RE: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Brussels is the less expensive major (capital of the E.U., NATO's HQ) city in Europe. Far less expensive than London, Paris, Rome, Frankfurt, Geneva,... And since recently, Eastern Europe can also offer good commodities now, at quite low rates... -Original Message- From: Jan Meijer Sent: dimanche 16 mars 2003 3:48 To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday We usually expect higher costs outside North America - London was even more expensive than Yokohama. Aren't London and Yokohama quite expensive relative to other possible alternatives in the area? I don't know about Asia but there must be well-connected (flightwise) places in Europe that cost less then London to host a meeting. Jan ___ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Marshall Rose wrote: maybe i'm not following, but it looks like (food + meeting room) / 3 = $350,921 which is still $113K more than getting the meeting rooms only. So, with the estimate of 1500 people per session, that makes 76$/IETF for food and stuff. 15$/day, not too bad, IMO. Of course, if that'd help, we could just split off food + beveradge fees from the attendance, e.g. extra 10 or 15 dollars per day or 50-75$ for the whole thing. Paying could be voluntary, even -- but it'd be on your conscience if you ate without paying. I certainly would be willing (to have my company :-) pay that; all in all, it's *much* more convenient than to go eat breakfast, go elsewhere looking for cookies, soda and stuff. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
RE: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
What about South America and India. I've heard that both are substantially less expensive than the US/Europe/Japan for vacation accomodations. Does the same hold for convention costs? Margaret At 11:57 AM 3/16/2003 +0100, Tomson Eric \(Yahoo.fr\) wrote: Brussels is the less expensive major (capital of the E.U., NATO's HQ) city in Europe. Far less expensive than London, Paris, Rome, Frankfurt, Geneva,... And since recently, Eastern Europe can also offer good commodities now, at quite low rates... -Original Message- From: Jan Meijer Sent: dimanche 16 mars 2003 3:48 To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday We usually expect higher costs outside North America - London was even more expensive than Yokohama. Aren't London and Yokohama quite expensive relative to other possible alternatives in the area? I don't know about Asia but there must be well-connected (flightwise) places in Europe that cost less then London to host a meeting. Jan ___ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
RE: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
At 7:56 AM -0500 16/3/03, Margaret Wasserman wrote: What about South America and India. I've heard that both are substantially less expensive than the US/Europe/Japan for vacation accomodations. Does the same hold for convention costs? Out of curiosity I would like to know how the Adelaide meeting compared since I never bothered to ask when I hosted. Mark.
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
--On 15. mars 2003 18:20 -0800 Marshall Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: maybe i'm not following, but it looks like (food + meeting room) / 3 = $350,921 which is still $113K more than getting the meeting rooms only. I don't have the numbers that break these down per meeting, but if I remember rightly, the proper breakdown is APPROXIMATELY: London: 190K meeting rooms + 300K food cost US meetings: No room cost, 280K food cost All aspects of London were expensive, but I don't know how expensive. the one thing that the 2001 numbers don't tell us is what we're spending on the terminal rooms (since in 2001 they were donated, hoorah!). seems to me that the only thing we should be providing is wifi/10bT and maybe a printer or two. anyone who can't bring a laptop to an ietf meeting is probably doesn't need connectivity anyway... San Francisco will be the first time in a long while we actually have those numbers, paid out of our own budget. The BIG number in these discussions is the cost of the access line to the hotel - the discussions on price of this single item for San Francisco apparently ranged all the way from 10 KUSD to 80 KUSD, depending (among other things) on the shortest period of time the local-access company was willing to sell this service for. This time, the SunRays in the terminal room were donated; if they hadn't been, there wouldn't have been any. The laptop drops are pretty cheap to provide. i'm sure wednesday night there will be a spirited discussion... Oh yes! And I *do* hope there will be some enlightenment, and not just heat. it's easy to spend all the time nitpicking over some 10.000-dollar line item, when the smallest change needed to get the situation fixed runs into the hundreds of thousands. Harald
Re: Last Call: Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors to BCP
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:
2.10 IANA Considerations
[ ... ]
== so, IANA considerations is not needed if you're just requesting a few
values from existing namespaces? It would seem to make sense to have a
section anyway (at least in the I-D's if not necessarily RFC's). In some
namespaces, there are some subsets of a namespace (example: different option
values in IPv6 hop-by-hop/destination options header), so specifying the
requested values somewhere might be useful.
== same in 4.11
I believe that draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-04.txt is just
reiterating what is required by RFC 2434. The current policy
for I-Ds is, however, much as you suggest; see
http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html and specifically this part:
* IANA considerations
* Required if IANA has to create a new registry or modify rules for
an existing registry.
* Required if the document requires IANA to assign or update values
in an IANA registry before RFC publication. Note that for the
assignment of just an OID for a MIB or PIB Module, no IANA
Considerations section is required; it is sufficient to request
such via a MIB/SMI or PIB/SPPI comment line,
aka: ::= { mib-2 xxx } -- xxx to be assigned by IANA
* See RFC 2434, and also RFC 2780 in some cases.
If this policy is to be captured in the Instructions to Request for
Comments (RFC) Authors document [do we really need to have _that_
acronym expanded? :) ] it should be noted that the wording that goes
in the RFC should not discuss a request for an assignment (as an I-D
usually does) but an should instead discuss the actual assignment. This
has been done in recently-published RFCs, but inappropriate language has
slipped through in the past (see RFC 2493 for an example).
//cmh
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Oh yes! And I *do* hope there will be some enlightenment, and not just heat. it's easy to spend all the time nitpicking over some 10.000-dollar line item, when the smallest change needed to get the situation fixed runs into the hundreds of thousands. and i agree. which is why i'd like to see some apples-to-apples comparisons to answer questions like this: how much is the food subsidy really costing us? could we simply cover the gap by bumping the registration cost by another $100/meeting? (which is the conclusion i come to after reading pekka's email) what kind of a deal can we get if we do a multi-year contract with a hotel in the off season? i.e., minneapolis in january, dallas in july. does the cost of having meetings outside the continental us mean that we should be charging a significantly higher attendence fee when we have meetings there? or, should we simply have fewer of them outside the continental us? i think that each of these three things have implications in the six figures... /mtr ps: and i still favor cutting back access to basic connectivity and nothing more.
Wlan station overlap.
I can't find the mail address of the IETF56 NOC, but in Continental7 there is a overlap on channel 6 between two basestations, but you might already know that. ietf56 00:0C:30:25:9C:DF 11 15 Managed unknown No (null) ietf56 00:0B:FD:04:16:0A 6 26 Managed unknown No (null) ietf56 00:0B:BE:F8:85:B0 6 27 Managed unknown No (null) Best regards, - kurtis -
IETF: v6 works, v4 is broken
Just FYI.. It's nice to see that IPv6 is working nicely but v4 is not :-) (DHCP servers are probably dying quite frequently..) -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Harald We usually expect higher costs outside North America - London was Harald even more expensive than Yokohama. With the lack of sponsoring Harald of terminal rooms, the difference is much less, but still Harald significant. The reason for the varying prediction of Harald per-attendee cost for 2004-2005 is that we are considering 2 Harald non-US meetings in 2004 - but if they are definitely more I think that this is a good idea. Do you mean outside US, or outside North America? Is it the continent, or the country? As has been said many times in the past, returning to the same venue over and over again really isn't a problem to me. How a about Minneapolis, Montreal, and... well... I can't think of another M-city that we've been to already. Harald would be damaging to my sanity, at least - don't know about Harald others' we whould expect slightly lower per-meeting Harald attendance, but many would indeed feel obligated to go to all Harald four, so would pay more, I think. Whether they would get more Harald things done is an open question. If going to four meetings provided more time for actual workshops, like was just had at ISC for DNSSEC - three days of intensive working together in a small group, then we'd get more done. I am of the opinion that the IETF needs far more organized time for running code before rough consensus is tested for. ] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic(Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy); [ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBPnTGAYqHRg3pndX9AQH8VwP/WWZAiK+AELccIIUuA1o/6JSddG98ZIXM +i8HkVsYmYtl9T4jRC0AvlQPXTKuiJXhP0C7yVjY62rNwGZjlIZa4CjByVz9D5Oo MqRGQ3FUKDQICSDS9d7ngiuN/tJUP8LZT6D5YyaQ0OVIXBzAi+axy9wzqZR7p+Dh khpTaTPf2P0= =QTOD -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: IETF: v6 works, v4 is broken
(DHCP servers are probably dying quite frequently..) windoze?
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Speaking from a purely extremely selfish point of view, as a North American, how much would it help if we were to cut back to one meeting outside North America every 5-6 IETF's, instead of once a year, which seems to be the current rate? I was not able to get travel funding to go to Yokohama, and I will almost certainly not be able to attend the summer IETF in Austria. Oh, you mean we would have NAIETF, APIETF and EMEAIETF? I personally pay a lot less for travel inside the Nordics so perhaps we could have the meeting rotating between Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark? Maybe not. - kurtis -
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Didnt see any mention of Canada as a venue: Ottawa,Toronto,Montreal are all very accessible, more affordable and i think would be considered outside the US. cheers, jamal
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Marshall T. Rose wrote: put another way: how many folks are willing to pay an extra $300 per meeting to cover the food? A productive compromise would be to retain the break time drinks and perhaps snacks but get rid of the breakfast ... and perhaps the arrival reception food (might be able to package the arrival reception as a buffet with an explicit extra ticket required). In many of the venues I attended IETF meetings at, there was no way that local commercial facilities could server the impulse demand function of all the people getting out of one session and wanting in a short time to begin another. Dave Morris
reverse
rip.psg.com:/usr/home/randy host 130.129.132.249 Host 249.132.129.130.in-addr.arpa not found: 2(SERVFAIL)
Re: IETF: v6 works, v4 is broken
I'm seeing lots of dhcp discover requests from win2k boxes that aren't resulting in a response... I notice the lease time is only 300 seconds which works happily in my linux environment but may be exacerbating any other problem that may be hapening... On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Randy Bush wrote: (DHCP servers are probably dying quite frequently..) windoze? -- -- Joel Jaeggli Academic User Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] --PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E -- In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Instead of trying to fix the current model (meeting fees subsidize a publishing arm), it might make sense to consider having the publishing arm be self-funded. How do non-profit journals stay solvent? A mix of four income streams: -1- Subscriptions -2- Page charges for authors -3- Advertising -4- Value-added services I think most of us would agree that -1- isn't in our DNA. But some combination of -2-, -3-, and -4- might make WGs, the IESG, and the RFC editor self-funding. - John Lazzaro -- Research Specialist -- CS Division -- EECS -- UC Berkeley lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro -
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presentedWednesday
--On Sunday, 16 March, 2003 01:58 -0500 Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 11:46:12AM -0800, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: We usually expect higher costs outside North America - London was even more expensive than Yokohama. Speaking from a purely extremely selfish point of view, as a North American, how much would it help if we were to cut back to one meeting outside North America every 5-6 IETF's, instead of once a year, which seems to be the current rate? I was not able to get travel funding to go to Yokohama, and I will almost certainly not be able to attend the summer IETF in Austria. At one point, I was told that Europeans were paying roughly the same for intra-European travel as they were to travel to North America, but North Americans were paying more to travel to Europe. Is this still disparity (seemingly caused by inefficiencies and the lack of competition in the European travel market, coupled with the high expenses and low profit margins of the various national carriers) still true? Ted, I'll let someone else answer most of these questions, but I've noticed that, some months, I would cost me less to get from Boston to London than from Boston to San Francisco (yes, there are some trick flights and calculations involved there). But, a question: Relative to whatever issues you have with European or Asia-Pacific meetings, would you have similar ones in non-US North American locations, or are those more like the US? The question isn't motivated by finances but by worrying about a problem that interacts with suggestions about more US meetings: several of our participants have had serious visa problems in the last year or so --much more serious than in the past-- and I see no reason to believe that those problems are going to get better any time soon. To the extent to which we want to keep our process international and open, the visa situation makes an argument for increasing, rather than decreasing, the ratio of outside-USA to inside-USA meetings. regards, john
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
jamal == jamal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jamal Didnt see any mention of Canada as a venue: Ottawa,Toronto,Montreal For Ottawa... Unless the IETF returns to a consistent 700 person size, there just isn't a hotel with enough convention space in one building. Mind you, there are some empty Nortel buildings that seat 1500! ] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic(Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy); [
Re: IETF: v6 works, v4 is broken
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Pekka == Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Pekka It's nice to see that IPv6 is working nicely but v4 is not :-) maybe, we should leave it that way! Pekka (DHCP servers are probably dying quite frequently..) Primary systems were up Saturday, and just prior to being duplicated onto backup systems, the primaries 'blew up'. At 13:30, things are mostly back to normal. ] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic(Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy); [ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBPnTqu4qHRg3pndX9AQFO7QP/XZ6GDWwFvMfVqnEBTBX/LFrtXDzg2uDg v8nuMEVgjgwQ1hHmVBXq/aW6I0/7qAwbaChyNQaULneLLDgmT+6dWX6vbLMziM/o jgE4IKYEWYoForxK8P/UBGqTKbeftqUVe3egp9TQDljX3ioZPUATN/Ic17SG5MG+ hSC4DKREguc= =p6DF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Why not a .IETF TLD? (was: Re: Financial state of the IETF...)
g'day Randy, Randy Bush wrote: At one point some of us tried to use the .org redelegation to help fund the IETF. [1] We didn't win but the ISOC's bid did win. Did the ISOC make the same commitment, could they divert some funding from .org domain registrations to support the IETF? how would they justify this? i.e. s/org/net/ or s/org/uk/ and how does it work out? I'm not sure I understand the question, but maybe you're just waxing rhetorical? If the question is should PIR help support the IETF, it would seem to fall within their mission, if they chose to do so. After all, their home page states: PIR looks forward to serving the .ORG community by providing superior technology; new services designed for noncommercial registrants; and responsive, responsible stewardship. Note the line about providing superior technology, which could be interpreted as supporting improvements to DNS technologies, at the least. Wouldn't be much of a stretch to say it could also cover supporting developments at the transport layer. Given the relationship between ISOC and the IETF you could make a similar argument about this being within *their* mandate, as well. Still, AFAIK PIR haven't actually made any specific commitments to helping out the IETF, so it wouldn't be appropriate to try to strong-arm them into offering to do so now, but I see no reason why we shouldn't push for revenues from a specific TLD to support the overall mission of the IETF in the future. Folks who support the IETF's goals and mission could use their patronage of the IETF TLD to show their support and provide specific finiancial aid. It would act as sort of an affinity TLD service, just like those affinity credit cards, where a portion of the money spent goes as a subsidy to your favorite worthy cause. In fact, I'm surprised that this isn't being done already, since it seems such an obvious step. It would certainly be appropriate to set up an IETF domain to pay for the secretariat, mailing list hosting, a full-blown set of archives, etc. Meeting fees could then be used to fund only the incremental cost of a participant's physical presence (such as, of course, the cookies...) Let's look at the numbers for a minute. The IETF's non-meeting costs are somewhere on the order of $1.3 million, and the meetings are something on the order of $1.2 million (from slide 3 of Harald's presentation). This means that the meeting's direct costs are only about $250 per attendee per year (assuming three meetings per year and about 1.6k attendees per meeting). So, if the new TLD fees could raise something like $1.3 million clear (after the expenses of actually providing the TLD servers, which of course are ripe for donations, subsidies, etc) then you would only need to charge something like $250 per person per year for the actual meetings, which is obviously less than is charged now. So let's set the target at $2 million to cover the cost of a small TLD service, plus a little extra to build up the rainy day fund. How realistic is it to consider raising $2 million per year in domain registrations? Here's where I need to wave my hands a little and you need to use your imagination, but if you charge, say, $50 per reg, this is 40,000 entries. Make it something like $200/year each and you need only 10,000 to hit your target. Are there 20,000 people out there who'd pay $100 per year to have a cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] email address? I suspect so. And of course, you can reduce this number further if you still allow some cross-subsidy from the meeting fees, you can still push for corporate donations (say for servers or hosting services to reduce the service costs), etc. Here's where a full time DNS business manager could probably pay for him or herself in no time at all by drumming up equipment donations and hosting subsidies. In any event, there are today something like 2,000 people who already pay something like $500 per visit to the IETF over the course of a year for their meeting fees. Assuming you've reduced the meeting fees, or simply rolled the TLD sub into the existing fee, you'd find this part of the equation could remain revenue neutral with few complaints. Thus, the question boils down to whether you could raise any *additional* revenues from subs coming in from folks not physically present, companies, Intellectual Property lawyers and so on. At first glance this certainly seems feasible to me... And if you do better than cover the current revenue shortfall, you would actually be lowering the cost of IETF participation for those who physically show up to meetings. As Martha Stewart would say And This is Good...(tm) I for one maintain a few TLDs and wouldn't mind at all taking out at least one more to support the IETF, assuming it's a reasonable fee (anything under $100 per year would probably be lost in the noise). It would be a legitimate business expense for me, and I'd know the money is going to support something I
Re: [56crew] Re: IETF: v6 works, v4 is broken
I'm presuming by now everything is stable for you? You should be seeing 40 minute leases right now. Perry Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm seeing lots of dhcp discover requests from win2k boxes that aren't resulting in a response... I notice the lease time is only 300 seconds which works happily in my linux environment but may be exacerbating any other problem that may be hapening... On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Randy Bush wrote: (DHCP servers are probably dying quite frequently..) windoze? -- -- Joel JaeggliAcademic User Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] --PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E -- In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary ___ 56crew mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/56crew -- Perry E. Metzger[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [56crew] Re: IETF: v6 works, v4 is broken
looks like major issues I was observing are in the past. joelja On 16 Mar 2003, Perry E. Metzger wrote: I'm presuming by now everything is stable for you? You should be seeing 40 minute leases right now. Perry Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm seeing lots of dhcp discover requests from win2k boxes that aren't resulting in a response... I notice the lease time is only 300 seconds which works happily in my linux environment but may be exacerbating any other problem that may be hapening... On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Randy Bush wrote: (DHCP servers are probably dying quite frequently..) windoze? -- -- Joel Jaeggli Academic User Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] --PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E -- In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary ___ 56crew mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/56crew -- -- Joel Jaeggli Academic User Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] --PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E -- In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Re: Why not a .IETF TLD? (was: Re: Financial state of the IETF...)
.IETF already exists - try not to duplicate namespace. Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god PoserTutor - How to use Poser http://posertutor.nomad/ registration facilities in the inclusive namespace On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Peter Deutsch wrote: g'day Randy, Randy Bush wrote: At one point some of us tried to use the .org redelegation to help fund the IETF. [1] We didn't win but the ISOC's bid did win. Did the ISOC make the same commitment, could they divert some funding from .org domain registrations to support the IETF? how would they justify this? i.e. s/org/net/ or s/org/uk/ and how does it work out? I'm not sure I understand the question, but maybe you're just waxing rhetorical? If the question is should PIR help support the IETF, it would seem to fall within their mission, if they chose to do so. After all, their home page states: PIR looks forward to serving the .ORG community by providing superior technology; new services designed for noncommercial registrants; and responsive, responsible stewardship. Note the line about providing superior technology, which could be interpreted as supporting improvements to DNS technologies, at the least. Wouldn't be much of a stretch to say it could also cover supporting developments at the transport layer. Given the relationship between ISOC and the IETF you could make a similar argument about this being within *their* mandate, as well. Still, AFAIK PIR haven't actually made any specific commitments to helping out the IETF, so it wouldn't be appropriate to try to strong-arm them into offering to do so now, but I see no reason why we shouldn't push for revenues from a specific TLD to support the overall mission of the IETF in the future. Folks who support the IETF's goals and mission could use their patronage of the IETF TLD to show their support and provide specific finiancial aid. It would act as sort of an affinity TLD service, just like those affinity credit cards, where a portion of the money spent goes as a subsidy to your favorite worthy cause. In fact, I'm surprised that this isn't being done already, since it seems such an obvious step. It would certainly be appropriate to set up an IETF domain to pay for the secretariat, mailing list hosting, a full-blown set of archives, etc. Meeting fees could then be used to fund only the incremental cost of a participant's physical presence (such as, of course, the cookies...) Let's look at the numbers for a minute. The IETF's non-meeting costs are somewhere on the order of $1.3 million, and the meetings are something on the order of $1.2 million (from slide 3 of Harald's presentation). This means that the meeting's direct costs are only about $250 per attendee per year (assuming three meetings per year and about 1.6k attendees per meeting). So, if the new TLD fees could raise something like $1.3 million clear (after the expenses of actually providing the TLD servers, which of course are ripe for donations, subsidies, etc) then you would only need to charge something like $250 per person per year for the actual meetings, which is obviously less than is charged now. So let's set the target at $2 million to cover the cost of a small TLD service, plus a little extra to build up the rainy day fund. How realistic is it to consider raising $2 million per year in domain registrations? Here's where I need to wave my hands a little and you need to use your imagination, but if you charge, say, $50 per reg, this is 40,000 entries. Make it something like $200/year each and you need only 10,000 to hit your target. Are there 20,000 people out there who'd pay $100 per year to have a cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] email address? I suspect so. And of course, you can reduce this number further if you still allow some cross-subsidy from the meeting fees, you can still push for corporate donations (say for servers or hosting services to reduce the service costs), etc. Here's where a full time DNS business manager could probably pay for him or herself in no time at all by drumming up equipment donations and hosting subsidies. In any event, there are today something like 2,000 people who already pay something like $500 per visit to the IETF over the course of a year for their meeting fees. Assuming you've reduced the meeting fees, or simply rolled the TLD sub into the existing fee, you'd find this part of the equation could remain revenue neutral with few complaints. Thus, the question boils down to whether you could raise any *additional* revenues from subs coming in from folks not physically present, companies, Intellectual Property lawyers and so on. At first glance this certainly seems feasible to me... And if you do better than cover the current revenue shortfall, you would actually be lowering the cost of IETF participation for those who physically show up to meetings. As Martha Stewart would say And
mac having trouble with DHCP
A mac calling itself pb (IP address 130.129.1.182, mac address 00:02:2d:21:28:5a) is requesting DHCP leases every few seconds on the wireless lan. If the owner of this mac could please come to the terminal room so we can diagnose their problem, we would appreciate it. -- Perry E. Metzger[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why not a .IETF TLD? (was: Re: Financial state of the IETF...)
Hi gang, I'm looking from an ISOC perspective. My understanding from previous ISOC meeting, is that the coporate membership of ISOC can be directed to any areas the coporation wants to and in particular to the IETF. If I remember quite well most of the finances of ISOC goes in the support of IETF, I don't remember the figures but I think a 70% would be close to the number. Now while IETF goals are important and this organisation MUST be supported, ISOC has been struggling in various areas. Their motto Internet for Everyone is a joke (I'm not politically correct) when you consider that ISOC has only 10,000 individual members. Who do they represent? must be the question asked by each politician when ISOC tries to push forward an issue. Yes amongst these 10,000 individuals are people with quite some power but considering the Internet has a few hunder of millions people Now ISOC won the bid to run the .org. PIR is set to help non profit organisation to benefit from the sell of .org. But I think the PIR should have other priorities than to support the IETF, so that the motto Internet is for Everyone becomes a reality. In the running of meeting, I have noticed that ISOC, IETF, ICANN likes big 5 star hotels (which are expensives). I understand these hotels are the only one with facilities to run big conferences, but in our side of the world where resources are scare we use our own facilities. You could use University campuses to run meetings, corporate campuses, etc... All free of charge. I'm sure IBM, Microsoft, MIT (...) will be delighted to host an IETF meeting in one of their conference facilities. Now if you don't find smart solutions to the problem, yes ISOC will have to support... Because I hate to see the IETF becoming an industry consortium, where you have to pay membership fees to be part of it... BTW, with the current state of the world do not expect more people to the meetings but less... Corporate travel has gone down Franck Martin -Original Message- From: Peter Deutsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 17 March 2003 9:32 To: Randy Bush Cc: Rick Wesson; Harald Tveit Alvestrand; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Why not a .IETF TLD? (was: Re: Financial state of the IETF...) g'day Randy, Randy Bush wrote: At one point some of us tried to use the .org redelegation to help fund the IETF. [1] We didn't win but the ISOC's bid did win. Did the ISOC make the same commitment, could they divert some funding from .org domain registrations to support the IETF? how would they justify this? i.e. s/org/net/ or s/org/uk/ and how does it work out? I'm not sure I understand the question, but maybe you're just waxing rhetorical? If the question is should PIR help support the IETF, it would seem to fall within their mission, if they chose to do so. After all, their home page states: PIR looks forward to serving the .ORG community by providing superior technology; new services designed for noncommercial registrants; and responsive, responsible stewardship. Note the line about providing superior technology, which could be interpreted as supporting improvements to DNS technologies, at the least. Wouldn't be much of a stretch to say it could also cover supporting developments at the transport layer. Given the relationship between ISOC and the IETF you could make a similar argument about this being within *their* mandate, as well. Still, AFAIK PIR haven't actually made any specific commitments to helping out the IETF, so it wouldn't be appropriate to try to strong-arm them into offering to do so now, but I see no reason why we shouldn't push for revenues from a specific TLD to support the overall mission of the IETF in the future. Folks who support the IETF's goals and mission could use their patronage of the IETF TLD to show their support and provide specific finiancial aid. It would act as sort of an affinity TLD service, just like those affinity credit cards, where a portion of the money spent goes as a subsidy to your favorite worthy cause. In fact, I'm surprised that this isn't being done already, since it seems such an obvious step. It would certainly be appropriate to set up an IETF domain to pay for the secretariat, mailing list hosting, a full-blown set of archives, etc. Meeting fees could then be used to fund only the incremental cost of a participant's physical presence (such as, of course, the cookies...) Let's look at the numbers for a minute. The IETF's non-meeting costs are somewhere on the order of $1.3 million, and the meetings are something on the order of $1.2 million (from slide 3 of Harald's presentation). This means that the meeting's direct costs are only about $250 per attendee per year (assuming three meetings per year and about 1.6k attendees per meeting). So, if the new TLD fees could raise something like $1.3 million clear (after
Re: Text Conferencing for the 56th IETF meeting in San Francisco
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Marshall == Marshall Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marshall Remote Access for the 56th IETF meeting in San Francisco: Marshall Text Conferencing Marshall All of the conference rooms will be hosted on Marshall conference.ietf.jabber.com This name is still not in DNS... Is it still planned? ] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic(Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy); [ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBPnVCJoqHRg3pndX9AQHATgP/VPK2KJ9IZyU/zIAqjHnSiesmP1jT+v2F nQcWNvPbAOfKDotZI57nF1VEUEnx8XBzXI7kwUCFT7X7X44Kp6Cj91RdMKjbgm8J vuM4UAnE5u352A9IP1PdDlpL+s+gHfAF0usJNxCVO0rPJuM9UUUd5zxL386VkYWT R/KJ1cEB990= =VGUP -END PGP SIGNATURE-
weird (broken?) IPv6 routing
Is anybody else noticing this? --aaron = C:\Documents and Settings\falktracert6 dns.postel.org Tracing route to dns.postel.org [3ffe:801:1000:0:2d0:b7ff:c0de:1] from 2001:460:410:8128:61ba:b359:9d3a:1f81 over a maximum of 30 hops: 12 ms 4 ms 5 ms 2001:460:410:8128::1 2*** Request timed out. 3 196 ms 202 ms 197 ms INXSv6.eurocyber.net [2001:650:f807::20bb:1] 4 bb2-rkp-s5-1-0.muc.ipv6.eurocyber.net [2001:768:f:1::1] reports: No route to destination. Trace complete. = or = C:\Documents and Settings\falktracert6 www.kame.net Tracing route to apple.kame.net [2001:200:0:4819:210:f3ff:fe03:4d0] from 2001:460:410:8128:61ba:b359:9d3a:1f81 over a maximum of 30 hops: 12 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2001:460:410:8128::1 2*** Request timed out. 3 195 ms 193 ms 195 ms INXSv6.eurocyber.net [2001:650:f807::20bb:1] 4 194 ms 348 ms 194 ms bb2-rkp-s5-1-0.muc.ipv6.eurocyber.net [2001:768:f:1::1] 5 287 ms 196 ms 198 ms decix-tu0.fra.de.ipv6.eurocyber.net [2001:768:d:1::2] 6 198 ms 194 ms 198 ms fe0-1-2-0.br1.ixfra.de.easynet.net [2001:7f8::11ed:0:1] 7 364 ms 360 ms 381 ms so0-1-1-0.gr0.ixfra.de.easynet.net [2001:6f8::59:11:1] 8 358 ms 358 ms 358 ms so0-1-2-0.gr0.bbpar.fr.easynet.net [2001:6f8::59:10:2] 9 358 ms 359 ms 363 ms so0-1-1-0.gr0.bllon.uk.easynet.net [2001:6f8::65:11:1] 10 357 ms 447 ms 358 ms so0-1-0-0.gr0.bwnyc.us.easynet.net [2001:6f8::25:10:1] 11 357 ms 358 ms 356 ms nyc6-gate0.iij-america.net [2001:458:26:2::200] 12 462 ms 462 ms 471 ms otm6-bb0.IIJ.Net [2001:240:100:fffc::ff] 13 462 ms 463 ms 462 ms otm6-gate0.IIJ.Net [2001:240:100::204] 14 537 ms 784 ms 619 ms pc6.otemachi.wide.ad.jp [2001:200:0:1802:2d0:b7ff:fe88:eb8a] 15 605 ms 552 ms 669 ms gsr1.fujisawa.wide.ad.jp [2001:200:0:1c04:201:64ff:fea3:ec55] 16 535 ms 536 ms 545 ms pc3.yagami.wide.ad.jp [2001:200:0:1c04::1000:2000] 17 922 ms 581 ms 587 ms gr2000.k2c.wide.ad.jp [2001:200:0:4819::2000:1] 18 637 ms 645 ms 536 ms 2001:200:0:4819:210:f3ff:fe03:4d0 Trace complete. =
New S.F. Asian Museum
Folks,b By way of ending IETF week with something involving very different technologies: The Asian Art Museum in San Francisco opens this Thursday, 20 March. It is located in the Civic Center area. d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA USA tel:+1.408.246.8253, fax:+1.866.358.5301
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Harald, I have a facility that will fit the purposes of the IETF in Daytona. We have an international airport, and we can probably get a tremendous deal on the ballrooms if we can guarantee the occupancy of the hotel during a slow season... november-february. Local vendors can satisfy food needs efficiently. When you mentioned corporate sponsor the last time we spoke, did you mean that we need someone to cover the costs described below? Scott On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On 15. mars 2003 18:20 -0800 Marshall Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: maybe i'm not following, but it looks like (food + meeting room) / 3 = $350,921 which is still $113K more than getting the meeting rooms only. I don't have the numbers that break these down per meeting, but if I remember rightly, the proper breakdown is APPROXIMATELY: London: 190K meeting rooms + 300K food cost US meetings: No room cost, 280K food cost All aspects of London were expensive, but I don't know how expensive. the one thing that the 2001 numbers don't tell us is what we're spending on the terminal rooms (since in 2001 they were donated, hoorah!). seems to me that the only thing we should be providing is wifi/10bT and maybe a printer or two. anyone who can't bring a laptop to an ietf meeting is probably doesn't need connectivity anyway... San Francisco will be the first time in a long while we actually have those numbers, paid out of our own budget. The BIG number in these discussions is the cost of the access line to the hotel - the discussions on price of this single item for San Francisco apparently ranged all the way from 10 KUSD to 80 KUSD, depending (among other things) on the shortest period of time the local-access company was willing to sell this service for. This time, the SunRays in the terminal room were donated; if they hadn't been, there wouldn't have been any. The laptop drops are pretty cheap to provide. i'm sure wednesday night there will be a spirited discussion... Oh yes! And I *do* hope there will be some enlightenment, and not just heat. it's easy to spend all the time nitpicking over some 10.000-dollar line item, when the smallest change needed to get the situation fixed runs into the hundreds of thousands. Harald sleekfreak pirate broadcast world tour 2002-3 live from san francisco http://sleekfreak.ath.cx
Re: Text Conferencing for the 56th IETF meeting in San Francisco
Marshall conference.ietf.jabber.com This name is still not in DNS... Is it still planned? it got turned on last monday. i'm sitting in three conference rooms now. look for an SRV RR under _jabber._tcp.conference.ietf.jabber.com i'll ask the ops guys to install an A RR, but you should be able to join the conference room just fine without it... /mtr
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 01:28:34PM +0200, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote: So, with the estimate of 1500 people per session, that makes 76$/IETF for food and stuff. 15$/day, not too bad, IMO. That's about what most people would spend on breakfast themselves, so having people pay for their own food wouldn't save them any money. Of course, if that'd help, we could just split off food + beveradge fees from the attendance, e.g. extra 10 or 15 dollars per day or 50-75$ for the whole thing. Paying could be voluntary, even -- but it'd be on your conscience if you ate without paying. What would this level of detail cost in extra secretariat overhead?
IETF56 Network Status - 2003-03-16 21:30
Ladies and Gentlemen of the IETF. I wanted to take this time to thank you for your patience and assistance with the IETF56 network. Right now we seem to have a stable network. Our earlier problems with DHCP and DNS have been resolved. We have tried to balance out the Access Points in the public areas. With many thanks to Greg Shepherd, multicast availability has been greatly improved. Please bear in mind that multicast is available in the hotel only over the wired connections in the terminal room. At this point in time the only known issue concerns suboptimal IPv6 routing. We are actively working on this issue and hope to resolve this shortly. If anyone has a local tunnel they would like to let us use, we would be glad to entertain your offer. If you discover any issues please let us know by posting a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I would like to take this time to thank (for the first of many times) the NOC staff. These ladies and gentlemen have been working miracles and wonders to bring this network together. --Brett Thorson Foretec Seminars / IETF
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Scott W Brim wrote: On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 01:28:34PM +0200, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote: So, with the estimate of 1500 people per session, that makes 76$/IETF for food and stuff. 15$/day, not too bad, IMO. That's about what most people would spend on breakfast themselves, so having people pay for their own food wouldn't save them any money. snacks on breaks, drinks etc. are valuable to me at least. Of course, if that'd help, we could just split off food + beveradge fees from the attendance, e.g. extra 10 or 15 dollars per day or 50-75$ for the whole thing. Paying could be voluntary, even -- but it'd be on your conscience if you ate without paying. What would this level of detail cost in extra secretariat overhead? day-based: probably lot; yes/no, I will want to eat/drink, probably little. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
