Re: comments on Friday scheduling, etc.
(at least for US-homed travellers) Can we please keep in mind that half the attendees are not from the US? My current IETF schedule is something like: * Fly on Saturday (10-15 hours, 6-9 hour time change), * Relatively quiet Sunday to recover, * Meetings Monday-Friday morning, * Catch a flight around noon on Friday, * Home on Saturday morning for breakfast. which is pretty close to optimal. I think this applies to most Europeans. So: add the second plenary but otherwise keep the schedule as is. Henk -- Henk UijterwaalEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB AmsterdamFax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 -- That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
John Klensin wrote: * And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it better to let people explain their views at whatever length that takes? One simple scheduling algorithm would be to have two microphone queues: one for those speaking for the first time and one for those speaking for the second (and third, etc.) time. The second queue is called upon only if there's nobody waiting at the first queue. This might give everyone a fair shot and avoids the I'm done with my sermon, let's line up at the end of the queue again syndrome we saw in SLC. -- Henning Schulzrinne http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
Squeezing time out of turnip... Folks, There has been some suggestion about having a working meeting after the Sunday reception. I'm inclined to think that trying to have it afterwards (after socializing and alcohol) is problematic. But what about having a 90-120 minute plenary immediately BEFORE the Sunday reception? Besides technical presentations, IANA report and the like, it could include the IAB time, since the IAB is about 'strategic' issues. (Having the IESG later in the week is useful since it can reflect operational issues that might have cropped up.) d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 07:14:24 PST, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Sunday reception. I'm inclined to think that trying to have it afterwards (after socializing and alcohol) is problematic. Geeks on booze is actually OK if you're socializing - you get the most AMAZING war stories that way (particularly the ones you'd never get the geek to admit to if they were sober ;) But yeah - definitely not a state condusive to actual work.. ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech msg07287/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Plenaries at IETF 53
My two ag. IETF Community, During the London IETF Plenary, there was general consensus that the IAB and IESG should separate their plenaries to give more time for discussion of general architectural issues in the former. We did that in Salt Lake City, with the IESG Plenary in its usual slot on Wednesday night and the IAB one on Thursday evening. The latter was well-attended and our perception was that at least some of the discussion was helpful. At the same time, several members of the community told us that they would have liked to participate, but could not be present Thursday evening. We also believe that these discussions are useful to the extent that we can focus on specific topics and discourage speechmaking that takes up extended periods of time. So, we have several questions and request comments and discussion either to the IETF list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) or the IAB one ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): * Should we continue with the two-plenary model? Should we do so at every IETF, or consider some sort of periodic or occasional schedule? I think that the split is useful, and allows for more in depth discussions. I would like to see the two meetings happening at each IETF. * If so, should we continue with IESG on Wednesday and IAB on Thursday, or should we alternate them (or adopt some more radical schedule change -- probably too late for Minneapolis at this point). I do not know if this is a radical change, but what about swapping the current Monday evening and Thursday evening - i.e. make Monday the evening for the IAB meeting, and Thursday evening a full 2.5 hours meetings slot? * Do you have major architectural themes that should be addressed during the next IAB plenary if one is held? * And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it better to let people explain their views at whatever length that takes? I am an adept of democracy which IMO is translated in this context as free speech within the limits of decency. Regards, Dan
Re: comments on Friday scheduling, etc.
some people don't live in the US but do have families 50% of us are flying out saturday to be there for sunday all day meetings, flying eastwards on friday, to get back mid day saturday, we lose 2 weekends. compare this to intra-US flite to and from, i don';t think esxtending friday is sustainable. we don't have that much more work, we need better scheduling is all in fact, there;s lots of evidence that work is done BETTER when time available for it is reduced..esp. when particpants re jetlagged. tired working groups make tired decisions. like driving, this can be dangerous... j.
Re: comments on Friday scheduling, etc.
The IESG and IAB activities have become more important to the IETF at large recently. They should be given more space in line with their increased significance to the participants. Trying to cram it all into one after-dinner meeting doesn't feel right anymore. I believe in 2 plenaries. Having one of them on Sunday doesn't work because it takes a couple days for the issues to become clear. Combining the Social with the Reception on Sunday, and opening up Tuesday night, is a great idea.
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
But what about having a 90-120 minute plenary immediately BEFORE the Sunday reception? Besides technical presentations, IANA report and the like, it could include the IAB time, since the IAB is about 'strategic' issues. (Having the IESG later in the week is useful since it can reflect operational issues that might have cropped up.) The only problem I see with that is psychological - with such a hard week of work ahead, I kind of like knowing that I can unlax on Sunday (after the IEPG.) To me, a Sunday plenary would make the week feel too packed.
Re: comments on Friday scheduling, etc.
At 10:02 AM 1/18/2002 -0500, Scott Brim wrote: Having one of them on Sunday doesn't work because it takes a couple days for the issues to become clear. IAB issues do not emerge over the course of a few days of IETF meeting. IESG issues, however, sometimes do. Combining the Social with the Reception on Sunday, and opening up Tuesday night, is a great idea. Yes, that would achieve the same time benefit for the rest of the week. Sounds good to me. d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
Re: comments on Friday scheduling, etc.
--On Thursday, January 17, 2002 07:03:21 PM -0500 Ran Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doing something on Sunday might create more options. Quite separately, it was true in the past that IETF would have one or more morning plenary meetings (which could be attempted again). - Reception Social might be merged together on Sunday evening. - Sunday's social might be followed by one of the plenary meetings. - Sunday's social might be followed by a short administrative plenary, covering routine topics (e.g. local host/IANA/RFC- Editor/Secretariat updates). - Sunday's social might be followed by one of the plenary meetings, with the routine topics (e.g. IANA/RFC-Editor/local host/Secretariat) covered at a (possibly shorter than usual for modern plenaries) Monday morning plenary meeting. This list if helpful. Personally, I would much rather either combine the social with the reception on Sunday or have it follow later Sunday night. The quality of the social events has been declining, IMO, and is rarely worth the cost. I'd rather spend $35 on a nice restaurant dinner with my friends. I can do that *and* attend an IAB plenary on Thursday night. --aaron
SNMPv1 and SNMPv2c to HISTORIC
Folks who scan only the titles of last call announcements might want to note that the the actions proposed below will not only elevate SNMPv3 to Standard but will also reclassify SNMPv1 and SNMPv2c as Historic. //cmh -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:51:52 -0500 From: The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Last Call: An Architecture for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks to Standard The IESG has received a request from the SNMP Version 3 Working Group to consider publication of the following Internet-Drafts as Standards: o An Architecture for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks draft-ietf-snmpv3-arch-v2-02.txt as a Standard. o Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) draft-ietf-snmpv3-mpd-v2-02.txt o SNMP Applications draft-ietf-snmpv3-appl-v3-01.txt o User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3) draft-ietf-snmpv3-usm-v2-rfc2574bis-01.txt o View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) draft-ietf-snmpv3-vacm-v2-01.txt These are editorial updates to RFCs 2571-2575 respectfully. As part of this action, RFC1157 (A Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) and RFC1901 (Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2) will be reclassified as Historic. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing lists by January 31, 2002. Files can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-snmpv3-arch-v2-02.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-snmpv3-mpd-v2-02.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-snmpv3-appl-v3-01.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-snmpv3-usm-v2-rfc2574bis-01.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-snmpv3-vacm-v2-01.txt
Re: comments on Friday scheduling, etc.
I have a feeling we are going to have t think VERY hard about the entire schedule for the 54th meeting oin Yokohama given 80% of folks there wil be on severe sleep deprivation... i know the japanese are said to be workaholic. but will they be more tired than the 20% of us who fly? / subtle hint randy
Re: comments on Friday scheduling, etc.
At 04:39 PM 1/18/2002 +, Jon Crowcroft wrote: I have a feeling we are going to have t think VERY hard about the entire schedule for the 54th meeting oin Yokohama given 80% of folks there wil be on severe sleep deprivation... From the western US, Europe is as good/bad as Japan for time differential. (Actually, Japan is a bit closer to San Francisco.) Hence the jet lag effect is no worse for Japan than for Amsterdam, Stockholm, etc. So, there is nothing new here. That said, if we have been doing a schedule that is notably bad for folks attending from distant countries, we should fix it for ALL ietf meetings. My own reaction is to believe that keeping Sunday casual is a particularly good idea, in this regard. d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
Re: comments on Friday scheduling, etc.
At 10:34 PM 1/18/2002 +, Lloyd Wood wrote: Including the decades of research into circadian rhythms and jetlag that you have somehow overlooked. The effect depends on the direction. not overlooked at all. actual reactions to direction show pretty wide variance between and within individuals, acknowledged statistics of the effects not withstanding. d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
RE: comments on Friday scheduling, etc.
W.r.t. the claims about weekends being spoiled for those traveling in from different continents, I would observe that the way we schedule things now basically means that many of those travelers get 2 weekends (at least partially) taken away from their friends/families. If we were to get people to travel into the meeting on Saturday and then start the meeting on Sunday, and end on Thursday late afternoon (i.e. no Friday meetings), then most of us will only have to be away for one weekend. Bert
