Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
What might be illuminating is to to a quick poll on the RRG list so we
can correlate home region with:
- flying home after RRG on friday
- flying home after leaving RRG early on friday
- flying home saturday after RRG
I won't attend RRG at all this trip, and I have
No. The wireless network will offer an IPv6 ONLY network all week
long, but the IPv4 will not be turned off during the plenary at Dublin.
I agree that we learned a lot from the experiment, and I'm not
opposed to trying it again at a future meeting.
Russ
At 06:52 PM 7/18/2008, Olivier MJ Cre
I just wanted to know whether there was any plan to turn off the IPv4 stack
for an hour at IETF 72 just like it happened @ 71 ?
http://wiki.tools.isoc.org/IETF71_IPv4_Outage
See: IPv4 off at the IETF 71 plenary for 1 hour.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/ietf-ipv6-switchoff.ars
Looks li
This could be WG chair approved too, i.e., WG chairs provide a list
of IDs that are permitted to be submitted that are involved in the
IESG process (but only ones that have gone through their first IESG meeting).
Not that many per WG should be in this state during any one (normal
blackout) per
S,
How come I-Ds don't expire after publication has been requested? Could this
be a field in the data base that could be accessed to allow continued
submission of revisions regardless of cut-off dates?
Well, if it is too hard or needs many hours of volunteer time, the answer is
obvious.
The question I have is what are we trying to achieve, i.e., what
problem are we trying to solve?
Is the problem really just that we want all WGs who want a second
(or even third) meeting slot to be able to get one?
Do we have any statistics on how many groups meet at each meeting?
Assuming a
Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 7:50 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Rather than expanding the number of slots why don't we look at using
the time we have more efficiently.
Let me throw in v6ops as an example. We are very efficient, I think -
we have 10-15 minute discussions on each of a numbe
On Jul 18, 2008, at 3:47 AM, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On 17 jul 2008, at 23.33, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering an experiment for IETF 73 in Minneapolis, and
we would like community comments before we proceed. Face-to-face
meeting time is very precious, especially with about 120
This is a useful progression. But there still must be an easy and
efficient way to mirror the whole repository.
It appears that this change broke ftp and rsync access, the only
reasonable methods of mirroring the old repo.
You need to either make the full repo available via rsync and ftp
or -- e
On 18 jul 2008, at 9:47, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
so while I sympathize with the need for this, and won't argue
against it. I do want to point out that it means that overseas
travelers will be 'stuck' for another day (depending on where in the
world we are, you can normally make an aftern
On 17 jul 2008, at 23.33, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering an experiment for IETF 73 in Minneapolis, and
we would like community comments before we proceed. Face-to-face
meeting time is very precious, especially with about 120 IETF WGs
competing for meeting slots. Several WGs are not
Do we spend too much time with overviews of drafts that really should
have been read by all attendees beforehand? Maybe it would be good for
the first session on Monday to be an "Area Overview" session where an
overview of all the latest drafts can be "presented" to give people a
broader view o
Adrian:
This has been discussed many times, and there is no easy way for the
Secretariat to distinguish these document from others. With the
on-line Internet-Draft Submission Tool (IDST), it might be possible
to search the database for such documents and let them
through. However, we're try
Hi, Jari,
No disagreement here.
Good to give people a heads-up, but to use the same notification periods for
conference calls and face-to-face interims (which is the way I read the
current (right?) rules) is excessive.
Thanks,
Spencer
Spencer,
IMO, since we see author/editor/review/desi
Dave,
You have lots of good and valid questions below. I'll respond below and
also cc RAI area mailing list. We have discussed this topic recently, in
particular with regards to concerns over scheduling for IETF-72. One
concern that the RAI area has, as well is some overlap and dependencies
on T
Spencer,
IMO, since we see author/editor/review/design team teleconferences in
a fair number of working groups, and these teleconferences aren't
covered by the rules, I'd be in favor of revisiting the rules...
Lets be clear about the different types of calls people might have. A
design team
Real-time Applications and Infrastructure - home of all the SIP related
stuff that was born in TSV.
Mary.
-Original Message-
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:40 AM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subje
Mary Barnes wrote:
Dave,
There are a few topics for which mailing list discussion has failed
to reach consensus and would really benefit from f2f time. You can
look at SIP WG archives for example for a couple of the hot topics.
As chairs, we do try to push for completion of work on the mailing
On 18 jul 2008, at 18:29, Mary Barnes wrote:
The other issue is just the sheer volume of work incoming to RAI -
it's
over 20% of overall IETF drafts per Jari's stats:
http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/areadistr.html
What is a RAI?
___
Ietf mailing l
Dave,
There are a few topics for which mailing list discussion has failed to
reach consensus and would really benefit from f2f time. You can look at
SIP WG archives for example for a couple of the hot topics. As chairs,
we do try to push for completion of work on the mailing lists, but this
isn't
Let's hope it's not too little coffee, and that I am in fact mistaken,
but I never said that we have rules that *prevent* teleconferencing. To
elaborate, my understanding is that the rules for teleconferencing are
governed by the rules for interim meetings, which require something like
one m
John's questions, here, go to the basic challenge we constantly face
when there are demands for more resources: Are they really needed, and
if they are, why? If they are not needed, is there a deeper problem that
needs to be addressed?
From external observation, the IETF deals with the issues in
Mary Barnes wrote:
In my mind, these additional Friday sessions are really a must for RAI,
What work do RAI groups need to perform during these meetings that
cannot be done on the various RAI mailing lists?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
Marshall,
It may just be too little coffee, but I am not sure what you meant
here. What rule prevents teleconferencing ?
Let's hope it's not too little coffee, and that I am in fact mistaken,
but I never said that we have rules that *prevent* teleconferencing. To
elaborate, my understanding
Hi,
The cut-off period before IETF meetings has (IMHO) some value to help people
read an digest stable documents that will be discussed face-to-face.
However, some I-Ds are beyond WG last call and are going through other
review cycles. Why should updates to these be barred?
For example, I h
Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:41:15 +0200,
Eliot Lear wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but...
(Fanning the flames...)
I do not understood why WGs are forbidden from conducting
interim or other official extended technical f2f meetings
before, during, or after, an IETF meeting.
Consid
Hi,
--On July 18, 2008 7:20:37 AM -0700 Eric Rescorla
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. People's ability to meet tends to expand to fill out the available
meeting time.
I think this is a key point. Rather than expanding the number of slots why
don't we look at using the time we have more effic
My response is likely redundant with that of other RAI folks, but I have
a feeling that RAI likely has the highest requirement for additional
meeting slots. And, for us RAI folks, The Friday sessions have never
been considered the least important. Indeed, when both SIP and SIPPING
required 2 sessio
Hi Eliot,
--On July 18, 2008 11:41:15 AM +0200 Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I oppose this experiment. I already donate to my employer a significant
amount of travel time on weekends without wanting to add to it. Flight
schedules are tightening, thanks to the cost of fuel, which means
>
> Until "7f" that all sounds good, but I'm not sure about "7f":
>
> > ADD - For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the
> > IETF Standards Process licenses each Contribution that he
> > or she makes as part of the IETF Standards Process to the
> > IETF Trust pursuant to the provisions of
Marshall:
I do not know of any repository for the attendance at interim
meetings other that the proceedings. Interim meeting minutes are
included with the proceedings of the following IETF meeting.
The reason that the experiment is scoped as proposed deals with the
contract that is already
Olafur:
I try to gather some data to see if this would help. My intuition is
that we need 2.5+ hours for some very significant working groups so
these groups would end up with multiple adjacent slots. But, maybe
the smaller slots would help with the things that they are scheduled against.
Jari Arkko wrote:
Joel,
In many locations this may preclude departure until saturday which
effectively makes the meeting longer by a day.
Hmm. The likelihood of having to depart the next day increases, but
the question is by how much. For the record, my flights out of
Minneapolis leave 15:20,
Joel,
In many locations this may preclude departure until saturday which
effectively makes the meeting longer by a day.
Hmm. The likelihood of having to depart the next day increases, but the
question is by how much. For the record, my flights out of Minneapolis
leave 15:20, 17:30, or 19:15. T
John's questions, here, go to the basic challenge we constantly face
when there are demands for more resources: Are they really needed, and
if they are, why? If they are not needed, is there a deeper problem that
needs to be addressed?
From external observation, the IETF deals with the issues
At Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:41:15 +0200,
Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> Maybe it's just me, but...
>
> I oppose this experiment. I already donate to my employer a significant
> amount of travel time on weekends without wanting to add to it. Flight
> schedules are tightening, thanks to the cost of fuel, whi
On 18 jul 2008, at 4:45, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
With today's half day on Friday a good percentage of those people who
chose to stay until noon can still catch a flight home that same day
in
most IETF meeting locations (except for people flying across some
ocean).
Actually the meetings I've
one thing to measure is how many WG or BOF chairs say "Please don't give
us a Friday afternoon session".
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The proposed Friday schedule would be:
0900-1130 Morning Session I
1130-1300 Break
1300-1400 Afternoon Session I
1415-1515 Afternoon Session II
Try i
Dear Elliot;
On Jul 18, 2008, at 5:41 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but...
I oppose this experiment. I already donate to my employer a
significant amount of travel time on weekends without wanting to add
to it. Flight schedules are tightening, thanks to the cost of fuel,
wh
I oppose this experiment.
A better experiment would be to eliminate the Friday morning sessions.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Ray Pelletier wrote:
Until "7f" that all sounds good, but I'm not sure about "7f":
> ADD - For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the
> IETF Standards Process licenses each Contribution that he
> or she makes as part of the IETF Standards Process to the
> IETF Trust pursuant to the provi
The IETF Trust is considering adopting a policy for granting rights in
IETF documents as required by draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-06.txt.
The IPR WG will be considering this policy during its session on 31 July
at IETF 72 in Dublin. Community comments during that session and on
this list a
> I oppose this experiment. I already donate to my employer a
> significant amount of travel time on weekends without wanting
> to add to it. Flight schedules are tightening, thanks to the
> cost of fuel, which means that having sessions on Friday at
> all poses a problem now, if I want to ge
Maybe it's just me, but...
I oppose this experiment. I already donate to my employer a significant
amount of travel time on weekends without wanting to add to it. Flight
schedules are tightening, thanks to the cost of fuel, which means that
having sessions on Friday at all poses a problem no
44 matches
Mail list logo
