Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
Dave Crocker wrote: Also note that local holidays may be city specific not country specific. It's quite impractical to consider city holidays three years out. Not if the city is chosen 2-3 years out. That really isn't likely for a meeting of our size; you need to be in the 5000+ range for that to make sense. For our size of meeting, choosing a venue 1-2 years out is about right, in terms of putting sponsors and space availability together. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
Joel, Joel Jaeggli wrote: On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: I think is clear that we need to fix the meeting dates, and that should be done in advance so we avoid clashes with other events and we can negotiate with hotels and sponsors ahead of time enough to make it cheaper. While I don't agree is to take in consideration national holidays unless they are (almost) *worldwide* ones. Otherwise, taking the national holidays from one or the other country will be discriminatory for the rest. Moreover when we don't know the place we will meet 3-4 years in advance. Otherwise we need to manage at the same time the meeting date and the place for each meeting, which we know is impossible. I mean at the meeting venue. It works the other way round. We fix our dates 2 or 3 years in advance, avoiding clashes with other organizations and international holidays as much as possible. Site selection inevitably comes later, which means local holidays may influence site selection, but not date selection. Also note that local holidays may be city specific not country specific. It's quite impractical to consider city holidays three years out. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
Also note that local holidays may be city specific not country specific. It's quite impractical to consider city holidays three years out. Not if the city is chosen 2-3 years out. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking http://bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Ray, I think our goal is to not lose essential participants from the IETF due to clashes. In fact that's why we want to schedule several years out, so as to make it easier for many other organizations to do their scheduling. If we do that, it's each organization's choice whether or not they avoid IETF weeks. (This week, for example, ITU-T NGN chose to schedule two major meetings in other cities.) and how does one define essectial participants? I don't think it's discriminatory to put the NICs and NOGs that don't seem to have a large overlap with IETF participants in the second category. It's just a matter of practicality, given that optimal scheduling is a fundamentally imsoluble problem anyway. I'd be delighted to see growth in African participation in the IETF (the spreadsheet shows two people from Africa pre-registered this week). the same arguments could have been applied to europe 15 years ago... but they were not - --bill Brian Ray Plzak wrote: Why should AfriNIC be considered any less of an RIR than the other APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, or RIPE NCC(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? Why should AFNOG be considered any less of an operator's forum than NANOG or EOF(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? We are talking about an entire continent. It seems to me in this case that the priority should be equality of treatment based on the function being performed for a region and not any other perceived reason for inequity. Or doesn't the IETF care about the Internet in the developing regions of the world? Ray -Original Message- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:53 AM To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Ray, I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list. having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap between the two communites is a little lower. also. having attended every afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You have to have some priorities. Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash, not just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them, which has not been the case up to now all the time. Regards, Jordi De: Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500 Para: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through 2010. Those dates can be found at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other organizations to the extent possible. Those organizations can be found on the Clash List from the same url. Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 - 2010 will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC. Regards Ray Pelletier IAD ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 ___ 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
Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:27:22AM -0500, Scott W Brim wrote: On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 04:18:42PM +0100, Tim Chown allegedly wrote: On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:38:03AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I don't think the analogy holds, for a number of reasons. (As a matter of interest, there were about 6 participants out of 350 with addresses in Europe at the March 1991 IETF meeting, and about 19 out of 530 in March 1993. At that point, scheduling against RIPE would certainly have become a practical problem.) You have to consider the most important clashes; IETF66 clashes with the World Cup Final on July 9th. I hope Canada has good coverage, if not a good football team :) There are plenty of bars in Montreal. bars do not good coverage make. trying to find the olympics on - in real time - during the IceHockey finals, in Perth, was a futile gesture. --bill ___ 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: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
An alternative to coordinating meeting dates with a growing list of peer entities is to simply say that the IETF will meet on the second week of March, July, and November every year. Such a stance would help everyone to schedule. [Note: these weeks are suggestions only, select a permanent variant of your choice.] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Fleischman, Eric wrote: An alternative to coordinating meeting dates with a growing list of peer entities is to simply say that the IETF will meet on the second week of March, July, and November every year. Such a stance would help everyone to schedule. [Note: these weeks are suggestions only, select a permanent variant of your choice.] proposed meeting dates through 2010 are posted on the meetings page, fixing them in stone reduces leway on negotiating future hotel contracts. There are other unforseen exegiencies that fixing the data in absence of a location create like inconvenient national holidays, that make travel to or from a location infeasible. -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
I think is clear that we need to fix the meeting dates, and that should be done in advance so we avoid clashes with other events and we can negotiate with hotels and sponsors ahead of time enough to make it cheaper. While I don't agree is to take in consideration national holidays unless they are (almost) *worldwide* ones. Otherwise, taking the national holidays from one or the other country will be discriminatory for the rest. Moreover when we don't know the place we will meet 3-4 years in advance. Otherwise we need to manage at the same time the meeting date and the place for each meeting, which we know is impossible. Regards, Jordi De: Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:54:14 -0800 (PST) Para: Fleischman, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: Carl Malamud [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: RE: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Fleischman, Eric wrote: An alternative to coordinating meeting dates with a growing list of peer entities is to simply say that the IETF will meet on the second week of March, July, and November every year. Such a stance would help everyone to schedule. [Note: these weeks are suggestions only, select a permanent variant of your choice.] proposed meeting dates through 2010 are posted on the meetings page, fixing them in stone reduces leway on negotiating future hotel contracts. There are other unforseen exegiencies that fixing the data in absence of a location create like inconvenient national holidays, that make travel to or from a location infeasible. -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Ray, I think our goal is to not lose essential participants from the IETF due to clashes. In fact that's why we want to schedule several years out, so as to make it easier for many other organizations to do their scheduling. If we do that, it's each organization's choice whether or not they avoid IETF weeks. (This week, for example, ITU-T NGN chose to schedule two major meetings in other cities.) and how does one define essectial participants? WG chairs, authors, active contributors to technical discussions. It is a matter of judgement of course. I don't think it's discriminatory to put the NICs and NOGs that don't seem to have a large overlap with IETF participants in the second category. It's just a matter of practicality, given that optimal scheduling is a fundamentally imsoluble problem anyway. I'd be delighted to see growth in African participation in the IETF (the spreadsheet shows two people from Africa pre-registered this week). the same arguments could have been applied to europe 15 years ago... but they were not - I don't think the analogy holds, for a number of reasons. (As a matter of interest, there were about 6 participants out of 350 with addresses in Europe at the March 1991 IETF meeting, and about 19 out of 530 in March 1993. At that point, scheduling against RIPE would certainly have become a practical problem.) Brian --bill Brian Ray Plzak wrote: Why should AfriNIC be considered any less of an RIR than the other APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, or RIPE NCC(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? Why should AFNOG be considered any less of an operator's forum than NANOG or EOF(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? We are talking about an entire continent. It seems to me in this case that the priority should be equality of treatment based on the function being performed for a region and not any other perceived reason for inequity. Or doesn't the IETF care about the Internet in the developing regions of the world? Ray -Original Message- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:53 AM To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Ray, I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list. having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap between the two communites is a little lower. also. having attended every afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You have to have some priorities. Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash, not just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them, which has not been the case up to now all the time. Regards, Jordi De: Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500 Para: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through 2010. Those dates can be found at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other organizations to the extent possible. Those organizations can be found on the Clash List from the same url. Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 - 2010 will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC. Regards Ray Pelletier IAD ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:38:03AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I don't think the analogy holds, for a number of reasons. (As a matter of interest, there were about 6 participants out of 350 with addresses in Europe at the March 1991 IETF meeting, and about 19 out of 530 in March 1993. At that point, scheduling against RIPE would certainly have become a practical problem.) You have to consider the most important clashes; IETF66 clashes with the World Cup Final on July 9th. I hope Canada has good coverage, if not a good football team :) Tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 04:18:42PM +0100, Tim Chown allegedly wrote: On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:38:03AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I don't think the analogy holds, for a number of reasons. (As a matter of interest, there were about 6 participants out of 350 with addresses in Europe at the March 1991 IETF meeting, and about 19 out of 530 in March 1993. At that point, scheduling against RIPE would certainly have become a practical problem.) You have to consider the most important clashes; IETF66 clashes with the World Cup Final on July 9th. I hope Canada has good coverage, if not a good football team :) There are plenty of bars in Montreal. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
Why should AfriNIC be considered any less of an RIR than the other APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, or RIPE NCC(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? Why should AFNOG be considered any less of an operator's forum than NANOG or EOF(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? We are talking about an entire continent. It seems to me in this case that the priority should be equality of treatment based on the function being performed for a region and not any other perceived reason for inequity. Or doesn't the IETF care about the Internet in the developing regions of the world? Ray -Original Message- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:53 AM To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Ray, I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list. having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap between the two communites is a little lower. also. having attended every afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You have to have some priorities. Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash, not just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them, which has not been the case up to now all the time. Regards, Jordi De: Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500 Para: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through 2010. Those dates can be found at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other organizations to the extent possible. Those organizations can be found on the Clash List from the same url. Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 - 2010 will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC. Regards Ray Pelletier IAD ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 ___ 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: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
Ray, I think our goal is to not lose essential participants from the IETF due to clashes. In fact that's why we want to schedule several years out, so as to make it easier for many other organizations to do their scheduling. If we do that, it's each organization's choice whether or not they avoid IETF weeks. (This week, for example, ITU-T NGN chose to schedule two major meetings in other cities.) I don't think it's discriminatory to put the NICs and NOGs that don't seem to have a large overlap with IETF participants in the second category. It's just a matter of practicality, given that optimal scheduling is a fundamentally imsoluble problem anyway. I'd be delighted to see growth in African participation in the IETF (the spreadsheet shows two people from Africa pre-registered this week). Brian Ray Plzak wrote: Why should AfriNIC be considered any less of an RIR than the other APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, or RIPE NCC(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? Why should AFNOG be considered any less of an operator's forum than NANOG or EOF(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? We are talking about an entire continent. It seems to me in this case that the priority should be equality of treatment based on the function being performed for a region and not any other perceived reason for inequity. Or doesn't the IETF care about the Internet in the developing regions of the world? Ray -Original Message- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:53 AM To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Ray, I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list. having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap between the two communites is a little lower. also. having attended every afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You have to have some priorities. Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash, not just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them, which has not been the case up to now all the time. Regards, Jordi De: Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500 Para: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through 2010. Those dates can be found at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other organizations to the extent possible. Those organizations can be found on the Clash List from the same url. Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 - 2010 will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC. Regards Ray Pelletier IAD ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 ___ 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: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
Hello all; Note that IETF 79 includes Halloween. IETF 79 October 31 -November 5 2010 I know it's a little far away, but I think that this might be a good time for the first Masked Ball / Costume Party Social. I plan to come as the dreaded IPv6 NAT. Regards Marshall On Mar 24, 2006, at 9:41 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote: The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through 2010. Those dates can be found at http://www.ietf.org/ meetings/future_meetings0810.html The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other organizations to the extent possible. Those organizations can be found on the Clash List from the same url. Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 - 2010 will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC. Regards Ray Pelletier IAD ___ 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: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
Ray Plzak (private), Can you give the email addresses of the AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG leaders? I'd like to write to them explicitly about this. It would be good to get them more involved in the IETF. Thanks Brian Brian E Carpenter wrote: Ray, I think our goal is to not lose essential participants from the IETF due to clashes. In fact that's why we want to schedule several years out, so as to make it easier for many other organizations to do their scheduling. If we do that, it's each organization's choice whether or not they avoid IETF weeks. (This week, for example, ITU-T NGN chose to schedule two major meetings in other cities.) I don't think it's discriminatory to put the NICs and NOGs that don't seem to have a large overlap with IETF participants in the second category. It's just a matter of practicality, given that optimal scheduling is a fundamentally imsoluble problem anyway. I'd be delighted to see growth in African participation in the IETF (the spreadsheet shows two people from Africa pre-registered this week). Brian Ray Plzak wrote: Why should AfriNIC be considered any less of an RIR than the other APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, or RIPE NCC(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? Why should AFNOG be considered any less of an operator's forum than NANOG or EOF(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? We are talking about an entire continent. It seems to me in this case that the priority should be equality of treatment based on the function being performed for a region and not any other perceived reason for inequity. Or doesn't the IETF care about the Internet in the developing regions of the world? Ray -Original Message- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:53 AM To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Ray, I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list. having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap between the two communites is a little lower. also. having attended every afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You have to have some priorities. Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash, not just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them, which has not been the case up to now all the time. Regards, Jordi De: Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500 Para: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through 2010. Those dates can be found at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other organizations to the extent possible. Those organizations can be found on the Clash List from the same url. Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 - 2010 will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC. Regards Ray Pelletier IAD ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 ___ 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: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
Hi Brian - I understand the difficulty of adding too many constraints to the scheduling process, but I'd like to point out that particpants in events such as AFNOG and AfriNIC meetings don't necessarily all come from Africa. In fact, strong participation from other regions is one of the most important mechanisms for building the institutions involved. Again, I understand the constraints you face, but it is certainly worth paying attention to the fact that many of the IETF's key participants also take very seriously their responsibility to help other organizations gain critical mass. Regards, Carl Ray, I think our goal is to not lose essential participants from the IETF due to clashes. In fact that's why we want to schedule several years out, so as to make it easier for many other organizations to do their scheduling. If we do that, it's each organization's choice whether or not they avoid IETF weeks. (This week, for example, ITU-T NGN chose to schedule two major meetings in other cities.) I don't think it's discriminatory to put the NICs and NOGs that don't seem to have a large overlap with IETF participants in the second category. It's just a matter of practicality, given that optimal scheduling is a fundamentally imsoluble problem anyway. I'd be delighted to see growth in African participation in the IETF (the spreadsheet shows two people from Africa pre-registered this week). Brian Ray Plzak wrote: Why should AfriNIC be considered any less of an RIR than the other APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, or RIPE NCC(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? Why should AFNOG be considered any less of an operator's forum than NANOG or EOF(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? We are talking about an entire continent. It seems to me in this case that the priority should be equality of treatment based on the function being performed for a region and not any other perceived reason for inequity. Or doesn't the IETF care about the Internet in the developing regions of the world? Ray -Original Message- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:53 AM To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Ray, I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list. having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap between the two communites is a little lower. also. having attended every afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You have to have some priorities. Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash, not just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them, which has not been the case up to now all the time. Regards, Jordi De: Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500 Para: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through 2010. Those dates can be found at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other organizations to the extent possible. Those organizations can be found on the Clash List from the same url. Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 - 2010 will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC. Regards Ray Pelletier IAD ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000
Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through 2010. Those dates can be found at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other organizations to the extent possible. Those organizations can be found on the Clash List from the same url. Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 - 2010 will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC. Regards Ray Pelletier IAD ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
Hi Ray, I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list. Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash, not just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them, which has not been the case up to now all the time. Regards, Jordi De: Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500 Para: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through 2010. Those dates can be found at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other organizations to the extent possible. Those organizations can be found on the Clash List from the same url. Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 - 2010 will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC. Regards Ray Pelletier IAD ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Ray, I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list. having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap between the two communites is a little lower. also. having attended every afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You have to have some priorities. Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash, not just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them, which has not been the case up to now all the time. Regards, Jordi De: Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500 Para: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through 2010. Those dates can be found at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other organizations to the extent possible. Those organizations can be found on the Clash List from the same url. Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 - 2010 will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC. Regards Ray Pelletier IAD ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
