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 from there.
best summary of how to organize an
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
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
Tim,
I was trying to say that:
- Wireless 802.11 is an emerging technology (read not fully cooked yet)
- Wireless 802.11 is a wireless (read radio) technology subject to
complex patterns of interference and station interactions (station
includes both basestations and clients)
So, it is not
Keith Moore wrote:
...
actually I haven't attended an IETF meeting in the past several years
where I didn't get the impression that we'd be much more effective
at getting work done _without_ wireless access. large rooms that are
full of people sitting down typing on laptops and not paying
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
...
if we could get rid of wireless and powerpoint, we'd be much better off.
meetings in the first place. The jabber scribing has become very
important for remote participants - this time we even had one Area
The IETF
The IETF Meeting crew should look at supplying an additional 3 ethernet
and power drops per room, labelled 'chair', 'presenter' and '(jabber)
scribe' with the expectation that they be used accordingly. These
functions, IMHO, are too important to leave to the possible
failures/overloads of the
if we could get rid of wireless and powerpoint, we'd be much better
off.
Personal opinion: disagree. Wireless is immensely useful to grab a
document, check something on another SDO's web site, and - yes - for
instant messaging (e.g. we need you in here right now). And some
people simply have
As for presentations, the fact that they vary in quality can't be
blamed on PPT. It should be blamed on the presenters, perhaps.
Brian
Edward Tufte makes a very convincing case that in the case of
powerpoint, the medium certainly influences the message:
Summary of Tufte's views in
On Mar 14 2005, at 14:07 Uhr, Keith Moore wrote:
we used to get a lot more work done when we used our meetings
primarily for discussion rather than scheduling presentations for most
or all of the meeting time.
Yes. WG chairs planning WG meetings, take note.
But then, one difference is that a
On Monday, March 14, 2005, at 08:34 AM, Carl Malamud wrote:
Edward Tufte makes a very convincing case that in the case of
powerpoint, the medium certainly influences the message:
The NY Times ran an article on PowerPoint and the deterioration of
public speaking a few years ago, before Tufte
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:07:05 -0500
Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu wrote:
if we could get rid of wireless and powerpoint, we'd be much better
off.
Personal opinion: disagree. Wireless is immensely useful to grab a
document, check something on another SDO's web site, and - yes - for
I personally think that it may be appropriate that most people are not
paying attention
much of the time. In some WG, you may only really care about 1 or 2
drafts, and not at all
about the details of the editorial progress of some other draft.
Whenever I see a presentation about the editorial
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 03:10, Tim Chown wrote:
Indeed; there seems to be some 'smart' Alcatel software that is doing
some ARP/DHCP trickery (at least the APs are Alcatel, so the favourite
for the s/w is the same vendor...).
Note that my problem all week was getting dis-associated from WLAN a
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Keith Moore wrote:
Whenever I see a presentation about the editorial progress of some draft, I
find myself wondering - does _anybody_ here need to be watching this? If
someone has typed in this summary in PPT, couldn't it as easily be posted to
the WG mailing list, or
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 06:26, Bruce Campbell wrote:
The IETF Meeting crew should look at supplying an additional 3 ethernet
and power drops per room, labelled 'chair', 'presenter' and '(jabber)
scribe' with the expectation that they be used accordingly.
Power was most assuredly not a problem
From the top of my head, there are at least three kinds of
presentations I see frequently at the IETFs:
a) about 5 slides (or less) of background for the work, some major
points, and maybe what has changed, on the last slide soliciting for
input on certain specific topics,
b)
Melinda Shore wrote:
However, while slides do tend to lead to a presentation-type
meeting format, I think there are other factors substantially
contributing to that, as well.
Yes. Another factor is the ratio of work items to meeting time.
If there are 5-6 or even more items per a two-hour slot
if we could get rid of wireless and powerpoint, we'd be much better
off.
Personal opinion: disagree. Wireless is immensely useful to grab a
document, check something on another SDO's web site, and - yes - for
instant messaging (e.g. we need you in here right now). And some
people simply
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
This is about a mindset and an organizational approach that does not
leave those volunteers out on a limb with fragile equipment, or
insufficient resources. It is about our approaching this as a utility
service and ensuring that that is what is
I believe that the concept that meeting registration fees must cover all
IETF suport costs is, a best, an historical statement (and not even
correct in that context). With the changes with the IASA activity I believe
we have the opportunity to get this right, rather than muddling around
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:54:35 -0800 (PST), Joel Jaeggli wrote:
So, how much are you(ietf attendees in general) willing to pay over and
above the current cost of the meeting fee for the wireless service you
want?
it would, in fact, be really nice to be presented with a concrete proposal, for
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
Stateful DHCP lease tracking was clearly causing more trouble than
it's worth to the IETF network.
Ya' know, I'd be happy if I received a static IP address with my
meeting registration confirmation. I'd even be happy to supply my
wireless MAC address...
--aaron
Carsten Bormann wrote:
(The best WG meeting I ever attended was one where Tony Li hammered
out most of the IP-over-firewire details in one session by asking
the attending firewire experts all the right questions in one
sitting. I'm still wowed for life. But you can't do this for
something
I'm seeing a lot of confusion in this thread.
In the past, we have had real problems with wireless.
802.11 implementations are too easy to confuse by stations with random
settings, we have seen our share of stations that switched to
ad-hoc/IBSS mode when there were connection problems, drawing
Something that could come out of this discussion that would be
constructive and helpful might be a set of guidelines for
hosts with respect to the network...
I agree that focus would be useful. But another issue, and
maybe part of that one, is that we may need a stronger if it
I think it is also worth pointing out that:
- In certain building enviorments, this technology simply does not
scale to hundreds of users, unless both the access point and the
client software cooperate. Given that we have a variety of clients,
this isn't going to change any time soon. (I'll
Since I have received a couple of notes about 802.11a/b/g
specifics and relationships since posting my note, I want to
reinforce one of Dave's points...
--On Sunday, 13 March, 2005 13:15 -0800 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
* if we could run a pure and open 802.11b network
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:02:00 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
But an IETF meeting is not the right place to
demonstrate or experiment with them: let's stay a bit behind the
bleeding edge of the technology and stick to things that work.
Exactly. Just as any other serious operations activity
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:05:24 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
each meeting is different - hosted or non-hosted, changes
in technology, etc. So it will always be a challenge.
Given the current state of our dependence on the wireless service, during an
IETF, try imagine saying the same thing
We need to find a way for the core IETFF meeting to have Internet
access service that demonstrates very high reliability, from the start
of our using it, just like do for any other essential utility.
...and to do it all for zero cost.
actually I haven't attended an IETF meeting in the past
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
Given the current state of our dependence on the wireless service,
during an IETF, try imagine saying the same thing about cell phone
service, or hotel room door key service, or...
We need to find a way for the core IETFF meeting to have Internet access
On Mar 12, 2005, at 11:39 AM, RL 'Bob' Morgan wrote:
I don't know how many attendees at IETF 62 tried to use the hotel
wireless Internet service, but I did, and it was terrible. I
purchased the week-long service on Sunday, and had to purchase it
again several times during the week (don't
--On Saturday, 12 March, 2005 12:36 -0600 Baker Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Something that could come out of this discussion that would be
constructive and helpful might be a set of guidelines for
hosts with respect to the network. I wonder if we could focus
the thread in that
*
* Unfortunately we seem to be quite a ways from having wireless Internet
* work as well as other utilities in the typical hotel. Maybe we'll just
* have to go to the cafes ...
*
* - RL Bob
*
*
A future IETF meeting at Starbucks?
Bob Braden
36 matches
Mail list logo
