Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks
On 01/11/2012 19:43, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: I also offer my signature under the recall procedure, in case pragmatism doesn't prevail (see my other note). My offer of signature should in no way be interpreted as reflecting an opinion about Marshall's character. Ditto, and Ditto. +1 and +1. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant. Yes. +1 I agree. Ray Pelletier wrote: Marshall was focused on other activities That's good to hear. I was worried about him when I read the mail from Bob. And yes, this can happen with people. Dayjobs or businesses or personal issues can sometimes cause this. Lets welcome him back to the IETF when he finishes his other business. Good to hear that he is (at least) still alive. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html
Re: Proposed IETF 95 Date Change
On 20/07/2012 18:06, IETF Administrative Director wrote: The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change for IETF 95 scheduled for March 2016. Currently IETF 95 is scheduled for 27 March to 1 April 2016. 27 March is Easter. The IAOC is proposing IETF 95 be rescheduled for 20 - 25 March 2016 and would like feedback on those dates before making a decision. Comments appreciated to ietf@ietf.org by 6 August 2012. Ray Pelletier IETF Administrative Director If March 27 is Easter, then I'm not sure if the change solves the problem. Sunday March 20 is Palm Sunday, the Thursday and Friday before Easter (as well as the Monday after) are religious holidays in many European countries. If you want to avoid a clash with Easter and related days, then one will have to move the meeting to either the week of 13-18 March, or the week of 3-8 April. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html
Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
All, We have had cases where the opening reception was sponsored by somebody other than the host for the meeting (if there was a host). The sponsor didn't get much more than the possibility to put a sign near the front door and get some recognition during one of the plenary sessions. This proposal essentially says that the sponsors can demonstrate equipment during the reception. If that is helpful to attract sponsors, let's do it. If there are sufficient sponsors to support 2 receptions, let's organize 2. And, having been to such sessions at NANOG and others, I know that you don't have to look at the gear brought by the vendors, it is perfectly possible to have the beer (for free) and have the hallway discussion you wanted to have anyway, while ignoring the demos. The current question is about IETF community comfort with the IAOC's exploring this. That is, it's a form of may we proceed to do the research and planning? query. I'm fine with the IAOC doing the research. Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)
Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input
On 21/10/2011 16:54, Simon Pietro Romano wrote: I can state for sure that we have used Meetecho for remote presentations in Hiroshima, in the mediactrl WG meeting: interaction happens in real-time. Actually, this is true for all tools that I've seen, but it isn't perfect yet and I wonder if it will ever be. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
On 21/09/2011 21:03, David Kessens wrote: The critical thing is that we don't loose the participation of the IETF chair, IAB chair and ISOC President/CEO while at the same time finding a way to lighten their workload. I think one of the questions to be answered is: do we want participation of the I* chair or do we want participation of the related I* group. If I look back at my years on the IAOC, then I think that it is very important that the opinions of the I* groups is known in the IAOC and it is equally important that the I* groups have a vote when decisions are to be made. I'm not at all convinced though that the person doing this needs to be the chair. A model where the I* selects one of them to represent the I* on the IAOC (with full voting rights for that person) would work equally well, of course, assuming that the representative talks to the other members of the I* group. A model where the I* can send 1 person, rather than just the chair, will make it easier for the I* to distribute the work amongst the people. That is an improvement. However, I don't object if the IETF chair would have a designated backup for the voting role when he/she cannot attend to IAOC business. I believe it would be useful for the designated backup to be a non voting permanent IAOC member in order to make sure the backup understands what is going on. Well, I have been on committees with designated backups and it just does not work: if a backup only looks at the ongoing issues when it is clear that the first person cannot attend, he will miss a lot of background and cannot sensibly participate. If the backup follows everything that is going on, then the amount of work to be done doubles. Again, from personal experience, I'd much rather see that the unavailable person comments by mail beforehand or even asks for a discussion to be postponend, than having a backup for a single meeting. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
On 21/09/2011 16:50, Jari Arkko wrote: But do you agree that workload for the chairs is an issue? Yes, at least all the chairs I know say so, that makes it an issue for me. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Trust membership [Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility]
On 20/09/2011 00:30, Brian E Carpenter wrote: [...] the I* Chairs would remain as Trustees. Since that is (in my experience) a large part of an IAOC member's time commitment, the problem you're trying to solve would not be solved, IMHO, unless the Trust amended the Trust Agreement too. That's all I wanted to point out. My experience is different: the Trust is little work on average but there are huge spikes, in particular when legal provisions are being discussed. However, there are issues that are typically also discussed in the IESG or IAB, the I* chairs are already involved with their I* hat, and the additional workload to discuss it in the Trust is small. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: voting system for future venues?
Dave, On 8/29/2011 8:01 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: If we want more flexibility in order to find better hotel deals, then we have to do something like: dates are fixed approximately 1.5 years out, and we do not mind having meetings back-to-back with other organizations on the clash list. As we have been told for many years and experienced directly, hotel schedules become crowded 2-3 years ahead of time. That means we must fix our dates farther ahead than we have been doing. 1.5 years essentially guarantees our having very limited choice. Yes, I agree. My point was the change that was proposed. Currently the algorithm is something like: T-6 years:Announce date of meeting T-3 years:Start finding a hotel T-2 years:Select hotel T-1.5 years: Announce venue to community. Obvious advantage of this model is that all other organizations know when we will meet and clashes are minimal. Also, people who asked for early announcements of meeting dates, get what they want. If we change to a model where we are more flexible in order to find the best hotel deal, this becomes something like: T-6 years Announce that we have meeting in say March/July/November T-3 years Start finding a hotel for that month. T-2 years Select hotel and set exact meeting dates. T-1.5 years Announce to community. That is a 4.5 year difference in when the exact date is announced. This increase the risk that there is a clash with another meeting and people cannot plan much in advance. The question is what we, as a community, want: dates known early or flexibility to select the best venue at a late stage. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: voting system for future venues?
On 29/08/2011 16:51, Keith Moore wrote: On Aug 29, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: Obviously the date needs to be fixed at some point, but does it really have to be six years in advance? ( http://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html ) I've been wondering the same thing. Would it be reasonable to specify ballpark dates (say +/- 1 week) six years out as long as the actual dates were nailed down say three years out? Discussions with the hotel starts only 2 years out, so fixing dates 3 years out won't change a thing. There is also the clash list, which limits the weeks when we can have a meeting. If we want more flexibility in order to find better hotel deals, then we have to do something like: dates are fixed approximately 1.5 years out, and we do not mind having meetings back-to-back with other organizations on the clash list. That means that some folks will have to travel around the globe between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning in order to make it from one meeting to another. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?
On 26/08/2011 16:48, Mary Barnes wrote: [MB] I've not seen a single person advocate a 0:3:0 schedule and it's only less cheaper for all participants (not just US) because the hotel rates are extremely reasonable ($150 as I recall).It is definitely less expensive for the vast majority of participants than NA cities like Quebec City and San Francisco that travel by air. BUT, I think you are missing what we are saying overall - the major reasons some of us prefer Minneapolis is because it meets what some of us have been saying over and over as far a key factors for meetings: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68656.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68727.html I like Minneapolis as meeting location too, assuming that the visa troubles we had there last time are solved, and I'd be happy to make it the default location for US meetings. However, we have said that we want to meet all over the planet. That means that we have to go elsewhere somewhere, even if there is a good and cheaper meeting location available elsewhere, but in the wrong region. The same goes for the meeting weeks, if a good hotel option isn't available in a meeting week but is available a week or so earlier/later, then under the present rules, it has to be discarded. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?
On 25/08/2011 01:03, geoff wrote: On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 15:28 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: 1) We don't have to go to any particular location. There has been an assumption made by people in this discussion that sometimes when we pick locations with particularly expensive hotels, we'll get particularly expensive meetings. That's great except that we were the ones who chose to go to those locations. If we can't meet our cost targets at a location, go somewhere else. Sam makes a really good point here. We didn't have to go to Taipei. For some reason we chose to go to Taipei. Not quite. There is a requirement to have meetings all over the world, in a ratio of 1:1:1 for Europe, North America and Asia. Considering that we have to go to Asia, Taipei looks like a sensible choice: it is in the middle of the region, it well connected, and it is one of the bigger economies in the region. I have a feeling that if we dropped this requirement and went for a 0:3:0 schedule because it is much cheaper for the US participants to go to M'polis 3 times/year, somebody else would complain. The hotel (and host if there was on) could/should have been told - sorry too expensive. I've lost track what has been officially announced, but in one of the future years, the 1:1:1 requirement has been dropped as there was no suitable venue in one of the areas. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: voting system for future venues?
On 24/08/2011 23:12, Keith Moore wrote: Maybe there needs to be some sort of voting system for future venues. First of all, remember that the community asked for venue selections 2 to 3 years in advance. I don't think that many people can predict if they will attend a meeting 2 years from now. This proposal would require that the secretariat works out 3-4 proposals for meeting locations in great detail. That is a lot more work than the current approach: start with a few locations, discard options as one goes along. More work means more costs and thus higher meeting fees. Do we really want to increase fees just to have more options? You'd be eligible to vote if you'd attended an IETF anytime within the past, say, 2 years - or if you were willing to commit to attending the one you vote on if it wins. (say by putting down a deposit toward meeting fees). Instead of picking one venue, the committee would solicit bids from N (say 3-4) different venues within a geographic region.The bids would include: * room cost per night in the conference hotel * room cost per night in each of some small number of alternate hotels * locations of said hotels and nature of transportation between there and the conference venue * meeting fee for the entire week if that venue is chosen * other pertinent information (like what kind of food is nearby, what kind of facilities there are in or near the venue for impromptu gathering, what kinds of sightseeing opportunities there are, etc.) Looking at past discussions on the mailing lists, this list will be a lot longer. That way, everyone could figure his own travel costs, factor in his own willingness to stay further away for less cost, etc. Not true: it is not possible (nor sensible) to buy plane tickets 2 years in advance and a lot of things can change in between. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: voting system for future venues?
On 25/08/2011 13:06, Keith Moore wrote: On Aug 25, 2011, at 2:13 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: But on what basis are the options discarded by IAOC, if the different options aren't examined to at least the level of detail that I suggested? I think it is more a continuous process. Start with a number of options, investigate them in more detail, discard options as one goes along, work out the 100,000 little details that need to be taken care of with the most promising site only, then decide if the overal package is a good one. If not, repeat for the next site. Do we really want to increase fees just to have more options? Not more options, but more transparency into the selection and more assurance that the selection is made on the basis of what people really want or don't want. There are a lot of requirements, 1,000 participants who all prioritize them in different ways and there is no venue that meets all requirements. Thus whoever makes the selection will have to weigh all requirements and find a solution that is optimal for most people. The IETF has picked a model were a small set of people make this selection for the rest of the group. If you don't trust that they are trying their best to make the optimal selection, then there is a fundamental problem that cannot be solved by providing more documents, voting processes, etc. Not true: it is not possible (nor sensible) to buy plane tickets 2 years in advance and a lot of things can change in between. True. Though broadly speaking, if it's expensive to fly somewhere today, it's unlikely to be cheap to fly there in two years. Not always, here in Europe, one often sees price-fights between various airlines if a destination suddenly becomes popular for some reason or another. (And also the opposite: prices go up if the number of competitors on a route drops). Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: slide numbers
On 27/07/2011 16:22, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Dear Presenters, Please include slide numbers in your presentations. This makes life much easier for remote participants and jabber scribes. And also when you are presenting, please say on which slide you are. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?
On 19/06/2011 08:01, Glen Zorn wrote: On 6/18/2011 9:52 PM, Keith Moore wrote: Frankly, I'm appalled at the prices and think it's highly inappropriate for IETF to be meeting in venues where the conference hotels are so expensive. May I point out that there has been a survey on the topic and the community expressed a clear preference for Quebec over other Canadian cities, knowing that travel would be longer and the number of cheap alternative hotels smaller. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?
On 21/06/2011 03:24, Randall Gellens wrote: At 3:55 AM +0200 6/20/11, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: May I point out that there has been a survey on the topic and the community expressed a clear preference for Quebec over other Canadian cities, knowing that travel would be longer and the number of cheap alternative hotels smaller. My recollection, which of course could easily be flawed, is that the survey did not make clear that travel is significantly more difficult to Quebec than other Canadian cities, nor that hotels are more expensive. My recollection is that after the survey there was much discussion of this issue, with a number of people pointing out a number of fairly important problems with the survey. Off the top of my head, in addition to not mentioning the travel issue, also included lumping together into this group or that group cities which are very different in terms of travel connection, venue suitability, cost, etc. I checked and the survey said that the advantage of Vancouver (the alternative for Quebec) was that travel to Vancouver was a lot easier than to Quebec. At the time when the survey was taken, Quebec had the advantage that there was a much wider range of alternative/cheaper hotels available than in Vancouver within reasonable distance of the meeting venue. Of course, room rates outside the host hotel are not under the control of the IETF and can change in the 2 years between fixing the location and the actual meeting. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't exorbitant?
On 21/06/2011 06:31, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: How is travel significantly more difficult to Quebec City? It's one plane change from most US and Canadian points of origin that I checked, or even direct if you're close enough. If you look at the number of cities served by direct flights from Vancouver and Quebec, you will see that the number for Vancouver is much higher. Vancouver also has lots of direct flights to Europe. And each extra hop in a flight path, gives the chance of missing a connection, the airline losing your bag and all that. My flight in changes in Newark and out in Chicago, both major intercontinental hubs which means there are plenty of long-range connections that are no more difficult. In my case, coming from Europe, that means that I have to go through US customs, recheck my bags and wait for the next plane. That is a minimum of 2-3 hours extra. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
On 14/04/2011 23:26, Bob Hinden wrote: This prompts me to ask a question. Who would the IETF Chair delegate this responsibility to? The draft doesn't specify. I would say one of the (nomcom appointed) members of the IESG (or IAB). An Area Director is the obvious answer, except from what I understand ADs are also extremely busy. This trades one problem for another. The IESG chair definitely has more tasks than any of the AD's and I think it would be helpful if there were options to distribute work over the IESG, rather than assume that the chair can do them all. This is not only a matter of time, but also of expertise and personal interests. (The same applies to the IAB chair). Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl RIPE NCC http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
Olaf, I have just chartered a very short draft that intends to update BCP101. It can be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-iasa-ex-officio-membership The draft is very short and contains only a few sentences of substance: The IETF chair, the IAB chair, and the ISOC President/CEO may delegate their responsibilities to other persons. The delegations by the IETF chair and the IAB chair need to be confirmed by the IESG and IAB respectively. I agree with the concept but I do think that it needs a bit more work, in particular who can be selected as a delegate. Right now, the IETF and IAB chair are selected from a group of people selected by the nomcom and the nomcom can keep in mind that the person they select have to serve on the IAOC when selecting people. With this proposal, it is possible to appoint a delegate outside the pool of people appointed by the nomcom. That is a significant difference from the present approach. There is also RFC4071: Although the IAB, the IESG, and the ISOC Board of Trustees choose some members of the IAOC, those members do not directly represent the bodies that chose them. All members of the IAOC are accountable directly to the IETF community. If this proposal is implemented, who is accountable to the community? The IAB/IESG chair or the delegate? What would work for me, is something like The IETF chair and the IAB chair may delegate their responsibilities to another member of the IESG or IAB respectively. The delegate is accountable to the IETF community. The delegations by [...] This gives a pool of O(15) nomcom selected candidates, and the IAB/IESG can select one for this job. Also: The terms of delegation is for a longer term for instance aligned with the IESG and IAB appointment cycles (roughly anual). I think you mean: The delegation is for an one year term, aligned with the IAB and IESG appointment cycles and can be renewed. Finally, I think you have to check RFC4071 to make sure there are no clashes. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl RIPE NCC http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ICANN Leadership Positions open.
Resent on behalf of the ICANN Nomcom, sorry for any duplicates. Apply now for ICANN's Leadership Positions: Introducing the Nominating Committee (NomCom) The NomCom is an independent committee that, over a three-year cycle, is responsible for the selection and appointment of half of the voting members of ICANN's Board of Directors as well as members of ICANN's policy making Supporting Organizations and Advisory Councils. The 2011 NomCom is currently seeking volunteers willing to join ICANN's leadership and help shape the future of the Internet. The application process for the following positions is now open: * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) (3 seats, Africa; Asia/Australia/Pacific; and Latin America/Caribbean Islands regions) * Generic Names Supporting Organization Council (GNSO) (2 seats) * Country Code Names Support Organization Council (ccNSO) (1 seat) * Board of Directors (2 seats) Information about the qualifications and experience required for these positions is available on the NomCom website http://nomcom.icann.org/positions-2011.htm Self-nominations are welcome, or you can suggest a candidate -- if you know someone who could help lead development of policy for the Domain Name System, then the NomCom wants to hear from you! Visit the NomCom website http://nomcom.icann.org for details of how to apply http://nomcom.icann.org/apply or how to recommend an expert http://nomcom.icann.org/suggest for a position. NomCom Chair, Adam Peake a...@glocom.ac.jp would be pleased to answer any questions a potential candidates may have. Closing date for applications 4 April 2011. -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Poster sessions
On 10/01/2011 11:14, Yoav Nir wrote: On Jan 10, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Lars Eggert wrote: Hi, On 2011-1-8, at 19:41, R. B. wrote: I'm really in a rush, but I want to send my 0.02 too. I like the idea of a poster session, since a single I-D could go unobserved in the churn of other I-Ds. many areas have open meetings where folks already can present such ideas. It's up to the ADs or chairs of such meetings to decide if presentation time is warranted, with or without an accompanying ID. True, but in those meetings you usually get about 5 minutes to present (which is good), but then some other people present other things. Following that, those people in the audience who are interested will have to seek you out among the 1200 participants, or go to a mailing list just to ask questions. A poster session would allow for more interaction. I think that there is another issue. Some people are good at doing 5 minute pitches of an idea, others aren't. In case one is not, then I think a poster session might be a good alternative. The costs for a poster session are almost 0. Isn't this something we can just try? Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Poster sessions
On 10/01/2011 14:57, Yoav Nir wrote: On Jan 10, 2011, at 1:09 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: The costs for a poster session are almost 0. Isn't this something we can just try? I don't agree that the costs are zero. You can't have the poster session last all week long, because the presenter may want to go to other sessions. So we need about 2 hours reserved for this. Maybe a morning session. My idea would be that the pinboards for the posters are available from day one onwards and people with a poster can put it up on Sunday. Folks can come and watch. Select 2 or 3 coffee breaks where the person presenting the poster must be near his poster for questions and discussion. Also, this puts another constraint on choosing a venue. You need an area with room for lots of people, and space to put the booths or desks all around. For example, Anaheim did not have a good area to hold a poster session. Maastricht did. No idea about Beijing. As far as I remember Anaheim: it did have a few hallways between meeting rooms and coffee pot. Sounds like an ideal place for a poster session. Beijing had the same options. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On 11/11/2010 12:01, Dave CROCKER wrote: It is a change in practice. It is not a change in formal requirement. This has (always?) been an unenforced requirement.(*) No, I've been refused entry to the terminal room at least once because I did not wear my badge. In some venues (Maastricht, Paris, and maybe others) a badge was needed to enter the building early in the morning or late in the evening. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Sam, I will take this as explanation for why you did not push back on the host (or hotel) earlier, rather than as an attempt to start a conversation about the reasonableness of such a change in general. My personal opinion on this: the requirement is that the meeting facilities (rooms, terminals, food, reception, etc) are accessible to the people who have registered and paid for them, and not accessible to people who have not registered. That requirement has been around forever. The implementation of this requirement is best left to the local organizers, they know the location, local habits, costs to enforce this, etc. As far as I can see, the requirement has been implemented here, so I'm happy. Henk ps. And this evening a newbie told me that he found it very handy that everybody was wearing a badge, as it allowed him to get the names of everybody he spoke to. -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment
I think having the BOFs early in the week is a good idea but I'd modify the proposal a bit. Background: At this meeting, we have 8 BOFs. There are also 7 or 8 meetings in each of the sessions (9-11:30, 1-3, 3-4). Scheduling all 8 BOFs at the same time will maximize overlap between them but otherwise not affect the schedule. However, the overlap does not make this a good idea. Also, the lengths of the BOFs will vary, so one size fits all is not a good idea. If we schedule 4 BOFs at the time and have NO WG meetings in parallel, reduce overlap for the BOFs BUT at the same time create more conflicts for the rest of the week, as 8 WG sessions have to be put elsewhere in the schedule. This is not a good idea either.4 BOFs with meetings in parallel works better. 4 BOFs with 4 regular meetings at the same time does not have much impact on the rest of the schedule, but there is still a fair chance of overlap. So, I'd take it a step further: Starting Monday morning, 2 of the 7 or 8 meeting slots in each session are reserved for BOFs and the other 4 or 5 for WG meetings. That way, we'll have all the BOFs done by Tuesday lunchtime, giving time to discuss the results during the week, and impact on the rest of the schedule is minimal. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC volunteers (Re: NomCom 2010-2011: Call for More Nominations)
Martin, Speaking just for myself: I'm not discouraged by the discussions. On the contrary, working on improving our meeting experience is an interesting challenge. You are correct that it isn't possible to make everyone happy and that expectations and experiences vary, but that doesn't mean we can't work on some specific areas. I'll second that, which is why voluntered for another term on the IAOC. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: All these discussions about meeting venues
On 14/09/2010 18:58, Michael Dillon wrote: Even in Dublin and Maastricht there were restaurant districts nearby for those with vehicles. If the hosts or the IETF had operated a 15 min. shuttle service to the restaurant districts from 12 noon to 12 midnight, that would likely have resolved most if not all of the complaints about restaurants. Well, one of the things that I liked about Maastricht was that every attendee got a free pass for the entire city bus system. Busses left in front of the building, about once every 10 minutes from +/- 6am to +/- 11pm, and got you to the downtown area in about 10-15 minutes. Density of bus stops in the downtown area is such that most restaurants are within a few minutes walk of a bus stop. I used it a couple of times and it just worked fine. I'm not sure how a shuttle bus could have improved on this. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft
Adrian, I have absolutely no doubt of the integrity of the IAOC and its chair, but this rule is somewhat vague and open to interpretation. It is like using the word appropriate in a protocol spec! Yes, true, but this is really a rare exception. In the 1.5 years that I've been on the IAOC, I don't remember a case where expenses were made and reimbursed. That makes it hard to be more precise here. Could you look at qualifying this in some way to scope the exceptional circumstances. Perhaps payment of expenses would be made only if the payment has been agreed before the expense was incurred? If the IAOC members wanted to claim expenses that should not be reimbursed, this rule would be easy to circumvent. If this is a concern, then I'd suggest that the IAOC simply publishes what expenses were paid. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09
On 29/08/2010 06:22, Yoav Nir wrote: The warning to have your destination written down in Chinese, because the taxi drivers don't speak English doesn't inspire confidence either. I've never been to Beijing myself but friends who have told me that this worked perfect for them: the taxidriver understood where they wanted to go and they got there in more or less a straight line. For most business meetings, all this doesn't matter. You either have a host that helps you out, or your Chinese sales office helps you out. For an IETF meeting, we don't really have either of these. The host and the IETF do help: we provide 2 hotels and instructions on how to get there. The IETF (IAOC, local host, ...) is not a travel agent though, if you have requirements outside what is provided, I suggest that you contact a travel agent. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FW: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09
Jordi, Maastricht proved that the information provided by the train web sites was totally FALSE. This is something that the secretariat/IAOC SHOULD verify before accepting a venue. The Dutch railway site (www.ns.nl) is quite accurate. It lists the trains, arrival time, departure time and location where you have to change trains. In the 6 years or so that I've been a regular train user, I still have to come across a case where the website listed a train that the NS did not intend to run. Of course, the system is as good as its input data. If there is a technical problem or accident along a path, the website will notify you about that as soon as the data is entered. In practice, this means some chaos and confusion the first 10-30 minutes after the incident, then decent warning messages appear. That said, please explain to me how the IAOC can verify that a train sometime in the future, will not run according to schedule. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09
Hi Jordi, In a previous discussion about this it was clear that was not the Dutch railway, but the Belgium one ... However, it was recommended to use the fast train from/to Brussels, as it was faster than to Amsterdam ... Clearly was not the case. It is a train starting in the Netherlands, the schedule published by the NS on their website can then be considered authoritative. The secretariat does an on site visit. It is simple to add one more point and question about the trains if this is going to be used by most of the participants (as it was in this case) and actually there is not a good international local airport. I don't remember if this question was asked or not, some of this was discussed before I joined the IAOC. But even if the question was asked, I don't quite see how this would have solved your problem. 3 of the IAOC members had travelled with Dutch trains beforehand and their experience was that the information on the website was 100% accurate. And you know, in this case was quite obvious. If you ask in the train station, as I did (unfortunately too late), they will tell you: Oh NO, don't believe at all at the information on the web site, it has not been updated for ages !. This is strange, as both the NS (Dutch) and NMBS (Belgium) railways recommend to check their websites to plan a trip. And again, I have yet to come across a case where the website different from the intention of the railway company to run a train. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF privacy policy - update
On 08/07/2010 22:24, Fred Baker wrote: On Jul 8, 2010, at 1:18 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: On Jul 8, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Fred Baker wrote: Boy, would they dispute that. ITU has claimed that the IETF is not an open organization because a government cannot join it. Most membership organizations, RIPE, being an example, have a definition of how someone can become a member (members of RIPE are companies and pay a fee), and are considered open to that class of membership. Wait... There are two organizations: RIPE and RIPE NCC. RIPE is an open group of people interested in IP based networks in Europe and surrounding areas. There is no formal membership, work is done by volunteers, anybody who is interested can join the mailing lists and participate, anybody who pays the meeting fee can attend the meeting and participate there. From an organizational point of view, it is pretty similar to the IETF. RIPE NCC is an organization established to do whatever ISP's and other network providers have to organize as a group, even though they are competitors, on a professional basis. It is a membership organization open to everybody who meets the criteria (which is essential: run a network). The RIPE NCC has an annual meeting, where the members decide on what activities will be carried out in the next year. This meeting is open to members only, which makes a lot of sense as the members also write the checks to cover the costs. And to answer the original question: yes, if you register for the RIPE or RIPE NCC meetings, your name will appear on the public attendees list. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF privacy policy - update
(Wearing no hats) On 08/07/2010 10:59, Yoav Nir wrote: On July 08, 2010 12:42 AM joel jaeggli wrote: the fact that you signed up for the meeting is publicly available so that we don't sell mailing lists to spammers seems sort of irrelevant. The attendee list does not contain email adresses, making it a lot less useful for spammers than a list of working email addresses. This is the way things are *now*. Discussion of a privacy statement may lead to changes, such as keeping the attendee list confidential, and destroying it on the Monday following the meeting. I'm not sure what problem we are trying to solve but I don't think that it will solve it anyway. The documents related to the meeting (ID's, minutes, WG pages, WG mail archives) are full with names and, in most cases, detailed contact information such as email, phone and postal address. Nobody seems to have a problem with that, removing those details from the documents is a lot of work and will make the resulting docs useless. I personally don't care if the whole world knows I've been to an IETF meeting, I think this should be the basic assumption. The IETF is a public event, you will have to walk around with a name badge and your name will be in the meeting materials. There is an easy solution if you don't like this. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
I disagree with this policy action. Looking at the data, there are very few, if any, people who would be eligible as nomcom members under the current version of rule 14 (attended 3 out of 5 IETF's on any program) but not under the modified version. And then, we have not factored in that traditionally only some 10% of the people eligible to volunteer for the nomcom, actually volunteers (and only a few out those, are actually selected). Further, of the non-daypass attendees, some 40% says that they did not attend the full week but skipped one or more days from the program. If we add this all up, I'd estimate that there is about a 10% chance that one of the people on the 2010-2011 nomcom attended 2 full meetings plus 1 day of either Anaheim or Hiroshima, as compared to the other nomcom members who attended 3 full meetings. Can somebody explain to me what the problem that we are trying to solve here is? The IAOC has always said that the day-pass experiment will be evaluated after a couple of meetings. This has started and we plan to show data and a way forward in Maastricht. What we have also said that if the experiment was turned into a regular feature, we'd review all documents for attendence requirements and come up with a proposal how to modify them. This is still the case. In short, I fail to see the need for a policy statement at this time. Henk (for himself, not necessarily for the full IAOC) -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht
On 29/03/2010 04:37, Michael Richardson wrote: Richard == Richard Barnesrbar...@bbn.com writes: The MECC conference center is 2 - 3 kilometers from the city center, where the restaurants are. Richard IAOC: I had been getting used to the idea of Maastricht, Richard with it being historic, nice city center and all. Richard Iljitsch's observation makes me wonder if we learned http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=dsource=s_dsaddr=Forum+100,+6229+GV+Maastricht,+Netherlands+(Maastrichts+Expositie+%26+Congres+Centrum+(Mecc)+B.V.)daddr=Maastrichthl=engeocode=FTC4BwMdrC9XACH4LXENCJiY-w%3BFTfoBwMd28dWACmTO154tunARzHmk2QWU-RsTAmra=ccdirflg=wsll=50.843475,5.696705sspn=0.022709,0.043559ie=UTF8t=hz=15 it appears one has to cross the river? Iljitsch can you confirm the end points are reasonable? I'd disagree on the starting point. The MECC is a huge complex, when walking and going North-west (to the city center), I'd leave through the north-western exit, not the south-eastern one as on your map. This is where it says Kennedy Singel on your map. That save you about half a kilometer. For the end point. Yes, it is correct that the Vrijthof is the main square of the city. However, when going for food, you do not have to go as far as that. Cross the river one bridge more to the south (the pedestrian/bicycle bridge near Centre Ceramique) and walk your way through the maze of little streets in the direction of Vrijthof. By the time you get there, you must have passed at least 50 restaurants in all price categories starting at McDonalds and ending at 2 options with multiple Michelin stars. Finally, the MECC has a quite reasonable restaurant for lunch. I never felt the need to go to town for lunch. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H.L.Mencken ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht
On 29/03/2010 12:05, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: In Maastricht the situation will be different from both: because it's a small city, public transport isn't very high frequency / high capacity, but we'll be within walking distance of the city center, There are 3 bus-lines passing by the MECC, going to central station and then the city center in +/- 10-15 minutes. The lines all run a 15min schedule during the day, so that averages a bus every 5 minutes. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H.L.Mencken ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Apply Now to Join the ICANN Board, the Councils of GNSO and ccNSO, and the ALAC
Dear all, With my hat as IETF liaison to the ICANN NomCom on. ICANN's Nominating Committee (Nom Com) invites Statements of Interest and candidate recommendations from the Internet community for key leadership positions to fulfill ICANN's technical and policy coordination role. FOr details, see: http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13nov09-en.htm Of course, you can also contact me offline with suggested candidates or any other concerns that you may have. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H.L.Mencken ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Cullen Jennings wrote: On Oct 7, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: I agree. So-far, we have always assumed that discussions on crypto as well as writing, testing and using code during the meeting were legal in the country. And if they weren't, we'd assume that the local policy would not notice. Henk, just clarify question. I assume you meant police not policy in the sentence above? Is that correct. That is correct. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
(Personal opinion) On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote: While I do think that the IAOC should be aware of the potential legal implications of where we hold our meetings, I wonder if we are treating China unfairly in this discussion... I agree. So-far, we have always assumed that discussions on crypto as well as writing, testing and using code during the meeting were legal in the country. And if they weren't, we'd assume that the local policy would not notice. China is not different in this respect. Perhaps this is something that we could expect our host to help us determine? The IAOC is in contact with the host about all the issues raised on the list (and then some more). Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a futuremeetingof the IETF
John, Dave, I disagree, at least slightly, but that is because I suffer from a concern --documented in a request for review and previous notes to this list-- that the IAOC/Trustees are _not_ doing their job, or at least the part of that job that requires keeping the community informed about the decisions they are making and the reasons for them. Speaking as myself. I think we have heard this message and we are working on improving communications. We have spent time to get all outstanding meetings done, we are now working on making minutes of new meetings more readable for somebody not present at the meeting. We also started to explicitly ask the community about choices we have to make for meetings, for example, Quebec vs. Vancouver or China or no China. BTW, we are still looking for a volunteer scribe for our meetings :-) Suppose he posted a list of questions to which he thought we should have answers before we put a meeting in any location that has a reputation (justified or not) for regulating the free flow of information, asked whether the IAOC had answers to those questions for a particular case, and, if they did, that they share those answers with the community? I think that would be reasonable and that the IAOC could reasonably respond to such a question by saying yes, similar questions were asked, we think the answers are reasonable, and the discussion is documented in the IAOC Minutes of Except that he did ask, hasn't gotten an answer like that and, by the way, there are no minutes of enough substance to be pointed to on that (or any other) issue. We have a long list with issues that we think should be settled before we decide to go there or not, and we are working on the document describing why we decided one way or another. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Pete Resnick wrote: Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Host (and the IAOC if faced with similar text in a contract they need to sign) should simply cross off the portion, say that they don't agree to the condition, sign the rest of it, and see what comes back. Call it negotiation. We already asked if this condition could be removed and the answer was a sound no with no room for discussion. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
John, (and others), The difficulty is that, from things I've heard informally, the proposed Host (Client) isn't the government or a government body. The (possible) host is not a government body. However, the host must have permission from the government to organize the meeting, they asked for it and got it. I think it is safe to assume that the government did run some checks on what the IETF is doing and, if we did keep ourselves busy with things they do not like, then I seriously doubt that they would have given the host permission to invite us in the first place. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Policy for Modifications to Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
Simon Josefsson wrote: Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv writes: Comments sought for: Standard Procedure for Modifying the TLP Is this a solution looking for a problem? RFC 5377 is an example of where the IETF asks the Trust do something. What is wrong with using the same approach in the future? The approach would be that someone writes an I-D, there is IETF-wide last call on it, and it is either approved or not. If it is approved, the Trust needs to act. Correct and this document specifies how the trust will react: it takes the guidance (for example, RFC 5377), modifies the text, gets legal advice and proposes an implementation to the community. The community reviews the changes and checks that what is implemented, is what is requested. 2. Whoever brings up the problem, writes a problem statement. a. In case 1a: this can be an individual submission ID or a ID from a WG chartered to discuss these items. b. In case 1b: A note from the trust to the community. c. In case 1c: A note from whoever brings up the issue. For 2c, whom is the note to? To only the trust or to the community? If the former, will be trust communicate the request to the community? 2c are cases where the Trust manages something for another stream, so in first order, I'd say that the note is for the trust and that other stream. I don't see a problem sending it else where though. 4. Trust (with legal counsel) reviews the issue and comes up with a response: a. No, we don't think changing this is a good idea, because ... b. Yes, we suggest to modify the text as follows ... (perhaps with some background material why this is the answer). I'm strongly concerned that this puts the decision making of what is and what is not a problem into the Trust's hands. No, there is always step 5: review of the new text or decision not to change the text. If a suggestion isn't considered a good idea by the Trust, the reasons for not changing it can be discussed in this step. The trust is there to protect the IPR held by the IETF, if the community comes up with a suggestion that has a negative impact on that, I want the Trust to be able to warn the community about this, rather than blindly implement the change. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Policy for Modifications to Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
Simon, I wish that is how it would work. The most recent change of the TLP was not following that process -- instead the Trust proposed the change and implemented it after some delay -- and, for example, it resulted in a change to how BSD licensed portions extracted from IETF documents that is not consistent with common practice. That is correct. One of the things we learned from the discussions around the last TLP changes, was that there was no clear process to follow when the TLP needs to be changed. This proposal is there to fix that. 2c does not seem restricted for non-IETF streams from the writing above. I think it is important that the IETF is notified for issues relating to the IETF stream. 2c says case 1c, 1c deals with all non IETF streams that the Trust manages. (For the last point, please see Olaf's mail.) Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Policy for Modifications to Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
Simon Josefsson wrote: If a proposal from the IETF is in conflict with the terms of the Trust Agreement or the law then a Trustee has the obligation to veto it (a fairly academic possibility, I believe). I don't see how that is related to step 4 above. There is plenty of mechanisms left for the Trust to veto changes to become effective -- for example, you can just refuse to approve the change -- however my point is about having the trust be able to cancel the process to modify the TLP even before it has been subject to community discussion. That approach appears contrary to the concept that the Trust carries out the wishes of the IETF and not the other way around. I don't see how this is possible: If the community believes that a change should be made, the Trust has to (at least) review it and explain why it believes that this is not a good idea. This brings us to phase 5, community discussion, where one can discuss the arguments for not making the change. At this point several things can happen. One possibility is that the community really wants the change but the Trust doesn't. In that case, there is an possibility for appeal. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF74 T-Shirt Art Donated to IETF Trust
Marshall Eubanks wrote: If the IETF sold 100 shirts we would IMO be doing well. If we sold 1000, we would be doing spectacularly well IMHO. That would net $ 5000. That's less than ten registrations at a meeting. I am neutral about whether or not we do this, but please don't imagine that it will supplant registration fees or otherwise lead to sudden riches. I'd be suprised if we sold more than a 100 shirts. I see this primarily as a service to attendees, not as a way to generate money. You get a shirt for free, if you want a 2nd one for whatever reason, you can buy it. The IETF gets a few $$ for the trouble. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions(TLP)
John, * There is, as far as I know, no precedent for an IETF-related body to announce a public comment period on a document, make a series of interim decisions and announce them five days before the end of that period, and then leave the comment period termination date in place rather than restarting the review on the revised document. For a purely practical point of view: When I'm asked to review a document, and before I start, the author realizes that a section needs to be modified, then this is something I'd like to know. That saves me the time to review something that is known to be changed anyway. In WGLCs, this happens all the time. Comments are made, authors acknowledge them and promise a new version. Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
Scott O. Bradner wrote: Isn't this what has essentially happened in this case? I did not see a statement from the IETF asking for changes Aren't RFC 5377/5378 (and subsequent discussion) such a statement? (At least, that is where people told me to start when I asked why we are doing this). Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions(TLP)
John, * There is, as far as I know, no precedent for an IETF-related body to announce a public comment period on a document, make a series of interim decisions and announce them five days before the end of that period, and then leave the comment period termination date in place rather than restarting the review on the revised document. For a purely practical point of view: When I'm asked to review a document, and before I start, the author realizes that a section needs to be modified, then this is something I'd like to know. That saves me the time to review something that is known to be changed anyway. Sure. And the period of time you get to make the review starts when you get the changed version. That is why I believe this review period is, in practice, only five days long. I'd think it is still 30 days. N changes were proposed, on comments made in the first days, it was clear that one of them wasn't a good idea, so it was dropped. No review is necessary for that, for the other N-1 changes, there is still a 30 day period ongoing. Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
Scott O. Bradner wrote: 1st way: The IETF community provides the IETF Trust with a specific request and the Trust provides possible changes or new text to meet the specific request. The IETF request can come form a WG, in which case it should be in the form of a BCP (an IETF consensus document) or, with a public justification, from the IETF Chair (or maybe the IAB Chair). The Trust publishes the proposed changes with a 4-week last call and the changes are adopted if the IETF Chair determines that there is IETF consensus support for the specific changes. Isn't this what has essentially happened in this case? RFC 5377 and 5378 were published and other issues were raised later on. The Trust responded by reviewing the TLP and suggest modifications based on the RFC and discussions afterwards. The modifications are now out for a 30 day community review. Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, May 24, 2009 6:02 PM -0700 Dave CROCKER dcroc...@bbiw.net wrote: What do you think the incremental cost is, for making 1000 senior engineers people take an additional 8 hours (4 each way) and pay for an additional leg of travel. I'm not quite sure how a 1:50 or 2:30 hour train ride translates to 4 hours of extra travel time. Anyway, during those hours, you will be sitting on a chair as comfortable as in most planes. I'd think that most of us do what IETF'ers typically do: open their laptop and start working. Incidentally, is is those lost time costs that most concern me. I'm worried about airplane and other connections, but far more in terms of lost time and what people are expected to do after getting off a long flight than in terms of any absolute hub airport principle. From that point of view, the hub airport principle is just a surrogate for some harder-to-measure issues. At Schiphol, getting on the train to Maastricht is as easy as getting on a taxi to downtown Amsterdam, with the added advantage that the driver of the train cannot rip you off by taking a longer route than necessary. Trains leave about every 15 minutes. The wait for a taxi is about 5 to 10 minutes, depending on the time of day. I'm happy to post detailed instructions closer to the time of the meeting. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, May 25, 2009 9:47 PM +0200 Patrik Fältström p...@cisco.com wrote: One difference is that a plane is quite easy to use. You have someone that will (at least this has happened to me) stop you if you try to enter the wrong flight. Then the plane moves, and when it arrived everyone have to exit. With a train, you have to pick the correct train, and then leave the train at the correct stop. A bit more complicated to be honest. By interacting with people, you often can handle the most complicated train ride, but yes, it might be more complicated with train. Complication that, in many cases, is severely complicated by being tired, exhausted, and out of focus from a long flight. 95% of the people going to/from the airport are tourists, who do not travel frequently, often don't understand Dutch, are nerveous and exhausted. They make it from/to the airport just fine. And all this is before the local host even got a chance to provide instructions on how to get to the conference location from the airport. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Stephan Wenger wrote: For a German, the most intuitive way to get to Maastricht would actually be to go through Cologne, Dusseldorf, or Frankfurt. From Koeln or Duesseldorf it should be around an hour by car---no more than two hours even considering traffic. Both airport have a rather limited number of intercontinental flights, but good connections within Europe. From Frankfurt, when going by car, add another hour. Yes, Koeln-Duesseldorf has very good connections inside Europe and is about an hour by car from Maastricht. I know at least 1 Maastricht based company that does most of its air travel starting there. I wouldn't take a train from K-D to Maastricht (3.5 hours), but there are a number of shuttle buses. It takes a 3 hour train ride (longer during weekends) to get to Maastricht from Schiphol (Amsterdam airport) and a 2 hour one from Zaventem (Brussels airport). On the Sunday that the IETF starts, it is 2:34 or 2:38 from Schiphol to Maastricht. The train station on Schiphol is below the arrivals hall, in Maastricht it ends in downtown. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Ole Jacobsen wrote: On Sun, 24 May 2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: It's rarely just a matter of the hosts chosen location, but what is available at a given time and what is suitable for an IETF meeting in So, in this economy, you think that the choices were severely restricted 15 months from the time the contract was made? If you are talking about venues in the Netherlands, yes. The IETF is a relatively BIG meeting, The Netherlands is a relatively SMALL country at least in terms of convention venue space (including hotels). There are, I think, about 3 reasonable choices to hold an IETF meeting in this country. All 3 are quite popular even in the present economy, if you want to be sure that you can have a meeting in a particular week, you have to book 1 year in advance. Starting with the assumption that it has to be the Netherlands -- no matter how nice that country is -- is already a problematic constraint, if it produces problematic choices. Link host to venue -- at all -- and this is what happens. It's not that it HAS to be The Netherlands, but that is where Drew found a (number of) host sponsors in this particular case. The sponsor is an organization that focusses on the Dutch market only and I seriously doubt that they would sponsor anything outside this country. Remove the money from the sponsors and the meeting fees would have to go up. At the one but last plenary, you (Dave) were amongst the first persons to object against a potential increase from $635 to $675. And the amount this sponsor contributes is far more than than $40x1,000 attendees. Finally, in the present economy, finding sponsors isn't easy either. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp
Dear IETF secretariat, The IPPM group would like to ask for publication of draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp as an RFC. The shepherd note for the document is attached. Henk - - - - Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp-00, as required by rfc4858, and specfied in the 17-Sep-2008 version of http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/Doc-Writeup.html. (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? The document shepherd is Henk Uijterwaal h...@ripe.net. I have personally reviewed this document and would not have bothered to write this note if I didn't feel it was ready for the IESG. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? I believe the document has received sufficent review from WG members. This is a small extension to a thoroughly reviewed protocol. I have no concerns about the depth or breadth of reivews for this document. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? None. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? No. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? This is an extension to an existing protocol (TWAMP, RFC 5357). The issue came up when the TWAMP protocol was close to completion. As the WG wanted to finish TWAMP, it was decided to put possible extensions in another document. TWAMP is actively being used by several groups these days, none of them raised any issues with the document. The document authors are both involved with 2 of the implementations of the protocol and would have flagged any issues. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? There are the following issues: ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required from December 16, 2008. Version 1.34 of xml2rfc can be used to produce documents with boilerplate according to the mentioned Trust License Policy document. It is not clear to me if this is correct, as the document was submitted before Nov 10 (i.e. pre-5378). == Missing Reference: '0-31' is mentioned on line 257, but not defined This looks like an error in the tool. == Unused Reference: 'RFC2434' is defined on line 292, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) This reference can go. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? None of these are necessary. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Yes, the informative reference section can be removed on publication as there are none. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? No. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? There is an IANA considerations section, it is consistent. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Not applicable. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the Action announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The IETF has completed its work on TWAMP - the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
[Fwd: [ippm] Milestone completed]
Original Message Subject: [ippm] Milestone completed Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:21:35 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal h...@ripe.net To: IETF IPPM WG i...@ietf.org, Lars Eggert lars.egg...@nokia.com, Matthew J Zekauskas m...@internet2.edu Dear secretariat, Please mark this IPPM milestone as done. Mar 2009Assemble editorial team to work on the process draft (WG version of draft-bradner-metricstest) Thanks, Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ ippm mailing list i...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
[Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
Noel Chiappa wrote: (Discussion deleted) I think these (and the per-draft mailboxes others have mentioned) are probably all steps in a long-term plan, with the eventual optimum system being the web-based thing you mention. What is exactly the problem we're trying to solve here? I think most of us like to see LC comments related to the drafts that they are somehow involved with (author, WG participant, etc). Posting those comments to the ietf list takes care of that, without work or effort from anybody. Most of the 250+ drafts that go last call every year, generate no comments on the list. The TLS draft is an exception with 100's of replies. However, I cannot remember any similar cases in the last 10 years. Pressing delete 100 times worked for me, that is a few minutes of work in a 10 year period, in other words no work at all. Do we really want to introduce all kinds of complex procedures just based on one incident? Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Fwd: The IESG Approved the Expansion of the AS Number Registry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Until all software understands the bigger numbers, people will want to continue using the 16-bit ones. The IESG message talked about numbers from 65536 to some big number. Here suddenly, we see a reference to some number of bits. Meanwhile, to encourage the migration to 4-byte ASNs, the RIRs have Now there is a reference to some number of bytes. What is going on here? I think we're mixing up the number of bits reserved and the decimal representation. So far, 16 bits were used, or 2 bytes, the extensions use 32 bits on the wire. 16 bits can be used for an unsigned decimal number up to 65536, so it does make some sense to use that instead of a string of 0's and 1's. On the NANOG list it has already been pointed out that a lot of network management software cannot handle such notation and in some cases, 1.0 could be interpreted as the IP address 1.0.0.0. It has been confirmed that one widely used PERL library interprets x.y as IP address x.0.0.y. I think this is a bug. Because of this I think it would be useful for the IETF to publish a draft defining the notation for AS numbers so that we can either keep it simple or, if a new notation is to be used, then publicly state the issues of software which needs to be changed. Such a draft should really come from the WG which extended the AS number in the first place. There is: Canonical Textual Representation of 4-byte AS Numbers draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation-02 describing the format of ASN32 and RPSL extensions for 32 bit AS Numbers draft-uijterwaal-rpsl-4byteas-ext-01.txt describing what has to be changed in RPSL based tools for ASN32. For the latter draft, there is no good place in the IETF right now, but I do welcome comments. Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- # Lawyer: Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man-- # Witness: Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
I further agree with Phillip (and Richard) that this is not an IAB or even a Nomcom chair decision I disagree. The chair of a committee should have some freedom to decide what to do in cases not covered by the RFC. The decision he made (rerun the algorithm with correct input data) is a reasonable one by any standard. Let's just accept his decision and go on with our work. There are, of course, other solutions, but I seriously doubt that a community discussion will ever lead to consensus on which one is best. So, let's not have this discussion (*) I disagree further with Phil that this can set a precedent for rerunning the algorithm in the case where a unacceptable to some member is selected in the NOMCOM. That is something completely different. Henk (*) This won't happen but thanks to procmail, I won't see it... -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- 1160438400 + 381600 = 116082. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
At 14:08 13/07/2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: So at the end ... is not so easy as it may seem ! I think it is quite simple: What matters to me is the total costs of meeting rooms, breakfast, coffee and connectivity, or the stuff covered by the registration fee. I'm prepared to pay a registration fee at roughly the current level for those things, plus the costs of my hotel room and plane ticket. I couldn't care less how the money from the registration fees is split over the various cost items, we have hired people to take care of that. Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- 1160438400 + 381600 = 116082. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Moving from hosts to sponsors
If the meeting fees could be lowered over time because smaller venues are needed 2 out of 3 IETFs, then more people will be able to participate. In my case, the meeting fees are small compared to travel and hotel costs. I think there are some good ideas here. I find that WG meetings are too short to get anything useful done, and all the issues that would benefit of longer face-to-face discussions are taken to the mailing list before any concrete proposal are fleshed out. But is the WG the place to have the discussion? In most of the WG's that I attended this week, technical discussions were typically between 3 to 5 experts in the field who know everything about the topic, the rest of the room either couldn't follow the discussion or had nothing to contribute. That means that there are 50 or so people sitting there doing nothing. While I agree that face-2-face discussions are useful, I much rather see the discussion take place in the hallway, then have one person report on the outcome. Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- 1160438400. Watch this space... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: project management (from Town Hall meeting)
At 10:05 04/08/2005, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: I would never suggest adopting a 4-year project schedule, but would suggest a number of simple project management techniques and goals: - As part of WG chair training, train WG chairs in basic project management techniques and indicate that driving progress is an important role. I doubt that this is going to solve anything. All basic project management techniques assume that a project has a deadline and that the people working on it have some incentive to get the work done. This is not the case for ID's: we continue working on them until there is rough consensus, no matter how long it takes. The authors are volunteers, if other activities pop up and work on the ID has to be postponed, there is nothing the WG chair can do. The real question is: how can we set realistic deadlines and get commitment from people to get the work done by the deadline, even if they are interrupted. Only when we have answered this question, it makes sense to start looking at tools to support this process. - Avoid massive number of parallel efforts in working groups. Instead, focus on a small number of drafts and get them out in less than a year from draft-ietf-*-00. (They might start as draft-personal- if they are exploratory.) This is another result of doing work with volunteers. If somebody is interested in a topic but not in another, then there is nothing that can stop him from working on the first topic, even if it might be beneficial for overall progress to finish the topic first. Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Look here junior, don't you be so happy. And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad. (Tom Verlaine) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: project management (from Town Hall meeting)
At 11:07 04/08/2005, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: I doubt that this is going to solve anything. All basic project management techniques assume that a project has a deadline and that the people working We do have deadlines: charters, and external customers (implementors, other SDOs). I haven't counted the number of times were deadlines were missed this week alone with no consequences. For example, in a WG I attended this morning, the chair asked a person about a document he promised to write. The person answered that he'd do this in the next month. The chair replied that he said that last time as well. Some laughter followed, but that was the end of it. This is not quite true: authors are not volunteers in the normal soup-kitchen-volunteer sense. In most cases, authors are paid by their companies to do the work. I agree. But companies change priorities and with that the time people can spend on ID's. In this case, there is little we can do. I can see a solution (have get commitment from employers before assigning work to a person) but this will require a major change in the basic way we work. For example, journals routinely drop editors that don't perform their (unpaid, volunteer) duties. Yes, but I rarely see this happen in the IETF. Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Look here junior, don't you be so happy. And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad. (Tom Verlaine) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: New regulations for US Visa Waiver Programme (was RE: french crypto regulations relating to personal encryption usageby visitors? )
At 15:37 02/04/2005, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: This is the reaction in a letter from Jameson Sensenbrenner, chair of the relevant comittee in the US Congres to the Euro commisioner Fratini (Justice). ``The concern about the weak border control of the US will make an extra delay difficult''. [...] Biometric Passports - President Bush signed legislation, which delays until October 26, 2005 This is not the first time that this program has been delayed. Originally the biometric requirement was supposed to come into effect in 2004. Given that it is still 6 months before the deadline, I would not be suprised if the US and EU discussed this issue for a few more months, then postponed it again. (And we nicely postponed the problem by having the fall IETF outside the US :-) Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Look here junior, don't you be so happy. And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad. (Tom Verlaine) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re:reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless
Well, let's see: The problem: We want a network that is available from Sunday morning until Friday afternoon, with no interruptions, supports 1500 users in parallel using RF technology, supports the all latest protocols and services, with a help desk available to solve problems for the most bizarre combinations of hardware, OS and software. The solution: We build a network starting on Friday afternoon, with volunteers doing the installation and equipment that is borrowed from various sources, with no advance testing. Does anybody on this list seriously think that this solution would be acceptable to any of his customers? Of course not, they'd probably still be laughing while you are out on the street looking for a new job. So, if we really want this production level network, we should pay people to do the work, and add the costs to the meeting fees. If not, we should accept that the volunteers are doing their best but that we will not have a perfect network. Next problem, please. Henk (who was, in general, quite happy with the network) -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Look here junior, don't you be so happy. And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad. (Tom Verlaine) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Friday @ IETF61?
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Melinda Shore wrote: On Thursday, September 2, 2004, at 09:48 AM, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC) wrote: The same applies to Sunday and Friday but this hasn't caused any problem so-far. Why would Saturday be different? Fridays is actually Friday night. The proscriptions against work on Saturday are for the entire day, until sunset. I was thinking about other religions. Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit and wisdom to do their job properly. (David Brent). ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 60th IETF - public transports?
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Hadmut Danisch wrote: does anyone know how one can get from San Diego downtown to the conference hotel without renting a car? Are there public transports? If you fly in and stay at conference hotel, then you can take the hotel shuttle at the airport. 5 minutes. Probably 10-15 minute walk. From downtown there is a bus (992, see www.sdcommute.com) to the airport, change to the hotel shuttle. Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit and wisdom to do their job properly. (David Brent). ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF58 - Network Status
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Jim Martin wrote: I strongly encourage people to consider bringing 802.11a cards to future meetings! (Note: Of course, now that I've said that, the future hosts will decide against deploying it) If we go for 802.11a, I sugggest that we ask a vendor (or two) to come with a pile of cards that people can borrow for a few $$ more than the manufactuiring price, and can return after the meeting, or not. Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RIPE Network Coordination CentreWWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB AmsterdamFax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 -- That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
Re: IETF58 - Network Status - 12:05PM Local Time
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Kevin C. Almeroth wrote: But the result is independent of whether people are running in ad hoc mode... it has to do with AP tuning, etc. I just noticed that where I'm sitting in the lobby, one can pick up 2 networks: ietf58 and hhonors. Neither one charges for SSH tunnels :-) Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RIPE Network Coordination CentreWWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB AmsterdamFax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 -- That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
Re: Barrel-bottom scraping
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Phil Hallam-Baker just suggested in the plenary that we could easily raise funds by going round looking for sponsorship from industry, $10k and $10k there. This ignores that this is *exactly* where ISOC's funds come from, and those funds are largely used to support the IETF (specifically the RFC Editor, plus a few smaller expenses that would otherwise fall on the Secretariat budget). Also, why should any company pay another $10k when they already give employees to work on IETF standards during office hours? Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RIPE Network Coordination CentreWWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB AmsterdamFax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 -- That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
Re: IETF 54 calendar
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Melinda Shore wrote: At 02:58 PM 5/28/02 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote: Again, I'm not going to object to using meeting time for this kind of session if that's what's needed. But other than Harald's message, I have not heard anything about this since Minneapolis and have not heard folks clamoring for such a meeting. Heck, we haven't seen a proposed agenda for a meeting let alone an I-D. How was it decided that everyone would obviously want to go and that therefore a separate session was needed? I'd like to see a session on IPR that doesn't conflict with other meetings. It would be endlessly great if it could be declared mandatory :-). IPR is increasingly a huge nuisance, and because the current policy is less than completely clear there's a lot of confusion about it when it comes up. Although this may not be a problem (until the lawyers show up) there's not a lot of consistency among working groups. I think that would be very useful if a couple of lawyers showed up in an IPR session, listened to the comments and warned us for things that are illegal or not legally implementable. Henk -- Henk UijterwaalEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB AmsterdamFax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 -- That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
Re: 53rd IETF Meeting Final Agenda
Dinara, We are not going to schedule anything on Friday. Scheduling is closed already and even if we have a very very last minute request we'll schedule it some day from Monday to Thursday that meeting week. So you can schedule your flights without any worry. No Meetings on Friday. Is the network going to be active on Friday? Henk -- Henk UijterwaalEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB AmsterdamFax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 -- That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
Re: comments on Friday scheduling, etc.
(at least for US-homed travellers) Can we please keep in mind that half the attendees are not from the US? My current IETF schedule is something like: * Fly on Saturday (10-15 hours, 6-9 hour time change), * Relatively quiet Sunday to recover, * Meetings Monday-Friday morning, * Catch a flight around noon on Friday, * Home on Saturday morning for breakfast. which is pretty close to optimal. I think this applies to most Europeans. So: add the second plenary but otherwise keep the schedule as is. Henk -- Henk UijterwaalEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB AmsterdamFax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 -- That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
Re: Blue Sheet Etiquette
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Susan Harris wrote: Easy - don't go to events where you don't want people to know. The names are available. If you don't want your name on the list of attendees - don't attend. I doubt they copied the entire list. What horrible thing do you think they were doing with your name or email address? Is the fact they knew your name offensive? Or do you think that spammers attend the IETF meeting just to get email addresses? What's the issue? All of us have our name on the list of attendees - that's not the point. In fact, if the person doing the copying simply wanted names, why didn't he/she go to the registration list on the web? Probably because he's interested in marketing to the special interests of the people at the WG, and wanted to get their email addresses quickly and easily. Very offensive. This brings up another question: why are email addresses collected on the blue sheets? Aren't names sufficient? The secretariat already has everybody's email addres from the registration form. Henk -- Henk UijterwaalEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB AmsterdamFax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 -- As long as you don't tell your friends how I played the hand, then I won't tell my friends how you defended it. (Anonymous)
Re: Deja Vu
Can we please agree that there is no perfect place to hold the IETF and stop this discussion? Henk On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Marc Blanchet wrote: At/À 11:14 2001-03-20 -0500, John Day you wrote/vous écriviez: The electronic outdoor temperature sign in the skyway reading "39". The units aren't mentioned. Kelvins? Wow!!! It must be Spring in Minneapolis. I hadn't realized it would be so warm. Nice that it worked out that way. The stockbroker's electronic sign showing the Dow trying to break 10,000. I understand the reasoning for holding the IETF here -- to discourage all but the most highly motivated from attending. But it doesn't seem to be working. So why, oh why, can't we just permanently move this thing to (say) Las Vegas, where there are hotels actually large enough to accomodate us, and where the winter climate is actually survivable? Even with Spring in MN, this is probably still a good idea. Or New Orleans, at least it is warm and centrally located. sorry, but this is a US centric comment. IETF is international, so centrally located is an interesting question: center of the earth (probably enough hot...;-))). back on work... Marc. Take care, Marc Blanchet Viagénie inc. tel: 418-656-9254 http://www.viagenie.qc.ca -- Normos (http://www.normos.org): Internet standards portal: IETF RFC, drafts, IANA, W3C, ATMForum, ISO, ... all in one place. -- Henk UijterwaalEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB AmsterdamFax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 -- As long as you don't tell your friends how I played the hand, then I won't tell my friends how you defended it. (Anonymous)
Re: IETF logistics
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Matt Holdrege wrote: At 08:07 AM 12/19/2000, Frank Kastenholz wrote: At 09:28 AM 12/19/00 -0500, RJ Atkinson wrote: We can also end the de facto practice of using the sessions as tutorials and discontinue fancy prepared presentations of the material already in the I-Ds. While tutorials are a fine thing, they are appropriate for USENIX or Interop, not IETF WG sessions, IMHO. I tried doing this in my area when I was on the IESG. It didn't work. The chairs and attendees want this stuff. Nothing personal Frank, but in a general sense I'd say you weren't doing your job well enough. Chairs serve at the discretion of the AD's. The AD's need to choose their chairs wisely and if the chairs feel that they need to have tutorials, then the chairs need better guidance or need replacement. And one of the points to this thread is that we shouldn't care what the attendees want as the IETF is not a tutorial conference. It's a working conference and only the people who are working on the drafts should be catered to. Others can certainly hang around and learn, but they shouldn't be catered to. Two comments: (1) If people want tutorials, then I think we should have them but not during the WG meetings. At most other conferences and meetings, there are tutorial sessions on the days just before or after the main meeting, for people who are (probably) experts on one of the topics of the main meeting and are interested to learn something about a related are. This is something that can be done at the IETF as well: reserve a few meeting rooms the weekend before/after the IETF and assign them to WG's that want to do a tutorial about their work. In the announcements, make it clear that the WG's session are for people who want to contribute to further development of the topic of the WG, while tutorials are for people who want to learn about its present status. Give people a choice which of the two they want to attend, but don't cater for the other group in a WG or tutorial. There are a lot of practical details to be worked out here, but I think we should take advantage of the fact a lot of potential speakers for tutorials as well as an interested audience is already in one place. (2) There seems to be a general consensus on this list on what is appropriate for a presentation in a WG meeting. OTOH, most speakers don't seem to be aware of that. (With presentation defined as a speaker briefly introducing the topic, followed by a discussion amongst the audience). Isn't it time to write a short introduction for speakers at the WG meetings, telling them what is (not) appropriate for a presentation at a WG meeting? At every IETF that I've attended so-far, I've listened to people who I'd never seen at an IETF before. Without some guidelines that they can use when preparing, it is hard to expect that their presentations are appropriate for the IETF. A short list of do's and don't's attached to every agenda, will tell (or remind) people of what is expected from them and hopefully result in better presentations. It is also much easier to interrupt a speaker if his presentation is not appropriate for a WG meeting. Henk -- Henk UijterwaalEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 -- A man can take a train and never reach his destination. (Kerouac, well before RFC2780).
Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning
On Thu, 14 Dec 100, Johnny Eriksson wrote: Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/13/00 at 1:30 PM -0800, Lane Patterson wrote: Would the IETF organizers consider requesting WG/BOF attendance plans upon registration? They do ask when the meeting is scheduled. It is up to the chair to estimate appropriately. A couple of times earlier (but I don't remember it being done this time) the registration process has contained a brief questionnare on what sessions/bofs you wanted to attend. Yes, but I don't recall that the room size problem was solved at these IETF's. Henk -- Henk UijterwaalEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 -- A man can take a train and never reach his destination. (Kerouac, well before RFC2780).
Re: [Q] Presentation at 49th meeting
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Harald Alvestrand wrote: At 11:40 04/12/2000 +0900, Lee, Jiwoong wrote: Neophyte speaker question: Is a piece of 2HD disk enough to give a presentation at 49th IETF meeting? Then, when shall I 'put' it into a laptop? recent meetings, the secretariat (or the host) has provided a lot of projectors. So far, they don't provide laptops. OTOH, there are at least a few dozen people with laptops in every meeting, so if you only have a disk, I'm sure that somebody can help you out. Henk -- Henk UijterwaalEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 -- A man can take a train and never reach his destination. (Kerouac, well before RFC2780).
