Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
Stig Venaas wrote: Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;) What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID cutoff, is maybe look at such technology for interim meetings, and have the IETF support some infrastructure to help interim meetings run more effectively, maybe even without a physical meeting venue. Some WGs might then run more interim virtual meetings and help distribute the workload over the year more smoothly. You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference? VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical. Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to discuss and solve technical problems. I feel it allows more interactive discussions and is also easier non-native English speakers, Agreed. It is impossible to catch up voice-based communication again if you miss it once. In addition to this, jabber-based chats makes me - non native English speaker (actually listener in most of time) - verify whether I am following up the discussion or not. Thanks to kind jabber scribers (surely including Stig) of WG meetings that I have attended so far. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
Why should AfriNIC be considered any less of an RIR than the other APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, or RIPE NCC(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? Why should AFNOG be considered any less of an operator's forum than NANOG or EOF(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? We are talking about an entire continent. It seems to me in this case that the priority should be equality of treatment based on the function being performed for a region and not any other perceived reason for inequity. Or doesn't the IETF care about the Internet in the developing regions of the world? Ray -Original Message- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:53 AM To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Ray, I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list. having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap between the two communites is a little lower. also. having attended every afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You have to have some priorities. Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash, not just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them, which has not been the case up to now all the time. Regards, Jordi De: Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500 Para: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through 2010. Those dates can be found at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other organizations to the extent possible. Those organizations can be found on the Clash List from the same url. Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 - 2010 will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC. Regards Ray Pelletier IAD ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 2 hour meetings
Thanks to Keith for changing the Subject when changing the subject. I know you've heard this all before, but it's been getting increasingly difficult for us WG Chairs to get all the key people working on a protocol to fly across the planet for a 2 hour meeting. These are busy people who can't afford to block out an entire week because they don't know when or where the 2 hour meeting is going to be. (This even applies to some WG Chairs ;-) Andy, you've heard _this_ before, I'm sure: the reason we do IETF weeks with many WGs in one place is to foster cross-fertilization, and to strongly encourage people to become aware of work in other WGs and other Areas that may impact their own topic. There are very few cases of WGs that can safely work in isolation from the rest of the IETF. We're all busy, but missing out on what's happening elsewhere is a good recipe for getting unpleasant late surprises when a draft finally gets a cross-area review. If somebody comes to the IETF for a two hour meeting and wastes the opportunity of another 30+ hours of learning about what other WGs and BOFs are up to, that would indeed be a shame. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: About cookies and refreshments cost and abuse
The IAOC will have a look at this issue. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: An absolutely fantastic wireless IETF
Terry Gray wrote: Perhaps someone could document what was done differently this time, so that all may learn the secret? A lot of it is obsessive attention to detail, but the other part is choosing equipment that is known to work at IETF scale. Writing it up is a good idea, if our good friends from Nokia and the volunteer crew can find time for a brain dump. Needless to say I second Harald's thanks, especially given the waterfalls in the NOC on Sunday afternoon. Brian -teg On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote: Just wanted to state what's obvious to all of us by now: This time the wireless WORKED, and Just Went On Working. That hasn't happened for a while. THANK YOU! Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Clarification of my comment on giving up on process issues
Sam Hartman wrote: Ed == Ed Juskevicius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ed I wonder if part of the reason is we often resort to a modus Ed operandi of let a thousand flowers bloom and let the market Ed decide for contentious issues. While that *might* work for a Ed technology spec, it clearly is not a workable means of Ed progressing process change proposals. My argument is that proliferation of competing process change proposals may well be an appropriate mechanism for RFC 3933 experiments--even when these are significant process experiments. I think recruiting the stakeholders will provide enough of a gate. But this is only true if the community buys into the approach . There could be simultaneous proposals of course. There could certainly be simultaneous process experiments. However, I guess there couldn't be simultaneous process experiments that are inconsistent with each other. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
Ray, I think our goal is to not lose essential participants from the IETF due to clashes. In fact that's why we want to schedule several years out, so as to make it easier for many other organizations to do their scheduling. If we do that, it's each organization's choice whether or not they avoid IETF weeks. (This week, for example, ITU-T NGN chose to schedule two major meetings in other cities.) I don't think it's discriminatory to put the NICs and NOGs that don't seem to have a large overlap with IETF participants in the second category. It's just a matter of practicality, given that optimal scheduling is a fundamentally imsoluble problem anyway. I'd be delighted to see growth in African participation in the IETF (the spreadsheet shows two people from Africa pre-registered this week). Brian Ray Plzak wrote: Why should AfriNIC be considered any less of an RIR than the other APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, or RIPE NCC(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? Why should AFNOG be considered any less of an operator's forum than NANOG or EOF(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? We are talking about an entire continent. It seems to me in this case that the priority should be equality of treatment based on the function being performed for a region and not any other perceived reason for inequity. Or doesn't the IETF care about the Internet in the developing regions of the world? Ray -Original Message- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:53 AM To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Ray, I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list. having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap between the two communites is a little lower. also. having attended every afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You have to have some priorities. Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash, not just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them, which has not been the case up to now all the time. Regards, Jordi De: Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500 Para: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through 2010. Those dates can be found at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other organizations to the extent possible. Those organizations can be found on the Clash List from the same url. Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 - 2010 will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC. Regards Ray Pelletier IAD ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
Hello; On Mar 25, 2006, at 1:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe we should leave the Jabber meeting rooms up all the time, and use them for more dynamic discussions. John Do you mean during the meetings (which I think was done this time, Monday - Friday) or permanently ? Regards Marshall - original message - Subject:Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings) From: Stig Venaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 03/24/2006 5:01 pm Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;) What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID cutoff, is maybe look at such technology for interim meetings, and have the IETF support some infrastructure to help interim meetings run more effectively, maybe even without a physical meeting venue. Some WGs might then run more interim virtual meetings and help distribute the workload over the year more smoothly. You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference? VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical. Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to discuss and solve technical problems. I feel it allows more interactive discussions and is also easier non-native English speakers, I think using the wg jabber rooms we got for regular discussions of specific issues is a great idea. Stig - --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
Hello all; Note that IETF 79 includes Halloween. IETF 79 October 31 -November 5 2010 I know it's a little far away, but I think that this might be a good time for the first Masked Ball / Costume Party Social. I plan to come as the dreaded IPv6 NAT. Regards Marshall On Mar 24, 2006, at 9:41 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote: The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through 2010. Those dates can be found at http://www.ietf.org/ meetings/future_meetings0810.html The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other organizations to the extent possible. Those organizations can be found on the Clash List from the same url. Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 - 2010 will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC. Regards Ray Pelletier IAD ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
Marshall Eubanks wrote: Hello; On Mar 25, 2006, at 1:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe we should leave the Jabber meeting rooms up all the time, and use them for more dynamic discussions. John Do you mean during the meetings (which I think was done this time, Monday - Friday) or permanently ? My thinking was permanently. A wg can then at any time decide to take some specific issue to jabber. AFAIK the previous jabber rooms were available permanently, and I wouldn't be surprised if the new ones (rooms.jabber.ietf.org) are either. So all I would like to ask, is that this is done. It would then be up to the individual wg whether they want to make use of them. Apart from using the jabber rooms for ad-hoc discussions, they should also be used for interim wg meetings of course. Stig Regards Marshall - original message - Subject:Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings) From:Stig Venaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date:03/24/2006 5:01 pm Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;) What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID cutoff, is maybe look at such technology for interim meetings, and have the IETF support some infrastructure to help interim meetings run more effectively, maybe even without a physical meeting venue. Some WGs might then run more interim virtual meetings and help distribute the workload over the year more smoothly. You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference? VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical. Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to discuss and solve technical problems. I feel it allows more interactive discussions and is also easier non-native English speakers, I think using the wg jabber rooms we got for regular discussions of specific issues is a great idea. Stig ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
Dear Stig; On Mar 25, 2006, at 11:27 AM, Stig Venaas wrote: Marshall Eubanks wrote: Hello; On Mar 25, 2006, at 1:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe we should leave the Jabber meeting rooms up all the time, and use them for more dynamic discussions. John Do you mean during the meetings (which I think was done this time, Monday - Friday) or permanently ? My thinking was permanently. A wg can then at any time decide to take some specific issue to jabber. That's cool, as long as some way is developed to cross reference email and jabber discussions. I am sure that many of you have had the experience of having one topic posted to multiple lists, with divergent conversations developing, with some, but not all, cross posts, and some, but not total, overlap of participants. Now imagine that being done with two (or more) mail lists and two (or more) jabber chats, all going at the same time. While it might be possible to follow this in real time (at least, if you have nothing else to do), it would be a lot of work to reconstruct such a conversation after the fact presently. This would put a severe disadvantage to those in different time zones and anyone else who could not follow things in real time. I know that commercial software exists to do all of this (I have found Elluminate impressive in this regard, and it's very cross platform, being written in Java), but whether it's done commercially or in open source, I think that it's something that we need to think about. Regards Marshall AFAIK the previous jabber rooms were available permanently, and I wouldn't be surprised if the new ones (rooms.jabber.ietf.org) are either. So all I would like to ask, is that this is done. It would then be up to the individual wg whether they want to make use of them. Apart from using the jabber rooms for ad-hoc discussions, they should also be used for interim wg meetings of course. Stig Regards Marshall - original message - Subject:Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings) From:Stig Venaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date:03/24/2006 5:01 pm Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;) What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID cutoff, is maybe look at such technology for interim meetings, and have the IETF support some infrastructure to help interim meetings run more effectively, maybe even without a physical meeting venue. Some WGs might then run more interim virtual meetings and help distribute the workload over the year more smoothly. You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference? VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical. Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to discuss and solve technical problems. I feel it allows more interactive discussions and is also easier non-native English speakers, I think using the wg jabber rooms we got for regular discussions of specific issues is a great idea. Stig --- - ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
Ray Plzak (private), Can you give the email addresses of the AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG leaders? I'd like to write to them explicitly about this. It would be good to get them more involved in the IETF. Thanks Brian Brian E Carpenter wrote: Ray, I think our goal is to not lose essential participants from the IETF due to clashes. In fact that's why we want to schedule several years out, so as to make it easier for many other organizations to do their scheduling. If we do that, it's each organization's choice whether or not they avoid IETF weeks. (This week, for example, ITU-T NGN chose to schedule two major meetings in other cities.) I don't think it's discriminatory to put the NICs and NOGs that don't seem to have a large overlap with IETF participants in the second category. It's just a matter of practicality, given that optimal scheduling is a fundamentally imsoluble problem anyway. I'd be delighted to see growth in African participation in the IETF (the spreadsheet shows two people from Africa pre-registered this week). Brian Ray Plzak wrote: Why should AfriNIC be considered any less of an RIR than the other APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, or RIPE NCC(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? Why should AFNOG be considered any less of an operator's forum than NANOG or EOF(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? We are talking about an entire continent. It seems to me in this case that the priority should be equality of treatment based on the function being performed for a region and not any other perceived reason for inequity. Or doesn't the IETF care about the Internet in the developing regions of the world? Ray -Original Message- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:53 AM To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Ray, I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list. having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap between the two communites is a little lower. also. having attended every afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You have to have some priorities. Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash, not just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them, which has not been the case up to now all the time. Regards, Jordi De: Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500 Para: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through 2010. Those dates can be found at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other organizations to the extent possible. Those organizations can be found on the Clash List from the same url. Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 - 2010 will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC. Regards Ray Pelletier IAD ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
Hi Brian - I understand the difficulty of adding too many constraints to the scheduling process, but I'd like to point out that particpants in events such as AFNOG and AfriNIC meetings don't necessarily all come from Africa. In fact, strong participation from other regions is one of the most important mechanisms for building the institutions involved. Again, I understand the constraints you face, but it is certainly worth paying attention to the fact that many of the IETF's key participants also take very seriously their responsibility to help other organizations gain critical mass. Regards, Carl Ray, I think our goal is to not lose essential participants from the IETF due to clashes. In fact that's why we want to schedule several years out, so as to make it easier for many other organizations to do their scheduling. If we do that, it's each organization's choice whether or not they avoid IETF weeks. (This week, for example, ITU-T NGN chose to schedule two major meetings in other cities.) I don't think it's discriminatory to put the NICs and NOGs that don't seem to have a large overlap with IETF participants in the second category. It's just a matter of practicality, given that optimal scheduling is a fundamentally imsoluble problem anyway. I'd be delighted to see growth in African participation in the IETF (the spreadsheet shows two people from Africa pre-registered this week). Brian Ray Plzak wrote: Why should AfriNIC be considered any less of an RIR than the other APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, or RIPE NCC(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? Why should AFNOG be considered any less of an operator's forum than NANOG or EOF(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? We are talking about an entire continent. It seems to me in this case that the priority should be equality of treatment based on the function being performed for a region and not any other perceived reason for inequity. Or doesn't the IETF care about the Internet in the developing regions of the world? Ray -Original Message- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:53 AM To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi Ray, I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list. having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap between the two communites is a little lower. also. having attended every afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You have to have some priorities. Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash, not just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them, which has not been the case up to now all the time. Regards, Jordi De: Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500 Para: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through 2010. Those dates can be found at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other organizations to the extent possible. Those organizations can be found on the Clash List from the same url. Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 - 2010 will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC. Regards Ray Pelletier IAD ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000
Re: the iab net neutrality
On 24 mar 2006, at 18.07, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: If I am going to send a copy of a $200 million action movie to a viewer I am going to expect to be paid for that. The viewer is going to expect a high quality viewing experience. The problem is that the bandwidth they subscribe to for Web browsing purposes may not be great enough to support that viewing experience. If I am charging $8 for a movie I might well be willing to pay $0.50 to the carrier as a distribution fee in exchange for access to high bandwith pipe for an interval. See the document Geoff sent a link to. The way it works is that IF the end user want to be able to see high quality movies, he need to buy a good quality Internet Connection. One with good quality on the connections all the path that the receiver pay. The company sending the movie have to pay to get quality for the full path that the sender pay. What does not work is to route money over the Internet. It has never worked. The problem is that end users today pay for low quality Internet access, and then ask why they do not get high quality. Where we have a problem is when the access provider that have a bad quality packet exchange relation with some other ISP is also providing a video service. They the bad quality is used as a lock-in tool to keep the customer. I.e. there are many access providers/ISP's that have no interest what so ever to sell good quality interconnect to other ISP's. There is not enough economical force behind building it. Only path forward is, I think, that end users start to demand better service, and the ones that do are prepared on paying more. Like if you just want broadband, buy blue service, but if you want better quality, buy red service tied together with to be able to use our movie distribution service, you need a broadband access of at least red service. Then the market can show how many consumers want that better service, they pay more, and that money can be used for creating higher-quality interconnect. Patrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 2 hour meetings
At 15:51 +0100 3/25/06, Brian E Carpenter wrote: If somebody comes to the IETF for a two hour meeting and wastes the opportunity of another 30+ hours of learning about what other WGs and BOFs are up to, that would indeed be a shame. I agree with this, but find that (in some instances) that meetings are run counter to this goal. I sat in an session outside my area of experience and heard this from the first speaker, if you haven't read the drafts, you shouldn't participate here. Therefore I will not have slides and dive into the details. As this was outside my area of experience, I had not taken the time to read up on the session. I figured that having scribed for it at the previous meeting would give me enough cover. Before each speaker in that session, the question who has read was asked, with few hands going up each time. It would be far more helpful to try to be inclusive rather than exclusive towards us tourists. If the IETF wants to foster cross-fertilization, which is the reason for the mass enclaves, then temper the theme of you must have read all the drafts. Temper, not remove. Taking a few moments to set the problem up for the uninitiated and then assuming they have the protocol engineering smarts is all I'm asking. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Nothin' more exciting than going to the printer to watch the toner drain... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: the iab net neutrality
Geoff, things were indeed different then, as long distance bandwidth costs were a serious concern. That has changed. I think the fact that content providers who are paid for that content don't (in effect) pay for the congestion that they cause hasn't changed. But mainly I was interested to see PHB making arguments quite close to the ones I made ten years ago. Brian Geoff Huston wrote: To quote from the Carpenter draft:... One approach to resolving the current crisis in Internet performance is to institute an efficient system of inter-carrier settlements. Progress is often hard when you are heading in off in the weeds. Try http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2005-01/interconn.html as an alternative view of the ISP settlement world. regards, Geoff At 12:12 PM 25/03/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I know I'm going to regret saying this, but we haven't made much progress in ten years. http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-carpenter-metrics-00.txt I got a lot of interest in that draft, none of which came from ISPs... Brian Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: I think that people need to consider that maybe there might be advantages to non-flat rate, non-consumer pays charging models. I don't expect the attempted shakedown of Google to work and there are certainly tactics that they could use to preclude any desire on the part of the carriers to do any such thing. A much more interesting case would be delivery of video on demand. This is surely what the proponents of the sender pays scheme are really thinking about. If I am going to send a copy of a $200 million action movie to a viewer I am going to expect to be paid for that. The viewer is going to expect a high quality viewing experience. The problem is that the bandwidth they subscribe to for Web browsing purposes may not be great enough to support that viewing experience. If I am charging $8 for a movie I might well be willing to pay $0.50 to the carrier as a distribution fee in exchange for access to high bandwith pipe for an interval. The point here is that higher bandwidth costs more to provide. If the bandwidth is provided to every subscriber all the time the costs are much greater than providing the ultra-high speed to a small pool of subscribers who need it for a limited time and purpose. If the high bandwidth is added to the general pool then it will be diluted by contention and the folk running file sharing ct. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
Just a general comment: I think that as far as decision-taking is concerned, we need to treat WG jabber sessions (and teleconferences) exctly like face to face meetings - any decisions taken must in fact be referred to the WG mailing list for rough consensus. Otherwise, the people who happen to attend a particular jabber session or teleconference have undue influence. So, it would be OK for a WG chair to write to the WG On yesterday's jabber session, there was a strong consensus to pick solution A instead of B. The arguments are summarized below and the full jabber log is at X. Please send mail by date if you disagree with this consensus. It would not be OK to write On yesterday's jabber session we decided to pick solution A. Brian Stig Venaas wrote: Marshall Eubanks wrote: Hello; On Mar 25, 2006, at 1:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe we should leave the Jabber meeting rooms up all the time, and use them for more dynamic discussions. John Do you mean during the meetings (which I think was done this time, Monday - Friday) or permanently ? My thinking was permanently. A wg can then at any time decide to take some specific issue to jabber. AFAIK the previous jabber rooms were available permanently, and I wouldn't be surprised if the new ones (rooms.jabber.ietf.org) are either. So all I would like to ask, is that this is done. It would then be up to the individual wg whether they want to make use of them. Apart from using the jabber rooms for ad-hoc discussions, they should also be used for interim wg meetings of course. Stig Regards Marshall - original message - Subject:Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings) From:Stig Venaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date:03/24/2006 5:01 pm Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;) What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID cutoff, is maybe look at such technology for interim meetings, and have the IETF support some infrastructure to help interim meetings run more effectively, maybe even without a physical meeting venue. Some WGs might then run more interim virtual meetings and help distribute the workload over the year more smoothly. You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference? VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical. Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to discuss and solve technical problems. I feel it allows more interactive discussions and is also easier non-native English speakers, I think using the wg jabber rooms we got for regular discussions of specific issues is a great idea. Stig ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 2 hour meetings
Brian E Carpenter wrote: Thanks to Keith for changing the Subject when changing the subject. I know you've heard this all before, but it's been getting increasingly difficult for us WG Chairs to get all the key people working on a protocol to fly across the planet for a 2 hour meeting. These are busy people who can't afford to block out an entire week because they don't know when or where the 2 hour meeting is going to be. (This even applies to some WG Chairs ;-) Andy, you've heard _this_ before, I'm sure: the reason we do IETF weeks with many WGs in one place is to foster cross-fertilization, and to strongly encourage people to become aware of work in other WGs and other Areas that may impact their own topic. There are very few cases of WGs that can safely work in isolation from the rest of the IETF. We're all busy, but missing out on what's happening elsewhere is a good recipe for getting unpleasant late surprises when a draft finally gets a cross-area review. If somebody comes to the IETF for a two hour meeting and wastes the opportunity of another 30+ hours of learning about what other WGs and BOFs are up to, that would indeed be a shame. I understand that is a goal of IETF participation for some people. IMO, the people who can help the most on development of a particular protocol are not doing that. The current solution is for progress-conscious WGs to hold interim meetings, which seem to be discouraged, and certainly increase travel cost for most to participate. I do not envision a WG Interim IETF to be a regular IETF, except people read email all day in 1 WG instead of 5. Cross-area review is a reactive process. A cross-area interim design meeting is a proactive process, that encourages better design reuse, consistency, and robustness. I think some joint-WG interims, intra-area planned project development meetings, inter-area interims are important. The IESG would need to prioritize the meeting slot usage as always. It would be awesome if the key people to answer an unexpected question that comes up in an interim just happen to be in the building for a different interim. We would get much more cross-area review in the design phase, where it does the most good. We could have every 3rd or 4th IETF be work-focused instead of cross-review focused. We could try it once. Or we could do nothing and just accept the slow pace of progress, and the cost of WG interim meetings. Brian Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Making IETF happening in different regions
Keith Moore wrote: It will also be a more open process. Today, in my opinion, having to negotiate with each possible sponsor in secret, is a broken concept, and against our openness. I'm a lot more concerned about openness in IETF protocol development. some kinds of negotiations really do need to be done in secret. IMHO, having protocol engineers who know next to nothing about meeting logistics try to dictate such terms is a broken concept. Amen to that. This is a balancing act. How much a host/sponsor is willing to contribute depends on many factors, and I don't believe there is any single formula that will cover all cases. So I think each case will be a special case for a long time to come, and BTW we do have people paid to work on this for us now. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: the iab net neutrality
--On Friday, 24 March, 2006 16:28 -0600 Scott W Brim sbrim@cisco.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 05:00:07AM -0500, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: There are two strategies that make more sense and have more chance of success. One is precisely what 4084 attempted to do: lay out categories and boundaries that, if adopted, make ... Either approach requires serious work and people on the IAB who are interested, willing, and have the skills to do it. I can't speak for the current IAB at all but, if the sort of output Tony and I are talking about is wanted, then people need to tell the Nomcom(s) that the ability and willingness to generate it should be an important candidate selection criterion. These are great, John, but as you say, both approaches require serious work -- both before and after publication. In fact spreading an idea can take much more work, over a longer time, than agreeing on it, writing it up, and implementing it in the first place. Of course. The 4084 effort was just a first step. As has recently been pointed out to me, it may have been a first step that lost focus by digging down into the interests and issues of some Internet-consumer communities more than others, thereby neither maintaining a consistent high-level view nor clearly focusing in on an area or two. That said, if I had understood that focus problem at the time (and I understood it enough to be nervous, but not enough to get articulate about it), I would not have done anything differently because it seemed clear that there wasn't sufficient community interest to cope with a half-dozen documents, rather than one. But it, or even producing a revision or a few updates that focus better on specific communities and clusters of needs, are fairly easy: just as with 4084, someone can sit down and write, round up a handful of people to comment, and then write some more. The harder part requires people to stand up and call attention to the statements. That is where the analogy to RFC 1984 applies -- IAB and IESG statements carry far more weight than a random BCP and can be an important tool in focusing interest on a subject where policy or commercial interests become problematic for the Internet. A healthy Internet requires effort on three fronts: innovation to start with, deployment (not just of new ideas, but of what we have already to lesser developed areas), and finally trying to get our principles, conceptual framework, and attitudes accepted elsewhere. The first is the usual focus of IETF WGs. These days the third is increasingly important. In all cases it's not enough to launch something -- it needs to be nursed and championed for a long time after its birth. As Scott correctly points out, documents such as 4084, or even 1948, isn't all there is to do either. But, if the decision of the IETF community is that it is more important to spend energy exclusively on low-level technical issues or on administrative and procedural navel-gazing, then we should keep our expectations about leverage on this type of issues very low. The IAB's primary orientation should be toward breadth, not depth. Individual members can focus in particular areas but the IAB as a whole needs to cover a great deal of material on all three of these fronts. Doing a good job on all three legs of the stool takes hundreds of people. We non-IABers can generate the sort of thing you're talking about as well as the IAB, and we should. We should use the IAB as a focal point, lookouts, facilitators, instigators, conveners, as well as as individuals for their expertise and dedication. I think these capabilities are at least as important as being able to write up results of deliberation. We should take as least as much responsibility for doing the grunt work, including coming up with innovative ideas, writing documents like those you describe, and making sure results happen in the real world, as we expect IAB members to. I think we agree. I drew the effort that produced 4084 together after hearing that it was needed from too many people who wouldn't (or didn't feel that they could) do so themselves. So, turning Scott's discussion above around -- what are the rest of you doing? See you in Montreal. I hope to see enough action on this, including some drafts and some expression of interest from our leadership, long enough before Montreal that focused discussion and some conclusions there become possible. Perhaps that is a silly hope but if not now, when? john ___ 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. My head hurts. If more people can participate how come we would need *smaller* venues? And by what miracle does lowering the fee allow us to reduce the cost per participant? In my case, the meeting fees are small compared to travel and hotel costs. Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Moving from hosts to sponsors
one thing, the first thing we would have to do in the IETF - if we adopted a model like this - is to establish a marketing over-sight function to ensure fair and equitable disposition of sponsorship funds. Eric, I am not sure why this would be required. In so far as it's required, it's clearly the IAOC's job. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Sponsors and influence (Re: Making IETF happening in different regions)
Here is a guess at the rule we should impose: A sponsor donating a sufficiently large amount may have a small booth for the sale of a single product that is a) unannounced or has been announced within the last [6] months, and b) appropriate for purchase and use by individuals. I really think any attempt to write a rule is doomed. A guideline or principle would be OK. Such as It's OK to sell really cool geeky stuff. Suggestions for more formal language welcome. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Moving from hosts to sponsors
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem. Brian, this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying in the overpriced Hilton hotel rooms, my IETF65 meeting fee was almost exactly the same as my combined hotel and air fare costs. For those of us not on corporate expense accounts, it's the total amount that matters. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: the iab net neutrality
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 05:56:09PM +0100, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: Only path forward is, I think, that end users start to demand better service, and the ones that do are prepared on paying more. Like if you just want broadband, buy blue service, but if you want better quality, buy red service tied together with to be able to use our movie distribution service, you need a broadband access of at least red service. Of course the other model is that the content provider temporarily upgrades your blue service to red service for their streams. If content providers cannot do this and most people have blue service, then the market for content that requires red service may be less then the critical mass required to make providing the content viable. The problem is how do we differentiate between cases where content providers pay to get a higher then default QOS for their streams vs. the case where the provider pays to prevent the ISP from intentionally interfering with their streams. I believe the former is reasonable while the later is extortion. Then there is the threat that ISP's will permit their default level of service to degrade over time because all those who care must now pay for higher QOS. -Jeff -- = Jeffrey I. Schiller MIT Network Manager Information Services and Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue Room W92-190 Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 617.253.0161 - Voice [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 2 hour meetings
Edward Lewis wrote: At 15:51 +0100 3/25/06, Brian E Carpenter wrote: If somebody comes to the IETF for a two hour meeting and wastes the opportunity of another 30+ hours of learning about what other WGs and BOFs are up to, that would indeed be a shame. I agree with this, but find that (in some instances) that meetings are run counter to this goal. I sat in an session outside my area of experience and heard this from the first speaker, if you haven't read the drafts, you shouldn't participate here. Therefore I will not have slides and dive into the details. As this was outside my area of experience, I had not taken the time to read up on the session. I figured that having scribed for it at the previous meeting would give me enough cover. Before each speaker in that session, the question who has read was asked, with few hands going up each time. It would be far more helpful to try to be inclusive rather than exclusive towards us tourists. If the IETF wants to foster cross-fertilization, which is the reason for the mass enclaves, then temper the theme of you must have read all the drafts. Temper, not remove. Taking a few moments to set the problem up for the uninitiated and then assuming they have the protocol engineering smarts is all I'm asking. IMO, the purpose of a Working Group meeting is to gather people together to work. If 40 out of 45 people come to the meeting totally unprepared to work on the stated agenda, then don't be surprised if you don't get any work done. The purpose is not to explain the entire draft to tourists with slideware. If the purpose of all our face to face meetings is to foster cross-area review and not for WGs to get any work done, then I guess this is not a problem. IMO, 1 out of 3 of these non-work-oriented meetings would be plenty, and 3 out of 3 is clearly harming productivity. Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Clarification of my comment on giving up on process issues
--On Wednesday, 22 March, 2006 13:43 -0500 Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... However I don't think we're building the sort of community consensus behind RFC 3933 as an approach to breaking process reform deadlock that it will actually be useful to us. What happens when John submits his nomcom proposal as an RFC 3933 experiment? Would there be any plausable way he could move forward on that proposal using RFC 3933? Not that I can find, which, if you are referring to the Nomcom proposal I think you are, is why I haven't done it. For those who don't remember, it suggested using a different model for first-time appointments to the IESG or IAB than for renewals and building an assumption into the renewal model that two terms were normally good but that more than that probably indicated a problem in progress or likely to occur down the line -- draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt (expired) for the curious. draft-klensin-recall-rev-00.txt is another example of the same thing. There have been an informal in-the-hall discussion or two, but no focused discussion that could be used to move the proposal forward. Unlike the nomcom one, it could presumably be implemented as a process experiment although, extrapolating from the number of recall efforts we've had, the experiment would need to run a rather long time. But, especially without clear community support, the IESG would need to be mildly crazy to adopt it as a process experiment -- it would just seem too self-serving. But, more generally, what those types of proposal need, independent of the process-change model we use, is enough community discussion to permit making a determination that people care and that there is sufficient consensus to move forward. What concerns me most of all these days is that, if one can get a process proposal onto the agenda of some WG, or can introduce it via a meeting convened by some senior member of the Leadership, then it draws a handful of process-weenies and generates comments (perhaps many comments) _from them_. The broader community shows little signs of caring, which leaves us with three alternatives: (i) Do nothing, on the ground that, if enough people don't care, nothing is severely enough broken. (ii) Go ahead and made the change, partially on the theory that, if it turns out to be significantly worse, _that_ will bring the community out to comment. (iii) Continue thrashing. Thrashing differs from (i) in that (i) doesn't use up community cycles and raise the frustration level. Thrashing does both. In that light, 3933 was intended to make (ii) less painful and risky. But it is not useful for changes we don't know how to back out. And, even for those we can back out, the question of whether we should try an experiment to fix a problem that almost no one seems to care about is a challenging one. ... So, I'm close to concluding that we don't have mechanisms for getting consensus on larger process changes and that perhaps the right approach is to just move on with our existing processes. They mostly work after all. This, of course, is a variation on (i) above. It is certainly more efficient than (iii) and, if we can't even move forward smoothly with 3933 experiments where there seems to be some interest, may be better than (ii).But it is, IMO, a fairly sad state of affairs. My argument is that proliferation of competing process change proposals may well be an appropriate mechanism for RFC 3933 experiments--even when these are significant process experiments. I think recruiting the stakeholders will provide enough of a gate. But this is only true if the community buys into the approach . Agree completely. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 2 hour meetings
At 9:56 -0800 3/25/06, Andy Bierman wrote: Edward Lewis wrote: Temper, not remove. Taking a few moments to set the problem up for the uninitiated and then assuming they have the protocol engineering smarts is all I'm asking. The purpose is not to explain the entire draft to tourists with slideware. Taking a few moments to set up the problem doesn't mean explain the entire draft. In many cases, one a few sections of a draft need to be discussed face-to-face. Even for the regular attendees, sometimes a restating of the problem is beneficial, if just to set the context. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Nothin' more exciting than going to the printer to watch the toner drain... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: the iab net neutrality
--On Saturday, 25 March, 2006 12:54 -0500 Jeffrey I. Schiller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is how do we differentiate between cases where content providers pay to get a higher then default QOS for their streams vs. the case where the provider pays to prevent the ISP from intentionally interfering with their streams. I believe the former is reasonable while the later is extortion. Then there is the threat that ISP's will permit their default level of service to degrade over time because all those who care must now pay for higher QOS. The latter is, of course, one of the interesting behaviors that have been observed in parts of the US (at least) from TV cable providers. And, behold, several of them have become major ISPs for the residential / telecommuter/ SOHO market, so we are dealing with a group that has already learned that particular trick. :-( john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 2 hour meetings
I agree that having presentations which review all the detailed context is not helpful. One slide reminding folks of context can be very helpful even for folks who have been reading and following all the drafts. At the same time, I have always found it very helpful that different working groups are meeting at the same time, and that I can attend a number of different things. I typically follow activities in 2 or 3 (sometimes even 4) different areas. And I do benefit from being there for the face-to-face discussion of issues (at least when the working group works properly.) Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 12:56 PM 3/25/2006, Andy Bierman wrote: Edward Lewis wrote: At 15:51 +0100 3/25/06, Brian E Carpenter wrote: If somebody comes to the IETF for a two hour meeting and wastes the opportunity of another 30+ hours of learning about what other WGs and BOFs are up to, that would indeed be a shame. I agree with this, but find that (in some instances) that meetings are run counter to this goal. I sat in an session outside my area of experience and heard this from the first speaker, if you haven't read the drafts, you shouldn't participate here. Therefore I will not have slides and dive into the details. As this was outside my area of experience, I had not taken the time to read up on the session. I figured that having scribed for it at the previous meeting would give me enough cover. Before each speaker in that session, the question who has read was asked, with few hands going up each time. It would be far more helpful to try to be inclusive rather than exclusive towards us tourists. If the IETF wants to foster cross-fertilization, which is the reason for the mass enclaves, then temper the theme of you must have read all the drafts. Temper, not remove. Taking a few moments to set the problem up for the uninitiated and then assuming they have the protocol engineering smarts is all I'm asking. IMO, the purpose of a Working Group meeting is to gather people together to work. If 40 out of 45 people come to the meeting totally unprepared to work on the stated agenda, then don't be surprised if you don't get any work done. The purpose is not to explain the entire draft to tourists with slideware. If the purpose of all our face to face meetings is to foster cross-area review and not for WGs to get any work done, then I guess this is not a problem. IMO, 1 out of 3 of these non-work-oriented meetings would be plenty, and 3 out of 3 is clearly harming productivity. Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: the iab net neutrality
Brian, Actually the document I referenced is also around 9 years old - so even then we were having a Fine Debate about settlement systems in this industry. The introduction of Content into this debate has also been interesting with the earliest intersection of the two groups (ISPs and content factories) resulting in the claims of you have to pay me coming from the content industry and being directed to the IP access providers, while the precise opposite is the case today. (Some reflections arising from the first set of encounters are at http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2001-06/2001-06-content.html if anyone is vaguely interested in such things!) Content was, and remains, a distinct overlay economy and making claims that content providers should pay ISPs for the shortcomings in the ISP's own network engineering are around as specious as earlier claims that that ISPs should pay content providers for content that their customers may well have been completely uninterested in! (Bundling service and infrastructure, in whatever form, also strikes me as yet another reprise of that 'convergence' nonsense that has been inflicted on this industry for some decades now, primarily by folk looking desperately for monopolistic relief from the harsh realities of a highly competitive deregulated communications industry.) regards, Geoff At 02:02 AM 26/03/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Geoff, things were indeed different then, as long distance bandwidth costs were a serious concern. That has changed. I think the fact that content providers who are paid for that content don't (in effect) pay for the congestion that they cause hasn't changed. But mainly I was interested to see PHB making arguments quite close to the ones I made ten years ago. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Moving from hosts to sponsors
Henning Schulzrinne wrote: Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem. Brian, this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying in the overpriced Hilton hotel rooms, my IETF65 meeting fee was almost exactly the same as my combined hotel and air fare costs. For those of us not on corporate expense accounts, it's the total amount that matters. Sometimes, people even use frequent flier miles, double up in rooms, and don't eat every meal in an over-priced restaurant, just to attend an IETF. (Not me, but some people ;-) For people paying their own way, the meeting fee is the only fixed cost in the trip. It's expensive already, and trending upwards (not expensive if you stay all 5 days, but some of us don't). I guess I was just wishing out loud when I said maybe the meeting fee could trend down instead of up. I would be happy if the IETF had more control over the meetings so the fees were stable, the network was stable (use sponsor money to buy more gear and let our ace NOC team control it), and the venues were set far enough in advance to give me the maximum travel options. The old single sponsor system isn't working anymore. I'm concerned the IETF will fix the problem by raising the meeting fee $50 every 6 months. Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Moving from hosts to sponsors
Brian E Carpenter wrote: Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem. 1. There are more bean counters to consider, that only those in commercial corporations, if the IETF still considers it important to be inclusive beyond the interests of corporations. 2. Even corporations pay attention to the total cost for going to an event. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking http://bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 2 hour meetings
--On Saturday, 25 March, 2006 11:57 -0500 Edward Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 15:51 +0100 3/25/06, Brian E Carpenter wrote: If somebody comes to the IETF for a two hour meeting and wastes the opportunity of another 30+ hours of learning about what other WGs and BOFs are up to, that would indeed be a shame. I agree with this, but find that (in some instances) that meetings are run counter to this goal. I sat in an session outside my area of experience and heard this from the first speaker, if you haven't read the drafts, you shouldn't participate here. Therefore I will not have slides and dive into the details. As this was outside my area of experience, I had not taken the time to read up on the session. I figured that having scribed for it at the previous meeting would give me enough cover. Before each speaker in that session, the question who has read was asked, with few hands going up each time. It would be far more helpful to try to be inclusive rather than exclusive towards us tourists. Ed, although I don't remember seeing you there, I have a nervous feeling that I know which WG you are referring to and who said (roughly, although I don't recall don't participate) those words early in the session. Whether that feeling is correct or not, there are other WGs with the problems that one faced last week. Using the one I have in mind as an example... * The WG is working a topic that, because of the need to interact with the traditional version of the protocol, involves a large number of constraints and very subtle issues. * Despite the fact that there are a large number of documents on the table, documents that explore the issues rather than just making proposals, it is early-stage in its work. * The topic tends to draw flies and an assortment of ogres and trolls, most of the latter groups on the assumption that anyone who can use systems based on a protocol is obviously qualified to comment on the protocol. * A great deal about what is important about the documents that people were asked to confirm that they had read or otherwise keep quiet involved in-depth exploration of the issues and constraints, not (merely (!)) protocol details. Without exposure to that material, someone trying to participate in the discussion would probably lack not only that understanding but even a vocabulary with which to discuss the topic. And the WG was very much in need of the kind of discussion that actually occurred: by experts in the specific area or the areas immediately surrounding it, who were familiar with prior discussions and the documents, and who could focus in on specific issues rather than implicitly asking for tutorials that could easily take up the entire available time. There had also been a decision that the WG would concentrate on seeing if it could develop a particular approach leading to Experimental protocols, so there is little interest at this time in what if you did something completely different discussions. The result was one of the better sets of discussions I've seen in a WG meeting in some time, so there won't be any apologies for the strategy. However, at a later stage in the process, broader review, even by people not familiar with the intimate details, will be more appropriate and I trust that WG meetings will be handled differently at that time. If you are referring to a completely different WG, I'd encourage you to see if there are any useful analogies. regards, john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: An absolutely fantastic wireless IETF
I also noticed that IPv6 disappeared from the network and reported it to the NOC. I think they figured out the problem at least in one of the APs or whatever it was. I've requested to know the reason but got no information at the time being. Jordi, At the heart of this problem was that we were using the hotel's existing switch infrastructure, since they already had ports all over the place, and it also allowed us to use their existing APs as well as our own. Unbeknownst to us, their switches were configured with the security options, 'switchport block unicast' and 'switchport block multicast'. The first meant that if the switch forgot a MAC address before the end device's ARP table did (e.g., because there are lots of MAC addresses flying around the network at a big meeting), that connectivity between the two systems would be blackholed. This caused a great deal of trouble with our monitoring station and also with the printers. The second meant that the IPv6 ND / RA packets, sent to arbitrary multicast addresses, were not forwarded since the switch didn't think that the multicast should go to these ports. After asking the hotel's provider to remove these restrictions, IPv6 worked again. There were still some isolated incidents which we were unable to completely debug but could be explained by some lingering 'switchport block' commands. This was the first time (to my knowledge) that we used a venue's existing infrastructure so heavily. It certainly taught us a few things. Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: An absolutely fantastic wireless IETF
Mmm... well, my laptop (Mac Powerbook) fell off the b/g network several times, mostly during plenary sessions, but the problems were brief, and I usually had no trouble getting back on. Ken, I experienced this too, several times. Our best guess was that it had to do with the older IOS that was running on the hotel APs. This was another lesson learned about using someone else's equipment - it's not necessarily as up to date as the IETF needs. Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
Brian E Carpenter wrote: Just a general comment: I think that as far as decision-taking is concerned, we need to treat WG jabber sessions (and teleconferences) exctly like face to face meetings - any decisions taken must in fact be referred to the WG mailing list for rough consensus. Otherwise, the people who happen to attend a particular jabber session or teleconference have undue influence. So, it would be OK for a WG chair to write to the WG On yesterday's jabber session, there was a strong consensus to pick solution A instead of B. The arguments are summarized below and the full jabber log is at X. Please send mail by date if you disagree with this consensus. It would not be OK to write On yesterday's jabber session we decided to pick solution A. Yep, that's exactly what I had in mind -- a proxy for actual f2f meetings to hopefully cut down on the thashing about on the list itself as people are just trying to understand one another. Mike ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: the iab net neutrality
I don't mean to hijack this conversation, only add a data point... I have a great deal of respect for the people who have done the heavy lifting in BEHAVE, but it seems like every time we meet, someone discovers a new and previously un-observed NAT behavior that Is Not Helpful. This week was the best yet... In a recent posting (http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/ietf-behave/msg01189.html), Dan Wing said: That isn't quite the scenario. The scenario where the UDP/TCP interworking is useful is this: Alice---[NAT/firewall]---[TURN][NAT]---Bob ---TCP|---UDP Where Alice's NAT/firewall device blocks UDP. Many company firewalls have that behavior, which cause applications such as Skype and Yahoo Voice to send their traffic over TCP. Bob, on the other hand, has a 'normal' NAT, however Bob's endpoint has no support for framing RTP over TCP. This is pretty common -- many endpoints have no ability to send their RTP traffic over TCP. So, this functionality provides a way for Alice and Bob to communicate where they couldn't communicate if they were both forced to use UDP (because Alice's firewall blocks UDP). OTOH we definetly need to nail down framing in the TCP-TURN-UDP scenario. I think we can use the TCP framing mechanism that Jonthan proposed at the behave meeting; the server would emit every TCP 'chunk' as a UDP packet. I'm still thinking about the telling our children about the ancient past when it was possible/legal for an ordinary person to put a server on the Internet remark from Thursday's plenary. Dan's note, quoted above, is an excellent summary of where we are now, and it is not too much of a leap to JohnK's favorite rhetorical question, where are we going, and how did we get in this handbasket? So my point was, I'd really like to take a chance on some IAB statements about things that need to be stated about our architecture. They might be ignored. Would the result be any worse? Thanks, Spence P.s. And how many working group meetings did YOU sit in this past week, where firewall and NAT traversal were affecting our protocol designs? I think I counted six different working groups (including BEHAVE). Dan Wing could be thinking about USEFUL problems, if we weren't distracting him with stuff like this. Ditto the rest of the ICE/TURN/STUN crew. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
