From nobody Fri Apr 10 15:00:04 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6981B2D9B for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:00:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GSYURSrpqJ5T for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x233.google.com (mail-oi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88F311B2D9A for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by oiko83 with SMTP id o83so925536oik.1 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:00:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=WihuM/AwvJOfpo8jUXSudAjEBl6LodEi0ezQzzXtHlc=; b=prEkkN0E1KUlVKrz0PJyGCadHbh7y6TewSSYjVdjsGVb8JMC8mFhoMyU+e56+zDOFu 6r97vYc8E2HOBhMPiz1v8o/PLxAzGuPiWIi9c6/yrOZP2iIapFvlBxDmTOtr48ZM7qGK Kso4Kwc48lcM2rbRZSUO3zB8okfDDyu1O9ITln9Sg1Ft84WwVU+PhM0sQuQo+GSpVB24 f7xTdWyLzko1RtdezZrMSZrPfD6l6+Ocmcn5WRrxXGGMMoYZEj38mMpxo0WOrzeLwZHg U6j2y846Vmyggnr5VvDxcCLE0b/SMkfA9lCFTA2fQGslfxbvmB+ygHAaM+hte5XieOJv jvug== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.194.65 with SMTP id s62mr180687oif.39.1428703201062; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.48.151 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:00:01 -0700 Message-ID: From: Martin Thomson To: "tools-discuss@ietf.org Discussion" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] xml2rfc bibliography only available over HTTP X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 22:00:03 -0000 ...not HTTPS. This produces a 404: https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml That is, once you get past the certificate validation warning that I think dkg already pointed out. From nobody Mon Apr 13 14:48:28 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A5F1A89B3 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:48:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bJIttqzEmvy6 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vn0-x22b.google.com (mail-vn0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c0f::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0FB21A899B for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:48:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vnbf1 with SMTP id f1so24314764vnb.0 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:48:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=cBoPzE9RjRSvFofUxQTPk8vFEjoV5L/scP3MV2XTdkM=; b=OJXYrzq6VHUyt89DD7Nau+vrXGgwrt1k4e+32RvxRNs23qgunwZpg0DgQgGvLtyOR7 iPjJLYv2y0gusEpezq/RGL9FwAj/CDvnAnQ2lKIGh5nCyW8Pq1UsqYhB7DB0k627pU4O UBbhDU8sx3R605qAM8BQrwdKkbHd8Ioa6GpZfNyKVX6aPRyj325qfH0HYQGQ8wDTpLmA osgRevgSh053yoKL+HxQTUkZxlZoNKBGbSWanG06tDgZayfhd0fHoodHEPGcuDB7GtsW t6LvZWSEyr49BR7JTioYFT7VK+Vh48IWs/a34zDrul2kk0cwqseH90Yl9qeuDuUNx35A G3dQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.131.37 with SMTP id oj5mr13831233oeb.77.1428961704122; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:48:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.212.212 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:48:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:48:24 -0700 Message-ID: From: Martin Thomson To: "tools-discuss@ietf.org Discussion" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] Mixed content error on new datatracker stylesheet X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 21:48:26 -0000 Blocked loading mixed active content "http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=PT+Sans|PT+Mono|PT+Serif:400,700,400italic,700italic|PT+Sans+Caption&subset=latin,latin-ext" Seems easy enough to fix by the strategic addition of an 's'. Properly quoting the '&' with '&' might also be a good idea. The fallback fonts on Linux causes legibility to degrade a little more than I like. (I'm not a fan of the choice of the PT fonts - the amount of ornamentation is high, making them better suited to print at this size rather than screen disaply - but I respect that choice.) Style nit: The summary table for drafts could use a max-width directive on either the whole table or just the first two columns. From nobody Mon Apr 13 15:01:00 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CB261A8A7E for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:00:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g6UadiVv7rrr for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED2E11A8A05 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h205n24-s-oev-a31.ias.bredband.telia.com ([78.68.120.205]:58002 helo=vigonier.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from ) id 1YhmPY-0002qT-2C; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:00:56 -0700 Message-ID: <552C3C96.2000501@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:00:54 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Thomson , "tools-discuss@ietf.org Discussion" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 78.68.120.205 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: henrik-sent@levkowetz.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org, martin.thomson@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Mixed content error on new datatracker stylesheet X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:00:58 -0000 Hi Martin, On 2015-04-13 23:48, Martin Thomson wrote: > Blocked loading mixed active content > "http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=PT+Sans|PT+Mono|PT+Serif:400,700,400italic,700italic|PT+Sans+Caption&subset=latin,latin-ext" > > Seems easy enough to fix by the strategic addition of an 's'. > Properly quoting the '&' with '&' might also be a good idea. Fixed. Thanks. Please don't use the list as an issue tracker, there are links in the list footer to the actual issue tracker. > The fallback fonts on Linux causes legibility to degrade a little more > than I like. (I'm not a fan of the choice of the PT fonts - the > amount of ornamentation is high, making them better suited to print at > this size rather than screen disaply - but I respect that choice.) ,,:-) We have different ideas about the degree of ornamentation provided by the PT fonts, but I'll look for some better fallback fonts. > Style nit: The summary table for drafts could use a max-width > directive on either the whole table or just the first two columns. Url, please? Henrik From nobody Mon Apr 13 15:28:25 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46F9A1ACE7E for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:28:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0nLECwXFqPeX for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vn0-x232.google.com (mail-vn0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c0f::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 777201B2AD6 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:26:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vnbf1 with SMTP id f1so24655286vnb.0 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:26:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=C/svIQAiCNdYQnn/ZFrCD4s6EHOW9POXkt/0WbPbxhY=; b=zMA1J0AYToepiEZv8nXAEA1b6uGSekpivl/GHQJn2tCY+J+zB8Zuhzdilm8eROOlU4 kPbIop4++G7Uq10FxLMmidie+s8U42Fujrr1cm7M1IKl3/SHR07/TUClhw6W0k+TQ1Fm bb2EOftafMMIqnRiXbHizh/iuWyat237mla1VHYmWx7t5EcKe0GkR4sZbLB/bu235RCM lkuuWcCPoOBdH+eODbH24jUWSOBD79YXNzlvJb4PaO61Ctod597qwhM5qE3b1IipnctX e13ZLrMT7ZOdKLOsIbifGDq6LmnnD9YiqEd92M7XZ5+6qglxknw6mG4tgPRX9Xyctmha zx8w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.101.195 with SMTP id fi3mr13984096oeb.65.1428964016690; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:26:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.212.212 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:26:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <552C3C96.2000501@levkowetz.com> References: <552C3C96.2000501@levkowetz.com> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:26:56 -0700 Message-ID: From: Martin Thomson To: Henrik Levkowetz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Mixed content error on new datatracker stylesheet X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:28:24 -0000 On 13 April 2015 at 15:00, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > Please don't use the list as an issue tracker, there are links in the > list footer to the actual issue tracker. You mean https://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/newticket ? Every time I click on a trac link it takes so long to load that I think that it's broken. This one takes more than 15 seconds to get to an error page; I thought it was broken after 5. > ,,:-) We have different ideas about the degree of ornamentation provided > by the PT fonts, but I'll look for some better fallback fonts. As I said, this is largely down to taste. Largely. If the primary isn't broken, I don't think that you need to spend time on fallback fonts that are hardly ever going to be seen. >> Style nit: The summary table for drafts could use a max-width >> directive on either the whole table or just the first two columns. > > Url, please? Not sure what you are looking for, but I tend to view this sort of page on a fairly wide view: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-sslv3-diediedie/ On a very wide screen, the table layout tends to give an unnecessary amount of space to those first two columns. You can use empty elements [1] and max-width directives [2] if you want more precise control and to allow for more content in the third column. Or you could simply cap the width of the table, or the page. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/col [2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/max-width p.s., the new look is otherwise a lot better. From nobody Mon Apr 13 15:46:07 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F1D1B2AB9 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:46:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PRpYZabwTvKJ for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0353C1A9250 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h205n24-s-oev-a31.ias.bredband.telia.com ([78.68.120.205]:51939 helo=vigonier.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from ) id 1Yhn7C-0008Ky-0q; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:46:02 -0700 Message-ID: <552C4728.3040001@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:46:00 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Thomson References: <552C3C96.2000501@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 78.68.120.205 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: henrik-sent@levkowetz.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org, martin.thomson@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Mixed content error on new datatracker stylesheet X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:46:06 -0000 On 2015-04-14 00:26, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 13 April 2015 at 15:00, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >> Please don't use the list as an issue tracker, there are links in the >> list footer to the actual issue tracker. > > You mean https://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/newticket ? Yes. > Every time I click on a trac link it takes so long to load that I > think that it's broken. This one takes more than 15 seconds to get to > an error page; I thought it was broken after 5. The problem is not at the server end. Here I see a load time of about 1.4 s for that page. >> ,,:-) We have different ideas about the degree of ornamentation provided >> by the PT fonts, but I'll look for some better fallback fonts. > > As I said, this is largely down to taste. Largely. > > If the primary isn't broken, I don't think that you need to spend time > on fallback fonts that are hardly ever going to be seen. > >>> Style nit: The summary table for drafts could use a max-width >>> directive on either the whole table or just the first two columns. >> >> Url, please? > > Not sure what you are looking for, but I tend to view this sort of > page on a fairly wide view: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-sslv3-diediedie/ > > On a very wide screen, the table layout tends to give an unnecessary > amount of space to those first two columns. Ack, good point. I'll tweak. > You can use empty elements [1] and max-width directives [2] if > you want more precise control and to allow for more content in the > third column. Or you could simply cap the width of the table, or the > page. I'll probably look at a max-width in ems for the two first columns. > [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/col > [2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/max-width > > p.s., the new look is otherwise a lot better. Ok, good :-) Henrik From nobody Mon Apr 13 15:48:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 237C71B2ABE for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:48:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GRr83zEUFsiu for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA9401B2ABB for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h205n24-s-oev-a31.ias.bredband.telia.com ([78.68.120.205]:57896 helo=vigonier.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from ) id 1Yhn9C-0003qm-69; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:48:06 -0700 Message-ID: <552C47A4.7000904@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:48:04 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Thomson References: <552C3C96.2000501@levkowetz.com> <552C4728.3040001@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: <552C4728.3040001@levkowetz.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 78.68.120.205 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: henrik-sent@levkowetz.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org, martin.thomson@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Mixed content error on new datatracker stylesheet X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:48:08 -0000 One more point inline: On 2015-04-14 00:46, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > > On 2015-04-14 00:26, Martin Thomson wrote: >> On 13 April 2015 at 15:00, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >>> Please don't use the list as an issue tracker, there are links in the >>> list footer to the actual issue tracker. >> >> You mean https://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/newticket ? > > Yes. > >> Every time I click on a trac link it takes so long to load that I >> think that it's broken. This one takes more than 15 seconds to get to >> an error page; I thought it was broken after 5. > > The problem is not at the server end. Here I see a load time of about > 1.4 s for that page. The "Error" you see, is that you have to log in. Reading more than just one word of the error message might be worthwhile ,;-) Henrik >>> ,,:-) We have different ideas about the degree of ornamentation provided >>> by the PT fonts, but I'll look for some better fallback fonts. >> >> As I said, this is largely down to taste. Largely. >> >> If the primary isn't broken, I don't think that you need to spend time >> on fallback fonts that are hardly ever going to be seen. >> >>>> Style nit: The summary table for drafts could use a max-width >>>> directive on either the whole table or just the first two columns. >>> >>> Url, please? >> >> Not sure what you are looking for, but I tend to view this sort of >> page on a fairly wide view: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-sslv3-diediedie/ >> >> On a very wide screen, the table layout tends to give an unnecessary >> amount of space to those first two columns. > > Ack, good point. I'll tweak. > >> You can use empty elements [1] and max-width directives [2] if >> you want more precise control and to allow for more content in the >> third column. Or you could simply cap the width of the table, or the >> page. > > I'll probably look at a max-width in ems for the two first columns. > >> [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/col >> [2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/max-width >> >> p.s., the new look is otherwise a lot better. > > Ok, good :-) > > > Henrik > From nobody Mon Apr 13 16:41:17 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 622981AD359 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:41:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rNmOo3y_ZPoo for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x235.google.com (mail-pd0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 331A31ACEA6 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pdbnk13 with SMTP id nk13so123453584pdb.0 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:41:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tigqHdmU3sDYcjVBDxB5cSb6Q6/fIVPDfIF/yTY4p4c=; b=aCRO+eyJhTDafVK18wRNexZvPvGWnREdLZiW2I3cz1L+aWxQibOS3xcwrV89D0IQMq LJGcYSviwgRLKLqkkleKlkxtDhqj1NpIDeVw0/XlYMpF8UW5NFAKsGOmrLrZ1JzIA1T3 xtKP6sI0mgZdwm5rxnoCdaktV2JRUmwsbsrdJeaQFGauhvg2eJHfeJMm5UNnmbjmHm8M NtwLIt8EAElJ6tD3AM3FuSoiPbzKxFqWGMubnREcQn3ByfDx/KlBRcngsTugTdyjeRg/ bK7Q2pY+9xZctgewPjGCJMlHkgblaQi8ye4ofQ0xPp/nIKlWC0oAx+THtR8A6Sw+uEci 3eKw== X-Received: by 10.68.223.36 with SMTP id qr4mr30598596pbc.50.1428968474917; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:41:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76? ([2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id np6sm8359187pdb.80.2015.04.13.16.41.12 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:41:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <552C5418.2020002@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 11:41:12 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] "Documents" list when logged into the tracker X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 23:41:16 -0000 Firstly, I don't think this is anything to do with new UI. When logged into the tracker, the left-hand sidebar includes this: Documents Submit a draft My tracked docs WG fddifs docs WG ipdecide docs WG nosi docs WG diffserv docs WG netwklr docs WG iww docs WG midtax docs WG pesci docs WG renum docs WG ucan docs WG aeiou docs Several issues here: 1) This list mainly includes BOFs dating back to 1993 that I (co)chaired. It would be better if they were labelled as BOFs. (netwklr and iww were actually IAB workshops, however). 2) Concluded WGs should be labelled as such. 3) It's a minor point, but concluded WGs are only listed if I was a chair when the WG closed. An alternative to fixing these issues would be to not list closed WGs and historic BOFs at all. They don't add much value. Brian From nobody Mon Apr 13 16:46:47 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 409C31AD255 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:46:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D-dGgBiWrFEw for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x22a.google.com (mail-pa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCD711AD0AA for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pabsx10 with SMTP id sx10so117980326pab.3 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:46:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rxCMyWMeewY57LjiFV3yZUBK7ywvDB4WLoQbR6mC0bU=; b=mA65Up3GzXREgyVRIhCM+bJgYQwGYSRr/RUnjooSgoIPxHk63XaEMM2NqOXnwL/FIC CjzzVeaChRmeEdC8Ox+JiyH3A2qcTnC0dzfhpenqEGVfwy6T/hpeFrPJ135ESuNoAndu rBj3D3xpUKj/objcm8zqrJSNfF04kXpwJLAuBEcPA8l7ySq5Sllep2WSlPPsDlMn8IQz esdAKXr1xS1jsKmtRQOvX02fbPSMVBBtcUKO2Y1kleUvbBgJ5qhcpmma/1kCnOygPIR/ fcErR7xf1Aikx6Qb/4jO6iW/6gqep4b1VImwGsqenDevFP6HL61GL9yzccgJp8uwIyZM YzXw== X-Received: by 10.70.90.34 with SMTP id bt2mr31113889pdb.33.1428968802514; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:46:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76? ([2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i6sm8373333pdp.53.2015.04.13.16.46.40 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:46:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <552C5560.1030102@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 11:46:40 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tools-discuss@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] Structured list of concluded WGs X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 23:46:45 -0000 Hi, http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ now only includes a pointer to the unstructured list of concluded WGs. I find the structured list (http://www.ietf.org/wg/concluded/) much more useful. Is that just me? Regards Brian From nobody Mon Apr 13 16:48:31 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE55A1B29BC for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:48:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pQpr_PtVJx53 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90C191B29BB for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h205n24-s-oev-a31.ias.bredband.telia.com ([78.68.120.205]:57382 helo=vigonier.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from ) id 1Yho5b-0002HT-KQ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:48:28 -0700 Message-ID: <552C55C9.2050308@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 01:48:25 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter , tools-discuss@ietf.org References: <552C5418.2020002@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <552C5418.2020002@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 78.68.120.205 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: henrik-sent@levkowetz.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org, brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] "Documents" list when logged into the tracker X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 23:48:29 -0000 Hi Brian, On 2015-04-14 01:41, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Firstly, I don't think this is anything to do with new UI. > > When logged into the tracker, the left-hand sidebar includes > this: > > Documents > Submit a draft > My tracked docs > WG fddifs docs > WG ipdecide docs > WG nosi docs > WG diffserv docs > WG netwklr docs > WG iww docs > WG midtax docs > WG pesci docs > WG renum docs > WG ucan docs > WG aeiou docs > > Several issues here: > 1) This list mainly includes BOFs dating back to 1993 that I (co)chaired. > It would be better if they were labelled as BOFs. (netwklr and iww were > actually IAB workshops, however). > 2) Concluded WGs should be labelled as such. > 3) It's a minor point, but concluded WGs are only listed if I was a chair > when the WG closed. > > An alternative to fixing these issues would be to not list > closed WGs and historic BOFs at all. They don't add much value. Agreed; that's the plan. There is already an issue in the issue tracker about this. Will fix. Best regards, Henrik From nobody Mon Apr 13 19:24:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447B81B2F2D for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:24:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ih1QCh3uoPOV for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:24:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [209.234.253.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FE9A1B2D63 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:24:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [38.109.115.130]) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2FBC2F984; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:24:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 00F131FFAB; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 21:24:33 -0500 (CDT) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: Henrik Levkowetz , Martin Thomson In-Reply-To: <552C4728.3040001@levkowetz.com> References: <552C3C96.2000501@levkowetz.com> <552C4728.3040001@levkowetz.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:24:33 -0400 Message-ID: <871tjntpjy.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: [Tools-discuss] trac pageload speed diagnostics [was: Re: Mixed content error on new datatracker stylesheet] X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 02:24:39 -0000 On Mon 2015-04-13 18:46:00 -0400, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > On 2015-04-14 00:26, Martin Thomson wrote: >> On 13 April 2015 at 15:00, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >>> Please don't use the list as an issue tracker, there are links in the >>> list footer to the actual issue tracker. >> >> You mean https://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/newticket ? > > Yes. > >> Every time I click on a trac link it takes so long to load that I >> think that it's broken. This one takes more than 15 seconds to get to >> an error page; I thought it was broken after 5. > > The problem is not at the server end. Here I see a load time of about > 1.4 s for that page. This might be due to missing reverse DNS. When i connect via IPv6 or IPv4 from a host with a functional reverse DNS, (using "time wget -4 https://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/newticket" or "time wget -6 https://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/newticket" to get the 403 Forbidden response), i see completion times between 1.5 and 5 seconds. When i connect from a host with broken (missing, non-responsive) reverse DNS, i see times between 23 to 25 seconds. Maybe trac is trying to do a reverse DNS lookup and waiting for it to time out before rendering the page? Also, i notice that when i hit 209.208.19.222 as tools.ietf.org, i get a 301 Moved Permanently redirection to trac.tools.ietf.org. But when i hit 64.170.98.42 as tools.ietf.org it goes ahead and renders the page without the 301 redirection. It seems a bit odd that the two different hosts for tools.ietf.org should have such different configurations. --dkg From nobody Mon Apr 13 19:31:50 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D41EB1B3179 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:31:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6t-4JQhAPHBC for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vn0-x22c.google.com (mail-vn0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c0f::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA31B1B3172 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vnbf1 with SMTP id f1so26441578vnb.0 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:31:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=6gottSfYAUyZei1SOHlhhDudKtI35v0ZCYMu/9YrSRg=; b=RqlwJ1WfwAWnz3IiIuhxJECFDeqz4hvRdPw3HyoMK/b/yME2qEPgsgjBFpHLNnOgKf LA/FX/DtESH/lCx6mCCkRWULgf7W7hBPiJqoszsMXOfqC1meAaZ1/oDCX9lpHX3Jd3Ns ifOrf5hgaxT7CL47qgFdpUqSyuM+Ut0ggCeFsCbaRtiZo1iUEU0k0nUGKocu0QyjsC5+ 6O15YiL+ahvhaDSbcy2KDOp34XQFFsAVR5AKxuVUnDpWkaR3xgTANPe7GvW+59+RwZfK KI+cC6Q+Nz4VqHSn8SJF5fM0E4A7Dvo4zEa6GJ7N1d77k4jFMODt/3vYMANq+qJEziF2 R3lQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.194.65 with SMTP id s62mr9779606oif.39.1428978707987; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.212.212 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:31:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <871tjntpjy.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> References: <552C3C96.2000501@levkowetz.com> <552C4728.3040001@levkowetz.com> <871tjntpjy.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:31:47 -0700 Message-ID: From: Martin Thomson To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: Henrik Levkowetz , "tools-discuss@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] trac pageload speed diagnostics [was: Re: Mixed content error on new datatracker stylesheet] X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 02:31:50 -0000 On 13 April 2015 at 19:24, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > This might be due to missing reverse DNS. I don't know how you thought to check that, but that could be it. I can confirm that it is much faster from home, where I have a PTR record. Honestly, I'd given up on the site ever being usable. (And 23-25 sounds right; my 15 seconds was on a pretty slow count.) From nobody Tue Apr 14 01:56:23 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6BB1A0302 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 01:56:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8PjLV5K1ql3h for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 01:56:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx141.netapp.com (mx141.netapp.com [216.240.21.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B51221A026E for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 01:56:19 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,575,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="36514499" Received: from hioexcmbx01-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.34]) by mx141-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2015 01:55:19 -0700 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) by hioexcmbx01-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 01:55:17 -0700 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::f07f:691d:89d:53b7%21]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.031; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 01:55:17 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Martin Thomson Thread-Topic: [Tools-discuss] Mixed content error on new datatracker stylesheet Thread-Index: AQHQdjOU3ChbP5So30KH8AQrqrgfHJ1MqmcA Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:55:17 +0000 Message-ID: <2CA6CC5D-7C77-4923-884A-0181B2382780@netapp.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) x-originating-ip: [10.122.56.79] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <08BC58D9200DCD4F9AB80D8617243BCE@hq.netapp.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Mixed content error on new datatracker stylesheet X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:56:22 -0000 This should use a protocol-independent URL like we do for the other assets. On 2015-4-13, at 23:48, Martin Thomson wrote: >=20 > Blocked loading mixed active content > "http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=3DPT+Sans|PT+Mono|PT+Serif:400,70= 0,400italic,700italic|PT+Sans+Caption&subset=3Dlatin,latin-ext" >=20 > Seems easy enough to fix by the strategic addition of an 's'. > Properly quoting the '&' with '&' might also be a good idea. >=20 > The fallback fonts on Linux causes legibility to degrade a little more > than I like. (I'm not a fan of the choice of the PT fonts - the > amount of ornamentation is high, making them better suited to print at > this size rather than screen disaply - but I respect that choice.) >=20 > Style nit: The summary table for drafts could use a max-width > directive on either the whole table or just the first two columns. >=20 > --=20 > Tools-discuss mailing list > Tools-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >=20 > Please reports datatracker.ietf.org bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/i= etfdb > Please reports tools.ietf.org bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues = or > send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org From nobody Tue Apr 14 02:08:41 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7D81A1A1E for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 02:08:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QPVLltJywRu3 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 02:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx141.netapp.com (mx141.netapp.com [216.240.21.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D43A71A0461 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 02:08:37 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,575,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="36515786" Received: from hioexcmbx08-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.41]) by mx141-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2015 02:08:22 -0700 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) by hioexcmbx08-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 02:08:21 -0700 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::f07f:691d:89d:53b7%21]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.031; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 02:08:21 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Brian E Carpenter Thread-Topic: [Tools-discuss] Structured list of concluded WGs Thread-Index: AQHQdkQbHaT0NbOq+Um5O42vFVHqsZ1Mre0A Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:08:20 +0000 Message-ID: <5FC29407-CCB8-49E2-91DB-EF701772FD62@netapp.com> References: <552C5560.1030102@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <552C5560.1030102@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) x-originating-ip: [10.122.56.79] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Structured list of concluded WGs X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:08:39 -0000 On 2015-4-14, at 01:46, Brian E Carpenter wro= te: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ now only includes a pointer to the > unstructured list of concluded WGs. that was there before the facelift in this unstructred form as well. > I find the structured list (http://www.ietf.org/wg/concluded/) > much more useful. Is that just me? We can change that; open a ticket? Lars= From nobody Tue Apr 14 09:11:19 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF35B1B2D89 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:11:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tJqlKI-IbQdt for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x22f.google.com (mail-oi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 736341B2DFA for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:10:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by oiko83 with SMTP id o83so5645009oik.1 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:10:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4FaDLlEa9WkcpktroysuKJCrxUdurh5Ta7fDE/hPAVs=; b=Q4YIMPFtTgRjoWiq4WxLPBSYzZ9m2ZSLij4xLUOQ2VQEomGkK9ix+TfOZ6L7Bgd2zT kRMwHmnG5f87+wcqh6hlc5gdRaufrBHf2aKK4/sxhXD+Od5cTOKDo0j0KZO+T59NX6Pg v9VuM2dis0iL4x5p1liRzazn8StorCIwepu1/lDiuftGiyC4ln2f3jWtEC9IYpPb2k+F 4TYZuyGpK3g4WgYtAu/tfrZHSPaYeHxxCUZD9LBUPZyagZWB8h3bsyTsfajhnZLnyKv+ 8Q/r9etWTW0lOSwR5cYGkDxOHFfJHfOV5/BQbwbmBjJwQebIYg7V98oUgZt4B6624Non C/dw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.196.131 with SMTP id u125mr12126831oif.44.1429027815986; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.212.212 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:10:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2CA6CC5D-7C77-4923-884A-0181B2382780@netapp.com> References: <2CA6CC5D-7C77-4923-884A-0181B2382780@netapp.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:10:15 -0700 Message-ID: From: Martin Thomson To: "Eggert, Lars" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Mixed content error on new datatracker stylesheet X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:11:18 -0000 On 14 April 2015 at 01:55, Eggert, Lars wrote: > This should use a protocol-independent URL like we do for the other assets. I don't see why if everything runs on https://. Protocol-independent URLs are a hack for resources that need to be loaded on http:// and https://. From nobody Wed Apr 15 07:35:53 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3BC51B357F for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 07:35:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5hFidvvj7A17 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 07:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 445711B3571 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 07:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h205n24-s-oev-a31.ias.bredband.telia.com ([78.68.120.205]:58191 helo=vigonier.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from ) id 1YiOPo-0004uU-CC; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 07:35:46 -0700 Message-ID: <552E7734.4060000@levkowetz.com> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:35:32 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Mack References: <1a26b94ec6194a1c8543b8d98d909ced@usla-mailsrv01.quinnemanuel.local> In-Reply-To: <1a26b94ec6194a1c8543b8d98d909ced@usla-mailsrv01.quinnemanuel.local> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CJhgpIsmStIFEdlOnrNtVOjh3kJrcDMvw" X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 78.68.120.205 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: henrik-sent@levkowetz.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org, brianmack@quinnemanuel.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) Archived-At: Cc: "'tools-discuss@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] FW: Subpoena to IETF / Authentication of Documents X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:35:52 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --CJhgpIsmStIFEdlOnrNtVOjh3kJrcDMvw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Brian, On 2015-04-15 15:28, Brian Mack wrote: > Henry, Henrik, actually. > We are outside lawyers for Metaswitch Networks and are involved in ongo= ing litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. >=20 > We subpoenaed the Internet Society d/b/a the IETF and they provided us = with a declaration authenticating several IETF RFCs (and providing the da= te of publication (public availability)). >=20 > The IETF was unable to authenticate several documents hosted at tools.i= etf.org (see below). Would someone who runs the "tools" page be able to = provide us with a short declaration? We could send over a draft for you = to review an sign. >=20 > These documents are very important to our case as prior art publication= s. What I can assert about the documents is limited, given the date of the documents (dates in 2000), as the dates are before I started fetching documents directly from the IETF site. There are 2 archives which started fetching documents earlier than I did,= and at least one of them is still up and running; hopefully you will have= better luck contacting the maintainer of that repository. You can find the repository here: http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/ It is being run by Geoff Huston, . If he has the documents in question in his repository, he may be able to assert that he has copied them directly from the ietf site at the dates indicated by the file system. On my system, that's respectively 2000-03-10 08:29 draft-kuthan-fcp-00.txt 2000-06-15 09:42 draft-kuthan-fcp-01.txt 2000-11-29 08:09 draft-kuthan-fcp-02.txt but I am not in a position to assert that they were in my possession with their current content at that time, unfortunately. Best regards, Henrik >=20 > Please advise. >=20 > Thanks, > Brian >=20 >=20 > From: Jorge Contreras [mailto:contreraslegal@att.net] > Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 10:23 AM > To: Brian Mack > Subject: Re: Subpoena to IETF / Authentication of Documents > Importance: High >=20 > Dear Brian, >=20 > Please see the explanation that I received from the IETF records custod= ian below: >=20 > "The process of authenticating an Internet-Draft (I-D) includes a confi= rmation that we, the Secretariat, can assert that we have had a solid cha= in of custody of the I-D in question from its initial filing through toda= y. In the case of the I-Ds listed below, we cannot make that assertion. > Specifically, the I-Ds listed as being present on "tools.ietf.org" are not able to be authenticated. The "tools" server= s are owned and operated by volunteers not under the direct control of th= e IETF, and the authenticity of *any* I-Ds on those servers, while *likel= y* to be valid, can never be *confirmed* to be valid. Likewise the singl= e I-D appearing in the "www.ietf.org/archive/id" location is shown by our records to be a copy of an I-D from the = tools servers, and can therefore also not be authenticated. > To be authentic, an I-D must be (a) on the actual www.ietf.org website and (b) confirmed by AMS to be in our chain-of-cust= ody line from its original submission and (c) be a direct match for that = source document, byte-for-byte. > Since the I-Ds in the list below fail item (b) in the above process, AM= S and the IETF cannot make any representation as to the authenticity of t= hose I-Ds." >=20 > Please let me know if you would like to discuss. >=20 > Best regards, > Jorge >=20 > Jorge L. Contreras > Contreras Legal Strategy LLC > 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 > Washington, DC 20036 > contreraslegal@att.net >=20 > The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and conf= idential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this mess= age immediately. >=20 >=20 > From: Brian Mack > > Date: Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 10:11 PM > To: Jorge Contreras > > Subject: RE: Subpoena to IETF / Authentication of Documents >=20 > Jorge, >=20 > We received your response to our subpoena in the Genband v. Metaswitch = Networks case (2:14-cv-33). >=20 > There are a few documents that were included in included in Attachment = B of the Morris declaration that could not be authenticated. The declara= tion says these documents are not contained in the IETF records, but many= still appear on the IETF website and are dated on the face of the docume= nts. Can you check on the following documents, and provide a declaration= if possible on their authenticity as IETF documents (if not also on publ= ic availability)? >=20 > If you'd like to chat, I am around tomorrow afternoon. The documents i= n bold below are particularly important to our case. >=20 > Thanks, > Brian >=20 >=20 >=20 > "Firewall Control Protocol Framework and Requirements" > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuthan-fcp-00 >=20 >=20 > "Firewall Control Protocol Framework and Requirements" > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuthan-fcp-01 >=20 >=20 > "Middlebox Communication: Framework and Requirements" >=20 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuthan-fcp-02 >=20 >=20 >=20 > "H.323 Firewall Control Interface (HFCI") >=20 > >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rfced-info-mercer-00.txt >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-rfced-info-mercer-00.txt >=20 > "The SIP INFO Method" > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sip-info-method-00 > "Mapping between ISUP and SIP" > http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/drafts/draft-schulzrinne-ss7-00.pdf > "Media Gateway Control Protocol (MGCP) Call Flows" > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huitema-megaco-mgcp-flows-01 > The IP Network Address Translator (NAT) > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rfced-info-srisuresh-05 > "A Proposal for Internet and Public Switched Telephone Networks (PSTN) = Internetworking" [Dated March 1997 on Page 4] > > http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-faynberg-telephone-sw-net-00.pdf > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-faynberg-telephone-sw-net-00.txt > "Analysis of Services and Interfaces used when Interworking Between the= Internet and the Intelligent Network (I.N.)" [stating that "Internet-Dra= fts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months" and that the d= raft "Expires on 7 January 1998"] > > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-conroy-interfaces-in-net-00.txt > http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-conroy-interfaces-in-net-00.pdf > "SIP for Click-To-Dial-Back and Third-Party Control" [dated November 20= , 1997 on page 1] > draft-ietf-pint-sip-00.txt > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pint-sip-00.txt > http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-pint-sip-00.pdf > "Architectural Framework for Signaling Transport" [dated February 1999 = on page 1] > draft-ietf-sigtran-framework-arch-00.txt > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sigtran-framework-arch-00.txt > http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-sigtran-framework-arch-00.pdf > "PSTN-Internet Internetworking - An Architecture Overview" [Dated Novem= ber 1997 on page 1] > > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pint-inweb-00.txt > http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-pint-inweb-00.pdf > "Pre-PINT Callback Service Implementation Experiences" [stating that "= Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months" an= d that the draft "Expires on 21 May 1998"] > > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pint-internet-callcenter-00.txt > http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-pint-internet-callcenter-00.pdf > "The PINT Profile of SIP and SDP: a Protocol for IP Access to Telephone= Call Services" [dated August 7, 1998 on page 1] > draft-ietf-pint-profile-00.txt > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/42/I-D/draft-ietf-pint-profile-00.txt > "RFC2458 - Toward the PSTN/Internet Inter-Networking--Pre-PINT Implemen= tations" [dated March 1998 on page 1] > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pint-pre-implement-00.txt > http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-pint-pre-implement-02.pdf > "A Proposal for Internet Call Waiting Service using SIP An Implementati= on Report" [dated November 1998 at the bottom of page 1] > > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pint-icw-00.txt > "A proposal for the provisioning of PSTN initiated services running on = the Internet" [dated March 1999 on page 2] > > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pint-saint-00.txt > http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-pint-saint-00.pdf >=20 > From: Jorge Contreras [mailto:contreraslegal@att.net] > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 7:42 AM > To: Brian Mack > Subject: Re: Subpoena to IETF / Authentication of Documents >=20 > Brian, >=20 > I can accept service. For your records, please note our new address be= low (though email correspondence is by far the most reliable way to commu= nicate). >=20 > I will be in touch once I have reviewed the request with my client. >=20 > Best regards, >=20 > Jorge L. Contreras > Contreras Legal Strategy LLC > 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 > Washington, DC 20036 > contreraslegal@att.net >=20 > The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and conf= idential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this mess= age immediately. >=20 >=20 > From: Brian Mack > > Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 9:30 PM > To: Jorge Contreras > > Subject: Subpoena to IETF / Authentication of Documents >=20 >=20 > Contreras Legal Strategy LLC > P.O. Box 4752 > St. Louis, MO 63108 > E-mail: contreraslegal@att.net > To whom it may concern: >=20 > Attached is a subpoena to The Internet Society d/b/a The Internet Engin= eering Take Force (IETF). Please let me know if you can accept email ser= vice of this subpoena. >=20 > Best, > Brian >=20 > Brian Mack > Associate, > Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP >=20 > 50 California Street, 22nd Floor > San Francisco, CA 94111 > 415-875-6423 Direct > 415.875.6600 Main Office Number > 415.875.6700 FAX > brianmack@quinnemanuel.com > www.quinnemanuel.com > NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended on= ly for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above.= This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product= and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this messag= e is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to= the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received t= his document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, o= r copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received th= is communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and de= lete the original message. >=20 >=20 >=20 --CJhgpIsmStIFEdlOnrNtVOjh3kJrcDMvw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVLnc9AAoJEE6bV0uPuxcaNo4QALD/Oq8LIirxr63CoZ5w/f9f SCeBKB8wzVySP/RwgBArXrFsZpeE4UbzdpTgC63ZyFGPo2mQx1CfA7+BUCieaIgz oBKiNyazD15BF+kDOQStp4k/+GE3AKY/CcDaOTiTKh/NBpqrxcOM5Ax+yK0hmDQ/ BNsYGDVds1fr32GAubZ24A4l3uqnk7b3MeXBzLA22J2KOy+P0KDsAAFoPomKl1HN BLJ48MEo5pml5Sduu+LA3cTE2F07W1LY2dPzK0zIVik5DZEDe1t1MCrrN0mZewqU jqCXN+xcPN5CsZVD4dvyVYJrIwHM72RnT2tlmoPl6O+SpSFEsEr770Eur2/Bq9uu 9bmAWFHBFhqCFWww+ZTv4i8VEq7lHjkyAC+X4gD4i9/ujf/8qVyHy2L49KZoNg7c Bw2s+l8OUvJHf6b5yiuzoZBac1R6X9EmV7lTibA+4Ft993pOgSFLWYG5k5NhlwmI E2l/DY9vJbyjF1xbNqXeCTyMiPHSf1YJxOBM1yTWdmXflrge0TMy9Dhga1TeNs2B QFqzndVKIyRCpOle3HsQS1Z30Ky2LPa/E+S+y5Y+3lKVZvQSAlRb5AU60bgiYJWp aNwfbPHd6Wx7T5GLPHwcnG6ni+O6lkcD+fzS/DJXobAiLTlD6K2t7fLo9iB+D+UE LB27GTvTeQtPw67rTXln =H7vJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CJhgpIsmStIFEdlOnrNtVOjh3kJrcDMvw-- From nobody Fri Apr 17 14:45:08 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953731A8861 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:45:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.723 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.723 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KB8dJrKdJReB for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:45:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com (mail-la0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02C031A8711 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:45:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by layy10 with SMTP id y10so90036187lay.0 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:45:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=sbwbjrVGy6Wvupkyu7lKcio9dPpoi75naJ0QwPwdNa4=; b=YwZsTuKWUelef9lqRwUWkJeTvSR4xIOx1NKg0fR/hBA4rqWdp0gnswTDVkrPwOxP0x ti8VDIlA+F1CO994C5LsCSC2mhJReCSefjzOJzLxcsbpSQyCDNUdfeskssqdBDWzRZH+ 57ocm3YPqoKNs/5EyBsYaP2ldhcpQiiTNwNZ8MFDYjgMO/fjbcyO2474jMyOmEcKm7wh NH/q/hnYCNuuu10kqAp5E9sgzDnNGImkFDciQg5abjdi0bJFXDRyJKgzGPV9BUyFe7AI DscB8+d8N6wjXUEH2HXLKOc8N1kDo6Yj0aRw3sZ83kgOKrHIeHGZHuDlM3ydnlaUxJe1 KB6w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmV/P9kG/NkqhO3fL67Jz7TgPLNTxSzqlDYkyE53ZoDvNb4u9zlYueAzzbPoreKDoEe3yNx MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.87.46 with SMTP id u14mr6028875laz.82.1429307104541; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:45:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.214.162 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:45:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 17:45:04 -0400 Message-ID: From: Richard Barnes To: Tools discussion , ietf-action@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2afd03dd35c0513f27ef5 Archived-At: Cc: Joe Hildebrand Subject: [Tools-discuss] www.ietf.org broken X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:45:07 -0000 --001a11c2afd03dd35c0513f27ef5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On HTTPS, returns a Cloudflare page "Error 520" On HTTP, returns a redirect loop: curl -4 http://www.ietf.org/ 302 Found

Found

The document has moved here.

--001a11c2afd03dd35c0513f27ef5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On HTTPS, returns a Cloudflare page "Error 520&q= uot;

On HTTP, returns a redirect loop:

curl -4 http://www.ietf.org/
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUB= LIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <html><head> <= title>302 Found</title> </head><body> <h1>Found&= lt;/h1> <p>The document has moved <a href=3D"http://www.ietf.org/">here</a>.</p= > </body></html>
--001a11c2afd03dd35c0513f27ef5-- From nobody Fri Apr 17 15:20:57 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 901061B30A0; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:20:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q6qDuOmrZnPW; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x22f.google.com (mail-oi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48A971B3059; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by oiko83 with SMTP id o83so86213333oik.1; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:20:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=rQi2MFrkQaHIMrFGsBLBwEUUJP/6aIJ4AaKUB+uLHsw=; b=ghtJPGJm43jlPHfR45OXpHUcAcxH3hS++pGgXPQhnxme0WtxSCvXPhxSOp2Z7a3n1s d+tRWiYnP6B8c9bSbZsZXTEIl5J2ZnSUwJECaTzaZo7nDf+nIuhFlxOZq9uOplb1yoHr mlbcwsE22vL80KISCg9WybpxEmIDTENWQEFN6IJ8nQ55obiMRwaMCvHaHgJIKOEirwDh iymmzDImMmmiZstzR7Yu1OzfhvTBKxeorLDPHDqIASXjP1qWbKRkScXl5MXx3f22Puai RLYaN6KyBfruXQmkZQZuLix3Ftp1JxQFEclUmBumzBg6G0NUj51Ph3oyuy7olXv5i8Nz cTNw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.200.209 with SMTP id y200mr4636533oif.20.1429309254724; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.212.212 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:20:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:20:54 -0700 Message-ID: From: Martin Thomson To: Richard Barnes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: ietf-action@ietf.org, Tools discussion , Joe Hildebrand Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] www.ietf.org broken X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:20:56 -0000 On 17 April 2015 at 14:45, Richard Barnes wrote: > On HTTPS, returns a Cloudflare page "Error 520" > > On HTTP, returns a redirect loop: WFM now. With and without the www. From nobody Fri Apr 17 16:09:07 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074A41B30DA for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:09:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mLSQzM-H0a87 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:09:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com (mail-la0-f43.google.com [209.85.215.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A3001B30C1 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by layy10 with SMTP id y10so90979183lay.0 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:09:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=hoBmF6pK/S4cO+peVUZXFZAqWvABzp8aZydGYWr7yCo=; b=IrtA5/RACSvZ9RaKV+nUYDxUhW0dzhqgM/tr2WmaQZKkgIV4mZVYY6fzDFvvJ5238I 49esZrTvN4IqVKGLF9mEZ3bCGIwnZHPdkOSZWloizvp57oDrIf5RHtiJU9H7ByO35jJl rHxa5pU0uNgxd95Hs8bKME4eO4oda9XhVXE5GZn+ocXn0RwzsJNJhau+TbamWOHzx+o9 ODg7J0gF0VTCa2+QLvIP3am3cWZv5wKOHpgd/wtX0uFTLB7pXIN7DdTVYDnsHSpItLt+ cvRFKBsi/sZUXkPau6Piq3fchmiRq+Ppp/+/v1+koLKH3/Gpuaa4QOszV8JoCOI8lEqi mGhQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmy49pZVWNIyCAyK92/0HuaG3kYjXpERB1Eh4nd4Ol/CTaQh8pVC850JQ+5WAZm/xGZSCOh MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.77.103 with SMTP id r7mr6171158lbw.63.1429312144100; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.214.162 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:09:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:09:04 -0400 Message-ID: From: Richard Barnes To: Martin Thomson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3f0269f68370513f3aa3a Archived-At: Cc: "ietf-action@ietf.org" , Tools discussion , Joe Hildebrand Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] www.ietf.org broken X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 23:09:07 -0000 --001a11c3f0269f68370513f3aa3a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Yeah, seems to have been transient. On Friday, April 17, 2015, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 17 April 2015 at 14:45, Richard Barnes wrote: > > On HTTPS, returns a Cloudflare page "Error 520" > > > > On HTTP, returns a redirect loop: > > WFM now. With and without the www. > --001a11c3f0269f68370513f3aa3a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yeah, seems to have been transient.=C2=A0

On Friday, Ap= ril 17, 2015, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 April 2015 at 14:45, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
> On HTTPS, returns a Cloudflare page "Error 520"
>
> On HTTP, returns a redirect loop:

WFM now.=C2=A0 With and without the www.
--001a11c3f0269f68370513f3aa3a-- From nobody Tue Apr 21 03:32:07 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DACC1A9090 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:32:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -114.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PIsJMWN0_CL4 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DA7E1A9074 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:32:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3991; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429612324; x=1430821924; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:mime-version; bh=K1PoLE2WUthRcTnQh5zJBA8+rNKZEimrj0Zx4YfGYtE=; b=bcav7H7MJq/PvYXvfPKVQk94zukqExfJrsUUo/XuWgH8vr18XEL/swlN 6yb5DoBzUpCAkCVWh6NxUsdNigx6nG3SpEIN1HmdJCbUgmoNFJUHCNJ7m irkAhOSIx4ANTYJHI00jrPqtcL1X325I+8RX5dEqKBZtCQTu8ANudQ+Nq g=; X-Files: signature.asc : 487 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ALBQBBJjZV/5BdJa1bgwyBLgWDE8pbAoFCTAEBAQEBAX6EIAEBAQMBI0sQCwIBGQMBAisCAjIbAggCBBMOiBUItTiUbQEBAQEBAQEDAQEBAQEBHIs3hCERAUAegmIvgRYFkTCBcYE3hn+BIIxvhxkigh6BVW+BCzmBAAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,615,1422921600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="413489539" Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2015 10:32:03 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3LAW3Pp005296 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:32:03 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.151]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 05:32:02 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts Thread-Index: AQHQfBgBI78fRuAlYEeL6mFYo/m25A== Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:32:02 +0000 Message-ID: <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.24.226.209] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BF510580-0CF9-4C72-9249-C6D91991BDD4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] Fwd: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:32:06 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_BF510580-0CF9-4C72-9249-C6D91991BDD4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 FYI: in the following, I=E2=80=99m asking for a tools change if that is = the proper response to this class of issue. For those who might wonder = whether the situation has grown to a point that such a response is = warranted, my personal viewpoint is "yes", but the underlying argument = is one I don=E2=80=99t want to have in email, public or private. Ask me = in a f2f context, and we=E2=80=99ll go get a beer, or let=E2=80=99s = arrange to talk by phone. > Begin forwarded message: >=20 > From: "Fred Baker (fred)" > Subject: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts > Date: April 21, 2015 at 2:46:14 AM PDT > To: IETF Discussion Mailing List >=20 > I=E2=80=99m not sure what list this question belongs on, so I=E2=80=99m = bringing it here. Happy to be redirected. >=20 > I have had a problem on a number of occasions with my name being = listed as an author on a draft that I had not agreed to co-author, and = in some cases, that I hadn=E2=80=99t even seen. In most cases, I have = been able to get the putative co-author to remove my name in a -01 = version. I can point to at least one draft that I didn=E2=80=99t = initially agree to co-author, was unsuccessful in getting my = "co-authors" to remove it, and wound up largely re-writing, which = involved a lot of work. I=E2=80=99m not alone in this; various people = have complained of third parties listing them as co-authors on drafts = without their consent. >=20 > I=E2=80=99m bringing it up this time on the behalf of some Cisco = colleagues, who found themselves "co-authoring" a draft that they = didn=E2=80=99t know anything about in one working group, got their names = off the draft, and then discovered their names on a related draft in = another working group. It seems to me that an ethical line was crossed = in the interest of showing support for a concept. >=20 > First, I=E2=80=99d like to believe that this isn=E2=80=99t an = acceptable practice. I=E2=80=99d like to believe, shock of shocks, that = a co-author is first someone that has agreed to co-author, and is = someone that has text or at least concepts that are included in the = draft. >=20 > Second, I wonder if there is a way we can manage this. A simple = approach would involve the posting tool. When we ask to post something, = the authors are polled in email to ensure that the email address in the = draft actually gets to them, and they have to reply either in email or = on the web. What would it take to, when posting a -00 draft, require all = of the co-authors to positively respond, and have the posting fail if = they don=E2=80=99t, or if any responds negatively? >=20 > This would also clear out people whose addresses change; I understand = an address changing in a later version of a draft (someone@example1.com = becomes someone+else@example2.com) and being missed in a draft update, = but I don=E2=80=99t understand an incorrect address on the -00 version. --Apple-Mail=_BF510580-0CF9-4C72-9249-C6D91991BDD4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEVAwUBVTYnIZ9ieig10VPpAQKQ/gf/feG7/yh7ObtDh7tmhwzqtQeIdB56KzEo oPQ2z0LW7bUQ4aoAfEfi0Z9KQXCivsT1TEYRjf5zNR/OF0kN8sJTEA2+PRoYyhLb izIaJKivGq+8eABpvx8EtclmGNiJ4hmRIOEXeVFJb5KzPZXozBZL5KAHF5PfG4TJ W6bDcNBIsgTQ84YZyugLuamd43jI1dA9cOVvo9J0u0kH3DCDGUkcacb900jXpgfR jYdjr0oDlXeWpBRgSQHox78tRITvQLm/+R+dVn502uN+AMp+5EJsb60MtBHvbKnf sqZMbY8lfkellV+gdTIaw2Mz7XrwzKErw6qgZ/eUZ6IzkfVa+fDjMw== =oGEQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_BF510580-0CF9-4C72-9249-C6D91991BDD4-- From nobody Tue Apr 21 03:56:19 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E62F1A8AE1 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:56:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QwqOai55PWWR for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 089521A913B for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:56:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9135B1A22807; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 06:56:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WpL5uPi1MBYQ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 06:55:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from golem.sobco.com (golem.sobco.com [136.248.127.162]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 416EF1A227F2; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 06:55:53 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) From: "Scott O. Bradner" In-Reply-To: <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 06:55:52 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> To: Fred Baker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:56:10 -0000 I have seen this issue in the past and having some way to make it less = likely to happen would be good that said, the some way would need to be able to deal with the case = where someone is updating an existing RFC where the original authors are retained on the new version, since = most of the new version came from the old text, with the new author/editor adding themselves to = the author list - but where one or more of the original authors are no longer reachable see, for example, RFC 2978 maybe a note to some authority explaining what the situation is - but = some mechanism Scott > On Apr 21, 2015, at 6:32 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >=20 > FYI: in the following, I=E2=80=99m asking for a tools change if that = is the proper response to this class of issue. For those who might = wonder whether the situation has grown to a point that such a response = is warranted, my personal viewpoint is "yes", but the underlying = argument is one I don=E2=80=99t want to have in email, public or = private. Ask me in a f2f context, and we=E2=80=99ll go get a beer, or = let=E2=80=99s arrange to talk by phone. >=20 >> Begin forwarded message: >>=20 >> From: "Fred Baker (fred)" >> Subject: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts >> Date: April 21, 2015 at 2:46:14 AM PDT >> To: IETF Discussion Mailing List >>=20 >> I=E2=80=99m not sure what list this question belongs on, so I=E2=80=99m= bringing it here. Happy to be redirected. >>=20 >> I have had a problem on a number of occasions with my name being = listed as an author on a draft that I had not agreed to co-author, and = in some cases, that I hadn=E2=80=99t even seen. In most cases, I have = been able to get the putative co-author to remove my name in a -01 = version. I can point to at least one draft that I didn=E2=80=99t = initially agree to co-author, was unsuccessful in getting my = "co-authors" to remove it, and wound up largely re-writing, which = involved a lot of work. I=E2=80=99m not alone in this; various people = have complained of third parties listing them as co-authors on drafts = without their consent. >>=20 >> I=E2=80=99m bringing it up this time on the behalf of some Cisco = colleagues, who found themselves "co-authoring" a draft that they = didn=E2=80=99t know anything about in one working group, got their names = off the draft, and then discovered their names on a related draft in = another working group. It seems to me that an ethical line was crossed = in the interest of showing support for a concept. >>=20 >> First, I=E2=80=99d like to believe that this isn=E2=80=99t an = acceptable practice. I=E2=80=99d like to believe, shock of shocks, that = a co-author is first someone that has agreed to co-author, and is = someone that has text or at least concepts that are included in the = draft. >>=20 >> Second, I wonder if there is a way we can manage this. A simple = approach would involve the posting tool. When we ask to post something, = the authors are polled in email to ensure that the email address in the = draft actually gets to them, and they have to reply either in email or = on the web. What would it take to, when posting a -00 draft, require all = of the co-authors to positively respond, and have the posting fail if = they don=E2=80=99t, or if any responds negatively? >>=20 >> This would also clear out people whose addresses change; I understand = an address changing in a later version of a draft (someone@example1.com = becomes someone+else@example2.com) and being missed in a draft update, = but I don=E2=80=99t understand an incorrect address on the -00 version. >=20 > --=20 > Tools-discuss mailing list > Tools-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >=20 > Please reports datatracker.ietf.org bugs at = http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb > Please reports tools.ietf.org bugs at = http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues or > send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org From nobody Tue Apr 21 04:05:21 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6563F1A9168 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:05:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cnRfGAZ-0_KW for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com (mail-wi0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA7231A9166 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wiun10 with SMTP id n10so17092486wiu.1 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:05:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yMzghQ5IZAoCQn8u/HM2EsAWgPK28c/x5N6Alupu5Aw=; b=FLzxunb4EWL5cedsssQDa600MdijwY/iY37miEs6dTEaQdlVw8psZjFnDc+CrHUprt EzCiGKlj7kqD/fxX72HAM1MrCCrqc7mycyYnjV5DKRX5sBSnTgldL5LKNJsHcCkbEk94 C3gsmTGi2fa2CxI6d3Sg21DUeYqVwSx+Rpt0yyLdRtrjKE9SOYaVy+7LtrEy6cH0nM7V YPpJQzk7mMYU47uC6FCkHRhCaj3/18hroPOqYQvVGB1UW+xujWhJ7oAZo3jq7d2/pqBl Y5UGjvshYps/ujVxMfSMKQRSf3OsTINEet1G58UX7qlVu+tlYmIUAZOT3aKfyxw+DOCW ZKaA== X-Received: by 10.180.99.166 with SMTP id er6mr4741383wib.58.1429614315423; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.12.107] (bzq-218-112-74.red.bezeqint.net. [81.218.112.74]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o5sm19415362wia.0.2015.04.21.04.05.13 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55362EE9.9080009@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:05:13 +0300 From: Yaron Sheffer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Scott O. Bradner" , Fred Baker References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> In-Reply-To: <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:05:19 -0000 The document shepherd is required to contact each of the authors to personally verify with them that they have complied with IPR policy. Similarly for the last step of AUTH48. Are we prepared to skip both these steps in the case of absentee authors? The alternative, of course, is to move them to the Acknowledgements. Thanks, Yaron On 04/21/2015 01:55 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > I have seen this issue in the past and having some way to make it less likely to happen would be good > > that said, the some way would need to be able to deal with the case where someone is updating an existing > RFC where the original authors are retained on the new version, since most of the new version > came from the old text, with the new author/editor adding themselves to the author list - but > where one or more of the original authors are no longer reachable > > see, for example, RFC 2978 > > maybe a note to some authority explaining what the situation is - but some mechanism > > Scott > >> On Apr 21, 2015, at 6:32 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> >> FYI: in the following, I’m asking for a tools change if that is the proper response to this class of issue. For those who might wonder whether the situation has grown to a point that such a response is warranted, my personal viewpoint is "yes", but the underlying argument is one I don’t want to have in email, public or private. Ask me in a f2f context, and we’ll go get a beer, or let’s arrange to talk by phone. >> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> From: "Fred Baker (fred)" >>> Subject: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts >>> Date: April 21, 2015 at 2:46:14 AM PDT >>> To: IETF Discussion Mailing List >>> >>> I’m not sure what list this question belongs on, so I’m bringing it here. Happy to be redirected. >>> >>> I have had a problem on a number of occasions with my name being listed as an author on a draft that I had not agreed to co-author, and in some cases, that I hadn’t even seen. In most cases, I have been able to get the putative co-author to remove my name in a -01 version. I can point to at least one draft that I didn’t initially agree to co-author, was unsuccessful in getting my "co-authors" to remove it, and wound up largely re-writing, which involved a lot of work. I’m not alone in this; various people have complained of third parties listing them as co-authors on drafts without their consent. >>> >>> I’m bringing it up this time on the behalf of some Cisco colleagues, who found themselves "co-authoring" a draft that they didn’t know anything about in one working group, got their names off the draft, and then discovered their names on a related draft in another working group. It seems to me that an ethical line was crossed in the interest of showing support for a concept. >>> >>> First, I’d like to believe that this isn’t an acceptable practice. I’d like to believe, shock of shocks, that a co-author is first someone that has agreed to co-author, and is someone that has text or at least concepts that are included in the draft. >>> >>> Second, I wonder if there is a way we can manage this. A simple approach would involve the posting tool. When we ask to post something, the authors are polled in email to ensure that the email address in the draft actually gets to them, and they have to reply either in email or on the web. What would it take to, when posting a -00 draft, require all of the co-authors to positively respond, and have the posting fail if they don’t, or if any responds negatively? >>> >>> This would also clear out people whose addresses change; I understand an address changing in a later version of a draft (someone@example1.com becomes someone+else@example2.com) and being missed in a draft update, but I don’t understand an incorrect address on the -00 version. >> >> -- >> Tools-discuss mailing list >> Tools-discuss@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >> >> Please reports datatracker.ietf.org bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb >> Please reports tools.ietf.org bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues or >> send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org > From nobody Tue Apr 21 04:07:04 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1420D1A916E for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:07:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7OIKSVCJLtez for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:07:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 862871A9168 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:07:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18EA11A22C9D; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:07:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vSTqC6yWP204; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:06:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from golem.sobco.com (golem.sobco.com [136.248.127.162]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF3BD1A22C88; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:06:56 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) From: "Scott O. Bradner" In-Reply-To: <55362EE9.9080009@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:06:55 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> <55362EE9.9080009@gmail.com> To: Yaron Sheffer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) Archived-At: Cc: Fred Baker , "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:07:04 -0000 the document shepherd comes into the picture a very long time after the = initial ID gets posted - which is the situation that Fred posed Scott > On Apr 21, 2015, at 7:05 AM, Yaron Sheffer = wrote: >=20 > The document shepherd is required to contact each of the authors to = personally verify with them that they have complied with IPR policy. = Similarly for the last step of AUTH48. Are we prepared to skip both = these steps in the case of absentee authors? The alternative, of course, = is to move them to the Acknowledgements. >=20 > Thanks, > Yaron >=20 > On 04/21/2015 01:55 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >> I have seen this issue in the past and having some way to make it = less likely to happen would be good >>=20 >> that said, the some way would need to be able to deal with the case = where someone is updating an existing >> RFC where the original authors are retained on the new version, since = most of the new version >> came from the old text, with the new author/editor adding themselves = to the author list - but >> where one or more of the original authors are no longer reachable >>=20 >> see, for example, RFC 2978 >>=20 >> maybe a note to some authority explaining what the situation is - but = some mechanism >>=20 >> Scott >>=20 >>> On Apr 21, 2015, at 6:32 AM, Fred Baker (fred) = wrote: >>>=20 >>> FYI: in the following, I=E2=80=99m asking for a tools change if that = is the proper response to this class of issue. For those who might = wonder whether the situation has grown to a point that such a response = is warranted, my personal viewpoint is "yes", but the underlying = argument is one I don=E2=80=99t want to have in email, public or = private. Ask me in a f2f context, and we=E2=80=99ll go get a beer, or = let=E2=80=99s arrange to talk by phone. >>>=20 >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>=20 >>>> From: "Fred Baker (fred)" >>>> Subject: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts >>>> Date: April 21, 2015 at 2:46:14 AM PDT >>>> To: IETF Discussion Mailing List >>>>=20 >>>> I=E2=80=99m not sure what list this question belongs on, so I=E2=80=99= m bringing it here. Happy to be redirected. >>>>=20 >>>> I have had a problem on a number of occasions with my name being = listed as an author on a draft that I had not agreed to co-author, and = in some cases, that I hadn=E2=80=99t even seen. In most cases, I have = been able to get the putative co-author to remove my name in a -01 = version. I can point to at least one draft that I didn=E2=80=99t = initially agree to co-author, was unsuccessful in getting my = "co-authors" to remove it, and wound up largely re-writing, which = involved a lot of work. I=E2=80=99m not alone in this; various people = have complained of third parties listing them as co-authors on drafts = without their consent. >>>>=20 >>>> I=E2=80=99m bringing it up this time on the behalf of some Cisco = colleagues, who found themselves "co-authoring" a draft that they = didn=E2=80=99t know anything about in one working group, got their names = off the draft, and then discovered their names on a related draft in = another working group. It seems to me that an ethical line was crossed = in the interest of showing support for a concept. >>>>=20 >>>> First, I=E2=80=99d like to believe that this isn=E2=80=99t an = acceptable practice. I=E2=80=99d like to believe, shock of shocks, that = a co-author is first someone that has agreed to co-author, and is = someone that has text or at least concepts that are included in the = draft. >>>>=20 >>>> Second, I wonder if there is a way we can manage this. A simple = approach would involve the posting tool. When we ask to post something, = the authors are polled in email to ensure that the email address in the = draft actually gets to them, and they have to reply either in email or = on the web. What would it take to, when posting a -00 draft, require all = of the co-authors to positively respond, and have the posting fail if = they don=E2=80=99t, or if any responds negatively? >>>>=20 >>>> This would also clear out people whose addresses change; I = understand an address changing in a later version of a draft = (someone@example1.com becomes someone+else@example2.com) and being = missed in a draft update, but I don=E2=80=99t understand an incorrect = address on the -00 version. >>>=20 >>> -- >>> Tools-discuss mailing list >>> Tools-discuss@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >>>=20 >>> Please reports datatracker.ietf.org bugs at = http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb >>> Please reports tools.ietf.org bugs at = http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues or >>> send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org >>=20 From nobody Tue Apr 21 04:08:34 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD19E1A9177 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:08:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -114.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z5FvXgdpHWHA for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C4D91A01EA for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:08:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5702; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429614510; x=1430824110; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=X4ZSNhPH7UuutwYjV1a6xTebpyTr1jUJI5xOg7mWpNc=; b=UyvZHrUHYe0hpUHSbZ0kgoDRU0mORBNqZY6d2se/bTGN5JhO78dlcm3I Sr36KCTx93kv1Q0E3I4FKa+82Sx2yhSOvkvZhZYYQ7tku63xLQWEoJCAj xvoj2WYSrfHzGigv+ung1PPJZXlYX/8SsnxDwSeWn7AoDU/R/4ksMQ67F Q=; X-Files: signature.asc : 487 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0APBQA/LjZV/4MNJK1bgwxSXAWDE8RNCoYEAoE/TAEBAQEBAX6EIAEBAQMBAQEBIEsLBQsCAQgRAwECASoCAicLFAkIAgQOBQ4NiAgIDbUwlHABAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXizeEIREBQBEHBgOCXy+BFgWRMIFxgTdZhiaBIDqDAokzhxkigWQhGQSBUW+BCzmBAAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,615,1422921600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="413497980" Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2015 11:08:29 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3LB8S5c012235 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:08:28 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.151]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 06:08:28 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: "Scott O. Bradner" Thread-Topic: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts Thread-Index: AQHQfCHEbDfVpw1G9kySRJxu77CAXJ1XooYA Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:08:27 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> In-Reply-To: <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.24.226.209] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5F9905AA-BA7E-446E-B3AD-7978CFEC0402"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:08:33 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_5F9905AA-BA7E-446E-B3AD-7978CFEC0402 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Apr 21, 2015, at 3:55 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >=20 > I have seen this issue in the past and having some way to make it less = likely to happen would be good >=20 > that said, the some way would need to be able to deal with the case = where someone is updating an existing > RFC where the original authors are retained on the new version, since = most of the new version > came from the old text, with the new author/editor adding themselves = to the author list - but > where one or more of the original authors are no longer reachable >=20 > see, for example, RFC 2978 >=20 > maybe a note to some authority explaining what the situation is - but = some mechanism >=20 > Scott Valid point. The =E2=80=9Cother=E2=80=9D way of filing an I-D is to = email it to the Secretariat. I don=E2=80=99t know how often that happens = these days, but I imagine it does. It would be incumbent on them to = check the addresses, if a case arose such as this to check with = , and =E2=80=9Cdo the right thing=E2=80=9D. I hate to put a human in the loop anywhere, because then it becomes a = human we=E2=80=99re overloading, but that may be the best solution in = this case. >> On Apr 21, 2015, at 6:32 AM, Fred Baker (fred) = wrote: >>=20 >> FYI: in the following, I=E2=80=99m asking for a tools change if that = is the proper response to this class of issue. For those who might = wonder whether the situation has grown to a point that such a response = is warranted, my personal viewpoint is "yes", but the underlying = argument is one I don=E2=80=99t want to have in email, public or = private. Ask me in a f2f context, and we=E2=80=99ll go get a beer, or = let=E2=80=99s arrange to talk by phone. >>=20 >>> Begin forwarded message: >>>=20 >>> From: "Fred Baker (fred)" >>> Subject: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts >>> Date: April 21, 2015 at 2:46:14 AM PDT >>> To: IETF Discussion Mailing List >>>=20 >>> I=E2=80=99m not sure what list this question belongs on, so I=E2=80=99= m bringing it here. Happy to be redirected. >>>=20 >>> I have had a problem on a number of occasions with my name being = listed as an author on a draft that I had not agreed to co-author, and = in some cases, that I hadn=E2=80=99t even seen. In most cases, I have = been able to get the putative co-author to remove my name in a -01 = version. I can point to at least one draft that I didn=E2=80=99t = initially agree to co-author, was unsuccessful in getting my = "co-authors" to remove it, and wound up largely re-writing, which = involved a lot of work. I=E2=80=99m not alone in this; various people = have complained of third parties listing them as co-authors on drafts = without their consent. >>>=20 >>> I=E2=80=99m bringing it up this time on the behalf of some Cisco = colleagues, who found themselves "co-authoring" a draft that they = didn=E2=80=99t know anything about in one working group, got their names = off the draft, and then discovered their names on a related draft in = another working group. It seems to me that an ethical line was crossed = in the interest of showing support for a concept. >>>=20 >>> First, I=E2=80=99d like to believe that this isn=E2=80=99t an = acceptable practice. I=E2=80=99d like to believe, shock of shocks, that = a co-author is first someone that has agreed to co-author, and is = someone that has text or at least concepts that are included in the = draft. >>>=20 >>> Second, I wonder if there is a way we can manage this. A simple = approach would involve the posting tool. When we ask to post something, = the authors are polled in email to ensure that the email address in the = draft actually gets to them, and they have to reply either in email or = on the web. What would it take to, when posting a -00 draft, require all = of the co-authors to positively respond, and have the posting fail if = they don=E2=80=99t, or if any responds negatively? >>>=20 >>> This would also clear out people whose addresses change; I = understand an address changing in a later version of a draft = (someone@example1.com becomes someone+else@example2.com) and being = missed in a draft update, but I don=E2=80=99t understand an incorrect = address on the -00 version. >>=20 >> -- >> Tools-discuss mailing list >> Tools-discuss@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >>=20 >> Please reports datatracker.ietf.org bugs at = http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb >> Please reports tools.ietf.org bugs at = http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues or >> send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org >=20 --Apple-Mail=_5F9905AA-BA7E-446E-B3AD-7978CFEC0402 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEVAwUBVTYvqJ9ieig10VPpAQJFQwgAq3PqmO09i//8bJ7ZYaTQW22oi6eRqNyo lXPI8FnHlUflbyjLOeM6QgiJqzxuGeCFgXKwIhzXosb5X4SBbXNoGpJ7xXmvlDV0 LAuzdEAGSsqp3yLH4voE0n7+rIDJM51XWBrIECjgS0/kChAUryYUl1dXnVQZKouw /nLV/yuYYrOCdmBd/6cfpI3BjShPV8l2pgez2NWgayNdNE0ERAIJX5mKBewdIK16 xlc5ZRqKMOtpgW1i64njOTVswbiAJkuYAEbdwlBQAPBIq1+VN6qqDWmG72jkC+25 Z9LXRVusDlQZiLdtOQK/gG95jGflEEhrJJaK8FSWuExH0C0IGnYL2Q== =iits -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_5F9905AA-BA7E-446E-B3AD-7978CFEC0402-- From nobody Tue Apr 21 04:10:02 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A981A9169 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:10:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -114.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hqUMYIKQFtUj for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:10:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59E701A916B for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:09:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1597; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429614592; x=1430824192; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Vub3nW5pjapxEqTXGpL1HJDRu8QAYigEyONdfv6dvpM=; b=UNXFxJ+SyG/Boy9SOXxX17mhar1rX8jgBXgAOOhAF/ps3V9VYIANO2DT /h3Y8kk2f/TGl4/MznixhQG/vKOAK+6ni2KEwPOtr4UFhhu0EcJ+/W5OD jDjE1XUAaKpAtvqpfNa2XOW7sPzQJT8eexmqaN7zaVYWHHVpQQfkukiAf A=; X-Files: signature.asc : 487 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BOBACjLzZV/5RdJa1bgwyBLgXGEgmHUwKBPzgUAQEBAQEBAX2EIAEBAQMBeQULAgEIGC4hESUCBA4FDogJAwkIxHcNhSIBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXizeCTYI3B4MXgRYBBJEwgXGBN4UxgU6OYIZIIoFkgg9vgUSBAAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,615,1422921600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="143081460" Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2015 11:09:51 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3LB9pEr029747 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:09:51 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.151]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 06:09:51 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Yaron Sheffer Thread-Topic: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts Thread-Index: AQHQfCHEbDfVpw1G9kySRJxu77CAXJ1XoaKAgAABSYA= Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:09:51 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> <55362EE9.9080009@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <55362EE9.9080009@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.24.226.209] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1E0FEA3F-13B3-45D1-878D-01C607875AAA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" , "Scott O. Bradner" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:10:01 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_1E0FEA3F-13B3-45D1-878D-01C607875AAA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > On Apr 21, 2015, at 4:05 AM, Yaron Sheffer = wrote: >=20 > The document shepherd is required to contact each of the authors to = personally verify with them that they have complied with IPR policy. = Similarly for the last step of AUTH48. Are we prepared to skip both = these steps in the case of absentee authors? The alternative, of course, = is to move them to the Acknowledgements. This is on the first filing of a -00 draft, not the AUTH48 step. When a = new draft is filed, it appears to be necessary to verify that the = putative authors know that they are such and consent. --Apple-Mail=_1E0FEA3F-13B3-45D1-878D-01C607875AAA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEVAwUBVTYv/Z9ieig10VPpAQIRpQgAouj9cH3QqJOXKAlMu4F+MsXhZgDrBlhk U5Z1V6BcBFv3fqxk/zicG3+Dgr3NzXFvDxD2u9AOFiyclAiYBddhc9svlCyI4Oqo uYMsR94dmscv7g482eAIGDu9SjIZwH/scDN+UcTgmz4XrSFt1Na/zV55etfOPJhR yXavgIwIhkOB3dxE+1/rW5cr5NaJp9tfaZd6DlTzd1DorA92YnHpsdkjxJPyL1qn bJyRsKfvy+ebOA/fjUn4jPXPV3n7iBrhyCWECRINFLfY40CCu5fbwuDmUVDtVseS AA8q66CgkMPIrNVZC2qy/048XuAkTe71h/93lSde+13z/qbgtrjs2Q== =FUrG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_1E0FEA3F-13B3-45D1-878D-01C607875AAA-- From nobody Tue Apr 21 04:12:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 077491A9174 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:12:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kkUI5xWXIcxK for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x229.google.com (mail-wg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 623001A9147 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wgsk9 with SMTP id k9so209164686wgs.3 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:12:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cGSqwT2cqOy7WQGSaWTPCmaFu1bqEooC2d5OL8EnICo=; b=FgvSw/8X40aD7eDvT7bDb28dAeUpjPEFzq/ZJv0I7+xKl1MHbplI8zbfgLgeJSj6yl oGmg8WPDmbsaykEcUo+VqrfQtmKRs9UXiwoiA+aNXI/VOSFJnlMllnkzFK3+pIM5IlLh dp7XrEVBMEljLk7Zu5ElmOlSgrwo4Ht6vP7D0DTKbCTJXu1DufjY6BtUI+shGPt0LJx+ JpR+5NG2cpikND8BToUCHpzcDCFjm3Owt4NRkuCinPYqWeCIus3OnqYzf/v6dfIxrD6P IjuOxEG1FJWw0M3mpKV5YvbS7eC7mCNwl7jK9V6z/rpo2b2XyNvFob7MWtfictmyqUvr nXCw== X-Received: by 10.194.157.68 with SMTP id wk4mr25976723wjb.130.1429614724141; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.12.107] (bzq-218-112-74.red.bezeqint.net. [81.218.112.74]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id df1sm19214040wib.12.2015.04.21.04.12.02 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 04:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55363081.5040604@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:12:01 +0300 From: Yaron Sheffer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Scott O. Bradner" References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> <55362EE9.9080009@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: Fred Baker , "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:12:08 -0000 Yes, but you implied that we need to accommodate unreachable authors (presumably if they're already unreachable at -00 they are unlikely to appear later), and I responded that such authors create additional issues, so maybe it's not a good idea to keep this practice. Regarding -00, I agree with the proposed solution. Thanks, Yaron On 04/21/2015 02:06 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > the document shepherd comes into the picture a very long time after the initial ID gets posted - which is the situation > that Fred posed > > Scott > >> On Apr 21, 2015, at 7:05 AM, Yaron Sheffer wrote: >> >> The document shepherd is required to contact each of the authors to personally verify with them that they have complied with IPR policy. Similarly for the last step of AUTH48. Are we prepared to skip both these steps in the case of absentee authors? The alternative, of course, is to move them to the Acknowledgements. >> >> Thanks, >> Yaron >> >> On 04/21/2015 01:55 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >>> I have seen this issue in the past and having some way to make it less likely to happen would be good >>> >>> that said, the some way would need to be able to deal with the case where someone is updating an existing >>> RFC where the original authors are retained on the new version, since most of the new version >>> came from the old text, with the new author/editor adding themselves to the author list - but >>> where one or more of the original authors are no longer reachable >>> >>> see, for example, RFC 2978 >>> >>> maybe a note to some authority explaining what the situation is - but some mechanism >>> >>> Scott >>> >>>> On Apr 21, 2015, at 6:32 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >>>> >>>> FYI: in the following, I’m asking for a tools change if that is the proper response to this class of issue. For those who might wonder whether the situation has grown to a point that such a response is warranted, my personal viewpoint is "yes", but the underlying argument is one I don’t want to have in email, public or private. Ask me in a f2f context, and we’ll go get a beer, or let’s arrange to talk by phone. >>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>> From: "Fred Baker (fred)" >>>>> Subject: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts >>>>> Date: April 21, 2015 at 2:46:14 AM PDT >>>>> To: IETF Discussion Mailing List >>>>> >>>>> I’m not sure what list this question belongs on, so I’m bringing it here. Happy to be redirected. >>>>> >>>>> I have had a problem on a number of occasions with my name being listed as an author on a draft that I had not agreed to co-author, and in some cases, that I hadn’t even seen. In most cases, I have been able to get the putative co-author to remove my name in a -01 version. I can point to at least one draft that I didn’t initially agree to co-author, was unsuccessful in getting my "co-authors" to remove it, and wound up largely re-writing, which involved a lot of work. I’m not alone in this; various people have complained of third parties listing them as co-authors on drafts without their consent. >>>>> >>>>> I’m bringing it up this time on the behalf of some Cisco colleagues, who found themselves "co-authoring" a draft that they didn’t know anything about in one working group, got their names off the draft, and then discovered their names on a related draft in another working group. It seems to me that an ethical line was crossed in the interest of showing support for a concept. >>>>> >>>>> First, I’d like to believe that this isn’t an acceptable practice. I’d like to believe, shock of shocks, that a co-author is first someone that has agreed to co-author, and is someone that has text or at least concepts that are included in the draft. >>>>> >>>>> Second, I wonder if there is a way we can manage this. A simple approach would involve the posting tool. When we ask to post something, the authors are polled in email to ensure that the email address in the draft actually gets to them, and they have to reply either in email or on the web. What would it take to, when posting a -00 draft, require all of the co-authors to positively respond, and have the posting fail if they don’t, or if any responds negatively? >>>>> >>>>> This would also clear out people whose addresses change; I understand an address changing in a later version of a draft (someone@example1.com becomes someone+else@example2.com) and being missed in a draft update, but I don’t understand an incorrect address on the -00 version. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tools-discuss mailing list >>>> Tools-discuss@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >>>> >>>> Please reports datatracker.ietf.org bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb >>>> Please reports tools.ietf.org bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues or >>>> send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org >>> > From nobody Tue Apr 21 05:17:47 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C9A1AC427 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 05:17:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "From" X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I86069lcl3cg for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 05:17:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from resqmta-po-09v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-09v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:168]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E06F1AC7E7 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 05:17:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from resomta-po-14v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.238]) by resqmta-po-09v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id JcHF1q00258ss0Y01cHc7A; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:17:36 +0000 Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([24.34.72.61]) by resomta-po-14v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id JcHY1q00G1KKtkw01cHa8W; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:17:36 +0000 Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t3LCHVaf021766; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:17:31 -0400 Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id t3LCHTdG021761; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:17:29 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) From: worley@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) To: "Fred Baker \(fred\)" In-Reply-To: <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> (fred@cisco.com) Organization: Ariadne Internet Services, Inc. Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:17:18 -0400 Message-ID: <877ft565gx.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1429618656; bh=3JwQgVVFx/MlrG1xveCWoJ9yS6dhIdg59JK3Ukp+SFQ=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=bLnw8HKrXu7U9gHPR71YlEM4OWWCbqZwD57Bf5mp4sZZ4a/ATS5E6kIXQG5a7mXbM Cc2s6eYj0lfWOqu/YugyOEW0BsH//ZeiPPB88+12peH6eSdNPPG0BdsSCPeQUajt8l wY2G25ulAbgQXXE90Elt89OHxY3rhZkJHhNjM1EqA5SPwBScCi3mkRvc9wt95RyEX7 B3GUvuRXdB+RYziac4YzZ0GdTDF20o4lnHOxiBVCvFNKIAmVN9779exe33iJZsqwzA L3A/xzadjEjE4cXPMPOpNZmiCMT0p3gLr4lTBY2XHxeFjehC6/otyPqGADILip8F/P L/YopU3j65Log== Archived-At: Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Fwd: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:17:45 -0000 It would seem to me to be sufficient if every author of an I-D was notified of that fact. Presumably the number of involuntary authors is fairly low, and the existing manual procedures suffice for getting their names removed from the drafts. My assumption is that every author gets a copy of the "a new I-D was posted" e-mail. Perhaps they don't. Or perhaps it's too easy for people to overlook the e-mail that says they're the author of a draft. Perhaps the authors' copy of the notification should have a banner at the top saying "Hey, you are listed as an author of this!!!" Dale From nobody Tue Apr 21 05:47:29 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 639B01ACD56 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 05:47:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1p1xZHGAZa1v for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 05:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 575621ACD3F for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 05:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tannat.netnod.se ([77.72.226.96]:61626) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from ) id 1YkXaF-0002Bm-Vt; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 05:47:25 -0700 Message-ID: <553646D8.4010607@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:47:20 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Scott O. Bradner" , Fred Baker References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> In-Reply-To: <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="u42CfDBTJ2QQOVPtSB9pBsTSO6Nh1K4JP" X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 77.72.226.96 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: henrik-sent@levkowetz.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org, fred@cisco.com, sob@sobco.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:47:28 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --u42CfDBTJ2QQOVPtSB9pBsTSO6Nh1K4JP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Fred: I think it makes sense to modify the draft submission tool to deal better= with the issue you describe for -00 drafts. Without having looked at the code, I don't even think it should be partic= ularly hard to build out this functionality, given that there is rough consensus= on what should be implemented, and that solution is similar to your proposal, whi= ch I understand is to send mail to, and require confirmation from, all authors= for a -00 draft. A reply to Scott inline: On 2015-04-21 12:55, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > I have seen this issue in the past and having some way to make it less = likely to happen would be good >=20 > that said, the some way would need to be able to deal with the case whe= re someone is updating an existing > RFC where the original authors are retained on the new version, since m= ost of the new version > came from the old text, with the new author/editor adding themselves to= the author list - but > where one or more of the original authors are no longer reachable >=20 > see, for example, RFC 2978 >=20 > maybe a note to some authority explaining what the situation is - but s= ome mechanism Yes -- the submission tool already provide the option of falling back to ask the secretariat to expedite a submission when the tool won't permit an automatic submission. I don't see that option going away -- it should= always be possible to get a human into the loop for exceptional cases. Best regards, Henrik > Scott >=20 >> On Apr 21, 2015, at 6:32 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:= >> >> FYI: in the following, I=E2=80=99m asking for a tools change if that i= s the proper response to this class of issue. For those who might wonder = whether the situation has grown to a point that such a response is warran= ted, my personal viewpoint is "yes", but the underlying argument is one I= don=E2=80=99t want to have in email, public or private. Ask me in a f2f = context, and we=E2=80=99ll go get a beer, or let=E2=80=99s arrange to tal= k by phone. >> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> From: "Fred Baker (fred)" >>> Subject: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts >>> Date: April 21, 2015 at 2:46:14 AM PDT >>> To: IETF Discussion Mailing List >>> >>> I=E2=80=99m not sure what list this question belongs on, so I=E2=80=99= m bringing it here. Happy to be redirected. >>> >>> I have had a problem on a number of occasions with my name being list= ed as an author on a draft that I had not agreed to co-author, and in som= e cases, that I hadn=E2=80=99t even seen. In most cases, I have been able= to get the putative co-author to remove my name in a -01 version. I can = point to at least one draft that I didn=E2=80=99t initially agree to co-a= uthor, was unsuccessful in getting my "co-authors" to remove it, and woun= d up largely re-writing, which involved a lot of work. I=E2=80=99m not al= one in this; various people have complained of third parties listing them= as co-authors on drafts without their consent. >>> >>> I=E2=80=99m bringing it up this time on the behalf of some Cisco coll= eagues, who found themselves "co-authoring" a draft that they didn=E2=80=99= t know anything about in one working group, got their names off the draft= , and then discovered their names on a related draft in another working g= roup. It seems to me that an ethical line was crossed in the interest of = showing support for a concept. >>> >>> First, I=E2=80=99d like to believe that this isn=E2=80=99t an accepta= ble practice. I=E2=80=99d like to believe, shock of shocks, that a co-aut= hor is first someone that has agreed to co-author, and is someone that ha= s text or at least concepts that are included in the draft. >>> >>> Second, I wonder if there is a way we can manage this. A simple appro= ach would involve the posting tool. When we ask to post something, the au= thors are polled in email to ensure that the email address in the draft a= ctually gets to them, and they have to reply either in email or on the we= b. What would it take to, when posting a -00 draft, require all of the co= -authors to positively respond, and have the posting fail if they don=E2=80= =99t, or if any responds negatively? >>> >>> This would also clear out people whose addresses change; I understand= an address changing in a later version of a draft (someone@example1.com = becomes someone+else@example2.com) and being missed in a draft update, bu= t I don=E2=80=99t understand an incorrect address on the -00 version. >> >> --=20 >> Tools-discuss mailing list >> Tools-discuss@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >> >> Please reports datatracker.ietf.org bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tool= s/ietfdb >> Please reports tools.ietf.org bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issu= es or >> send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org >=20 --u42CfDBTJ2QQOVPtSB9pBsTSO6Nh1K4JP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVNkbYAAoJEE6bV0uPuxca2ZcQANSU5LJrAbC9lzjr4wQ4lGw9 Z96OONthH55wWb/dACiy88V55X6pvpbHU0F1xkjggjnUFbl0iFu3rgos2VK8M/S1 mRDsaR8LzHjyOCqJgiHr4rmmuYfCyD9vtDDxn0ZemVYbv+g7gz1vpyjsCRX5gt8u UXN7e/9EWhpKFpLgWLqxHzH5/J5E2qR+vr47OdEHu3BaOpizToJVOO2bNC8JNNrB c0bTxhGESAEsN39ZMuptXUfjjdVWedtWOGgD00AeJ+0OjxXl0veqA3bJ7yC+5yT/ 67a9Ep8OA1LwEXTZ8AU2uE8SJgsv/Knm5p0kFAO6DD+Hr2YF/3bFI+an6JzhNAAP DF4W62u/csna2mf+8la1OG068HCec57cSKL1lOXPC5tECPcboZmge8tZziItF+X0 +zDfe9Fcwkdqrej55zstguTyhle/nZBu2p8+L2/RQBMd4IbCYfpXeaOYJLFWFrJ3 Q07oNVOfjrE7TjNieJYQFe/jUwsR4+d782PIHGZZdZXJHEzk5n382hXLEbIan/v5 Mi1jGvQHTk6vEoaTYffHzM4isa8ydgwGTBJMyBiViqB+Nr0KyQ4M6IGvCaG2+eQ3 ZMLxy0E1+GqDGcUrCgl94y84/EsJC7HXSEZf+LSLk5SYf34859ffQwlyChLJ/c8s yNO3cxYFVx/4PZEk06Z8 =/c/M -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --u42CfDBTJ2QQOVPtSB9pBsTSO6Nh1K4JP-- From nobody Tue Apr 21 07:43:07 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB3D1ACDCD for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:43:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.347 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZvIIZwmTNOC7 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6648B1ACDCC for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:42:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.101] (50-1-98-218.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.218]) (authenticated bits=0) by proper.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t3LEgsNT071076 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:42:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: proper.com: Host 50-1-98-218.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.218] claimed to be [10.20.30.101] Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3CC17994-DB00-4F08-8FE1-B05C81F13B52"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: <553646D8.4010607@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:42:51 -0700 Message-Id: <0594E586-210F-468F-8AC7-ED6BDBE7C2DA@vpnc.org> References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> <553646D8.4010607@levkowetz.com> To: Fred Baker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:43:06 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_3CC17994-DB00-4F08-8FE1-B05C81F13B52 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Apr 21, 2015, at 5:47 AM, Henrik Levkowetz = wrote: > I think it makes sense to modify the draft submission tool to deal = better with > the issue you describe for -00 drafts. If it is for -00 drafts only, that's OK, but such a change *will* delay = posting many -00 drafts. But I have to ask: if these are recent drafts, why didn't the = false-coauthors notice the mail being sent to them when the draft was = first posted? All authors get mail each time a draft is posted. Or is = this a request to prevent it from happening on -00 drafts? --Paul Hoffman --Apple-Mail=_3CC17994-DB00-4F08-8FE1-B05C81F13B52 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVNmHuAAoJEJz/fXByZmLZcAwH/1tgCey0QdFXwMc8jtjBH9wj mwtY1ZG9wmU5bbvxEMstxJ+LvMB06YhXLMZww7xegQBGMRUmGFPhX2oZZOOTsSQz 2ukvficwTDHR0sRcW4FkHnHhbFjjyoycLPYt/wjIVI/ZXe9YUTPoLF5Tfd77YhxI n1ViQHEL43N4cUvwKNqzQmpRwwtuK5NQ5Kh31SZoyZMipe2PQRKg3hOfqQGJxS9E r89dcG9fQgrFRPl2mLTLQyPYiYlyOsDCWjqzSkZB4ag91V2W9KNqx/TyAIXCqnvJ Ns3qnbEM5FsgBvww+LX5gGIza5lSI6B2zIGC3hCxUmcy6pcHYz5ibgqw991j2WE= =fHjz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_3CC17994-DB00-4F08-8FE1-B05C81F13B52-- From nobody Tue Apr 21 08:39:29 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A451ACEC4 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:39:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.878 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.878 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s_WIZpDCh3No for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:39:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from auth.a.painless.aa.net.uk (a.painless.aa.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30::51bb:1e33]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B84B1ACEA4 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from d.d.7.5.c.3.0.1.0.1.a.a.d.a.d.c.1.0.0.0.f.b.0.0.0.b.8.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa ([2001:8b0:bf:1:cdad:aa10:103c:57dd]) by a.painless.aa.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1YkaGX-0002ai-Cu for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:39:19 +0100 Message-ID: <55366F22.2010508@dial.pipex.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:39:14 +0100 From: Elwyn Davies User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> <553646D8.4010607@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: <553646D8.4010607@levkowetz.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070500020409000908050701" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:39:27 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070500020409000908050701 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Since the datatracker is aware of authors, presumably it would be possible to request confirmation from any additional authors (and also any with changed email addresses) when versions after -00 are submitted. Maybe this could be done with a change to posting confirmation logic - an AND rather than the OR currently used. I guess it is reasonable to assume that confirmation carries over between versions so that continuing authors don't need to be bothered again. Whether a removed author should have a veto is another question. Cheers Elwyn On 21/04/2015 13:47, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > Fred: > > I think it makes sense to modify the draft submission tool to deal better with > the issue you describe for -00 drafts. > > Without having looked at the code, I don't even think it should be particularly > hard to build out this functionality, given that there is rough consensus on what > should be implemented, and that solution is similar to your proposal, which I > understand is to send mail to, and require confirmation from, all authors for a > -00 draft. > > A reply to Scott inline: > > On 2015-04-21 12:55, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >> I have seen this issue in the past and having some way to make it less likely to happen would be good >> >> that said, the some way would need to be able to deal with the case where someone is updating an existing >> RFC where the original authors are retained on the new version, since most of the new version >> came from the old text, with the new author/editor adding themselves to the author list - but >> where one or more of the original authors are no longer reachable >> >> see, for example, RFC 2978 >> >> maybe a note to some authority explaining what the situation is - but some mechanism > Yes -- the submission tool already provide the option of falling back to > ask the secretariat to expedite a submission when the tool won't permit > an automatic submission. I don't see that option going away -- it should > always be possible to get a human into the loop for exceptional cases. > > > Best regards, > > Henrik > >> Scott >> >>> On Apr 21, 2015, at 6:32 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >>> >>> FYI: in the following, I’m asking for a tools change if that is the proper response to this class of issue. For those who might wonder whether the situation has grown to a point that such a response is warranted, my personal viewpoint is "yes", but the underlying argument is one I don’t want to have in email, public or private. Ask me in a f2f context, and we’ll go get a beer, or let’s arrange to talk by phone. >>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> From: "Fred Baker (fred)" >>>> Subject: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts >>>> Date: April 21, 2015 at 2:46:14 AM PDT >>>> To: IETF Discussion Mailing List >>>> >>>> I’m not sure what list this question belongs on, so I’m bringing it here. Happy to be redirected. >>>> >>>> I have had a problem on a number of occasions with my name being listed as an author on a draft that I had not agreed to co-author, and in some cases, that I hadn’t even seen. In most cases, I have been able to get the putative co-author to remove my name in a -01 version. I can point to at least one draft that I didn’t initially agree to co-author, was unsuccessful in getting my "co-authors" to remove it, and wound up largely re-writing, which involved a lot of work. I’m not alone in this; various people have complained of third parties listing them as co-authors on drafts without their consent. >>>> >>>> I’m bringing it up this time on the behalf of some Cisco colleagues, who found themselves "co-authoring" a draft that they didn’t know anything about in one working group, got their names off the draft, and then discovered their names on a related draft in another working group. It seems to me that an ethical line was crossed in the interest of showing support for a concept. >>>> >>>> First, I’d like to believe that this isn’t an acceptable practice. I’d like to believe, shock of shocks, that a co-author is first someone that has agreed to co-author, and is someone that has text or at least concepts that are included in the draft. >>>> >>>> Second, I wonder if there is a way we can manage this. A simple approach would involve the posting tool. When we ask to post something, the authors are polled in email to ensure that the email address in the draft actually gets to them, and they have to reply either in email or on the web. What would it take to, when posting a -00 draft, require all of the co-authors to positively respond, and have the posting fail if they don’t, or if any responds negatively? >>>> >>>> This would also clear out people whose addresses change; I understand an address changing in a later version of a draft (someone@example1.com becomessomeone+else@example2.com) and being missed in a draft update, but I don’t understand an incorrect address on the -00 version. >>> -- >>> Tools-discuss mailing list >>> Tools-discuss@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >>> >>> Please reports datatracker.ietf.org bugs athttp://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb >>> Please reports tools.ietf.org bugs athttp://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues or >>> send email towebmaster@tools.ietf.org > > --------------070500020409000908050701 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Since the datatracker is aware of authors, presumably it would be possible to request confirmation from any additional authors (and also any with changed email addresses) when versions after -00  are submitted.  Maybe this could be done with a change to posting confirmation logic - an AND rather than the OR currently used.   I guess it is reasonable to assume that confirmation carries over between versions so that  continuing authors don't need to be bothered again.  Whether a removed author should have a veto is another question.

Cheers
Elwyn

On 21/04/2015 13:47, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Fred:

I think it makes sense to modify the draft submission tool to deal better with
the issue you describe for -00 drafts.

Without having looked at the code, I don't even think it should be particularly
hard to build out this functionality, given that there is rough consensus on what
should be implemented, and that solution is similar to your proposal, which I
understand is to send mail to, and require confirmation from, all authors for a
-00 draft.

A reply to Scott inline:

On 2015-04-21 12:55, Scott O. Bradner wrote:

I have seen this issue in the past and having some way to make it less likely to happen would be good

that said, the some way would need to be able to deal with the case where someone is updating an existing
RFC where the original authors are retained on the new version, since most of the new version
came from the old text, with the new author/editor adding themselves to the author list - but
where one or more of the original authors are no longer reachable

see, for example, RFC 2978

maybe a note to some authority explaining what the situation is - but some mechanism

Yes -- the submission tool already provide the option of falling back to
ask the secretariat to expedite a submission when the tool won't permit
an automatic submission.  I don't see that option going away -- it should
always be possible to get a human into the loop for exceptional cases.


Best regards,

	Henrik


Scott


On Apr 21, 2015, at 6:32 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

FYI: in the following, I’m asking for a tools change if that is the proper response to this class of issue. For those who might wonder whether the situation has grown to a point that such a response is warranted, my personal viewpoint is "yes", but the underlying argument is one I don’t want to have in email, public or private. Ask me in a f2f context, and we’ll go get a beer, or let’s arrange to talk by phone.


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts
Date: April 21, 2015 at 2:46:14 AM PDT
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>

I’m not sure what list this question belongs on, so I’m bringing it here. Happy to be redirected.

I have had a problem on a number of occasions with my name being listed as an author on a draft that I had not agreed to co-author, and in some cases, that I hadn’t even seen. In most cases, I have been able to get the putative co-author to remove my name in a -01 version. I can point to at least one draft that I didn’t initially agree to co-author, was unsuccessful in getting my "co-authors" to remove it, and wound up largely re-writing, which involved a lot of work. I’m not alone in this; various people have complained of third parties listing them as co-authors on drafts without their consent.

I’m bringing it up this time on the behalf of some Cisco colleagues, who found themselves "co-authoring" a draft that they didn’t know anything about in one working group, got their names off the draft, and then discovered their names on a related draft in another working group. It seems to me that an ethical line was crossed in the interest of showing support for a concept.

First, I’d like to believe that this isn’t an acceptable practice. I’d like to believe, shock of shocks, that a co-author is first someone that has agreed to co-author, and is someone that has text or at least concepts that are included in the draft.

Second, I wonder if there is a way we can manage this. A simple approach would involve the posting tool. When we ask to post something, the authors are polled in email to ensure that the email address in the draft actually gets to them, and they have to reply either in email or on the web. What would it take to, when posting a -00 draft, require all of the co-authors to positively respond, and have the posting fail if they don’t, or if any responds negatively?

This would also clear out people whose addresses change; I understand an address changing in a later version of a draft (someone@example1.com becomes someone+else@example2.com) and being missed in a draft update, but I don’t understand an incorrect address on the -00 version.

-- 
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

Please reports datatracker.ietf.org bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb
Please reports tools.ietf.org bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues or
send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org



--------------070500020409000908050701-- From nobody Tue Apr 21 09:35:03 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 115DA1AD350 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:35:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -114.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3zVp9OxEcEh5 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01ECD1AD1FE for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:34:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1599; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429634045; x=1430843645; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=i9sv+XWrm3R2JlBe/94KSwV8cIe7WMw6swo6oa9qfP0=; b=dcu6KBZcI1aQkmI77I7BDlYykoD/79ESasKs/P+ogtsdlCa7io9T5mzr ZJ+IGEynoFqfaa1TQ2dojU1hMhZxoeKlusMSNHImUifnSoaciPPWtDsBn O941iR4AJgO+NREwIr06PyAdrGaJQdaLdOPcLUu6nbHd78VG26ShBqKZS M=; X-Files: signature.asc : 487 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BOBADcejZV/51dJa1bgwyBLgWDE8J/CYdTAoFBOBQBAQEBAQEBfYQgAQEBAwEjVgULAgEIGCoCAjIlAgQOBQ4NiAgItnOUdgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReLN4QyAQFQB4JoL4EWAQSRMIFxgTeGf4EgkDqDTiKDc2+BCzmBAAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,617,1422921600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="143220626" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2015 16:34:04 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3LGY43P013024 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:34:04 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.151]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:34:04 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Henrik Levkowetz Thread-Topic: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts Thread-Index: AQHQfCHEbDfVpw1G9kySRJxu77CAXJ1XvioAgAA/VoA= Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:34:03 +0000 Message-ID: <066C6D5A-FBD2-48C8-9A45-DEEA06AB7063@cisco.com> References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> <553646D8.4010607@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: <553646D8.4010607@levkowetz.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.24.226.209] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5DE0C515-85BB-42D1-91B9-92D154E76AC7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" , "Scott O. Bradner" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:35:02 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_5DE0C515-85BB-42D1-91B9-92D154E76AC7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Apr 21, 2015, at 5:47 AM, Henrik Levkowetz = wrote: >=20 > Without having looked at the code, I don't even think it should be = particularly > hard to build out this functionality, given that there is rough = consensus on what > should be implemented, and that solution is similar to your proposal, = which I > understand is to send mail to, and require confirmation from, all = authors for a > -00 draft. And of course the =E2=80=9Cgiven=E2=80=9D should be tested before we do = it. It=E2=80=99s my recommendation, but I don=E2=80=99t know that = =E2=80=9Cwe=E2=80=9D agree, yet. --Apple-Mail=_5DE0C515-85BB-42D1-91B9-92D154E76AC7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEVAwUBVTZ7+Z9ieig10VPpAQKR/wf8DXGrvcAOKJT2Dd95ykcWzaUGBHS73+/b RJ8VCNgoRMfSTTi3PEU7PqvPOxlzNo/UXiKjGVUQ9vBDtCO0INU3ii2tFWELbOlo jtAboaqfDdfSGBQ3115bFtdT7F4ZvIm1c1s7ks+ANIte2NKOqBy6h/FnKoujc7H7 6JFAStv+yRQnDdpOV/x8cHRdGNIAhkx06BXqAJYkcLeMKm9/W05hpCW2IkNCcTj6 SQZZ8TKGJ75VthMyglhi3gYPWoDj0JhQ/Wxq8Wk9RNX9uDKjFd98yTv2y3Afvj25 ckV79Y6TgI+7LWESMFCL7YHT/0URMcYHVtOeyLryYSJYk8jOEwWkGw== =2CzL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_5DE0C515-85BB-42D1-91B9-92D154E76AC7-- From nobody Tue Apr 21 09:37:29 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1F31B29CC for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:37:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.666 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tqghnLUGBxAK for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a89.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28AE61B2A21 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a89.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a89.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D51A7318092; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:34:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=qwABIC9S1LEWqJ Ir4wrp3BK4HBE=; b=kf56m79L1vMT4Q3Wc3QUl3w5L4hCmTBdcZ0IXYGcy8TKN0 yiQtoRigBXOYyEP4XDfk21kWzJXggxuC+22pOhjgEW1O4EL2tIzZaK4S6tXNvaNU cFdATGruBz59frHZ+ukEk7zE1oJcexfIkzRCBEzbvVAlef79mVT/wav7fLCa8= Received: from localhost (108-207-244-174.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [108.207.244.174]) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a89.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8ABCD318093; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:34:48 -0500 From: Nico Williams To: Paul Hoffman Message-ID: <20150421163447.GA3348@localhost> References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> <553646D8.4010607@levkowetz.com> <0594E586-210F-468F-8AC7-ED6BDBE7C2DA@vpnc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0594E586-210F-468F-8AC7-ED6BDBE7C2DA@vpnc.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Archived-At: Cc: Fred Baker , "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: [Tools-discuss] Avoiding delays for -00s (Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts) X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:37:28 -0000 On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 07:42:51AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Apr 21, 2015, at 5:47 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > > I think it makes sense to modify the draft submission tool to deal better with > > the issue you describe for -00 drafts. > > If it is for -00 drafts only, that's OK, but such a change *will* delay posting many -00 drafts. > > But I have to ask: if these are recent drafts, why didn't the > false-coauthors notice the mail being sent to them when the draft was > first posted? All authors get mail each time a draft is posted. Or is > this a request to prevent it from happening on -00 drafts? Good question. Maybe co-authors should have to approve -00s. At any rate, I suggest that authors who have submitted non-spammy, non-worthless I-Ds, should be put on a whitelist requiring no further delays, review, approval. (Wow but this is a massive thread, for a not so massive problem.) Nico -- From nobody Tue Apr 21 09:40:12 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29D581AD1EE for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:40:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -114.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9WBo5n-MBt93 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF3021B29E3 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:37:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1393; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429634251; x=1430843851; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=9xDgMC+Bu9e9lcgG08oUrJsO/V1+CEALP3s4Gtadp8M=; b=SBjVAHjFffPbP5nmRkJbhvPdR+48Y2i4vmtLogx7SQ/EkexnWy89F5Ct 8O9WBBmlPiMqjRTcJDlOkh6akF/dc5xVyv5UPieqprDN0OCzCLPxbP6Uq d2e5xqPXLhHUCd8VPlskz321aezue5fmGStEm2OMXfJvo0lu6bR7alGEi o=; X-Files: signature.asc : 487 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ALBQARfDZV/5JdJa1bgwyBLgWDE8pbAoFBTAEBAQEBAX6EIAEBAQMBI1YFCwIBCBgqAgIyJQIEDgUOiBUItwSUdwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReLN4QyAQFQB4JoL4EWBZEwgXGBN4R9ggKBMZN3IoIegVVvgQs5gQABAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,617,1422921600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="413606484" Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2015 16:37:31 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3LGbVH3028383 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:37:31 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.151]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:37:30 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Paul Hoffman Thread-Topic: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts Thread-Index: AQHQfCHEbDfVpw1G9kySRJxu77CAXJ1XvioAgAAgRoCAACAGAA== Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:37:30 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> <553646D8.4010607@levkowetz.com> <0594E586-210F-468F-8AC7-ED6BDBE7C2DA@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: <0594E586-210F-468F-8AC7-ED6BDBE7C2DA@vpnc.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.24.226.209] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2835164B-85FF-4756-98CD-9CD1CE984F71"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:40:11 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_2835164B-85FF-4756-98CD-9CD1CE984F71 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Apr 21, 2015, at 7:42 AM, Paul Hoffman = wrote: >=20 > But I have to ask: if these are recent drafts, why didn't the = false-coauthors notice the mail being sent to them when the draft was = first posted? All authors get mail each time a draft is posted. Or is = this a request to prevent it from happening on -00 drafts? It=E2=80=99s intended to help prevent it from happening. --Apple-Mail=_2835164B-85FF-4756-98CD-9CD1CE984F71 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEVAwUBVTZ8yZ9ieig10VPpAQIVkAf+J3uyJT91DGmRrT8srHtwLTjHetXTcW8U WItjhKPIRyz9uSxRse56iTduBu9rj6Za4ogjkoT3Sv79bzcUEpVGy9NA1TUz0U2Y lfolwwRFo7/Yz6cKg5rZDKuhCukCWRo0WnsOHFDZr9UI2Q9O6m5hhDg1bE3tccOr VJAkmwd23X/QkXu+5I1nUm8DCkIuIPh3ppO2qoaCI2ibiV6n7zfiEl9zozMfvdE5 yp4E5tYNYKB2Jxq4sBwbItTt9cA6/hwIuo0FWMS2jI12t2GATyp9ysWdyZfcOuFW VdL4pAJZw8//2Xjrn3DpFyf7E387vP6VATn7TWsgyZ5H/b01Ud03AQ== =s2bT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_2835164B-85FF-4756-98CD-9CD1CE984F71-- From nobody Fri Apr 24 10:01:22 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 502F11B3758 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m6-EvDd5nH_q for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:01:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 368501B3796 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:01:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-71-170-237-80.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.170.237.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t3OH19eU035889 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:01:09 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host pool-71-170-237-80.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.170.237.80] claimed to be unnumerable.local Message-ID: <553A76D0.9010000@nostrum.com> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:01:04 -0500 From: Robert Sparks User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tools Team Discussion References: <20150424164921.3037.50557.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150424164921.3037.50557.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20150424164921.3037.50557.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070302010108060200060809" Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker-01.txt X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:01:20 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070302010108060200060809 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All - This version reflects feedback from several directorate secretaries and participants. I think it's getting close to ready to move into implementation. Please review and identify anything that needs to change before that happens. RjS -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker-01.txt Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:49:21 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Tero Kivinen , Robert Sparks , Tero Kivinen , Robert Sparks A new version of I-D, draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Robert Sparks and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker Revision: 01 Title: Tracking Reviews of Documents Document date: 2015-04-24 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 16 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker-01.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker/ Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker-01 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker-01 Abstract: Several review teams ensure specific types of review are performed on Internet-Drafts as they progress towards becoming RFCs. The tools used by these teams to assign and track reviews would benefit from tighter integration to the Datatracker. This document discusses requirements for improving those tools without disrupting current work flows. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat --------------070302010108060200060809 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All -

This version reflects feedback from several directorate secretaries and participants.
I think it's getting close to ready to move into implementation. Please review and identify anything that needs to change before that happens.

RjS


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker-01.txt
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:49:21 -0700
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> 


A new version of I-D, draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Robert Sparks and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker
Revision:	01
Title:		Tracking Reviews of Documents
Document date:	2015-04-24
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		16
URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker-01.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker/
Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker-01
Diff:           http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker-01

Abstract:
   Several review teams ensure specific types of review are performed on
   Internet-Drafts as they progress towards becoming RFCs.  The tools
   used by these teams to assign and track reviews would benefit from
   tighter integration to the Datatracker.  This document discusses
   requirements for improving those tools without disrupting current
   work flows.

                                                                                  


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat


--------------070302010108060200060809-- From nobody Fri Apr 24 16:35:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB3B1A8A9A for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:35:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E8cI8C8eyjcf for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:35:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x22b.google.com (mail-pd0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 334F31A8A67 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:35:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pdea3 with SMTP id a3so61534527pde.3 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:35:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=REaPgpMwBkIRZ1KQn4tQdUvsKra8OkuPGu7AEYr4vdU=; b=htVNDn4kImepZ/Mjhj9+W65w0SETs/GzBHEETrY+Th2jgvovW9dAnhrkjIrKSVXXhw AxFNrtBFmQ8ryVr+DD8nhO9s+tCPjCH3XBOBno4pXHHwmFrtDtbkfa7cCeLHUN4d1nqT hQWW8uVw3rcSWWwcH2lIQpkiIkKSTJWnD0ZLNBW2psiYUZ8flxY/7iQGWVt4CCRx5CLp jdRwZv+o2jBEKeqo1tPvgNsX4WUsJu7MYd5YgKG0oYW9bUSLRPL0QHzhneP9KyHafelq 4E4tKOVrgx70P1Tf51JDjYKGRzMz93rz5Pxc9j6ucsBitJFX5mNzrTYCnBCVoqqsHX9c V2pQ== X-Received: by 10.70.43.225 with SMTP id z1mr1318769pdl.45.1429918506968; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:419a:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:419a:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nt15sm12179213pdb.14.2015.04.24.16.35.04 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <553AD334.6010203@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 11:35:16 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tools Team Discussion References: <20150424164921.3037.50557.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <553A765B.60305@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <553A765B.60305@nostrum.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker-01.txt X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 23:35:08 -0000 Robert, Thanks for this! One suggestion: add a short Appendix listing topics deferred for now. The one I'm aware of is author-oriented features. One typo: s/haitus/hiatus/ Origin of HIATUS: Latin, from hiare, to yawn. I enjoyed learning that ;-). Brian From nobody Fri Apr 24 17:09:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6B0A1B3139 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:09:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qLEuH2vVM1D2 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:09:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6C461B3102 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:09:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.87] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t3P093ot015215 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:09:06 -0700 Message-ID: <553ADB1B.8050702@dcrocker.net> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:08:59 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> <553646D8.4010607@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: <553646D8.4010607@levkowetz.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:09:06 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 00:09:08 -0000 On 4/21/2015 5:47 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > and that solution is similar to your proposal, which I > understand is to send mail to, and require confirmation from, all authors for a > -00 draft. That's a simple and entirely reasonable mechanism. However it also is likely to add delays in getting draft public, waiting for each author to become available for seeing the query and responding to it. Sometimes, those delays will be a problem. And sometimes it will be a serious problem. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Fri Apr 24 17:28:52 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D7E71B31E5 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:28:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SQ03XVfi5tSd for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:28:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48F9A1B31E3 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:28:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-04.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C19DFDA0089; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 00:28:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.20.196] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:28:48 -0700 References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> <553646D8.4010607@levkowetz.com> <553ADB1B.8050702@dcrocker.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: <553ADB1B.8050702@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12B410) From: Ted Lemon Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 20:28:49 -0400 To: "" X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215] Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 00:28:50 -0000 > On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:08 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >=20 >> On 4/21/2015 5:47 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >> and that solution is similar to your proposal, which I >> understand is to send mail to, and require confirmation from, all authors= for a >> -00 draft. >=20 >=20 > That's a simple and entirely reasonable mechanism. >=20 > However it also is likely to add delays in getting draft public, waiting > for each author to become available for seeing the query and responding > to it. >=20 > Sometimes, those delays will be a problem. And sometimes it will be a > serious problem. Can you suggest an example of such a circumstance? I can't come up with one= .=20= From nobody Fri Apr 24 17:49:45 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39161B3207 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:49:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eTd-jFJHPXsl for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A872C1B3206 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.87] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t3P0neKq016841 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:49:43 -0700 Message-ID: <553AE4A0.5020504@dcrocker.net> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:49:36 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ted Lemon References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> <553646D8.4010607@levkowetz.com> <553ADB1B.8050702@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 00:49:45 -0000 On 4/24/2015 5:28 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> Sometimes, those delays will be a problem. And sometimes it will be a >> > serious problem. > Can you suggest an example of such a circumstance? I can't come up with one. More than once, I've been rushing to get a draft submitted by a deadline, where the other author(s) have been out of contact for some time. (Hours matter, for this case.) Small example is if they live half a world away and are sleeping or doing some other inconvenient thing. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Fri Apr 24 17:53:22 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BEA41B320D for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:53:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 43G_jlPbBDvK for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:53:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B7A71B320E for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:53:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.87] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t3P0r74i016889 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:53:10 -0700 Message-ID: <553AE56F.7090601@dcrocker.net> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:53:03 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Dale R. Worley" , "Dale R. Worley" , "Fred Baker (fred)" References: <877ft565gx.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> In-Reply-To: <877ft565gx.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:53:10 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Fwd: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 00:53:21 -0000 On 4/21/2015 5:17 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote: > Presumably the number of involuntary authors is > fairly low, and the existing manual procedures suffice for getting their > names removed from the drafts. > > My assumption is that every author gets a copy of the "a new I-D was > posted" e-mail. Perhaps they don't. The question, then, is whether the removal process is easy enough and whether it suffices. If someone gets the notice and immediately notifies... someone (who?)... that they are not an author and request immediate removal, will it in fact happen immediately or will the draft stay around while some formal process is pursued? There's also the question of whether even a brief window of the document's being circulated is problematic; it apparently hasn't been for some decades, so we might not need to worry that much about it. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Fri Apr 24 19:05:19 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66CC51A702E for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:05:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6o6CH1nFEF82 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 656E41A88B4 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:05:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D48E4DA008A; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 02:05:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.20.203] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:05:06 -0700 References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> <553646D8.4010607@levkowetz.com> <553ADB1B.8050702@dcrocker.net> <553AE4A0.5020504@dcrocker.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: <553AE4A0.5020504@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <98C42D6D-7700-4820-81B2-3D1696D07CB5@nominum.com> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12B410) From: Ted Lemon Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 22:05:07 -0400 To: "" X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215] Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 02:05:17 -0000 > On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:49 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >=20 >> On 4/24/2015 5:28 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: >>>> Sometimes, those delays will be a problem. And sometimes it will be a >>>> serious problem. >> Can you suggest an example of such a circumstance? I can't come up with o= ne.=20 >=20 >=20 > More than once, I've been rushing to get a draft submitted by a > deadline, where the other author(s) have been out of contact for some > time. (Hours matter, for this case.) Me too. But this is easily handled simply by enforcing the time of submissi= on and allowing co-authors to approve after the deadline as long as the draf= t itself was submitted on time. Or, my personal preference, get rid of the a= rbitrary deadline entirely.=20= From nobody Fri Apr 24 19:21:44 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 276BE1A8935 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:21:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wdLX2jV8Hh2v for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:21:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BE181A8938 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.87] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t3P2LZws018201 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:21:39 -0700 Message-ID: <553AFA2C.9060000@dcrocker.net> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:21:32 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ted Lemon References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> <553646D8.4010607@levkowetz.com> <553ADB1B.8050702@dcrocker.net> <553AE4A0.5020504@dcrocker.net> <98C42D6D-7700-4820-81B2-3D1696D07CB5@nominum.com> In-Reply-To: <98C42D6D-7700-4820-81B2-3D1696D07CB5@nominum.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 02:21:43 -0000 On 4/24/2015 7:05 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> More than once, I've been rushing to get a draft submitted by a >> > deadline, where the other author(s) have been out of contact for some >> > time. (Hours matter, for this case.) > Me too. But this is easily handled simply by enforcing the time of submission and allowing co-authors to approve after the deadline as long as the draft itself was submitted on time. Or, my personal preference, get rid of the arbitrary deadline entirely. +1 to both of those suggestions. (Or is that +2?) However there are other deadlines that might be the issue, besides the one the IETF controls. Mumble. d/ ps. While there were other reasons given for originally imposing the deadline before IETF week, the current one is to give participants time to read drafts before the wg meets. This argument suffers in two ways: 1. The first is that it ought to be up to the wg to manage activities like this; an universal limit set for the entire IETF is needless micromanagement. 2. For anyone involved with a variety of working groups the total number of documents that get circulated around the deadline means it is impossible for them to read all the drafts; so the deadline doesn't help things in the least. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Fri Apr 24 19:41:33 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA811A8973 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:41:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fv5xgwNAmL8a for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:41:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 945741A008F for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:41:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F48ADA008C; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 02:41:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.20.203] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:41:30 -0700 References: <1E5EA46E-F1E9-400D-8926-AA870449CDD9@cisco.com> <30A85AF1-9CA5-489E-9152-BADBD91D1F38@cisco.com> <0666F8FA-5AD8-4307-8C44-8BBAD610B884@sobco.com> <553646D8.4010607@levkowetz.com> <553ADB1B.8050702@dcrocker.net> <553AE4A0.5020504@dcrocker.net> <98C42D6D-7700-4820-81B2-3D1696D07CB5@nominum.com> <553AFA2C.9060000@dcrocker.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: <553AFA2C.9060000@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12B410) From: Ted Lemon Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 22:41:33 -0400 To: "" X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215] Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 02:41:32 -0000 > On Apr 24, 2015, at 10:21 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > However there are other deadlines that might be the issue, besides the > one the IETF controls. While true in practice, not something we should be encouraging. From nobody Thu Apr 30 08:32:19 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9FBF1A1B91 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:32:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d7Lg_y_JN7lz for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [209.234.253.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBFA11A002A for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:32:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [38.109.115.130]) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D11AF984; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:32:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B9B252033C; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:31:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: Henrik Levkowetz , Martin Thomson In-Reply-To: <871tjntpjy.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> References: <552C3C96.2000501@levkowetz.com> <552C4728.3040001@levkowetz.com> <871tjntpjy.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:31:44 -0400 Message-ID: <87d22liqe7.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: [Tools-discuss] tools.ietf.org reverse dns delay [was: trac pageload speed diagnostics] X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:32:18 -0000 On Mon 2015-04-13 22:24:33 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > This might be due to missing reverse DNS. > > When i connect via IPv6 or IPv4 from a host with a functional reverse > DNS, (using "time wget -4 https://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/newticket" > or "time wget -6 https://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/newticket" to get > the 403 Forbidden response), i see completion times between 1.5 and 5 > seconds. > > When i connect from a host with broken (missing, non-responsive) reverse > DNS, i see times between 23 to 25 seconds. i'm now seeing this delay on tools.ietf.org (64.170.98.42) when i have no PTR, so it's not just the trac instance: 0 dkg@alice:~$ time wget -O/dev/null -S https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322 --2015-04-30 11:19:19-- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322 Resolving tools.ietf.org (tools.ietf.org)... 64.170.98.42, 209.208.19.222, 2001:1890:123a::1:2a Connecting to tools.ietf.org (tools.ietf.org)|64.170.98.42|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:19:35 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.22 (Debian) Content-Location: rfc5322.html Vary: negotiate,Accept-Encoding TCN: choice Last-Modified: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 05:40:56 GMT ETag: "3ca44f-277b3-50fa6bac4ca00;514f29e2abbe5" Accept-Ranges: bytes Content-Length: 161715 Cache-Control: max-age=604800 Expires: Thu, 07 May 2015 15:19:35 GMT Keep-Alive: timeout=5, max=100 Connection: Keep-Alive Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Length: 161715 (158K) [text/html] Saving to: ‘/dev/null’ /dev/null 100%[=====================>] 157.92K 87.3KB/s in 1.8s 2015-04-30 11:19:44 (87.3 KB/s) - ‘/dev/null’ saved [161715/161715] real 0m25.339s user 0m0.040s sys 0m0.016s 0 dkg@alice:~$ This is actually impacting my ability to work with the archive today :/ Is this something that can be fixed or at least diagnosed more closely? I'm happy to provide testing and feedback of any proposed fixes since i know not everyone has broken reverse DNS ready at hand :P Should i file it as a ticket somewhere, or is this the right place to address it? --dkg From nobody Thu Apr 30 09:50:37 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35791B2DFD for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:50:35 -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_50=0.8, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EdKY3_ZGRvNI for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:50:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smg1.telecom.sna.samsung.com (unknown [63.166.115.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E21571B2E0E for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:50:05 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 41a9fa1f-f796a6d000007243-b0-55425d365f6c Received: from exHub1.telecom.sna.samsung.com (Unknown_Domain [105.52.12.248]) by smg1.telecom.sna.samsung.com (SMGOUT STA) with SMTP id 74.D2.29251.63D52455; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:49:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from EXMB5.telecom.sna.samsung.com ([169.254.1.80]) by exHub1.telecom.sna.samsung.com ([2002:6934:cf8::6934:cf8]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:50:04 -0500 From: Jayantheesh S B To: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Tools] IETF - Android app - Google Play Store Thread-Index: AdB+xUBCgK1ncPq1Sd+4qpsVPpY83wD7fxEAACxlA4A= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:50:03 +0000 Message-ID: <02454F842DD7B449B96715A2AD90C0365EBB9886@exMB5.telecom.sna.samsung.com> References: <02454F842DD7B449B96715A2AD90C0365EBB1D5D@exMB5.telecom.sna.samsung.com> <5540EB80.6030103@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <5540EB80.6030103@nostrum.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [105.52.12.197] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_02454F842DD7B449B96715A2AD90C0365EBB9886exMB5telecomsna_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsWSacLzQ9cs1inUoLtZxuLnjlfsFtuPzGV0 YPL4N+07u8eSJT+ZApiiuG2SEkvKgjPT8/TtErgzpi49y1ow07Li6IrVjA2Ml4y6GDk5JARM JNb+WMgCYYtJXLi3nq2LkYtDSOAYo8SV29PYQRJCAnsYJbbuAipi52AT0JF4EgwSFREwlXh7 YgZYBbOAhcS6S+eZQWxhAXOJ2QtOskPU2EjM+/mJBcK2kvix4RlQDQcHi4CqRM/rBJAwr0CI xMvZM5khFpVK3Ps2iRHE5hTQltgy5T0riM0IdNn3U2uYIFaJS9x6Mp8J4mIBiSV7INZKCIhK vHz8jxXCVpSY++smM0R9vsS6x32MELsEJU7OfMIygVF0FpJRs5CUzUJStoCReRWjTHFuuqFe SWpOanJ+rl5xXqJecWJucWleuh6Qv4kRGBmOK3/J72Bct93+ECMTB+chRgkOLimR4tS8lNSi xNKSjHhQJMQXA2NBqoGxNN7VcfHBM9nMtz5rnAsI2Lk2d6FUypVFyjOWzVdpv6FVyaxiZVFY k21hXuLYK/j8TPAs72tNa0tvlVTw3Zu4eeXWWWwLBfgW2R6N9u9as2hi6fa6O/mnPX5kCzR+ XfbrZuHVZdblqc3TrTa8nHBDScxu6ssjba99ZPLNL2Yt4AmIWdVXGWSrxFKckWioxVxUnAgA bETUolcCAAA= Archived-At: Subject: [Tools-discuss] [Tools] IETF - Android app - Google Play Store X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:50:35 -0000 --_000_02454F842DD7B449B96715A2AD90C0365EBB9886exMB5telecomsna_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All, We would like to add below features or write a new app with the below suppo= rt and contribute to IETF community. Kindly share your ideas, new features which will be useful for the end user= s, admins etc. The idea of the proposed app: 1. Should be able to login into the IETF account, managing account de= tails. 2. Should be able to view the submitted Drafts 3. View the status of the submitted drafts 4. View the active WG and its updates 5. IETF Contact information 6. Managing the Subscription for various Mailing list like "Imapext"= , "Lemonade" 7. RFC Search and View the document 8. Meetings and its information 9. Available IETF tools information 10. Latest drafts submitted and its details Regards, Jay --_000_02454F842DD7B449B96715A2AD90C0365EBB9886exMB5telecomsna_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

All,=

 

We would like to add b= elow features or write a new app with the below support and contribute to I= ETF community.

 

Kindly share your idea= s, new features which will be useful for the end users, admins etc.

 

The idea of the propos= ed app:

 

1.   &n= bsp;   Should be able to login into the IETF = account, managing account details.

2.   &n= bsp;   Should be able to view the submitted D= rafts

3.   &n= bsp;   View the status of the submitted draft= s

4.   &n= bsp;   View the active WG and its updates

5.   &n= bsp;   IETF Contact information <= /o:p>

6.   &n= bsp;   Managing the Subscription for various = Mailing list  like “Imapext”, “Lemonade”

7.   &n= bsp;   RFC Search and View the document

8.   &n= bsp;   Meetings and its information

9.   &n= bsp;   Available IETF tools information

10.   Latest drafts submitted and its detail= s

 

Regards,

Jay<= /p>

--_000_02454F842DD7B449B96715A2AD90C0365EBB9886exMB5telecomsna_-- From nobody Thu Apr 30 11:59:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0737C1A89AE for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:59:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yk8_QSnUBCGh for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:59:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D73131A899E for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:59:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h205n24-s-oev-a31.ias.bredband.telia.com ([78.68.120.205]:59064 helo=vigonier.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from ) id 1Yntft-0006im-Dk; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:59:05 -0700 Message-ID: <55427B76.8020608@levkowetz.com> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:59:02 +0200 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , Martin Thomson References: <552C3C96.2000501@levkowetz.com> <552C4728.3040001@levkowetz.com> <871tjntpjy.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <87d22liqe7.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> In-Reply-To: <87d22liqe7.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xtW03xEKvn69hRwkskmPLHsagEIeElMoK" X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 78.68.120.205 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: henrik-sent@levkowetz.com, tools-discuss@ietf.org, martin.thomson@gmail.com, dkg@fifthhorseman.net X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] tools.ietf.org reverse dns delay [was: trac pageload speed diagnostics] X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 18:59:08 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --xtW03xEKvn69hRwkskmPLHsagEIeElMoK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Daniel, On 2015-04-30 17:31, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > real 0m25.339s Ouch! > user 0m0.040s > sys 0m0.016s > 0 dkg@alice:~$=20 >=20 > This is actually impacting my ability to work with the archive today :/= > Is this something that can be fixed or at least diagnosed more closely?= > I'm happy to provide testing and feedback of any proposed fixes since i= > know not everyone has broken reverse DNS ready at hand :P >=20 > Should i file it as a ticket somewhere, or is this the right place to > address it? henrik@levkowetz.com or webmaster@tools.ietf.org is perfect. I thought I'd removed some config pieces that might cause reverse lookups= after Martin's report, but I'll have another look to see what could cause= those to be done, and if there's some more forceful way of preventing the= m. Best regards, Henrik --xtW03xEKvn69hRwkskmPLHsagEIeElMoK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVQnt3AAoJEE6bV0uPuxcaJQoP/iZ7jlJfpzRUegM9Eg4W29po TgBvQqeRD0P+l6AKTNzo/VZKkaWrBkj96sO3V5hwm+fkxmZ5ERSuMGBz4rN9+keR FZbszG32C7Sb2499HwBP/to+0bCAS4yw/8HiBZ7ZkKDNZaHqdyw/79zs76IykWm7 cqos4ZYG8XdfSYE5rohCRYQll/unUgnCcvcuu6JQY3q+roeKt+sCD0Q+CID+laZW b/sND3qqA6vkZ8RfaUBAW/iMaCR+u7FlvjlQg6/Qz51J2vA8TIgU3CgmgMZLs9I0 blkQj8RyhLxXxPsnKjRLdO5QqBifXUEOKUcqnU1DYSG0J3aI7Chq8Bhgo5l5SxcG nPoPs+l2LA8r6e2F6D4AzIzH8ZOcSW9+/BL/4iCjYfbQWgtwzC9VKzwVIqCbTBgC oxaMTrEp3feS9VsPeY6ytsTPKQC2oItJEAhuY26ehw0EilFbK26dVuqyN3/l6Gbv DANw4bKUXfGd9/ETixYb2VszfuMaevRrP+283B1kCLN8cAY34pCsQZ0340eGr8m2 rW8GA+GvIhC4OIUU+uQEAH6YbIPcF0TH9RnBwjCkZDEEL6Db9PmpjVgGIy1zGDXs RnAAWSGqyC+uqZLDZJHckPiIb8WTfWPgVOhmX1AD4nOl0xZ7F+UfymVKM4kYK90s Wcp7jmyJeeH1jAX+256u =8TNB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xtW03xEKvn69hRwkskmPLHsagEIeElMoK-- From nobody Thu Apr 30 12:57:42 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8351A8A8A for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:57:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0ZUBZQILI8YW for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:57:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3862A1A872F for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:57:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B14620012; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:09:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 3FBE563B86; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:57:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BBF9636B6; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:57:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Jayantheesh S B In-Reply-To: <02454F842DD7B449B96715A2AD90C0365EBB9886@exMB5.telecom.sna.samsung.com> References: <02454F842DD7B449B96715A2AD90C0365EBB1D5D@exMB5.telecom.sna.samsung.com> <5540EB80.6030103@nostrum.com> <02454F842DD7B449B96715A2AD90C0365EBB9886@exMB5.telecom.sna.samsung.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 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 Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] [Tools] IETF - Android app - Google Play Store X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 19:57:42 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jayantheesh S B wrote: > We would like to add below features or write a new app with the below > support and contribute to IETF community. > Kindly share your ideas, new features which will be useful for the end > users, admins etc. Interesting idea. > The idea of the proposed app: > 1. Should be able to login into the IETF account, managing account > details. At present, I don't think the the account profile part has a public API, so you'd be scrapping the forms. On the other hand, you could contribute such an API. > 2. Should be able to view the submitted Drafts No app is needed for this. > 3. View the status of the submitted drafts That's available without a login, but I don't know know if it's available as JSON. It ought to be. > 4. View the active WG and its updates Available. > 5. IETF Contact information Not sure what means. > 6. Managing the Subscription for various Mailing list like =E2=80=9CI= mapext=E2=80=9D, > =E2=80=9CLemonade=E2=80=9D That's a mailman thing, and the authentication is not in anyway merged. Sure would be nice, but that would be an effort onto itself. > 7. RFC Search and View the document Already available, no API needed. But, it's over at RFC-editor.org, and each document has an XML file. > 8. Meetings and its information Already has API for this. > 9. Available IETF tools information not sure what this means. > 10. Latest drafts submitted and its details > Regards, > Jay =2D- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBVUKJMoCLcPvd0N1lAQJpIQf+PmxMRb0o+D5DjDQT81iHyjdIZzsD9sw8 Y+50ojzmiWrTf15xXGvwRiS15+q545Oa+gy3bO4NCQGTr2jObPQXz8HQsEApAvHZ mNMqA3G4kCcsXtlGxCp7GsDKGZq6NlJk6fmWKF69KD6yCb3G/vbaJxjfovQY84Zb 8cpOnkSXW19miVI3X1qvrS8VAA7j/t0XdzyBWm0qgwvskisRdece16qigAhW+XOn +BGTzHJWP3SrwKLrymwh4LadscbWOdpet7uGA/SVBCYbRovJWlSl1GNkd59S4fe6 GvvMod+BG8t5XLgXQ/DnqMTZAag3H8/qWXJR8Yu0VXZid8uRwm6xKw== =UP7w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Thu Apr 30 14:14:13 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25591A070E for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:14:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AROBNfeY_p14 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com [209.85.212.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C785E1A0263 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by widdi4 with SMTP id di4so34608720wid.0 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:14:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=yDU3rZ1V8nuvOnbVSLe6OK+kkybAgx5Qqn/0ZM+HSr4=; b=maQcoOmtZIqorVAJGl9A+cfBSFGtlkRUC2vdgylRrGcAfwWluxpbw8emmPvvjoSvsP yMZkQIdb3IuaNOggYHSyyhsROU3nC9BSM066t2kZvyVAZuue9JKqf1TR7BbkmkpyC5CY wGRO95Ja9v4UVCEeKdF+38RAP9gLYGhjdkWlBweeo1u3eongxY3Rtt36oCaMO6CFgODm HzXhWsF9TCySyTTu25abwFAn/+BtnsRa8X5fE78dsZ0TNZYkK9fTpfcsWvbXFYO/56hq lQB8EqStW8VjgQ8+0LNdkiM7ndTBsJFnJseQ091ERAgOQuL4InytAOA5PTwHIKsv0146 wN8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnx3WZ+hV0nBQisWOjdURNslGUzDqsIHriZVte3/RFdIjML0NS2MVoKbmYCrhUGLWs+5rxI MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.83.130 with SMTP id q2mr8757277wiy.89.1430428448311; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:14:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.47.36 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:14:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55427B76.8020608@levkowetz.com> References: <552C3C96.2000501@levkowetz.com> <552C4728.3040001@levkowetz.com> <871tjntpjy.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <87d22liqe7.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <55427B76.8020608@levkowetz.com> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 17:14:08 -0400 Message-ID: From: Warren Kumari To: Henrik Levkowetz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] tools.ietf.org reverse dns delay [was: trac pageload speed diagnostics] X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 21:14:11 -0000 Is it possible that had some unintended side-effects? xml2rfc (and http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/ ) appear to have died, and I think it may have been ~2 or 3 hours ago...) W On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On 2015-04-30 17:31, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> real 0m25.339s > > Ouch! > >> user 0m0.040s >> sys 0m0.016s >> 0 dkg@alice:~$ >> >> This is actually impacting my ability to work with the archive today :/ >> Is this something that can be fixed or at least diagnosed more closely? >> I'm happy to provide testing and feedback of any proposed fixes since i >> know not everyone has broken reverse DNS ready at hand :P >> >> Should i file it as a ticket somewhere, or is this the right place to >> address it? > > henrik@levkowetz.com or webmaster@tools.ietf.org is perfect. > > I thought I'd removed some config pieces that might cause reverse lookups > after Martin's report, but I'll have another look to see what could cause > those to be done, and if there's some more forceful way of preventing them. > > > Best regards, > > Henrik > > > > -- > Tools-discuss mailing list > Tools-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss > > Please report datatracker.ietf.org bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb > Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues or > send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf From nobody Thu Apr 30 14:21:15 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4D011A1A72 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:21:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kO3Fr42Bo8GN for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:21:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5E3C1A1A5A for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:21:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wiun10 with SMTP id n10so32091240wiu.1 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:21:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ewQM8d6N+XD62RS/Ifg48Lug86IlQeY4g4ES5DS5qmU=; b=TrtBdjjHpewXjy2MM/PskdAwGwq93TXUu/QIhCiaNmT7/ulgVHqioS5M4TD+fodXop T/+lWq5gahfXX5FT0ga8gORSOaGGNIrrDrGZHG9P89BjytlsYJYk3tqmSBjUzZ3lEn7k BCIoWQPftct/hjmMf5vYNkjzzQBewPTqwNWBWcr/18jY8/dxB7EszOZ3rnU9vJtJ5zFs QRr9+umf/RYdHhwu+MMbK1fFgsia4+visML/dzl75Qm7fAaznuxelRYcLWb27IAVxr+N 3WbvKuw5fA5+a5TUbsx3SAQhAktz1KBxsZfdQNpn/EbbK0nZbcT0RX45mZEpmLthtVQQ 7wSw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmeSXK40quYuyy6kVY4RosdlFQGWoxqARovzoVtLI2PIgqQdWb4ljYl85c1Zgyh2Dt7d1er MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.60.67 with SMTP id f3mr12401611wjr.28.1430428870376; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:21:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.47.36 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:21:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <552C3C96.2000501@levkowetz.com> <552C4728.3040001@levkowetz.com> <871tjntpjy.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <87d22liqe7.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <55427B76.8020608@levkowetz.com> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 17:21:10 -0400 Message-ID: From: Warren Kumari To: Henrik Levkowetz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: "tools-discuss@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] tools.ietf.org reverse dns delay [was: trac pageload speed diagnostics] X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 21:21:14 -0000 ... and fixed now. I didn't do the right thing and open a ticket or anything, mainly because the timing aligned iwt this... W On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > Is it possible that had some unintended side-effects? > > xml2rfc (and http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/ ) appear to have died, and I > think it may have been ~2 or 3 hours ago...) > > W > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> On 2015-04-30 17:31, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >>> real 0m25.339s >> >> Ouch! >> >>> user 0m0.040s >>> sys 0m0.016s >>> 0 dkg@alice:~$ >>> >>> This is actually impacting my ability to work with the archive today :/ >>> Is this something that can be fixed or at least diagnosed more closely? >>> I'm happy to provide testing and feedback of any proposed fixes since i >>> know not everyone has broken reverse DNS ready at hand :P >>> >>> Should i file it as a ticket somewhere, or is this the right place to >>> address it? >> >> henrik@levkowetz.com or webmaster@tools.ietf.org is perfect. >> >> I thought I'd removed some config pieces that might cause reverse lookups >> after Martin's report, but I'll have another look to see what could cause >> those to be done, and if there's some more forceful way of preventing them. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Henrik >> >> >> >> -- >> Tools-discuss mailing list >> Tools-discuss@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss >> >> Please report datatracker.ietf.org bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb >> Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues or >> send email to webmaster@tools.ietf.org >> > > > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf