Fwd: [alto] CFP - IEEE Comm. Magazine feature topic on Recent Advances in IETF Standards
This seems worthy of wider dissemination.
Regards
Marshall
Begin forwarded message:
From: Vijay K. Gurbani v...@bell-labs.com
Date: August 12, 2010 10:37:02 AM EDT
To: alto a...@ietf.org
Subject: [alto] CFP - IEEE Comm. Magazine feature topic on Recent Advances
in IETF Standards
Folks: FYI --- maybe someone can be tempted to write a paper on
ALTO.
==
Call For Papers - IEEE Communications Magazine
Feature Topic on Recent Advances in IETF Standards
==
The mission of the Internet engineering Task Force (IETF) is to
make the Internet work better by producing high quality, relevant
technical documents that influence the way people design, use,
and manage the Internet. This is a continuous process driving and
driven by the rapid evolution of the Internet. Protocols and other
technical standards developed by the IETF are fundamental building
blocks of the networked society.
This feature topic will give an overview of recent achievements in
creating standards that soon will have an impact on design, use
and management of the Internet. We welcome tutorial style papers
that describe new IETF standards as well as research papers
presenting results that had an impact on the standardization
process or that investigate the expected impact of recent
standards.
All submissions should be written to be understandable and
appealing to a general audience.
Areas of Interest
=
Areas of interest include standards track work that has been
completed recently or will be completed soon from all areas of the
IETF including but not limited to
- Emergency service
- Location based services
- Internationalization
- Peer-to-peer communication
- Network address translation
- Congestion control
- IP6 transition
- Mobility and mobility management
- Secure DNS
- Routing security
- Locator/Identifier Separation
- MPLS Transport Profile
- Better-than-nothing security
- Network configuration with XML
- Internet metrics and measurement
Schedule
Full paper submission: October 1, 2010
Author notifications: December 17, 2010
Manuscripts in final form: January 27, 2011
Publication date: April 2011
Submission Instructions
===
Articles should be tutorial in nature and should be written in a
style comprehensible to readers outside the specialty of the field.
Authors must follow the IEEE Communications Magazine's guidelines
for preparation of the manuscript. Complete guidelines for
prospective authors can be found at
http://www.comsoc.org/livepubs/ci1/info/sub_guidelines.html.
All articles to be considered for publication must be submitted
through the IEEE Manuscript Central
(http://commag-ieee.manuscriptcentral.com).
Guest Editors
=
Juergen Quittek, NEC Europe Ltd., quit...@neclab.eu
Henning Schulzrinne, Columbia University, h...@cs.columbia.edu
Joe Touch, Postel Center, USC/ISI, to...@isi.edu
Thanks,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: v...@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
___
alto mailing list
a...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Though interesting, what is the intent of the use of this data Martin Martin C. Dolly Sent to you by ATT... America's Fastest Mobile Broadband Network. Rethink Possible. +1.609.903.3360 - Original Message - From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org ietf-boun...@ietf.org To: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net Cc: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com; IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org Sent: Fri Aug 06 18:37:15 2010 Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent Mike, On Aug 6, 2010, at 2:18 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: Bob - Would it be possible to get two additional version of this chart? 1) Including only those who were nomcom eligible (3 of 5 of the last meetings) at each meeting. 2) Including only those who were one of WG chair, document editor or author for a an active document at that meeting (e.g. WG met and there were active IDs), IESG/IAB Its unclear to me whether the raw numbers are actually useful as they tend to be fairly skewed by local attendees. That in itself isn't bad, but what I think what we're looking for are long-term contributors/collaborators. I know it may be difficult to assemble the above lists, but I believe the data does exist electronically. I don't know how much of this is possible or how hard it would be. I will investigate. I do note that it seems clear that registration is related to where we meet. That show up pretty clearly the current data. So judging where to have future meetings based on past participation will tend to keep us where we used to meet. Nomcom is, as you point out, 3 of 5 meetings. WG chair and authors might have a longer history. I think an important part of the meeting rotation is to equalize the travel cost/pain for most attendees. This would point to actual current attendance more than say w.g. chairs. Bob Bob Thanks - Mike At 04:44 PM 8/6/2010, Bob Hinden wrote: During my IAOC chair plenary talk at IETF78 (slides are in the proceedings) I asked a question about continuing the current meeting policy (3 in North America, 2 in Europe, 1 in Asia in two year period (3-2-1) ) or changing to a 1-1-1 policy based on current meeting attendance. The talk included a graph of attendance by continent for IETF72-IETF78. I was asked to provide this data to the community. It is attached. It includes the raw data and a new graph that shows attendance by percentage. It appears to me that a 1-1-1 meeting policy is justified by current overall IETF meeting attendance. Your comments are appreciated. Bob ___ 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 Attendance by continent
On 8/6/2010 1:44 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: During my IAOC chair plenary talk at IETF78 (slides are in the proceedings) I asked a question about continuing the current meeting policy (3 in North ... Bob, These numbers probably need to be correlated with the venue of each meeting. One would expect higher Asian attendance at an Asian venue, and so forth. Controlling for venue could produce a very different interpretation of the numbers. More substantively I heard someone ask a particularly useful question that is, unfortunately, challenging to answer: Namely, what is the distribution among the folks who are doing primary work. That is, what is the distribution among IETF management, working group chairs and authors? (There are serious workers who are not among this set and should also be counted, but I've no idea how to label and include them in this subset analysis.) Meetings are subject to a substantial spike in local attendance. These folk are, of course, quite welcome, but they typically do not contribute much to the actual work of the IETF. Because the primary goal of an IETF meeting is to get work done, knowing the distribution of workers might inform efforts to choose venues. To my knowledge, nothing is recorded that makes this analysis straightforward. My impression is that perhaps 1/4-1/3 of the attendees are long-term IETF workers who will go anywhere, with perhaps 1/3-1/2 being much more recent repeat attendees. Attending multiple meetings is a good indicator of some involvement -- since that's the criterion for Nomcom participation -- but it's probably only a moderate predictor. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 8/6/2010 5:37 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: A question for you. Should we select meeting venues to minimize the cost/time/etc. of all attendees or just, for example, w.g. chairs? Many people have suggested that the IAOC should be looking at overall attendee costs, but there might be a difference in what group we try to optimize. Personally, I lean toward more openness and would prefer to do optimize for all attendees. aside I assume you mean inclusiveness rather than just openness. Openness might just mean visible; inclusiveness facilitates actual participation. Inclusiveness for meetings means making it easy for an extremely wide range of folk to attend. That would mean choosing places that are especially accessible, with minimal transportation hops -- less travel time and cost -- and meeting venues well situated very close to plenty of lodging and eating choices. This would be friendly to poor students as well as professionals funded by their companies. (We've been using the word volunteer to mean people funded by their companies, rather than, say, folks who are self-funded and actually doing a form of volunteer work.) /aside But back to the current topic... I tried to label the base group as workers, where wg chairs were merely exemplars. The challenge of a broad concept like all attendees is that a sufficiently large proportion of tourists means that their demographics would swamp the concerns of folks actually doing work. It is one thing to be friendly tourists and quite another to let them distort decision-making about site selection. (And for reference, I'm not trying to class new workers as tourists. Perhaps observers is a more useful term than tourists.) As an experiment, I just did some averaging of the data to try to remove the local effect. I removed the attendance number for local attendees. ... A reasonable analytic gimmick, IMO. Pretty cool, actually, by virtue of its simplicity while retaining meaningfulness. For the past three meetings it was: Africa 1% Asia30% Europe 26% North America 41% Australia 2% South America 1% The NA number doesn't seem enough higher to warrant a 2-1-1 pattern, although I'd suspect one could reasonably argue for it. However... For all of the meetings it was a little different (higher % in NA, less in Asia, about the same in Europe). I not sure it is as valid since there was only one meeting in Asia and many in North America. I assume all of the meetings means back to IETF 72? Hence, slightly more than two years of meetings. That seems a reasonable slice of history. The primary implication of the difference between 'all' versus 'this past year' is that Asia is indeed trending up. Not a brilliant insight, but I'd class this basis for the assertion as much stronger than when locals are included. Many thanks for this extra effort. With this, I'd say that 1-1-1 is +1 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 8/7/2010 6:03 PM, Fred Baker wrote: On Aug 7, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: I'd really rather the IETF go places where the ability to get work done is the primary consideration. To me, that's the only consideration apart from being open and spreading the travel pain among our participants. Every time this topic comes up, in response to concerns about a recent venue, we are ultimately told that host constraints dictated the choice. As a practical matter for the last 20 years, the preferences of the host have been given higher priority than site utility/convenience/cost for the folks doing the work. The rationale that has been offered has always been cost. This is the 'localized' cost for specific resources, without attending to potentially counter-balancing cost of attendee aggregate time and expensess. The easy portion of assessing aggregate cost is extra travel time and cost to get to the venue, when it is not located at a major International hub. For more isolated venues, such as Dublin and Maastricht, there is also the daily cost to get to local resources such as restaurants and a wider range of lodging. This thread has had several people again point out that a fixed set of sites solves these issues, along with assuring a much higher level of predictability to core services, such as connectivity. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 8/9/2010 12:00 PM, David Kessens wrote: I think all these models that are based on where we are from are really beside the point as where we are from really doesn't necessarily have any connection with where we like to go. David, Sometimes, someone posts a comment that highlights a key assumption that has not been discussed adequately or at all. While there have been postings wandering around this particular question, I don't think it has been raised this directly. Thanks. I thought the assumption was that we did want meetings to be (relatively) convenient to attendees who are contributors. I thought we wanted to spread them around the globe to spread the relative (in)convenience around. If that is not true, all sorts of different choices could be made, such as having all meetings at the same venue. Note that for folks who are well-funded, travel a lot, and will always spend all week at the meeting, various venue choices might not matter very much. However, that's a pretty exclusive club and I also assumed we wanted a model that was more inclusive to a wider range of participants. My preference is to pick meeting sides that have the right capacity for the IETF meeting and the right infrastructure for a good meeting, are relatively easy to get to and allow for reasonable attendance cost for my employer. That matches my preference, too, but I do not see how it supports or contradicts your point, above. they wouldn't go completely overboard and have each and every meeting in only one part of the world. How is that going overboard? (I mean this as a serious question and definitely not as a preferred model.) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 8/9/2010 11:19 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: daycare shutdown periods, and the like. It would probably make it possible for more people to join the meeting. The current template is: March, July, November. September tends to be a messy month, IMO, so I'd suggest against it, preferring June. So the change you are suggesting probably ought to result in: February, June, October That looks reasonable to me and, yes, I too think July ain't great. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Varying meeting venue -- why?
On 8/11/2010 9:00 AM, Scott Brim wrote: I also believe that the goal of moving the meeting around is to minimize the cost of getting our work done, Hmmm. I'm going to ask some very silly, very basic questions in the hope that a clear consensus statement emerges from it: What is the reason we move the meetings around? Why do we not simply choose a single venue and have all our meetings there? If there is benefit in meeting in 'new' locations rather than a fixed set of one or more places, what is that benefit? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 8/11/2010 12:05 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: So, if we want to go to a January / May / September cycle starting in 2014, I think we need to put January and September strike as being especially challenging months. February and October seem to be much less so. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
TCP persist timer min and max values (specified in RFC?)
Quick and simple question--- I'm trying to determine whether the range for the TCP persist timer ([5,60] seconds commonly) is specified by RFC, or instead more of a historical artifact based on implementation. If it is specified by RFC, could somebody please point me at it? thanks, - K ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?
On 8/11/10 10:32 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 8/11/2010 9:00 AM, Scott Brim wrote: I also believe that the goal of moving the meeting around is to minimize the cost of getting our work done, Hmmm. I'm going to ask some very silly, very basic questions in the hope that a clear consensus statement emerges from it: What is the reason we move the meetings around? 1. Venue currently depends on sponsor 2. Some people like to go to new places Why do we not simply choose a single venue and have all our meetings there? Or perhaps three venues, one on each continent of interest. If there is benefit in meeting in 'new' locations rather than a fixed set of one or more places, what is that benefit? Not that I can see (but see #1 above). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Varying meeting venue -- why?
I can think of several reasons to move meetings around: Reasons that seem obvious to me: - To spread the pain and cost of participation among the many active participants who contribute in a major way to our work (but who come from multiple different continents). - To increase the potential number of sponsors, since potential sponsors will frequently want to sponsor a meeting which is in a part of the world where they have a major corporate interest (such as a headquarters). Reasons that are probably also good, but which we might debate: - For regular attendees, to avoid the boredom of always going to the same place and/or instill a bit of interest - To encourage locals to drop by and see what we are doing at least once, for a wide variety of localities. Ross -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 12:33 PM Cc: IETF discussion list Subject: Varying meeting venue -- why? On 8/11/2010 9:00 AM, Scott Brim wrote: I also believe that the goal of moving the meeting around is to minimize the cost of getting our work done, Hmmm. I'm going to ask some very silly, very basic questions in the hope that a clear consensus statement emerges from it: What is the reason we move the meetings around? Why do we not simply choose a single venue and have all our meetings there? If there is benefit in meeting in 'new' locations rather than a fixed set of one or more places, what is that benefit? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ 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 Attendance by continent
Bob Hinden wrote: It is attached. It includes the raw data and a new graph that shows attendance by percentage. It appears to me that a 1-1-1 meeting policy is justified by current overall IETF meeting attendance. I agree with your proposal. Nevertheless, I have to say that deciding the location of meetings based on the current attendance is a chicken-and-egg issue: attendance by participants of a specific country is not going to be high when the location is far from that country. This is particularly true for developing countries, where it has always been a problem to get funding for attending meetings. Just my two cents Thanks! Kind regards, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@acm.org PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?
Scott, - For regular attendees, to avoid the boredom of always going to the same place and/or instill a bit of interest I think it's more to avoid the boredom of the meeting planners. :-) I know you meant it in jest, but to be clear to everyone else, qualifying a new venue is a lot of work. Bob ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?
(snork!) Why do we not simply choose a single venue and have all our meetings there? Or perhaps three venues, one on each continent of interest. Figuring out where to meet is Hard. I'm glad the NomCom can find people who will play this game for no salary. Just to mention one point for amusement ... We've met in Yokohama, and we've met in Adelaide. So, let's assume that we got partipants when we went to each place, and that we want to return to one of them for a meeting. In theory, that would be Asia, but AA.COM is showing me suggested flights with travel times of, like, 15 hours (and up). That's more than the travel time I had from Dallas to Brussels, and I schedule international connections concervatively. So, I'm not sure that staying within your continent helps as much as we'd like to think. Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?
On 8/12/10 11:45 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: Scott, - For regular attendees, to avoid the boredom of always going to the same place and/or instill a bit of interest I think it's more to avoid the boredom of the meeting planners. :-) I know you meant it in jest, but to be clear to everyone else, qualifying a new venue is a lot of work. One point raised during the plenary is that we might be able to save money if we regularly return to a given venue. Is it possible to quantify those savings based on experience in, say, Minneapolis? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?
I'm sure other people remember this, but ... I know you meant it in jest, but to be clear to everyone else, qualifying a new venue is a lot of work. One point raised during the plenary is that we might be able to save money if we regularly return to a given venue. Is it possible to quantify those savings based on experience in, say, Minneapolis? My understanding is that Minneapolis kind of fell off the truck due to problems with IETF attendees getting US visas, and not because of other considerations. We've met there a lot in the past 10 or so years. People complained, but not in ways that prevented us from meeting there repeatedly. So if we were going to quantify savings based on return visits, could I suggest that we pick another place to quantify (perhaps Vancouver - we've been there a couple of times lately, and I happen to be sitting in a hotel right now - but anyplace outside the US would work for the concern I was raising). Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?
In Minneapolis, once upon a time, we (the IETF secretariat at the time) invested something in the order of $10k or $15k for a fiberlink between somwhere in the basement to somewhere more useful in the Hilton Hotel which we had a recurring contract for and which we ammortized over several visits. It's still not a bad venue, visas notwithstanding, and getting there may or may not be one hop depending on where you are coming from. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Spencer Dawkins wrote: I'm sure other people remember this, but ... I know you meant it in jest, but to be clear to everyone else, qualifying a new venue is a lot of work. One point raised during the plenary is that we might be able to save money if we regularly return to a given venue. Is it possible to quantify those savings based on experience in, say, Minneapolis? My understanding is that Minneapolis kind of fell off the truck due to problems with IETF attendees getting US visas, and not because of other considerations. We've met there a lot in the past 10 or so years. People complained, but not in ways that prevented us from meeting there repeatedly. So if we were going to quantify savings based on return visits, could I suggest that we pick another place to quantify (perhaps Vancouver - we've been there a couple of times lately, and I happen to be sitting in a hotel right now - but anyplace outside the US would work for the concern I was raising). Spencer ___ 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: Varying meeting venue -- why?
1) I'm also in favor of Canadian venues for North American meetings. 2) On long term contracts, you can get some saving, but you have to be careful. I have some experience with holding a convention in the same city every year for decades. If you stick with the same facility year after year, you go through a series of phases. The first year things can be a little rough because they don't know your group. The second year they have learned and for the next 2, 3, maybe 4+ years, things usually go very smoothly and you get good rates and service (barring a change in facility ownership/management). But, sooner or later, perhaps around 5+ years, the facility starts to take you for granted, there is turn-over in the facility personnel, whatever concessions they were giving you that were saving you money disappear, the quality of service you get starts going down, and you have to move to re-gain any advantage. Thanks, Donald On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.orgwrote: I know you meant it in jest, but to be clear to everyone else, qualifying a new venue is a lot of work. One point raised during the plenary is that we might be able to save money if we regularly return to a given venue. Is it possible to quantify those savings based on experience in, say, Minneapolis? My understanding is that Minneapolis kind of fell off the truck due to problems with IETF attendees getting US visas, and not because of other considerations. We've met there a lot in the past 10 or so years. People complained, but not in ways that prevented us from meeting there repeatedly. So if we were going to quantify savings based on return visits, could I suggest that we pick another place to quantify (perhaps Vancouver - we've been there a couple of times lately, and I happen to be sitting in a hotel right now - but anyplace outside the US would work for the concern I was raising). Spencer ___ 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
Brief Maintenance Outage Coming Up
All - Today, at 12 noon pacific (1500 EDT/1900 GMT), we will be having a short, preplanned network outage. The outage window is expected to last for approximately 20 minutes, although individual servers and services will be down for shorter periods of time. During the outage window, access to web, email, and related services will be impacted, and some services will be unavailable for brief periods. Services will be unavailable at different intervals, and the availability of one service with the simultaneous unavailability of another service should not be a cause for alarm. This outage is necessary to perform physical and infrastructure upgrades at the primary data center serving the community. All services are expected to be back in service by 12:20 Pacific (1520 EDT/1920 GMT). Thank you for your patience with this outage. Glen Glen Barney IT Director AMS (IETF/RFCP Secretariat) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?
I think Vancouver would be an excellent city for a recurring North American meeting. There is a reasonable convenience factor in terms of nearby hotels, restuarants and food markets (there's an excellent one just a couple blocks from the venue). However, based on the poll, it seemed that folks preferred Quebec City, which suggests that the majority of folks don't favor the idea of returning to the same city. Having had a meeting previously in Quebec City, I personally think overall Vancouver is a far better choice. The travel options from DFW (3rd busiest airport in the world) to Quebec City are not so great. I likely will rent a car in a more easily reachable city and drive. Mary. On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.orgwrote: I'm sure other people remember this, but ... I know you meant it in jest, but to be clear to everyone else, qualifying a new venue is a lot of work. One point raised during the plenary is that we might be able to save money if we regularly return to a given venue. Is it possible to quantify those savings based on experience in, say, Minneapolis? My understanding is that Minneapolis kind of fell off the truck due to problems with IETF attendees getting US visas, and not because of other considerations. We've met there a lot in the past 10 or so years. People complained, but not in ways that prevented us from meeting there repeatedly. So if we were going to quantify savings based on return visits, could I suggest that we pick another place to quantify (perhaps Vancouver - we've been there a couple of times lately, and I happen to be sitting in a hotel right now - but anyplace outside the US would work for the concern I was raising). Spencer ___ 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: Varying meeting venue -- why?
On 08/12/2010 13:45 EDT, Bob Hinden wrote: Scott, - For regular attendees, to avoid the boredom of always going to the same place and/or instill a bit of interest I think it's more to avoid the boredom of the meeting planners. :-) I know you meant it in jest, but to be clear to everyone else, qualifying a new venue is a lot of work. Yes, sorry. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?
On 8/12/10 12:47 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: I think Vancouver would be an excellent city for a recurring North American meeting. During conversations in Maastricht, I mentioned Vancouver as a good place for recurring North American meetings and someone pointed out that about 10% of attendees at past meetings there experienced horrible allergic reactions to some kind of mold spores or somesuch. I don't know the details, but it just goes to show how difficult it is to please all the people all the time... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?
Spencer Dawkins wrote: My understanding is that Minneapolis kind of fell off the truck due to problems with IETF attendees getting US visas, and not because of other considerations. We've met there a lot in the past 10 or so years. People complained, but not in ways that prevented us from meeting there repeatedly. So if we were going to quantify savings based on return visits, could I suggest that we pick another place to quantify (perhaps Vancouver - we've been there a couple of times lately, and I happen to be sitting in a hotel right now - but anyplace outside the US would work for the concern I was raising). If the motivation for anyplace outside the US is that of problems with getting US visas, then I'd say that Canada is no panacea in that respect, either. One might even argue on the contrary: I got an US visa that's valid for ten years, spanning the life of two passports (you just need to bring the old and current passport). However, at least the Canadian embassy n Buenos Aires (Argentina) won't issue a visa that is valid past the life of your current passport (so during the last year I had to apply twice to get a Canadian visa, even when I visited Canada in two consecutive months). The requirements for applying to an US or Canadian visa are similar (at least in practice). Probably the only difference is that for the US visa you need to plan things way in advance (e.g., you need to schedule an appointment, whereas for the canadian visa you need not). Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@acm.org PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?
Since I did not stay in the meeting hotel in Vancouver and take medication daily to handle the mold toxins and environmental allergens in general, I didn't have this experience and I react negatively to all the more common types of mold. Given the amount of rain in Vancouver, it is not surprising that folks might have been exposed to water damaged buildings and thus mold spores and the toxins they produce. I did have a very bad reaction to the mold when we had the meeting in Dallas and the flooding in the building. It can be very difficult in general to find hotels that have good air and are mold-free. And, certainly, while I'd love to have that on the list of requirements, I know that isn't feasible, although given that 25% of the population have the genetic predispositon to be made ill from mold exposure, maybe it's not such a far out idea. A mold test in the main meeting area and one of the hotel rooms could be done for around $400. Of course, if folks were reacting to the outdoor levels of mold, then there's not much to be done unless the air quality index is also considered as a factor. In that case, don't even think of returning Dallas. And, as an FYI for folks that weren't in Prague the last time that had these reactions in Vancouver, you might want to consider bringing an asthma inhaler to Prague given the issue we had last time with the smoke (from the casino). Fortunately, I was able to borrow one at that meeting. Given this isn't something I've typically had to use since I got my asthma under contol, I'll plan on bringing several varieties so I know I'll have one that will work since the effectiveness of the various medication varies over time for most of us. I totally agree, you can't please everyone, however, I do think criteria like this are far more important a consideration than whether a city is a nice place to visit. Mary. On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.imwrote: On 8/12/10 12:47 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: I think Vancouver would be an excellent city for a recurring North American meeting. During conversations in Maastricht, I mentioned Vancouver as a good place for recurring North American meetings and someone pointed out that about 10% of attendees at past meetings there experienced horrible allergic reactions to some kind of mold spores or somesuch. I don't know the details, but it just goes to show how difficult it is to please all the people all the time... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?
On 8/12/10 2:40 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: I totally agree, you can't please everyone, however, I do think criteria like this are far more important a consideration than whether a city is a nice place to visit. Indeed! When the troubles in Vancouver were brought to my attention, I immediately crossed that off my mental list of desirable locations. Not that anyone cares about my mental list. :) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?
I think Vancouver would be an excellent city for a recurring North American meeting. There is a reasonable convenience factor in terms of nearby hotels, restuarants and food markets (there's an excellent one just a couple blocks from the venue). However, based on the poll, it seemed that folks preferred Quebec City, which suggests that the majority of folks don't favor the idea of returning to the same city. One thing this suggests to me is that the people who are prone to taking the survey favour the idea of variety. I dismember how many survey responses we had, and how the responses broke down when categorized by number of IETF meetings attended, so I can't be sure, here. But I'm guessing that many of the responses came from the long-timers who will go wherever the meeting is, and that not so many came from the folks who are relatively new and are considering increasing their participation. Barry ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Varying meeting venue -- why?
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 04:41:35PM -0500, Barry Leiba wrote: One thing this suggests to me is that the people who are prone to taking the survey favour the idea of variety. Or the sample is biased in any of the other countless ways we can think of. The basic problem is that the survey sample is self-selected. I actually think this is a reason _not_ to use surveys of that sort as evidence in the decision-making process, because it moves the legitimacy of the decision making from the body empowered under the usual IETF process to the participants in the survey (who weren't vetted by Nomcom or anyone else). But I'm hinkey about surveys this way (even though I did fill it out). Another answer would be for the IAOC to adopt the survey as an official decision-making tool, and then tell community members that they get what they deserve if they don't answer the survey. (One way of reading some remarks about Quebec is that this has already happened.) A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Brief Maintenance Outage Coming Up
All - Today, at 12 noon pacific (1500 EDT/1900 GMT), we will be having a short, preplanned network outage. The outage window is expected to last for approximately 20 minutes, although individual servers and services will be down for shorter periods of time. During the outage window, access to web, email, and related services will be impacted, and some services will be unavailable for brief periods. Services will be unavailable at different intervals, and the availability of one service with the simultaneous unavailability of another service should not be a cause for alarm. This outage is necessary to perform physical and infrastructure upgrades at the primary data center serving the community. All services are expected to be back in service by 12:20 Pacific (1520 EDT/1920 GMT). Thank you for your patience with this outage. Glen Glen Barney IT Director AMS (IETF/RFCP Secretariat) ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
IETF 79 - Registration
79th IETF Meeting Beijing, China November 7-12, 2010 Host: Tsinghua University Registration is now open! Register online at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/79/ 1. Meeting Registration Categories 2. Visas and Letters of Invitation 3. Accommodations Breakfast Information 4. Official Host Website 1) Registration Categories A. Early-Bird Registration - USD 635.00 Register and pay before Friday, 29 October 2010 at 17:00 PT (24:00 UTC) for Early-Bird rate. B. After Early-Bird cutoff - USD 785.00 C. Full-time Student Registrations - USD 150.00 Full-time students with proper ID are eligible to receive a special USD 150.00 student rate. Student rate is not subject to any late-fees. Students will also be able to register on-site at the special student rate. Failure to provide valid student ID on-site will revoke the special student status. D. One Day Pass Registration - USD 350.00 1. Attend all sessions during any one day of the Meeting, and partake of the food and beverage during the breaks 2. You select which day to attend when you show up onsite to check-in 3. Payments may be made onsite without a late fee 4. Pass can be upgraded to a full Meeting Registration, however, late fee may apply if initial one-day payment not made before Early Bird deadline 5. Attend Sunday Tutorials at no additional charge 6. Attend Sunday Welcome Reception at no additional charge 7. Attend Wednesday and Thursday Plenaries at no additional charge 8. Can purchase a ticket to the social event CANCELLATION The cut-off for registration cancellation is Monday, 1 November 2010 at 17:00 PT (24:00 UTC). Cancellations are subject to a 10% (ten percent) cancellation fee if requested by that date and time. Online Registration ends: Friday, 5 November, 2010 at 17:00 local Beijing time (02:00 PT, 09:00 UTC). On-site Registration You can register onsite at the meeting in Beijing, China starting Sunday, 7 November at 11:00 AM local Beijing time. Meeting Schedule: Start Monday morning and run through Friday at 15:15 local Beijing time. Most training sessions will take place on Sunday afternoon 7 November 2010. Participants should plan their travel accordingly. 2) Visas and Letters of Invitation There are two types of visa you can use to enter China: Tourist (L) or Business (F). a. Tourist Visa (L) Does not require a letter of invitation from the Host or the IETF According to the Host this is appropriate if you intend to do sightseeing in China before or after the meeting. b. Business Visa (F) An official letter of invitation from the meeting host, Tsinghua University, is required. You can request this letter after registering for IETF 79. For more detailed information see: http://www.ietf.org/meeting/79/visa.html We recommend you allow at least one month to complete the visa application process. 3) Accommodations Breakfast Information Information on IETF 79 accommodations will be announced shortly. 4. Tsinghua University, host of IETF 79, has a website to provide IETF meeting attendees with information on the city of Beijing, the IETF meeting venue, local transportation, weather, currency and much more. See: http://www.ietf79.cn/ ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
