as it is unrelated to the work described in the YAM working group charter. Your messages to the mailing list will be moderated. Regards, S. Moonesamy </pre> S Moonesamy 2011-11-25T13:40:21 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/533 <pre>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CfP ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IEEE/IFIP International Workshop on Management of the Future Internet (ManFI 2012) ================================================================================== 16 April 2012 Maui, Hawaii, USA http://www.manfi.org CALL FOR PAPERS --------------- The Fourth IEEE/IFIP International Workshop on Management of the Future Internet (ManFI 2012) will be held in conjunction with IEEE/IFIP NOMS 2012 in Maui, Hawaii, USA, from April 16-20, 2012. The workshop is sponsored by the IEEE Communications Society (ComSoc) and supported by POSTECH ITCE, Ghent University-IBBT, NEC, and Ericsson LM. The workshop is endorsed by the Technical Committee on Network Operations and Management (CNOM). It is widely agreed that, despite its many successes, the current Internet also has a set of systemic problems, ranging from an upcoming shortage of IP addresses to insufficient security. However, the lack of scalable and agile manageability is arguably more important, as without management, it is impossible to build systems that adapt the services and resources offered in a context-dependent manner. In either case (clean slate vs. evolution vs. revolution) we must consider the manageability of the Future Internet from the beginning. Following the success of the three previous editions of this workshop, held in conjunction with IM 2009, NOMS 2010 and IM 2011, ManFI 2012 aims at providing an international forum for researchers in these and similar areas. ManFI 2012 will combine original full paper presentations with a motivating keynote, quick hot topic presentations and a panel discussion to thoroughly explore this challenging topic. Topics of interest ------------------ Authors are invited to submit papers that fall into or are related to the topic areas listed below: - Architectural Issues * Advantages and disadvantages of revolutionary, evolutionary, and other approaches to managing the Future Internet * Separation of data, control, and management planes * Design of architectural building blocks for managing the Future Internet * Advances in measurement, management, security, accounting, mobility, and other functions * Virtualization of resources and services * Dynamic composition of management and operational functionality * Mechanisms for managing interconnected computational infrastructures (e.g. elastic clouds, federated clouds) in the Future Internet * Implications of social network success on the Future Internet architecture - Design and Implementation Issues * Abstractions for programmable network elements * Accommodating context-awareness in management * Applying situation awareness to network management * Federation between administrative domains and support of all constituencies * The role of models, ontologies, and other knowledge abstractions in the Future Internet * Uncertainty and probabilistic approaches to management of the Future Internet * Approaches for the organization of management data, data analytics and visualization * Experience reports from Future Internet experimental facilities set-up and results - Economic Issues * Economic aspects driving the deployment of Future Internet management technology * Economic opportunities and challenges for management technology * Experience reports from management in test beds Paper submission ---------------- Paper submissions must present original, research or experiences. Late-breaking advances and work-in-progress reports from ongoing research are also encouraged. Only original papers that have not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere can be submitted. Each submission must be written in English, accompanied by a 75 to 200 word abstract that clearly outlines the scope and contributions of the paper, and a list of up to 5 key words. There is a length limitation of 6 pages (including title, abstract, all figures, tables, and references) for regular conference papers, and 4 pages for short papers. Submissions must be in IEEE 2-column style. Papers exceeding these limits, multiple submissions, and self-plagiarized papers will be rejected without further review. Authors should submit their papers in PDF, postscript, or Word formats via JEMS: (https://submissoes.sbc.org.br/). Proceedings ----------- Papers accepted for ManFI 2012 will be included in the conference proceedings, IEEE Xplore, and EI Index. The IEEE reserves the right to remove any paper from IEEE Xplore if the paper is not presented at the workshop. Awards will be presented to the best paper and to the best student paper at the workshop. Furthermore, we plan to work with a leading journal, such as JNSM, TNSM and IJNM, to solicit extended versions of the best papers of ManFI 2012 to be submitted for review. Workshop Co-Chairs ------------------ - Prof. James Won-Ki Hong, POSTECH, Korea - Prof. Filip De Turck, Ghent University - IBBT, Belgium - Dr. Yoshiaki Kiriha, NEC, Japan - Dr. Sven van der Meer, Ericsson LM, Ireland Publicity Co-Chairs ------------------- - Leonidas Lymberopoulos, National Technical University of Athens, Greece - Cathryn Peoples, University of Ulster, UK Important dates --------------- - Abstract registration deadline: December 14, 2011 - Paper submission: December 20, 2011 - Notification of acceptance: January 31, 2012 - Final version of papers due: February 15, 2012 - Workshop date: April 16, 2012 For more information, please contact one of the Workshop Co-Chairs at tpcchairs-0X+8w5kyo67sa1DXplZWQw&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org </pre> Leonidas Lymberopoulos 2011-11-25T11:18:07 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/532 <pre> Yes, just closing the loop. I think this is OK. I'll be sure to ask the secretariat. I think you mean "Dead". "Expired" is based entirely on the date of the draft, whereas "Dead" in the DataTracker means that it is no longer a watched item. I will do so. pr </pre> Pete Resnick 2011-11-22T12:07:52 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/531 <pre>Hi Pete, At 22:03 21-11-2011, Pete Resnick wrote: In a message posted on August 12 [1], the YAM WG co-chairs determined that there was consensus on shutting down the working group. I suggest leaving the issues in the tracker open as they may be of use to people working on these RFCs in future. Could you please change the status of draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-05 to Expired? Regards, S. Moonesamy YAM WG co-chair 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00737.html </pre> S Moonesamy 2011-11-22T07:45:55 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/530 <pre>I plan to send the message in approximately 24 hours to shutdown YAM, leaving the mailing list open. Speak now or forever hold your peace. pr </pre> Pete Resnick 2011-11-22T06:03:49 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/529 <pre>Yes, I wrote the message during that conversation of the plenary. :-) On 11/16/2011 5:23 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: </pre> Tony Hansen 2011-11-16T16:19:50 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/528 <pre> The last classic STD. -Frank </pre> Frank Ellermann 2011-11-16T10:33:36 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/527 <pre> That's funny. Are you listening to the plenary? </pre> Murray S. Kucherawy 2011-11-16T10:23:05 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/526 <pre>With the publication of 6409, I believe that YAM's business is concluded. I expect to see the official wheels cranking through soon for us to shut down. Thank you everyone for playing. Tony Hansen tony-60p5jsuXm+c&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org On 11/16/2011 4:35 AM, rfc-editor-i4YTrOVFbXmRpAAqCnN02g&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org wrote: </pre> Tony Hansen 2011-11-16T10:18:26 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/525 <pre> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. STD 72 RFC 6409 Title: Message Submission for Mail Author: R. Gellens, J. Klensin Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: November 2011 Mailbox: rg+ietf-zC7DfRvBq/JWk0Htik3J/w&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org, john-ietf-ompsCg6JJTw&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org Pages: 20 Characters: 40153 Obsoletes: RFC4409 See Also: STD0072 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6409.txt This memo splits message submission from message relay, allowing each service to operate according to its own rules (for security, policy, etc.), and specifies what actions are to be taken by a submission server. Message relay is unaffected, and continues to use SMTP over port 25. When conforming to this document, message submission uses the protocol specified here, normally over port 587. This separation of function offers a number of benefits, including the ability to apply specific security or policy requirements. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Yet Another Mail Working Group of the IETF. This is now an Internet Standard. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor-i4YTrOVFbXnQdKpFsAHx7g&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC </pre> rfc-editor-i4YTrOVFbXmRpAAqCnN02g< at >public.gmane.org 2011-11-16T09:35:58 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/524 <pre>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CfP ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IEEE/IFIP International Workshop on Management of the Future Internet (ManFI 2012) ================================================================================== 16 April 2012 Maui, Hawaii, USA http://www.manfi.org CALL FOR PAPERS --------------- The Fourth IEEE/IFIP International Workshop on Management of the Future Internet (ManFI 2012) will be held in conjunction with IEEE/IFIP NOMS 2012 in Maui, Hawaii, USA, from April 16-20, 2012. The workshop is sponsored by the IEEE Communications Society (ComSoc) and supported by POSTECH ITCE, Ghent University-IBBT, NEC, and Ericsson LM. The workshop is endorsed by the Technical Committee on Network Operations and Management (CNOM). It is widely agreed that, despite its many successes, the current Internet also has a set of systemic problems, ranging from an upcoming shortage of IP addresses to insufficient security. However, the lack of scalable and agile manageability is arguably more important, as without management, it is impossible to build systems that adapt the services and resources offered in a context-dependent manner. In either case (clean slate vs. evolution vs. revolution) we must consider the manageability of the Future Internet from the beginning. Following the success of the three previous editions of this workshop, held in conjunction with IM 2009, NOMS 2010 and IM 2011, ManFI 2012 aims at providing an international forum for researchers in these and similar areas. ManFI 2012 will combine original full paper presentations with a motivating keynote, quick hot topic presentations and a panel discussion to thoroughly explore this challenging topic. Topics of interest ------------------ Authors are invited to submit papers that fall into or are related to the topic areas listed below: - Architectural Issues * Advantages and disadvantages of revolutionary, evolutionary, and other approaches to managing the Future Internet * Separation of data, control, and management planes * Design of architectural building blocks for managing the Future Internet * Advances in measurement, management, security, accounting, mobility, and other functions * Virtualization of resources and services * Dynamic composition of management and operational functionality * Mechanisms for managing interconnected computational infrastructures (e.g. elastic clouds, federated clouds) in the Future Internet * Implications of social network success on the Future Internet architecture - Design and Implementation Issues * Abstractions for programmable network elements * Accommodating context-awareness in management * Applying situation awareness to network management * Federation between administrative domains and support of all constituencies * The role of models, ontologies, and other knowledge abstractions in the Future Internet * Uncertainty and probabilistic approaches to management of the Future Internet * Approaches for the organization of management data, data analytics and visualization * Experience reports from Future Internet experimental facilities set-up and results - Economic Issues * Economic aspects driving the deployment of Future Internet management technology * Economic opportunities and challenges for management technology * Experience reports from management in test beds Paper submission ---------------- Paper submissions must present original, research or experiences. Late-breaking advances and work-in-progress reports from ongoing research are also encouraged. Only original papers that have not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere can be submitted. Each submission must be written in English, accompanied by a 75 to 200 word abstract that clearly outlines the scope and contributions of the paper, and a list of up to 5 key words. There is a length limitation of 6 pages (including title, abstract, all figures, tables, and references) for regular conference papers, and 4 pages for short papers. Submissions must be in IEEE 2-column style. Papers exceeding these limits, multiple submissions, and self-plagiarized papers will be rejected without further review. Authors should submit their papers in PDF, postscript, or Word formats via JEMS: (https://submissoes.sbc.org.br/). Proceedings ----------- Papers accepted for ManFI 2012 will be included in the conference proceedings, IEEE Xplore, and EI Index. The IEEE reserves the right to remove any paper from IEEE Xplore if the paper is not presented at the workshop. Awards will be presented to the best paper and to the best student paper at the workshop. Furthermore, we plan to work with a leading journal, such as JNSM, TNSM and IJNM, to solicit extended versions of the best papers of ManFI 2012 to be submitted for review. Workshop Co-Chairs ------------------ - Prof. James Won-Ki Hong, POSTECH, Korea - Prof. Filip De Turck, Ghent University - IBBT, Belgium - Dr. Yoshiaki Kiriha, NEC, Japan - Dr. Sven van der Meer, Ericsson LM, Ireland Publicity Co-Chairs ------------------- - Leonidas Lymberopoulos, National Technical University of Athens, Greece - Cathryn Peoples, University of Ulster, UK Important dates --------------- - Abstract registration deadline: December 14, 2011 - Paper submission: December 20, 2011 - Notification of acceptance: January 31, 2012 - Final version of papers due: February 15, 2012 - Workshop date: April 16, 2012 For more information, please contact one of the Workshop Co-Chairs at tpcchairs-0X+8w5kyo67sa1DXplZWQw&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org </pre> Leonidas Lymberopoulos 2011-11-07T11:49:26 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/523 <pre>The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Message Submission for Mail' (draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03.txt) as a Full Standard This document is the product of the Yet Another Mail Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Pete Resnick and Peter Saint-Andre. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis/ Technical Summary This document splits message submission from message relay, allowing each service to operate according to its own rules (for security, policy, etc.) and specifies what actions are to be taken by a submission server. Working Group Summary The YAM WG adopted a two-step approach to move this document to Full Standard. The first step was a pre-evaluation of the existing specification to identify changes and non-changes. The second step was to incorporate the changes into the document and ensure that any implementation that conforms to the Draft Standard version of the specification remains compliant with this document. There was no controversy. There is consensus to move the specification to Full Standard. Document Quality The document has a high degree of technical maturity. In the five years since publication of the Draft Standard and 13 years since publication as Proposed Standard, the specification has become an integral part of all professional SMTP software products and is widely supported in Internet Mail operations. Chris Newman suggested adding Section 5.3 applying shorter timeouts. John Klensin wrote the text in Section 6.5 which discusses about adjusting character encodings. Personnel S. Moonesamy is the Document Shepherd for this document. Pete Resnick is the Responsible Area Director. </pre> The IESG 2011-09-06T14:39:10 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/522 <pre>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Yet Another Mail Working Group of the IETF. Title : Message Submission for Mail Author(s) : Randall Gellens John C Klensin Filename : draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2011-09-02 This memo splits message submission from message relay, allowing each service to operate according to its own rules (for security, policy, etc.), and specifies what actions are to be taken by a submission server. Message relay is unaffected, and continues to use SMTP over port 25. When conforming to this document, message submission uses the protocol specified here, normally over port 587. This separation of function offers a number of benefits, including the ability to apply specific security or policy requirements. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-03.txt </pre> internet-drafts-EgrivxUAwEY< at >public.gmane.org 2011-09-02T18:37:00 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/521 <pre>The text in the fourth paragraph of Section 8 of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 will be replaced with the following text: "Message modification can affect the validity of an existing message signature, such as by DKIM [DKIM], PGP [RFC4880], S/MIME [RFC5751] and can render the signature invalid. This, in turn, can affect message handling by later receivers, such as filtering engines that consider the presence or absence of a valid signature." Regards, S. Moonesamy, Tony Hansen co-chairs, YAM </pre> S Moonesamy 2011-08-27T04:24:13 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/520 <pre> I like the above text. :-) Regards, -sm </pre> SM 2011-08-27T04:39:18 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/519 <pre>And everybody said together: "there be dragons". :-) Consequently, I think we should go with the following text: Incantation modifications can affect the efficacy of spells, such as those introduced by the presence of various species of dragons, both big, small and purple, some of which can even render the spell useless. This in turn can affect secondary applications of the spells, such as those applied by certain minor mages who cannot handle the violet spectrum. Sorry, I was feeling a bit of whimsey. I think it's all this prepping for hurricanes. Tony Hansen On 8/26/2011 1:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: </pre> Tony Hansen 2011-08-27T04:00:32 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/518 <pre> You beat me to it. +1 to Barry's last post. -MSK </pre> Murray S. Kucherawy 2011-08-26T17:45:35 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/517 <pre> Same here, better than my current text. R's, John </pre> John Levine 2011-08-26T16:27:02 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/516 <pre>Barry said exactly what I was going to say here. +1 on all points, including the preference for Dave's text. Ned </pre> Ned Freed 2011-08-26T16:08:11 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.yam/515 <pre> I'll repeat that my very strong preference is what's above. Well, it certainly *is* a substantive comment, but put it in perspective. "Dave thinks Russ is wrong," is not enough to have Russ clear his DISCUSS ballot. "The working group considered Russ's comments, and its consensus is that he's wrong," may well be a part of convincing him to clear. I don't think it's a secondary argument, to be held back because the "primary" argument is more compelling. I think it's an important adjunct to *any* argument, to say that the WG as a whole is behind what's being said. I'm not sure what "this last issue" is, because the last thing you mention is a comment by John that doesn't raise an issue. But assuming that's what you want comments on: I think a primary goal is to make implementors aware of the fact that modifications can affect digital signatures, in general terms. Dave's text does that, and gives references to some of the most common signature mechanisms that MSAs are likely to encounter. So I repeat that I think Dave's text is appropriate, and also appropriately concise. I think John's text is too much, and doesn't add enough extra benefit. That paragraph was, indeed, meant as a simple "there be dragons" statement, and I strongly support leaving it simple. Barry </pre> Barry Leiba 2011-08-26T13:07:42 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.ietf.yam