From HeinerHummel@aol.com Sun Jan 2 01:26:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1F8D3A698F for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2011 01:26:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.123 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.123 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.475, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B3sK9y+49BJC for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2011 01:26:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr-da02.mx.aol.com (imr-da02.mx.aol.com [205.188.105.144]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 119303A698E for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2011 01:26:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-ma01.mx.aol.com (imo-ma01.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.136]) by imr-da02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p029S52S032092; Sun, 2 Jan 2011 04:28:05 -0500 Received: from HeinerHummel@aol.com by imo-ma01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id x.c26.83c8e0cc (55914); Sun, 2 Jan 2011 04:28:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from magic-m18.mail.aol.com (magic-m18.mail.aol.com [172.21.136.206]) by cia-md07.mx.aol.com (v129.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMD071-da6a4d20452114c; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 04:28:01 -0500 From: HeinerHummel@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 04:28:01 EST To: decoy@iki.fi, a.spinella@rfc1925.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_bee3.5663deec.3a519f21_boundary" X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5021 X-AOL-IP: 95.91.18.180 X-AOL-SENDER: HeinerHummel@aol.com Cc: rrg@irtf.org Subject: Re: [rrg] [ot] wikileak, cyber-war,... X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2011 09:26:16 -0000 --part1_bee3.5663deec.3a519f21_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In einer eMail vom 31.12.2010 21:58:55 Westeurop=E4ische Normalzeit schrei= bt =20 decoy@iki.fi: On 2010-12-28, $witch wrote: >> Wouldn't it be reasonable to develop CASCADE TREE routing as to screw= =20 >> DoS and DDoS attacks [......]? > > maybe am a little bit off-topic but : why RRG need to take position=20 > against [D]DoS ? My plea for better routing is long-term (approx. 8 years). Coming up with= =20 CASCADE TREE (now, again) is triggered by the actuality (wikileak) Don't= =20 just think of malicious games where viruses attack some website. There may= be=20 situations, e.g. conjured up by frigthening news, where alerted people=20 send in requests by the millions. On 9/27/2010 I referred to stuxnet poin= ting=20 out how TARA could serve as a hot standby archtecture (the costs wrt memo= ry=20 and CPU time consumption is neglectible). Altogether: It is a plea for=20 more intelligent networking layer based on additional/better algorithms= than=20 plain Dijkstra or even dumb DV. =20 =20 =20 It might be that flow and/or congestion control isn't now a routing=20 problem, but everybody knows it's a core part of Internet architecture,= =20 and that (D)DoS is predicated upon circumventing it. So, it is a very=20 real problem. If it can't be solved in some other way -- the ongoing=20 backwards congestion signaling and pricing work springs to mind, and=20 even that impacts IP level functionality as it stands -- then it isn't=20 readily out of the question that the RRG would have to be involved at=20 some point. That's not on the formal agenda, though, so for now this sort of =20 discussion does remain off-topic. (Personally I try to use the [ot] =20 marker for this stuff, to enable automatic filtering, btw.) There are 2 ways of proceeding:=20 1) Now let's just be focused on the scalability issue; when done, look at= =20 the next issue,... or 2) Go for an architecture, which eliminates the scalabilits issue and= =20 which, concurrently, provides the basis for better routing. =20 > maybe DDoSes are the only weapons in the hand of freedom, why do you=20 > like to downgrade them? Here we're talking about not only e2e communication, but e2e, collective= =20 incentivization. I.e. something that is very much more political,=20 incendiary and complicated than even state mandated policy routing. The= =20 stuff the Big Boys and Three Letter Agencies are keenly interested in.=20 Would IETF/IRTF even *want* to go there? My email was indeed triggered by a series of articles requesting a German= =20 defense center against internet misbehavior (spionage, DDoSA). Then if we leave out the politics and stick to the technical detail,=20 it's true that the only real disincentive that works from end to end is= =20 (D)DoS. If we grant that such incentivization should be possible, that=20 is a technical problem because DoS is a highly wasteful and disruptive=20 means of communicating such information, with lots of collateral damage. As such the proper way to address this would be to a) make DoS=20 impossible or uneconomic at the architecture level, and then to b)=20 design a low-overhead, e2e, secure, Internet Punishment Protocol to make= =20 this kind of feedback more explicit, scalable and manageable. It's just that... At least for me something like IPP is stuff I'd expect= =20 to find in an April's Fool RFC. Not in any serious one. DDoS resistant routing though sounds interesting. The HIP folks have=20 been thinking about that sort of thing from the start, obviously. I=20 wonder if some of their ideas, e.g. in the four-way handshake with=20 expensive challenges, could be leveraged within the core-edge-separation= =20 work? I mean, without too much centralized computational burden; perhaps= =20 only in connection with mobility, where the end networks are many and=20 lean? There and then I'd like to hear more about "cascade tree routing",= =20 and judging by the name, also about how it might potentially connect=20 with MPLS and Nimrod. You may conceive Cascade Tree Routing as a cascade tree of tunnels - of = =20 whichever nature (incl. LSP,..) -- =20 Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - decoy@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front +358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg Heiner --part1_bee3.5663deec.3a519f21_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <= FONT id=3Drole_document color=3D#000000 size=3D2 face=3DArial>
In einer eMail vom 31.12.2010 21:58:55 Westeurop=E4ische Normalzeit= schreibt=20 decoy@iki.fi:
On=20 2010-12-28, $witch wrote:

>> Wouldn't it be reasonable to= develop=20 CASCADE TREE routing as to screw
>> DoS and DDoS attacks=20 [......]?
>
> maybe am a little bit off-topic but : why RRG= need=20 to take position
> against [D]DoS ?
My plea for better routing is long-term (approx. 8 years). Coming up= with=20 CASCADE TREE (now, again) is triggered by the actuality (wikileak) = Don't=20 just think of malicious games where viruses attack some website. There may= be=20 situations, e.g. conjured up by frigthening news, where alerted people sen= d in=20 requests by the millions. On 9/27/2010 I referred to stuxnet pointing out= how=20 TARA could serve as a hot standby archtecture (the costs wrt memory and CP= U time=20 consumption is neglectible). Altogether: It is a plea for more=20 intelligent networking layer based on additional/better algorith= ms=20 than plain Dijkstra or even dumb DV.
 
 
 

It=20 might be that flow and/or congestion control isn't now a routing
pro= blem,=20 but everybody knows it's a core part of Internet architecture,
and= that=20 (D)DoS is predicated upon circumventing it. So, it is a very
real pr= oblem.=20 If it can't be solved in some other way -- the ongoing
backwards=20 congestion signaling and pricing work springs to mind, and
even that= =20 impacts IP level functionality as it stands -- then it isn't
readily= out=20 of the question that the RRG would have to be involved at
some=20 point.

That's not on the formal agenda, though, so for now this= sort of=20
discussion does remain off-topic. (Personally I try to use the [ot]= =20
marker for this stuff, to enable automatic filtering,=20 btw.)
There are 2 ways of proceeding:
1) Now let's just be focused on the scalability issue; when done, loo= k at=20 the next issue,...
or 2) Go for an architecture, which eliminates the scalabilits issue= and=20 which, concurrently, provides the basis for better routing.
 


> maybe DDoSes are the only we= apons in the hand of=20 freedom, why do you
> like to downgrade them?

Here we're= talking=20 about not only e2e communication, but e2e, collective
incentivizatio= n.=20 I.e. something that is very much more political,
incendiary and=20 complicated than even state mandated policy routing. The
stuff the= Big=20 Boys and Three Letter Agencies are keenly interested in.
Would IETF/= IRTF=20 even *want* to go there?
My email was indeed triggered by a series of articles requesting a Ge= rman=20 defense center against internet
misbehavior (spionage, DDoSA).


Then if we leave out the politics= and stick to the=20 technical detail,
it's true that the only real disincentive that wor= ks=20 from end to end is
(D)DoS. If we grant that such incentivization sho= uld be=20 possible, that
is a technical problem because DoS is a highly wastef= ul and=20 disruptive
means of communicating such information, with lots of=20 collateral damage.

As such the proper way to address this would= be to=20 a) make DoS
impossible or uneconomic at the architecture level, and= then=20 to b)
design a low-overhead, e2e, secure, Internet Punishment Protoc= ol to=20 make
this kind of feedback more explicit, scalable and=20 manageable.

It's just that... At least for me something like IPP= is=20 stuff I'd expect
to find in an April's Fool RFC. Not in any serious= =20 one.


DDoS resistant routing though sounds interesting. The HI= P=20 folks have
been thinking about that sort of thing from the start,=20 obviously. I
wonder if some of their ideas, e.g. in the four-way han= dshake=20 with
expensive challenges, could be leveraged within the=20 core-edge-separation
work? I mean, without too much centralized=20 computational burden; perhaps
only in connection with mobility, wher= e the=20 end networks are many and
lean? There and then I'd like to hear more= about=20 "cascade tree routing",
and judging by the name, also about how it= might=20 potentially connect
with MPLS and Nimrod.
You may conceive Cascade Tree Routing as a cascade tree of tunnels -= of=20 whichever nature (incl. LSP,..)

--=20
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - decoy@iki.fi,=20 http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494= EEB0=20 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
_______________________________________________rrg=20 mailing=20 list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
Heiner
 --part1_bee3.5663deec.3a519f21_boundary-- From tony.li@tony.li Tue Jan 4 11:03:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 240603A6BA7 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:03:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.085 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.085 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.285, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rf4HU9gkh5Ag for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:03:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from qmta07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98A663A6A74 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:03:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from omta19.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.76]) by qmta07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id rRey1f0011eYJf8A7X5CpE; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 19:05:12 +0000 Received: from dhcp-171-70-244-61.cisco.com ([171.70.244.61]) by omta19.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id rX4w1f00c1LC7Wr01X4zDV; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 19:05:10 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tony Li In-Reply-To: <20101225183207.GA989@elstar.local> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:04:56 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4D138C4D.60703@joelhalpern.com> <20101225183207.GA989@elstar.local> To: Internet Research Steering Group X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: rrg@irtf.org, Juergen Schoenwaelder Subject: Re: [rrg] [IRSG] Poll on publication of draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-05 X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 19:03:07 -0000 A revised version of the RRG design goals document has been submitted to = address Juergen's comments. Please see: = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-06 Thanks, Tony On Dec 25, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:52:13PM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> This email is to initiate the IRSG Poll on publication of >> = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-05.txt >> (also http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-05) >> The state of the document is in IRSG tracker ticket #44: >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/44 >>=20 >> The poll will run until January 22, 2011 due to the holidays. >> As per the IRSG procedures, when responding to the poll please = respond=20 >> explicitly with one of the four defined conclusions: >> Ready to publish >> Not ready to publish >> No objection >> Request more time to review >>=20 >> If you find the document is not ready for publication, please provide = a=20 >> detailed review and actionable comments. >=20 > I have read draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-05 and I understand from the > browsing of the mailing list that this document summarizes the design > goals that were used when the RRG started. While I am fine with the > content of the document, I think some additional edits are needed to > comply with RFC 5743 and hence I vote "Not ready to publish".=20 >=20 > Actionable comments are below (the reason for the not ready to publish > is comment a), the others are editorial nits that can be fixed easily > now as well). >=20 > a) The document should comply with section 2.1 "Research Group > Preparation" of RFC 5743. The document should state the level of > review/support this document has enjoyed and in this particular > case it might be also be appropriate to document the historic > nature of the design goals (if my reading of the mailing list is > correct). >=20 > b) What is the value of defining a priority "Optional" that is never > used? I would simply remove that definition from section 1.2. >=20 > c) The short title "Design Goals" is perhaps a bit too terse. What > about "Scalable Routing Design Goals" or whatever you can > reasonably fit into the headings? >=20 > d) The following reference seems misplaced in section 3.6: >=20 > [...] This can be costly, error- > prone and painful. [RFC5887] Automated tools, once developed, are > expected to provide significant help in reducing the renumbering > pain. [...] >=20 > I guess the text should have been: >=20 > [...] This can be costly, error- > prone and painful [RFC5887]. Automated tools, once developed, are > expected to provide significant help in reducing the renumbering > pain. [...] >=20 > e) In section 3.7, s/intefaces/interfaces/ >=20 > f) Since you use "design goal" throughout the document, I suggest to > change section 3.11 by replacing requirement with design goal to > achieve consistency: >=20 > OLD >=20 > The following table summarizes the priorities of the requirements > discussed above. >=20 > +------------------------+------------------+ > | Requirement | Priority | >=20 > NEW >=20 > The following table summarizes the priorities of the design goals > discussed above. >=20 > +------------------------+------------------+ > | Design goal | Priority | >=20 > /js >=20 > --=20 > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > _______________________________________________ > IRSG mailing list > IRSG@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/irsg From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Tue Jan 4 13:50:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 201373A6C1F for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 13:50:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.716 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.716 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.266, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sA9jWWJ2Ue6W for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 13:50:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C20803A6AB4 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 13:50:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D247C0029; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 22:52:32 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uJasels408Fe; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 22:52:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D37FC000F; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 22:52:27 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id AD6B8160E402; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 22:52:20 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 22:52:19 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Tony Li Message-ID: <20110104215218.GA23492@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Tony Li , Internet Research Steering Group , "Joel M. Halpern" , rrg@irtf.org References: <4D138C4D.60703@joelhalpern.com> <20101225183207.GA989@elstar.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 08:05:31 -0800 Cc: Internet Research Steering Group , rrg@irtf.org Subject: Re: [rrg] [IRSG] Poll on publication of draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-05 X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 21:50:28 -0000 On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 11:04:56AM -0800, Tony Li wrote: > > A revised version of the RRG design goals document has been submitted to address Juergen's comments. Please see: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-06 > And I change my vote to "ready to publish". /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From tony.li@tony.li Thu Jan 6 13:45:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 573E33A6F62 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:45:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LFhpR2F862jF for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:45:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.59.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 581573A6F63 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:45:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from omta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.43]) by qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id sMgr1f0030vyq2s5DMnPuA; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:47:23 +0000 Received: from dhcp-171-70-244-139.cisco.com ([171.70.244.139]) by omta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id sMmv1f00731AZrf3RMn3sl; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:47:15 +0000 From: Tony Li Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-9-363117528 Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:46:53 -0800 References: <20110106210002.8942.32684.idtracker@localhost> To: rrg@irtf.org Message-Id: <4F127CE4-9279-43F9-BF4A-D0C57F4EB517@tony.li> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Subject: [rrg] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-templin-iron-17.txt X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:45:18 -0000 --Apple-Mail-9-363117528 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all, The IRON draft is very close to publication, but it needed some = non-editorial changes. It therefore seems reasonable to make this = available to the RG for further comments, if any. Please comment within one week from this note. If no comments or = objections are received, we'll consider this to be acceptable for = publication. Regards, Tony Begin forwarded message: > From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > Date: January 6, 2011 1:00:02 PM PST > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Subject: I-D Action:draft-templin-iron-17.txt > Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. >=20 > Title : The Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON) > Author(s) : F. Templin > Filename : draft-templin-iron-17.txt > Pages : 37 > Date : 2011-01-06 >=20 > Since the Internet must continue to support escalating growth due to > increasing demand, it is clear that current routing architectures and > operational practices must be updated. This document proposes an > Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON) that supports sustainable > growth while requiring no changes to end systems and no changes to > the existing routing system. IRON further addresses other important > issues including routing scaling, mobility management, multihoming, > traffic engineering and NAT traversal. While business considerations > are an important determining factor for widespread adoption, they are > out of scope for this document. This document is a product of the > IRTF Routing Research Group. >=20 > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-iron-17.txt >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. --Apple-Mail-9-363117528 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Mail Attachment" Content-Type: message/external-body; name="Mail Attachment" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2011-01-06125758.I-D@ietf.org>

--Apple-Mail-9-363117528 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt --Apple-Mail-9-363117528-- From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Mon Jan 10 11:15:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D53428C10A; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:15:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.559 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AFCZ4xpyP8CQ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:15:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 747DC28C10D; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:15:42 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: irsg@isi.edu, tony.li@tony.li, rrg@irtf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.10 Message-ID: <20110110191542.12987.91548.idtracker@localhost> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:15:42 -0800 Cc: iana@iana.org, The IESG , ietf-announce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rrg] Experimental RFC to be: draft-templin-iron-17.txt X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:15:43 -0000 The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'The Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON)' as an Experimental RFC. The IESG would also like the IRSG to review the comments in the datatracker (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=19595&rfc_flag=0) related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the comment log. The IESG contact person is Jari Arkko. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-iron-17.txt The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. Thank you, The IESG Secretary Technical Summary This is a description of the IRON mechanism that addresses routing scalability concerns in the Internet. Working Group Summary This is an independent submission via the RFC Editor, but has been discussed in the IRTF Routing Research Group. Document Quality n.a. Personnel The Document Shepherd is Tony Li and the responsible Area Director is Jari Arkko. IESG Note Per RFC 5742 our recommendation is the following for version -16 of this draft: 1. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document and IETF work. However, we understand that the IRTF is considering whether they want to make further versions of the draft in order to introduce some changes. The IESG is fine with this version of the draft but we ask that if substantial changes are made then another IESG review is initiated. From jari.arkko@piuha.net Mon Jan 10 12:23:40 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A0228C125 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:23:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.907 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CsgLWWkfK+Wu for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:23:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8947F28C115 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:23:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95A52CC31; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:25:50 +0200 (EET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J2fjEqzy+8Pb; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:25:49 +0200 (EET) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08A72CC2D; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:25:49 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <4D2B6B4D.90509@piuha.net> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:25:49 +0200 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101027) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20110110191542.12987.91548.idtracker@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20110110191542.12987.91548.idtracker@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: irsg@isi.edu, rrg@irtf.org, The IESG , ietf-announce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rrg] Experimental RFC to be: draft-templin-iron-17.txt X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:23:40 -0000 Note that we made the review for the -16. Since then there has been a new version, so I guess we'll review it again. Are changes from -16 to -17 substantial? Jari > The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'The Internet Routing > Overlay Network (IRON)' as an Experimental > RFC. > > The IESG would also like the IRSG to review the comments in > the datatracker > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=19595&rfc_flag=0) > related to this document and determine whether or not they merit > incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot > and the comment log. > > The IESG contact person is Jari Arkko. > > A URL of this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-iron-17.txt > > > The process for such documents is described at > http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. > > Thank you, > > The IESG Secretary > > Technical Summary > > This is a description of the IRON mechanism that > addresses routing scalability concerns in the Internet. > > Working Group Summary > > This is an independent submission via the RFC Editor, > but has been discussed in the IRTF Routing Research Group. > > Document Quality > > n.a. > > Personnel > > The Document Shepherd is Tony Li and the responsible > Area Director is Jari Arkko. > > IESG Note > > Per RFC 5742 our recommendation is the following for version -16 > of this draft: > > 1. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this > document and IETF work. > > However, we understand that the IRTF is considering whether they > want to make further versions of the draft in order to introduce > some changes. The IESG is fine with this version of the draft but > we ask that if substantial changes are made then another IESG > review is initiated. > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > rrg@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > > From tony.li@tony.li Mon Jan 10 12:37:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5662C28C144 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:37:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.49 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6mPr8htlCYyo for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:37:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB7D28C135 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:37:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from omta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.11]) by qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id tnmf1f00A0EPchoA1wg6sm; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:40:06 +0000 Received: from dhcp-171-70-244-139.cisco.com ([171.70.244.139]) by omta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id twfm1f00U31AZrf8MwfqfB; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:40:03 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tony Li In-Reply-To: <4D2B6B4D.90509@piuha.net> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:39:46 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7D8BBD5C-6423-4B8C-91AD-C90C2949891B@tony.li> References: <20110110191542.12987.91548.idtracker@localhost> <4D2B6B4D.90509@piuha.net> To: Jari Arkko X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: irsg@isi.edu, rrg@irtf.org, The IESG , ietf-announce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rrg] Experimental RFC to be: draft-templin-iron-17.txt X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:37:52 -0000 On Jan 10, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Note that we made the review for the -16. Since then there has been a = new version, so I guess we'll review it again. Are changes from -16 to = -17 substantial? Jari, By volume, the changes are moderate. However, they are semantically = significant, IMHO. Regards, Tony From jari.arkko@piuha.net Mon Jan 17 23:10:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12F4A3A6FAC for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 23:10:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.521 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wbeLS70wVF86 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 23:10:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DF143A6FA7 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 23:10:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6703F2CC2F; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:13:05 +0200 (EET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dZP3ALxlvNiU; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:13:04 +0200 (EET) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A815A2CC2D; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:13:04 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <4D353D7F.4070706@piuha.net> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:13:03 +0200 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101027) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "draft-templin-iron@tools.ietf.org" , rrg@irtf.org, IESG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [rrg] IESG review of draft-templin-iron-17 X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 07:10:37 -0000 I was asked to review this draft in order to perform the IESG verification that IRTF and RFC Editor drafts do not collide with IETF work, allocate IANA numbers that are reserved for standards track RFCs, etc. This is a re-review as we did the same thing for version -16. Note that the review is not technical, i.e., the IESG does not attempt to verify that the protocol works or that the draft has no mistakes. My conclusion for draft-17 is the same as it was for draft-16, i.e., there is no problem publishing the draft. Formally, my recommendation for the IESG is the following: Per RFC 5742 our recommendation is the following for version -17 of this draft: 1. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document and IETF work. Jari From tony.li@tony.li Mon Jan 17 23:26:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E963A6F7C for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 23:26:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.46 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.139, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lfqY5jeexy7s for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 23:26:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.59.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 874153A6DAA for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 23:26:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from omta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.52]) by qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id wvUr1f00A17dt5G5DvVF9r; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 07:29:15 +0000 Received: from sjc-vpn2-1389.cisco.com ([128.107.239.233]) by omta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id wvV31f00Z52qHCY3ZvV6e1; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 07:29:13 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tony Li In-Reply-To: <4F127CE4-9279-43F9-BF4A-D0C57F4EB517@tony.li> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 23:29:02 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <77AD45CB-C816-40D4-9495-AEBCF56DE086@tony.li> References: <20110106210002.8942.32684.idtracker@localhost> <4F127CE4-9279-43F9-BF4A-D0C57F4EB517@tony.li> To: Tony Li X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: rrg@irtf.org Subject: Re: [rrg] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-templin-iron-17.txt X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 07:26:39 -0000 Hi folks, No comments were received. We'll consider this acceptance. Thanks, Tony On Jan 6, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Tony Li wrote: >=20 > Hi all, >=20 > The IRON draft is very close to publication, but it needed some = non-editorial changes. It therefore seems reasonable to make this = available to the RG for further comments, if any. >=20 > Please comment within one week from this note. If no comments or = objections are received, we'll consider this to be acceptable for = publication. >=20 > Regards, > Tony >=20 >=20 > Begin forwarded message: >=20 >> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >> Date: January 6, 2011 1:00:02 PM PST >> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >> Subject: I-D Action:draft-templin-iron-17.txt >> Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org >>=20 >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. >>=20 >> Title : The Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON) >> Author(s) : F. Templin >> Filename : draft-templin-iron-17.txt >> Pages : 37 >> Date : 2011-01-06 >>=20 >> Since the Internet must continue to support escalating growth due to >> increasing demand, it is clear that current routing architectures and >> operational practices must be updated. This document proposes an >> Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON) that supports sustainable >> growth while requiring no changes to end systems and no changes to >> the existing routing system. IRON further addresses other important >> issues including routing scaling, mobility management, multihoming, >> traffic engineering and NAT traversal. While business considerations >> are an important determining factor for widespread adoption, they are >> out of scope for this document. This document is a product of the >> IRTF Routing Research Group. >>=20 >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-iron-17.txt >>=20 >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>=20 >> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >> Internet-Draft. > >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> I-D-Announce mailing list >> I-D-Announce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >=20 > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > rrg@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg From jmh@joelhalpern.com Mon Jan 24 06:51:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDBE53A6AD4 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 06:51:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.208 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.408, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z9rlmbQ2X5r7 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 06:51:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (hgblob.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 035C63A68E6 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 06:51:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0873232461ED; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 06:54:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.102] (pool-71-161-52-40.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.40]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4EC07324566E; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 06:54:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D3D9294.7070705@joelhalpern.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 09:54:12 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aaron Falk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: irsg@ISI.EDU, RRG , Tony Li Subject: [rrg] Processing of draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:51:21 -0000 As noted in the tracker in licket #44 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/44 This document has been in IRSG Review. The review period is now over. We received a thorough review, and a second set of useful comments. Both sets of comments have been addressed, and both reviewers agree that the document is ready to publish. No other votes were received from the IRSG. The most current document version, which addressed those comments and was accepted, is: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-02 I will update the tracker to indicate that the state is IESG Review. Aaron, will you initiate that? Thank you, Joel M. Halpern From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Mon Jan 24 11:49:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A8223A694F; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:49:49 -0800 (PST) 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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8krLWytxkcyt; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:49:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F9F13A695F; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:49:47 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: irsg@isi.edu, tony.li@tony.li, rrg@irtf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.10 Message-ID: <20110124194947.1261.19634.idtracker@localhost> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:49:47 -0800 Cc: iana@iana.org, The IESG , ietf-announce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rrg] Experimental RFC to be: draft-templin-iron-17.txt X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:49:49 -0000 The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'The Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON)' as an Experimental RFC. The IESG would also like the IRSG to review the comments in the datatracker (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=19595&rfc_flag=0) related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the comment log. The IESG contact person is Jari Arkko. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-iron-17.txt The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. Thank you, The IESG Secretary Technical Summary This is a description of the IRON mechanism that addresses routing scalability concerns in the Internet. Working Group Summary This is an independent submission via the RFC Editor, but has been discussed in the IRTF Routing Research Group. Document Quality n.a. Personnel The Document Shepherd is Tony Li and the responsible Area Director is Jari Arkko. IESG Note Per RFC 5742 our recommendation is the following for version -17 of this draft: 1. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document and IETF work. From falk@bbn.com Wed Jan 26 08:43:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 767A83A680C; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:43:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.041 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.041 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.241, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pSV0M2-KESHL; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:43:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3C6C3A6805; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:43:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp89-081-108.bbn.com ([128.89.81.108]:63823) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtps (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Pi8Vh-000PUq-N4; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:46:21 -0500 Message-ID: <4D404FDC.2080506@bbn.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:46:20 -0500 From: Aaron Falk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The IESG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Internet Research Steering Group , IRTF RRG Subject: [rrg] Request for RFC5742 review of draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:43:21 -0000 This is a request for the IESG to perform a RFC5742 review of draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals [1] to be published an an Informational IRTF RFC. The document has been approved for publication by the IRSG. See [2] for details on prior reviews. Please copy all correspondence to the document shepherd, Joel Halpern . --aaron IRTF Chair [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals [2] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/44 From falk@bbn.com Wed Jan 26 08:47:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 975943A698E for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:47:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.434 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.165, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 588OdP4ryaoZ for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:47:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 971333A68E6 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:47:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp89-081-108.bbn.com ([128.89.81.108]:63853) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtps (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Pi8ZI-000PZX-7R; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:50:04 -0500 Message-ID: <4D4050BB.8020701@bbn.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:50:03 -0500 From: Aaron Falk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RFC Editor Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Internet Research Steering Group , IRTF RRG Subject: [rrg] Request to publish draft-templin-iron-17.txt X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:47:11 -0000 RFC Editor- Please publish draft-templin-iron-17.txt as an Experimental IRTF RFC. The document has been approved for publication by the IRSG and also received RFC5742 review by the IESG. See http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/41 for details and history. Please copy all correspondence to the document shepherd, Tony Li . Regards, --aaron --- Aaron Falk Chair Internet Research Task Force http://www.irtf.org