ya Sabahattin Gucukoglu is right, if we don't do anything it is much worse than what we do. So I think we need to increase the productivity in IP v6.
best wishes,
Sanjay
+91-9920291497.
2011/4/12 <ietf-request@xxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
ietf-owner@xxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: draft-ietf-kitten-digest-to-historic.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxx>
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
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: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.
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.
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@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Doug Barton <dougb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
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.roni@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:40:36 +0300
Subject: GEn-ART last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-07I 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@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf