Re: jabber log from Monday's IEA BOF?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Multipart=_Wed__3_Mar_2004_19_07_23_+0900_0eB8z_I6sC1==xLs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

One of my friend gave me attached partial (16:42-17:27) log.

-- 
Yoshiro YONEYA <[email protected]>

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:37:59 -0500 Tony Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> If you had jabber turned on during Monday's IEA BOF, would you please 
> check to see if you happen to have had logging turned on in your jabber 
> client? "Due to circumstances beyond our control" (tm), jabber logging 
> was not turned on at the server, and we're looking for a copy.
> 
> 	Tony Hansen
> 	[email protected]
> 
> 
> 


--Multipart=_Wed__3_Mar_2004_19_07_23_+0900_0eB8z_I6sC1==xLs
Content-Type: text/plain;
 name="iea-jabber.log"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="iea-jabber.log"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

[16:42]<tonyhansen> jon: mentioned difficulty of having user display name diff from what is used underneath
[16:43]<tonyhansen> paul: all client-only-based systems will have problems
[16:43]<randy_g> Paul: client-based system can work; one way to create an island is to have addresses that only people in that island can type
[16:44]<tonyhansen> someone: i18n address ARE important to china
[16:45]<randy_g> He has ascii address on one side of his card and Chinese on the other
[16:45]<tonyhansen> someone: he prints i18n address on his business cards, on the chinese side, and ascii address on other side
[16:45]<tonyhansen> someone => xiaodong li
[16:45]<randy_g> Jon Rosenburg: question on scope: is restriction to IDs in email only?
[16:46]<randy_g> Jon R: many applications leverage off email; consider SIP
[16:46]<randy_g> Jon R: XMPP uses stringprep for user parts
[16:47]<randy_g> Jon R: we'd need extensibility so other applications can build on it
[16:47]<randy_g> Jon R: is group interested in solving this larger problem?
[16:48]<randy_g>   Asking person who has Chinese email address on one side how it is implemented.  Answer: Unicode
[16:48]<tonyhansen> ? to xiaodong: how are chinese addresses being implemented: punycode
[16:48]<tonyhansen> (idna on left side)
[16:48]<hardie> james seng to xiaodong li
[16:49]<tonyhansen> james: addresses are looked up in ldap to map to ascii
[16:49]<randy_g> james Seng suggests maybe an informational draft documenting what is being used now would be OK
[16:49]<randy_g> James' comment on LDAP was that it was Netpia's solution, and was different from anyone else's
[16:50]<randy_g> Pete clarifies that Netpia's solution is not an email protocol element, it is an LDAP query
[16:50]<randy_g> "Native Language Internet Service" maps native name key words to domain name
[16:51]<tonyhansen> ?: explaining another proprietary way of doing mapping used in another product
[16:51]<tonyhansen> jon@mike
[16:52]<randy_g> John: change mail clients so that everything gets looked up first and translated; compares to X.400
[16:52]<hta> hey, that's not X.400 - it's OUTLOOK!
[16:52]<randy_g> Paul notes that Bob Morgan had a document years ago on LDAP lookups for email names
[16:52]<hardie> someone closer thwap harald for me.
[16:54]<randy_g> John: integration was poor, so a recipient tended to see one's own address instead of the sender's, so the way to reply was to make a phone call.
[16:54] * hta ducks a thwap
[16:54]<randy_g> John: this is a promising area but risky
[16:55]<tonyhansen> someone: in china, chinese email embedded directory service into Outlook
[16:55]<randy_g>   in China there is a company that does something similar to Netpia; Chinese email that works with Outlook but is not email
[16:55]<randy_g> No protocol and no interoperability
[16:55]<tonyhansen> but no interop
[16:55]<tonyhansen> someone was xiaodong
[16:55]<tonyhansen> james seng: client-side requires patches to clients
[16:56]<randy_g> (I'm sitting behind everyone so unless I know them well I can't tell who they are)
[16:56]<tonyhansen> james: a million users a few years ago was a lot -- now it's nothing
[16:56]<tonyhansen> pete: wrapup
[16:57]<tonyhansen> pete: let's do experimental wg work
[16:57]<randy_g> Pete: we could do exp. protocols for both compatible and ng service
[16:57]<randy_g> Pete asks if people in the room are willing to work on this
[16:57]<randy_g> Pete: One is ASCII-compatible and one involves SMTP servers
[16:57]<tonyhansen> #1: ascii-compat, #2 smtp servers are updated
[16:58]<randy_g> Ted: you either need SMTP extension or you have end-to-end compatibility
[16:58]<tonyhansen> ted: paraphrasing pete's #1 & #2
[16:58]<randy_g> Ted: we have had some work on both on the lists
[16:58]<randy_g> Ted: we could charter to do more work on this and produce documents
[16:59]<tonyhansen> pete: directory lookup soltuion is not part of potential work
[16:59]<tonyhansen> pete: but perhaps someone would want to write that up anyway
[17:00]<tonyhansen> tae ha park: volunteering for directory-based
[17:01]<tonyhansen> paul: can we do it without a wg?
[17:02]<randy_g> Paul: we could do it all in one document, and that wouldn't be chartered
[17:02]<randy_g> Paul: Is there good reason for a WG?
[17:03]<tonyhansen> ted: multiple docs give us a way to evaluate the question "which one worked"
[17:03]<randy_g> Ted: If we're doing an experiment, having multiple documents is better (easier to see which one worked best)
[17:03]<tonyhansen> ted: add an informational doc as well that says how the experiment should go forward
[17:04]<randy_g> Ted: if people are using punycode then we can get a document with operational experience on it
[17:04]<tonyhansen> ted: we definitely need community review, but not necessarily a wg
[17:05]<tonyhansen> pete: exp work will go on, a proposed charter will also be flown to get comments
[17:06]<randy_g> (Going back to Harald's comment on Outlook, that model produces super-ugly addresses, with double quotes, single quotes, commas, etc.  Useful caution for this work?)
[17:07]<randy_g> John: "People interested in the work" might mean "people interested in spending 6 months or a year on the charter"
[17:08]<tonyhansen> jon: if we can get a wg, it will mean we'll have critical mass of people interested in working on it
[17:08]<tonyhansen> pete: doesn't think we need to try flying a charter
[17:08]<randy_g> Pete: personal opinion is to let people do individual experimental documents
[17:09]<tonyhansen> randy preshun: wait on floating a charter until after we get some experimental docs out
[17:09]<randy_g>   Many comments that there is a sense of urgency in many communities; this is an argument against a WG and for letting individuals do experimental documents for the different approaches, and then if need be, a WG to hash out a unified solution
[17:10]<tonyhansen> paul: will change name of imaa mailing list to more generic name
[17:11]<randy_g> Pete asks who is willing to work on exp. drafts:
[17:11]<tonyhansen> (preshun => presuhn)
[17:11]<iljitsch> I have an idea I may want to work out in a draft.
[17:12]<tonyhansen> volunteers: paul, ted, xiaodong, james seng, alexey, others to give me business cards
[17:12]<tonyhansen> jon: procedural question: if no charter for wg, and no draft being circulated, then is this an ietf activity?
[17:13]<tonyhansen> ted: more critical, is such an activity covered by "note well"?
[17:13]<randy_g> John: if this isn't an IETF activity, no one can claim to be involved in such as IETF activity
[17:13]<tonyhansen> harald: nothing officially exists in the ietf except wgs
[17:14]<tonyhansen> harald: this is a mistake; investigative activities should also be covered
[17:14]<tonyhansen> harald: we can't block people from experimenting
[17:15]<randy_g> Harald: Paul's mailing list is a private activity, and hence can enforce "note well" on its own
[17:15]<tonyhansen> harald: imc's mailing list is a private activity, and paul should feel free to impose whatever rules he chooses (such as "note well")
[17:15]<randy_g> Paul: can even be stricter
[17:15]<randy_g> John: Can anyone do an end-run on an investigational activity?
[17:16]<randy_g> John: that is, can authors of documents involved in this effort give up on it and submit individual submissions?
[17:16]<tonyhansen> harald: does jon see publishing such experimental docs as harmful?
[17:17]<tonyhansen> (jon shakes head no)
[17:18]<randy_g> Ted: "note well" or similar would be very valuable very early
[17:18]<randy_g> Ted: if you use your own language be sure to get it vetted by a lawyer
[17:18]<randy_g> Pete: we're going to take this to the newly-named mailing list
[17:18]<tonyhansen> ted: this will continue outside of ietf for the experiment to go forward
[17:18]<randy_g> Pete: folks can write their exp. drafts
[17:19]<randy_g> Pete: we can subsequently bring work into the IETF
[17:19]<tonyhansen> james seng: can "note well" be used outside of ietf?
[17:19]<tonyhansen> paul: yes
[17:20]<randy_g> Paul: also, any list postings are considered public disclosure from patent/IPR point of view
[17:20]<tonyhansen> pete: we are adjourning without forming a wg at this point
[17:21]<tonyhansen> ted: should ietf work on mail-ng? see ted and/or scott if interested in that topic.
[17:21]<randy_g> Ted asks if people are interested in working on mail NG and especially the deployment time frame; find Ted and/or Scott during the week
[17:21]<randy_g> Ted: note that was not BOF-related
[17:21]<randy_g> (*close*)
[17:27]<tonyhansen> additional volunteers: Jeon, Aye-Shil [email protected]     antti pitkamaki [email protected]    yoshiro yoneya [email protected]       tony hansen


--Multipart=_Wed__3_Mar_2004_19_07_23_+0900_0eB8z_I6sC1==xLs--