Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Pekka Savola wrote: On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Richard Shockey wrote: This IMHO should have come directly out of the IAOC as the subject matter is directly within their oversight and charter. What is the relationship of this document to the IAOC? I agree that these are valid points. Spending cycles on this document isn't much use unless IAOC et al buy in into it. Could someone from the powers that be say something on their thoughts on how venue selection criteria (etc.) should be developed? I'm not sure that I constitute a power (more likely just another slave to process) but I've added review of this document to the next IAOC Agenda and we will get Jordi our comments shortly there after. - lel -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ 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: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi, Here is the original announcement and the IETF URL. Comments please ! I'm assuming this is going to be Informational only and as such not formally binding on the IAOC on the Secretariat. In fact that should be made explicit that nothing in this document should be considered formally binding on the IAOC or the Secretariat and that it only represents useful suggestions. This IMHO should have come directly out of the IAOC as the subject matter is directly within their oversight and charter. What is the relationship of this document to the IAOC? Frankly there is'nt much about this document I like. It's a classic example of the current IETF fashion for process over substance. Title : IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria Author(s) : J. Palet Filename : draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2006-1-18 This document provides the IAD with technical and logistic criteria for selecting venues for IETF meetings. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection -criteria-04.txt -- Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141(at)fwd.pulver.com ENUM +87810-13313-31331 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile +1 703.593.2683 Fax: +1 815.333.1237 mailto:richard(at)shockey.us or mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz http://www.neustar.biz ; http://www.enum.org ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Richard Shockey wrote: This IMHO should have come directly out of the IAOC as the subject matter is directly within their oversight and charter. What is the relationship of this document to the IAOC? I agree that these are valid points. Spending cycles on this document isn't much use unless IAOC et al buy in into it. Could someone from the powers that be say something on their thoughts on how venue selection criteria (etc.) should be developed? -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
At 2:28 PM -0500 1/19/06, Richard Shockey wrote: It's a classic example of the current IETF fashion for process over substance. Fully agree. What is the justification for this becoming an RFC? --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
From: Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 2:28 PM -0500 1/19/06, Richard Shockey wrote: It's a classic example of the current IETF fashion for process over substance. Fully agree. What is the justification for this becoming an RFC? Well, backing up slightly ... How much of our process stuff (including existing BCPs) really needs to be published as an RFC? Some does, I suppose, but never changes doesn't seem like the model we should search for on venue selection (the venue selection model used for the first 10 IETF meetings probably wouldn't have even booked us into Minneapolis, much less Adelaide!). Having said this, I hope the IAOC does find this document useful input (because if they don't, people have sure been wasting zeros and ones on THIS list... Thanks, Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
