+1. I could also happily live with the alternate, more
compressed, schedule -- I think both are preferable to the
schedule used in Quebec and earlier.
john
--On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 07:40 +0200 Eliot Lear
l...@cisco.com wrote:
On 8/22/11 11:24 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is
IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes
draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01
The document strives to convey the message that IP is no longer
equivalent to IPv4, which is a goal that I'd fully support.
However, while this is a political statement that the
Russ,
On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 17:24 -0400, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82.
The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this
schedule:
In principle this
If the idea of not fixing agendas is to remain, then any experiments for
extending the Friday schedule pretty much mean that everyone has to
extend their stay, doesn't it? I think if we want to use Friday time
properly, then this ideology needs to go.
Fully agree. We
Glen,
On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 17:14 +0700, Glen Zorn wrote:
If the idea of not fixing agendas is to remain, then any experiments for
extending the Friday schedule pretty much mean that everyone has to
extend their stay, doesn't it? I think if we want to use Friday time
properly, then
On Aug 23, 2011, at 1:34 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Monday, August 22, 2011 20:16 -0400 Ray Pelletier
rpellet...@isoc.org wrote:
...
As for the rates, they are high. Taiwan is expensive,
particularly given that the hotels know what our options are
when we
The room rate I see is 8500 TWD, which is $293 a night. That is a Grand King
room, for 2 people.
If you don't put G-23ET in the corporate/group box, it gets much worse! I'm
guessing the web link on the IETF site should read
Oh, and *after* you book, it says
Additional Charges
10.000 Percent service charge
So the charge is 10% higher than what's displayed. It would be nice if the full
charge was more up front. People checking for budget in advance may be unaware
of this.
Tim
On 23 Aug 2011, at 13:22, Tim
From: Michael StJohns
Could you refresh my memory as to which hotels we stayed at had this
policy? I literally cannot remember having any hotel cancellation
policy with more than a single night fee ever.
Maastricht had particularly fierce cancellation rules. I don't
remember the details,
Shane:
The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82.
The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this
schedule:
In principle this makes sense, but do people think that the IETF
On 22 Aug 2011, at 23:53, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
+1 to Ned. I can't see why this draft seems to make some people
go defensive - it isn't saying IPv4 is evil or anything silly
like that, it's just saying IPv6 is the future.
RFC1122v6 is another matter entirely. We clearly aren't ready
--On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 07:57 -0400 Thomas Nadeau
tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote:
I obviously don't have all of the information available to me
that you and the IAOC do, but it seems to be there is always
another alternative. If there are no local ones, that
alternative is usually
On Aug 23, 2011, at 9:43 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
From: Michael StJohns
Could you refresh my memory as to which hotels we stayed at had this
policy? I literally cannot remember having any hotel cancellation
policy with more than a single night fee ever.
Maastricht had
This document really wants to be a BCP that makes deployment and strategy
recommendations. But for some reason it has been disguised as a standards
track document (i.e., as a protocol specification), and the result is that
RFC 2119 language is being used in a very peculiar way. I think this is
Thanks for the response. One further comment below. I removed sections that I
think have been sufficiently addressed:
On Aug 17, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
[…]
-- section 3: First paragraph: Addition of non-PHP behavior adds a
variable of attacks on the label assigned by the
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document:
Hi All,
The 2011-2012 Nominating committee is seeking nominations from now
until October 2, 2011. The list of open positions can be found at:
https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2011/
Nominations may be made directly on the NomCom 2011-2012 pages by
selecting the Nominate link at the top of the
Hi All,
The 2011-2012 Nominating committee is seeking nominations from now
until October 2, 2011. The list of open positions can be found at:
https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2011/
Nominations may be made directly on the NomCom 2011-2012 pages by
selecting the Nominate link at the top of the
On Aug 23, 2011, at 10:24 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 07:57 -0400 Thomas Nadeau
tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote:
I obviously don't have all of the information available to me
that you and the IAOC do, but it seems to be there is always
another alternative.
From: Thomas Nadeau
One would think that when the IETF negotiates the room block/fees,
that this could be done as well. After all we are in many cases,
booking a significant portion of the hotel in question in addition to
its conference facilities.
Speaking as someone who has never
You said:
At root is that we are trying to negotiate a purchase at a discounted
price without committing to buying any particular number of rooms,
versus only a limited number of possible sellers.
When negotiating a group rate we actually ARE committing to buying a
certain number of rooms
But surely based on that block purchasing power we could negotiate more
reasonable rates than $200+ night?
--Tom
On Aug 23, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
You said:
At root is that we are trying to negotiate a purchase at a discounted
price without committing
Probably not for that hotel in that location in the current economic
climate etc. I wasn't the negotiator :-)
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Reasonable has to be measured on the basis of what the venue might expect
for alternative customers at the time of negotiation, not our world view
of hotels at the time of meetings.
For this to be a meaningful disccusion re. the success or lack there of,
we need to compare what we have vs.
There is currently a DISCUSS for draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02:
process weenie=
The IETF LC
(https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6rid=49gid=0k1=934k2=9680tid=1314107697)
did not call out the downrefs to RFC 4954 and 5321. There is no doubt in my
mind that no one will object to these downrefs, but
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:29:34AM -0700, David Morris wrote:
For this to be a meaningful disccusion re. the success or lack there of,
we need to compare what we have vs. similar sized groups in the same
season, etc. at the same venue.
_And_ having negotiated at the same time, as Ray pointed
From: Ole Jacobsen [o...@cisco.com]
When negotiating a group rate we actually ARE committing to buying a
certain number of rooms (the room block).
Are we really committing? Yes, the IETF block in the primary hotel
fills in my experience, but if it doesn't, is the IETF committing to
paying
On Aug 23, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
But surely based on that block purchasing power we could negotiate more
reasonable rates than $200+ night?
Well, the Cisco corporate rate at the Hyatt is also $265/night. Given that the
hotel is around the corner from the Cisco
On Aug 23, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
Are we really committing? Yes, the IETF block in the primary hotel
fills in my experience, but if it doesn't, is the IETF committing to
paying the difference?
yes.
___
Ietf mailing list
Most hotel contracts I've signed have a clause called Attrition
which calls for payment if the rooms actually taken fall below some
percentage of the room block, like below 90% or the like.
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver
Exactly.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Skype: organdemo
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, Donald Eastlake wrote:
Most hotel contracts I've signed
SM == SM s...@resistor.net writes:
SM There is currently a DISCUSS for draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02:
SM process weenie=
SM The IETF LC
SM
(https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6rid=49gid=0k1=934k2=9680tid=1314107697)
SM did not call out the downrefs to RFC 4954 and 5321.
On 8/23/11 3:09 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
I wouldn't discount the effect of the value of the dollar on hotel rates
as measured in US dollars.
I suspect Fred is spot on -- current exchange rate fluctuation is
undoubtedly a huge issue. I would speculate that most hotels would
negotiate
On 8/23/11 4:34 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
On 8/23/11 3:09 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
I wouldn't discount the effect of the value of the dollar on hotel rates
as measured in US dollars.
I suspect Fred is spot on -- current exchange rate fluctuation is
undoubtedly a huge issue.
On 8/23/2011 10:13 PM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
...
I agree that the overall cost of each meeting is what really counts.
HOWEVER, most of us work at companies which have rules for
limits on specific charges (i.e.: hotel room rates). Having room rates
(fees/taxes/etc...) that exceed about
IAOC members are like all other IETF members. We pay for our hotel rooms. That
means when I have a full-time job that wants me at the IETF, I stay at the
convention hotel. When I don't have a full-time sponsor, like now, I stayed at:
o A charming bed breakfast 500m from the Maastricht
On 8/24/2011 12:46 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
From: Thomas Nadeau
One would think that when the IETF negotiates the room block/fees,
that this could be done as well. After all we are in many cases,
booking a significant portion of the hotel in question in addition to
its conference
On 8/24/2011 3:33 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:29:34AM -0700, David Morris wrote:
For this to be a meaningful disccusion re. the success or lack there of,
we need to compare what we have vs. similar sized groups in the same
season, etc. at the same venue.
_And_
--On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 18:02 -0400 Sam Hartman
hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
SM == SM s...@resistor.net writes:
SM There is currently a DISCUSS for
draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02: SM process weenie=
SM The IETF LC
SM
On 8/24/2011 5:50 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
...
Come on, folks, let's be honest: all-in-one conference hotels, and
hotels connected to conference centers, charge exorbitant amounts of
money for the convenience of sleeping in close proximity to the meeting
rooms. Thanks to tips from other
On Aug 23, 2011, at 10:27 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:
On 8/24/2011 3:33 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:29:34AM -0700, David Morris wrote:
For this to be a meaningful disccusion re. the success or lack there of,
we need to compare what we have vs. similar sized groups in
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'MRT routing information export format'
(draft-ietf-grow-mrt-17.txt) as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Global Routing Operations Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Ron Bonica and Dan Romascanu.
A URL of this
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6324
Title: Routing Loop Attack Using IPv6
Automatic Tunnels: Problem Statement and Proposed
Mitigations
Author: G. Nakibly, F. Templin
The IESG has received a request from the Web Security WG (websec) to
consider the following document:
- 'The Web Origin Concept'
draft-ietf-websec-origin-04.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please
44 matches
Mail list logo
