From denghui02@gmail.com Wed Apr 3 05:03:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C128721F8ADC for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:03:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oOy-s9uXFW8f for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:03:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x232.google.com (mail-qc0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E7721F8A0C for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:03:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id d10so636359qca.23 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 05:03:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=992DDXGIE5/f64dZkOF1nSqgh9ueRpYLIXXvxFxWADg=; b=aY35OMoXB+AtFoO1DhDoCnq3vSDH2QnIhkYiHoQyBuwl3M0tGKluLB6yl57SafMN8g raPlResG4NLhDU4kt7O53Cz0hdTw/NCKdnmISTuJllI/1vxj2lf1fKlON0gD3lotdW6d TDZsBCJRQWRefXCSCu4MUqu3zEmfxpK1z5rA5B8Sbh6LbG1FOmaidsF4QLfKxiW7iumv 6j1hfEcz41QH4TVJPoNbMGQDQlGC1SWC5hgYYZGkgK9VCWUhdS6PL2YFTcZhBXMeU8ST Mlt8GMvv4b/57OAzN586PoAr8dXnKlcohgjcHS9mrHdPWr8nFH2CvEMrdPi0Jp1PjgGe t1AQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.80.4 with SMTP id r4mr1303041qak.95.1364990634741; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 05:03:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.95.133 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:03:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:03:54 +0800 Message-ID: From: Hui Deng To: MIF Mailing List , Margaret Wasserman , Ted Lemon Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c287fee7d8c404d973a5dc Subject: [mif] The formation of the design team X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:03:55 -0000 --001a11c287fee7d8c404d973a5dc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello all, MIF working group has formed a design team to work on the architecture issue. Below are the list of contributors: Alper Yegin Aaron Yi DING Cao Zhen Dan York [security related only] Dapeng Liu Dave Thaler Fred baker [I'm willing to do that] Jouni Korhonen JuanCarlos.Zuniga Konstantinos Pentikousis Lorenzo Colitti Marc Blanchet pierrick.seite suresh krishnan Tim Chown [identity or other perspectives] Teemu Savolainen WG Chair: Margaret Wasserman, Hui Deng AD: Ted Lemon thank you -chairs --001a11c287fee7d8c404d973a5dc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello all,
=A0
MIF working group = has formed a design team to work on the architecture issue.
Below= are the list of contributors:
=A0
Alper Yegin
Aaron= Yi DING=A0=A0=A0
Cao Zhen=A0
Dan York [security related only]
Dapeng Liu=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0
Dave Thaler
Fred baker [I'm willing to do that]
Jouni= Korhonen=A0=A0=A0=A0
JuanCarlos.Zuniga=A0
Konstantinos Pentikousis= =A0
Lorenzo Colitti
Marc Blanchet=A0=A0
pierrick.seite=A0=A0=A0=A0
suresh krishnan=A0 <= br>Tim Chown=A0 [identity or other perspectives]
Teemu Savolainen
WG= Chair: Margaret Wasserman, Hui Deng
AD: Ted Lemon
=A0
thank you
=A0
-chairs
=A0
--001a11c287fee7d8c404d973a5dc-- From mcr@sandelman.ca Wed Apr 3 09:02:53 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D1AD21F8F70 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:02:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xicQuXjdaacb for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08A921F8F6D for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9076820168 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 12:12:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 03D18638E8; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 12:02:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C66BB638E7 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 12:02:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: MIF Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Subject: Re: [mif] The formation of the design team X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:02:53 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "Hui" =3D=3D Hui Deng writes: Hui> Hello all, Hui> MIF working group has formed a design team to work on the architec= ture Hui> issue. Hui> Below are the list of contributors: It's a rather big design team.=20 Almost seems like a cmte of the whole :-) I'm wondering what is the "architecture issue". =2D-=20 Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUAUVxSnIqHRg3pndX9AQIbQQQA2+GKgvdYo0lcbLetIFyjy09KOj2PMDVv 4limoniN0jbiSK+zUKBrVsj8BOs3kSrXLvGi+VHaeN6auUMo7FdayUMyThaIdBBB NHS0PZCpKnJwS6mflWk/XqK6rfI7BqZEuSxXTODKkDKTeo3Rld3/W4nhpocIQCGU GtHh0Dn7YR4= =ktep -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Wed Apr 3 09:26:42 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 019E721F8EAE for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:26:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.718 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.718 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.973, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ViNnPaM+sQon for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:26:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com (mail-wg0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5170B21F8AC2 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:26:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id c11so1846423wgh.20 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:26:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=q4xkC9YWmD3kKj1AzxFVuTY7VOQ3dI6SSCc5FmIkW54=; b=TyWRBOjmKKTr7h3pqAZWNdVsS4DPM3ohOfkc3bTIsTvhq1juoTVPcqS8yBKsUBEUi5 1AbK2f+Q7uWKOStpGuEJg7COL5vHFpop/TAY+w1rBoNmv9+VPq5t/pDeJg3+k+f3+nrA kxoAxcaFkb1dOuWG7hhvX2CkhLH8gycD5xsAPtIEnam9whd3HOZk18cMqhj1zT4ES3Po fpTuZFi5bjjJwgnHzW4ymEV2Fqhiw1/5SxLMRn71nHcAS56EsdyG62pP3bLOie3eajLe hQMdXu1Reb6h14FCHoz8lDVpGFVU6rgz+GLzGqOOBnLV4mJWtVRC5hhEeEtO+tNOKghd mhgQ== X-Received: by 10.194.220.37 with SMTP id pt5mr3535124wjc.16.1365006400468; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:26:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.65] (host-2-102-217-221.as13285.net. [2.102.217.221]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dm9sm25923196wib.3.2013.04.03.09.26.38 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:26:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <515C5844.1020802@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 17:26:44 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Richardson References: <28783.1365004956@sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <28783.1365004956@sandelman.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: MIF Mailing List Subject: Re: [mif] The formation of the design team X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:26:42 -0000 On 03/04/2013 17:02, Michael Richardson wrote: >>>>>> "Hui" == Hui Deng writes: > Hui> Hello all, > > Hui> MIF working group has formed a design team to work on the architecture > Hui> issue. > Hui> Below are the list of contributors: > > It's a rather big design team. > Almost seems like a cmte of the whole :-) > > I'm wondering what is the "architecture issue". I think the real question is whether the architecture issue that underlies MIF can actually be solved within the limits of an IETF WG. But certainly the first stage is to produce a clear statement of what the issue is, and I would press the design team to bring that statement back to the WG *before* considering possible solutions. BTW, it's normal for a design team to have a sort of mini-charter that consists of more than two words. Brian From mrw@lilacglade.org Wed Apr 3 10:34:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4B721F8CCB for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 10:34:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N-rNdtDs7994 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 10:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC46821F8AAA for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 10:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from new-host-3.home (pool-71-184-79-25.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [71.184.79.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38E3B2016B; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 13:33:42 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Margaret Wasserman In-Reply-To: <515C5844.1020802@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 13:34:53 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0B1F4EC1-B8EA-4D0A-815E-27FD485A6BD0@lilacglade.org> References: <28783.1365004956@sandelman.ca> <515C5844.1020802@gmail.com> To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: MIF Mailing List Subject: Re: [mif] The formation of the design team X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 17:34:55 -0000 Hi Brian, > I think the real question is whether the architecture issue > that underlies MIF can actually be solved within the limits > of an IETF WG. But certainly the first stage is to produce a > clear statement of what the issue is, and I would press the > design team to bring that statement back to the WG *before* > considering possible solutions. There are already two sources of information about "the problem" = available: (1) The problem statement we published last year. (2) The slides Ted Lemon presented in Orlando. I don't see how we would benefit from going through another multi-year = effort to identify "the problem". Maybe it is true that when we start = looking at the solution space, we will decide that there is no tractable = way to solve the problem, but we'll never figure that out if we don't = look at the solution space at some point=85 There are already solutions out there that solve (parts of) the problem, = too, and we attempted to document those, as well. > BTW, it's normal for a design team to have a sort of mini-charter > that consists of more than two words. In my experience, design teams have varied a lot both in formality and = organization. During the first call, we will talk to the design team = about how we want to organize ourselves. Like all design teams, of course, anything the team produces will just = be input to the WG=85 We would need WG consensus to adopt it or publish = it. Margaret From mrw@lilacglade.org Wed Apr 3 10:40:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C292421F8D79 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 10:40:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9G2-nedJ8f25 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 10:40:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8990721F8D35 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 10:40:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from new-host-3.home (pool-71-184-79-25.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [71.184.79.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C16F2016B; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 13:39:34 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Margaret Wasserman In-Reply-To: <28783.1365004956@sandelman.ca> Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 13:40:45 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <32FC3B73-03B7-4A66-9CCD-16143413FAA9@lilacglade.org> References: <28783.1365004956@sandelman.ca> To: Michael Richardson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: MIF Mailing List Subject: Re: [mif] The formation of the design team X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 17:40:50 -0000 On Apr 3, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Michael Richardson = wrote: > It's a rather big design team.=20 > Almost seems like a cmte of the whole :-) We made a call at the meeting and on the list for participants, and we = took everyone who volunteered. I suspect that not everyone who = volunteered for (or was drafted for :-)) the design team will actively = participate, and the number of volunteers wasn't so large that it made = sense to exclude anyone. > I'm wondering what is the "architecture issue". This design team is going to look at the "Multiple Provisioning Domain" = problem, and work on an architectural approach (or approaches?) to = addressing that issue. It will be interesting to see if we can get any = consensus, even within the team, about what the problem is at an = architectural level and how to address it. I think we have a lot of = different ideas, and it will be interesting to see if we can find some = common ground. Margaret From mcr@sandelman.ca Wed Apr 3 10:47:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65D721F8D86 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 10:47:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EHeTHeMMnNNl for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 10:47:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E4A21F8D40 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 10:47:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 978A920168; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 13:56:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id D8B86638E8; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 13:47:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75D8638E7; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 13:47:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: MIF Mailing List In-Reply-To: <0B1F4EC1-B8EA-4D0A-815E-27FD485A6BD0@lilacglade.org> References: <28783.1365004956@sandelman.ca> <515C5844.1020802@gmail.com> <0B1F4EC1-B8EA-4D0A-815E-27FD485A6BD0@lilacglade.org> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Subject: Re: [mif] The formation of the design team X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 17:47:41 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "Margaret" =3D=3D Margaret Wasserman writes: >> I think the real question is whether the architecture issue >> that underlies MIF can actually be solved within the limits >> of an IETF WG. But certainly the first stage is to produce a >> clear statement of what the issue is, and I would press the >> design team to bring that statement back to the WG *before* >> considering possible solutions. Margaret> There are already two sources of information about "the probl= em" available: Margaret> (1) The problem statement we published last year. Margaret> (2) The slides Ted Lemon presented in Orlando. I actually did look at the WG datatracker page to try and see if I could find such a document before I asked.... I guess I missed finding it as I was looking for "architecture", not "problem statement" RFC6418. I guess "Ted Lemon presented" slides are: http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/86/slides/slides-86-mif-1.pdf "The solution requires fundamental changes in=09 the default architecture of IP stacks" I think that this is the "architecture" problem then? The question is I think, how to architect the IP stack such that the bag of things that make up a provisioning domain can be collected together properly, and expressed in a concise enough way that an application can actually say "use this provisioning domain". =2D-=20 ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh network= s [=20 ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect= [=20 ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails = [=20 =09 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUAUVxrK4qHRg3pndX9AQKTgwQAp1lzsiAu3ieMHvAvOdkve5esvTwrRXSb TMMExALXhNkhgIOxaHvr6OrZSJBkcoLssEXnHKb5Eu6s67lNyFA0nBNWZYZmPx7O 6OZhVpIiSlNNgAUlOYQlcj6+jDUfEebADOi7mB1M9w3atSx5f0nGTyKgQwaQnm+z v34LlkJt2yU= =tlEh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Wed Apr 3 16:37:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A7C621F8D90 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:37:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zCoGu9SCdhrS for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3771F21F918F for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUVy9KOKIw8baQEULHTEHk7tBCy5wFZbW@postini.com; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:37:13 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D10F41281DC for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:37:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA6DE190060; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:37:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:37:13 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: Michael Richardson Thread-Topic: [mif] The formation of the design team Thread-Index: AQHOMGNRrf9AO51xqECY6nyMtYZtkZjFHeIAgAB/AgA= Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 23:37:12 +0000 Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077513064A@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> References: <28783.1365004956@sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <28783.1365004956@sandelman.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4E1058A68452A149A5523495D5B04768@nominum.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: MIF Mailing List Subject: Re: [mif] The formation of the design team X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 23:37:14 -0000 On Apr 3, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Michael Richardson wro= te: > I'm wondering what is the "architecture issue". There was a detailed presentation on this in Orlando. From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Wed Apr 3 16:48:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59ED421F87B7 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:48:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0si+q2CxshuX for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCB7321F8771 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob123.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUVy/3syvTB9CRoRCEOx7pkReQApJBYdq@postini.com; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:48:46 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676A5108A8B for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6092519005D; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:48:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:48:46 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: Brian E Carpenter Thread-Topic: [mif] The formation of the design team Thread-Index: AQHOMGNRrf9AO51xqECY6nyMtYZtkZjFHeIAgAAGvwCAAHuAAA== Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 23:48:46 +0000 Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775130765@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> References: <28783.1365004956@sandelman.ca> <515C5844.1020802@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <515C5844.1020802@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <21D6604F32434743BD2F1B5D8AF3C68F@nominum.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: MIF Mailing List Subject: Re: [mif] The formation of the design team X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 23:48:47 -0000 On Apr 3, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I think the real question is whether the architecture issue > that underlies MIF can actually be solved within the limits > of an IETF WG. But certainly the first stage is to produce a > clear statement of what the issue is, and I would press the > design team to bring that statement back to the WG *before* > considering possible solutions. Work that the IETF does has to be done in working groups, or as individual = submissions, or by the IAB or the IESG. Are you proposing that this work = should be done in one of those other ways, rather than by the MIF working g= roup, which was chartered to do this work and has already written a problem= statement? I don't think you were at the MIF meeting, so you may not hav= e heard my presentation on this, but the slides are available, and I think = the session was recorded. Ultimately, we definitely need something for the rest of the IETF, not just= MIF, to review, but we have to have something for the IETF *to* review; th= at is the point. Michael did raise the question of whether this is really a design team, or = the entire working group. This is something that I discussed with the MIF= chairs as well. It's difficult to say; if everybody on the list winds up= being an active participant, then maybe Michael is correct. I personally= doubt that's so. However, it may be that you or Michael are concerned that process isn't bei= ng followed. It could be argued that the meeting Hui announced is really = an interim working group meeting and not a design team meeting. If that's= the case, then the two week notice requirement applies. I don't have a strong preference for keeping this as a design team thing if= people object. I doubt the chairs do either. It's certainly easier to = schedule meetings if it's just a design team, and I think it's legitimate t= o claim that it's a design team. But, frankly, you have more experience w= ith this sort of thing than I do; if in your expert opinion this is an inte= rim working group meeting and not a design team meeting, I think we ought t= o take that seriously. But as for the question of where to do the work, I think at least for the m= oment, unless you have some serious proposal to make, MIF is in fact the ri= ght place.= From mcr@sandelman.ca Wed Apr 3 17:51:33 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CE0921F92C9 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:51:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T56gRS+yU1kA for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCBFD21F92C5 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B6120168 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:00:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 09903638E8; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:51:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E88E863781 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:51:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: MIF Mailing List In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775130765@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> References: <28783.1365004956@sandelman.ca> <515C5844.1020802@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775130765@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Subject: Re: [mif] The formation of the design team X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 00:51:33 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "Ted" =3D=3D Ted Lemon writes: Ted> Michael did raise the question of whether this is really a Ted> design team, or the entire working group. This is something Ted> that I discussed with the MIF chairs as well. It's difficult Ted> to say; if everybody on the list winds up being an active Ted> participant, then maybe Michael is correct. I personally Ted> doubt that's so.=20 I have recent poor experiences with large "design" teams that didn't keep enough records, and did not communicate with the WG.=20=20 I don't have a problem with a three person design team that has the ability to schedule multiple afternoon work sessions a week and actually get things done. I don't see how this long list of people can actually do this.=20=20 Ted> However, it may be that you or Michael are concerned that Ted> process isn't being followed. It could be argued that the Ted> meeting Hui announced is really an interim working group Ted> meeting and not a design team meeting. If that's the case, Ted> then the two week notice requirement applies.=20 I'd rather that it wasn't an interim working group meeting. I don't feel that the process isn't being followed: it hadn't even occured to me that a cmte of the whole is effectively an interim meeting. I'm just concerned that such a large design team will be ineffective, but let's go ahead, and see what turns up. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUAUVzOg4qHRg3pndX9AQLKJwQAskHNKJbt4Hxr6EYyXWpP3QUIG6+qHEoZ bbFytp5czKznb1vm3G/bS6Koa9tLffNsq6MsnfxgbSEsW9B+ckFHurWZKLhim7RR O3wRIXMLDsicrKJw3I1bwd0v/b27WMEmMTqc6dFFE8xn0wE3ASPpMHY1jYlfrQou bRAe672xUSY= =JnJa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Thu Apr 4 00:12:44 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0022D21F95FC for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 00:12:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.655, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x7rsUpF+JOC6 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 00:12:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com (mail-wi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B6DC21F95FB for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 00:12:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id hm14so2275013wib.4 for ; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 00:12:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ORGLr/Lg3gGXbhFun7VKQc/P6gWoaDaExF33TTjuatI=; b=R8yJrQHz6XXwQCKm41kB+Xw8jVfZoxNqGKTtLLsjkamTBL7zlY/FsY0Vu+X0w5KbTT PWdzOjfNYd+XdLsZwQsMtnf9/rhDFabn5rCSuP1Njg2lls+R/IARQIV7qzeu9a4m2X/2 DXZu5I/ZJkzxVJykLkTx4nfvvwkiplOkBvm4BmB1MFqbLt7N5u3f7nHb685i0OKfOXTi 1YdOyMA85TsBULaI03A0jt/iFFoAOqTsnlVCKIesp3pmhMxB1DmZ6YVIsAhk0mW3vRXQ MC9d4JCW0UZ9pS6dY0yviUw2FhFfdoIqk+zVXNBbjM0bJ5IaSmdyZ+2+f4YHlnfdMigQ Xgsw== X-Received: by 10.194.222.3 with SMTP id qi3mr7470677wjc.28.1365059562352; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 00:12:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.65] (host-2-102-219-181.as13285.net. [2.102.219.181]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j4sm29154494wiz.10.2013.04.04.00.12.40 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Apr 2013 00:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <515D27EA.20006@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 08:12:42 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Margaret Wasserman References: <28783.1365004956@sandelman.ca> <515C5844.1020802@gmail.com> <0B1F4EC1-B8EA-4D0A-815E-27FD485A6BD0@lilacglade.org> In-Reply-To: <0B1F4EC1-B8EA-4D0A-815E-27FD485A6BD0@lilacglade.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: MIF Mailing List Subject: Re: [mif] The formation of the design team X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 07:12:44 -0000 Margaret, On 03/04/2013 18:34, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > Hi Brian, >=20 >> I think the real question is whether the architecture issue >> that underlies MIF can actually be solved within the limits >> of an IETF WG. But certainly the first stage is to produce a >> clear statement of what the issue is, and I would press the >> design team to bring that statement back to the WG *before* >> considering possible solutions. >=20 > There are already two sources of information about "the problem" availa= ble: >=20 > (1) The problem statement we published last year. Meaning RFC 6418, I assume. Well yes, that is what the WG is supposed to be doing - I assumed from Hui's message that this was a design team for some specific subset of MIF's problem set. > (2) The slides Ted Lemon presented in Orlando. Again, I would have expected a reference to that it the announcement. It was by no means obvious to people who did not attend. As a matter of fact I very much like those slides, especially slide 9. Unfortunately I believe what I said above: the scope of the underlying problem is very broad and very hard to solve. It would take a lot more th= an one email to really justify that statement, but I think the design team w= ill have to scope their work very narrowly to focus on partial solutions. >=20 > I don't see how we would benefit from going through another multi-year = effort to identify "the problem". Maybe it is true that when we start lo= oking at the solution space, we will decide that there is no tractable wa= y to solve the problem, but we'll never figure that out if we don't look = at the solution space at some point=E2=80=A6 >=20 > There are already solutions out there that solve (parts of) the problem= , too, and we attempted to document those, as well. >=20 >> BTW, it's normal for a design team to have a sort of mini-charter >> that consists of more than two words. >=20 >=20 > In my experience, design teams have varied a lot both in formality and = organization.=20 Yes, but a few more words of explanation would have made things a *lot* c= learer. > During the first call, we will talk to the design team about how we wan= t to organize ourselves. >=20 > Like all design teams, of course, anything the team produces will just = be input to the WG=E2=80=A6 We would need WG consensus to adopt it or pu= blish it. Thanks. On 04/04/2013 00:48, Ted Lemon wrote: > However, it may be that you or Michael are concerned that process isn't= being followed. It could be argued that the meeting Hui announced is r= eally an interim working group meeting and not a design team meeting. I= f that's the case, then the two week notice requirement applies. No, I have no problem with concept of a design team; a smaller group can = often do a better job on a multi-faceted problem than a big group. Brian From mrw@lilacglade.org Thu Apr 4 04:41:05 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E6821F93E5 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 04:41:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AuMF3axXPZAp for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 04:41:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4349521F8B96 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 04:41:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from new-host-3.home (pool-71-184-79-25.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [71.184.79.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B3AD20218; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 07:39:51 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Margaret Wasserman In-Reply-To: <3713.1365036675@sandelman.ca> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 07:41:06 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <28783.1365004956@sandelman.ca> <515C5844.1020802@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775130765@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <3713.1365036675@sandelman.ca> To: Michael Richardson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: MIF Mailing List Subject: Re: [mif] The formation of the design team X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:41:05 -0000 Hi Michael, On Apr 3, 2013, at 8:51 PM, Michael Richardson = wrote: >=20 > I have recent poor experiences with large "design" teams that didn't > keep enough records, and did not communicate with the WG. =20 I am not sure how a design team could accomplish anything without = communicating with the WG, since a design team is (from an IETF process = standpoint) just group of individuals who are working together to = produce an IETF contribution. It is up to the WG (1) whether to adopt = that contribution as a WG work item, and (2) whether to publish it as an = RFC=85 =20 Margaret From mrw@lilacglade.org Thu Apr 4 06:11:24 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD0F21F84E3 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 06:11:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yd9f0BM270o4 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 06:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C64021F8BF4 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 06:11:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from new-host-3.home (pool-71-184-79-25.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [71.184.79.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 179CE20218; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 09:09:52 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Margaret Wasserman In-Reply-To: <515D27EA.20006@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 09:11:05 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5082074F-69FC-44FD-AB79-804963B00CB5@lilacglade.org> References: <28783.1365004956@sandelman.ca> <515C5844.1020802@gmail.com> <0B1F4EC1-B8EA-4D0A-815E-27FD485A6BD0@lilacglade.org> <515D27EA.20006@gmail.com> To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: MIF Mailing List Subject: Re: [mif] The formation of the design team X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:11:24 -0000 Hi Brian, On Apr 4, 2013, at 3:12 AM, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: > Unfortunately I believe what I said above: the scope of the underlying > problem is very broad and very hard to solve. It would take a lot more = than > one email to really justify that statement, but I think the design = team will > have to scope their work very narrowly to focus on partial solutions. I think of the design team effort as an interim step between the problem = statement and "solutions" actually=85 I guess I'd describe it as better = defining, in architectural terms, what we're talking about when we say = "provisioning domain". I'd expect the design team to write a document = (or documents?), as contributions to be considered by the MIF WG that = cover things like: - What is a "provisioning domain"? =20 - What sorts of information are configured on a per-provisioning domain = basis (vs. per interface, per prefix or per-stack)? - How does a provisioning domain relate to currently well-understood = architectural entities in a TCP/IP stack (like physical interfaces, = logical interfaces, address prefixes, etc.)? =20 - How does a provisioning domain relate to currently well-understood = processes in a TCP/IP stack, like DNS lookups (and split DNS), = application-level destination address selection, selection of "referral = pools" for things like SCTP, source address selection in the stack, = interface selection in the stack, etc.? =20 - What are the interesting properties of provisioning domains? Are = there different types of provisioning domains that it would be = interesting to distinguish between from an architectural perspective = (i.e. behind a NAT or not, walled garden or not, IPv4 or IPv6, etc.)? =20= - Are there security issues specific to being attached to more than one = provisioning domain? Is there a useful notion around the idea that one = provisioning domain may be more "trusted" than another? What would the = practical implications of that? - How (conceptually) should transport layers or applications (i.e. = anything above IP) usefully communicate with the IP stack about = provisioning domains? What information (at a conceptual level) can the = IP stack provide that would be useful to upper layers, and what do the = upper layers want to say to the stack about provisioning domains? For = example, should upper layers be able to force selection of a particular = provisioning domain, like they can currently force selection of a source = IP address, destination IP address or interface? If so, how does the = application find out what provisioning domains are available and = usefully select between them? To what extent can applications benefit = from being aware of provisioning domains? - Is there a provisioning domain configuration problem at the = application layer, too? (I think there is.) i.e. Do applications have = problems when they get DHCP configuration options from more than one = provisioning domain, and if so what can/should they do about it? Is = there a need for the applications and stacks to have a common notion of = what provisioning domains exist and how to refer to them, so that = applications can use the configuration corresponding to the domain or = their outgoing connections, etc? I could go on, but I'd be surprised if we could reach consensus on the = answer to all of those questions. Thoughts? Margaret From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Thu Apr 4 09:22:00 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D596421F8D0D for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 09:22:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lgl0mUdKDUlX for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 09:22:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86E3721F8CBE for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 09:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id ek20so2646464lab.2 for ; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 09:21:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=pUQjpJqN4UsFkWe5GsQLVpHOiI/GNOIWD7M2J3oC2kg=; b=C0LxhbXgr/nmCxStvKwBFLkSF3OPKNNgTRIUuTSY6rIFg/1a06zYxKFc7RmNftmtJs CMv5EJMlNxV6lQc1Tfq1ZrUYZfFEIiSc7wkI97GX6EL07IjkHCDkq/dKOdjJAD0xlK/v /QvvP48Eveew910vb7/i7tX5ZpF+Z4XWRdOnWB1+SSuAzAsxN0YzRF+3h1HYucRKb656 t2fwJA9bHkGkbkZH4f3J+6+NIURahJuunYRLhdGhIPl8rTIuUXQx0SP3HyLcQIXA4FTr G81iXZiusVP4Yd20ehHOhf9E2G9CrRDcCB2Lte4Z3M/vFgy2kFa8LtJkFMHj7yTzWmHr Jh3w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.168.97 with SMTP id zv1mr3919399lbb.25.1365092504638; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 09:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.17.104 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 09:21:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775130765@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> References: <28783.1365004956@sandelman.ca> <515C5844.1020802@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775130765@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:21:44 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Ted Lemon Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c341c8d3198b04d98b5dbf Cc: MIF Mailing List Subject: Re: [mif] The formation of the design team X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:22:01 -0000 --001a11c341c8d3198b04d98b5dbf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Ted, I support the process. Yes the design team is very big, but that's what happens in most cases. What I see missing is who is going to lead the DT? Regards, Behcet On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Apr 3, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think the real question is whether the architecture issue > > that underlies MIF can actually be solved within the limits > > of an IETF WG. But certainly the first stage is to produce a > > clear statement of what the issue is, and I would press the > > design team to bring that statement back to the WG *before* > > considering possible solutions. > > Work that the IETF does has to be done in working groups, or as individual > submissions, or by the IAB or the IESG. Are you proposing that this work > should be done in one of those other ways, rather than by the MIF working > group, which was chartered to do this work and has already written a > problem statement? I don't think you were at the MIF meeting, so you may > not have heard my presentation on this, but the slides are available, and I > think the session was recorded. > > Ultimately, we definitely need something for the rest of the IETF, not > just MIF, to review, but we have to have something for the IETF *to* > review; that is the point. > > Michael did raise the question of whether this is really a design team, or > the entire working group. This is something that I discussed with the MIF > chairs as well. It's difficult to say; if everybody on the list winds up > being an active participant, then maybe Michael is correct. I personally > doubt that's so. > > However, it may be that you or Michael are concerned that process isn't > being followed. It could be argued that the meeting Hui announced is > really an interim working group meeting and not a design team meeting. If > that's the case, then the two week notice requirement applies. > > I don't have a strong preference for keeping this as a design team thing > if people object. I doubt the chairs do either. It's certainly easier > to schedule meetings if it's just a design team, and I think it's > legitimate to claim that it's a design team. But, frankly, you have more > experience with this sort of thing than I do; if in your expert opinion > this is an interim working group meeting and not a design team meeting, I > think we ought to take that seriously. > > But as for the question of where to do the work, I think at least for the > moment, unless you have some serious proposal to make, MIF is in fact the > right place. > _______________________________________________ > mif mailing list > mif@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif > --001a11c341c8d3198b04d98b5dbf Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ted,

I support the process. Yes the design team is very big, but = that's what happens in most cases.

What I see missing is who is = going to lead the DT?

Regards,

Behcet

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com&g= t; wrote:
On Apr 3, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>= ; wrote:
> I think the real question is whether the architecture issue
> that underlies MIF can actually be solved within the limits
> of an IETF WG. But certainly the first stage is to produce a
> clear statement of what the issue is, and I would press the
> design team to bring that statement back to the WG *before*
> considering possible solutions.

Work that the IETF does has to be done in working groups, or as indiv= idual submissions, or by the IAB or the IESG. =A0 Are you proposing that th= is work should be done in one of those other ways, rather than by the MIF w= orking group, which was chartered to do this work and has already written a= problem statement? =A0 I don't think you were at the MIF meeting, so y= ou may not have heard my presentation on this, but the slides are available= , and I think the session was recorded.

Ultimately, we definitely need something for the rest of the IETF, not just= MIF, to review, but we have to have something for the IETF *to* review; th= at is the point.

Michael did raise the question of whether this is really a design team, or = the entire working group. =A0 This is something that I discussed with the M= IF chairs as well. =A0 It's difficult to say; if everybody on the list = winds up being an active participant, then maybe Michael is correct. =A0 I = personally doubt that's so.

However, it may be that you or Michael are concerned that process isn't= being followed. =A0 It could be argued that the meeting Hui announced is r= eally an interim working group meeting and not a design team meeting. =A0 I= f that's the case, then the two week notice requirement applies.

I don't have a strong preference for keeping this as a design team thin= g if people object. =A0 I doubt the chairs do either. =A0 It's certainl= y easier to schedule meetings if it's just a design team, and I think i= t's legitimate to claim that it's a design team. =A0 But, frankly, = you have more experience with this sort of thing than I do; if in your expe= rt opinion this is an interim working group meeting and not a design team m= eeting, I think we ought to take that seriously.

But as for the question of where to do the work, I think at least for the m= oment, unless you have some serious proposal to make, MIF is in fact the ri= ght place.
___________________________________= ____________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif

--001a11c341c8d3198b04d98b5dbf-- From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Thu Apr 4 09:34:06 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F00021F8FFA for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 09:34:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eWLz-GIeSKTN for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 09:34:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og103.obsmtp.com (exprod7og103.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F20F921F946C for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 09:34:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob103.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUV2rfVaCwgwLJiJi/RikxDaUSS6Yp6VS@postini.com; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 09:34:06 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23C781B8A6F for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 09:34:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 197F419005D; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 09:34:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 09:34:05 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: "" Thread-Topic: [mif] The formation of the design team Thread-Index: AQHOMGNRrf9AO51xqECY6nyMtYZtkZjFHeIAgAAGvwCAAHuAAIABFW8AgAADcgA= Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 16:34:04 +0000 Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775131A5C@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> References: <28783.1365004956@sandelman.ca> <515C5844.1020802@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775130765@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775131A5Cmbx01winnominum_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: MIF Mailing List Subject: Re: [mif] The formation of the design team X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:34:06 -0000 --_000_8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775131A5Cmbx01winnominum_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Apr 4, 2013, at 12:21 PM, Behcet Sarikaya > wrote: What I see missing is who is going to lead the DT? I presume that's something we will discuss on the call. I expect to have = an advisory role, but I don't have the time to actually lead the team, so I= hope someone emerges who is willing to do it and who the group can agree w= ill be a good choice. --_000_8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775131A5Cmbx01winnominum_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <6BBABDC8D1791E46BC166B3FDFBEE844@nominum.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Apr 4, 2013, at 12:21 PM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> wrote:
What I see missing is who is going to lead the DT?

I presume that's something we will discuss on the call.   I expec= t to have an advisory role, but I don't have the time to actually lead the = team, so I hope someone emerges who is willing to do it and who the group c= an agree will be a good choice.

--_000_8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775131A5Cmbx01winnominum_-- From moore@network-heretics.com Thu Apr 4 10:44:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DCAF21F8F0E for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:44:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8SM73B9u6p+m for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:44:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A23E21F8FD3 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:44:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.42]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7565C20E09 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 13:44:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.161]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:44:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; s=smtpout; bh=L/ST yhpc4+FZtSp6OXAoTEGVKEc=; b=hk3QAOo6OL4GH6+1NOAyIFY8oOP1Le32C4xi UPdSqcp1uIVv4IMmEsvZPEK3hFTypwWz6qzMdvMW7wXN+wxgQUl8PtIQAn1El7Dz X140sV++7NiabwF64XOmqZNoKHPyLGG6NNLUiwNT77YOzOTdzvP1pUJYNBL+3BOx FFBBzNI= X-Sasl-enc: m3kUjTVvQkSU4/txHVkYU0gyiPfeuI3ufnprZvfvSqNR 1365097477 Received: from [192.168.1.4] (unknown [65.16.145.177]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id AD91920010C; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 13:44:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <515DBC04.3010406@network-heretics.com> Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:44:36 -0400 From: Keith Moore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130308 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mif@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060001010803060009010405" Subject: Re: [mif] The formation of the design team X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:44:43 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060001010803060009010405 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A design team is a lousy way to develop an architecture. You need two or three people, max. > Hello all, > MIF working group has formed a design team to work on the architecture > issue. > Below are the list of contributors: > Alper Yegin > Aaron Yi DING > Cao Zhen > Dan York [security related only] > Dapeng Liu > Dave Thaler > Fred baker [I'm willing to do that] > Jouni Korhonen > JuanCarlos.Zuniga > Konstantinos Pentikousis > Lorenzo Colitti > Marc Blanchet > pierrick.seite > suresh krishnan > Tim Chown [identity or other perspectives] > Teemu Savolainen > WG Chair: Margaret Wasserman, Hui Deng > AD: Ted Lemon > thank you > -chairs > > > _______________________________________________ > mif mailing list > mif@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif --------------060001010803060009010405 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
A design team is a lousy way to develop an architecture.  You need two or three people, max.

Hello all,
 
MIF working group has formed a design team to work on the architecture issue.
Below are the list of contributors:
 
Alper Yegin
Aaron Yi DING   
Cao Zhen 
Dan York [security related only]
Dapeng Liu      
Dave Thaler
Fred baker [I'm willing to do that]
Jouni Korhonen    
JuanCarlos.Zuniga 
Konstantinos Pentikousis 
Lorenzo Colitti
Marc Blanchet  
pierrick.seite    
suresh krishnan 
Tim Chown  [identity or other perspectives]
Teemu Savolainen
WG Chair: Margaret Wasserman, Hui Deng
AD: Ted Lemon
 
thank you
 
-chairs
 


_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif

--------------060001010803060009010405-- From mrw@lilacglade.org Thu Apr 4 12:10:00 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C204521F8A14 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:10:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zRNbMngmGd-4 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:10:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 112E121F866E for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:10:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.10.103] (unknown [10.1.10.103]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 273A720218; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 15:08:45 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E66998A7-13DA-4C5E-9DE4-76C58F03E8C4" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Margaret Wasserman In-Reply-To: <515DBC04.3010406@network-heretics.com> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 15:09:59 -0400 Message-Id: <7844EECC-8A67-464E-BBFD-072324E2732D@lilacglade.org> References: <515DBC04.3010406@network-heretics.com> To: Keith Moore X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] The formation of the design team X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 19:10:00 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E66998A7-13DA-4C5E-9DE4-76C58F03E8C4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Keith, We are attempting to do this work in a way that is open to all of the = willing/interested participants. It is highly unlikely that all of the = members of the design team will write text or participate equally, so in = the end it may come down to a much smaller group of people doing the = writing. Hopefully they will be informed by discussions of the larger = group, though. That said, this design team does not have any sort of monopoly on making = contributions to the MIF WG. Anyone who wants to make a contribution on = this topic is welcome do so. So, if you would like to get together a = smaller group of people to contribute on this topic, please do! Margaret On Apr 4, 2013, at 1:44 PM, Keith Moore = wrote: > A design team is a lousy way to develop an architecture. You need two = or three people, max. >=20 >> Hello all, >> =20 >> MIF working group has formed a design team to work on the = architecture issue. >> Below are the list of contributors: >> =20 >> Alper Yegin >> Aaron Yi DING =20 >> Cao Zhen =20 >> Dan York [security related only] >> Dapeng Liu =20 >> Dave Thaler=20 >> Fred baker [I'm willing to do that] >> Jouni Korhonen =20 >> JuanCarlos.Zuniga =20 >> Konstantinos Pentikousis =20 >> Lorenzo Colitti >> Marc Blanchet =20 >> pierrick.seite =20 >> suresh krishnan =20 >> Tim Chown [identity or other perspectives] >> Teemu Savolainen=20 >> WG Chair: Margaret Wasserman, Hui Deng >> AD: Ted Lemon >> =20 >> thank you >> =20 >> -chairs >> =20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> mif mailing list >> mif@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif >=20 > _______________________________________________ > mif mailing list > mif@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif --Apple-Mail=_E66998A7-13DA-4C5E-9DE4-76C58F03E8C4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 moore@network-heretics.com&= gt; wrote:
=20 =20
A design team is a lousy way to = develop an architecture.  You need two or three people, max.

Hello all,
 
MIF working group has formed a design team to work on the architecture issue.
Below are the list of contributors:
 
Alper Yegin
Aaron Yi DING   
Cao Zhen 
Dan York [security related only]
Dapeng Liu      
Dave Thaler
Fred baker [I'm willing to do that]
Jouni Korhonen    
JuanCarlos.Zuniga 
Konstantinos Pentikousis 
Lorenzo Colitti
Marc Blanchet  
pierrick.seite    
suresh krishnan 
Tim Chown  [identity or other perspectives]
Teemu Savolainen
WG Chair: Margaret Wasserman, Hui Deng
AD: Ted Lemon
 
thank you
 
-chairs
 


_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/ma=
ilman/listinfo/mif

_______________________________________________
mif mailing = list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mail= man/listinfo/mif

= --Apple-Mail=_E66998A7-13DA-4C5E-9DE4-76C58F03E8C4-- From moore@network-heretics.com Thu Apr 4 13:01:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47CC521F8D8F for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 13:01:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JWy+Tp6T1cqK for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 13:01:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F3BB21F8D8C for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 13:01:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.41]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id D10D520A20; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 16:01:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:01:19 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; s=smtpout; bh=v0s0 ycOZEFzAnkxaJZiWce5XWaE=; b=X5Dmd8pCnnbr7id1s17Uj/isOn46OGGZCzQ0 8fCmMQWF7UXSB6tDQXvPMoZtf2AzylzFwARuks2fe2+l9lX75HgtcXsv06NTkmsh NP4sRh6AA41halCBmXOX9/C1Uoqb4iYn2c9hMhvgnWiF+G+WJGch2oOjlMqu0QXi 4mTNEro= X-Sasl-enc: 8RQUV6FzZF5fBgcsByJlr2HC+VleNJDOMgwdO5UhSL1o 1365105678 Received: from [192.168.1.4] (unknown [65.16.145.177]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 03F73C80008; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 16:01:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <515DDC0A.4090507@network-heretics.com> Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:01:14 -0400 From: Keith Moore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130308 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Margaret Wasserman References: <515DBC04.3010406@network-heretics.com> <7844EECC-8A67-464E-BBFD-072324E2732D@lilacglade.org> In-Reply-To: <7844EECC-8A67-464E-BBFD-072324E2732D@lilacglade.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020707070304090206080209" Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] The formation of the design team X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 20:01:21 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020707070304090206080209 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What I'd like to see happen in the context of MIF is a collaborative effort to identify limitations in the Internet architecture that are exposed by the existence of hosts with multiple active Internet interfaces. But the community shouldn't rely on a committee to recommend changes to the architecture. Nor should an effort to identify possible changes in the architecture be narrowly scoped in the way that IETF WGs tend to be scoped. Architectural changes need to consider broad effects, be able to touch multiple protocols and levels, and be able to address multiple kinds of limitations at once - while still being designed to facilitate an orderly transition and to work well during that transition. So I think that actual proposals for changes to the Internet architecture need to come from individual authors (or small groups of authors) who don't have any WG or other endorsement for their efforts. But those proposals need to be informed by input from several different WGs and/or areas. So MIF isn't the only group that needs to be identifying lists of architectural limitations. Keith > > Keith, > > We are attempting to do this work in a way that is open to all of the > willing/interested participants. It is highly unlikely that all of > the members of the design team will write text or participate equally, > so in the end it may come down to a much smaller group of people doing > the writing. Hopefully they will be informed by discussions of the > larger group, though. > > That said, this design team does not have any sort of monopoly on > making contributions to the MIF WG. Anyone who wants to make a > contribution on this topic is welcome do so. So, if you would like to > get together a smaller group of people to contribute on this topic, > please do! > > Margaret > > > On Apr 4, 2013, at 1:44 PM, Keith Moore > wrote: > >> A design team is a lousy way to develop an architecture. You need >> two or three people, max. >> >>> Hello all, >>> MIF working group has formed a design team to work on the >>> architecture issue. >>> Below are the list of contributors: >>> Alper Yegin >>> Aaron Yi DING >>> Cao Zhen >>> Dan York [security related only] >>> Dapeng Liu >>> Dave Thaler >>> Fred baker [I'm willing to do that] >>> Jouni Korhonen >>> JuanCarlos.Zuniga >>> Konstantinos Pentikousis >>> Lorenzo Colitti >>> Marc Blanchet >>> pierrick.seite >>> suresh krishnan >>> Tim Chown [identity or other perspectives] >>> Teemu Savolainen >>> WG Chair: Margaret Wasserman, Hui Deng >>> AD: Ted Lemon >>> thank you >>> -chairs >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mif mailing list >>> mif@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mif mailing list >> mif@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif > --------------020707070304090206080209 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
What I'd like to see happen in the context of MIF is a collaborative effort to identify limitations in the Internet architecture that are exposed by the existence of hosts with multiple active Internet interfaces.

But the community shouldn't rely on a committee to recommend changes to the architecture.   Nor should an effort to identify possible changes in the architecture be narrowly scoped in the way that IETF WGs tend to be scoped.   Architectural changes need to consider broad effects, be able to touch multiple protocols and levels, and be able to address multiple kinds of limitations at once - while still being designed to facilitate an orderly transition and to work well during that transition.  

So I think that actual proposals for changes to the Internet architecture need to come from individual authors (or small groups of authors) who don't have any WG or other endorsement for their efforts.   But those proposals need to be informed by input from several different WGs and/or areas.   So MIF isn't the only group that needs to be identifying lists of architectural limitations.

Keith


Keith,

We are attempting to do this work in a way that is open to all of the willing/interested participants.  It is highly unlikely that all of the members of the design team will write text or participate equally, so in the end it may come down to a much smaller group of people doing the writing.  Hopefully they will be informed by discussions of the larger group, though.

That said, this design team does not have any sort of monopoly on making contributions to the MIF WG.  Anyone who wants to make a contribution on this topic is welcome do so. So, if you would like to get together a smaller group of people to contribute on this topic, please do!

Margaret


On Apr 4, 2013, at 1:44 PM, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:

A design team is a lousy way to develop an architecture.  You need two or three people, max.

Hello all,
 
MIF working group has formed a design team to work on the architecture issue.
Below are the list of contributors:
 
Alper Yegin
Aaron Yi DING   
Cao Zhen 
Dan York [security related only]
Dapeng Liu      
Dave Thaler
Fred baker [I'm willing to do that]
Jouni Korhonen    
JuanCarlos.Zuniga 
Konstantinos Pentikousis 
Lorenzo Colitti
Marc Blanchet  
pierrick.seite    
suresh krishnan 
Tim Chown  [identity or other perspectives]
Teemu Savolainen
WG Chair: Margaret Wasserman, Hui Deng
AD: Ted Lemon
 
thank you
 
-chairs
 


_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif

_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif


--------------020707070304090206080209-- From mrw@lilacglade.org Thu Apr 4 15:04:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF6821F8E72 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 15:04:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MY04jyhmVd3R for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 15:04:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560DA21F8C7D for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 15:04:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.10.103] (unknown [10.1.10.103]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DD9BC20218; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:03:07 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Margaret Wasserman In-Reply-To: <5082074F-69FC-44FD-AB79-804963B00CB5@lilacglade.org> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:04:22 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3C815158-DE8F-4C48-9F99-FBBD967FB08A@lilacglade.org> References: <28783.1365004956@sandelman.ca> <515C5844.1020802@gmail.com> <0B1F4EC1-B8EA-4D0A-815E-27FD485A6BD0@lilacglade.org> <515D27EA.20006@gmail.com> <5082074F-69FC-44FD-AB79-804963B00CB5@lilacglade.org> To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: MIF Mailing List Subject: Re: [mif] The formation of the design team X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 22:04:25 -0000 One thing I may not have made clear in this message, and that seems to = be missing from other parts of this discussion=85 We are _not_ breaking new ground here and/or proposing that we move IP = stacks in a direction that they haven't already moved. Virtually every = TCP/IP stack on every operating system from desktops to cell phones to = embedded systems is _already_ dealing with Multiple Provisioning Domains = in one way or another, some more successfully than others. Existing = solutions range from stack changes to connection managers to point fixes = in specific problem areas (like DHCP and DNS). The idea is to try to come up with common set of terminology and a = common understanding of the Multiple Provisioning Domain concept at an = architectural level, so that we can engage in a useful conversation = about whether the IETF can/should standardize anything in this area. Margaret On Apr 4, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Margaret Wasserman = wrote: >=20 > Hi Brian, >=20 > On Apr 4, 2013, at 3:12 AM, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >> Unfortunately I believe what I said above: the scope of the = underlying >> problem is very broad and very hard to solve. It would take a lot = more than >> one email to really justify that statement, but I think the design = team will >> have to scope their work very narrowly to focus on partial solutions. >=20 > I think of the design team effort as an interim step between the = problem statement and "solutions" actually=85 I guess I'd describe it = as better defining, in architectural terms, what we're talking about = when we say "provisioning domain". I'd expect the design team to write = a document (or documents?), as contributions to be considered by the MIF = WG that cover things like: >=20 > - What is a "provisioning domain"? =20 >=20 > - What sorts of information are configured on a per-provisioning = domain basis (vs. per interface, per prefix or per-stack)? >=20 > - How does a provisioning domain relate to currently well-understood = architectural entities in a TCP/IP stack (like physical interfaces, = logical interfaces, address prefixes, etc.)? =20 >=20 > - How does a provisioning domain relate to currently well-understood = processes in a TCP/IP stack, like DNS lookups (and split DNS), = application-level destination address selection, selection of "referral = pools" for things like SCTP, source address selection in the stack, = interface selection in the stack, etc.? =20 >=20 > - What are the interesting properties of provisioning domains? Are = there different types of provisioning domains that it would be = interesting to distinguish between from an architectural perspective = (i.e. behind a NAT or not, walled garden or not, IPv4 or IPv6, etc.)? =20= >=20 > - Are there security issues specific to being attached to more than = one provisioning domain? Is there a useful notion around the idea that = one provisioning domain may be more "trusted" than another? What would = the practical implications of that? >=20 > - How (conceptually) should transport layers or applications (i.e. = anything above IP) usefully communicate with the IP stack about = provisioning domains? What information (at a conceptual level) can the = IP stack provide that would be useful to upper layers, and what do the = upper layers want to say to the stack about provisioning domains? For = example, should upper layers be able to force selection of a particular = provisioning domain, like they can currently force selection of a source = IP address, destination IP address or interface? If so, how does the = application find out what provisioning domains are available and = usefully select between them? To what extent can applications benefit = from being aware of provisioning domains? >=20 > - Is there a provisioning domain configuration problem at the = application layer, too? (I think there is.) i.e. Do applications have = problems when they get DHCP configuration options from more than one = provisioning domain, and if so what can/should they do about it? Is = there a need for the applications and stacks to have a common notion of = what provisioning domains exist and how to refer to them, so that = applications can use the configuration corresponding to the domain or = their outgoing connections, etc? >=20 > I could go on, but I'd be surprised if we could reach consensus on the = answer to all of those questions. >=20 > Thoughts? >=20 > Margaret >=20 >=20 >=20 From johnsonhammond1@hushmail.com Sat Apr 27 17:27:54 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CB6921F995A for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:27:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.48 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cQhtCe95RWrf for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:27:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.hushmail.com (smtp1a.hushmail.com [65.39.178.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 976B821F9963 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:27:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.hushmail.com (smtp1a.hushmail.com [65.39.178.236]) by smtp1.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3ABB931054 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:38:43 +0000 (UTC) X-hush-relay-time: 213 X-hush-relay-id: b1bd903faba185ee07e5a0ed3a1fde37 Received: from smtp.hushmail.com (w5.hushmail.com [65.39.178.80]) by smtp1.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:38:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.hushmail.com (Postfix, from userid 99) id 07E39E6736; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:38:42 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:38:42 -0400 To: mif@ietf.org From: johnsonhammond1@hushmail.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-Id: <20130427173843.07E39E6736@smtp.hushmail.com> Subject: [mif] Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 00:27:54 -0000 Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science We are researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on the world’s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP ( http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1 ) organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia from University of Georgia, USA. We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: (1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa (2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic (3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance (4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model (5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer (6). Laptop is an example for a super computer (7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning. However, it was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without any reviews) and we were invited to submit the final paper and a payment of $500+ fee to present the paper. We decided to use the fee for better purposes than making Prof. Hamid Arabnia (Chairman of WORLDCOMP) rich. After that, we received few reminders from WORLDCOMP to pay the fee but we never responded. We MUST say that you should look at the above website if you have any thoughts to submit a paper to WORLDCOMP. DBLP and other indexing agencies have stopped indexing WORLDCOMP’s proceedings since 2011 due to its fakeness. See http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/icai/index.html for of one of the conferences of WORLDCOMP and notice that there is no listing after 2010. See Section 2 of http://sites.google.com/site/dumpconf for comments from well-known researchers about WORLDCOMP. The status of your WORLDCOMP papers can be changed from scientific to other (i.e., junk or non-technical) at any time. Better not to have a paper than having it in WORLDCOMP and spoil the resume and peace of mind forever! Our study revealed that WORLDCOMP is a money making business, using University of Georgia mask, for Prof. Hamid Arabnia. He is throwing out a small chunk of that money (around 20 dollars per paper published in WORLDCOMP’s proceedings) to his puppet (Mr. Ashu Solo or A.M.G. Solo) who publicizes WORLDCOMP and also defends it at various forums, using fake/anonymous names. The puppet uses fake names and defames other conferences to divert traffic to WORLDCOMP. He also makes anonymous phone calls and tries to threaten the critiques of WORLDCOMP (See Item 7 of Section 5 of above website). That is, the puppet does all his best to get a maximum number of papers published at WORLDCOMP to get more money into his (and Prof. Hamid Arabnia’s) pockets. Monte Carlo Resort (the venue of WORLDCOMP for more than 10 years, until 2012) has refused to provide the venue for WORLDCOMP’13 because of the fears of their image being tarnished due to WORLDCOMP’s fraudulent activities. That is why WORLDCOMP’13 is taking place at a different resort. WORLDCOMP will not be held after 2013. The draft paper submission deadline is over but still there are no committee members, no reviewers, and there is no conference Chairman. The only contact details available on WORLDCOMP’s website is just an email address! Let us make a direct request to Prof. Hamid arabnia: publish all reviews for all the papers (after blocking identifiable details) since 2000 conference. Reveal the names and affiliations of all the reviewers (for each year) and how many papers each reviewer had reviewed on average. We also request him to look at the Open Challenge (Section 6) at https://sites.google.com/site/moneycomp1 Sorry for posting to multiple lists. Spreading the word is the only way to stop this bogus conference. Please forward this message to other mailing lists and people. We are shocked with Prof. Hamid Arabnia and his puppet’s activities http://worldcomp-fake-bogus.blogspot.com Search Google using the keyword worldcomp fake for additional links.