http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58649 <pre>I am rather disappointed that there hasn't been any followup to the diversity discussion that took place at the plenary. I do applications and I do security and so having a diverse range of input is critical if the final product is going to be useful. There are no gender or cultural issues in packet routing that I am aware of. But once we get to the application layer they become central. We seem to have interminable discussions about how to help some hypothetical dissident in (pick your authoritarian state). But I can't remember the last time we discussed Internet stalking which has been an issue women have been complaining about since I started getting involved in IETF. This is just one security issues that has a big gender bias and it is a problem that I think can be usefully addressed in an open consensus seeking organization. It does not take 100 people to write a specification but it does take a large number of people to adequately gather requirements. Taking requirements from 100 people from almost </pre> Phillip Hallam-Baker 2013-06-18T16:52:27 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58636 <pre>Hi all, The diversity design team is working on mechanisms to increase the range of perspectives within the IETF, while maintaining high standards of quality. Our goal is to help improve the composition and dynamic of the IETF, by finding ways to incorporate a wide range of perspectives within the IETF, and specifically in the IETF management teams. One way of achieving this is to ensure that participants differ along many different personal, social, and professional attributes. The expectation is that the greater range of perspectives leads to considering issues more deeply and with more sensitivity. Community feedback is the most important input that helps us determine the aspects are currently working well in the IETF in this regard and those that are not. We cannot properly execute the task of proposing new mechanisms or modifying existing mechanisms to further these goals without **your** participation and feedback. We would like to help the IETF management make choices that maximize the IETF's abil</pre> Suresh Krishnan 2013-06-17T20:03:00 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58632 <pre>There is a new non-working group mailing list for discussion of Network Service Chaining (NSC) The web page for users is: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsc There is also an email-based interface for users. You can get info about using it by sending a message with just the word `help' as subject or in the body, to: nsc-request&lt; at &gt;ietf.org The mailing list is configured with a public archive which can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nsc The purpose of the list Network services are widely deployed and essential in many networks. The services provide a range of functions such as security, WAN acceleration, and server load balancing. Service functions that form part of the overall service may be physically located at different points in the network infrastructure such as the wide area network, data center, campus, and so forth. New data center network and Internet cloud architectures require more flexible network service deployment models. Additionally, </pre> Adrian Farrel 2013-06-17T17:51:32 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58631 <pre>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at &lt;http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&gt;. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-manet-rfc6622-bis-02 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2013-06-15 IETF LC End Date: 2013-06-27 IESG Telechat date: Unknown Summary: The document is almost ready for publication as a standards track RFC. I raise one major concern, and once it is resolved, the document will be ready. Major Concern: In Section 12.2.3, is there any difference in processing when the source IP address is IPv4 as opposed to IPv6? Obviously, the two have a different length. Off the top of my head I cannot find a way for an attacker to exploit one party using IPv4 in the ICV calculation and the other party using IPv6. Since the IPv6 address is 12 octets longer than the IPv4 address, there may be some opportunity for an attacker. Anyway, concerns like this are </pre> Russ Housley 2013-06-14T20:23:45 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58629 <pre> Possibly of interest. (Short) Position paper deadline is 23rd June. Regards, Mat Workshop on Reducing Internet Latency ===================================== 25 - 26 September 2013 London, England Latency tends to have been sacrificed in favour of headline bandwidth in the way the Internet has been built. This two-day invitation-only workshop aims to galvanise action to fix that. All layers of the stack are in scope. Latency is an increasingly important topic for networking researchers and Internet practitioners alike. Data from Google, Microsoft, Amazon and others indicate that latency increases for interactive Web applications result in less usage and less revenue from sales or advertising income. Whether trying to provide platforms for Web applications, high-frequency stock trading, multi-player online gaming or 'cloud' services of any kind, latency is a critical factor in determining end-user satisfaction and the success of products in the marketplace. Consequently, latency and variation in latency ar</pre> Matthew Ford 2013-06-14T08:42:43 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58627 <pre>Total of 158 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 14 00:53:03 EDT 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 10.13% | 16 | 9.82% | 124800 | ted.lemon&lt; at &gt;nominum.com 5.06% | 8 | 6.98% | 88757 | dave&lt; at &gt;cridland.net 4.43% | 7 | 4.80% | 61022 | presnick&lt; at &gt;qti.qualcomm.com 3.80% | 6 | 3.80% | 48351 | sm&lt; at &gt;resistor.net 3.80% | 6 | 3.54% | 45049 | l.wood&lt; at &gt;surrey.ac.uk 3.16% | 5 | 4.16% | 52840 | abdussalambaryun&lt; at &gt;gmail.com 3.80% | 6 | 3.04% | 38633 | dhc&lt; at &gt;dcrocker.net 3.16% | 5 | 2.73% | 34740 | brian.e.carpenter&lt; at &gt;gmail.com 3.16% | 5 | 2.56% | 32572 | melinda.shore&lt; at &gt;gmail.com 3.16% | 5 | 2.00% | 25369 | randy&lt; at &gt;psg.com 2.53% | 4 | 2.37% | 30074 | narten&lt; at &gt;us.ibm.com 1.90% | 3 | 2.47% | 31426 | magnus.westerlund&lt; at &gt;ericsson.com 2.53% | 4 | 1.77% | 22553 | dwm&lt; at &gt;xpasc.com 1.90% | 3 | 2.14% | 27243 | andy&lt; at &gt;yumaworks.com 1.90% | 3 | 1</pre> Thomas Narten 2013-06-14T04:53:04 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58620 <pre>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Folks, - From a couple of years now, we have had a mailing-list devoted to IPv6 hacking (i.e., testing, tools, low-level stuff, etc.). The mailing-list ("charter", subscription options, etc.) is available at: &lt;http://lists.si6networks.com/listinfo/ipv6hackers/&gt;. We're planning to have our first in-person meeting on July 28th, 2013, in Berlin (most likely in the afternoon, between lunch and the IETF welcome reception). The venue would be either the IETF venue (InterContinental Berlin), or some nearby hotel/room (to be confirmed soon). We're planning to have some presentations (which MUST be accompanied with code :-) ), and might also have an IPv6 mini-hackathon (i.e., work on code, test implementations, try stuff). In order to plan for the meeting, we'd need to have some indication of how many people would attend, whether they would have stuff to present, etc. So I've set up a very short on-line survey to help us plan for the meeting. If you're interested, p</pre> Fernando Gont 2013-06-13T11:01:00 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58612 <pre> RFC should be renamed to Resulted From Comments. It's now the endpoint of the process; Request For Comments dated from when it was the start. (Though RFCs through workgroups are arguably Resulted from Collaboration/Consensus/Chairing). If you're going to alter the process in any way, start here. Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ </pre> l.wood< at >surrey.ac.uk 2013-06-12T21:55:34 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58527 <pre>Dear Colleagues, The Internet Society has announced that it is inviting applications for its latest Internet Society Fellowships to the IETF. The Fellowship programme allows engineers from emerging and developing economies to attend an Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) meeting. As you know, the IETF is the Internet's premier standards-making body, responsible for the development of protocols used in IP-based networks. IETF participants represent an international community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers involved in the technical operation of the Internet and the continuing evolution of Internet architecture. Fellowships will be awarded through a competitive application process. The Internet Society is currently accepting fellowship applications for the IETF 88 in Vancouver, Canada: * IETF 88, November 03-08, 2013, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Information and links to apply can be found at: http://www.internetsociety.org/fellows-ietf Fellowship applications are due</pre> Steve Conte 2013-06-10T20:06:34 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58524 <pre> CALL FOR NOMINATIONS: APPLIED NETWORKING RESEARCH PRIZE (ANRP) 2014 http://irtf.org/anrp ******************************************************************** *** Submit nominations for the 2014 award period of the *** *** Applied Networking Research Prize until November 30, 2013! *** *** *** *** (Please share this announcement with your colleagues.) *** ******************************************************************** The Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP) is awarded for recent results in applied networking research that are relevant for transitioning into shipping Internet products and related standardization efforts. Researchers with relevant, recent results are encouraged to apply for this prize, which will offer them the opportunity to present and discuss their work with the engineers, network operators, policy makers and scientists that participate in the Internet Engine</pre> Eggert, Lars 2013-06-10T15:05:04 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58469 <pre>Total of 146 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 7 00:53:03 EDT 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 10.27% | 15 | 9.96% | 125797 | abdussalambaryun&lt; at &gt;gmail.com 4.11% | 6 | 6.44% | 81389 | adrian&lt; at &gt;olddog.co.uk 5.48% | 8 | 3.76% | 47556 | mohta&lt; at &gt;necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp 4.11% | 6 | 4.30% | 54259 | warren&lt; at &gt;kumari.net 3.42% | 5 | 3.58% | 45181 | john-ietf&lt; at &gt;jck.com 3.42% | 5 | 3.28% | 41450 | l.wood&lt; at &gt;surrey.ac.uk 3.42% | 5 | 3.16% | 39894 | dhc&lt; at &gt;dcrocker.net 3.42% | 5 | 2.36% | 29749 | randy&lt; at &gt;psg.com 2.74% | 4 | 2.53% | 31911 | carlosm3011&lt; at &gt;gmail.com 2.74% | 4 | 2.18% | 27483 | arturo.servin&lt; at &gt;gmail.com 1.37% | 2 | 3.38% | 42690 | ron.even.tlv&lt; at &gt;gmail.com 2.74% | 4 | 1.86% | 23539 | mnot&lt; at &gt;mnot.net 1.37% | 2 | 3.15% | 39833 | simo.veikkolainen&lt; at &gt;nokia.com 2.05% | 3 | 1.88% | 23809 | scott.brim&lt; at &gt;gmail.com 2.05% | 3</pre> Thomas Narten 2013-06-07T04:53:03 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58463 <pre>The Liaison statement can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1258/ The Internet Society will forward this liaison statement to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on their letterhead. This will carry more weight than a statement just from the IESG and IAB because the Internet Society holds a Class A liaison with SC6 on behalf of the IETF. This liaison is provided to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 because they are entertaining adopting the TISec. The IESG and the IAB believe TISec provides the same services as IPsec. The IESG rejected a request for a protocol number assignment for TISec in August of last year for that reason, but the IESG offered an experimental code point while TISec was under review in ISO. A liaison was sent to ISO informing them of this decision in December (see ). The TISec proponents have indicated that they believe that TISec is different than IPsec. This liaison is a response this statement. It points out how IPsec supports the same functionality, and it encourages the TISec proponents to en</pre> IAB Chair 2013-06-06T20:50:44 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58437 <pre> Hello,   I want to forward AODV messages over a tunnel (don't worry, it's not for a wormhole attack). In the RFC3561 I can't find information about how to deal with the packet at the tunnel endpoint. Should I increment the hopcount of a RREQ by one or by the number of hops the tunnel has? Furthermore I'm wondering about which address to use for the previous node at the tunnel endpoint. Should this be the entrance of the tunnel or the "real" previous node? If the tunnel entrance is used as previous node and the hopcount is only incremented by one, the tunnel would be prefered compared to a connection without a tunnel (like in wormhole attacks). Is there some information on how to deal with a tunnel?   Thanks,   Thomas </pre> Thomas Meier 2013-06-05T11:39:52 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58429 <pre> Hugh Daniel passed away on June 3rd after what appears to have been a heart attack. https://nohats.ca/hugh-of-borg.jpg Those who met him, know him. Principled to the core, and very present in any room, he compelled people to listen to him - both by what he said, and how loud he said it. He has made many contributions during the early days of IPsec and DNSSEC. He was a manager of the FreeS/WAN Project for many years and co-founder of The Openswan Project and recently The Libreswan Project, although his health prevented him from being as active and he wanted to be in the last two years. I met him for the first time at the CCC summer conference in 1999. Our car had broken down, and everyone around me suggested to find Hugh Daniel for help. He shone his freeswan photon light under the car, diagnosed the problem, and put in a quick fix we could carefully drive to a repair shop at 5km/h where we could tell the mechanic what to fix. We started talking about Linux, crypto and he recruited me for the FreeS/WAN </pre> Paul Wouters 2013-06-04T22:32:56 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58347 <pre>Dear All, The Internet Society has just completed its Board of Trustees Elections and appointments.The IAB re-appointed Bob Hinden as the IETF appointee to the ISOC Board. Folks, let us join hands in congratulating Bob for his re-appointment to the ISOC Board. Congratulations to you Bob on behalf of myself. Best, EAO </pre> Edwin A. Opare 2013-05-31T18:05:54 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58343 <pre> Here is the current list of names of eligible volunteers for Nomcom 2013-2014. If your name is not already on this list, what are you waiting for? Thanks to those who have already volunteered and all of you who are about to volunteer :D If you volunteered and weren't eligible, I've sent you a message. If you're sure you did attend 3 out of IETFs 82, 83, 84, 85 and 86, and I said no, dig around and send some more email addresses you may have used to register. Allison Mankin (2013 Nomcom Chair) John Scudder Stephen Hanna Wassim Haddad Russ White Stephan Wenger ZHAO Yi Eric Gray Steve Kent Toerless Eckert Alia Atlas Victor Kuarsingh Yizhou LI Gonzalo Salgueiro Gang CHEN Ning KONG Marcelo Bagnulo SHEN Shuo 沈烁 (Sean) Fernando Gont Glen Zorn Reinaldo Penno Klaas Wierenga Pascal Thubert Mehmet Ersue Ole Troan Jouni Korhonen Giles Heron Gunter Van de Velde Arturo Servin Eric Vyncke Cullen Jennings Tina Tsou Dhruv Dhody Hongyu LI (Julio) Scott Mansfield J</pre> Mankin, Allison 2013-05-31T15:23:51 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58341 <pre>For those of you looking at where I-D and RFC authors are from, I'd like to suggest one other thing to look at - the extent that participants are co-authoring with folks outside their region. It's pretty tempting for new participants to submit drafts that they like, and maybe reaching out to their office mates as co-authors, but to be effective in the IETF, participants have to learn how to collaborate with folks from other IETF sponsors (including "other IETF sponsors who compete head-to-head with your IETF sponsor"), other countries, and other regions. "Collaboration" covers many activities, but I'm curious what we might learn from looking at this specific kind of collaboration. &lt;personal self-reveal&gt; I say this to a lot of people who don't believe me, but I have been shy for most of my life, and it's still not easy for me to have conversations with total strangers. That's not a cultural challenge, and it's not a language challenge, but it is a challenge I've faced in the IETF as *I* was lear</pre> Spencer Dawkins 2013-05-31T14:53:21 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58327 <pre>In an attempt to inject some data into the discussion, I wrote a bit of code that figures out how much time, given your home city, you would have spent in the air if you'd attended all IETF meetings since IETF74 (i.e., from 2009 onwards). The first column is the "home" airport. The second column is the great circle time between the home airport and the nearest large airport to the IETF meeting, hhh:mm. This doesn't count things like transit time, taxiing, takeoff and landing overhead, indirect routing, etc. As such, this is an ideal number; the only way to achieve anything close to it is to have a private jet (with exceptional range). The third column is the time (hhh:mm) using the shortest-time routing on a travel booking engine. This is first-takeoff-to-last-landing time. Both numbers assume round trip between "home" and the IETF airports. SFO 204:10 282:04 // San Francisco BOS 197:42 297:38 // Boston ATL 205:44 297:28 // Atlanta ANC 197:12 345:54 // Anchorage LHR 198:02 249:44 // Londo</pre> Mark Nottingham 2013-05-31T09:59:16 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58324 <pre>Total of 283 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri May 31 00:53:02 EDT 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 6.71% | 19 | 6.76% | 149502 | abdussalambaryun&lt; at &gt;gmail.com 5.30% | 15 | 4.74% | 104777 | juliao&lt; at &gt;braga.eti.br 4.59% | 13 | 4.81% | 106323 | john-ietf&lt; at &gt;jck.com 4.95% | 14 | 4.05% | 89568 | melinda.shore&lt; at &gt;gmail.com 4.24% | 12 | 4.09% | 90539 | sm&lt; at &gt;resistor.net 3.53% | 10 | 3.01% | 66505 | dhc&lt; at &gt;dcrocker.net 3.53% | 10 | 2.90% | 64207 | joelja&lt; at &gt;bogus.com 3.18% | 9 | 2.48% | 54808 | aservin&lt; at &gt;lacnic.net 2.83% | 8 | 2.49% | 54963 | arturo.servin&lt; at &gt;gmail.com 1.77% | 5 | 3.36% | 74410 | rlb&lt; at &gt;ipv.sx 2.47% | 7 | 2.53% | 56045 | jmamodio&lt; at &gt;gmail.com 2.47% | 7 | 2.32% | 51295 | johnl&lt; at &gt;taugh.com 2.47% | 7 | 2.09% | 46177 | jari.arkko&lt; at &gt;piuha.net 2.47% | 7 | 2.00% | 44270 | adrian&lt; at &gt;olddog.co.uk 2.47% | 7 | 1.73% | 38288 | randy&lt; at &gt;p</pre> Thomas Narten 2013-05-31T04:53:02 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58285 <pre>As a commercial implementer and acknowledged contributor to the DKIM protocol IETF project, with some reservation, I would like to add my support for the promotion of the DKIM protocol to Internet Standard (IS) status. For the record, I would like to state that there still remains inconsistent reputation modeling of DKIM that has not paid off. DKIM processing has offered no value in message evaluations. No persistent or consistent trust framework ("Batteries Required") has emerged for MTAs, MDAs, MSAs, MUAs or any other DKIM processor. In fact, the higher potential model (Author Domain Policies) which was intentionally separated from DKIM continues to be the trend in currently explored augmented protocols to help protect the DKIM signature layer. Author Domain Policies such as ADSP, and extensions ATPS, ASL and now DMARC has emerged to provide signature protection and handling guidelines for domains and receivers. This Author Domain Policy framework is not depicted, by design, in the DKIM</pre> Hector Santos 2013-05-29T22:57:07 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/58263 <pre>Hi. A number of recent discussions, specifically including the Last Calls on DKIM and standardizing RRTYPEs and even to some extent the meeting location ones, have started me thinking that perhaps we need to review what business the IETF is actually in and to be sure that we actually still agree about it. The note that follows is an attempt to take the isolated parts (and symptoms) of that discussion up a level and discuss it as a general issue. The key issues go to the very nature of standardization. While there are many variations on each, there are two fundamentally different models for what standards are about. Each is legitimate in its own way and each has its advocates, but they are different. One is a focus on quality: an engineering consensus on the best technical solution given physics or consensus goals and boundary conditions. The other is sometimes called "consensus of industry practice" in which a standard reflects what is already deployed, possibly picking among different implemented opt</pre> John C Klensin 2013-05-29T17:23:51 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.ietf.general