regarding retransmission of Control message after receive error form peer end
As per the various RFC (i.e. for M3UA, IUA and SUA), its not described that the ASP end point will not retransmit the ASP SM/TM messages after receiving an ERROR message. Should Endpoints Retransmite control message after receiving error from the per end. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
> From: Henrik Levkowetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > (Note that since drafts can have multiple authors, the sum of the > following percentages are more than 100%), > # 1523 drafts (73.08%) have authors from North America. > # 1116 drafts (53.55%) have authors from Europe. > # 417 drafts (20.01%) have authors from Asia. > # 33 drafts (1.58%) have authors from Australia. > # 9 drafts (0.43%) have authors from South America. > # 3 drafts (0.14%) have authors from Africa. > # 1 drafts (0.05%) have authors from OTHER. Renormalizing percentages so that they sum to 100%, we get: 49.09% of authors are from North America. 35.97% of authors are from Europe. 13.44% of authors are from Asia. 1.06% of authors are from Australia .28% of authors are from South America. .09% of authors are from Africa. .03% of authors are from OTHER. Sounds like out of every 6 IETF's, one should be in Asia, two in Europe, and the other three in North America: NA/Europe/NA/Europe/NA/Asia spreads things out evenly. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
Hi Fred, on 2006-07-14 22:45 Fred Baker said the following: ... > Assumption: the "we" in question is folks who post internet drafts. > Attendance at an IETF meeting or being on the mailing list doesn't > qualify for consideration here. > > Criticism: there are SO many ways to approach that one. This is the > assumption I made for this analysis. So there. ... More data on this: http://www.arkko.com/tools/authorstats.html and a subsidiary page listing authors of active drafts by region (Note that since drafts can have multiple authors, the sum of the following percentages are more than 100%), http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/d-contdistr.html: # 1523 drafts (73.08%) have authors from North America. # 1116 drafts (53.55%) have authors from Europe. # 417 drafts (20.01%) have authors from Asia. # 33 drafts (1.58%) have authors from Australia. # 9 drafts (0.43%) have authors from South America. # 3 drafts (0.14%) have authors from Africa. # 1 drafts (0.05%) have authors from OTHER. and by country: http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/d-countrydistr.html: ... # 1395 drafts (66.94%) have authors from Usa. # 218 drafts (10.46%) have authors from Germany. # 196 drafts (9.40%) have authors from United kingdom. # 170 drafts (8.16%) have authors from Finland. # 163 drafts (7.82%) have authors from France. # 151 drafts (7.25%) have authors from Japan. # 128 drafts (6.14%) have authors from Canada. # 83 drafts (3.98%) have authors from Sweden. # 81 drafts (3.89%) have authors from China. # 70 drafts (3.36%) have authors from South korea. # 61 drafts (2.93%) have authors from Belgium. # 53 drafts (2.54%) have authors from Israel. # 41 drafts (1.97%) have authors from Spain. # 41 drafts (1.97%) have authors from India. # 38 drafts (1.82%) have authors from Italy. # 36 drafts (1.73%) have authors from Switzerland. # 29 drafts (1.39%) have authors from Australia. # 21 drafts (1.01%) have authors from The netherlands. # 19 drafts (0.91%) have authors from Norway. # 17 drafts (0.82%) have authors from Austria. # 11 drafts (0.53%) have authors from Ireland. # 10 drafts (0.48%) have authors from Hungary. ... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
On Jul 14, 2006, at 3:07 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: Try taking the overall NA data, and removing the NA people; the remaining data should be relatively unbiased (e.g. the Asia/Europe ratio should be fairly close to the "actual" value). Do the same for the European and Asian meetings, only there remove the respective "local" numbers (i.e. European and Asian). Judicious comparison of results should give you a pretty close values for the true overall NA/European/Asian ratios. OK, so I have just gone through an analysis of this. Like any good researcher, I started with a simplifying assumption and then criticized my own assumptions. Assumption: if a person is from a country, when they list their home address, they will list the country. So I can look for names of countries. Criticism: US folks don't do that. They do well to get a two letter postal identifier in for their state. Mea Culpa. So the results one gets from this analysis will not reflect US population. (note: I did find 61 I-Ds that listed that the person was from the United States.) Criticism: I found two internet drafts that take it upon themselves to list countries - one of them appears to try to list all of the countries in the world. Criticism: "Aruba Networks" is a company. "Chad" is a common name for men. Atlanta is in "Georgia". And so on. Assumption: the "we" in question is folks who post internet drafts. Attendance at an IETF meeting or being on the mailing list doesn't qualify for consideration here. Criticism: there are SO many ways to approach that one. This is the assumption I made for this analysis. So there. So I wound up putting a bit of work into this. If you don't like my analysis, do your own analysis :-) I started from the Wikipedia list of countries. This is a very good article, BTW: it lists about 253 regions and peoples that think of themselves as countries whether anyone else thinks so or not, including self-ruled regions of Denmark (Greenland), Islands protected by nations (Guam, the Falklands), Cities that act a lot like countries (Hong Kong), people groups that don't like other people groups they live with (Palestine), and so on. Basically, I assumed that if someone said they lived or worked at some address in a named place, they probably did. Criticism: I know of some people who probably don't know where they live. I fly more than some of them :-) By my analysis, the people that are involved in the IETF claim in Internet Drafts to have mailing addresses in: United States, Germany, France, Finland, Canada, Japan, China, Belgium, Sweden, Korea, United Kingdom, Israel, India, Italy, Switzerland, Spain, Austria, Norway, Australia, Netherlands, Ireland, Hungary, Singapore, Portugal, Turkey, Bulgaria, Denmark, Taiwan, Argentina, Egypt, Poland, Hong Kong, Venezuela, Croatia, New Zealand, Syria, Sudan, Romania, Lebanon, Mongolia, Greece, Thailand, or Costa Rica. Yes, there is an order to that list - the countries at the beginning have a lot of I- Ds posted, and the ones at the tail have one I-D posted. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Meetings in other regions
|> -Original Message- |> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |> Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 1:05 AM |> To: ietf@ietf.org |> Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions |> |> There are two issues: I believe there are far more issues which makes the whole thing much more complex than most of us would like and it is sometimes a good idea to hash over the issues now and again to see if there have been any changes which may assist with future direction. |> 1) Cost. IETF has limited resources, so unless each of us |> want to pay more and more for the registration fees or we |> are able to compensate the cost with more sponsors (which is |> every day more difficult), we need to look for cheaper locations. For someone like me who is involved in a lot of things from personal interest and inclination without corporate backing, costs are an important issue. I've given some thought to this, how participation is restricted for individuals and have come to the conclusion it is not such a bad thing. Individuals can participate in the IETF without having it cost them a fortune which is different to a lot of other organisations, even if that participation is somewhat limited. It is one of the great things about the IETF I like, how anyone can become involved. |> 2) Is un fair that the main driver is only looking at where |> more people comes from (this is fortunately changing anyway, |> and thus will less and less easy to match). Even worst if |> that's a country with doesn't allow everyone to come in. I'm not sure if it is because I'm getting older and have more understanding or if I have seen enough evidence to support it but I find myself relying more on the intrinsic good will of people and assuming they make decisions after considering all factors, more often than not. As has been pointed out, the location will affect demographics and I'm satisfied this is considered when a decision is made on where the next meeting will be held. As are a lot of other factors. There will always be ideas put forward for alternative locations and ways to decide on the selection. This is a good thing. It keeps the whole process on track. Darryl (Dassa) Lynch ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
At 16:14 14/07/2006, Scott W Brim wrote: On 07/14/2006 10:01 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote: > Once upon a time, > the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of the IETF was from Europe, > a smattering was from elsewhere, and the lion's share was from the US, > so I scheduled a meeting every other year in Europe, the odd one in > random places, and the lion's share in the US. Those statistics are > essentially meaningless now. Why are they meaningless? The IETF should overwhelmingly meet where the participants are, wherever that might be. I still like your algorithm. May be the IETF should also look for other working methods which would permit to involve more people more pertinently while needing less meetings. The ITEF matter is technical, the target is to produce document which will be _read_ by engineers from all over the world. Why would this necessarily call for people to meet? May be the main problem of the IETF documents is that they are from a culture of people having f2f meetings to tune their positions, while their users/readers do not. I think it is a common problem to many organizations. But that of all the technical organizations/SSDO the IETF is probably the best suited to address that problem, because it has the competence, experience, and a significant part of participants being on their own expense account. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
> From: Avri Doria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> the european and asiapac meetings, from the proceedings. >> ... >> Yokohama, for example, was 1977 folks, of which 1/4 were US and >> perhaps 40% were Japanese. Seoul was similar. > a large number of participants will come from whatever region the > meeting is in .. giving us no objective criteria for weighing one > region over another. Try taking the overall NA data, and removing the NA people; the remaining data should be relatively unbiased (e.g. the Asia/Europe ratio should be fairly close to the "actual" value). Do the same for the European and Asian meetings, only there remove the respective "local" numbers (i.e. European and Asian). Judicious comparison of results should give you a pretty close values for the true overall NA/European/Asian ratios. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Meetings in other regions
I definitively support the view that IETF should reach larger audiences of participants and therefore target regions in a balanced manner not based on the % of participants. Many do not participate because their travel challenges are almost never addressed by IETF. These statistics are skewed by the current bias and that is in fact the cusp of the issue. Organizing events in such regions turned out in my experience to bring even more deeply involved and expert participants that in IETF traditional areas of focus. Many regions offer cheaper facilities with excellent (dare I say better) services and business infrastructure. Travel pain should be equitably distributed. Note that while further away for some of us, travel cost for the participants can often turn out significantly lower in locations not typically targeted by IETF. I can definitively provide some pointers based on lessons from organizing or participating to standard events for other organizations. We should strive at balanced amount of meetings in all the regions without preferences. This is what being a global organization is about... Stephane PS Jordi, in your list, I think you should also include Asia (beyond Japan/South Korea). -Original Message- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > There are two issues: > > 1) Cost. IETF has limited resources, so unless each of us want to pay > more and more for the registration fees or we are able to compensate > the cost with more sponsors (which is every day more difficult), we > need to look for cheaper locations. > > 2) Is un fair that the main driver is only looking at where more > people comes from (this is fortunately changing anyway, and thus will > less and less easy to match). Even worst if that's a country with > doesn't allow everyone to come in. So where is this mythical low cost easy to travel to country within easy reach of an untapped resource of potential ietf participants? Once we've located it, it should be easy for the IAD to book us a hotel on the dates we've fixed in stone 2 years in advance... > Regards, > Jordi > > > > >> De: Scott W Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Organización: Cisco Systems, Inc. >> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Fecha: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:14:34 -0400 >> Para: Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> CC: , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Asunto: Re: Meetings in other regions >> >> On 07/14/2006 10:01 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote: >>> Once upon a time, >>> the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of the IETF was from >>> Europe, a smattering was from elsewhere, and the lion's share was >>> from the US, so I scheduled a meeting every other year in Europe, >>> the odd one in random places, and the lion's share in the US. Those >>> statistics are essentially meaningless now. >> Why are they meaningless? The IETF should overwhelmingly meet where >> the participants are, wherever that might be. I still like your >> algorithm. >> >> ___ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > ** > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! > http://www.ipv6day.org > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the > individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, including attached files, is prohibited. > > > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- - Joel Jaeggli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
Hi, I think I am somewhat confused by this discussion. In one place you say: On 14 jul 2006, at 11.04, Fred Baker wrote: The IETF should indeed meet where our participants come from. That was my initial comment (from the mike) on "are we from Latin America, Africa, or Antarctica?" I think that remains to be shown. and in another: On 14 jul 2006, at 11.55, Fred Baker wrote: from the norht american stats. I would encourage you to compare the european and asiapac meetings, from the proceedings. My observation is that the region/country the meeting happens in tends to be exaggerated. Yokohama, for example, was 1977 folks, of which 1/4 were US and perhaps 40% were Japanese. Seoul was similar. so does this mean that when the meeting is in NA, then the NA population is also exaggerated. Or rather that a large number of participants will come from whatever region the meeting is in (at least for the NA, EU, or Asiapac regions - we have no evidence on LAC or Africa), giving us no objective criteria for weighing one region over another. If this holds, don't we have a parity situation where the meetings should alternate equally between these 3 regions with maybe an occasional meeting in a developing area, like an easy to get to region in Africa or LAC. a. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > There are two issues: > > 1) Cost. IETF has limited resources, so unless each of us want to pay more > and more for the registration fees or we are able to compensate the cost > with more sponsors (which is every day more difficult), we need to look for > cheaper locations. > > 2) Is un fair that the main driver is only looking at where more people > comes from (this is fortunately changing anyway, and thus will less and less > easy to match). Even worst if that's a country with doesn't allow everyone > to come in. So where is this mythical low cost easy to travel to country within easy reach of an untapped resource of potential ietf participants? Once we've located it, it should be easy for the IAD to book us a hotel on the dates we've fixed in stone 2 years in advance... > Regards, > Jordi > > > > >> De: Scott W Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Organización: Cisco Systems, Inc. >> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Fecha: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:14:34 -0400 >> Para: Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> CC: , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Asunto: Re: Meetings in other regions >> >> On 07/14/2006 10:01 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote: >>> Once upon a time, >>> the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of the IETF was from Europe, >>> a smattering was from elsewhere, and the lion's share was from the US, >>> so I scheduled a meeting every other year in Europe, the odd one in >>> random places, and the lion's share in the US. Those statistics are >>> essentially meaningless now. >> Why are they meaningless? The IETF should overwhelmingly meet where >> the participants are, wherever that might be. I still like your >> algorithm. >> >> ___ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > ** > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! > http://www.ipv6day.org > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the > individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, including attached files, is prohibited. > > > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- - Joel Jaeggli ([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: My notes on draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt
On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:59 AM, C. M. Heard wrote: Very well said. As I said in my message of 18 June, my advice would be to make a relatively minor set of clarifications to BCP 9 (RFC 2026) and move on. It would also be OK for newtrk to refocus on its original charter of simplifying the standards track. But I would be very dismayed to see it focus on document relationships. Few RFCs are stand-alone elements for developing interchange. When flattening document categorization, conveying levels of interchange remains problematic. Evolution of document relationships remain an element poorly handled by composing these sets within RFCs themselves, which are likely rapidly dated. A tracking system not encumbered with inclusion of normative language ensures a working-set can be tracked in a reasonable fashion. Much of the RFC review process and utilization depends upon understanding what is the intended set. The Name.Serial proposals as found in both the ISD and SRD proposals provides a means for both tracking this evolution, while also stabilizing references used to uncover document sets. Often as documents change, reference to the prior set may be considered by the community as Stable, whereas the latest set, as Current. Stable versus Current is too dynamic to be tracked by a highly formalized process. The IETF could publish a list of interchange categories as just Name.Serial on a web page, for example. Once the process is understood to be broken, it should also be obvious that it would have also been fixed had this information been useful. Those actually using the information have been well served by the efforts focused upon providing document relationships. It would also seem more appropriate to categorize the document sets rather than individual RFCs. There could by a set that includes the single RFC, but that will likely be the exception and not the rule. -Doug ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ITU-T 50th anniversary
For your information: "On 20 July 2006, ITU-T will celebrate 50 years of making the standards that have played a massive part in shaping the information and communications technologies (ICT) and services of today, see http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/50/"; jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
If the IETF is trying to promote the Internet (as ICANN does), then holding meetings where participants aren't generally from is a step in spreading the Internet. If the IETF is meant to be a bare-bones, get engineering work done, it ought to be in the most cost effective location. For what ever formulation of cost effective. If the IETF is to be both, we have to compromise. "Cost effective" is relative. I was asked what that meant to me: it means least transit time from my couch to the hotel registration desk. I know that's not generalizable - as no one else travels from my couch to the IETF. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Soccer/Futbol. IPv6. Both have lots of 1's and 0's and have a hard time catching on in North America. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
good point Fred Baker wrote: > from the norht american stats. I would encourage you to compare the > european and asiapac meetings, from the proceedings. My observation is > that the region/country the meeting happens in tends to be exaggerated. > Yokohama, for example, was 1977 folks, of which 1/4 were US and perhaps > 40% were Japanese. Seoul was similar. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
There are two issues: 1) Cost. IETF has limited resources, so unless each of us want to pay more and more for the registration fees or we are able to compensate the cost with more sponsors (which is every day more difficult), we need to look for cheaper locations. 2) Is un fair that the main driver is only looking at where more people comes from (this is fortunately changing anyway, and thus will less and less easy to match). Even worst if that's a country with doesn't allow everyone to come in. Regards, Jordi > De: Scott W Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Organización: Cisco Systems, Inc. > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:14:34 -0400 > Para: Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Asunto: Re: Meetings in other regions > > On 07/14/2006 10:01 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote: >> Once upon a time, >> the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of the IETF was from Europe, >> a smattering was from elsewhere, and the lion's share was from the US, >> so I scheduled a meeting every other year in Europe, the odd one in >> random places, and the lion's share in the US. Those statistics are >> essentially meaningless now. > > Why are they meaningless? The IETF should overwhelmingly meet where > the participants are, wherever that might be. I still like your > algorithm. > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
from the norht american stats. I would encourage you to compare the european and asiapac meetings, from the proceedings. My observation is that the region/country the meeting happens in tends to be exaggerated. Yokohama, for example, was 1977 folks, of which 1/4 were US and perhaps 40% were Japanese. Seoul was similar. On Jul 14, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Tony Hansen wrote: US by itself was about half, and Canada was about another 10%. The current split of 2/3 in North America and alternating Europe and Asia once a year still seems to make sense from the stats. Tony Hansen ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
US by itself was about half, and Canada was about another 10%. The current split of 2/3 in North America and alternating Europe and Asia once a year still seems to make sense from the stats. Tony Hansen Fred Baker wrote: > That said, I'll remind you of the demographics of this particular > meeting, working from memory from the slide Brian showed Wednesday > evening. It looked to me like this meeting was a tad less than half from > North America, perhaps 20% from Japan and China, and most of the rest > from Europe. That argues for roughly half of our meetings being in North > America, a meeting every other year in Asia, and the rest in Europe. > > On Jul 14, 2006, at 10:14 AM, Scott W Brim wrote: > >> On 07/14/2006 10:01 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote: >>> Once upon a time, the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of >>> the IETF was from Europe, a smattering was from elsewhere, and >>> the lion's share was from the US, so I scheduled a meeting every >>> other year in Europe, the odd one in random places, and the >>> lion's share in the US. Those statistics are essentially >>> meaningless now. >> >> Why are they meaningless? The IETF should overwhelmingly meet where >> the participants are, wherever that might be. I still like your >> algorithm. http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/slides/plenaryw-0.pdf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
Thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to be sure what "those statistics" referred to. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
On 14-jul-2006, at 11:04, Fred Baker wrote: It looked to me like this meeting was a tad less than half from North America, perhaps 20% from Japan and China, and most of the rest from Europe. That argues for roughly half of our meetings being in North America, a meeting every other year in Asia, and the rest in Europe. There is a measure of self-selection. If you look at the attendence for meetings on other continents you'll see different figures. But apart from that, this makes sense, but it's only part of the picture. Not all places on a given continent are equally reachable. For instance, it's easier to get to New York from many places in Europe than to many medium-sized cities elsewhere in Europe. And flying to San Diego takes just about twice as long as to New York for me. Then there is the whole visa issue. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
Scott W Brim wrote: On 07/14/2006 10:01 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote: Once upon a time, the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of the IETF was from Europe, a smattering was from elsewhere, and the lion's share was from the US, so I scheduled a meeting every other year in Europe, the odd one in random places, and the lion's share in the US. Those statistics are essentially meaningless now. Why are they meaningless? The IETF should overwhelmingly meet where the participants are, wherever that might be. I still like your algorithm. I think he's saying the old heuristic is inaccurate because the distribution of participants has changed. looking at the pie chart, the US represents slight less than 50% of the participants and .jp .kr .cn make up almost 1/4 http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/slides/plenaryw-0.pdf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
The IETF should indeed meet where our participants come from. That was my initial comment (from the mike) on "are we from Latin America, Africa, or Antarctica?" I think that remains to be shown. That said, I'll remind you of the demographics of this particular meeting, working from memory from the slide Brian showed Wednesday evening. It looked to me like this meeting was a tad less than half from North America, perhaps 20% from Japan and China, and most of the rest from Europe. That argues for roughly half of our meetings being in North America, a meeting every other year in Asia, and the rest in Europe. What Brian then has to ask is "what are the trend lines". My understanding from his behavior (we haven't actually had this conversation) is that he thinks we are trending towards being roughly equally from those regions, and therefore is trying to distribute meetings roughly evenly among them. On Jul 14, 2006, at 10:14 AM, Scott W Brim wrote: On 07/14/2006 10:01 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote: Once upon a time, the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of the IETF was from Europe, a smattering was from elsewhere, and the lion's share was from the US, so I scheduled a meeting every other year in Europe, the odd one in random places, and the lion's share in the US. Those statistics are essentially meaningless now. Why are they meaningless? The IETF should overwhelmingly meet where the participants are, wherever that might be. I still like your algorithm. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: My notes on draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Eric Rosen wrote: > The focus on document relationships rather than on simplifying > the standards track is what (well, is one of the things) that > sent newtrk off into the weeds. I completely agree. > Frankly, I don't care if someone on a desert island cannot > figure out from the RFCs alone how to implement some protocol. > I just don't see that as a problem we have to solve. Anyway, > implementing a protocol requires so much more knowledge than can > be obtained from the RFCs that no amount of messing with the > document strategy is going to have any impact on the ability of > our castaway to become a successful implementer. Very well said. As I said in my message of 18 June, my advice would be to make a relatively minor set of clarifications to BCP 9 (RFC 2026) and move on. It would also be OK for newtrk to refocus on its original charter of simplifying the standards track. But I would be very dismayed to see it focus on document relationships. Mike Heard ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
On 07/14/2006 10:01 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote: > Once upon a time, > the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of the IETF was from Europe, > a smattering was from elsewhere, and the lion's share was from the US, > so I scheduled a meeting every other year in Europe, the odd one in > random places, and the lion's share in the US. Those statistics are > essentially meaningless now. Why are they meaningless? The IETF should overwhelmingly meet where the participants are, wherever that might be. I still like your algorithm. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Darryl ((Dassa)) Lynch wrote: The closer the events are to my location, the more likely it is I may make it. To be honest, for those of us that don't have a business reason to ignore distance as an issue (and companies will tend to trade off number of people for money spent getting them there), this is a general truth. The thing is that we're from all over- at this meeting, 44 countries - so that argument doesn't help as much as it used to. Once upon a time, the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of the IETF was from Europe, a smattering was from elsewhere, and the lion's share was from the US, so I scheduled a meeting every other year in Europe, the odd one in random places, and the lion's share in the US. Those statistics are essentially meaningless now. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Meetings in other regions
|> -Original Message- |> From: Russ White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 6:05 AM |> To: Pekka Savola |> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; JORDI PALET MARTINEZ |> Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions |> |> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- |> Hash: SHA1 |> |> |> Another point to consider is "reachability." While some |> folks don't mind flying two days in each direction to get to |> some location or another, I generally consider a good |> balance between time and cost to be more important than pure |> monetary considerations. |> |> For instance, I would consider Latin America, but I |> generally don't attend Japan/Korea/etc, just due to time in |> flight constraints. Someone in Europe might consider Sand |> Diego a similar issue (where Africa might be easier to get |> to than Sand Diego). |> |> Anyway, just another consideration to think about. It's not |> always a pure money issue. Speaking as one who follows what is happening online but doesn't have much chance to participate otherwise, money plays a big part. The closer the events are to my location, the more likely it is I may make it. Darryl (Dassa) Lynch ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meetings in other regions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Another point to consider is "reachability." While some folks don't mind flying two days in each direction to get to some location or another, I generally consider a good balance between time and cost to be more important than pure monetary considerations. For instance, I would consider Latin America, but I generally don't attend Japan/Korea/etc, just due to time in flight constraints. Someone in Europe might consider Sand Diego a similar issue (where Africa might be easier to get to than Sand Diego). Anyway, just another consideration to think about. It's not always a pure money issue. :-) Russ Pekka Savola wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> Just to give some extra *valuable* info about my comment in the plenary. >> 1) Meetings cost money. Doing meetings in Latin America/Caribbean and >> Africa, will save a lot of cost to IETF as an organization. > >> 5) There have been already some offers to sponsor meetings there (even >> if I >> believe the sponsorship should be changed from what we have now, but >> this is >> a different topic). > > No doubt some parts of such a meeting cost would be cheaper. Actually > meetings don't "cost" IETF money though, as Ray's slides showed, meeting > revenues are higher expenses. Perhaps the bottom line (facilities cost, > food/beverages, sponsorship, hosting expenses, network connectivity, > etc.) has not been significantly different from a more traditional and > less risky location or logistics haven't worked out. > > Personally, I have no particular desire to meet in Africa or Latin > America/Caribbean but if the IAOC feels that makes a significant > difference financially I'd have no problem with it. They've been chosen > to make that call so that we don't need to worry about it. > - -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] CCIE <>< Grace Alone -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEtqd7ER27sUhU9OQRAkkVAJ4iUhzkMciPzBuBcW1lJE64zCK39wCgvRmu UE2U3VzggFrG0WnJc0EwN2E= =i1TL -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
