Re: Equably when it comes to privacy
ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 09/08/2013 08:14:07 AM: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com Another worrying aspect of BULLRUN is that it is named after a victory for the confederate side in the US civil war. But the battles are only called the (First or Second) Battle of Bull Run by the NORTH, which lost them. The SOUTHerners who won the battle, as well as the now-local residents of Northern Virginia, refer to them as the Battle of (First or Second) Manassas. To the locals, Bull Run is simply a local creek which happens to run through the battle field. ] Janet
Re: Charging remote participants
From: Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com Date: 08/25/2013 08:40 AM ... The reward/motivation from IETF to participants is to acknowledge in writting their efforts, which I think still the IETF management still does not motivate/encourage. I COMPLETELY disagree with this. The reward/motivation for participation (remotely or in person) is to have your comments, ideas, suggestions,... TAKEN SERIOUSLY, even if the eventual decision goes against you. Of course, that presupposes that your comments are sensible, and show that you understand the context. It is the specific authors, and not the IETF that determines who gets mentioned in the Acknowledgements section. In the working groups I am involved with, I have found the authors to be very generous with acknowledgements. Sometimes I have been acknowledged when my comments were primarily editorial and clarification, without actually adding any new ideas. Of course, there have been one or two times that I have thought I made a contribution, but didn't get mentioned. That is the author's choice. As my mother used to say What you lose on the roundabouts you gain on the swings IETF Remote Participants (IETFRP) SHOULD charge the IETF not the other way, because still the IETF ignores some IETFRP efforts (or even hides information that should be provided to the diverse community). I have never felt ignored as a remote participant. Sometimes misunderstood because there is little opportunity to expand and explain when you are remote. But never ignored. I have no idea what you mean by hides information. Are you suggesting that someone is censoring mailing list posts? Janet
Re: Charging remote participants
As my mother used to say What you lose on the roundabouts you gain on the swings I had to go Google that. To save others the trouble: it seems to refer to rides at a carnival, and mean whatever losses you suffer in one place, you usually make up elsewhere, implying that it all balances out in the end. Oh dear, I didn't realize it was that obscure. Yes, you win some, you lose some, but in the end it balances out Or sometimes you are the dog, and sometimes you are the fire hydrant It refers to carnivals or fairs. Roundabouts are merry-go-rounds. Swings are aka swingboats. and do a full 360 degree rotation. Wikipedia calls them Pirate Ship (Ride) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_ship_(ride) Janet
Re: Charging remote participants
From: Randy Presuhn randy_pres...@mindspring.com I had to google it as well. The word roundabout (in the sense of traffic circle) led me to mistakenly think it had something to do with navigating British streets, but this seems to be where the idiom comes from: http://www.oldpoetry.com/Patrick_R_Chalmers/Roundabouts_and_Swings Randy I am pretty sure that the usage of roundabout to refer to a traffic circle is derived from its usage as a carnival ride, which in the US would be called a merry-go-round. Janet
Re: Charging remote participants
08/16/2013 09:10:54 AM: From: Hadriel Kaplan hadriel.kap...@oracle.com ...I want it from people who can't get approval for even a $100 expense, from people who are between jobs, people from academia, and even from just plain ordinary users rather than just vendors or big corps. I agree. The realities of internal politics/funding being what they are, it is sometimes going to be just as hard to get $100 remote fee approved as it as to get the whole f2f trip approved. Janet
Re: Radical Solution for remote participants
I agree with Hadriel (probably because we attend a lot of the same WGs) that remote participants are not actively ignored. The problem is that, with the time lag, and the need to type in your comments in quickly, then relay them through the jabber scribe A- the discussion has often moved on before your comment gets to the mic B - your comment is necessarily short and, hopefully, to the point. But if the audience doesn't get the point and misinterprets your comment, you really don't get an opportunity to clarify. C- you can't participate in a back and forth conversation Of the remedies listed, only audio input - the ability for remote participants to speak using their own voice, when it's their turn at the 'mic'. addresses that. (When I drag myself out of bed at 2:30 AM for a remote meeting, even if I have changed into clothes, I don't think I want video input, where remote participants can be seen as well as heard. ) Janet ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 08/16/2013 08:07:56 AM: From: Hadriel Kaplan hadriel.kap...@oracle.com To: John Leslie j...@jlc.net Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List ietf@ietf.org Date: 08/16/2013 08:08 AM Subject: Re: Radical Solution for remote participants Sent by: ietf-boun...@ietf.org On Aug 13, 2013, at 6:24 AM, John Leslie j...@jlc.net wrote: There are a certain number of Working Groups where it's standard operating practice to ignore any single voice who doesn't attend an IETF week to defend his/her postings. I don't see that happening in the WGs I attend - when remote participants post to jabber, the jabber scribes get mic time. I think what you mean isn't really that physical participants ignore remote ones, but more that remote participants don't have as much impact/weight with their input/arguments than physical participants do. Is that what you mean? I don't always understand what Doug is asking for; but I suspect he is proposing to define a remote-participation where you get full opportunity to defend your ideas. This simply doesn't happen today. Then fix that problem. Which solution addresses that problem: 1) Make remote participants pay money. 2) Add a separate mic line. 3) Add remote controls for A/V equipment. 4) Add XMPP controls for mic-line and humming. 5) None of the above. ISTM it's (5). Working Groups don't ignore remote participant voices because they don't pay money. They don't ignore them because they don't have a separate mic. They don't ignore them because they don't have A/V control. They don't ignore them because they don't have XMPP controls. WG physical participants ignore remote ones because they're not physically present. We're human beings. Human beings have a subconscious connection/empathy with other human beings based on our senses, that does not exist when we only read their words or only hear them speaking... especially when it's hear them by-proxy as the current jabber model uses. This isn't news to anyone - it's why people travel to meet other people, and why the telepresence market exists. The next step up from our current jabber-scribe model is to have audio input - the ability for remote participants to speak using their own voice, when it's their turn at the 'mic'. The next step up after that is video input, where remote participants can be seen as well as heard. Both of those are technically achievable, and possibly even practical to implement - though that's something the folks who run and manage the meetings would have to decide, since they'd know a lot more than us about that. -hadriel
Re: Radical Solution for remote participants
Adding to my own comments - Beware of technological solutions that require software on the remote user's end, or network communications. Many employers have strict policies about what is allowed to be installed on company computers. Furthermore, some have draconian firewalls. For instance, my employer's network blocks jabber. They used to block the streaming audio too. They are likely to block anything new they have not officially approved. I have to isolate myself from the company network, and use a separate connection, to use jabber from the office. Janet ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 08/16/2013 09:50:58 AM: From: Janet P Gunn/USA/CSC@CSC I agree with Hadriel (probably because we attend a lot of the same WGs) that remote participants are not actively ignored. The problem is that, with the time lag, and the need to type in your comments in quickly, then relay them through the jabber scribe A- the discussion has often moved on before your comment gets to the mic B - your comment is necessarily short and, hopefully, to the point. But if the audience doesn't get the point and misinterprets your comment, you really don't get an opportunity to clarify. C- you can't participate in a back and forth conversation Of the remedies listed, only audio input - the ability for remote participants to speak using their own voice, when it's their turn at the 'mic'. addresses that. (When I drag myself out of bed at 2:30 AM for a remote meeting, even if I have changed into clothes, I don't think I want video input, where remote participants can be seen as well as heard. ) Janet
Re: Charging remote participants
I expect _I_ would pay $100 out of my own pocket, if it came to that. But not all remote participants would be able to. Janet ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 08/16/2013 10:56:27 AM: From: Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com On 08/16/2013 09:38 AM, Janet P Gunn wrote: ...I want it from people who can't get approval for even a $100 expense, from people who are between jobs, people from academia, and even from just plain ordinary users rather than just vendors or big corps. I agree. The realities of internal politics/funding being what they are, it is sometimes going to be just as hard to get $100 remote fee approved as it as to get the whole f2f trip approved. As someone who just spent $3.5K out of pocket to show up in Berlin, I have a hard time being sympathetic to someone who won't participate because he has to spend $100 out of pocket. Keith
Re: Data collection for remote participation
As someone who has done it both ways (in person and remotely) I have a couple of comments. Having the slides available early is an advantage to BOTH in-person and remote participants. As a remote participant I need the slides available about 30 min before the session. As a participant (in-person or remote) it is VERY helpful to have the slides available much earlier. So I do not think how many remote participants for this session is a useful parameter for how important is it to get the slides out early On the other hand, I DO think that the number of remote participants for a particular session IS a useful parameter for how important is it to have an active jabber scribe and how important is it to make sure the audio streaming is working well. As a remote participant the list of working groups I am interested in is different from the list of working groups I plan to participate in remotely. There is a SMALL list of working groups I am willing to get up at 2:30 AM (my time) to participate in (otherwise I MIGHT look at the slides and read the minutes when they come out) There is a much LARGER list of working groups I will participate in remotely if they are in (my time) normal working hours. There is nothing you can do about this a priori, but if the records show that, for instance - whenever IETF is in North America, WG abc consistently has a large number of remote participants from Europe, and WG xyz consistently has a large number of remote participants from Asia - that could be factored into the agenda scheduling process. In-person participants are not asked to list the WG they are interested in. That is accomplished by the blue sheets. I wonder if there is a way to do something analogous to the blue sheets for remote participants, whether through jabber, email, doodle-poll, wiki, whatever. I agree with your points 2 and 3. Janet ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 08/12/2013 09:09:32 AM: From: Vinayak Hegde vinay...@gmail.com To: IETF Discussion Mailing List ietf@ietf.org Date: 08/12/2013 09:19 AM Subject: Data collection for remote participation Sent by: ietf-boun...@ietf.org Hi, There has been a lot of discussion on the IETF mailing list regarding improving remote participation and improving diversity on the mailing lists and in the working groups. I think the two are related. I think everyone broadly agrees that remote participation can be better. If nothing else, it will tell about who the remote participants are. I had proposed a few steps in this direction by improving the data collection for remote participation in the IAOC Sunday meeting. Posting them below again for discussion on the mailing lists. It can be a simple form that asks the following questions (Can be refined - this is just a start) 1. Name: 2. Country: 3. Duration of participation in IETF (either in number of years or number of meetings) 4. Employer ? 5. Working groups interested in. This can be voluntary and can be done pre-IETF meeting. As of now there is no structured way to know how many people wre active in the jabber room or listening on the audio stream. I can see that this has multiple benefits. 1. If the number of participants in a certain WG is more, it would push the WG chair to request for the slides/agenda available earlier. 2. If there are consistently more participation from around the world, the the WG chair can request for a meetecho recording so people can follow the group even if they cannot attend the meeting live. This could be useful for people who have clashing schedules as well. 3. Over a longer period of time, it can help IETF plan and encourage remote participation. Currently there is no hard data on number of remote participants. There is however a lot of hand waving so this will get some useful data into the system. -- Vinayak
Re: Data collection for remote participation
On the other hand, I DO think that the number of remote participants for a particular session IS a useful parameter for how important is it to have an active jabber scribe and how important is it to make sure the audio streaming is working well. Agreed. Again, it strengthens the case to get it done right. This part has been working well though. Not necessarily. There was one WG where I had to send an email to the WG mailing list asking for someone to provide slide numbers on jabber. Janet
Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again
AFAIK, you can only get a VAT refund for GOODS you take with you, not for the VAT on goods or services consumed in country. Janet ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 08/02/2013 09:28:57 AM: From: Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca To: IAOC List i...@ietf.org, ietf\@ietf.org list ietf@ietf.org Date: 08/02/2013 09:31 AM Subject: Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again Sent by: ietf-boun...@ietf.org Many countries let you claim VAT paid as you leave. If we organized ourselves, then the whole issue of VAT could be neutral to non-EC attendees. EC-attendees, likely can claim the VAT paid anyway. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works [attachment attpcwe7.dat deleted by Janet P Gunn/USA/CSC]
Remote participants access to Meeting Mailing Lists was Re: BOF posters in the welcome reception
I am another remote participant who would like to be able to subscribe to the meeting-specific mailing list. I can skip (myself) the ones about coffee and cookies, but definitely want to read the ones about schedule changes, etc. And even the other messages give me a taste of what it would be like to be there. Janet ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 07/24/2013 04:30:40 AM: From: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com To: Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net Cc: ietf@ietf.org Date: 07/24/2013 04:31 AM Subject: Re: BOF posters in the welcome reception Sent by: ietf-boun...@ietf.org --On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:17 +0300 Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote: And, incidentally, is there a way for remote participants to sign up for one or both meeting-related mailing lists without registering (or using a remote participation registration mechanism, which would be my preference for other reasons)? I sent the mail to ietf-announce, so I would guess many non-attendees got it as well. Yes. I was thinking a bit more generally. For example, schedule changes during the meeting week, IIR, go to NNall, and not ietf-announce. As a remote participant, one might prefer to avoid the usual (and interminable) discussions about coffee shops, weather, and the diameter of the cookies, but it seems to me that there is a good deal of material that goes to the two meeting lists that would be of use. Since I'm on those lists in spite of being remote (registered and then cancelled), I can try to keep track of whether anything significant to remote participants appears on the meeting discuss list this time if it would help. best, john
Re: WebRTC and emergency communications (Was: Re: IETF Meeting in South America)
Considering how long and painful the retrofit (RFC 4412) for SIP was, yes, I think it is important to plan for it early. Janet . ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 05/25/2013 03:10:07 AM: From: Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net To: James Polk jmp...@cisco.com Cc: ietf@ietf.org list ietf@ietf.org Date: 05/25/2013 03:10 AM Subject: WebRTC and emergency communications (Was: Re: IETF Meeting in South America) Sent by: ietf-boun...@ietf.org James: did you know that you have a audio/video realtime interactive communications WG churning out proposals and solutions that is *actively* ignoring emergency communications in its entirety? No? Look at RTCweb, which will become a dominant form of interactive communications between humans in the near future. You have an equally active WG in the same area that is addressing emergency communications (ECRIT) that is further along/mature in its documents (i.e., they've already produced the bulk of their RFCs, specifically RFC 6443 and 6881). Given that young people already think contacting a local emergency call center (PSAP) can or should be achievable through SMS, IM, twitter and Facebook... just how long does anyone think it will be before calling 911/112/999 will be requested or mandated through WEBrtc/RTCweb? Waiting will only make it more painful to retrofit it into the future RFCs produced by RTCweb. I knew that WebRTC is happening fast, including implementations coming out before standards. I don't think everyone have yet realised the full impact this technology will have. I didn't know about the details of the emergency communications situation. But it is always difficult to balance getting something out early vs. complete. I know how much pressure there is on the working groups to keep up with things actually happening in the browsers and organisations setting up to use this technology. Do you think the retrofit will be problematic, and do you have a specific suggestion about what should be included today? Jari
Re: A modest proposal
Do none of you know what the phrase a modest proposal refers to? Try googling it. Janet ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 01/21/2013 11:57:22 PM: From: William Jordan wjordan...@gmail.com To: ietf@ietf.org Date: 01/22/2013 12:01 AM Subject: A modest proposal Sent by: ietf-boun...@ietf.org I've recent had to write a program to interface with a SIP lync server and in doing so have had to code to several rfcs. After reading and dealing with implementation of the various rfcs I have read I have come up with what I consider A modest proposal to fix some of the problems I've seen with implementing a rfc. I think anyone who writes a rfc should have to provide a working ANSI/C or GNU/C implementation of the rfc in question. Specifically, I have worked with the SIP rfc (rfc 3261) and have come to the conclusion that whoever wrote the rfc has never coded a day in their life. Whoever thought it was a good idea to allow multiple ways of doing the same exact thing would hopefully be deterred by actually writing code to do it. I think a suitable punishment for those people would be to write each way of writing a from header on a blackboard 100 times... this would actually be less of the pain they've cause by making each writer of a SIP stack handle each possible way of doing things. Anyways, that is my modest proposal, please respond or I will be forced to reply every day to this mailing list on each and every way the SIP spec sucks one email at a time. FYI I'm not sure if GNU/C is the correct acronym, maybe its POSIX/C. Regards, Bill
Re: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?)
We definitely had an acoustic coupler, with its own phone line, so my father could work from home, in the mid and late 70s. He worked for IBM Research. If there had been a more technically advanced way of doing it, I am sure they would have used that. There was not much general intertia/unwillingness to do the necessary engineering at the lab. Janet This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose. ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 01/03/2013 08:47:44 AM: From: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com To: ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com, j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Cc: ietf@ietf.org Date: 01/03/2013 08:48 AM Subject: Re: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?) Sent by: ietf-boun...@ietf.org --On Wednesday, January 02, 2013 13:34 -0800 ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: From: John Day jeanj...@comcast.net I remember when a modem came with an 'acoustic coupler' because connecting it directly to the phone line was illegal. No, there was nothing illegal about it. The reason for acoustic couplers was that the RJ-11 had been invented yet and it was a pain to unscrew the box on the wall and re-wire every time you wanted to connect. ... It may have been illegal in some countries but certainly not in the US. Huh? Remember the Carterphone decision? Absolutely. Too bad the FCC didn't see fit to extend it to wireless. ... At one point there was something that said one phone in each home had to be directly wired without a plug. I don't know if this was a regulation, a phone company rule, or just a suggestion, but it also fell by the wayside after Carterphone. IIR regulation, in many states even for a while post-Carterphone, and justified, again IIR -- as many things have been justified in more recent years-- on the grounds of emergency services applications. After all, if there were an emergency, you wouldn't want to go hunting for an unplugged phone or, especially, to get something working that required external (to the phone system) power. And, while my memory of the period is a little vague at this point, I'm pretty sure that the four-pin jack (and a few other proprietary terminal-device connectors) showed up pre-Carterphone, when ATT/WE was (i) trying to sell alternate phones (notably the early Princess) to prove that what became Carterphone wasn't necessary because they could meet the relevant market demands and (ii) arguing that, if one wanted to connect third-party equipment, they could supply a network protection device into which the third-party stuff could plug. RJ11 and friends came along when the FCC finally got rid of the protective device/coupler nonsense in the mid-70s, long after Carterphone (1968) and, in a series of steps that weren't complete until the last half of the 90s, regulated/required first the jacks then the wiring pinouts. I certainly saw acoustic coupled equipment in use long after Carterphone, but in my experience it was because of general intertia/unwillingness to do the necessary engineering, not because of the lack of connectors. My recollection is that acoustic couplers started out as an attempt to get around the protective device rules, not the no interconnection one. It that is correct, it would provide an additional explanation for their being around into at least the mid-70s. I think part of what killed them was the growth of different handset shapes along with multiple manufacturers of telephones. Those different shapes meant that one could no longer design a recessed-cup device with fixed spread between the two cups that would form a tight seal with all relevant handset shapes. I do have an acoustic coupling device from the mid-90s that had an adjustable distance between the receiving and sending attachments and a strap to attach it to the phone -- worked pretty well when one wanted to attach a modem in, e.g., a hotel with hardwired connections between phone and wall and setups that made pulling off the terminal cover and attaching alligator clips impractical but it is clearly an exception to Ned's suggestion that failure to make the transition was at least partially due to unwillingness to do new engineering/ design work. The situation in other countries was, of course, different. Especially in places where the telephone carrier was effectively its own regulator or managed to convince the regulators that content mattered as much or more than physical connections, there was a requirement for different jacks (usually at a higher monthly rate) for modems and fax
Re: travel guide for the next IETF...
Daytona Bike Week is March 8 - 17. Janet ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 12/29/2012 10:18:31 AM: From: Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net To: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org Date: 12/29/2012 10:18 AM Subject: travel guide for the next IETF... Sent by: ietf-boun...@ietf.org Going Beyond Disney in Orlando Quick, name five reasons to go to Orlando. Here are mine: Puerto Rican delicacies, alternative cinema, craft beer, African-American history and psychic readings... http://frugaltraveler.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/going-beyond- disney-in-orlando/?nl=travelemc=edit_tl_20121229 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: 'Geek' image scares women away from tech industry ? The Register
This is VERY narrow minded, and, to be honest, somewhat insulting. You suggest that time at work and family are the only important things to women. First off, working too many hours, and too much travel are considerably MORE onerous when you DON'T have a family to back you up - especially if you have a house to be maintained, animals to be fed and exercised, and so on. If you have a family, they can pick up some of the slack when you have to work late or travel. If not, you have to struggle to find a pet sitter and so forth. Furthermore, many of us have extensive non-family commitments outside of work - serious (time consuming) hobby's and competitions, volunteer organizations for which we are part of the management team, to say nothing of exercise and sleep. No! too much travel and too many hours is NOT pretty much the same as takes time away from family. Janet . From: Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com And then this: Among the common factors that women cited as their reasons for leaving the profession were too much travel, working too many hours, lack of real or perceived opportunities for advancement, and uncivil work environments where women were treated in condescending or patronizing manners. Only 25 percent of the women who left engineering did so for family reasons. So on the one hand they claim that women are not leaving to take care of their families, but on the other the first two correct reasons they mention are too much travel and too many hours. I think these two are pretty much the same, and the primary reason why someone (male or female) would object to travel and long hours is because it takes time away from family.
Re: Gender diversity in engineering
But that leaves out all of us that started off in a different (technical) field (Math and OR in my case) and ended up here.. Janet This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose. From: James M. Polk jmp...@cisco.com To: IETF-Discussion list ietf@ietf.org Date: 05/01/2012 04:40 PM Subject:Gender diversity in engineering Sent by:ietf-boun...@ietf.org There have been some good numbers floated on recent threads, but at least for me, they aren't enough to gain a complete (or nearly complete) picture of the issue. Having studied statistics, we need to know a starting point, and look for the reductions (or increases) from that point forward. Starting in high school is not sufficiently refined enough, as there are a lot that take advanced math (personally I'd start with trig - because that kicked my ass - but rarely is it its own class, so let's start with calculus 1) that don't go into engineering. Thus, high school is probably not a good place to measure from. Therefore, it needs to be college. We need to know % of class (based on year started) that is female in engineering (do we want to start with electrical and CS to be more applicable to our situation?) We'll call that percent 'X' then %X of drops from engineering (BS) (or just elec/CS?) over the college years before graduation? then %X that enter workforce after BS in Engineering (or just elec/CS?) into the engineering field? then %X that start graduate school (MS) in engineering (or just elec/CS)? %X that receive MS degree in engineering (or just elec/CS)? %X that enter workforce after MS in Engineering (or just elec/CS?) into the engineering field? then %X that start doctoral school (PhD.) in engineering (or just elec/CS)? %X that achieve PhD. in engineering (or just elec/CS)? then %X that enter workforce after PhD in Engineering (or just elec/CS?) into the engineering field? This will likely track those that are entering the engineering workforce, and with what level of education. From that point in the analysis - we can attempt to track at what point there are further drops out of the engineering workforce by women (i.e., after how many years). Or is it as simple as problems after childbirth to reenter the workforce (for whatever reason). As an example, if there is a significant difference from those that drop out after their BS from those that drop out MS, then maybe something should be done to encourage women to stay for the MS. comments or questions? James
Re: 'Geek' image scares women away from tech industry ? The Register
Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote on 05/01/2012 02:24:57 AM: From: Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com To: Janet P Gunn/USA/CSC@CSC Cc: Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com, ietf- boun...@ietf.org ietf-boun...@ietf.org, IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org Date: 05/01/2012 02:26 AM Subject: Re: 'Geek' image scares women away from tech industry ? The Register On May 1, 2012, at 12:31 AM, Janet P Gunn wrote: My own anecdotes. Yes, it starts early. When I was 3 I announced that I was going to be a physicist when I grew up. WHY? 1 - a physicist has a chair that is on WHEELS, and spins ROUND and ROUND 2 - a physicist has a blackboard with COLORED CHALK 3 (and MOST important) a physicist has a CANDY machine in the hall outside his office. But engineers get to drive trains. Trains swivel chairs. If I go back even further, when I was born my father reportedly told a colleague I don't care if she IS a girl. She is still going to like trains! Janet
Re: 'Geek' image scares women away from tech industry ? The Register
My own anecdotes. Yes, it starts early. When I was 3 I announced that I was going to be a physicist when I grew up. WHY? 1 - a physicist has a chair that is on WHEELS, and spins ROUND and ROUND 2 - a physicist has a blackboard with COLORED CHALK 3 (and MOST important) a physicist has a CANDY machine in the hall outside his office. Well, I didn't become a physicist, but those features certainly put technology in a good light from an early age.!! Second, while the statistics may say something else, I find MORE WOMEN, in MORE RESPECTED positions, at IETF than in my work environment. Janet ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 04/30/2012 10:13:50 AM: Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com Sent by: ietf-boun...@ietf.org 04/30/2012 10:13 AM To Riccardo Bernardini framefri...@gmail.com cc IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org Subject Re: 'Geek' image scares women away from tech industry ? The Register Yes, the article is far from complete. But, your antecdote only goes to show your own bias towards women in science and engineering in general. By the time most females reach high school they have already been conditioned that girls aren't as good as boys in math and science. There's a far amount of studies showing this - at least in the US. As Monique said it is a very complex issue. Some of it starts at home and it starts extremely early. It's far more common for girls to be told they are pretty rather than smart. They have found some physiologic reasons that do influence math abilities - those with math brains tend to have higher levels of testosterone. That all said, it still doesn't explain why the percentage of women active in the IETF is less than the percentage of women that are in the field. But it might have something to do with IETFers sharing your perspective that women just aren't interested. Regards, Mary.
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
I think San Diego was worse than Dublin in that respect. At least in Dublin there were free busses to the city center. Janet This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose. ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 09/14/2010 12:02:28 PM: [image removed] Re: All these discussions about meeting venues Ole Jacobsen to: dcrocker 09/14/2010 12:08 PM Sent by: ietf-boun...@ietf.org Cc: George Michaelson, IETF Discussion Please respond to Ole Jacobsen On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote: Maastricht suffered an impressive variety of problems. Worse, some of those problems have become a recurring pattern. As examples, we have had a significant number of venues in recent years that were distant from major transportation hubs and/or were distant from local resources such as the usual array of hotels, restaurants, markets and the like. Rewinding eleven: Hiroshima Stockholm San Francisco Minneapolis Dublin Philadelphia Vancouver Chicago Prague San Diego Montreal Of these I can name only Dublin as falling into the category which you class as a pattern. I am not saying Maastricht or Dublin did not have problems, I am saying the claim that there is a significant pattern here is over-stating it. Please keep in mind that we have several non-negotiable requirements for venue selection. The first is actually availability of venue on our dates since our dates are FIXED. Proposals for changing the meeting model won't necessarily change that reality. Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
For various reasons, I have participated in the last 3 meetings remotely. While I am very grateful for the technical tools (streaming audio, jabber room, etc.) that make such remote participation possible, it is in no way a substitute for the greater level of interaction I get when attending the meeting in person. Furthermore, I am willing to get up a 3 AM (my time) to attend a WG in which I already have an active interest. But I am less likely to get up at 3 AM for a WG that sounds as if it MIGHT be interesting. When I am there in person, I am more likely to go to that MIGHT be interesting meeting. Janet This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose. From: James M. Polk jmp...@cisco.com To: Hascall Sharp chsh...@cisco.com, ietf@ietf.org, o...@nlnetlabs.nl Date: 09/07/2010 04:47 PM Subject: Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent At 05:45 PM 9/3/2010, Hascall Sharp wrote: On 8/30/10 3:57 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: ...snip... Am I missing something? ...snip... Yes. The IETF is having too many meetings where physical presence is required in order to participate effectively in the work. Creating the ability to mimic or replicate the effectiveness of a WG meeting is only part of the benefit of attendance at an IETF. Many of us that have been going there for years and years have the benefit of chance/rendezvous meetings in the hallway to discuss a topic - that we didn't know was being discussed, or - that we may now find ourselves in the middle of, or - that a small group might want to have outside of the main discussion area/session, or - etc Many of us have lots of ideas bantering around in our heads between meetings (or that have been dormant for a while) that this type of chance meeting could generate something of a meeting-of-the-minds about starting something new or something different that how it's done now. Many newcomers - whether this is their actual first meeting or just in their first few meetings - actively or passively seek out certain individuals for the possibility of having such a planned chance meeting in a hallway. None of this can effectively be done with IETF meetings moving to webex or worse, only on email. That said - I fully understand the financial burdens on people or corporations during non-robust years of economic (non) growth, such as we're in the middle of. JMO, which could be wrong James It seems to me that IETF is going in the wrong direction in terms of meetings. But maybe I'm getting old and cranky and everyone else has an ever expanding travel budget. chip ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Month- was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
I, on the other hand, prefer the July/August date. My husband is a school teacher, and I have the option of bringing him with me in July/August, but not in June or September. Janet Fred Baker in fairness, anyplace we don't yet have a contract is open to discussion. With care and in some cases communication with other organizations, we could change the announced dates. They were mostly picked out of the air (could we do X? Well, nobody on the clash list has chosen it yet...) in the first place :-) On Aug 9, 2010, at 11:19 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: FWIW, I do think that choice of July as the meeting time is not the best in terms of avoiding collisions with people's vacations. Say, early June or September would probably have less conflicts with family vacations, daycare shutdown periods, and the like. It would probably make it possible for more people to join the meeting. Of course, any change in the meeting dates would be slow. The current meeting calendar goes to November 2017... Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht
Which hotel was it? Two of the hotels (NH Maastricht and Crowne Plaza Maastricht) show two sets of rates, a refundable rate and a non-refundable rate. It says that if you choose the non-refundable rate your credit card will be charged immediately. Janet ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 05/18/2010 02:55:24 PM: [image removed] Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht Behcet Sarikaya to: Marshall Eubanks 05/18/2010 02:55 PM Sent by: ietf-boun...@ietf.org Cc: IETF Discussion Please respond to Behcet Sarikaya Hi, I noticed that IETF 78 Hotel that I made reservation already charged my credit card for the whole duration of my stay. Charged, or authorized ? (In the authorized case, the charge will generally show up as pending.) I saw it as a fixed charge in my credit card statement not as pending. Frequently authorization is ~ 150% of the nominal room charge, but doing it in advance seems quite excessive. You mean one night's charge? In my case it was for the whole week. I am hoping that Ray will do something. Regards, Behcet ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht
In Vienna there were lots of semi-open-air restaurants along the Danube, very close to the meeting site. I remember particularly good fried sardines- something I rarely find in the US. Janet ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 03/29/2010 06:05:47 AM: [image removed] Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht Iljitsch van Beijnum I don't remember what I did for lunch in Vienna, but there there was good public transport. I ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Announcement
So would it make sense to rent a CAR at BRU or AMS and DRIVE to Maastricht? I am actually quite pleased with the choice, as Maastricht is quite close to Aachen, which is somewhere I have long intended to visit. Janet ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 05/24/2009 10:31:55 PM: Ole Jacobsen wrote: Like any engineering product, we can all argue about how well the compromise worked at the end of the day. Knowing this crowd, I am sure we'll get all kinds of useful feedback from Stockholm, Hiroshima and even Maastricht. Not to put to fine a point on it or anything but the distance between brussels (which has quite a large airport) or dusseldorf (which is a biggish secondary) and maastricht is less than the distance between Narita and Yokohama. You can almost but not quite fit greater los angeles between brussels and maastricht. Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 -- Dublin!
I am still not convinced that there is a shortage of other places for lunch. Citywest (that the hotel is part of) http://www.citywest.ie/ is a large business campus (including some companies that will be familiar to IETF participants) In their list of amenities it says that there is a choice of restaurants and coffee shops within the complex and nearby. As there would have to be to support a large white collar employee base.. And I found several well reviewed lunchtime restaurants (including a food hall with well reviewed takeaway) in Saggart and Rathcoole. e.g., http://www.menupages.ie/Dublin/Restaurants/Saggart http://www.menupages.ie/Dublin/Restaurants/Rathcoole and a little further away http://www.menupages.ie/Dublin/Restaurants/Newcastle http://www.menupages.ie/Dublin/Restaurants/Lucan Personally, I am not worried about finding places for lunch outside the hotel. Janet The resort may be self contained, but it appears to be by no means isolated. Janet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/06/2008 02:29:43 PM: Hi Edward, On Wed, February 6, 2008 10:29 am, Edward Lewis wrote: At 8:37 -0800 2/6/08, $someone wrote: The descriptions of the venue make clear that, once again, the IETF is meeting in a ghetto. Periodic bus service doesn't counteract that. I really have a hard time being sympathetic to this complaint. If the purpose of the IETF is open discussion and cross-pollination, what does it matter where we are so long as there's comfortable access to the expertise needed? Is there an unwritten requirement that IETFs are placed to afford us sightseeing? To afford us access to restaurants? Think about why a beer in a bar in a city center costs 1/4 the price of a beer in the airport of that same city-- captive audience, it's not like you can go anywhere else. Now, this IETF is at a premier golf resort, 15km outside of city center. That means we'll be a captive audience and we will all eat at the hotel restaurant day in and day out and most likely pay far more than we should. The issue isn't about sightseeing, although that's always nice, it's about forcing people to choose between the same overpriced food you ate for the past two days and possibly missing a session (so you can go out and get a reasonable meal at a reasonable price). [snip] Calling any venue that I have ever been in for any kind of a conference a ghetto is quite an insult to folks that do live in ghettos or other unfortunate places that I have seen. I don't know if it is true now, but as of a few years ago, the IETF had never ventured to a country or economy where the expected life span of a person was below the global mean/average. Other conferences do regularly, even ICANN. That's where you can see a ghetto - on the way from the airport to the 5-star hotel. Please. A ghetto is a homogeneous region for some sort of homogeneity. That could be ethnic but ghetto is not necessarily some slur against poor people or people of some ethnic background. In this case the ghetto is going to be golfers, most likely affluent ones, in their plus-fours and some plaid nightmare of an outfit. We've already lost the word niggardly and the phrase chocolate soldier, neither of which have ethnic or racial connotation, to political correctness. Let's not toss out ghetto too. Dan. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 -- Dublin!
A quick google search finds multiple restaurants in the villages of Saggart (adjacent to the golf course) and Rathcoole (2k away) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/01/2008 08:43:12 AM: --On Friday, 01 February, 2008 11:57 +0100 Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (e.g., if we want to eat lunch or dinner somewhere other than the hotel)? What transportation options are available, and how long will the take? Bus - cheap (in a sense), but takes about 45mins (ex waiting time) Taxi - expensive, takes about 30 mins If even a taxi takes 60 minutes round trip, am I correct in assuming that the options for lunch not supplied by the meeting facility are non-existent? If so, I think we have repeatedly discussed a meeting-site guideline that prohibited sites with that property for at least three reasons: (i) If the facility can't handle the load, the meetings are disrupted, with no recourse. (ii) If one doesn't like their selections, there are no options. (iii) Expensive facilities tend to have expensive restaurants and other facilities. Oh, but there are golf courses. Guess that makes it ok for both the non-golfers and the golfers who will be spending all their time in meeting rooms and figuring out where to eat. Here we go again. Could I request that the IESG schedule one old-fashioned, open-ended, evening plenary? :-( john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: New web-based submission tool
+1 I had some initial difficulty with the tool's inability to properly extract the creation date, but eventually came up with a format it accepted. Overall, very slick. Janet Eric Gray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/12/2007 11:32:33 AM: +1 Thanks! -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson -Original Message- From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 8:53 AM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: New web-based submission tool Hi, I'd just like to compliment whoever implemented the new web based IETF draft submission tool. Very simple to use and rather slick :) I'd noticed drafts appearing over the weekend rather than in a batch batch as usual this evening. Must be welcomed by the RFC editors too! Cheers, -- Tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: take the train in Chicago
When I look at the 10 day forecast for Chicago, 5 of the 10 days include some form of rain. But they agree with you about the temperature. Janet Tim Chown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/16/2007 09:58:35 AM: On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 03:55:39PM -, John Levine wrote: ... walk from the Palmer House unless it's raining really hard. ... If it's raining, So there's me thinking Chicago in July will be mid 80's sunshine, and you mention rain twice in one email :) -- Tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Meeting Survey
There was no place for comments on the breakfast question. I think an important criterion is not just whether the CONTRACTED HOTEL provides breakfast, but whether, in addition, the OTHER HOTELS IN THE AREA where IETF-ers are likely to stay, provide breakfast. If we are in a city where MOST HOTELS include breakfast, then it is fine to not provide breakfast at the meeting. But if it is ONLY the contracted hotel that provides breakfast, and the other hotels do not, then I think that the meeting should provide at least SOME breakfast items. Janet Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/18/2007 05:47:51 PM: Ray, Thanks for doing this survey. Two of the questions (18 and 19) would be much easier to answer with a little extra information: 18. When breakfast is included in the room rate for the contracted hotels breakfast is not provided at the meeting to be most cost effective. Do you agree with this practice? 19. During the Monday and Tuesday afternoons there are two breaks. For budget reasons we provided only beverages and no snacks during the first break, approximately 2 hours after the lunch. Do you agree with this practice? Could you maybe send out a mail with the rough approximate costs of these when we run the meetings in the US (as a baseline)? Best, -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Meeting Survey
Good question. But that isn't how the survey question was phrased. The question wasn't should IETF provide breakfast (in general)? The question was should IETF skip breakfast if the contract hotel provides it?, which seems to presume that IETF WILL continue to provide (continental) breakfast if it is not included in the room rate at the contract hotel. Janet Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/19/2007 07:25:33 AM: Janet P Gunn wrote: But if it is ONLY the contracted hotel that provides breakfast, and the other hotels do not, then I think that the meeting should provide at least SOME breakfast items. Whether a break period should or should not include food might be a reasonable question, given the limited time to forage for food elsewhere. But what is the reason for presuming that the IETF has an obligation to feed us meals? Why breakfast, but no other meal? Why any? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Prague
Stephan, Thanks. Just what I needed. Comments in line. Stephan Wenger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/08/2007 03:26:32 AM: Hi janet, all, Renting a car at the airport, and from an international rental car company, is straightforward. More expensive than in the US, though. I cannot advise the budget deals you may get from local companies or individuals. Also keep in mind: a) cars of a given rental car class are smaller than in the US--- much smaller---so go for full size minimum if you are 2+ people withsuitcases. I'll just be one person, without suitcases. My idea of a small car is the one I drove in college- a 500cc 2-stroke Berkeley, which seated two as long as neither of you were overweight. My most usual request at a US car rental counter is don't you have anything smaller? b) Stickshifts are still very common, especially for the smaller car classes. Make sure to rent an automatic, if you think you need it No thanks. I MUCH PREFER a manual transmission, and drive one every day (Nissan Sentra). c) the Hilton is just outside the inner city and has ample hotel parking, so keeping the car there is not an issue. Forget about using the car in the inner city---no spots. But then, the inner city is extended walking distance. Yes- my only intention was to use a rental car for one or two day trips outside the city. I'd use public transport if convenient- the guide book says bus from Florenc in Prague- but I have no idea if that is two busses a day (not convenient) or every hour (fine), nor how far the museum is from the bus stop. I have emailed the museum director, and got a response which indicated that -the email worked -he read and wrote English - he would get back to me with more detail later. But later hasn't happened yet. I need to ping him again. d) Driving in town is similar as in most other European major cities---US folks would consider it somewhat aggressive. But it's quite survivable. Once you leave the immediate vicinity of Prague, people drive fast, but safely, and there's not too much traffic. I have driven in Western Europe- most recently my husband and I drove around north western France immediately before the Paris meeting. Is it similar. e) Buy all insurance you can---saves hassle and discussion time in case you have a fender bender. Thanks. That I would not have thought of. And with respect to the horror stories re taxis: I have had perhaps 10 taxi rides in the Prague vicinity over the last four years. In this, I had one incident where I driver attempted to grossly overcharge me. I was alone in the cab, but it had stopped at my destination, so I simply opened the door, put one foot out, and threatened to walk away. The reaction of the driver was to come down with the price, fast. I'm not a body builder or anything. This stands in contrast to an experience I had in NYC in the late 1980s, where I stupidly boarded a grey cab, and found myself and hour later in New Jersey, with no money and credit cards whatsoever, and the first-time-in-life experience of a gun near my head... So much about common sense when hiring cabs. My only experience with a gun near my head was in a parking garage on Capitol Hill in Washington DC, in the block between the House Office Building 2 and the Police Station. But I got away with only giving him my money. I held onto my credit cards and, more importantly, my green card ( I carry a UK passport, though I have lived in the US since '59). Finally, with respect to meeting venues. I think there's value in distinguishing Canada and the US. Meetings in Canada are typically a pleasant experience; decent folks at immigration, reasonable lines, reasonable hotel rates and restaurant prices, decent cabbies, ... I can't say all that for US meetings. And I carry a German passport. Colleagues of mine, who are very good technologists and would be an asset for IETF face to face discussions are not even considering attending US IETF meetings, because they are at the disadvantage of being born in a predominantly muslim country... So that would be a factor to consider as well. In the late 50s (Suez crisis) we lived in Canada, but crossed into the US quite frequently. My father very often got special attention (as in Please park the car and come into the office) because his British passport showed that he was born in Cairo, Egypt. (HIS father was an Egyptologist.) Thanks, Janet Regards, Stephan On Mar 7, 2007, at 8:38 PM, Janet P Gunn wrote: For those of you with experience in Prague/Czech Republic- How practical is it to rent a car? There are a couple of places outside Prague I would like to visit on the weekend (in particular the JAWA Motorcycle Museum of Konopiště, about 20 miles outside Prague), and I am considering renting a car. Thanks Janet ___ Ietf mailing
RE: Prague
For those of you with experience in Prague/Czech Republic- How practical is it to rent a car? There are a couple of places outside Prague I would like to visit on the weekend (in particular the JAWA Motorcycle Museum of Konopiště, about 20 miles outside Prague), and I am considering renting a car. Thanks Janet David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/07/2007 12:30:20 PM: Hi, I travelled to Prague after the Vienna IETF in 2003. It's a city; you need to take city precautions. There are signs of poverty, mostly outside the city center. I was surprised when I arrived (by train) by people aggressively trying to rent me a room in their house, and by taxi drivers who grab your bag and try to lead you to their taxi. Things might have changed by now, or not. I accepted a room in a private home from a person at the airport, 45 minutes by train outside of Prague, where people are striving to make enough to join the middle class. My landlord was a doctor, who found it more profitable to rent rooms in his house than practice medicine. Most IETFers will be better off financially, and will show it, so we become obvious targets. In three weeks of travelling through the Czech Republic and Slovakia, with no reservations and usually renting a room (a zimmer) in private houses, I met many wonderful people and never had a problem. I travelled alone at night usually. I was probably lucky, since I did not take many precautions that are simply common sense. Prague is a wonderful tourist spot with good food, good bier, quality shopping, lots of culture, and many interesting things to see. I rate it as one of my favorite cities in Europe. So I agree that Prague is very survivable. David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 12:03 PM To: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: Prague Edward Lewis wrote: I will attest to Prague being survivable. I have been there once already and suffered no ill effects and was not robbed. I.e., don't panic. ... At 14:52 -0500 3/6/07...: ... Under the entry for taxis from the airport they say Warning: Prague's taxi drivers ... When the IETF started having the meetings outside the U.S., there seemed to be two basic reasons. One was to adjust the burden of attendee travel, with a slight shift towards more fairness for attendees from outside the U.S. The other was to have our presence in the locale serve to encourage improvements to the local infrastructure. The former is obviously still valid. By and large, the latter hasn't been for a number of years. So it really is not reasonable for us to go to places that have poor Internet services, except that I'm one of those folk who think that having to go through a meeting venue learning curve for installing and debugging the net makes our meeting more fragile than it should be. But even that issue has gotten far less risky around the world, even for first-time IETF presence. But it occurs to me that there is an additional benefit that has been lurking, and I think it just surfaced: We kind folk from the U.S. tend to have very little understanding of what is normal elsewhere in the world. Even those of us with real travel experience often are so sheltered in those trips, or narrow in our venues, we have no serious basis for appreciating what to worry about, and what to merely be cautious about. A month before the Paris IETF, I was in Paris, at the same convention center, and had my wallet stolen as I was leaving the Metro. First such experience. Very traumatizing. But I'm hard-pressed to view Paris as more dangerous than any large U.S. city. And Amsterdam has public signs warning of pick-pockets. Should we avoid it, too? My Paris trauma came at the end of a fabulous day, and although during IETF week, I had a bit of a tremor when I had to use the same metro station, it was, still, the same, wonderful Paris of the travel books. Frankly, I have the same worries about Prague as John. I have read the same sorts of cautions that he has and must admit that seeing such cautions show up in a Frommer's is pretty unusual. So, I fully intend to be on guard. (And I am staying at a place that will require serious use of the transit system.) But, then, that's the lesson: Some places are seriously dangerous. We should stay away from them. Some merely warrant caution. And most places that American's worry about are no worse than most cities in the U.S. Just different. Yes, it can be a challenge to find credible ways to distinguish between the two, but it's clear that the otherwise review of published reports is not
Re: Does our passport need to be valid for 6 months to go to Prague?
My guidebook says 6 months. This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose. Michael StJohns [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/18/2007 02:03 AM To Radia Perlman [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org cc Subject Re: Does our passport need to be valid for 6 months to go to Prague? http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1099.html 3 months is the requirement. At 09:03 PM 2/17/2007, Radia Perlman wrote: There are some countries that require not just a *valid* passport, but one which won't expire for 6 months beyond when you visit a country. Is Prague in one of these countries (for US citizens)? I've heard conflicting things. If it does have the requirement (that a passport has to be valid for 6 months beyond the IETF meeting), it should probably be noted on the ietf page about the meeting. I couldn't see any information about passport expiration -- just that we don't need a visa. Does anyone know definitively? Thanks, Radia ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 68 hotel full
IIRC the hotel web site has a map. You could use that to find the names of nearby streets. Janet Andy Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/18/2006 01:37:43 PM: Hi, There is only one hotel listed for IETF 68: http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/68-hotels.html There are no more rooms at the IETF rate, and perhaps at any rate. The online form says no rooms are available that week. I'm having trouble finding Pobrezni 1 186 00 Prague 8 Czech Republic with online maps. Does anybody know which hotels are close to the Hilton Prague? thanks, Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/01/2006 05:20:31 AM: Speaking only for myself: I'm now reasonably satisfied that if this work is to be done, it will be done better in the IETF than in the ITU. However, looking at the last draft of the charter that I've seen, I am concerned about two things. 1. There's a presumption that precedence and preemption are the mechanisms - but those aren't requirements, they are solutions, and it isn't clear to me that they can ever be appropriate solutions in the upper layers of the Internet. The requirement is presumably that important application level sessions succeed in emergency situations, even if less important ones fail. The best way to meet that requirement might be different for each type of application protocol. Neither the charter text nor the list of deliverables recognizes such differentiation; they simply assume that precedence and preemption are the only possible solutions. I completely agree that, for many circumstances, precedence and preemption are not the appropriate solutions. In fact, there is a substantial subset of the IEPREP working group which wants to avoid anything that could be considered precedence and preemption, preferring to focus on other approaches. The way I read the charter, precedence and preemption is only one of four examples. Even then, it does not specify precedence and preemption as the solution/mechanism, but only as the highest level user/organization view. None the less, I would, as an individual, favor a rewording of the charter that made it clearer that precedence and preemption was not the primary focus of the WG. The mis-perception that the WG is focused on precedence and preemption is, unfortunately, reinforced by the list of milestones, which focus on the military environment. I would also, as an individual, favor modification to the list of milestones to include milestones that are clearly not associated with precedence and preemption. Janet ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
Martin, yes, I agree. Janet Dolly, Martin C, ALABS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/01/2006 02:05:54 PM: Janet, See inline, Cheers, Martin Janet wrote: The mis-perception that the WG is focused on precedence and preemption is, unfortunately, reinforced by the list of milestones, which focus on the military environment. I would also, as an individual, favor modification to the list of milestones to include milestones that are clearly not associated with precedence and preemption. MCD The main authors have a certain focus in their writing, but this can be moderated with input from others (e.g., those representing the ETS community, as an example). For this to occur though, the environment for providing input needs to be a bit more friendly (for lack of a better term). In addition, as I stated earlier on this topic there is not one forum that can address all of the industries needs. There is a place for the IETF, ATIS and the ITU, and we should avoid forum bashing, as it leads us no where. Cheers, Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IM and Presence history
Brian Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/29/2006 08:16:35 AM: However, what this subthread demonstrates is that they were conceptually an incremental change, not a giant, discontinuous, intellectual leap. I thought we all knew that. Oh, I agree, we knew that. There are very, very few discontinuous intellectual leaps in our part of the universe. It's hard to name one that happened in the past decade or two. Can we name any discontinuous intellectual leaps of late in computer networking? Now that I think about it, forget of late, have there EVER been any? Turing machine? (Computers, but not Networking) The original Ethernet? (not really discontinuous, but quite a big leap) Janet ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/14/2006 11:36:40 AM: ... This illustrates some of my concerns about this requirements work being done outside the IETF. ... 2. The notion that solutions such as precedence and preemption are (a) requirements and (b) applicable to all applications just doesn't compute for me. We'd actually need to understand at a more basic level what the functional requirements are, in terms that are meaningful for a datagram network. I don't believe that will happen in ATIS or ITU-T. Brian (personal opinion) Exactly. In the circuit switched world, a circuit is either up or down, and preemption means taking the circuit down. But in the IP world, there is a full continuum of states in between. Some of these are candidates for a useful service, and some of which aren't. The understanding of this continuum, and of the (intended and unintended) consequences is much stronger in the IETF than in the historically-circuit-switched world. Some of the possibilities in that continuum include (in no particular order): - Allowing extra sessions in, and permitting degradation in QoS across all sessions. - Allowing a higher packet drop rate across all the lower priority calls. - Negotiating a lower bandwidth allocation, possibly accompanied by a changing to a lower rate bandwidth codec when a higher priority session needs to preempt. - Negotiating (or arbitrarily imposing) a different PHB (e.g. AF or BE rather than EF) for lower priority sessions when a higher priority session needs to preempt. - Different Capacity Admission Control mechanisms for different priority sessions. The analysis/understanding of these (and other) alternatives is much better done in the IETF than in the historically-circuit-swiched SDOs. Janet ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet EmergencyPreparedness (ieprep)
Yes, we absolutely must address them in the context of real-life architecture deployment scenarios. Janet Dolly, Martin C, ALABS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/16/2006 08:29:59 AM: Janet, I agree that the items you listed below are best analyzed/discussed in the IETF, for as long as real-life architecture deployment scenarios are taken into account. Martin Janet Gunn wrote on 11/16: Some of the possibilities in that continuum include (in no particular order): - Allowing extra sessions in, and permitting degradation in QoS across all sessions. - Allowing a higher packet drop rate across all the lower priority calls. - Negotiating a lower bandwidth allocation, possibly accompanied by a changing to a lower rate bandwidth codec when a higher priority session needs to preempt. - Negotiating (or arbitrarily imposing) a different PHB (e.g. AF or BE rather than EF) for lower priority sessions when a higher priority session needs to preempt. - Different Capacity Admission Control mechanisms for different priority sessions. The analysis/understanding of these (and other) alternatives is much better done in the IETF than in the historically-circuit-swiched SDOs. Janet ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep ___ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Apology Re: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
Before you all jump all over me, I apologize for forgetting to remove the corporate sig on my previous email. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: New Liaison Statement, ITU-T Sudy Group 13 work on emergency telecommunications]
http://ftp3.itu.ch/sg13sdo/ demands a user ID and password to see the document Janet Scott W Brim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/07/2006 01:13:43 PM: - Message from Georges Sebek (ITU-T SG 13) [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 07 Nov 2006 11:05:15 -0500 - To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], magnus. [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] org, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: New Liaison Statement, ITU-T Sudy Group 13 work on emergency telecommunications Title: ITU-T Sudy Group 13 work on emergency telecommunications Submission Date: 2006-11-07 URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf. org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=277 Please reply by 2007-04-16 From: Georges Sebek(ITU-T SG 13) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: IETF Working Groups IEPREP, TSV, NSIS([EMAIL PROTECTED], kimberly. [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reponse Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technical Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Purpose: For action Body: See attached documents (COM 13-LS 148 referring to draft ITU-T Rec. Y.NGN-ET-TECH posted as 2-239.pdf in the ITU-T SG 13/IETF exchange area (ID=sg13sdo, PWD=Xchangesg13) Attachment(s): Liaison statement to the IETF Working Groups IEPREP, TSV, NSIS on ITU-T Study Group 13 work on emergency telecommunications (https: //datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file378.pdf) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: New Liaison Statement, ITU-T Sudy Group 13 work on emergency telecommunications]
But when I follow the link to the attachment it demands a user ID and password. Janet Scott W Brim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/07/2006 02:58:07 PM: Excerpts from Pekka Savola on Tue, Nov 07, 2006 09:40:07PM +0200: Sigh. ftp3.itu.ch appears to be one of those sites where a firewall breaks window scaling and reduces the performance to about 50 Bytes/second (or less). For more, see http://pace.geant2.net/cgi-bin/twiki/view/PERTKB/WindowScalingProblems It's on the IETF site: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=277 All recent liaisons are at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaisons.cgi Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
It seems to me that there are two separate issues. First, should this work be done within IETF, or would it be better done in ITU (or ATIS, etc.)? Second, if it is done within IETF, should it be done in IEPREP, or some other working group? In Sam's earlier emails, he seemed to be saying that this work belonged in ITU. However his latest email accepts that a large amount of the work DOES belong in IETF. So that leaves the question of where (within IETF) the work should be done. Since most of the pieces are related to existing IETF protocols, in principle, the various extensions could each be addressed in the relevant (non IEPREP) working group. There are two problems with this. The FIRST is that there is a need to coordinate and system engineer the different pieces so that they will work together, both at the requirements level and at the deployment level . That fits well within the original charter of IEPREP, in terms of both Requirements documents, and BCP documents. In the particular case of SIP RPH, IEPREP served us well in generating the requirements document, which were passed on to SIPPING and SIP. Now that RPH has become RFC4412, and as we attempt to deploy it in the field, it is clear that there will be a need for at least one BCP addressing the best way to USE RFC4412 to meet each set of objectives. (It is already clear that there will be some distinct differences in the deployment of RFC4412 in the DoD preemption-based namespaces, and in the public carrier non-preemption-based namespaces.) There will also be new requirements. Long term plans include the expansion from voice to other SIP-related services such as video conferencing, as well as to non-SIP services such as email, file transfer, and even web access. IEPREP is the right place to work through these requirements. The IEPREP working group needs to continue (even if restricted to the original charter) to address these points. The SECOND problem is logistics. Every working group in IETF has limited human resources to do the actual work. The ones where the IEPREP pieces COULD be pursued seem to be particularly overworked. As a result, the IEPREP-related IDs tend to be viewed as the poor stepchild and have difficulty getting working group status. Even when they do get working group status, they tend to progress rather slowly, because the working group as a whole does not consider them high priority. IEPREP, however, provides a context in which these pieces DO have the critical mass to progress at a more reasonable rate. Coordination with all other relevant working groups is, of course, essential. There are also IEPREP related IDs (both requirements related and solution related) that have been unable to find a home in any other working groups. The ID addressing email priority in MTA to MTA transfer is such an example. It is for this reason (new work that cannot find a home in any of the current working groups, as well as work that is the poor stepchild in current working groups) that the IEPREP charter needs to be extended to include mechanisms as well as just requirements and BCPs. Janet This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose. Robert G. Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] pl.eduTo Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/06/2006 10:20 cc AMPekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED], ieprep@ietf.org, Kimberly King [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org
Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)
There has also been a change in the external factors affecting the urgency of this work. At one time the perspective (from at least some of us) has been We know we are going to need this stuff sometime in the future. That perspective has changed to There are deadlines in place. If we don't have solutions in place, our existing services are going to be degraded, or fail. This will tend to accelerate the rate of completion of the work. Janet ken carlberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/06/2006 12:40:38 PM: It's not clear whether going on this way will achieve useful results in a useful amount of time. the first part of the above is a matter of opinion, which I'll respect but disagree with. the second is a red herring. if you wish a more detailed explanation of the timeline of milestones in IEPREP, I'll be happy to take this offline with you and the working group chairs. the timeline reflects poorly on several people (I'll objectively include myself in one instance) and groups and really doesn't need to be brought up here on the ietf list. -ken ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency Prepar edness (ieprep)
Two non-US governments are participating in the Industry Requirements (IR) effort addressing the migration of (G)ETS from circuit switched networks to Core IP networks. It is anticipated that this IR effort will feed into standards- identifying new needs. Some of these needs will feed into ATIS/ITU, but others will feed into IETF. In addition, the vendors and carriers are somewhat segmented. Some of them are primarily active in ATIS/ITU. Others are primarily active in 3GPP or 3GPP2. There is no one SDO that can be the home to ALL the ETS work. Janet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/06/2006 05:31:59 PM: Martin said, ETS Service Definition requirements are appropriate for ATIS. Side note: my focus is on the ETS service. All of the major players (vendors, service providers, contractors, and most importantly CUSTOMER), attend and participate in the ATIS work. ATIS is a US National standards group, not an international one and thus does not cover the ieprep, as a whole, customer base. The groups requiring ieprep functionality include the NCS (your CUSTOMER) but also US DoD and NATO. I've also been informed (by Fred Baker and others) that several governments have talked with them about needing such capabilities. Kimberly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Janet P Gunn; Robert G. Cole Cc: ietf@ietf.org; ieprep@ietf.org; King, Kimberly S.; Brian E Carpenter; Scott Bradner; Fred Baker; Sam Hartman; Pekka Savola Sent: 11/6/2006 2:22 PM Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep) 1) Should this work be done within the IETF? Not all the work in this space is appropriate for the IETF (e.g., architecture dependent). The appropriate work (protocol extension/definition) should be done in the IETF. If a protocol extension or new capability is required, the protocol/capability work MUST be done in the IETF. WRT, the problem definition and requirements: the initial analysis MAY be done in another SDO (eg,. ATIS), and be brought to the IETF when a gap/need has been identified. A service like ETS is supported and deployed in certain architecture/deployment scenarios, whereby the expertise is not in the IETF. ETS Service Definition requirements are appropriate for ATIS. Side note: my focus is on the ETS service. All of the major players (vendors, service providers, contractors, and most importantly CUSTOMER), attend and participate in the ATIS work. 2) If it is done within the IETF, where? I will save my opinion for a later time. - ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
