http://noms2014.ieee-noms.org/content/call-experience-session-papers
http://www.ieee-noms.org/
NOMS 2014 will be next year's IEEE flagship conference in the area of
management of networked systems and services. The symposium will include an
Experience Session program. Experience Sessions
Nicely written, largely stating what might be obvious for many, but
still nice to see it in black and white.
A few comments/suggestions:
1) Section 3. Authors/Editors
I suggest that you suggest that WG (co)chair(s) add an editor that is
unrelated to the
I agree with randy. I've never had an issue finding a place to huddle/meet when
necessary at an ietf meeting venue. between the hallways, bar, etc I'm not sure
what the fuss is all about.
Tom
On Aug 3, 2012, at 3:27 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
i have no need to micro-manage the
I am discussing this very topic in the Ops meeting today at 3. Please
come by to discuss.
--Tom
On Aug 2, 2012:9:25 AM, at 9:25 AM, Robert Raszuk rob...@raszuk.net wrote:
All,
IETF documents have number of mandatory sections .. IANA Actions, Security
Considerations,
Has the IETF morphed into a conference/convention?
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/bits-n-bites.html
On May 31, 2012:6:36 PM, at 6:36 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
On 31 May 2012, at 09:16, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Sounds like a difficult thing to do with any kind of predictable or
measurable outcome, although it might be fun to ask the Brits if they
understand everything the Americans are
After looking over this just now - and forgive me as I didn't realize
it contained a reference to 5542 until now - it seems to me that rather that
including this in the RFC as an update to RFC5542, this be added as an errata
entry to 5542. It seems odd to me to note that the single
I agree with Adrian. Individuals come to the IETF, not companies. Sure
they are employed by companies, but they also have to follow the rules stated
in BCP79. I am really tired of the myriad of excuses people have given in the
past about why they have not been able to comply. Its a
Agree %100.
On Jan 25, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Please also see US patent 20090204681 visible at
http://ip.com/patapp/US20090204681
In my opinion, this second last call should be suspended until this
significant breach of the IETF's IPR policy set out in BCP79 has been
On Jan 12, 2012, at 3:18 PM, John E Drake wrote:
Snipped, comments inline.
3. There seems to be quite a feeling on the mailing lists that this document
should be run through the MPLS working group. The write-up makes a case for
progressing it as AD sponsored. As far as I can see, the main
I agree. In addition to that the pre-pay situation can be a major PITA
for expensing purposes. We should add normal booking procedures to the hotel
requirements list as well.
--Tom
On Jan 3, 2012, at 11:52 AM, George, Wes wrote:
Happy New Year, it's time for our triannual
I disagree with the document shepherd's evaluation of this document.
This document sets out to
standardize an additional code point to support a type of OAM for MPLS, and as
such the MPLS WG must
review the document for technical correctness. As far as I understand things,
all MPLS
On Oct 24, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/24/2011 4:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working,
that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher
...
I have a concrete suggestion for WG chairs: don't ask for a Jabber
At 05:52 24-10-2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
As jabber scribe, I view part of my responsibility as relaying questions
asked on jabber (if no one else is doing so). For groups that have
secretaries, I suggest that that be part of the secretary's responsibilities.
The secretary is busy
I wanted to pass on some information regarding a BoF that is planned
for Taipei that is relevant to
participants of this mailing list/WG area.
The IAB and IESG met today to discuss BoFs for Taipei and agreed that
we will hold a BoF
SDN with a goal of discussing the
On Sep 29, 2011, at 1:06 AM, Huub van Helvoort wrote:
All,
I propose to completely remove section 5 of this draft.
The reason:
The IETF should *NOT* document any comment on any multiple standards
developed by other SDOs which are outside of the IETF's scope.
Especially standards
A few more thoughts on this thread.
All,
I propose to completely remove section 5 of this draft.
The reason:
The IETF should *NOT* document any comment on any multiple standards
developed by other SDOs which are outside of the IETF's scope.
Especially standards like like
On Sep 29, 2011, at 3:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Scott,
On 2011-09-30 05:30, Scott O Bradner wrote:
I'm having a hard time understanding just what this document is trying to do
I understand from the title that it is supposed to be telling the reader why
a single OAM
solution is
I agree. Historic seems go be the way to go with this document.
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 13, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Luca Martini lmart...@cisco.com wrote:
On 09/13/11 10:03, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
Luca, and all,
I concur with Andy's opinion that the reference to RFC 4447 must become
On Aug 24, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Dave CROCKER dcroc...@bbiw.net wrote:
On 8/24/2011 1:27 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Can you start by backing up the assertion that the community has
vigrously expressed a preference for interesting venues?
I may
On Aug 23, 2011, at 1:34 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Monday, August 22, 2011 20:16 -0400 Ray Pelletier
rpellet...@isoc.org wrote:
...
As for the rates, they are high. Taiwan is expensive,
particularly given that the hotels know what our options are
when we
On Aug 23, 2011, at 9:43 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
From: Michael StJohns
Could you refresh my memory as to which hotels we stayed at had this
policy? I literally cannot remember having any hotel cancellation
policy with more than a single night fee ever.
Maastricht had
On Aug 23, 2011, at 10:24 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 07:57 -0400 Thomas Nadeau
tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote:
I obviously don't have all of the information available to me
that you and the IAOC do, but it seems to be there is always
another alternative
But surely based on that block purchasing power we could negotiate more
reasonable rates than $200+ night?
--Tom
On Aug 23, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
You said:
At root is that we are trying to negotiate a purchase at a discounted
price without committing
On Aug 19, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Luca Martini wrote:
On 08/19/11 14:53, John E Drake wrote:
Luca,
So, you are considering weighted ECMP, with FAT and entropy label, to be an
application? We are also releasing the GAL to float until it finds its
proper level within the MPLS label stack?
On Aug 2, 2011, at 7:48 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
BTW, has anyone noticed the trend of doing more and more on the Sunday and
Saturday *before* IETF week?
Very much so.
Workshops, joint meetings, design teams...
In Prague, a good number of people started in Friday.
Nothing wrong with
I'd actually vote for NO meetings on Fridays. %90 of attendees fly home
on Friday if at all possible, especially since most of us have flown in on
Sunday. Unless you are local to the meeting, it is a major hassle leaving
after the meetings on Friday, especially if you are
On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:39 AM, John Leslie wrote:
Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote:
On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Something like this:
8:30-11:00 Session I
11:15-12:15 Session II
12:30-13:30 Session III
I
On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:31 AM, Mark Townsley m...@townsley.net wrote:
On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long term future *by
definition*. Even if someone chooses to
On Jul 8, 2011, at 3:15 AM, neil.2.harri...@bt.com wrote:
Got to say I agree with Rui on much of what he says here. And I absolutely
resonate with his point on the need for simplicity. The reason OAM needs to
be as simple as possible is because it must be super reliablewe do not
BTW, I found that like with many previous IETF meetings, if you call
your local travel department, they can often get far cheaper rates for the
rooms at the hotel. For some reason, the IETF negotiates rates that seem to
be MSRP. For this one, for example, I got something like a %40
Sadly this is more common than it should be these days. I've been
begging Fairpoint for IPv6 for the past 3 years, from which people in NH/VT/ME
now have been subjected to as Verizon sold off FIOS/dsl in those areas to them
a while back. I have business service from them with static
32 matches
Mail list logo
