--On March 15, 2005 09:46:49 PM +0100 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
If the meetings are planned much more ahead, there will be more resources,
and even probably will not need for volunteers, because will be possible to
find a host.
I'll also have to dispute that a lack of
Well, let's see:
The problem: We want a network that is available from Sunday morning until
Friday afternoon, with no interruptions, supports 1500 users in parallel
using RF technology, supports the all latest protocols and services, with a
help desk available to solve problems for the most
Hi Dennis,
I guess is a big combination of issues, but not having a sponsor is not
exactly correct. I know several people tried to sponsor IETF, and have been
waiting for long time.
I'm biased here, obviously, but I offered myself for Madrid since summer
2001. Only after the Vienna one, they
I did have a problem Friday morning before the session start. I got
an IP address, but couldn't even ping the router. The person next to
me was fine. Reboot and release/renew didn't help. I finally walked
to a different place to force a roam, and everything worked fine.
One data point.
On
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:55:47 +0100, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
So, if we really want this production level network, we should pay people
to do the work, and add the costs to the meeting fees. If not, we should
accept that the volunteers are doing their best but that we will not have
a
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:30:07 -0800
Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:55:47 +0100, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
So, if we really want this production level network, we should pay people
to do the work, and add the costs to the meeting fees. If not, we should
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:44:41 -0800, Aaron Falk wrote:
I've seen a tendency for wgchairs to
make agendas = list of drafts in development. A better practice would
be to start the hard questions that need to be discussed (to take
advantage of the face time) and back into background reading
Jordi,
In my opinion we need a 200% open process to qualify if a sponsor and venue
are acceptable or not. I'm sure Brian will heard us on this ;-)
Since site selection involves contract negotiations, I doubt if the
actual process can ever be even 100% open. But what can, and IMHO
should be, open
Hi Brian,
That's a challenge I guess ! It happens to me when talking too much ;-)
I can work on this, possibly could have something for a first draft by 10th
of April, but as you said, it will be nice if there is at least one more
co-author. Otherwise for sure Madrid will be a requirement and
In my opinion we need a 200% open process to qualify if a sponsor and
venue are acceptable or not. I'm sure Brian will heard us on this ;-)
Since site selection involves contract negotiations, I doubt if the
actual process can ever be even 100% open.
i think that transparency serves us
--On March 16, 2005 07:30:07 AM -0800 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
that leaves equipment.
how much would it cost us to have our own equipment?
For those who would like to compute estimates, we used:
2 Juniper M10 routers with GigE and fiber ports
20 or so Cisco 3750 switch/routers
wireless]
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: John Loughney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List-Id: IETF-Discussion ietf.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf,
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
List-Post: mailto:ietf@ietf.org
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Dennis Fazio wrote:
2 Juniper M10 routers with GigE and fiber ports
20 or so Cisco 3750 switch/routers with GigE and fiber ports
35 802.11 a/b/g access points with system management boxes
4 or 5 servers for DHCP, DNS, Radius, print queue, RFC cache, etc.
I think it has seemed
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:12:59 -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
how much would it cost us to have our own equipment?
Shouldn't the question of _which_ equipment to buy come first ? That will
pretty much
determine the price.
indeed. my question about cost was meant as the 'bottom line'
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Marshall
Eubanks
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 11:13 AM
To: Dave Crocker; Henk Uijterwaal; Dennis Fazio; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless
What is the
At 11:12 AM -0500 3/16/05, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
how much would it cost us to have our own equipment?
Shouldn't the question of _which_ equipment to buy come first ? That
will pretty much
determine the price.
I know that the volunteer teams have some strong opinions on this, as
I have heard
--On March 16, 2005 01:43:26 PM -0500 Steve Silverman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What is the opinion of the volunteer teams on equipment?
One options would be to try to get a preferred vendor to supply some
equipment
in return for being able to claim that their equipment is used by the
IETF.
I
On Mar 16, 2005, at 10:36, Dave Crocker wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:12:59 -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
how much would it cost us to have our own equipment?
Shouldn't the question of _which_ equipment to buy come first ?
That will
pretty much
determine the price.
indeed. my
On Mar 16 2005, at 19:33 Uhr, Dave Crocker wrote:
Cheap and easy travel and lodging, for diverse participation
I wouldn't want to completely rule out the US that quickly...
Gruesse, Carsten (who has had to stand in for a colleague with a Sri
Lanka passport on 2 out of 3 IETFs recently)
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Prioritized Treatment of Specific OSPF Packets and Congestion Avoidance '
draft-ietf-ospf-scalability-09.txt as a BCP
This document is the product of the Open Shortest Path First IGP Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Bill Fenner and
20 matches
Mail list logo
