This seems worthy of wider dissemination.
Regards
Marshall
Begin forwarded message:
From: Vijay K. Gurbani v...@bell-labs.com
Date: August 12, 2010 10:37:02 AM EDT
To: alto a...@ietf.org
Subject: [alto] CFP - IEEE Comm. Magazine feature topic on Recent Advances
in IETF Standards
Folks:
Though interesting, what is the intent of the use of this data
Martin
Martin C. Dolly
Sent to you by ATT... America's Fastest Mobile Broadband Network. Rethink
Possible.
+1.609.903.3360
- Original Message -
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org ietf-boun...@ietf.org
To: Michael StJohns
On 8/6/2010 1:44 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
During my IAOC chair plenary talk at IETF78 (slides are in the proceedings) I
asked a question about continuing the current meeting policy (3 in North
...
Bob,
These numbers probably need to be correlated with the venue of each meeting.
One would
On 8/6/2010 5:37 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
A question for you. Should we select meeting venues to minimize the
cost/time/etc. of all attendees or just, for example, w.g. chairs? Many
people have suggested that the IAOC should be looking at overall attendee
costs, but there might be a difference
On 8/7/2010 6:03 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 7, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
I'd really rather the IETF go places where the ability to get work done
is the primary consideration.
To me, that's the only consideration apart from being open and spreading the
travel pain among our
On 8/9/2010 12:00 PM, David Kessens wrote:
I think all these models that are based on where we are from are really
beside the point as where we are from really doesn't necessarily have any
connection with where we like to go.
David,
Sometimes, someone posts a comment that highlights a key
On 8/9/2010 11:19 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
daycare shutdown periods, and the like. It would probably make it possible for
more people to join the meeting.
The current template is:
March, July, November.
September tends to be a messy month, IMO, so I'd suggest against it, preferring
On 8/11/2010 9:00 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
I also believe that the goal of moving the meeting around is to minimize
the cost of getting our work done,
Hmmm. I'm going to ask some very silly, very basic questions in the hope that a
clear consensus statement emerges from it:
What is the
On 8/11/2010 12:05 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
So, if we want to go to a January / May / September cycle starting in 2014, I
think we need to put
January and September strike as being especially challenging months.
February and October seem to be much less so.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Quick and simple question---
I'm trying to determine whether the range for the TCP persist timer ([5,60]
seconds commonly) is specified by RFC, or instead more of a historical artifact
based on implementation. If it is specified by RFC, could somebody please
point me at it?
thanks,
- K
On 8/11/10 10:32 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 8/11/2010 9:00 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
I also believe that the goal of moving the meeting around is to minimize
the cost of getting our work done,
Hmmm. I'm going to ask some very silly, very basic questions in the
hope that a clear consensus
I can think of several reasons to move meetings around:
Reasons that seem obvious to me:
- To spread the pain and cost of participation among the many active
participants who contribute in a major way to our work (but who come from
multiple different continents).
- To increase the
Bob Hinden wrote:
It is attached. It includes the raw data and a new graph that shows
attendance by percentage. It appears to me that a 1-1-1 meeting
policy is justified by current overall IETF meeting attendance.
I agree with your proposal.
Nevertheless, I have to say that deciding the
Scott,
- For regular attendees, to avoid the boredom of always going to the
same place and/or instill a bit of interest
I think it's more to avoid the boredom of the meeting planners. :-)
I know you meant it in jest, but to be clear to everyone else, qualifying a new
venue is a lot of
(snork!)
Why do we not simply choose a single venue and have all our
meetings there?
Or perhaps three venues, one on each continent of interest.
Figuring out where to meet is Hard. I'm glad the NomCom can find people who
will play this game for no salary.
Just to mention one point
On 8/12/10 11:45 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Scott,
- For regular attendees, to avoid the boredom of always going to the
same place and/or instill a bit of interest
I think it's more to avoid the boredom of the meeting planners. :-)
I know you meant it in jest, but to be clear to everyone
I'm sure other people remember this, but ...
I know you meant it in jest, but to be clear to everyone else, qualifying
a new venue is a lot of work.
One point raised during the plenary is that we might be able to save
money if we regularly return to a given venue. Is it possible to
quantify
In Minneapolis, once upon a time, we (the IETF secretariat at the
time) invested something in the order of $10k or $15k for a fiberlink
between somwhere in the basement to somewhere more useful in the
Hilton Hotel which we had a recurring contract for and which we
ammortized over several visits.
1) I'm also in favor of Canadian venues for North American meetings.
2) On long term contracts, you can get some saving, but you have to be
careful. I have some experience with holding a convention in the same city
every year for decades. If you stick with the same facility year after year,
you
All -
Today, at 12 noon pacific (1500 EDT/1900 GMT), we will be having a
short, preplanned network outage. The outage window is expected to last
for approximately 20 minutes, although individual servers and services
will be down for shorter periods of time.
During the outage window, access to
I think Vancouver would be an excellent city for a recurring North American
meeting. There is a reasonable convenience factor in terms of nearby
hotels, restuarants and food markets (there's an excellent one just a couple
blocks from the venue). However, based on the poll, it seemed that folks
On 08/12/2010 13:45 EDT, Bob Hinden wrote:
Scott,
- For regular attendees, to avoid the boredom of always going to
the same place and/or instill a bit of interest
I think it's more to avoid the boredom of the meeting planners.
:-)
I know you meant it in jest, but to be clear to
On 8/12/10 12:47 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
I think Vancouver would be an excellent city for a recurring North
American meeting.
During conversations in Maastricht, I mentioned Vancouver as a good
place for recurring North American meetings and someone pointed out that
about 10% of attendees at
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
My understanding is that Minneapolis kind of fell off the truck due to
problems with IETF attendees getting US visas, and not because of other
considerations. We've met there a lot in the past 10 or so years. People
complained, but not in ways that prevented us from
Since I did not stay in the meeting hotel in Vancouver and take medication
daily to handle the mold toxins and environmental allergens in general, I
didn't have this experience and I react negatively to all the more common
types of mold. Given the amount of rain in Vancouver, it is not
On 8/12/10 2:40 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
I totally agree, you can't please everyone, however, I do think criteria
like this are far more important a consideration than whether a city is
a nice place to visit.
Indeed! When the troubles in Vancouver were brought to my attention, I
immediately
I think Vancouver would be an excellent city for a recurring North American
meeting. There is a reasonable convenience factor in terms of nearby
hotels, restuarants and food markets (there's an excellent one just a couple
blocks from the venue). However, based on the poll, it seemed that
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 04:41:35PM -0500, Barry Leiba wrote:
One thing this suggests to me is that the people who are prone to
taking the survey favour the idea of variety.
Or the sample is biased in any of the other countless ways we can
think of. The basic problem is that the survey sample
All -
Today, at 12 noon pacific (1500 EDT/1900 GMT), we will be having a
short, preplanned network outage. The outage window is expected to last
for approximately 20 minutes, although individual servers and services
will be down for shorter periods of time.
During the outage window, access to
79th IETF Meeting
Beijing, China
November 7-12, 2010
Host: Tsinghua University
Registration is now open!
Register online at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/79/
1. Meeting Registration Categories
2. Visas and Letters of Invitation
3. Accommodations Breakfast Information
4. Official Host
30 matches
Mail list logo
