Re: Personal notes from the Minneapolis meeting
Jacob Palme wrote: My personal notes from the IETF meeting in Minneapolis last week can be found at http://dsv.su.se/jpalme/ietf/ietf-mar-01-notes.html Here are some highlights (since some of the nroff systems are not "html ready" :^) -- Content Distribution: One speaker complained bitterly: There are several patents, suing each other, and making work complex for IETF standards work. The patent system is screwed up. People unreasonably get patents for well-known ideas and methods. Lawyers have unreasonable concepts of what is novel and patentable, causing much problems and stopping technical development and standards work. (notes from Professor Jacob Palme, Stockholm University and KTH Technical University http://dsv.su.se/jpalme/ietf/ietf-mar-01-notes.html per March 2001)
RE: Kudos to MSP IETF hosts other ramblings
All, Some good points here. Note however, that there are some people from "outside" the IETF who have more technical expertise than those inside - e.g. on the "new" IETF topics of optical control, where others have been working for years. If they turn up to a meeting without having read all the drafts, they should not be described as tourists. They are busy technical experts who make an effort to see what is happening in their subject area, in the interests of global harmonisation of standards. Incidentally, last week I heard several "pillars" of the IETF make comments which clearly showed that they had not read the drafts under discussion - not that they admitted it ! I would like to see a little humility, and the acceptance that none of us is the fount of all knowledge. Others - yes, including newcomers - may have some good ideas. Regards, Graham * - Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: John W Noerenberg II [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 6:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Kudos to MSP IETF hosts other ramblings At 9:07 AM +0100 3/26/01, Jon Crowcroft wrote: i think the value of the IETF is its informality - the implied litigious american attitude about "open" = "everyone MUST attend" etc would break the IETF even more than pure size. This is essentially what we mean when we say, "We believe in rough consensus and running code." Informality is born of the attitude everyone who comes to the IETF brings technical expertise. At 4:31 PM + 3/23/01, Lloyd Wood wrote: On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: ... "tourist" refers to someone who attends and possibly tries to participate in working groups without having done their homework. I've lost track of how many times this week I heard "I haven't read the drafts, but..." or "Did you read the draft? No, but..." But isn't cross-group fertilisation and wider exposure of work supposed to be good for the open process and peer review? Applying your technical expertise requires understanding the nature of the problem. Not reading the drafts and reviewing the archives makes the cross-fertilization rather sterile. -- john noerenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Nothing disturbs a bishop quite so much as a saint in the parish. -- Lila, Robert M. Pirsig, 1991 --
RE: Deja Vu
All, OK, so when are we going to move from having 2 meetings per year in the USA ? How about 1 per year in North / South America, 1 per year in Asia / Australasia and 1 per year in Europe / Africa ? As for holding meetings near international air hubs - 1. Oslo ? 2. Have you tried getting a direct flight to Minneapolis from outside the USA ? or San Diego ? It's not easy. Regards, Graham -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 12:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Deja Vu [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Day) wrote on 20.03.01 in v04220801b6dd4a484c1a@[208.192.102.20]: 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...;-))). I'm not so sure. From what I hear from the EU and Pacific Rim countries, the Internet is a US plot intended at further imposing US imperialism on the rest of the world. How can that many people be wrong? I was just going with the majority opinion. Looking at ICANN voting turnout, maybe it's a plot by the EU to take over the US? MfG Kai
RE: An Acknowledgment from the RFC Editor
Joyce, Strictly speaking, this can't be true. If all the other members didn't pay their contributions, the Platinum money would have to be spent on something else. "They also serve" Regards, Graham -Original Message- From: Joyce Reynolds [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 9:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: An Acknowledgment from the RFC Editor Folks, During the RFC Editor's IETF plenary presentation last Wednesday in Minneapolis, we mentioned that our funding is provided by the Internet Society. We should point out that ISOC is able to fund the current level of RFC Editor service to the Internet community only because of contributions from ISOC's Platinum Program Standard supporters. We'd therefore like to specifically acknowledge the following organizations for their support: IBM NORTEL CISCO MICROSOFT and the three regional registries, RIPE NCC, APNIC and ARIN Joyce K. Reynolds (on behalf of RFC Editor staff)
Re: Deja Vu
IETF meetings are held because they are beneficial to accomplishing the work of the IETF, not to promoate some sort of internationalism. Thus far they have been geographically distributed roughly as the recent IETF meeting attendees locations has been geographically distributed. (Availability of hosts and facilities is obviously also a factor.) As long as about 2/3 of the IETF attendees are from North America, 2/3 of the meetings should be in North America. Donald PS: I don't think that being accessible via a direct flight should be a controlling factor. I usually don't take a direct flight to or from the IETF meeting although I live in the USA and I don't see this as a problem. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:41:14 +0100 All, OK, so when are we going to move from having 2 meetings per year in the USA ? How about 1 per year in North / South America, 1 per year in Asia / Australasia and 1 per year in Europe / Africa ? As for holding meetings near international air hubs - 1. Oslo ? 2. Have you tried getting a direct flight to Minneapolis from outside the USA ? or San Diego ? It's not easy. Regards, Graham -Original Message- From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent:Saturday, March 24, 2001 12:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Deja Vu [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Day) wrote on 20.03.01 in v04220801b6dd4a484c1a@[208.192.102.20]: 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...;-))). I'm not so sure. From what I hear from the EU and Pacific Rim countries, the Internet is a US plot intended at further imposing US imperialism on the rest of the world. How can that many people be wrong? I was just going with the majority opinion. Looking at ICANN voting turnout, maybe it's a plot by the EU to take over the US? MfG Kai
Re: Deja Vu
As long as about 2/3 of the IETF attendees are from North America, 2/3 of the meetings should be in North America. similar logic might apply to havana. or, as long as 2/3 of the meetings are held in north america, 2/3 of the attendees will be from north america. randy
Re: Deja Vu
From: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:26:15 -0500 As long as about 2/3 of the IETF attendees are from North America, 2/3 of the meetings should be in North America. similar logic might apply to havana. or, as long as 2/3 of the meetings are held in north america, 2/3 of the attendees will be from north america. Why? When the IETF meets in Europe, 2/3 of the attendees are not European. When the IETF meets in Australia, 2/3 or the attendees are not Australian or Australasian. Of the 50 IETF meetings thus far, the first 26 were all in North America and 25 of those in the USA, yet enough non-North American attendance developed to warrant meetings outside North America. However if, for the sake of arguement, I accept your claim that meeting location controls attendance, what is to be concluded from that? That the IETF should meet equally in every continent or every country or every ITU region or something to try to force a more policitically correct or "international" attendance? Doesn't language also have an effect? If you buy the geograhic argument, shouldn't the IETF also require a rougly equal perecnetage of comments at WG meetings and posting to WG mailing lists to be in every language? I reject this and believe the IETF should continue to optimize for the accomplishment of its goals of good Internet Engineering rather than political correctness. Meaning no disrespect for those who travel great distances to attend IETF meetings or who strugle with English, that means meeting where its open participants come from and the use of the language most common to its open participants. randy Donald === Donald E. Eastlake 3rd[EMAIL PROTECTED] 155 Beaver Streeet [EMAIL PROTECTED] Milford, MA 01757 USA +1 508-634-2066(h) +1 508-261-5434(w)
burstification?
Dear All, perhaps someone can help me. What does burstification mean? Thank you in advance Regards, Davide begin:vcard n:Careglio;Davide tel;cell:+34 654 434 832 tel;fax:+34 93 401 7055 tel;work:+34 93 401 7182 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya;Computer Architecture Department version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Electronic and Computer Engineer adr;quoted-printable:;;Jordi Girona, 1-3=0D=0ACampus Nord - Modul D6;Barcelona;;08034;Spain x-mozilla-cpt:;-27360 fn:Davide Careglio end:vcard
RE: Deja Vu
--On Wednesday, 28 March, 2001 11:41 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, so when are we going to move from having 2 meetings per year in the USA ? How about 1 per year in North / South America, 1 per year in Asia / Australasia and 1 per year in Europe / Africa ? Graham, Subject to constraints of invitations and practicality, part of the plan has been to do this statistically. I.e., when 2/3 of the active participants are from outside the USA, I assume we will move, or have moved, toward having 2/3 of the meetings outside the USA. But even that is conditioned somewhat by two other factors that are not under our control but can be quite significant: * There are many places which, were we to hold meetings in them, would set off concerns about junketing and tourism of other sorts. Many organizations have rules about "conventions" which IETF escapes but which would get invoked if we started a regular tour of known tourist locations in season. Those rules tend to favor attendance by marketing types and to impose restrictions on working-engineer attendance. To by cynical about it, one of the attractions of Minneapolis in February or March, or (to pick on a place we haven't been) almost anywhere in South or Southeast Asia during monsoon, no one would accuse us of going there to meet in a nice place where many of the attendees would come and not participate. While it would presumably be convenient for you, I'm actually worried a bit about London in that regard. * Meetings in the USA tend to be, relatively speaking and in terms of the costs Fortec sees, cheap. While it is often a stretch (e.g., the San Diego hotel was clearly a bit too small), we can still manage to use hotel facilities and meeting rooms, and, when we fill the hotels up with people, we typically get those facilities at very attractive rates. Almost everywhere outside the US, we've ended up needing to use conference facilities, which we pay for separately. Those conference facilities impose costs separate from the hotel ones, make it harder to run a single 24 hour terminal room (increasing costs or decreasing convenience), and so on. London is going to be a good deal more expensive than Minneapolis and, were we not applying some smoothing functions, you would be seeing _very_ high registration fees. I think the Japanese meeting will probably be worse. And I, at least, don't want to get to a situation in which we see significant numbers of people who don't/can't come because of meetings costs -- would really bias the participation. john
RE: Deja Vu
Obviously those from North America don't need any encouragement to go, so why have any meetings there. Lets hold the meetings in some of the poorer or more developing countries. Ben -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 2:26 PM To: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Deja Vu As long as about 2/3 of the IETF attendees are from North America, 2/3 of the meetings should be in North America. similar logic might apply to havana. or, as long as 2/3 of the meetings are held in north america, 2/3 of the attendees will be from north america. randy ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. Inmarsat Limited 99 City Road London EC1Y 1AX. Registered in England and Wales No. 3675885 **
Re: burstification?
Davide Careglio wrote: perhaps someone can help me. What does burstification mean? Well, it sounds like it should mean "making something bursty"; but, really, it means that somebody's been making up words, and you should ask them what they mean. -- /==\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.| |Chief Scientist |=| |eCal Corp. |You! Out of the gene pool! | |[EMAIL PROTECTED]| | \==/
Re: Deja Vu
IETF meetings are held because they are beneficial to accomplishing the work of the IETF, not to promoate some sort of internationalism. Hmm. I thought the Internet was for everyone. Keith
Re: burstification?
Burstification can happen at the Link Layer ie on Optical Networks: optical burst switching interface (burstification). There are Edge Router Designed for Burst Switched WDM Networks: Design and implementation of important components for operations such as burstification (great amount) of packets, burst routing and switching, channel scheduling in an edge router of WDM networks. Some router can manage a great amount of traffic packet on the network this action. I hope this will help. Sebastien Davide Careglio wrote: Dear All, perhaps someone can help me. What does burstification mean? Thank you in advance Regards, Davide -- What's important is not simplicity or complexity, but how you bridge the two. Larry Wall, Aug. 25, 1998 Bsn :(+33) (0)1.55.66.70.93 url :http://www.epita.fr/~dorey_sPager:(+33) (0)6.57.56.60.42
Re: Deja Vu
I reject this and believe the IETF should continue to optimize for the accomplishment of its goals of good Internet Engineering rather than political correctness. of course. but part of good Internet Engineering is developing protocols that meet the diverse needs of the entire Internet community, not just the needs of those who have a strong presence in North America. Keith
Re: Deja Vu
Having lived in New Zealand, Europe and (this week) in Chicago, I have to say that the US is a pretty good location for the majority of IETF meetings, for many practical reasons. I've never been offended by having to cross the ocean; with air fares as illogical as they are, it isn't even a cost issue. One meeting a year outside the US seems fine to me. Brian "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" wrote: IETF meetings are held because they are beneficial to accomplishing the work of the IETF, not to promoate some sort of internationalism. Thus far they have been geographically distributed roughly as the recent IETF meeting attendees locations has been geographically distributed. (Availability of hosts and facilities is obviously also a factor.) As long as about 2/3 of the IETF attendees are from North America, 2/3 of the meetings should be in North America. Donald PS: I don't think that being accessible via a direct flight should be a controlling factor. I usually don't take a direct flight to or from the IETF meeting although I live in the USA and I don't see this as a problem. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:41:14 +0100 All, OK, so when are we going to move from having 2 meetings per year in the USA ? How about 1 per year in North / South America, 1 per year in Asia / Australasia and 1 per year in Europe / Africa ? As for holding meetings near international air hubs - 1. Oslo ? 2. Have you tried getting a direct flight to Minneapolis from outside the USA ? or San Diego ? It's not easy. Regards, Graham -Original Message- From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent:Saturday, March 24, 2001 12:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Deja Vu [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Day) wrote on 20.03.01 in v04220801b6dd4a484c1a@[208.192.102.20]: 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...;-))). I'm not so sure. From what I hear from the EU and Pacific Rim countries, the Internet is a US plot intended at further imposing US imperialism on the rest of the world. How can that many people be wrong? I was just going with the majority opinion. Looking at ICANN voting turnout, maybe it's a plot by the EU to take over the US? MfG Kai
Re: burstification?
Burstification is the opposite of smoothing -- making traffic more bursty. This might be done artificially as part of a study on the impacts of traffic bustiness. Also, many service mechanisms and protocol actions often tend to increase the burstiness in an information flow. Davide Careglio wrote: Dear All, perhaps someone can help me. What does burstification mean? Thank you in advance Regards, Davide
Re: Deja Vu
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 09:30:50AM -0500, in message 2224339706.985771850@P2, John C Klensin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Re: RE: Deja Vu [...] on working-engineer attendance. To by cynical about it, one of the attractions of Minneapolis in February or March, or (to pick on a place we haven't been) almost anywhere in South or Southeast Asia during monsoon, no one would accuse us of going there to meet in a nice place where many of the attendees would come and not participate. While it would presumably be convenient for you, I'm actually worried a bit about London in that regard. London's sort of OK - but's it's hardly party city. I think your point on the cost of meetings becoming prohibitive for many attendees is much more important. London is well known to be one of the most expensive cities in the world for hotel accommodation. It would be a bad thing if clue was excluded because of the total cost of a meeting being very high. Regards, -- leo vegoda "One size never fits all" RFC1925 - The Twelve Networking Truths
Re: Deja Vu
with air fares as illogical as they are, it isn't even a cost issue. The cost thing is, I think, misleading. Having had the experience of having to go to many ETSI meetings, I've found that apart from a few incredibly expensive cities it's generally cheaper to go to Europe than it is to travel in the US. Airfares really are not that much more expensive (and can be about the same during the winter and spring) and hotels and food tend to be less expensive. Plus, there's that strong-American-dollar thing (for the moment ...). The drawbacks are that it tends to look to the beancounters like a junket, and for those originating in the US and travelling west to east morning sessions can be pretty painful. Melinda
Re: Deja Vu
I don't think internationalization of the Internet == internationalization of IETF meetings. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Donald From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/ To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:50:08 EST." [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:05:33 -0500 IETF meetings are held because they are beneficial to accomplishing the work of the IETF, not to promoate some sort of internationalism. Hmm. I thought the Internet was for everyone. Keith
Re: RFCs in PDF
The only way I have found on Win 2K to print RFCs while preserving formatting is to ps-print them from emacs running on Windows. You can even print to a networked printer. Bora On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Keith Moore wrote: At one time I was told by several folks that Windows users have a difficult time dealing with RFCs because there is no program that ships with Windows that can print RFCs while preserving page breaks. (of course, some people might be content to view RFCs on a screen, but the people who were complaining were in fact printer developers - who presumably prefer hardcopy :) This was a few years ago, so perhaps this situation has changed somewhat. But just on a whim I decided to produce a set of RFCs in PDF and solicit feedback about how useful they are. http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/RFC-PDF/index.html Keith p.s. Don't expect these to be any more beautiful than their originals - the goal has been to reproduce them faithfully, not to pretty them up.
Re: Deja Vu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 28.03.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2. Have you tried getting a direct flight to Minneapolis from outside the USA ? or San Diego ? It's not easy. My trusty timetable lookup offers "Napoli" when I ask for "Minneapolis". Though it might not cover flights, I've never tried. MfG Kai Smilies? What smilies?
RE: RFCs in PDF
Hi, Thank you very much. It is very useful. Srihari Raghavan Graduate Student Dept. of Computer Science Virginia Tech = -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 12:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RFCs in PDF At one time I was told by several folks that Windows users have a difficult time dealing with RFCs because there is no program that ships with Windows that can print RFCs while preserving page breaks. (of course, some people might be content to view RFCs on a screen, but the people who were complaining were in fact printer developers - who presumably prefer hardcopy :) This was a few years ago, so perhaps this situation has changed somewhat. But just on a whim I decided to produce a set of RFCs in PDF and solicit feedback about how useful they are. http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/RFC-PDF/index.html Keith p.s. Don't expect these to be any more beautiful than their originals - the goal has been to reproduce them faithfully, not to pretty them up.
IETF Travel Woes (was Deja Vu)
London is well known to be one of the most expensive cities in the world for hotel accommodation. It would be a bad thing if clue was excluded because of the total cost of a meeting being very high. But hopefully IETF attendies are of the mindset that can forgo the ensuite hotel room for BB accomodation or the like. London is going to be interesting as we're going to be there at the peak of the holiday season, when accomodation rates are at their highest and room availability is at its lowest. For travel planning purposes it's important to me that the location of the London meeting be announced as early as possible. I doubt very much I'll be staying in the conference hotel (or anywhere near it), which means I need to book alternate accomodation as early as possible. (BTW, if you want to reproduce the Minneapolis-in-winter experience in Europe, I highly recommend Brighton in February.) Also, to follow up on (I think it was) Melinda's comments about airfare costs, I'll note that a return ticket for Edmonton-Minneapolis (a 2.5 hour flight) was just under CAD$1700. A return ticket for Edmonton-London (about 9 hours) can be had for around CAD$900. --lyndon
Re: Deja Vu
Supposedly we have a preference for developing ideas and consensus on mailing lists. Many people have actually achieved things in the IETF by being active on the mailing lists without going to each and every IETF meeting. Perhaps this argues in favor of moving an additional IETF meeting out of north america, although personally I think it argues against any urgent need to internationalize meeting locations. cheers, gja
Re: RFCs in PDF
Hi, Doesnt WORD preserve it? I thought WORD works well for RFCs. OSPFv2 RFC didnt print well, however. Thanks dharani Bora Akyol wrote: The only way I have found on Win 2K to print RFCs while preserving formatting is to ps-print them from emacs running on Windows. You can even print to a networked printer. Bora On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Keith Moore wrote: At one time I was told by several folks that Windows users have a difficult time dealing with RFCs because there is no program that ships with Windows that can print RFCs while preserving page breaks. (of course, some people might be content to view RFCs on a screen, but the people who were complaining were in fact printer developers - who presumably prefer hardcopy :) This was a few years ago, so perhaps this situation has changed somewhat. But just on a whim I decided to produce a set of RFCs in PDF and solicit feedback about how useful they are. http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/RFC-PDF/index.html Keith p.s. Don't expect these to be any more beautiful than their originals - the goal has been to reproduce them faithfully, not to pretty them up.
Meeting logistics cost, convenience and risk
At 06:30 AM 3/28/2001, John C Klensin wrote: Subject to constraints of invitations and practicality, part of Continued reliance on invitations and hosts ensure several problems. One is that we tend to lock in a location one year later than we should. Should be 2 years, and we tend to run no better than 1. That constrains choice and that either increases price or decreases convenience. Another is that the host is usually not skilled at the relevant technical details for a conference. Usually the host compensates by throwing massive money or staff at the problem; usually that is sufficient. With regularity, it is not. If we are serious about trying to optimize the meeting in terms of cost, reliability and convenience, we need to choose a standard set of extremely convenient (and less expensive) locations and then keep using them. Re-use reduces learning curve and that reduces problems (and cost). the plan has been to do this statistically. I.e., when 2/3 of the active participants are from outside the USA, I assume we As I believe Randy Bush pointed out, the flaw in this analytic methodology is that a meeting in the US is an unequal barrier to participation from outside the US. I'm not "voting" for changing the current proportion of US/non-US meetings, but do feel compelled to note the danger in using history as the basis for deciding the future. * There are many places which, were we to hold meetings in them, would set off concerns about junketing and tourism of other sorts. Many organizations have rules about "conventions" which IETF escapes but which would get invoked if we started a regular tour of known tourist locations in season. On the average, IETF decisions are best made when they focus on the primary concerns of a situation and not on the ever-present mass of other issues. Worrying about possible rules that some organizations might have is like worrying about national encryption laws. It's distracting and reduces the quality of our product. We clearly made the right choice to ignore national variation in security laws. We should equally ignore all but the essential factors in making meeting logistics "optimal". My own view is that optimal is determined by access convenience (international hub), cost, and reliability of networking and presentation services. Three factors are more than enough the try to optimize. The rest need to be ignored. If we are serious about the issues that cause complaints about IETF meeting logistics. d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464
RE: RFCs in PDF
I find this most helpful. If only the ietf would do this for presentations instead of just html. Then one can put together a reliable collection that is completely portable for a meeting, conference, work on a plane, anywhere a active internet connection may not be an option. Robert Mortonson Principal Engineer Communications Signal Processing ...OLE_Obj... PO Box 3999, MS 3W-51 Seattle, WA 98124-2499 (voice) (253)-657-7704 (fax) (253)-657-8903 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Bora Akyol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 9:50 AM To: Keith Moore Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: RFCs in PDF The only way I have found on Win 2K to print RFCs while preserving formatting is to ps-print them from emacs running on Windows. You can even print to a networked printer. Bora On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Keith Moore wrote: At one time I was told by several folks that Windows users have a difficult time dealing with RFCs because there is no program that ships with Windows that can print RFCs while preserving page breaks. (of course, some people might be content to view RFCs on a screen, but the people who were complaining were in fact printer developers - who presumably prefer hardcopy :) This was a few years ago, so perhaps this situation has changed somewhat. But just on a whim I decided to produce a set of RFCs in PDF and solicit feedback about how useful they are. http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/RFC-PDF/index.html Keith p.s. Don't expect these to be any more beautiful than their originals - the goal has been to reproduce them faithfully, not to pretty them up.
Re: IETF Travel Woes (was Deja Vu)
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: [..] But hopefully IETF attendies are of the mindset that can forgo the ensuite hotel room for BB accomodation or the like. In my experience IETF attendees care little about the room itself, only that it is within short(ish) walking distance of the meetings rooms, hallways, and bars wherein which their work is getting done. Far-flung-yet-cheap accomodation is false economy for those there to work. cheers, gja
Re: IETF Travel Woes (was Deja Vu)
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: For travel planning purposes it's important to me that the location of the London meeting be announced as early as possible. I doubt very much I'll be staying in the conference hotel (or anywhere near it), which means I need to book alternate accomodation as early as possible. (BTW, if you want to reproduce the Minneapolis-in-winter experience in Europe, I highly recommend Brighton in February.) --lyndon Cost of a ticket from SF is approximately $1100US right now. Can't say which way it's going, given the economy and hoof and mouth disease, but if last year's silliness was any predictor, prices peaked at around $3000US for two week advance fare.
Re: IETF Travel Woes (was Deja Vu)
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: But hopefully IETF attendies are of the mindset that can forgo the ensuite hotel room for BB accomodation or the like. [...] For travel planning purposes it's important to me that the location of the London meeting be announced as early as possible. I doubt very much I'll be staying in the conference hotel (or anywhere near it), which means I need to book alternate accomodation as early as possible. But, if you're not going to be staying in the conference hotel, you have more options, and you can book without knowing precisely where the conference hotel is. -- /\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. | |Chief Scientist |===| |eCal Corp. |"Your reality, sir, is lies balderdash, and I| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|am pleased to say I have no grasp on it| ||whatsoever!" --Baron Munchausen| \/
Re: Deja Vu
leo vegoda wrote: On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 09:30:50AM -0500, in message 2224339706.985771850@P2, John C Klensin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Re: RE: Deja Vu there to meet in a nice place where many of the attendees would come and not participate. While it would presumably be convenient for you, I'm actually worried a bit about London in that regard. London's sort of OK - but's it's hardly party city. Actually, I see what John means; for many Americans, London is pretty much an ideal foreign vacation. A modern city, with beautiful historical sites, great museums, and no language barrier. If you're trying to be sneaky and hide your vacation in a business trip, you don't have to go far, or make a great effort, to fit in some tourism in the interstices between meetings. -- /==\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.| |Chief Scientist |=| |eCal Corp. |Illiterate? Write today for free help! | |[EMAIL PROTECTED]| | \==/
Re: RFCs in PDF
"Mortonson, Robert W" wrote: I find this most helpful. If only the ietf would do this for presentations instead of just html. Then one can put together a reliable collection that is completely portable for a meeting, conference, work on a plane, anywhere a active internet connection may not be an option. Some of us produce HTML documents that you can download. Much better than PDF; smaller, potentially more standard, and adaptable to your screen size. -- /\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. | |Chief Scientist |===| |eCal Corp. |Don't anthropomorphize computers. We don't like| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|it.| \/
Re: Meeting logistics cost, convenience and risk
--On Wednesday, 28 March, 2001 10:10 -0800 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Continued reliance on invitations and hosts ensure several problems. ... If we are serious about trying to optimize the meeting in terms of cost, reliability and convenience, we need to choose a standard set of extremely convenient (and less expensive) locations and then keep using them. We have, so far, found almost no inexpensive (for some weighting of meeting-setup and attendee costs) sites outside the US. And your thoughts about doing away with invitation/host structures entirely, regardless of their other merits, would tend to further increase costs, especially if we use more than a few sites. If any international meetings are needed, we rapidly head into a tradeoff situation not very different, IMO, from the one we have albeit with a slightly different constraint space. Re-use reduces learning curve and that reduces problems (and cost). Total aggregate cost, including aggravation costs, certainly. Costs as seen by either the meeting organizational process or the attendees, maybe. the plan has been to do this statistically. I.e., when 2/3 of the active participants are from outside the USA, I assume we As I believe Randy Bush pointed out, the flaw in this analytic methodology is that a meeting in the US is an unequal barrier to participation from outside the US. I'm not "voting" for changing the current proportion of US/non-US meetings, but do feel compelled to note the danger in using history as the basis for deciding the future. When actual costs are considered, the barrier is peculiar, and neither your oversimplification nor Randy's really work (mine isn't any better). At many times of year, it is cheaper for me to get to London, or Paris, or Frankfurt than to San Jose. Until intra-European fares started to come down, and maybe still, it could be cheaper to get from Stockholm to the US than from Stockholm to many parts of western and central Europe. As someone else pointed out, the percentage of US participants at a non-US meeting probably gives a better clue about how we should be distributing things than the percentages of non-US people at a US meeting. I suggest that, although one could argue some bias, the statistics get even more interesting if one discounts "visitor" effects, e.g., counts only people who are on their second or later IETF meeting or people who come from more than a few hundred km from the meeting site. (I don't have anything against visitors, but, if we wanted to optimize IETF meetings for drop-in, or wander-in, traffic, it is fairly clear that we would hold all meetings in San Jose or its close vicinity.) And, by any of those weighted or unweighted statistics, we can't justify more than one meeting a year outside the US without appeal to social arguments rather than where the participants are based. On the average, IETF decisions are best made when they focus on the primary concerns of a situation and not on the ever-present mass of other issues. I agree completely. But I think that suggests that the present formulae are probably just about right, at least for the present. As I note above, your concerns are lowering dependence on hosts and sponsorship would, IMO, tend to reinforce, rather than change, those formulae. E.g., despite the cold and some accessibility factors that have been raised on this list lately, I've favored going back to Minneapolis which, with our third appearance there, will definitely fall into a category of convenient and inexpensive locations which we know how to make work. john
Re: IETF Travel Woes (was Deja Vu)
But, if you're not going to be staying in the conference hotel, you have more options, and you can book without knowing precisely where the conference hotel is. But to do that sanely I want to be within walking distance of a tube station that's on a direct line to the conference venue, thus the need for it's location. --lyndon
RE: RFCs in PDF
Word works fine for printing RFC's (txt version). However, you may need to decrease the Top and Bottom margins a little to fit it on one page. To make all pages identical, you should also add one line at the beginning of the document (page brakes are interpreted as page brake + new line which adds one empty line in top of page 2...end, but not on page 1). But as you say, page brakes are preserved. /L-E -Original Message- From: Dharani Vilwanathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: den 28 mars 2001 21:51 To: Bora Akyol Cc: Keith Moore; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RFCs in PDF Hi, Doesnt WORD preserve it? I thought WORD works well for RFCs. OSPFv2 RFC didnt print well, however. Thanks dharani Bora Akyol wrote: The only way I have found on Win 2K to print RFCs while preserving formatting is to ps-print them from emacs running on Windows. You can even print to a networked printer. Bora On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Keith Moore wrote: At one time I was told by several folks that Windows users have a difficult time dealing with RFCs because there is no program that ships with Windows that can print RFCs while preserving page breaks. (of course, some people might be content to view RFCs on a screen, but the people who were complaining were in fact printer developers - who presumably prefer hardcopy :) This was a few years ago, so perhaps this situation has changed somewhat. But just on a whim I decided to produce a set of RFCs in PDF and solicit feedback about how useful they are. http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/RFC-PDF/index.html Keith p.s. Don't expect these to be any more beautiful than their originals - the goal has been to reproduce them faithfully, not to pretty them up.
Re: IETF Travel Woes (was Deja Vu)
I agreegja I ask for a bed, which is clean and a shower with hot water. The room needs to be rather close to a bar. (for working purposes of course). In all other circumstances, I carry a Leatherman, thus quick repairs and modifications are not too far fetched. (ie: shower heads that are restricted with low pressure flow restriction valves) ((upgrading from 10BaseT to gigE so to speak :-D )) Regards- Jasen Strutt - Original Message - From: "grenville armitage" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Lyndon Nerenberg" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 2:24 PM Subject: Re: IETF Travel Woes (was Deja Vu) Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: [..] But hopefully IETF attendies are of the mindset that can forgo the ensuite hotel room for BB accomodation or the like. In my experience IETF attendees care little about the room itself, only that it is within short(ish) walking distance of the meetings rooms, hallways, and bars wherein which their work is getting done. Far-flung-yet-cheap accomodation is false economy for those there to work. cheers, gja
Re: Deja Vu
At 03:25 PM 3/28/01 -0500, John Stracke wrote: Actually, I see what John means; for many Americans, London is pretty much an ideal foreign vacation. My wife thinks so... but she is really looking forward to Japan. But she has no plans on becoming being an IETF "tourist". :-) Kurt
Re: Deja Vu
Could we have an idea of how much did a participant spend in Minneapolis ? I live in Mauritius and I am sure we could find a very good hotel over here at much lower prices than in Europe or America. We are bilingual (English and French) so communication will hardly be a problem. The weather is lovely throughout the year except for a few weeks in Summer. The Govt of Mauritius is working seriously on a Cybercity project which is quite likely to materialise in a few months and if approached would certainly help in finding a host. Baree -Original Message- From: Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 9:44 PM Subject: Re: Deja Vu with air fares as illogical as they are, it isn't even a cost issue. The cost thing is, I think, misleading. Having had the experience of having to go to many ETSI meetings, I've found that apart from a few incredibly expensive cities it's generally cheaper to go to Europe than it is to travel in the US. Airfares really are not that much more expensive (and can be about the same during the winter and spring) and hotels and food tend to be less expensive. Plus, there's that strong-American-dollar thing (for the moment ...). The drawbacks are that it tends to look to the beancounters like a junket, and for those originating in the US and travelling west to east morning sessions can be pretty painful. Melinda
Re: Deja Vu
At 10:26 PM 3/28/01 +0400, Baree Sunnyasi wrote: Could we have an idea of how much did a participant spend in Minneapolis ? Less the $1000 (excluding transportation and registration). 2/3 of that is hotel (6 nights).
Re: Meeting logistics cost, convenience and risk
Continued reliance on invitations and hosts ensure several problems. all of which can be addressed by doubling or tripling meeting fees. of course, that would create other problems. not pointing the finger at any one in particular ... but I'm continunally amazed when competent engineers who routinely make difficult compromises when designing computer protocols, are seemingly unable to understand the concept of compromise regarding meeting arrangements. I also know I'm not the only one who is amazed by this. Keith
Re: Deja Vu
To give Baree and other who didn't attend Minneapolis an idea, the main hotel (Hilton) has hundreds of rooms and the IETF cost was $129 per night. Surrounding the main hotel within a short walk are other hotels totalling over 1500 rooms. In the Minneapolis Hilton we had thousands of square feet of meeting rooms and the main ballroom held over 1200 people. Outside the meeting rooms the hallways were wide enough to drive a tractor-trailer through. So when you suggest your favorite city/hotel, try to keep the above figures in mind. Anything smaller or significantly more expensive will be criticized. At 10:26 AM 3/28/2001, Baree Sunnyasi wrote: Could we have an idea of how much did a participant spend in Minneapolis ? I live in Mauritius and I am sure we could find a very good hotel over here at much lower prices than in Europe or America. We are bilingual (English and French) so communication will hardly be a problem. The weather is lovely throughout the year except for a few weeks in Summer. The Govt of Mauritius is working seriously on a Cybercity project which is quite likely to materialise in a few months and if approached would certainly help in finding a host. Baree -Original Message- From: Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 9:44 PM Subject: Re: Deja Vu with air fares as illogical as they are, it isn't even a cost issue. The cost thing is, I think, misleading. Having had the experience of having to go to many ETSI meetings, I've found that apart from a few incredibly expensive cities it's generally cheaper to go to Europe than it is to travel in the US. Airfares really are not that much more expensive (and can be about the same during the winter and spring) and hotels and food tend to be less expensive. Plus, there's that strong-American-dollar thing (for the moment ...). The drawbacks are that it tends to look to the beancounters like a junket, and for those originating in the US and travelling west to east morning sessions can be pretty painful. Melinda - This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Maurizio Codogno.
Re: Meeting logistics cost, convenience and risk
Keith Moore wrote: not pointing the finger at any one in particular ... but I'm continunally amazed when competent engineers who routinely make difficult compromises when designing computer protocols, are seemingly unable to understand the concept of compromise regarding meeting arrangements. At least in regards to meeting sites, we've got rough consensus and 'running code'. What should amaze even more is competent engineers who appear to believe meeting site assignment isn't already a function of compromise. cheers, gja
Re: Deja Vu
OK, I'll bite: Kuala Lumpur which we just used for APRICOT 2001. Five-star hotel, the Pan Pacific $63 per night. Pay $93 and you're on the Executive floor with free breakfast, etc. The hotel is next to a convention center. Food was very inexpensive, with the exception of alcohol (Muslim country so you'd sort of expect that). Even the one-hour limo ride to the airport was only $35. Getting to and from KL is no worse than any other major Asian city. Temperature stable, tropical. Internet infrastructure pretty good. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher The Internet Protocol Journal Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Re: Deja Vu
Let's see, the price is right, the convention center has plenty of room, there are loads of hotel rooms nearby. Hmm. Sounds great! So Ole, Cisco will be hosting an IETF there when? At 05:41 PM 3/28/2001, Ole J. Jacobsen wrote: OK, I'll bite: Kuala Lumpur which we just used for APRICOT 2001. Five-star hotel, the Pan Pacific $63 per night. Pay $93 and you're on the Executive floor with free breakfast, etc. The hotel is next to a convention center. Food was very inexpensive, with the exception of alcohol (Muslim country so you'd sort of expect that). Even the one-hour limo ride to the airport was only $35. Getting to and from KL is no worse than any other major Asian city. Temperature stable, tropical. Internet infrastructure pretty good. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher The Internet Protocol Journal Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Re: IETF Travel Woes (was Deja Vu)
From: Lyndon Nerenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: IETF Travel Woes (was Deja Vu) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:30:30 -0700 [...] (BTW, if you want to reproduce the Minneapolis-in-winter experience in Europe, I highly recommend Brighton in February.) [...] Just for the record, the IETF has never met in Minnesota in winter. Apparently, even highly evolved (or adapted, or something) Southern Californians without jackets managed to survive a week at the Minnesota (not in winter) IETF, something that wouldn't necessarily be true during a real Minnesota winter. (Actually, this aspect of the climate is generally regarded as a "feature"; something about "Keeps the riff-raff out", or something like that.) Of course, it's trying to snow today. Never mind... -tjs
Re: Deja Vu
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Matt Holdrege wrote: Let's see, the price is right, the convention center has plenty of room, there are loads of hotel rooms nearby. Hmm. Sounds great! So Ole, Cisco will be hosting an IETF there when? That depends entirely on what is meant by "hosting." Events like this certainly needs a crew on the ground, a certain number of sponsors of connectivity, equipment and the like, but we did not have much trouble getting any of that for APRICOT, and we had a pretty decent terminal room even by IETF standards. We even had wireless. We also had a couple of truly unforgetable social events, sponsored by Telecom Malaysia and by the people who run the Multimedia Supercorridor. Geek bonuses: KL has the tallest building in the world, lots of cheap and spicy food, and if you need a copy of Windows, it's about $3.50 from the local "dealers". (Only until you get home and purchase the official version of course ;-) OK, so my body was not designed for tropical weather, but you can't have everything and the A/C works well in most places. Dave Crocker can sell this city better than me. Ole
Re: Deja Vu
Just to gild this particularly lily, Breakfast came with the straight room fee and did not require the upgrade. The 'budget' limo cost MYR66, which is roughly US$17. The budget cars are plain and a bit run down, compared with the fancier limos. Airfare to KL is notably cheaper than to Singapore and, possibly, Hong Kong. Food prices in very expensive hotels are not too bad. Everywhere else they are an absolute steal, and often taste better. d/ At 05:41 PM 3/28/2001, Ole J. Jacobsen wrote: OK, I'll bite: Kuala Lumpur which we just used for APRICOT 2001. Five-star hotel, the Pan Pacific $63 per night. Pay $93 and you're on the Executive floor with free breakfast, etc. The hotel is next to a convention center. Food was very inexpensive, with the exception of alcohol (Muslim country so you'd sort of expect that). Even the one-hour limo ride to the airport was only $35. Getting to and from KL is no worse than any other major Asian city. Temperature stable, tropical. Internet infrastructure pretty good. -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464
IETF Kuala Lumpur
Dave Crocker writes about Kuala Lumpur: Just to gild this particularly lily, [...] Airfare to KL is notably cheaper than to Singapore and, possibly, Hong Kong. Food prices in very expensive hotels are not too bad. Everywhere else they are an absolute steal, and often taste better. Also of note, the Malaysian government is aggressively soliciting high tech businesses to their new technology park, Cyberjaya. They are extremely eager to be seen as a tech friendly nation. This could easily be leveraged for the IETF's benefit. The new airport is a very fine airport. The convention center attached to the Pan Pacific definitely had the space to accomodate us. Another large hotel was right across the street. Just one thing to be wary of: if it is proposed that the social event have live entertainment including "dancing girls", approach with caution.
