I second Harald's comment. It has been fantastic in general, congratulations
!
Before coming to Dallas, I decided to buy the "a/b/g" USB dongle for my Mac
from Zyxel, which was posted on this list, however the driver has a bug and
doesn't support IPv6. Unfortunately the support seems to be terribl
Let me rephrase it for a better understanding:
I agree that some kind of confidentiality in the negotiation is required,
but the common starting point for the overall sponsorship cost should be
openly well-known. I think this thread has demonstrated the general
ignorance about the real costs, whic
Andy,
I have been involved as local host now for two times (although I
wasn't very local this time ;-)). I agree that it doesn't make sense
to build a network each and every time completely from scratch. It is
an enormous effort to beg potential sponsors for accesspoints (or
spend a lot of money
Below, in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Ned Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:38:42 -0800 (PST)
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: ietfietforg
> Asunto: Re: About cookies and refreshments cost and abu
I don't think the meeting fees could actually go down, may be more in the
other way around if we are realistic with the cost figures.
Actually the cost is already high for a sponsor, and I believe trying to get
more from the industry (or other kind of sponsors) for each meeting will be
really diff
Actually this can be seen as an additional way to bring the sponsor "local"
cost down. There are several factors:
1) We bring the overall cost down by adequate anticipated planning.
2) The potential host prefers to host in the place where they have better
local support, is more convenient for the
It will also be a more open process. Today, in my opinion, having to
negotiate with each possible sponsor in secret, is a broken concept, and
against our openness.
I'm a lot more concerned about openness in IETF protocol development.
some kinds of negotiations really do need to be done in secre
Keith,
Is difficult to calculate with concrete figures, but it will not be as X and
Y, but a point in the middle.
It will also be a more open process. Today, in my opinion, having to
negotiate with each possible sponsor in secret, is a broken concept, and
against our openness.
I agree that there
Noel Chiappa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yes. Architecturally speaking, it's somewhat dubious that information
>which really only needs to be localized to the host (application<->port
>binding) has to be sent to the DNS.
>
>It would be easy to run a tiny little USP "binding" server that took in
>a
On Mar 23, 2006, at 21:58, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Just wanted to state what's obvious to all of us by now:
This time the wireless WORKED, and Just Went On Working.
That hasn't happened for a while. THANK YOU!
Mmm... well, my laptop (Mac Powerbook) fell off the b/g network
several times, m
I think is much easier to have a uniform and well-know stable cost, which
also facilitates long-term planning, which has been one of the IETF problems
for organizing our meetings.
Long-term planning also helps to keep the cost down for the meetings, the
IETF administrative cost, and the participan
Making the sponsorship cost in different regions shared among all the
meetings will not significantly increase the sponsoring cost of those in
US/Canada, but will actually help to host more meetings everywhere,
according to the figures that I know.
It has not been, at all, my intend to complain ab
Perhaps someone could document what was done differently this time, so
that all may learn the secret?
-teg
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Just wanted to state what's obvious to all of us by now:
>
> This time the wireless WORKED, and Just Went On Working.
>
> That hasn't happ
That will be correct if they are really US sponsors, which don't seem to be
the case most of the time.
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Keith Moore
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:49:16 -0500
> Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: "ietf@ietf.org"
> Asunto: Re: Making IETF happ
Not really. If you look to the recent sponsors, the current one and the next
one, they are all European companies, hosting IETF in North America.
Actually it can be presented in the other way around, as they host here, 50%
of the attendees are getting indirectly subsidized by those sponsors
decisi
I'd like to second that. Great job!
dbh
> -Original Message-
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:58 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: An absolutely fantastic wireless IETF
>
>
> Just wanted to state what's obvious to all of us by now:
PS...
Joe Touch wrote:
>
> Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> > From: Keith Moore
>>
>> > Regarding SRV, it's not acceptable to expect that as a condition of
>> > deploying a new application, every user who wishes to run that
>> > application be able to write to a DNS zone. Most users do not
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >> Another option, now that I think about it, though, is a TCP option
> >> which contained the service name - one well-known port would be the
> >> "demux port", and which actual application you connected
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:47:46 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel
> Chiappa) wrote:
>
>> Another option, now that I think about it, though, is a TCP option which
>> contained the service name - one well-known port would be the "demux port",
>> and which actual applica
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Keith Moore
>
> > Regarding SRV, it's not acceptable to expect that as a condition of
> > deploying a new application, every user who wishes to run that
> > application be able to write to a DNS zone. Most users do not have DNS
> > zones that th
This directly relates to the Skype discussion during the plenary. Skype
will, if necessary, tunnel media on port 80 and port 443.
To some extent, the debate also highlights a lack of usable protocol
tools: One reason, albeit likely not the only one, that there is talk
about per-source "wholesa
Just wanted to state what's obvious to all of us by now:
This time the wireless WORKED, and Just Went On Working.
That hasn't happened for a while. THANK YOU!
Harald
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailm
>So my suggestion to be reasonable and fair to all, will be to provide
>together with our registration pack, a given number of refreshment tickets,
>enough to cover the average needs.
I also did this several times, but I believe what I got will definitely less
than
what you would like to plan t
Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael StJohns wrote:
What I think Jordi is saying is that he wants the US sponsors to
subsidize the cost of the overseas meetings. At least that's what it
works out to be
This view can be mapped to a classic model that would have significant
benefits for the IETF:
I didn't make it to the mic fast enough at the end, but Brian's comment
about the proposal to outlaw diffserv actually gets to the heart of why the
IAB needs to take specific stands and make public comments. Telling the
telco's they are evil is not the point. General statements of principle or
obse
Robert,
Robert Sayre wrote:
On 3/19/06, Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Remember suspensions are a tool to improve efficiency of
working groups, not punishments to punish people for bad behavior.
Sam, thank you for your calm remarks. After spending a week thinking
about this suspensi
Hi,
I will like to make an observation about something that captured my
attention the last few meetings.
I frequently see in meetings people filling up their back-packs with drinks,
fruits and cookies. I'm not talking just about one extra drink. I'm talking
some times even about people leaving th
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
Except of course that many of the "US Sponsors" are in fact global
companies anyway. Think about the list of recent and future sponsors.
sure, but the sponsors get some leeway in where meetings are held (since
we're more likely to hold a meeting in an
Except of course that many of the "US Sponsors" are in fact global
companies anyway. Think about the list of recent and future sponsors.
sure, but the sponsors get some leeway in where meetings are held (since
we're more likely to hold a meeting in an area where someone is willing
to sponsor i
Keith,
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 07:46:21PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> I have also been of the impression that our hotel bills and meeting fees
> were paying for most of the cost of our meetings, and that the sponsors
> were mostly providing local logistical support and paying for incidental
Jordi,
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 06:36:21PM -0600, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
> Precisely following your recommendation we are being politically driven,
> instead of openly-in-the-IETF-way driven.
It's way easier to be an open organization if the cost for attending a
meeting is as low as possi
Michael StJohns wrote:
What I think Jordi is saying is that he wants the US sponsors to
subsidize the cost of the overseas meetings. At least that's what it
works out to be
This view can be mapped to a classic model that would have significant benefits
for the IETF:
A "host" gets all
Except of course that many of the "US Sponsors" are in fact global
companies anyway. Think about the list of recent and future sponsors.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi,
> I will like to make an observation about something that captured my
> attention the last few meetings.
> I frequently see in meetings people filling up their back-packs with drinks,
> fruits and cookies. I'm not talking just about one extra drink. I'm talking
> some times even about peopl
So you mean you think is reasonable and fair going for the cheapest even if
every time more and more people can't attend because a government decides
not to grant visas ?
you're conflating two problems - cost and immigration laws.
having fewer meetings in the US is a reasonable response to US
What I think Jordi is saying is that he wants the US sponsors to
subsidize the cost of the overseas meetings. At least that's what it
works out to be
Well, that's how I interpreted it also. What I found mind-boggling was
the idea that companies that volunteer to host one meeting would so
So you mean you think is reasonable and fair going for the cheapest even if
every time more and more people can't attend because a government decides
not to grant visas ?
I'm feeling very embarrassed and concerned hearing that.
I guess our concept of fairness is quite different.
Precisely follow
What I think Jordi is saying is that he wants the US sponsors to
subsidize the cost of the overseas meetings. At least that's what it
works out to be
At 07:27 PM 3/23/2006, Keith Moore wrote:
We need to calculate the average cost of IETF hosted in all the continents,
and that cost is t
Hi,
I will like to make an observation about something that captured my
attention the last few meetings.
I frequently see in meetings people filling up their back-packs with drinks,
fruits and cookies. I'm not talking just about one extra drink. I'm talking
some times even about people leaving th
We need to calculate the average cost of IETF hosted in all the continents,
and that cost is the one that need to be put on the table by any
sponsor/host regardless of where the meeting is actually going to be hosted.
my mind just boggled. or my bogometer just pegged.
no, this does not seem at
Jordi,
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 06:11:06PM -0600, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
> We need to calculate the average cost of IETF hosted in all the continents,
> and that cost is the one that need to be put on the table by any
> sponsor/host regardless of where the meeting is actually going to be h
Hi all,
One more observation, which unfortunately I was not able to think before to
be made yesterday in the mic and ask for a show hands ...
I think it has been clear that this community want to have IETF happening in
different regions so frequently as in US, and consequently being fair to
other
Per standard operating procedure the IETF65 network will be coming
down promptly at Noon on Friday. This includes the public areas,
meeting rooms, terminal room, and servers.
At that time the Hilton wireless service will switch back to the
"HHonors". Attendies who are staying at the Hilto
Did anyone find a green windbreaker in any of the meeting rooms
yesterday? It probably had a pair of sunglasses in the pocket.
Thanks!
Ben.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
(Though I agree with most of what Harald said, I will respond on-list
only to Margaret.)
Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I generally support publication of this draft as an Experimental RFC,
I was never able to "support" it; but until the GENAREA meeting, I
regarded it a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Guerilla Party Events for Thursday
**I Need a Pen so I Can Remember Where to Add My Time Capsule Entry Day**
Today, is I need a pen day a lovely little
bugger with the URL for [EMAIL PROTECTED] stuff on it.
These are a nifty accessory in office meetings
when sporting the
46 matches
Mail list logo
