Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF?
At 04:26 24/06/2006, Keith Moore wrote: Heaven forbid the internet Engineering task force should actually do engineering. Remember engineering? That's the discipline of producing efficient designs that meet predetermined goals and requirements. IETF is already plunging toward irrelevance at terminal velocity. The only way to arrest the descent is for it to start producing better quality and more relevant specifications. A good start would be for it to actually pay some attention to the problem definition and rough specification phases and to conduct them in an environment where they can get meaningful review outside of a narrow community. IETF deliverable user QA. This is the main thing I am interested in (in my Multilingual/Multilateral Internet area). Sometimes it calls for some weak to strong strategy to obtain better (yet not respected) texts. This is probably because there are not so many interested yet in that area (what is another issue). However the real problem I met is the now structural disinterest of the IESG when considering a WG document to know if it matches the WG Charter. Producing efficient designs is something one can only try, but striving to meet predetermined goal and requirements should be a demanded prerequisite. I wandered why the Internet standard process degraded (IMHO) that way. I feel it is because the IESG/IAB are not assigning predetermined goals and specifying requirements when chartering. They indicate an area to be considered. So the WG is actually to consider the whole issue (not only engineering but also market study, etc). This leads to postdetermined goals and requirements. The IAB/IETF consider the "geography" of the proposed WG, not the "political" motivations of its proponents. Then the IESG only considers if the delivery fits the geography of the WG area, and if it has an inner logic. This is probably because they have not the time/resources to verify if that logic fits the logic of the Internet architecture (they made too complex to understand in proceeding this way). jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF?
On 24-jun-2006, at 4:26, Keith Moore wrote: IETF is already plunging toward irrelevance at terminal velocity. The only way to arrest the descent is for it to start producing better quality and more relevant specifications. A good start would be for it to actually pay some attention to the problem definition and rough specification phases and to conduct them in an environment where they can get meaningful review outside of a narrow community. I don't think the solution is more hoops to jump through. Unless I'm mistaken, the IESG already has significant lattitude in rejecting protocols or imposing additional requirements. Building in stuff to save the day in the cases where the IESG gets it wrong is a waste of everyone's time, IMO. Lightening the IESG's load so they can reflect on the errors of their ways sooner would be more helpful in those cases. I don't know about "narrow community", but I agree that good reviews are essential. Reviewing is hard, especially with long documents / complex specifications (unfortunately it still seems some RFC writers are paid by the word) and also when there are many dependencies. And there's essentially nothing in it for the reviewer, so only people who are very much in favor or very much against something bother, with the former probably not being in the best position to uncover hidden problems. In my opinion, if the IETF could make it worth someone's while in one way or another to do a thorough review, that would help a lot. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)
> Such as, a requirement for formal cross-area review of the design > goals document and of preliminary specifications as a prerequisite > before producing a reference implementation. The IETF standards process is already so slow and uncertain that people throw up their hands in exasperation and go around it. Changing the process to make it even slower and add yet more hoops to jump through will solve the problem by ensuring that nobody bothers any more. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)
On 24 Jun 2006 10:58:31 - John Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Such as, a requirement for formal cross-area review of the design > > goals document and of preliminary specifications as a prerequisite > > before producing a reference implementation. > > The IETF standards process is already so slow and uncertain that > people throw up their hands in exasperation and go around it. True. Which is why it's necessary to handle the reviews in a pipelined rather than a stop-and-wait fashion. But part of the reason IETF's process is so slow is that the only meaningful checks we place are at the end - so a working group typically labors to the point of exhaustion without having received any external feedback, so when the feedback does arrive the working group is so dysfunctional that it's nearly incapable of fixing anything (and it is often in denial about what is wrong). Providing more early feedback will speed up the process rather than slow it down. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF?
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:26:23 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 24-jun-2006, at 4:26, Keith Moore wrote: > > > IETF is already plunging toward irrelevance at terminal velocity. The > > only way to arrest the descent is for it to start producing better > > quality and more relevant specifications. A good start would be for > > it to actually pay some attention to the problem definition and rough > > specification phases and to conduct them in an environment where they > > can get meaningful review outside of a narrow community. > > I don't think the solution is more hoops to jump through. Unless I'm > mistaken, the IESG already has significant lattitude in rejecting > protocols or imposing additional requirements. By the time IESG gets around to reviewing things, more often than not it's too late to fix whatever is wrong. What we need to arrange is that the significant review happens earlier, when the WG is still functional. By the time the final review rolls around it should mostly be a formality - assuming, of course, that the WG has not changed things significantly since earlier reviews. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF?
On 24-jun-2006, at 15:05, Keith Moore wrote: I don't think the solution is more hoops to jump through. Unless I'm mistaken, the IESG already has significant lattitude in rejecting protocols or imposing additional requirements. By the time IESG gets around to reviewing things, more often than not it's too late to fix whatever is wrong. What we need to arrange is that the significant review happens earlier, when the WG is still functional. By the time the final review rolls around it should mostly be a formality - assuming, of course, that the WG has not changed things significantly since earlier reviews. This is orthogonal to the earlier discussion about whether there should be additional requirements for running code and so on. (Or at least, it should be: if you think it's hard to get people to let go of specifications they hold dear, try getting them to part with running code.) The IETF wgs work well when there is a clear "best" solution or set of more or less equivalent best solutions. As far as I can tell, the wg process and the IETF process in general have a hard time working well when there is no clear best solution so several interests must be traded off against each other. If a wg succeeds in doing this, there's always someone to cry faul because their favorite interest didn't get top billing as soon as the result leaves the wg. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have a way to resolve this other than let the market decide, which isn't too good for the IETF because it means that some work done in the IETF is subsequently deemed a failure and people who don't understand this take a dim view of the IETF because they think it can't create good protocols. In reality, the IETF is successful because it allowed the market to do its work rather than to impose the choice of a small group. But then, the IETF operates under an American culteral bias and in American culture there is no appreciation for second place, only for winning. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF?
> The IETF wgs work well when there is a clear "best" solution or set > of more or less equivalent best solutions. As far as I can tell, the > wg process and the IETF process in general have a hard time working > well when there is no clear best solution so several interests must > be traded off against each other. If a wg succeeds in doing this, > there's always someone to cry faul because their favorite interest > didn't get top billing as soon as the result leaves the wg. agreed - but to me this is just an indicator that the current process by which we run WGs is severely broken. > Unfortunately, we don't seem to have a way to resolve this other than > let the market decide, which isn't too good for the IETF because it > means that some work done in the IETF is subsequently deemed a > failure and people who don't understand this take a dim view of the > IETF because they think it can't create good protocols. In reality, > the IETF is successful because it allowed the market to do its work > rather than to impose the choice of a small group. strongly disagree with this. the market is good at local optimization but is lousy at long-term foresight. it's even worse at technical foresight. and this has a lot to do with why the Internet is such a mess now. IETF is the biggest repository of protocol design expertise, and the fact that IETF produces so many protocols which are poorly designed is not by any means an indicator of success. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)
> > The IETF standards process is already so slow and uncertain that > > people throw up their hands in exasperation and go around it. > > True. Which is why it's necessary to handle the reviews in a pipelined > rather than a stop-and-wait fashion. Maybe I'm unduly pessimistic, but I would have trouble working up a lot of enthusiasm for doing work on a project if I knew that some gatekeeper working in parallel might later tell me that I was wasting my time. Although I completely disagree with your prediction that DKIM will be useless, there are worse problems than standards that turn out not to be used, so long as they are designed so they don't interfere with other more useful work. We seem to be managing that last issue reasonably well. Regards, John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "I shook hands with Senators Dole and Inouye," said Tom, disarmingly. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)
> Maybe I'm unduly pessimistic, but I would have trouble working up a lot of > enthusiasm for doing work on a project if I knew that some gatekeeper > working in parallel might later tell me that I was wasting my time. I have trouble working up a lot of enthusiasm for contributing to work that is going off in the weeds. What I have in mind is not a "gatekeeper" but external review. The external review would not be expected to tell a WG that it were wasting its time (though that is a possibility), but rather, how to make better use of its time by producing a specification that was more relevant. Apparently you think that an artist is the best judge of the relevance of his own work. > Although I completely disagree with your prediction that DKIM will be > useless, there are worse problems than standards that turn out not to be > used, so long as they are designed so they don't interfere with other > more useful work. We seem to be managing that last issue reasonably well. DKIM is a good counterexample of that also. The existence of DKIM distracts attention from more useful work that could be done - partly because it's consuming energy from those who would work on more useful goals if they were chartered, partly because of the need for damage control, and partly because of the widespread assumption that since IETF has chartered DKIM that DKIM is "the" solution that will be promoted by IETF. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)
> but rather, how to make better use of its time by producing a > specification that was more relevant. ... > Apparently you think that an artist is the best judge of the relevance > of his own work. I find the assumption that external reviewers are better able to score a project's "relevance", whatever that is, rather than the people who are doing it and plan to use it, truly breathtaking. > - partly because it's consuming energy from those who would work on more > useful goals if they were chartered, partly because of the need for > damage control, This must be a different group of people from the ones who I find on the DKIM list. If we wanted to work on something else, we would be doing so, and although I may overrate our collective wisdom, I don't think we're all working on DKIM purely because we are too dim to imagine anything else. > and partly because of the widespread assumption that since IETF has > chartered DKIM that DKIM is "the" solution that will be promoted by > IETF. Seems to me that if it weren't so difficult to charter and complete WGs, there would be more of them, and people would be less likely to overestimate the importance of one or another of them. But I wouldn't generalize too much about DKIM, or MARID, or ASRG, because people have been looking for a magic spam bullet for 10 years and nothing we tell them is going to stop that. Regards, John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "I shook hands with Senators Dole and Inouye," said Tom, disarmingly. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)
Keith Moore wrote: True. Which is why it's necessary to handle the reviews in a pipelined rather than a stop-and-wait fashion. But part of the reason IETF's process is so slow is that the only meaningful checks we place are at the end - so a working group typically labors to the point of exhaustion without having received any external feedback, so when the feedback does arrive the working group is so dysfunctional that it's nearly incapable of fixing anything (and it is often in denial about what is wrong). Providing more early feedback will speed up the process rather than slow it down. There's already a means for "external reviewers" to do so: read the drafts, make comments, add issues to the issue tracker. It's really not rocket science. Having some new sclerotic "pipeline" involved with the life blood of a working group sounds like a recipe for working group infarction to me. Mike ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)
> > but rather, how to make better use of its time by producing a > > specification that was more relevant. ... > > Apparently you think that an artist is the best judge of the relevance > > of his own work. > > I find the assumption that external reviewers are better able to score a > project's "relevance", whatever that is, rather than the people who are > doing it and plan to use it, truly breathtaking. As I said, apparently you think that an artist is the best judge of the relevance of his own work. I find this preposterous. > > and partly because of the widespread assumption that since IETF has > > chartered DKIM that DKIM is "the" solution that will be promoted by > > IETF. > > Seems to me that if it weren't so difficult to charter and complete WGs, > there would be more of them, and people would be less likely to > overestimate the importance of one or another of them. One reason that it's difficult to charter and complete WGs might be that WGs have demonstrated a huge potential to do more harm than good. > But I wouldn't > generalize too much about DKIM, or MARID, or ASRG, because people have > been looking for a magic spam bullet for 10 years and nothing we tell them > is going to stop that. True, the spam area is more difficult than most. But that ought to compel us to rely even more heavily on engineering disciplines, rather than to invest a huge amount of effort in a dubious direction out of a naive belief that doing something, anything at all, is better than doing nothing. Keth ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)
> There's already a means for "external reviewers" to do so: read the drafts, > make comments, add issues to the issue tracker. It's really not rocket > science. That's not quite sufficient, because most WGs aren't proceeding according to good engineering discipline (e.g. they're doing things in the wrong order, like trying to define the protocol before the problem space is understood), there's little external visibility of what the WG is doing (so it's difficult to make timely input without actually following the entirety of the mailing list discussion), and often, nobody with any authority over the WG is checking to see whether the WG is actually responding appropriately to such comments. A more formal process is necessary. > Having some new sclerotic "pipeline" involved with the life > blood of a > working group sounds like a recipe for working group infarction to me. In other words, we don't want to distract WGs with useful input ... better that they should keep their heads in the sand for the entire 2-3 years of their existence and then produce irrelevant or even harmful output. And that way, maybe a few influential people within the WG can coerce the WG into producing something that favors their employers' short-term interest even if it harms other interests or glosses over important limitations. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)
Keith Moore wrote: There's already a means for "external reviewers" to do so: read the drafts, make comments, add issues to the issue tracker. It's really not rocket science. That's not quite sufficient, because most WGs aren't proceeding according to good engineering discipline (e.g. they're doing things in the wrong order, like trying to define the protocol before the problem space is understood), there's little external visibility of what the WG is doing (so it's difficult to make timely input without actually following the entirety of the mailing list discussion), and often, nobody with any authority over the WG is checking to see whether the WG is actually responding appropriately to such comments. A more formal process is necessary. By whose standard? If you think that's going on, I'd think it would be appropriate to take it up with the relevent WG chairs and AD's. Last I heard, they're the stakeholders. Having some new sclerotic "pipeline" involved with the life blood of a working group sounds like a recipe for working group infarction to me. In other words, we don't want to distract WGs with useful input ... better that they should keep their heads in the sand for the entire 2-3 years of their existence and then produce irrelevant or even harmful output. And that way, maybe a few influential people within the WG can coerce the WG into producing something that favors their employers' short-term interest even if it harms other interests or glosses over important limitations. I repeat: There's already a means for "external reviewers" to do so: read the drafts, make comments, add issues to the issue tracker. It's really not rocket science. What you seem to want is some sort of cabal of dilettants who don't actually have to pay very much attention, but by their rank alone get to exercise veto power. Yuck. I don't suppose you have anybody in mind for such an IETF version of landed gentry? Mike ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Fostering reviews (was Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF?)
Hi Iljitsch, I don't know about "narrow community", but I agree that good reviews are essential. Reviewing is hard, especially with long documents / complex specifications (unfortunately it still seems some RFC writers are paid by the word) and also when there are many dependencies. And there's essentially nothing in it for the reviewer, so only people who are very much in favor or very much against something bother, with the former probably not being in the best position to uncover hidden problems. In my opinion, if the IETF could make it worth someone's while in one way or another to do a thorough review, that would help a lot. I very much agree with this I think this is the way to improve quality there have been some initiatives for this, see http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-handley-doc-market-00.txt but i guess it didn't progress... we should try to figure out some mechanisms to foster reviews... do you have any ideas? Regards, marcelo ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Streaming Audio for IETF66 - Starts July 9...
Ladies and Gentlefolk, It's that time of year again, so this is a quick announcement. We intend to continue provide streaming audio as a service to the attendees and remote participants of the IETF 66 Meeting in Montreal Canada. Streaming should begin at 0800 EDT on July 9th. The webpage from which the streams will be available is already up at: http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/ As soon as the schedule begins to firm up, it will become available as well, in a form useful for remote participants. I'd like to thank the community for it's support and feedback and look forward to serving in this capacity again. joelja -- - Joel Jaeggli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)
Michael, Merely calling something or someone a name like sclerotic or dillitante is unconvincing. You haven't seen a proposal yet, you have no idea of how this would work (or apparently, how a review of an engineering effort should work), and yet you dismiss the very idea out of hand. That's very similar the kind of failure that causes many working groups to produce poor or irrelevant output. You haven't refuted anything, you've merely provided a case example of why working groups need adult supervision. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)
> Merely calling something or someone a name like sclerotic or dillitante > is unconvincing. You haven't seen a proposal yet, you have no idea of > how this would work Good point. The sooner you send around a proposal, the sooner we can figure out how it might improve the process. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)
On Jun 24, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Keith Moore wrote: That's not quite sufficient, because most WGs aren't proceeding according to good engineering discipline (e.g. they're doing things in the wrong order, like trying to define the protocol before the problem space is understood) I'd generalize that. I have never seen *any* standards org do a good job of inventing new technology. I've been working with the soon-to- wind-down Atompub group for a couple of years and we got a pretty good result I think (if you can judge by implementations & deployments). There were a few things in our favor - a high level of interest and energy, lots of experience on the WG, decent editors - but the key thing was there was a ton of hands-on experience in the space (syndication technology). A whole lot of the key arguments could be resolved by appeal to example and experience. When standards orgs go out to invent stuff in unexplored territory you get disasters like OSI networking, CORBA, and in the current landscape, WS-*. I suppose there are exceptions but I don't know of any. -Tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 17:34:09 -0700 Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's not quite sufficient, because most WGs aren't proceeding > > according to good engineering discipline (e.g. they're doing things > > in the wrong order, like trying to define the protocol before the > > problem space is understood) > > I'd generalize that. I have never seen *any* standards org do a good > job of inventing new technology. good point. anytime a significant number of people participating in a WG are lacking some important set of expertise or experience, there's going to be a lot of time spent educating everyone and adopting a common language. and in IETF, because we try to engineer things for the Internet as a whole, it's entirely normal for a significant plurality of WG participants to lack some fundamental kind of expertise that is required to make the protocol work well at Internet scale. so we have our work cut out for us. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)
> > Merely calling something or someone a name like sclerotic or dillitante > > is unconvincing. You haven't seen a proposal yet, you have no idea of > > how this would work > > Good point. The sooner you send around a proposal, the sooner we can > figure out how it might improve the process. Fair enough. But I think Michael's note illustrates a somewhat different, but related, and very common phenomenon in IETF that is relevant to this problem. All too often, we (and I include myself here) shoot down ideas before they've had a fair hearing. We take an idea that is embryonic and - because we can _imagine_ that idea going somewhere that _might_ have a bad result - we do our best to kill it before it can breed. In this way we discard many good ideas not because they have no merit, but because they bring with them the potential to change things. The result is stagnation. I think we do this because we lack confidence in the IETF working group process. We all know that once something gets to the working group stage, it's very hard to kill. No matter how badly it turns out, the IESG is likely to end up holding its nose - maybe demand a trivial text change or two or add a nasty disclaimer - but basically approve it. By the time the WG has spent 2-3 years or more, exhausted itself and declared itself to be done, it takes a lot of Last Call feedback and IESG gumption to push back on it. Simple fixes can of course be made, but significant design flaws can rarely be corrected. At the same time, experienced WG participants know that even small, apparently trivial objections made late in a WG's lifetime have the potential to delay the WG's output for months or sometimes years. So once there is a significant investment in a particular direction within a WG, there tends to be tremendous resistance on the part of core participants to feedback that would call that direction into question. Trouble is, in our current process, there's rarely any formal request for feedback, and little external visibility of a WG's output, until Last Call. Which basically means that working groups get most of the external feedback about their fundamental design choices long after the designs are frozen and the working group is too exhausted to fix anything. Ideally our process should encourage these differences to be resolved early - before there is a significant investment in the WG's output that would encourage denial on the part of its proponents, and before the WG is exhausted to the point that it cannot respond quickly and flexibility to external input. And if we had a process that made it likely that significant problems were discovered early, the latter stages of review should be less time consuming and less risky. So when I'm saying that working groups need multiple stages of formal, external review, what I'm really saying is that we need a structure for working groups in which we can have confidence that sufficient feedback will be obtained early enough to put good ideas on the right track and to see that truly bad ideas get weeded out in due time, most of the time.You (or Michael) and I might have somewhat different ideas about how to gain that confidence, or about the details for how to make it work without bogging down working groups, but the concept working groups need earlier external feedback is sound. Keith p.s. as for additional review stages bogging things down, any good protocol engineer ought to understand that sliding windows produce better throughput than stop-and-wait, that a fin-wait state is unavoidable if you want a clean close, but the way to reduce time in fin-wait is to minimize rtt and packet loss... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Streaming Audio for IETF66 - Starts July 9...
Does this mean that audio streaming, including recording will be available also for the EDU sessions scheduled for the afternoon of Sunday, 7/9? Thanks, Dan > -Original Message- > From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 11:22 PM > To: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Streaming Audio for IETF66 - Starts July 9... > > Ladies and Gentlefolk, > > It's that time of year again, so this is a quick > announcement. We intend to continue provide streaming audio > as a service to the attendees and remote participants of the > IETF 66 Meeting in Montreal Canada. Streaming should begin at > 0800 EDT on July 9th. > > The webpage from which the streams will be available is already up at: > > http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/ > > As soon as the schedule begins to firm up, it will become > available as well, in a form useful for remote participants. > > I'd like to thank the community for it's support and feedback > and look forward to serving in this capacity again. > > joelja > > -- > - > Joel Jaeggli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > GPG Key Fingerprint: > 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
