On 10/20/2011 3:37 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
So, if the limit is still 998, then there is no change with respect the former
limit.
See the next sentence:
(Note that in
ASCII octets and characters are effectively the same but this is not
true in UTF-8.)
Remember, in UTF-8, characters can be
On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
It's increasingly the case that if you
want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have
considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're
suggesting.
Melinda,
I've changed the subject line because the point you
It gets worse. To attend every IETF meeting costs about $10,000 per year. If
we say one has to go to the face-to-face meetings, we limit the IETF to
participants from corporations or entities that will sponsor the individual
(pay to play?), IETF participants that have independent funds, or
In the past three IETF meetings, I have traveled to Beijing, Prague and
Quebec City to meet most who live within a few hours (air, car, walking
etc.) from me. The next two will be in Taipei (in Winter) and Paris (in
Spring). This is more like a vacation package than a get-together for
engineers to
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave
CROCKER
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 11:27 PM
To: Melinda Shore
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Requirement to go to meetings (was: Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF
community input)
So
For me, the plan outlined below changes the cost of the travel from:
Long @ $2,000, Medium @ $1,200, and Short @ $400 = $3,600
to:
Short @ $400, Short @ $400, Medium @ $1,200 = $2,000
HOWEVER, if I lived in Asia, the plan proposed below changes my costs from
$3,600 to
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 2:26 AM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
It's increasingly the case that if you
want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have
considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're
--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 14:06 + Eric Burger
ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
For me, the plan outlined below changes the cost of the travel
from: Long @ $2,000, Medium @ $1,200, and Short @ $400 =
$3,600 to:
Short @ $400, Short @ $400, Medium @ $1,200 = $2,000
--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:05 -0700 Murray S. Kucherawy
m...@cloudmark.com wrote:
...
Tough call. I completely understand the need and desire to be
productive without requiring meetings, for all the financial,
participation, and other reasons given. But I also am very
familiar with
On 10/23/2011 4:07 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I have been involved in the IETF for 15 years now. From my first meeting, it was
apparent to me that
if you want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings.
I wonder if in realty it has ever been different.
Yes, there has always been a
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:46, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Yes, there has always been a tension about the proper balance between
list-based and f2f-based work. In recent years -- especially as we've had a
greater proportion of people used to doing work /only/ in f2f -- we seem to
On 10/22/11 10:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists?
In all honesty I'd say that the largest source of this problem is
working group chairs, both for using meetings as deadline anchors
and for doing a really crappy job managing
Both Minneapolis and Phoenix have huge conference facilities, are easy
to go to, and can get cheap off-season discount
For whom?
For me it is much cheaper and easier to go to Europe:-(
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
ext Ping Pan
Sent: Sunday,
--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:11 +0100 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Remember, in UTF-8, characters can be multiple octets. So 998
UTF-8 encoded *characters* are likely to be many more than
998 octets long. So the change is to say that the limit is in
octets, not in characters.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/23/2011 09:19 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 10/22/11 10:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists?
In all honesty I'd say that the largest source of this problem is
working group
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.orgwrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/23/2011 09:19 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 10/22/11 10:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing
lists?
On Oct 23, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 10/22/11 10:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists?
In all honesty I'd say that the largest source of this problem is
working group chairs, both for using meetings as
I'm not sure I'd blame chairs so much, but anyway...
Here's a suggestion - create a list for people who are active
IETF participants but who miss a lot of meetings. (And ask people
who don't match that profile, like me, to stay out of the
discussion - we can read the archive if we're curious.)
On 10/20/2011 3:37 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
So, if the limit is still 998, then there is no change with respect the
former
limit.
See the next sentence:
(Note that in
ASCII octets and characters are effectively the same but this is not
true in UTF-8.)
Remember, in UTF-8, characters
The problem is that many of the things that make a meeting better for remote
people, make it worse for local people. You can see that even in IETF meetings
today - the virtual interim meetings were everyone is remote is a much better
experience for remote people than meetings where lots of
Nurit,
I'm in the same situation, but part of the argument is right.
If we do one North America, one Europe and one Asian meeting
per year; places like Minneapolis and Phoenix is cheaper regardless
where you come from. That is if you compare with high end cities
like SF, NY AND DC. ALso places
For Minneapolis and Phoenix we do need extra leg as well
And for us it is really not cheaper
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
ext Loa Andersson
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 7:28 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re:
Sure - there are other trade-offs, no doubt. But I think
every time this topic has come up, the discussion is dominated
by people that do attend meetings, and I'd be interested in
what might come out if we tried that discussion just amongst
non-attending active participants.
If enough of 'em
perhaps we could model using the assumption that, a decade or so hence,
there will be no physical meetings, [almost] all will be net-based.
randy
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
perhaps we could model using the assumption that, a decade or so
hence, there will be no physical meetings, [almost] all will be
net-based.
to make my troll more explicit (under an nsfw bridge?)
o how does a 'town hall' of O(10^3) participants work socially?
o how will/should incremental
On 10/23/11 8:59 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Can you give an example of chairs that do it well and what is
it they do? Then perhaps contrast with what it is that chairs
that do it poorly are doing. Feel free to use me as an example
of a chair that does it poorly - I have no idea how to do it
All,
I've taken time to re-read this draft over the weekend.
I still think it is well-written and extremely to the point;
it is in the interest of the IETF to publish. I support
publication of the draft.
Admittedly there are some issues around the e.g. the description of the
SDH/SONNET and the
Randy,
I might be old-fashioned, but I think the net will give us more tools
that can be used together with what we already have, not (necessarily)
replace them
/Loa
On 2011-10-23 10:47, Randy Bush wrote:
perhaps we could model using the assumption that, a decade or so hence,
there will be no
Loa,
It seems to me this is not a tools question. This is kind of social challenge.
M
Sent from my iPad
On 23. 10. 2011, at 20:13, Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu wrote:
Randy,
I might be old-fashioned, but I think the net will give us more tools
that can be used together with what we already
On Oct 23, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 10/23/11 8:59 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Can you give an example of chairs that do it well and what is
it they do? Then perhaps contrast with what it is that chairs
that do it poorly are doing. Feel free to use me as an example
of
On 23 Oct 2011, at 18:28, Loa Andersson wrote:
Nurit,
I'm in the same situation, but part of the argument is right.
If we do one North America, one Europe and one Asian meeting
per year; places like Minneapolis and Phoenix is cheaper regardless
where you come from. That is if you
2/3rds of the IETF meetings in the USA would exacerbate visa problems
for many attendees. I don't mind some amount of regularity in meeting
site, like Minneapolis, or going where it's inexpensive (by the way,
the Boston area is really cheap in the winter) but I think you need
more variety than
Cheaper, yes. Easier?
Sure, a 5-hour flight to Paris sure beats a 12-hour flight to New York plus a 4
hour flight to Minneapolis, but you end up in Paris, and if the conference
hotel is too expensive for your corporate budget (it usually is for mine), you
have to go really far away to find a
Dave == Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net writes:
Dave On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
It's increasingly the case that if you want to do work at the
IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have considerable
reservations about asking for the kind of money you're
Randy
I think that also assumes that the earth's rotation will also stop at some time
during the next decade forcing us all to migrate to the sunny side of the
planet.
Failing that happening then with 18 hours at least (Tokyo to US West coast) of
time zones (and that doesnt take into account
On 10/22/11 23:26 , Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
It's increasingly the case that if you
want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have
considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're
suggesting.
Melinda,
It can indeed be challenging, but in some circumstances, the active
participants of the working group don't quite span the globe. I've also found
that audio conferences seem most effective if they only last an hour or maybe
90 minutes, but are held more regularly, rather than marathon on-line
On 10/23/11 12:02 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working,
that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher and liaison-y sort
of person, and that remote participants are pinged regularly (and
*always* before a change of topic).
I have a
I have taken the time to read this document and support it's publication.
From an operational PoV, the discussion in the Section 3 (particularly
Sections 3.5 3.6) really hit home in that the costs of deploying a protocol
to the network _and_ maintaining that protocol in the network are
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Scott Brim wrote:
Some people find it difficult to participate at a rapid pace on
mailing lists, and will strongly prefer f2f. They might also find it
difficult to participate f2f but they can control the pace more.
I've been a fairly passive meeting participant in IETF
i live in tokyo and participate in three or more continent (NA, Euro,
Asia) calls a number of times a week. i am currently one quarter of the
way through an eight week four continent rtw (with south africa after
taipei). and it ain't my first this year. boo hoo.
get real here. we want global
41 matches
Mail list logo
