Danathar writes: Last week's RTCweb working group meeting at IETF 88 in Vancouver failed to reach agreement on a Mandatory to Implement (MTI) video codec for WebRTC. As Eric Krapf noted, the debate has been between Google's royalty free codec (VP8) and H.264, use of which can require royalty payment for use to MPEG-LA.
Danathar writes: Recently the IETF held a BOF (Birds of Feather) meeting to decide if they should proceed with creating a published standard for network address translation (NAT) in IPv6. Here are the minutes of the meeting http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/6ai.txt. NAT breaks the end to end nature of the internet and MANY applications. Organizations are demanding NAT in IPv6 before they deploy it so they can hide their network topology and have independence from ISP's when designing and addressing their networks. What do Slashdotter's think? Is NAT inherently BAD? Should the IETF proceed with putting together a standard? This single decision could have far reaching consequences on for internet applications for decades.
Danathar writes: Happy today? Here's the fix. So you've got your 1 Megaton nuke and need to deliver it someplace nice and juicy. Where to go? So many places...only 1 Nuke to go around. http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p= 120 Personally I'd take the Yellowstone Caldera. Scares me even to think about it.