Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24847; 2 Mar 95 0:50 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24843; 2 Mar 95 0:50 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22558; 2 Mar 95 0:50 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24836; 2 Mar 95 0:50 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24832; 2 Mar 95 0:50 EST Received: from [130.69.240.4] by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22553; 2 Mar 95 0:50 EST Received: by tansei1.tansei.cc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (5.65+1.6W/2.7W) id AA14043; Thu, 2 Mar 95 14:47:48 JST Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 14:47:48 JST X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: ishida@tansei.cc.u-tokyo.ac.jp Return-Path: Message-Id: <9503020547.AA14043@tansei1.tansei.cc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> To: 0001050002@mcimail.com, iab@isi.edu, iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US, isoc-advisory-officers@linus.isoc.org, isoc-trustees@linus.isoc.org Subject: Re: Newsweek 2/27 - Cliff Stoll - Curmudegeon of Cyberspace Do you know that we have a Japanese version of the Newsweek magazine (most articles are translated into Japanese)? I just read Stoll's (his Cuckoo book has been translated into Japanese) article in Japanese. I didn't know the word 'curmudgeon' and so consulted an E-J dictionary. H.Ishida   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25060; 2 Mar 95 1:27 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25056; 2 Mar 95 1:27 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23039; 2 Mar 95 1:27 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25047; 2 Mar 95 1:27 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25043; 2 Mar 95 1:27 EST Received: from ppp.dbc.mtview.ca.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23032; 2 Mar 95 1:27 EST Received: from dbc.mtview.ca.us by dbc.mtview.ca.us (5.65/3.1.090690) id AA23173; Wed, 1 Mar 95 22:26:25 -0800 X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: IETF NM-AD To: Joel Halpern Cc: mo@uunet.uu.net, iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US Subject: Re: comments on your comments.... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Mar 1995 00:38:38 EST." <9503020538.AA08443@mako.newbridge.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Id: <23164.794125578.1@dbc.mtview.ca.us> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 22:26:19 -0800 Message-Id: <23167.794125579@dbc.mtview.ca.us> X-Orig-Sender: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us > (I will also note that only a small number of people have spoken up in favor > of your proposal For all your shouting, I do not see a community consensus.) explain your definition of "consensus". what i see is a small number of people in favor. i don't see anyone publically arguing against, with the exception, perhaps, of poor frank, who seems a bit befuddled... /mtr   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25090; 2 Mar 95 1:31 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25086; 2 Mar 95 1:31 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23091; 2 Mar 95 1:31 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25079; 2 Mar 95 1:30 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25075; 2 Mar 95 1:30 EST Received: from ppp.dbc.mtview.ca.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23081; 2 Mar 95 1:30 EST Received: from dbc.mtview.ca.us by dbc.mtview.ca.us (5.65/3.1.090690) id AA23682; Wed, 1 Mar 95 22:30:05 -0800 X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: IETF NM-AD To: Scott Bradner Cc: mo@uunet.uu.net, iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US Subject: Re: comments on your comments.... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Mar 1995 00:37:39 EST." <199503020537.AAA26772@newdev.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Id: <23655.794125797.1@dbc.mtview.ca.us> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 22:29:58 -0800 Message-Id: <23657.794125798@dbc.mtview.ca.us> X-Orig-Sender: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us > > thank scott's boss for having such a pervasive infulence on the IESG > > Marshall, > I do want to thank you for keeping this discussion on such > a high level. hey, it's not my problem if you can't control your boss. however, it is my problem when your boss effects IESG policy... > ... that the IETF > should be run in a professional manner and that to do so will reduce > the destain that the IETF is viewed with in some areas. i'm sure that the civil service also aspires to be run in a professional manner; or, at least to be perceived that way. > There are far too > many places that use our standards in spite of us rather than because of > us. true. i'm sure that are a lot of competent engineers who don't bother contributing "in spite of us rather than because of us". there's a moral here. /mtr   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25121; 2 Mar 95 1:33 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25117; 2 Mar 95 1:33 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23120; 2 Mar 95 1:33 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25109; 2 Mar 95 1:33 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25105; 2 Mar 95 1:33 EST Received: from ppp.dbc.mtview.ca.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23115; 2 Mar 95 1:33 EST Received: from dbc.mtview.ca.us by dbc.mtview.ca.us (5.65/3.1.090690) id AA23822; Wed, 1 Mar 95 22:32:41 -0800 To: Mike O'Dell Cc: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US Subject: Re: comments on your comments.... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Mar 1995 00:23:42 EST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Id: <23789.794125951.1@dbc.mtview.ca.us> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 22:32:32 -0800 Message-Id: <23791.794125952@dbc.mtview.ca.us> X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: Marshall Rose > To that end, I now am extremely curious as to just exactly > how you know which times to listen to 200 people screaming in consensus > and yet tell them "NO", and how at other times a different group of > voices speaks to you of consensus so compellingly???? Why and how > are they different? When does consensus rule and when does it not? concensus always rule. however, there's this thing called a sense of smell. from time to time i find myself in situations where my position is counter to the initial concensus. many times, concensus changes. what you fail to understand is that when i say "no", i remind people that there is an appeal process, etc.. think about it. /mtr   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00369; 2 Mar 95 3:44 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00365; 2 Mar 95 3:44 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00741; 2 Mar 95 3:44 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00358; 2 Mar 95 3:44 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00352; 2 Mar 95 3:44 EST Received: from survis.surfnet.nl by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00732; 2 Mar 95 3:44 EST Received: from survival.surfnet.nl by survis.surfnet.nl with SMTP (PP); Thu, 2 Mar 1995 09:44:40 +0100 To: Megan Davies Walnut Cc: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US Subject: Re: Danvers (Sunday dinner after Registration) In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 01 Mar 1995 17:48:09 -0500. <9503011748.aa11954@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US> Organisation: SURFnet bv Address: Cluetinckborch, P.O. Box 19035, 3501 DA Utrecht, NL Phone: +31 30 310290 Telefax: +31 30 340903 Date: Thu, 02 Mar 1995 09:44:37 +0100 X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: "Erik Huizer (SURFnet BV)" Message-ID: <9503020344.aa00732@CNRI.Reston.VA.US> I love Indian food. ==> From: Megan Davies Walnut > If I'm still considered an honorary IESG member for this event :*) > I can make my rental car available. Honorary? Cannot imagine you as honorary :-) Erik   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01256; 2 Mar 95 7:26 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01252; 2 Mar 95 7:26 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03434; 2 Mar 95 7:26 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01245; 2 Mar 95 7:26 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01241; 2 Mar 95 7:26 EST Received: from mail1.Reston.mci.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03429; 2 Mar 95 7:26 EST Received: from klensin (klensin.Reston.mci.net) by MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET (PMDF V4.3-10 #8388) id <01HNNHT8Y928000HWO@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET>; Thu, 02 Mar 1995 07:26:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 1995 07:26:27 -0500 X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: John C Klensin Subject: Re: comments on your comments.... X-Sender: klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net To: IETF NM-AD , Mike O'Dell Cc: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US Message-id: <01HNNHTA9I0Y000HWO@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET> X-Envelope-to: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Marshall, AT&T has never sued me. And _my_ boss thinks, most of the time, that the IETF is the greatest thing since sliced bread. And I find myself feeling, ever more strongly, that, if a deal with Sun can't be cut using the 1602 procedures, the right path is to fix 1602 and then do a deal under 1602bis, rather than doing an exceptional deal. If there is really strong community consensus behind exceptional arrangements, then it ought to be possible, in rather short order, to alter 1602 to recognize such exceptional situations and bring them within the framework. In that regard, everyone has been assuming that "revising 1602" implies that we open it up and go through all of the identified loose ends and problems and that doing so requires reactivating POISED and waiting for it to do its thing. I think that is the right thing to do under reasonable and normal circumstances. But the circumstances are arguably not "reasonable and normal" if, indeed, the delay on ONR/RPC has created a real problem for the community or a real block to the advancement and spread of the Intenet. While I'm very irritated at the delay in doing _something_ about this, I just haven't seen the symptoms of protocol-damage or Internet-improvement damage due to delay. But I may not be looking in the right places. In any event, if the aspects of 1602 that are involved in this problem is a crisis that is more important that other 1602 problems, we even have a history and procedure for dealing with that type of situation: some individual or design team puts together a document that proposes a specific modification to 1602, posts it as an I-D, has some mailing list discussion to focus community consensus, and then gets a Last Call issued. If IESG declined to handle that proposal/request in a timely way, e.g., on the grounds that POISED 2 needed to review it, there would be clear grounds for an appeal within the 1602 procedures. For all I know, we should institutionalize a procedure for getting a mob together to accept something in the name of the community whenever the more regular procedures are, in the opinion of the mob or its leaders, too slow. We might even be able to figure out how large the mob had to be to decide it constituted community consensus. It might provide a better safety valve than periodic instances of "warpaths" or "bloodbaths". But let's see if there is really community consensus behind that notion, rather than discarding both our procedures and our meta-procedures for making procedures when they become inconvenient or too tedious. john   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01514; 2 Mar 95 8:21 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01510; 2 Mar 95 8:21 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04108; 2 Mar 95 8:21 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01503; 2 Mar 95 8:21 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01499; 2 Mar 95 8:21 EST Received: from rodan.UU.NET by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04103; 2 Mar 95 8:21 EST Received: by rodan.UU.NET id QQyfib09666; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 08:21:22 -0500 Message-Id: To: mrose.iesg@dbc.mtview.ca.us Cc: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US, mo@uunet.uu.net Subject: sued, etc...... Date: Thu, 02 Mar 1995 08:21:22 -0500 X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: Mike O'Dell Marshall, you somehow think that my experience with a major lawsuit is somehow constraining my thinking, even the point of paralysis. Nothing could be further from the truth! From having had a ringside seat (but not having been named in the complaint), I now have a pretty good idea how one of these things plays out. It isn't pretty, but learning to use lawyers as tools for your own purposes, rather than just being at their mercy when someone else is doing so, is very liberating. A good Lawyer - sorta like a cruise missle in a good suit. Own one today! -mo   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06392; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06388; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07164; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06365; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06354; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from wd40.ftp.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07144; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from ftp.com by ftp.com ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:51:50 -0500 Received: from mailserv-D.ftp.com by ftp.com ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:51:50 -0500 Received: from stev.d-cell.ftp.com by mailserv-D.ftp.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03259; Thu, 2 Mar 95 10:50:09 EST Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 10:50:09 EST Message-Id: <9503021550.AA03259@mailserv-D.ftp.com> To: jis@mit.edu Subject: Re: Danvers (Sunday dinner after Registration) X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: stev@ftp.com Cc: mwalnut@CNRI.Reston.VA.US, iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US, mwalnut@CNRI.Reston.VA.US X-Orig-Sender: stev@mailserv-d.ftp.com Repository: mailserv-D.ftp.com, [message accepted at Thu Mar 2 10:50:00 1995] Originating-Client: d-cell.ftp.com Content-Length: 332 well, i can bring the Serria, which can seat 3 friendly people, i can bring the villager, which can set 6 (in a pinch 7) people, or i can bring my original choice, my suzuki GSX1100G, which can seat me and a guest, if they have a motorcycle helmet. as long as i know which one i need to bring, it wont be a big deal . . . . .   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06406; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06400; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07169; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06378; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06368; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from wd40.ftp.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07155; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from ftp.com by ftp.com ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:51:53 -0500 Received: from mailserv-D.ftp.com by ftp.com ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:51:53 -0500 Received: from stev.d-cell.ftp.com by mailserv-D.ftp.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03262; Thu, 2 Mar 95 10:50:11 EST Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 10:50:11 EST Message-Id: <9503021550.AA03262@mailserv-D.ftp.com> To: jis@mit.edu Subject: Re: Wither the Internet *or* Routing out of Control X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: stev@ftp.com Cc: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US X-Orig-Sender: stev@mailserv-d.ftp.com Repository: mailserv-D.ftp.com, [message accepted at Thu Mar 2 10:50:01 1995] Originating-Client: d-cell.ftp.com Content-Length: 498 (jumping up and down and otherwise fuming) i can *just* picture this. it brought a smile to me on this early morning. P.S. When this was happening I kept thinking about the RIP-II discussion we had on the last telechat. How we needed RIP-II so that "dumb" devices could communicate routing information. Now I am beginning to wonder about the wisdom of making life easy for "dumb" device creators! thanx for playing, johnny, tell him what he's won . . . .   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06429; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06425; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07183; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06414; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06401; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from wd40.ftp.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07171; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from ftp.com by ftp.com ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:52:04 -0500 Received: from mailserv-D.ftp.com by ftp.com ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:52:04 -0500 Received: from stev.d-cell.ftp.com by mailserv-D.ftp.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03268; Thu, 2 Mar 95 10:50:22 EST Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 10:50:22 EST Message-Id: <9503021550.AA03268@mailserv-D.ftp.com> To: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US Subject: ruminations on the recent flame war X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: stev@ftp.com X-Orig-Sender: stev@mailserv-d.ftp.com Repository: mailserv-D.ftp.com, [message accepted at Thu Mar 2 10:50:02 1995] Originating-Client: d-cell.ftp.com Content-Length: 1961 (ensign, are the shields still up? . . . . ) having watched this for awhile, it is clear to me that there are several things to consider . . . . 1) over time, several people have tried to "fix" the Sun RPC/XDR problem. each of them have tried to fix the problem within the constraints of 1602, usually resetting the clock to the begining. 2) some people who have tried to "help" seem to have hurt. 3) the IESG does not respond well to "threats" or "ultimatums" from outsiders. 4) the IESG does not respond well to "threats" or "ultimatums" from insiders. (before you start, i tried this last year and lost with phil gross.) 5) people on the IESG seem to be busy with their day jobs, and, in their own ways, seem to be trying to do the best thing for the community. 6) people on the IESG understand politics, and alot seem to be pretty good at playing that game (myself included). based on these things, it is clear to me that the IESG needs to be made up of "team players" rather than "young turks". i have seen some good proposals lose in the last 18 months based on the way they were presented. i have also seem some bad ideas move thru without problem due to the way they were presented. this may be the "Wrong Thing(tm)", but we would be stupid to deny the truth. while we are not at the point of having a cult of personality in the IESG, we do need to recognize who we are dealing with. at this point, it is only one month, and probably only one meeting until danvers. at this point, bickering, while possibly cathartic, is probably not productive. it is clear to me that the current IESG is not a team, and as such will not be productive on issues that involve "camps of armed troops". i would imagine that the best thing we can currently do for our community would be to step back and allow vint and company to continue dealing with Sun, and for us to try to move along to subjects that we stand a chance of dealing with productively.   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06452; 2 Mar 95 10:52 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06448; 2 Mar 95 10:52 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07198; 2 Mar 95 10:52 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06441; 2 Mar 95 10:52 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06437; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from wd40.ftp.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07188; 2 Mar 95 10:51 EST Received: from ftp.com by ftp.com ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:52:02 -0500 Received: from mailserv-D.ftp.com by ftp.com ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:52:02 -0500 Received: from stev.d-cell.ftp.com by mailserv-D.ftp.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03265; Thu, 2 Mar 95 10:50:15 EST Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 10:50:15 EST Message-Id: <9503021550.AA03265@mailserv-D.ftp.com> To: mrose.iesg@dbc.mtview.ca.us Subject: Re: comments on your comments.... X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: stev@ftp.com Cc: jhalpern@newbridge.com, mo@uunet.uu.net, iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US X-Orig-Sender: stev@mailserv-d.ftp.com Repository: mailserv-D.ftp.com, [message accepted at Thu Mar 2 10:50:01 1995] Originating-Client: d-cell.ftp.com Content-Length: 852 (i know i should not get involved in this . . . . ensign, bring up the shields . . . .) > (I will also note that only a small number of people have spoken up in favor > of your proposal For all your shouting, I do not see a community consensus.) explain your definition of "consensus". what i see is a small number of people in favor. i don't see anyone publically arguing against, with the exception, perhaps, of poor frank, who seems a bit befuddled... i think the important word there is "community" rather than "consensus". "a small number" is not the community you were talking to in your note, unless you believed that ITC refered to a subset of the IETF mailing list. (an interesting possibility, i admit.) as for frank being befuddled, i woudl suggest that he is trying to restrain himself.   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07829; 2 Mar 95 11:51 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07825; 2 Mar 95 11:51 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08569; 2 Mar 95 11:51 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07816; 2 Mar 95 11:51 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07803; 2 Mar 95 11:51 EST Received: from BBN.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08559; 2 Mar 95 11:51 EST Received: from PEREGRINE.BBN.COM by BBN.COM id aa28025; 2 Mar 95 11:31 EST Received: from peregrine.bbn.com (LOCALHOST.BBN.COM [127.0.0.1]) by peregrine.bbn.com (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA03462; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 11:31:09 -0500 Message-Id: <199503021631.LAA03462@peregrine.bbn.com> To: Steve Coya cc: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US Subject: Re: Formal IAB appeal: IESG paralysis and inactivity In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 Mar 1995 11:10:32 EST." <9503011110.aa05128@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 1995 11:31:08 -0500 X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: Claudio Topolcic Steve, I suggest we put the Motorola patent issue on the IESG agenda. I agree that this issue is not on the IESG's plate. We just receive the status reports. We should say so publically. Actually, we should have said so months ago. Claudio   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08679; 2 Mar 95 12:32 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08674; 2 Mar 95 12:32 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09400; 2 Mar 95 12:32 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08663; 2 Mar 95 12:32 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08659; 2 Mar 95 12:32 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09390; 2 Mar 95 12:32 EST Received: from [127.0.0.1] by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08646; 2 Mar 95 12:31 EST To: Internet Engineering Steering Group X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: IESG Secretary Reply-To: IESG Secretary Subject: Ballot: Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth Version of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) using SMIv2 to Draft Standard Date: Thu, 02 Mar 95 12:31:46 -0500 X-Orig-Sender: scoya@CNRI.Reston.VA.US Message-ID: <9503021231.aa08646@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US> Last Call to expire on: 02/27/1994 Please return the full line with the vote. Yes No-Objection Discuss * Abstain Scott Bradner [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Joel Halpern [ X ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Erik Huizer [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] John Klensin [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Stev Knowles [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Allison Mankin [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Paul Mockapetris [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Mike O'Dell [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Joyce K. Reynolds [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Marshall T. Rose [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Jeff Schiller [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Claudio Topolcic [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Yes => I have read the spec and know it is good stuff. No Obj => I am familiar with the protocol and believe it to be OK. Note: The ballot contains analysis from the AD which may be adequate information to vote positively. Discuss => There is something fishy that may need clarification or modification. May be considered a "no" vote. Abstain => I am not familiar with the spec, have no interest/expertise in the subject or otherwise feel obliged to skip the voting. 2/3 (8) Yes or No-Objection votes needed to pass. * Indicate reason if "Discuss". To: IETF-Announce:; Dcc: ******* Cc: RFC Editor Cc: Internet Architecture Board Cc: bgp@ans.net From: IESG Secretary Subject: Protocol Action: Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth Version of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) using SMIv2 to Draft Standard ------------- The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft "Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth Version of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) using SMIv2" RFC1657 as a Draft Standard. This document is the product of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group. The IESG contact person is Joel Halpern. Technical Summary This MIB defines the management objects for managing an instance of the BGP-4 routing protocol. Working Group Summary After reviewing the situation and discussing possible changes, the working group concluded that the existing MIB, defined when the protocol was standardized at the Proposed level, is still correct. Protocol Quality This is a sound and implementable MIB to manage a BGP-4 protocol entity. It has been reviewed by Joel M. Halpern, the Routing Area Director.   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08820; 2 Mar 95 12:39 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08816; 2 Mar 95 12:39 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09643; 2 Mar 95 12:39 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08809; 2 Mar 95 12:39 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08804; 2 Mar 95 12:39 EST Received: from polaris.zdexpos.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09637; 2 Mar 95 12:39 EST Received: from [192.88.197.9] (gbox_d5.zdexpos.com) by polaris.zdexpos.com with SMTP id AA15799 (5.67b/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 2 Mar 1995 09:39:04 -0800 Message-Id: <199503021739.AA15799@polaris.zdexpos.com> X-Sender: dlynch@polaris.zdexpos.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 09:40:12 -0800 To: Susan Estrada , "Vinton G. Cerf" <0001050002@mcimail.com>, iab , iesg , isoc-advisory-officers , isoc trustees X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: Dan Lynch Subject: Re: Newsweek 2/27 - Cliff Stoll - Curmudegeon of Cyberspace In a big parade even the elephant pooper scooper gets attention. Dan At 3:33 PM 3/1/95 -0800, Susan Estrada wrote: >>From Publishers Weekly, January 16 > >Collision on the Superhighway > >Astronomer Cliff Stoll takes more than a skeptical look at the information >superhighway in "Silicon Snake Oil" (Doubleday, Apr.). Striking out >against the Internet, which he calls an alluring "distraction from reality" >that works against literacy, isolates people from one another and cheapens >the meaning of actual experience, he tells us that, though "the Internet >beckons brightly, seductively flashing an icon of knowledge-as-power, this >nonplace lures us to surrender our time on earth" -- strong words from the >man who wrote "The Cuckoo's Egg", about the awesome power of computer >networking. Hoping to keep the lid on the book until the April pub date, >Doubleday has dispensed with advanced galleys and is launching the title >with Stoll's appearance on Prime Time Live and Good Morning America. > > >************************************************* >Aldea Communications, Inc. | info@aldea.com | 1-619-929-1100 > >Home of NetPages(tm) - real yellow pages for the Internet. >Download NetPages from the following sites: >Santa Cruz Operation - Number 1 Unix Servers > ftp to ftp.sco.com > in the NetPages directory (case sensitive) >AT&T Jens - Japanese Internet Service Provider > ftp to ftp.spin.ad.jp (165.76.8.4) > pub/doc/NetPages >CompuServe's Internet Forum > >"Doing business without advertising is like winking at a girl in the dark: >You know what you are doing but nobody else does." Ed Howe   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11041; 2 Mar 95 14:46 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11037; 2 Mar 95 14:46 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12050; 2 Mar 95 14:46 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11026; 2 Mar 95 14:46 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11022; 2 Mar 95 14:46 EST Received: from zephyr.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12044; 2 Mar 95 14:46 EST Received: from zephyr.isi.edu by zephyr.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-17) id ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 11:47:16 -0800 Message-Id: <199503021947.AA14660@zephyr.isi.edu> To: postel@isi.edu Cc: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US Reply-To: pvm@isi.edu Subject: Re: A draft RFC relating to the address space In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 01 Mar 1995 10:07:35 -0500. <9503011507.AA05697@mailserv-D.ftp.com> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 95 11:47:15 PST X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: Paul Mockapetris > > The IANA will delegate to regional (and other) registries the task of > making specific address allocations to network service providers and > other subregional registries. > > > i thought at least one of the current numbering plans allowed for indiviual's > to get addresses (like they do now, with version 4). > > is there a reason you dont have this in the text? Not that I can think of. Jon, can we add this? paul USC/Information Sciences Institute phone: 310-822-1511 x285 4676 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey, CA fax: 310-823-6714 90292   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id ab12173; 2 Mar 95 15:28 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12169; 2 Mar 95 15:28 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12864; 2 Mar 95 15:28 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12152; 2 Mar 95 15:28 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12131; 2 Mar 95 15:28 EST Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12842; 2 Mar 95 15:28 EST Received: from zen.isi.edu by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-21) id ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 12:28:51 -0800 Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 12:29:03 -0800 X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: postel@isi.edu Posted-Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 12:29:03 -0800 Message-Id: <199503022029.AA13051@zen.isi.edu> Received: by zen.isi.edu (5.65c/4.0.3-4) id ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 12:29:03 -0800 To: pvm@isi.edu Subject: Re: A draft RFC relating to the address space Cc: postel@isi.edu, iesg@isi.edu Hi. Sure. I think what we want to say is something like: "Individuals and organizations may obtain address allocations directly from the appropriate regional (or other) registry, or from their service provider." Does this do it ? --jon.   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14479; 2 Mar 95 17:00 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14475; 2 Mar 95 17:00 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16201; 2 Mar 95 17:00 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14468; 2 Mar 95 17:00 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14463; 2 Mar 95 17:00 EST Received: from zephyr.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16194; 2 Mar 95 17:00 EST Received: from zephyr.isi.edu by zephyr.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-17) id ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 14:00:08 -0800 Message-Id: <199503022200.AA20877@zephyr.isi.edu> To: IETF NM-AD Cc: Mike O'Dell , iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US Reply-To: pvm@isi.edu Subject: Re: RPC working group In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 01 Mar 1995 10:38:15 -0800. <29404.794083095@dbc.mtview.ca.us> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 95 14:00:08 PST X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: Paul Mockapetris > > If someone wishes to argue > > > > "You shoulda given up sooner" > > > > then I claim that's an easy thing to say in hindsight, albeit > > possibly true in retrospect. > > fix the problem, not the blame. it's the IESG's job to make things > work. cowering behind the skirts of 1602, or the legendary incompetence > of the ISOc, isn't exactly what i would view as a good defense. I really don't see how this message helps to fix the problem, not the blame. The problem is that the WGs, IETF, IESG, aren't qualified to do legal work, and were trying to do it. The ISOC wouldn't help or stand behind us. The two ways out of it were (1) stop doing legal things and (2) pass the blame to the IAB. We could have easily asked for a process waiver and watched them go chew on that. The social contract would have been a solution, but it really would have been in the same realm as asking the IAB to create a waiver, in that we would still be responsible for advancing something to a standard which didn't follow 1602. Creating standards benefits those who think mighty standards are good. I don't think that's really the IETF objective. The IETF should create proposed, draft, and full "good things" and let the ISOC worry about whether the legal work is done. We should let those who want to play at standards take the risks. > > But the culture is one where people continue to work on hard > > problems attempting to resolve them, and they don't give up easily. > > with the exception, of course, of the IESG. paul USC/Information Sciences Institute phone: 310-822-1511 x285 4676 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey, CA fax: 310-823-6714 90292   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14567; 2 Mar 95 17:03 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14563; 2 Mar 95 17:03 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16268; 2 Mar 95 17:03 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14555; 2 Mar 95 17:03 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14549; 2 Mar 95 17:03 EST Received: from ppp.dbc.mtview.ca.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16262; 2 Mar 95 17:03 EST Received: from dbc.mtview.ca.us by dbc.mtview.ca.us (5.65/3.1.090690) id AA24548; Thu, 2 Mar 95 14:02:52 -0800 X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: IETF NM-AD To: John C Klensin Cc: Mike O'Dell , iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US Subject: Re: comments on your comments.... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Mar 1995 07:26:27 EST." <01HNNHTA9I0Y000HWO@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Id: <24533.794181750.1@dbc.mtview.ca.us> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 1995 14:02:31 -0800 Message-Id: <24536.794181751@dbc.mtview.ca.us> X-Orig-Sender: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us john - thank you for being the only iesg member to date (besides myself), to suggest that we should try to make some forward progress. in principle, i agree with your proposal. in practice, however, if we fix this via the wg process then we are talking about a six month delay -- even if a design team comes up with the text initially. /mtr   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15028; 2 Mar 95 17:24 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15024; 2 Mar 95 17:24 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16662; 2 Mar 95 17:24 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15009; 2 Mar 95 17:24 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15003; 2 Mar 95 17:24 EST Received: from wd40.ftp.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16649; 2 Mar 95 17:24 EST Received: from ftp.com by ftp.com ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 17:24:28 -0500 Received: from mailserv-D.ftp.com by ftp.com ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 17:24:28 -0500 Received: from stev.d-cell.ftp.com by mailserv-D.ftp.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09617; Thu, 2 Mar 95 17:22:47 EST Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 17:22:47 EST Message-Id: <9503022222.AA09617@mailserv-D.ftp.com> To: IESG Secretary Subject: Re: Ballot: Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth Version of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) using SMIv2 to Draft Standard X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: stev@ftp.com Cc: Internet Engineering Steering Group X-Orig-Sender: stev@mailserv-d.ftp.com Repository: mailserv-D.ftp.com, [message accepted at Thu Mar 2 17:22:27 1995] Originating-Client: d-cell.ftp.com Content-Length: 189 Yes No-Objection Discuss * Abstain Stev Knowles [ X ] [ ] [ ] [ ] i can understand a MIB for a routing thingy . . . .   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15043; 2 Mar 95 17:24 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15039; 2 Mar 95 17:24 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16667; 2 Mar 95 17:24 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15023; 2 Mar 95 17:24 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15018; 2 Mar 95 17:24 EST Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16655; 2 Mar 95 17:24 EST Received: from ftp.com (wd40.ftp.com) by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-21) id ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 14:24:32 -0800 Received: from ftp.com by ftp.com ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 17:24:31 -0500 Received: from mailserv-D.ftp.com by ftp.com ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 17:24:31 -0500 Received: from stev.d-cell.ftp.com by mailserv-D.ftp.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09621; Thu, 2 Mar 95 17:22:50 EST Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 17:22:50 EST Message-Id: <9503022222.AA09621@mailserv-D.ftp.com> To: postel@isi.edu Subject: Re: A draft RFC relating to the address space X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: stev@ftp.com Cc: pvm@isi.edu, postel@isi.edu, iesg@isi.edu X-Orig-Sender: stev@mailserv-d.ftp.com Repository: mailserv-D.ftp.com, [message accepted at Thu Mar 2 17:22:28 1995] Originating-Client: d-cell.ftp.com Content-Length: 371 Sure. I think what we want to say is something like: "Individuals and organizations may obtain address allocations directly from the appropriate regional (or other) registry, or from their service provider." Does this do it ? many thanx, it is the small victories like this that make it worth coming back in the morning . . . .   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15310; 2 Mar 95 17:35 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15306; 2 Mar 95 17:35 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16902; 2 Mar 95 17:35 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15298; 2 Mar 95 17:35 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15292; 2 Mar 95 17:35 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16897; 2 Mar 95 17:35 EST Received: from [127.0.0.1] by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15282; 2 Mar 95 17:35 EST To: John C Klensin cc: mwalnut@CNRI.Reston.VA.US, iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US Subject: Re: IETF registration In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 Mar 95 20:56:13 EST." <01HNMVSQAYBE000H86@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 95 17:35:10 -0500 X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: Steve Coya Message-ID: <9503021735.aa15282@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US> >> As I was printing out an IETF registration form to carry to the fax >> machine last night, I had my three-times-a-year attack of "this is >> really stupid". What do we need to do to enable the secretariat with, >> e.g., PGP and/or PEM public keys so that credit card numbers can be >> mailed to you without sending them in the clear across the Internet? >> Are you looking at the various other Internet payment schemes? yes, I am (we are). A request has been sent to our technical folks, explaining our need and requesting their help to get a solution in place. Steve   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17578; 2 Mar 95 20:58 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17574; 2 Mar 95 20:58 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20090; 2 Mar 95 20:58 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17567; 2 Mar 95 20:58 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17563; 2 Mar 95 20:58 EST Received: from stilton.cisco.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20085; 2 Mar 95 20:58 EST Received: (fred@localhost) by stilton.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/8.6.5) id RAA00379; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 17:58:50 -0800 Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 17:58:50 -0800 X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: Fred Baker Message-Id: <199503030158.RAA00379@stilton.cisco.com> To: Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr Subject: Formal IAB appeal: IESG paralysis and inactivity Cc: iab@isi.edu, iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US Please be advised that although Steve Coya has apparently not sent a copy of Motorola's letter agreeing to provide terms on their compression patents by 12/31/94, I told him the contents of the letter. He constructively has as much information as anyone else does. Motorola is stalling (IMHO), and the IETF under 1602 has little recourse. Having said which, our legal counsel indicates that there is a problem with the legal directives in 1602 - when a party can assert the existence of a patent and provide neither proof of existence nor cooperation in resolution, the party is on shaky ground. My boss and I have discussed perhaps having Cisco fund the ISOC's getting better counsel and a better plan for dealing with patents and other intellectual property. Is there interest on your part in persuing this? Fred   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17599; 2 Mar 95 20:59 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17595; 2 Mar 95 20:59 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20106; 2 Mar 95 20:59 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17588; 2 Mar 95 20:59 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17584; 2 Mar 95 20:59 EST Received: from stilton.cisco.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20101; 2 Mar 95 20:59 EST Received: (fred@localhost) by stilton.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/8.6.5) id SAA00410; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 18:00:07 -0800 Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 18:00:07 -0800 X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: Fred Baker Message-Id: <199503030200.SAA00410@stilton.cisco.com> To: Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr Subject: Formal IAB appeal: IESG paralysis and inactivity Cc: iab@isi.edu, iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US oops - "Him" was the infamous and one and only gentleman from Michigan, the rigt honorable Bill Simpson.   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22008; 2 Mar 95 23:32 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22004; 2 Mar 95 23:32 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22749; 2 Mar 95 23:32 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21997; 2 Mar 95 23:32 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21993; 2 Mar 95 23:32 EST Received: from mail1.Reston.mci.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22738; 2 Mar 95 23:32 EST Received: from jck (klensin.Reston.mci.net) by MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET (PMDF V4.3-10 #8388) id <01HNOFKJS2Q8000HSK@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET>; Thu, 02 Mar 1995 23:32:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 1995 23:29:19 -0500 X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: John C Klensin Subject: Re: comments on your comments.... X-Sender: klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net To: IETF NM-AD Cc: Mike O'Dell , iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US Message-id: <01HNOFKN9ZTI000HSK@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET> X-Envelope-to: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >thank you for being the only iesg member to date (besides myself), to >suggest that we should try to make some forward progress. Marshall, I think others have been trying to do so in their own way too, but have been put off by a sense that this whole enterprise was projected into an adversarial situation (intentionally or unintentionally). >in practice, however, if we fix this via the wg process then we are >talking about a six month delay -- even if a design team comes up with >the text initially. I'm not sure I used the term "wg", and, at least in retrospect, didn't intend to. If I correctly understand the process you are proposing, you want to (presumably for this case only) (1) remove the Sun topic from the IESG/Secretariat/ISOC loop (2) hand it over to a self-defined "community agreement" collection of people (3) let a [self-] selected subset of them sign a document and collectively take over the technology (4) bypass, avoid, or ignore any legal review of the above sequence and acceptance process on the theory that the people who are comfortable with it will sign and those who aren't, won't. Now I'm not convinced that is a good idea. And I learned enough paranoia at my father's knee that I certainly wouldn't sign an agreement on that basis. But I'm happy to go along with real community consensus if it is there, and if it is there for a change in procedures, not just a precedent that we abandon written rules and fall back on assertions and interpretations of unwritten universal truths when the written rules are inconvenient or too slow. But, if the consensus is there -- both that this process is worth doing and that it is important enough -- there there ought to be enough consensus to insert steps 0.1 and 0.2: (0.1) Write up a set of procedures that permits the above process and spells out the conditions (I presume either a working definition of paralysis or a community antagonism level in decibels or degrees Kelvin) under which it can/should be applied. And write up the process itself (if the summary above is accurate, it is a start). (0.2) Post it as an I-D and issue a four week Last Call. Could that turn into six months instead of four to six weeks? Of course it could. But having it do so would, IMO, require either serious malfeasance on the part of IESG (e.g., refusing to take something to ballot), rather than just nonfeasance or paralysis or trying to proceed carefully or would demonstrate that the community wasn't, after all, concerned and focused enough on this to converge quickly and clearly. john   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01599; 3 Mar 95 8:35 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01595; 3 Mar 95 8:35 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04315; 3 Mar 95 8:35 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01588; 3 Mar 95 8:35 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01584; 3 Mar 95 8:35 EST Received: from ncc.ripe.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04306; 3 Mar 95 8:35 EST Received: from saftig.ripe.net by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA06292 (5.65a/NCC-2.18); Fri, 3 Mar 1995 14:35:45 +0100 Message-Id: <9503031335.AA06292@ncc.ripe.net> To: Hostcount Recipients: @ripe.net:; Subject: hostcount for February 1995 Date: Fri, 03 Mar 1995 14:35:40 +0100 X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: Mirjam Kuehne Dear all, Here is the hostcount for February 1995. The hosts in the following domains are now counted locally: at be cy cz de fr gr ie il it pt sk uk I made two hostcounts for February: one was calculated in the usual way and the other was calculated incorporating the local counts for the domains above. I made some comparisons between the two sets of data and have published only the latter. When the hosts are counted centrally a significant number of zones are missed and not included in the total numbers. It seems clear therefor that the results are more reliable if they are produced locally for each domain. A few countries have made big increases again, to a total increase since last month of over 91,000 (or 8.3%) to almost 1,200,000 machines in the DNS in Europe. There is one thing to note about the de domain: It shows an enormous increase since last month. The person responsible for the hostcount in Germany did some research on that and found a zone with the following kind of A RR's: host.x.y.z.1. a x.y.z.1 host.x.y.z.2. a x.y.z.2 host.x.y.z.3. a x.y.z.3 host.x.y.z.4. a x.y.z.4 host.x.y.z.5. a x.y.z.5 host.x.y.z.6. a x.y.z.6 host.x.y.z.7. a x.y.z.7 host.x.y.z.8. a x.y.z.8 [...] 65,000 A RR's. In the actual hostcount are only 25,000 A RR's included because the host command contains a limit for hosts per zone: *** maximum of 25000 hostnames reached This implies that you can add another 40,000 hosts to the figures for the de domain. This incident shows what the hostcount actually represents: Technically, it is a count of A records in all zones that could be retrieved. Heuristically, it gives an approximate overview of the current machine population. This should remind us to be careful with the objectivity of the hostcount and the purposes we use it for. The hostcount can also be found under ftp.ripe.net/ripe/hostcount If you have any comments or questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Mirjam RIPE NCC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RIPE DNS Hostcount Previous Count : Tue Jan 31 1995 This Count : Tue Feb 28 1995 CY SOA COUNTED DUPL REAL CHANGE ============================================================ al 3 0 0 0 0 at 578 32052 319 31733 + 2805 az 3 16 0 0 - 16 be 330 19885 334 19551 + 486 bg 20 196 25 171 + 5 by 1 2 0 2 0 ch 380 54785 380 54405 + 2169 cy 4 8 3 5 - 82 cz 211 12750 185 12565 + 891 de 2839 251388 6508 244880 +35612 dk 323 28332 344 27988 + 640 dz 2 10 0 10 0 ee 63 1302 10 1292 - 124 eg 6 170 2 168 0 es 568 31905 533 31372 + 4332 fi 655 78914 1507 77407 + 5768 fo 13 438 0 438 + 436 fr 1281 99979 1300 98679 + 4567 gb 1 27 0 27 0 ge 1 0 0 0 0 gr 170 4015 221 3794 - 236 hr 73 1466 31 1435 - 21 hu 106 9003 52 8951 + 290 ie 67 6171 82 6089 - 238 il 255 14437 366 14071 + 429 is 87 5027 41 4986 + 229 it 1019 37432 1256 36176 + 3842 li 4 30 3 0 - 27 lt 17 166 2 164 + 9 lu 45 712 5 707 + 92 lv 20 642 6 636 + 18 ma 0 0 0 0 0 mk 1 0 0 0 0 mt 1 0 0 0 0 nl 739 93771 2482 91289 + 2010 no 891 54848 1626 53222 + 2960 pl 397 10952 854 10098 - 1255 pt 138 6380 70 6310 + 789 ro 24 536 37 499 + 1 ru 248 2713 271 2442 + 342 se 1077 89181 2691 86490 + 6832 si 115 2164 76 2088 + 255 sk 86 1712 32 1680 + 117 su 271 5784 297 5487 + 355 tn 3 64 7 57 0 tr 50 958 11 947 - 1174 ua 72 707 95 612 + 10 uk 3187 284070 25082 258988 +18689 va 0 0 0 0 0 yu 3 0 0 0 0 ============================================================ 16448 1245100 47146 1197911 +91807   Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02384; 3 Mar 95 9:31 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02380; 3 Mar 95 9:30 EST Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05719; 3 Mar 95 9:30 EST Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02373; 3 Mar 95 9:30 EST Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02369; 3 Mar 95 9:30 EST Received: from Newbridge.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05696; 3 Mar 95 9:30 EST Received: from Newbridge.COM ([138.120.100.14]) by nbkanata.Newbridge.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21907; Fri, 3 Mar 95 09:25:19 EST Received: from mako.newbridge.com by Newbridge.COM (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA29033; Fri, 3 Mar 95 09:24:43 EST Received: from lobster.Newbridge.COM by mako.newbridge.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA08086; Fri, 3 Mar 95 09:29:56 EST Received: by lobster.Newbridge.COM (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09080; Fri, 3 Mar 1995 09:29:55 +0500 Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 09:29:55 +0500 X-Orig-Sender:iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: Joel Halpern Message-Id: <9503031429.AA09080@lobster.Newbridge.COM> To: mrose.iesg@dbc.mtview.ca.us Subject: Re: comments on your comments.... Cc: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Content-Length: 412 You say you don't see anyone arguing againts your proposal. All of the IESG members are also full members of this community. As such, I am entitled to count my head, and other IESG members when looking to see who opposes your proposal. We don't count any more than You, or Dave Crocker, or Vernon Schryer. But wqe don't count any less. Yours, Joel M. Halpern jhalpern@newbridge.com Newbridge Networks Inc.