On Monday, July 17, 2006 10:11:07 AM -0400 Jeffrey Altman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For me Paris and Montreal were the
two worst meetings I have experienced in ten years because of the
separation of the IETF hotel from the meeting locations and the in
ability to provide network access in th
On Wednesday, July 12, 2006 06:09:42 PM -0400 Michael Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
$177/person for F&B.
So, if I put $20 of looneys in my pocket each day
... your pocket would be pretty heavy. Since water, soda, and cookies are
al
On Wednesday, July 12, 2006 03:07:46 PM -0700 Randall Gellens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 10:08 AM -0700 7/12/06, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
How about this:
Use the same mailing list. The secretariat marks important messages
as important via the header flag customarily used for this
On Monday, July 10, 2006 10:52:42 PM -0400 Ray Pelletier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alan, et al.
Message received.
I agree.
Changes being made.
Experiment provided valuable information.
People don't like to be subscribed to mailing lists without their consent.
They also don't like to be ex
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you don't find IETF meetings to
be exciting enough on their own merits, it's OK if you don't go.
Why not kill two birds with a stone? after enjoying the nice merits of
the IETF meeting, you can appreciate the different life in the different
cities at t
- Original Message -
From: "John L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "YAO Jiankang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
> >> I do think there is considerable merit in identifying a set of venues
> >> that are known to do a good jo
Yes, the 405 can have traffic jams anywhere at any time, including
2:00 AM. Those
seem particularly unjust.
Regards
Marshall
On Jul 17, 2006, at 7:43 PM, Stephen Casner wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Depending on where you are coming from, and when you purchase your
ti
I do think there is considerable merit in identifying a set of venues
that are known to do a good job and using them whenever a meeting is
scheduled for their part of the world. Minneapolis is roughly in the
middle of the populated part of North America, the hotel knows us,
why not go back there?
- Original Message -
From: "John Levine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
> >If it is that bad front of the house I don't trust their maintenance
> >crews.
>
> No problem, they locked out the mechanics union and hired
>If it is that bad front of the house I don't trust their maintenance
>crews.
No problem, they locked out the mechanics union and hired replacements
quite a while ago. While I think there is some chance that you would
show up for a Northwest flight and find that the airline had suddenly
gone out
Mineapoilis is served by an airline that has Labor issues. Last time we waited
two hours for a bag to come off the plane.
If it is that bad front of the house I don't trust their maintenance crews.
Direct flight is not a must for me.
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMA
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> Depending on where you are coming from, and when you purchase your
> tickets, you may find it faster / cheaper / better to fly to LAX or
> Long Beach and drive down to San Diego. (LAX <-> San Diego is ~ 200
> km, and LAX is basically on the San Diego
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:56:08AM -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:
>
> As the number of meeting groups grow and the meetings become more
> densely packed, the jabber transcripts are useful for following
> what's going on in a meeting you're not in, as well as providing
> feedback.
Improving WLAN (802
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:38:15AM -0400, Stephen Campbell wrote:
>
> Or skip the car. Fly into LAX, take one of several shuttles to Los
> Angeles Union Station, and take Amtrak's "Surfliner" to San Diego.
> These trains run every 1 to 2 hours and get to San Diego in less than
> 3 hours. And
At 20:52 17/07/2006, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Refusing to address such issues could be interpreted as some
kind of evidence by the claimant. Better they try it even if
they get it wrong - after all this is IMO about an "attempt to
enforce netiquette" on two mailing lists,
Correct. Not the purpos
Dear Pete,
your point is well made. An appeal to ISOC will be _considered_ after
the appeal to the IAB (this is a part of the DoS imposed on me - and
on the competing solution I introduced at the ITU/UNESCO meeting in
Geneva :-)). However, there are four aspects to be considered.
1. the way t
On 7/17/06 at 8:52 PM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Pete Resnick wrote:
Appeals of this sort should not be brought to the IESG (or the
IAB). I suggest that the IESG and the IAB always decline to decide
such issues in the future should similar appeals come up.
The question then shifts from "
Keith Moore wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the threats to individuals that result
> from traceable network transactions are at least as great as
> the threats that result from anonymity. We need to be
> thinking in terms of balancing the risk from those two kinds
> of threats. This is hard becau
Pete Resnick wrote:
[6.5.3]
>| Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures
>| themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are
>| claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the
>| rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standar
Maybe we (or even I) should open a voting page where people could
enter their desired locations; or, conversely, the iAD could make it
part of the meeting survey.
Regards
Marshall
On Jul 17, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
When meeting in North America, I would strongly prefer
On 07/17/2006 15:46 PM, Andy Bierman allegedly wrote:
> - I didn't find a terminal room, but instead a giant 'break room'
>for ad-hoc meetings and food breaks. This was wonderful, and
>about time! 802.11 has thankfully made the terminal room obsolete.
>I want this format every time.
Fred Baker wrote:
> On 7/17/06 10:51 AM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why do you need a jabber _scribe_ for input?
>
> The primary value of a jabber scribe is that someone knows that *they*
> should type into the chat room. Absent that, yes, anyone *could* type,
> but who
Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 7/17/06 10:51 AM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> One thing that could help here is reduce the audio lag. It's quite
>> common to see something appear in jabber before you hear it on the
>> audio feed. A long delay makes reacting to the audio over jab
On 7/17/06 10:51 AM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why do you need a jabber _scribe_ for input?
The primary value of a jabber scribe is that someone knows that *they*
should type into the chat room. Absent that, yes, anyone *could* type,
but who reliably *would*?
Havin
Edward Lewis wrote:
> I did listen to some of the sessions "on the radio" when I was caught in
> my hotel room and unable to make it to the venue in time. While doing
> so, I found myself wistfully thinking of remote participation of ICANN
> meetings, where video is supplied. ;) In-time video ha
On 7/17/06 10:51 AM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why do you need a jabber _scribe_ for input?
The primary value of a jabber scribe is that someone knows that
*they* should type into the chat room. Absent that, yes, anyone
*could* type, but who reliably *would*?
_
When meeting in North America, I would strongly prefer cities that
have several direct flight connections from both Europe and Asia.
Of the recent IETF meeting places, San Diego is the only one that
clearly fails this criteria... so why are we going there again?
Taking flight connections and vis
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Nobody flies from LAX to San Diego because it ends up taking
twice as long as driving for 10 times as much, so don't expect
lots of flights from LA.
For visitors, you might want to fly to LAX, rent a car,
drive down the 405, and take a detour to the Laguna Beach
area on t
On 17-jul-2006, at 17:53, David Harrington wrote:
Jabber logs written by a scribe do not do a good job representing the
body language and the nuances of speech that may be important to
really understand what a person said.
People should know better than to use body language and nuances of
sp
Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 7/10/06 at 8:34 AM -0400, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
>
>> we seek comments on the Statement of Work located at:
>> http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/
>
> - The SOW has nothing about performance expectations (i.e., what is
> noted in section 4 of draft-mankin-pub-req
--On Monday, 17 July, 2006 15:21 +0300 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> * picking places within those countries or regions that
>> have good airports with easy (and multiple) international
>> connections. Even San Diego is a little marginal in that
>> regard. Based on experience in
Hi,
I would not like to see raw jabber logs included as part of the
minutes. The signal-to-noise ratio is way too low in many meetings.
Jabber logs written by a scribe do not do a good job representing the
body language and the nuances of speech that may be important to
really understand what a p
On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Hello;
On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:21 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
It also means such things as:
* picking places within those countries or regions that have
good airports with easy (and
On 7/17/06 11:26 AM, "Dave Cridland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Melinda's intention was to suggest that the meetings ought to
> be growing in significance.
> Is that better?
The wording is better, but it's still the case that I'd rather that
we made a better effort to conduct the bulk of
In one session, I provided jabber note taking.
Participants indicated that my real-time efforts to create concise
statements of what was being discussed where helpful even with the
audio feed. (I asked because I was not sure I was adding value.)
Yours,
Joel
At 10:51 AM 7/17/2006, Iljitsch va
On Mon Jul 17 16:21:49 2006, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 7/17/06 11:17 AM, "Dave Cridland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon Jul 17 16:10:49 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> Did I say it should become less important? I don't see how the
>> meetings are growing in significance, though.
> I think
On 7/17/06 11:17 AM, "Dave Cridland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon Jul 17 16:10:49 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> Did I say it should become less important? I don't see how the
>> meetings are growing in significance, though.
> I think Melinda's intention was to suggest that they ought
That said, and given the difficulties of balancing competing
priorities in site location, it seems reasonable to me to make
a decent, good-faith effort without getting overly bogged down
in "where should we meet?" discussions, and really try to get
the remote participation thing nailed down a litt
On Mon Jul 17 16:10:49 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 17-jul-2006, at 16:56, Melinda Shore wrote:
Although I did jabber scribing for a couple of sessions the past
week
I don't see all that much value in doing that: the audio feeds are
much more useful for following what's going on.
As
On 17-jul-2006, at 16:56, Melinda Shore wrote:
Why do you need a jabber _scribe_ for input?
To allow remote participants to provide input.
You can't type and run upto the microphone to relay comments at the
same time...
Although I did jabber scribing for a couple of sessions the past w
MEXICO
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 10:54:16AM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > There are two issues:
> >
> > 1) Cost. IETF has limited resources, so unless each of us want to pay more
> > and more for the registration fees or we are able to compensate the cost
> > w
On 7/17/06 10:51 AM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do you need a jabber _scribe_ for input?
To allow remote participants to provide input.
> Although I did jabber scribing for a couple of sessions the past week
> I don't see all that much value in doing that: the audio f
On 17-jul-2006, at 16:35, Melinda Shore wrote:
it seems reasonable to me to make
a decent, good-faith effort without getting overly bogged down
in "where should we meet?" discussions, and really try to get
the remote participation thing nailed down a little better. The
ratio of good to bad remo
At 10:11 AM -0400 7/17/06, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
My belief is that working group sessions should avoid presentations
whenever possible.
Visual material is something that is helpful but it need not be a
presentation. E.g., if we still had blackboards it would often times
be easier to express
On 7/17/06 10:11 AM, "Jeffrey Altman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking as a working group chair, what is important to me is the
> ability to make progress on the milestones the working group is
> committed to achieve.
Sure, but you don't want to risk insularity, which I think
clearly has been
On 7/10/06 at 2:05 PM -0400, IESG Secretary wrote:
1. The appeal asserts that RFC 3683 (BCP 83) is illegal, and
specifically in conflict with certain provisions of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. In particular it cites Article 10
(right to public hearing), 11 (presumption of innocen
On 7/10/06 at 8:34 AM -0400, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
we seek comments on the Statement of Work located at:
http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/
- The SOW has nothing about performance expectations (i.e., what is
noted in section 4 of draft-mankin-pub-req-10). Though I don't think
the SO
Speaking as a working group chair, what is important to me is the
ability to make progress on the milestones the working group is
committed to achieve. Traveling to some far away location in order
to fill the seats with spectators does not result in work being
accomplished. I require that not on
On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Hello;
On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:21 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
It also means such things as:
* picking places within those countries or regions that have
good airports with easy (and
Hello;
On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:21 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
It also means such things as:
* picking places within those countries or regions that have
good airports with easy (and multiple) international
connections. Even San Diego
John C Klensin wrote:
> It also means such things as:
>
> * picking places within those countries or regions that have
> good airports with easy (and multiple) international
> connections. Even San Diego is a little marginal in that
> regard. Based on experience in the last year
On Jul 15, 2006, at 4:13 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Is it just in my part of the ietf woods, or is this becoming a
widespread
phenomenon? If so, is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Over in Atompub, this has become the normal idiom for reacting to
proposals, with common usages such as +/- 0
52 matches
Mail list logo
