On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 07:14:01PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Brian Carpenter wrote:
(As announced to the ISOC membership)
Announcing the IETF Journal - a new ISOC publication
ISOC is pleased to announce the IETF Journal, a new Internet Society
publication produced in
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 12:38:28PM +0200, Joerg Ott wrote:
What do other people think?
Add an extra 15 mins for lunch, it makes it so less 'rushed'.
--
Tim/::1
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 06:14:16AM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Carsten Bormann writ
es:
Now that the two previous main concerns about the Paris IETF are
under control (nobody has died from the heat yet and the pocket loss
rate is at the expected levels),
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 09:08:44AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I read it as a statment of fact. I could reasonably
rule it irrelevant and ask Harald not to repeat it.
I thought we also had a mechanism for taking action against posters who
violate list policy
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 01:47:05PM -0800, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Simply saying that a network which is built by volunteers (or by anyone
else for that matter) MUST be reliable is just naive. It's a bit like
saying operating systems and other software must be bug free. Keep in
mind that the
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 05:02:00PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
It is precisely the style of thinking, and not the specifics,
that I was trying to suggest and illustrate.
Indeed; there seems to be some 'smart' Alcatel software that is doing
some ARP/DHCP trickery (at least the APs are
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:04:52AM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Not needing NAT is a minor value add for IPv6. But we have already seen
several major corporations publicly indicate that they intend to use NAT
with IPv6, even though they can get enough public address space.
Do you have
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:31:39PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Jordi, I thought that Jim Martin's message under subject
IETF62 Wireless Network Update had already explained
what was happening (and IPv6 was a victim of those
circumstances). Of course this was very annoying and nobody
wants
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:35:21AM -0800, Michel Py wrote:
The reasons are the same why they are currently using NAT with IPv4 even
though they have enough public IPv4 address space. We have discussed
these for ages; if my memory is correct, you are the one that convinced
me some years ago
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 08:18:00AM -0800, Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
Not exactly, Telekom Austria spent more than a year ramping up for the
meeting AND they had installed and controled all of the in building
network for the Austria Center Vienna. They did a great job, but they
had way more access
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 08:37:45AM -0800, Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
Ask Jim/Karen/etc when they got access to any given room here in the
Hilton...
It is a thankless task, I emphasise :) But the rooms are preumably the
same with each Minneapolis running.
This has been done several times - after
Much gnashing of teeth in Salon D this morning.
DHCP failing for v4, IPv6 connectivity coming and goping
Seems everyone in the room is affected.
(So we didn't get a jabber scribe for mboned ;)
--
Tim
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
It seems the cutoff is more often a driver to get updates written, and 00
drafts kicked off. One alternative is to review other means to encourage
timely and regular draft updates? This might help distribute the load
through the year rather than into three hectic chokepoints.
Tim
On Mon, Mar
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 01:07:09PM -0800, Stephen Casner wrote:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
IETF 62 inagurates a new streaming effort. Instead of covering only two
rooms it is our intention to cover all eight. Instead of multicast video
delivery, unicast audio-only. It is our
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 10:39:43PM +, Tim Chown wrote:
http://www.surgeradio.co.uk/listen/advanced.html
http://www.ipv6.ecs.soton.ac.uk/virginradio/vruk-hi-mp3.m3u (MP3)
Just to confirm these are IPv6 unicast, but we support multicast for
both also.
--
Tim
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:54:10AM -0600, Christopher A Bongaarts wrote:
In the immortal words of lafur Gumundsson:
The good news:
Last December Minneapolis started a Light Rail Service between
downtown and Mall of America with a stop at the airport.
The ride costs $1.25 each way and
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 08:45:51AM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] has already been denied posting rights on at least
one IETF WG mailing list because of this behaviour.
Is it time to dig out RFC 3683/BCP 83?
BTW - has anyone, anywhere ever seen a response from
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 10:20:17AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But this has also happened lately; not everybody is so short-sighted:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118610,00.asp
Since you cite Nokia, it's interesting that on the Communicator 9500 you
can run a regular voice
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 05:11:26PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Depends on the type of home user ;)
Nevertheless, most homes currently only consist of maybe 3 ethernet
segments (wired, wireless, office or something) and maybe a max of 20
hosts. Changing the IP's of those hosts should not be a
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 10:44:07AM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
At 01:05 PM 11/22/04 -0500, Richard Shockey wrote:
Yes Fred I would _expect_ my ISP to sell me a /64 but at what price? It
continues to amaze me that no one discussing the IP V6 adoption issues
will focus attention on the obvious
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 01:44:30PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 12:17 +, Tim Chown wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 05:11:26PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Depends on the type of home user ;)
Nevertheless, most homes currently only consist of maybe 3 ethernet
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:44:18AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
To sum up, NAT gives me two features:
1. Multiple machines on the single-address allocation the ISP gives me.
2. Decoupling of mt local network addresses from the ISP assignment.
I hear a lot of muttering about NATs being
Hmm, maybe we could put an IPv4 and IPv6 proponent in the ring?
But who would pay to see it?
Tim
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 04:13:23PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
see http://www.fightforchildren.org/events_2_1.asp
At 03:57 PM 11/11/2004, William Gilliam wrote:
OK, I'll ask.
Who convinced the
Ironic given the recent press announcements by Airespace, which seemed
to have jumped the gun a little ;)
First fully IPv6-compatible WLAN kit available
- October 27, 2004, 11:40 BST
- Airespace has become the first WLAN OEM to announce support for the IPv6
protocol in its products
-
I am in International E, without v6 on WLAN, but can v4 ssh home and
trace from there to the v6 router here. Then I see VERY good response
over the JANET-GEANT-Abilene-IETF route.
Maybe it's a Euro6IX issue for you, for specific routing to that prefix
as opposed to the production prefix, if
Hi,
Could you describe why exactly IPv6 can't run on the (layer 2?) WLAN
infrastructure? I'm sure this would be a help for many people to
know which products do not support IPv6...
It sounds like the WLAN access points you have chosen can't handle
multicast in some form? Which make/model are
don't remember asking about MIP :)
Tim
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 09:14:51PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Tim Chown wrote:
IPv6 is defective in so many ways. But, w.r.t. WLAN, here is the
reason.
Could you describe why exactly IPv6 can't run on the (layer 2?) WLAN
infrastructure?
That ND
... at least in Washington on the IETF61 WLAN :(
So Noel is right...
tim
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hmmm, looks like bits of the IETF61 WLAN don't have it though...
tjc$ ifconfig en1
en1: flags=8863UP,BROADCAST,SMART,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500
inet6 fe80::20a:95ff:fef4:c482 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x5
inet 130.129.134.203 netmask 0xf800 broadcast 130.129.135.255
Well, I'm now seeing someone's 6to4 offering, which is (unsurprisingly)
taking me nowhere...
I guess I just need to use our tunnel broker, but native would be nicer.
Tim
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 09:11:44AM -0500, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I saw this:
Ordenador-de-Jordi-Palet:~ jordi$
On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 07:30:59PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Will all the respect, this is ridiculous.
You are out of the market, I feel.
To the contrary, I am using data from live IPv6 BGP routing tables, available
here:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 07:03:41AM +0300, John Loughney wrote:
I've skimmed the recent documents and have come away feeling rather
uninterested in the topic. As with most others, I asume, I'm more
interested
in technical work not aministrative or reorg work.
I suspect this
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 10:38:43AM -0500, Ben Crosby wrote:
We explored Vancouver and Montreal as other alternatives. Neither had availability
at a venue large enough for the meeting.
... which is the crux... availability far enough in advance.
If you plan out further, I suspect
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 04:33:33PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
We know that booking early saves money, and we know that locations fill
up early. (Me, I like Minneapolis just fine. I do wish to have fewer
meetings in the US)
Minneapolis is indeed fine, once you discover the tunnels...
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 03:07:06PM +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Sometimes this has led to Friday being no sessions, or Friday having just
odd sessions (like second slots). Last time, it was pretty full.
Pretty full? There were two WG meetings and two BoFs... although
(for the
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 01:44:04PM +0300, John Loughney wrote:
It seems to be working now. Nice to book on-line, for those who are
time zone challenged.
I think the phone lines are there 24x7. The person I spoke to was very
lively for what would have been at best 4am on the east
So,
Are there any real Friday sessions at IETF 61, or not?
Someone tried to put v6ops on Friday am at IETF 60, before shifting
it out... it would be nice to either have IETF run out to 2-3pm and
have some real sessions, or simply make Friday officially BoFs only...
Tim
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 01:00:09AM -0400, Tony Hansen wrote:
I know, this isn't the most important issue in the world. But, I want to
say that I miss the IETF meeting T-shirts. As confirmed by Harald at
tonight's plenary, the T-shirts are normally paid for by the sponsor.
And since we don't
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 11:29:09PM -0400, Karen O'Donoghue wrote:
Folks,
While I realize there are only hours left, I have decided to
forward these directions anyway.
PEAP is working now, with a username/password of ietf60/ietf60.
So, a configuration how-to :
From the Start menu,
try jabber.org, it's open to anyone to register.
then use ietf.xmpp.org as server, wg id as room, eg. v6ops or dhc.
tim
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:59:47AM -0700, Hadmut Danisch wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:37:55PM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
Sure, e.g.
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:32
Sure, e.g.
http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-logs/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/2004-08-02.html
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:32:30AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are folks using it?
a.
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:07:25PM -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
At 09:51 PM 07/21/04 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
New survey question: How many lunches and dinners did you have at the last
IETF that were NOT meetings?
For me, it is rare to have meals that are not meetings of some
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:55:51AM -0700, Aaron Falk wrote:
BTW, regarding the survey: there's only been 80 responses so far. My
take is that people don't care about the issue enough to voice their
opinion.
Or maybe that 5% of a typical attendance is a good sample of the more
active
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 01:56:50PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Procmail filtering on 'From:|To:|cc:' is easy enough. There's probably
a way to get Procmail to snarf up the Message-Id: header for the sender's
posting, and then look for that msgid in any References: or In-Reply-To:
I guess many people will use these tools already, but I thought I'd
just post that the excellent xml2rfc tool now supports the RFC3667
requirements as per ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
See http://xml.resource.org/, v1.24.
You just need to select the full3667 ipr option, e.g.
rfc
Oh, you can filter out any sender easily enough. The snag is you see all
the replies people send to their mailings :(
Tim
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:58:47PM -0500, David Frascone wrote:
I wonder how hard it would be to set my mail server to drop your mail
too? Since, obviously, Email
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 10:24:14AM +1000, grenville armitage wrote:
If your threat model postulates someone knowing enough about you to check
for your IETF registration, then simply knowing when IETF meetings occur gives
them a pretty good start. Testing your email account for 'out of office'
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:05:00AM +1000, grenville armitage wrote:
This could be solved by the IETF insisting that consent is required
before attendance. I, like John, do not believe it is acceptable for
the IETF meetings to be populated by anonymous attendees.
The issue is someone knowing
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:33:14AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
However, before we say that is a wonderful idea (or not),
let's remember the substance of several of the IETF
administration notes and documents that have been circulated in
the last several months. If I understand those
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 09:39:13PM +0200, Leif Johansson wrote:
Big hotels that are cheap and where the staff won't throw a fit
when we all turn up in force, laptops, duct-tape and all, don't
exactly grow on trees you know! I'm happy if it has a bar.
:)
All we need is 802.11beer, beer over
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:47:17AM -0400, Scott W Brim wrote:
I don't quite see what the difference here is to .edu for example. Isn't
this indeed very similar to how the .edu provides a clearly
recognisable label for educational services and content?
.edu was an administrative
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 06:21:20AM -0700, Bill Manning wrote:
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
This is -exactly- the tpc.int. model,
the e164.int. model,
the e164.arpa. model...
in a phrase...
Hi,
Is the IETF or ISOC going to take any stance against this slippery slope?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/20/new.domains.ap/
Comment period closes April 30th.
Tim
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here's one interesting story on why it would be nice to be able to opt
out of having your name published as being away from home for a week:
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1137316
I think opt-out is the way to go. If people are concerned about how
open the IETF is they are welcome to come along or
www.watersprings.org is helpful, if you know the draft name.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 10:46:13PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 14-jan-04, at 17:43, Fred Baker wrote:
It seems to me that there is a better approach to the above, at least
in the context of the above. If the tombstone is
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 09:36:07AM +, Paul Robinson wrote:
But that app has to be something particularly splendid. And in Europe at
least, NAT is not as prevalent as some think it is.
It is prevalent wherever there is broadband. And that is where (with the
extra bandwidth and always-on)
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:13:02PM +, Paul Robinson wrote:
IPv6 will not take off any time soon because neither the end-user nor the
service provider sees the need. The moment AOL, Wanadoo, Tiscali, World
Online et al shout out we *need* IPv6 it will happen. Quickly.
IPv6 is taking off
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:21:33AM +, Paul Robinson wrote:
Not around me it isn't. In the UK, even with cable modem providers, I have
non-NAT - as they are known in the European ISP industry RIPE addresses -
and although I've installed NAT myself to enable quick and easy WiFi access
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:00:38AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
I don't- IMHO it's stupid to waste the precious bits in the subject
line to say [ietf] because there is no need for such. The messages
can be filtered better using other thods as well, and humans can look
at the headers..
I
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 03:20:03PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
oops. apparently this message was somehow fed back from the list by
somebody's machine,
not by a spamassassin at ietf.org. sorry about that.
Regardless, I think the particular method used by the IETF announce list
to attach
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 03:48:44PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Check the archives, this gets raised periodically, and ISOC is simply
perenially unable to fix it. I think I raised some 12-18 months ago,
and there has still gotten no action by ISOC. I think this falls in
the so what else is
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 03:15:04PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:06:26 +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
33 bits
8,589,934,592 times as many addresses. At current burn rates, it will take
us some 20 years to go through the *current* free IPv4
xml.resource.org is your friend.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 06:13:54PM +0100, Frank Strauss wrote:
Hi!
Dinesh Kumar writes:
Dinesh Could someone tell the procedure for submitting a
Dinesh draft to IETF.
http://www.ietf.org/ID.html
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
-frank
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:21:59AM -0800, Kevin C. Almeroth wrote:
It might be a good idea to stop comparing Minneapolis to Vienna. Vienna
had a host and Minneapolis did not.
And a host that did not document what it did for the WLAN provision,
despute requests to do so.
Tim
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 11:45:22AM -0500, Scott W Brim wrote:
Fairly soon, all relevant hotels will offer their own wireless access,
as well as connectivity from your room, and from suites, as a fallback.
Also, in a meeting, one can pass CDs or USB thingies around. Risk of
serious long-term
Deploy both and we can suck it and see...
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 02:15:39PM -0800, Jim Martin wrote:
On Nov 13, 2003, at 12:46 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Note that getting 802.11a works even better.
until everybody does, and 'everbody' is twice
as many people as now
Actually, no.
Brett,
It would be great if you could publish all the issues that came up, how
you fixed them, and a brief overview of what you deployed (at the start
and end) for the event.
Tim
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 06:50:11PM -0500, Brett Thorson wrote:
On Thursday 13 November 2003 14:46, Romascanu, Dan
So let us hope this year's 58crew write up the lessons that have been
learnt and make them public for future events :)
Tim
(WLAN has been good in the Salons today, but iffy in the lobby bar, an
incentive to be in the sessions I guess!)
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 10:42:17AM -0800, Kevin C. Almeroth
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:25:17PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
Right now, I'm hearing (from where I'm sitting) eight different 802.11b
base stations on channel 6. Is this the intended configuration?
I recall this wasn't unusual in Vienna (well, maybe not eight :) and the
wireless provision
Could you just use AvantGo, point at the main agenda page and just request
info 1(?) deep (so you also pick up the individual wg agendas?). Haven't
done it for a year or so, but I recall it worked OK.
tim
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:41:53AM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
Has anyone out there
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 02:24:42PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
That is irrelevant to the discussion.
What is relevant to this discussion?
It goes on endlessly (although I'm only seeing 50% of the posts without
looking in my special folder :)
Tim
So when are Verisign's rights to handle .net/.com up for renewal?
It seems we should see that they don't get a renewal.
Tim
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 03:04:52PM +0859, Masataka Ohta wrote:
DNS has nothing to
do with registration
If you are arguing that verisign registration has nothing to
Because noone can stop them doing it, apparently...
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 12:43:35AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
so now verisign is deliberately misrepresenting DNS results.
why are these people allowed to live?
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 05:25:19PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
The Virus writer obviously went to some trouble to pick valid addresses.
It stands to reason that they expect that someone is getting mail to these
addresses. It also stands to reason that the abuser expects those persons
to get
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 07:23:29PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 00:10:50 +0200, A. Kremer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 -
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 11:46:58AM +0200, Michael Richardson wrote:
I actually have no problem with having my room further from the conference
centre. When there is an official hotel, I find it annoying to not be in
the conference hotel - but with everyone having to travel, it is much
more
Randy's comments on the Vienna wireless at the IESG tonight are spot on.
The network's been great all week.
Given the WLAN problems seen in so many other events (IETF and otherwise)
could I ask that the network be publicly documented as a guide for those
providing WLAN in the future? It would
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:01:55PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
john, don't you have a mail filter?
Trouble is even after kill-filing the trolls the good folk still rise to
the bait so I'm just cutting 50% of the posts
How timely...
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 03:03:01AM +0200, Super-User wrote:
The IETF_Censored mailing list
At times, the IETF list is subject to debates that have little to do
with the purposes for which the IETF list was
On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 01:04:04AM -0500, Eric A. Hall wrote:
on 5/27/2003 8:04 PM Dean Anderson wrote:
more waffling snipped
So now I get 4x as much spam from the IETF list as all other sources :)
Can the discussion now retire to the IRTF anti-spam list? There seems to
be a constant
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 05:48:44PM -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:
My Windows-XP laptop currently has 14 IPv6 addresses, and 2 IPv4
addresses. The sky is not falling.
Except of those 14 some seven(?) are RFC3041 addresses, which break a
number of applications... so there are some clouds in
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 06:51:01PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
I suspect that most people there, who voted for
the elimination of site-locals, would still be
favor of enabling the features that site-locals
were intended to offer. Perhaps the majority
position could be paraphrased as
www.watersprings.org is useful
they have versions 0 through 7 of this draft.
a shame the ietf doesn't archive like this!
tim
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 04:25:39PM -0800, Kamal Jamali wrote:
I am looking for early drafts of RFC 2298 (dating to December of 1996 or earlier).
Is there any
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 04:22:55PM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
At 02:37 PM 3/26/2003 -0800, Michel Py wrote:
What do you do for:
- Route-maps.
- Prefix-lists.
- Access-lists.
Those fall under configure the router... Yes, things one does that use
prefixes are going to have to be reconfigured
So you get it back when your I-D reaches PS :)
Since we all put our hands up to pay $70 more in fees, will someone be
collecting that on the way out from the plenary?
tim
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 06:56:47AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's incredibly unrealistic, but don't you really
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:06:55PM -0800, Michael Speer wrote:
1. Pick a place and have the meetings there 3 times a year banking that
one could get
volume discounts and pricing for usage of the hotel. Other
standards bodies have done
this and seems to have helped them to survive.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:06:55PM -0800, Michael Speer wrote:
2. Eliminate all food in the hall (breakfast and afternoon snack) --
this will certainly cut
on expenses. Maybe allow water, coffee, and tea.
clearly most people in the plenary would pay $70 more, for me the difference
in
location somekind of volume the pricing for the event goes
down. It allows
for pricing based on average attendance of all three meetings.
Michael
Tim Chown wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:06:55PM -0800, Michael Speer wrote:
1. Pick a place and have the meetings there 3
So what were all those indirect costs amounting to 600k?
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 01:52:16PM -0500, Scott W Brim wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 10:31:54AM -0800, Peter Deutsch allegedly wrote:
What's being discussed here is starting a new consulting company,
specializing in IETF technologies and
101 - 189 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
