Secretariat Transitions 1 Feb 2008
Thanks. Welcome. Best Wishes The IAOC would like to thank NeuStar Secretriat Services for the support of the IETF these last two plus years. In particular we want to recognize Mark Foster, NeuStar CTO, for his pivotal role in the administrative restructuring of the IETF. NSS was led by Jon Lindberg and was ably supported by Barbara Fuller, Marcia Beaulieu, Michael and Sunny Lee, Amy Vezza, Dinara Suleymanova, Rebecca Bunch - who all came over from Foretec; and Christine Ginsburg and Nora Duhig who joined the team sometime later. Thanks and best wishes. The IAOC would like to welcome aboard Association Management Solutions who assume responsibilites for the Secretariat beginning today, 1 February 2008. AMS is a leading technology forum management company based in Fremont, California. (www.amsl.com) They will provide all meeting, clerical and IT support for the IETF. Other AMS clients include the DSL Forum, the Optical Internetworking Forum and the IP/MPLS Forum. AMS was founded ten years ago by its principals, Kirsten Machi, Lisa Winkler and Karen Moreland. AMS offers a strong combination of association management experience and innovation. We will make use of the full suite of services offered by AMS to provide the IETF with a strong administrative platform supporting the development of standards for the international Internet community. The AMS team includes Alexa Morris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) as executive director, Marcia Beaulieu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) as senior meeting planner, Amy Vezza ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Cindy Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) as project managers, Wanda Lo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) as coordinator, and more staff are being added. AMS - welcome and best wishes! Ray Pelletier IETF Administrative Director ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [HOKEY] Last Call: draft-ietf-hokey-erx (EAP Extensions for EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP)) to Proposed Standard
Hello again, Pardon my repetition but I have come up with a very valid reason why naming keys using HMAC-SHA-256 is a bad idea. If one wants to administratively remove all keys in a particular key hierarchy (which seems like an entirely reasonable request) one must do a linear search of all keys in all key hierarchies that a particular server maintains! This is because HMAC-SHA-256 has mapped all identifying key information for all key hierarchies to the same name space. It precludes using something like a hash table for fast lookup of all related keys. If keys were named by concatenating the EAP Session-ID with a string that identified the particular key in the key hierarchy rooted at the MK derived in that EAP Session-ID then the EAP Session-ID could be used as an index into a hash table and all keys for that particular key hierarchy could be looked up very efficiently. regards, Dan. On Fri, February 1, 2008 5:16 pm, Dan Harkins wrote: > > Hello, > > I believe this is a well organized and complete document. On > numerous occasions while reviewing it I made a mental question > regarding something only to have the question answered in a > subsequent paragraph. > > I do have several comments though: > > 1. this protocol can be used in the presence of AAA proxies. Due > to the nature of AAA proxies a peer or authenticator may not > even know whether they are part of the communication chain. > Therefore, from the view of a security threat their presence > must be assumed by the peer and authenticator. > > The Domain referred to in section 2 (part of the EMSK key > hierarchy draft) specifically allows for proxies as part of > the distributed system of computers that define the Domain. > > This brings up many significant issues that are not addressed > in this draft. > > - It cannot be claimed that a key is being bound to its > context when the context cannot even be scoped. (Section 6) > > - The domino effect is not prevented because compromise of a > proxy will compromise keying material on (other) authenticators. > > - A pairwise key is being given by one of the entities that share > it, e.g. the server, to a 3rd entity, e.g. a proxy, without the > consent of the other peer that shares the key, e.g. the peer. > This brings up security considerations that are not discussed. > > - During discussions at a HOKEY meeting and on the list the rationale > that justified proxies was that the peer is more concerned about > receiving network access (which is confirmed in the ERP document > when it says, "The primary purpose [of ERP] is network access > control.") than about specifically authenticating "the network". > Provided that service is obtained with no surprises in the bill at > the end of the month the rationale was that the peer didn't care > if the key was distributed to proxies if it was necessary to > continue to provide network access. Which is a reasonable rationale. > But it needs to be mentioned in this document. It has a unique > threat model that is not discussed anywhere. > > - The aforementioned rationale begs the question of why have > "Domain Specific Keys". If the peer doesn't care whether proxies > have a key, potentially for a different domain, then it doesn't > care about key separation between domains. This is significant > added complexity for no benefit. > > - RFC4962 REQUIRES things-- bind key to its context, prevent the > domino effect-- that ERP cannot support. ERP is a AAA key > management protocol though and falls under the scope of RFC4962. > There needs to be justification for why ERP is not meeting the > mandatory requirements of RFC4962. > > I think all of these issues need addressing before advancement of this > Internet-Draft. > > 2. Inter-Domain ERP > > It is this reviewers recollection that consensus was reached in HOKEY > to require a peer to reauthenticate back to the home AAA server every > time it attached to a POP in different domain. > > Therefore, I wonder why a "Domain-Specific" key, the DSRK, and all it's > progeny-- DS-rIK, DS-rRK, DSUSRK, etc.-- continue to be used by this > protocol. A "HOKEY-KEY", a USRK, should be derived from the EMSK > and that is the key given, through proxies if need be, to the ER > server in the visited domain. If the peer goes to a different domain > then it does a full reauthentication resulting in a _new_ USRK, that > has no relation to the previous USRK, being given to the ER server > in the new domain. Again, it was my understanding that the group > already reached consensus on this matter. > > 3. HMAC-SHA256 as a key naming technique > > SHA-256 is a computationally intensive operation; HMAC-SHA256 doubly > so. There should, therefore, be some justification to use such a > strong c
[HOKEY] Last Call: draft-ietf-hokey-erx (EAP Extensions for EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP)) to Proposed Standard
Hello, I believe this is a well organized and complete document. On numerous occasions while reviewing it I made a mental question regarding something only to have the question answered in a subsequent paragraph. I do have several comments though: 1. this protocol can be used in the presence of AAA proxies. Due to the nature of AAA proxies a peer or authenticator may not even know whether they are part of the communication chain. Therefore, from the view of a security threat their presence must be assumed by the peer and authenticator. The Domain referred to in section 2 (part of the EMSK key hierarchy draft) specifically allows for proxies as part of the distributed system of computers that define the Domain. This brings up many significant issues that are not addressed in this draft. - It cannot be claimed that a key is being bound to its context when the context cannot even be scoped. (Section 6) - The domino effect is not prevented because compromise of a proxy will compromise keying material on (other) authenticators. - A pairwise key is being given by one of the entities that share it, e.g. the server, to a 3rd entity, e.g. a proxy, without the consent of the other peer that shares the key, e.g. the peer. This brings up security considerations that are not discussed. - During discussions at a HOKEY meeting and on the list the rationale that justified proxies was that the peer is more concerned about receiving network access (which is confirmed in the ERP document when it says, "The primary purpose [of ERP] is network access control.") than about specifically authenticating "the network". Provided that service is obtained with no surprises in the bill at the end of the month the rationale was that the peer didn't care if the key was distributed to proxies if it was necessary to continue to provide network access. Which is a reasonable rationale. But it needs to be mentioned in this document. It has a unique threat model that is not discussed anywhere. - The aforementioned rationale begs the question of why have "Domain Specific Keys". If the peer doesn't care whether proxies have a key, potentially for a different domain, then it doesn't care about key separation between domains. This is significant added complexity for no benefit. - RFC4962 REQUIRES things-- bind key to its context, prevent the domino effect-- that ERP cannot support. ERP is a AAA key management protocol though and falls under the scope of RFC4962. There needs to be justification for why ERP is not meeting the mandatory requirements of RFC4962. I think all of these issues need addressing before advancement of this Internet-Draft. 2. Inter-Domain ERP It is this reviewers recollection that consensus was reached in HOKEY to require a peer to reauthenticate back to the home AAA server every time it attached to a POP in different domain. Therefore, I wonder why a "Domain-Specific" key, the DSRK, and all it's progeny-- DS-rIK, DS-rRK, DSUSRK, etc.-- continue to be used by this protocol. A "HOKEY-KEY", a USRK, should be derived from the EMSK and that is the key given, through proxies if need be, to the ER server in the visited domain. If the peer goes to a different domain then it does a full reauthentication resulting in a _new_ USRK, that has no relation to the previous USRK, being given to the ER server in the new domain. Again, it was my understanding that the group already reached consensus on this matter. 3. HMAC-SHA256 as a key naming technique SHA-256 is a computationally intensive operation; HMAC-SHA256 doubly so. There should, therefore, be some justification to use such a strong cryptographic mixing function if all one wants to do is "uniquely name a key". EAP methods export a Session-ID. An rIK can be named by the concatenation of Session-ID and "rIK". Similarly for the rMSK, rRK and the other keys being generated in ERP. This has the added benefit of allowing for key management to quickly identify keys based on common queries-- all the keys for a specific Session-ID, or all rIKs held by a particular entity. By using a strong cryptographic mixing function all specificity of the key names has been lost across every single key hierarchy that a HOKEY server may end up managing. This is a really bad idea and it should be changed before this Internet-Draft is advanced. 4. Section 5.3.2 EAP-Initiate/Re-Auth Packet This packet has the following field: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |R|B|L| Reserved| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ And "R" is, itself, reserved. This makes no sense. Please << 1 this field. regards, Dan. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet Draft Submission cutoff dates
On 1 feb 2008, at 22:14, Eric Rescorla wrote: > FWIW, I'm not an AD but I, like Cullen, try to read every draft for > every WG I attend, so workload is a definite issue. Exactly. It's good to have a few weeks between the point where you need to have your own drafts done and the point where you need to have read other people's drafts. The IRTF RRG wg produced a bunch of drafts (some long and complex and also new) shortly before the IETF meeting (where the RRG also met) and I found that highly problematic. In addition, there's only so many brain cells to go around, I would rather not use a larger proportion of them for remembering deadlines because the deadlines for different wgs are all different. Any "fix" to the current system that makes it harder to have drafts read before the meeting is a bad idea. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet Draft Submission cutoff dates
On Feb 1, 2008, at 12:51 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > (3) Cullen's note emphasized the reading problems faced by ADs > who are trying to stay on top of all of the documents in their > areas. I think we need to be very careful about that, balancing > permitting the ADs to function/manage effectively and > efficiently with efficient functioning of WGs. Years ago, when > I was trying to do an AD job, I discovered that it was more > important to follow discussions than to read every revision of > every document, leaving it to the WGs and their leadership to be > sure that discussions were properly reflected in revisions and > to bring the issues to my attention when needed. But Cullen > may well work differently than I did (and his results may be > better), so it is important to be sure that we don't upset his > balance and that of others working the way he works. Yep, it is clear to me that many ADs go about managing in different ways and that this diversity in this is a good thing - what works for one AD is not the best for others. Also, I agree we do need to optimize for the WGs getting the work done not optimize for an ADs ability to read it all. I was trying to make the argument that I suspect that some reasonable fraction of the key contributors in RAI are probably participating in 2/3 of the WGs that I am reading thus would have reading loads that were pretty heavy. I don't really know but I hope to ask some of them to keep track for this next meeting. Cullen ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet Draft Submission cutoff dates
At Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:51:10 -0500, John C Klensin wrote: > (2) I think an early cutoff for individual documents that do not > directly relate to IETF WG or Standards-track work is useful > because it keeps the noise level down for all of us.So a > WG-based cutoff might need to be accompanied by a tool-enforced > cutoff about most non-WG documents. > > (3) Cullen's note emphasized the reading problems faced by ADs > who are trying to stay on top of all of the documents in their > areas. I think we need to be very careful about that, balancing > permitting the ADs to function/manage effectively and > efficiently with efficient functioning of WGs. Years ago, when > I was trying to do an AD job, I discovered that it was more > important to follow discussions than to read every revision of > every document, leaving it to the WGs and their leadership to be > sure that discussions were properly reflected in revisions and > to bring the issues to my attention when needed. But Cullen > may well work differently than I did (and his results may be > better), so it is important to be sure that we don't upset his > balance and that of others working the way he works. FWIW, I'm not an AD but I, like Cullen, try to read every draft for every WG I attend, so workload is a definite issue. More important, though, is latency. The typical pattern is to have no work done on the drafts in the 3 months after an IETF, then a whole rush of work done in the next 2-3 weeks, and then all the drafts are posted. The closer to the IETF the draft posting times get the harder it is to have any kind of reasonable email discussion of any draft... -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
Ray, Thanks - and also thanks to everyone that pointed out that I used $ when I meant € ... just typing too fast for my own good. Cheers, Andy On Feb 1, 2008 3:28 PM, Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Andrew G. Malis wrote: > > Stuart and Ray, > > I called the hotel directly to make my reservations. Just > mentioned > the IETF and got the group rate. Note that $130 is for a single > room - > I was quoted $160 for two people (Ray, is that correct?). > 160 is correct for the Double Rate. > > Also, I was > told that cancellation is 48 hours with with no penalties. > > Contract states: can cancel the reservation without penalty until 3 days > prior to check-in; cancellation less than 3 days prior to the event or > non-arrival or no-show, the Hotel holds the right to charge the individuals > one nights stay as cancellation fees. > > Ray > > > Cheers, > Andy > > 2008/2/1 Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > GOLDMAN, STUART O (STUART) wrote: > > Folks, > > I just went to the website to at > least grab a room for the time being. > > I was disappointed to learn that > reservations are non cancellable and non > refundable!Our contract provides > that the reservations are cancellable, > refundable and substitutes > permitted. > I have contacted the hotel to correct the website. > Ray > Pelletier > IAD > > Please note the following terms & conditions relate to this > booking. > > • Bookings are non refundable and non transferable. > > • > Cancellations will not be accepted for online bookings > > • Check in time : > after 1400 hrs > > • Check out time : before 1200 hrs > > • Rates are per room per > night. > > • Rates are for accommodation only unless otherwise stated. > > • These > rates are not available for groups or conferences. > > • Rates are non > commissionable. > > • Management reserve the right to assign guests to rooms in > either the > Citywest Main or Golf Hotels depending on availability > > • For > single adult reservations the Management reserve the right to provide > guests > with a single room instead of double room only in the unlikely event > of all > double rooms being occupied > > Stuart Goldman > > > ___ > Ietf mailing > list > Ietf@ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet Draft Submission cutoff dates
--On Friday, 01 February, 2008 15:31 -0500 Scott Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I propose that we eliminate global cutoff dates and let each WG > establish any cutoff dates it needs for its own purposes. > > In general we strive to have the principal forum for > discussion be WG mailing lists as opposed to the physical > meetings themselves. That should be the default case. Most > WGs at least pretend to try to get away from simple >... Scott, Three observations... (1) I think this implies that we wouldn't rely on tools to enforce posting deadlines at all, but would just leave the submission tools functioning year-round. The posting deadlines would then have to do with rules established by a WG as to what they would consider. I see two practical problems with that. One is that we still have some I-Ds posted manually or, as with WG -00 documents, still requiring manual intervention. I suspect it is not realistic to ask the Secretariat to keep that process running at full efficiency right up to IETF, so we might need a "no promises that this will get done if you submit it for manual posting after..." sort of cutoff. The other is that multiple revisions of a document just before IETF could leave people sitting in a meeting room looking at (or having read) different versions of the same document. That would be an annoyance at best, but maybe worse. (2) I think an early cutoff for individual documents that do not directly relate to IETF WG or Standards-track work is useful because it keeps the noise level down for all of us.So a WG-based cutoff might need to be accompanied by a tool-enforced cutoff about most non-WG documents. (3) Cullen's note emphasized the reading problems faced by ADs who are trying to stay on top of all of the documents in their areas. I think we need to be very careful about that, balancing permitting the ADs to function/manage effectively and efficiently with efficient functioning of WGs. Years ago, when I was trying to do an AD job, I discovered that it was more important to follow discussions than to read every revision of every document, leaving it to the WGs and their leadership to be sure that discussions were properly reflected in revisions and to bring the issues to my attention when needed. But Cullen may well work differently than I did (and his results may be better), so it is important to be sure that we don't upset his balance and that of others working the way he works. To repeat what I said in my first note, I hope we don't need to redesign this on the list. I was very pleased to see Cullen's note and hope it is a sign that the IESG is beginning to discuss the topic. If they announce, after due consideration, a new and better-balanced plan in Philadelphia, I expect to be happy about it and consider it an improvement regardless of its details. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet Draft Submission cutoff dates
I propose that we eliminate global cutoff dates and let each WG establish any cutoff dates it needs for its own purposes. In general we strive to have the principal forum for discussion be WG mailing lists as opposed to the physical meetings themselves. That should be the default case. Most WGs at least pretend to try to get away from simple presentations. IMHO the main purposes of the physical meetings should be (1) within a WG to work out issues which aren't making enough progress on the mailing lists; (2) cross-WG to deal with issues which don't lend themselves to the mailing lists; and (3) for IETF-wide discussion of IETF-wide issues. That means that the default case should be that any draft which has not already been heavily discussed on the mailing list does not need to be discussed at the physical meeting. Of course there are a thousand exceptions to this. For example, a WG might be discussing things up to the last minute and then have someone write up a draft as a snapshot of where they are. Or someone has some new work that impinges significantly on what is already being discussed, so that it really should be discussed at the meeting even though it was late. What this boils down to is that in general, ongoing work shouldn't have a submission deadline, and new work either doesn't need to be discussed or, if it does, it shouldn't have a deadline either. Because there are always exceptions, WGs should have the freedom to create cutoff deadlines, but we don't need global ones. The only people left who might need deadlines are the ADs, because they have so much to cover. First, if the default case is that discussion first takes place on the mailing list, their situation is less desperate. Second, the ADs can have their own, IESG-specific deadlines -- once again we don't need overgeneralized global ones. It's important for the IETF to reduce global process constraints which don't actually help the work get done. See you ... Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
Andrew G. Malis wrote: Stuart and Ray, I called the hotel directly to make my reservations. Just mentioned the IETF and got the group rate. Note that $130 is for a single room - I was quoted $160 for two people (Ray, is that correct?). 160 is correct for the Double Rate. Also, I was told that cancellation is 48 hours with with no penalties. Contract states: can cancel the reservation without penalty until 3 days prior to check-in; cancellation less than 3 days prior to the event or non-arrival or no-show, the Hotel holds the right to charge the individuals one nights stay as cancellation fees. Ray Cheers, Andy 2008/2/1 Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: GOLDMAN, STUART O (STUART) wrote: Folks, I just went to the website to at least grab a room for the time being. I was disappointed to learn that reservations are non cancellable and non refundable!Our contract provides that the reservations are cancellable, refundable and substitutes permitted. I have contacted the hotel to correct the website. Ray Pelletier IAD Please note the following terms & conditions relate to this booking. • Bookings are non refundable and non transferable. • Cancellations will not be accepted for online bookings • Check in time : after 1400 hrs • Check out time : before 1200 hrs • Rates are per room per night. • Rates are for accommodation only unless otherwise stated. • These rates are not available for groups or conferences. • Rates are non commissionable. • Management reserve the right to assign guests to rooms in either the Citywest Main or Golf Hotels depending on availability • For single adult reservations the Management reserve the right to provide guests with a single room instead of double room only in the unlikely event of all double rooms being occupied Stuart Goldman ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
Stuart and Ray, I called the hotel directly to make my reservations. Just mentioned the IETF and got the group rate. Note that $130 is for a single room - I was quoted $160 for two people (Ray, is that correct?). Also, I was told that cancellation is 48 hours with with no penalties. Cheers, Andy 2008/2/1 Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > GOLDMAN, STUART O (STUART) wrote: > > Folks, > > I just went to the website to at least grab a room for the time being. > > I was disappointed to learn that reservations are non cancellable and non > refundable!Our contract provides that the reservations are cancellable, > refundable and substitutes permitted. > I have contacted the hotel to correct the website. > Ray Pelletier > IAD > > Please note the following terms & conditions relate to this booking. > > • Bookings are non refundable and non transferable. > > • Cancellations will not be accepted for online bookings > > • Check in time : after 1400 hrs > > • Check out time : before 1200 hrs > > • Rates are per room per night. > > • Rates are for accommodation only unless otherwise stated. > > • These rates are not available for groups or conferences. > > • Rates are non commissionable. > > • Management reserve the right to assign guests to rooms in either the > Citywest Main or Golf Hotels depending on availability > > • For single adult reservations the Management reserve the right to provide > guests with a single room instead of double room only in the unlikely event > of all double rooms being occupied > > Stuart Goldman > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin == golf!
On Feb 1, 2008, at 2:18 AM, Pekka Savola wrote: > > Ok, hands up (off-list) everyone who's interested in an IETF golf > competition or just casual golf :-) ? > Ok, if IETFers are playing golf en-masse, I'm bringing a video camera to the first hole to film tee-off bloopers. I was traumatized for life while working at a Japanese company and being placed in a foursome with a popular engineer who was rotating home and in whose honor we were holding a golf tournament. Of course, I almost but not quite completely missed the ball on the first tee. Maybe 20 or so of the other engineers and their spouses videotaped it. Afterwards, we went back to the office and they played tapes of me whiffing the ball from different angles while everybody drank far too much Kirin and laughed until they fell down. And that's how I got to be this way. -- Dean ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
Janet P Gunn wrote: > A quick google search finds multiple restaurants in the villages > of Saggart (adjacent to the golf course) and Rathcoole (2k away) http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&q=restaurant&near=53.282972,-6.442966&ll=53.282972,-6.442966&z=13 Better don't try that with Google maps... ;-) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
GOLDMAN, STUART O (STUART) wrote: Folks, I just went to the website to at least grab a room for the time being. I was disappointed to learn that reservations are non cancellable and non refundable! Our contract provides that the reservations are cancellable, refundable and substitutes permitted. I have contacted the hotel to correct the website. Ray Pelletier IAD Please note the following terms & conditions relate to this booking. • Bookings are non refundable and non transferable. • Cancellations will not be accepted for online bookings • Check in time : after 1400 hrs • Check out time : before 1200 hrs • Rates are per room per night. • Rates are for accommodation only unless otherwise stated. • These rates are not available for groups or conferences. • Rates are non commissionable. • Management reserve the right to assign guests to rooms in either the Citywest Main or Golf Hotels depending on availability • For single adult reservations the Management reserve the right to provide guests with a single room instead of double room only in the unlikely event of all double rooms being occupied Stuart Goldman Alcatel-Lucent [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 602 493 8438 please save a tree by not printing this e-mail. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Willis Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 8:38 PM To: Ray Pelletier Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin! On Jan 31, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote: The venue will be the beautiful Citywest Hotel, "Ireland’s premier Conference, Leisure & Golf Resort and one of Europe’s most popular International Conference destinations. The four star Citywest Hotel is only 20km from Dublin airport and 15km from Dublin City Centre." http://www.citywesthotel.com/site/index.aspx Excuse me, but isn't this in the boonies way outside town? Are we going to be stuck in a $200 a night hotel with no reasonable alternative accommodations eating vastly overpriced hotel food and facing a one-hour commute to anywhere else? We should know by now that isolated resorts ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE as meeting locations. Even if they're vaguely close to cool places like Dublin. It's not too late. Please cancel the meeting now. Even if it costs a bunch of money and means we have to skip that meeting date. Yes, I'm serious. And no, I don't play golf, which appears to be the entire focus of this sort of location. -- Dean ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
Bound, Jim wrote: NB; Ray this is not personal or against IAOC at all. We know you do the best you can with the budget you have. But being in the city anytime gives us all more options after IETF work. I for one do not come at all to the IETF for any social things not even a consideration, this is business and business travel. Thanks for the hard work. Our first choice is under one-roof, guest rooms and meeting space (Minneapolis), in the city center, but it's not always possible. We want the meeting to be well supported and provide alternatives for the attendees. We will stay focused on that target. Ray /jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 11:29 AM To: Dean Willis Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin! Dean, We should know by now that isolated resorts ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE as meeting locations. Er... like Dallas or San Diego? I've never been to Dublin and I don't know what exists on site. Maybe some locals could tell us? Also, as has happened in a number of IETFs so far (like in Dallas), Ray is scheduling a bus service for us. More generally, before we criticize meeting site selections, lets at least first figure out what the true conditions really are. I look forward to going to Dublin. Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
At 10:28 AM 2/1/2008, Jari Arkko wrote: >Dean, > > > We should know by now that isolated resorts ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE as > > meeting locations. > > > >Er... like Dallas or San Diego? Jari Dallas was supposed to be New Orleans until a little catastrophe called Katrina happened there and a secondary city needed to be found with little notice -- so don't bang on that city too hard. I agree with you on (the Harbor Marriott in) San Diego - which we've been to twice >I've never been to Dublin and I don't know what exists on site. Maybe >some locals could tell us? Also, as has happened in a number of IETFs so >far (like in Dallas), Ray is scheduling a bus service for us. More >generally, before we criticize meeting site selections, lets at least >first figure out what the true conditions really are. > >I look forward to going to Dublin. > >Jari > >___ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@ietf.org >http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
Jari, OK. But the analysis is correct here the bottom line is we are stuck in remote place for example if you had a meeting in the business section of Paris or Washington D.C. your options would be less out of the IETF but this is even more intense being remote. Sure there are options I have checked. Travel. Be good to have IETF bus for those that don't have the funds for taxi or car rentals. Typically these type of locations are used by orgs that want to isolate their teams for a business meeting that should not be the strategy of the IAOC as input. /jim > -Original Message- > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 12:15 PM > To: Bound, Jim > Cc: IETF Discussion > Subject: Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin! > > Jim, > > > Your authoritarian tone is not pleasing at least how I take > it. Let people vent I just hit the 'd' key and so can you. > If there was authoritarian tone, it was by no means intended. > For the record, I DO worry about cost of meeting fees, > expensive hotels, travel, decreasing participation, etc. And > yes, people need to vent. However, I think it would be good > to take a little bit of time to figure out what the site is > and what conditions there will be like before we pass > judgment. Stephen promised to send info, Ray already updated > us on the bus situation, people are looking at what > restaurants possibly exist nearby, etc. > > Jari > > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
Jim, > Your authoritarian tone is not pleasing at least how I take it. Let people > vent I just hit the 'd' key and so can you. If there was authoritarian tone, it was by no means intended. For the record, I DO worry about cost of meeting fees, expensive hotels, travel, decreasing participation, etc. And yes, people need to vent. However, I think it would be good to take a little bit of time to figure out what the site is and what conditions there will be like before we pass judgment. Stephen promised to send info, Ray already updated us on the bus situation, people are looking at what restaurants possibly exist nearby, etc. Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
Jari Arkko wrote: > Dean, > >> We should know by now that isolated resorts ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE as >> meeting locations. >> > > Er... like Dallas or San Diego? > > I've never been to Dublin and I don't know what exists on site. Maybe > some locals could tell us? Actually, I think the hotel should be good for the meeting. I'll post some info about other local stuff closer to the time. > Also, as has happened in a number of IETFs so > far (like in Dallas), Ray is scheduling a bus service for us. I think that'll help a lot, Stephen. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
Jari, Your an IESG great rep but your just another bozo on the bus on this list. Your authoritarian tone is not pleasing at least how I take it. Let people vent I just hit the 'd' key and so can you. But thanks for your thoughts as all others. The point is the facilities are forcing people to travel extra at the site who don't like the site location to live while traveling and I consider the bus not an option and will figure it out as basing my non work hours depending on IETF community transit is not an option for me I would rather stick pins in my eye lids. 130 Euros and the cost of registration is not cheap anymore at the IETF we should be trying to find sites within city center for the future where I can just walk out of the meeting venue and do my individual thing in life when IETF work is over. That being said this is what IAOC is doing and I for one say we make the best of it and I will do that for me. NB; Ray this is not personal or against IAOC at all. We know you do the best you can with the budget you have. But being in the city anytime gives us all more options after IETF work. I for one do not come at all to the IETF for any social things not even a consideration, this is business and business travel. Thanks for the hard work. /jim > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jari Arkko > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 11:29 AM > To: Dean Willis > Cc: IETF Discussion > Subject: Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin! > > Dean, > > > We should know by now that isolated resorts ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE as > > meeting locations. > > > > Er... like Dallas or San Diego? > > I've never been to Dublin and I don't know what exists on > site. Maybe some locals could tell us? Also, as has happened > in a number of IETFs so far (like in Dallas), Ray is > scheduling a bus service for us. More generally, before we > criticize meeting site selections, lets at least first figure > out what the true conditions really are. > > I look forward to going to Dublin. > > Jari > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
Dean, > We should know by now that isolated resorts ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE as > meeting locations. > Er... like Dallas or San Diego? I've never been to Dublin and I don't know what exists on site. Maybe some locals could tell us? Also, as has happened in a number of IETFs so far (like in Dallas), Ray is scheduling a bus service for us. More generally, before we criticize meeting site selections, lets at least first figure out what the true conditions really are. I look forward to going to Dublin. Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
A quick google search finds multiple restaurants in the villages of Saggart (adjacent to the golf course) and Rathcoole (2k away) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/01/2008 08:43:12 AM: > > > --On Friday, 01 February, 2008 11:57 +0100 Jeroen Massar > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> (e.g., if we want to eat lunch or dinner somewhere other than > >> the hotel)? What transportation options are available, and > >> how long will the take? > > > > Bus -> "cheap" (in a sense), but takes about 45mins (ex > > waiting time) > > Taxi -> "expensive", takes about 30 mins > > If even a taxi takes 60 minutes round trip, am I correct in > assuming that the options for lunch not supplied by the meeting > facility are non-existent? > > If so, I think we have repeatedly discussed a meeting-site > guideline that prohibited sites with that property for at least > three reasons: > >(i) If the facility can't handle the load, the meetings >are disrupted, with no recourse. > >(ii) If one doesn't like their selections, there are no >options. > >(iii) Expensive facilities tend to have expensive >restaurants and other facilities. > > Oh, but there are golf courses. Guess that makes it ok for both > the non-golfers and the golfers who will be spending all their > time in meeting rooms and figuring out where to eat. > > Here we go again. > > Could I request that the IESG schedule one old-fashioned, > open-ended, evening plenary? :-( > > john > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
Stephen Farrell wrote: Ross Finlayson wrote: How easy will it be to commute between the hotel and central Dublin (e.g., if we want to eat lunch or dinner somewhere other than the hotel)? You couldn't make lunch in the city centre from citywest. Dinner should be ok, even if it might take a bit longer than usual. There are also some dinner options closer to the hotel. I'll try to post some info somewhere before the meeting happens. We are also working on an evening shuttle for Monday through Thursday from the hotel to the Temple Bar area of Dublin. Ray > What transportation options are available, and how long will the take? FWIW, I plan to drive out there some morning in the next few weeks. I'm not at all sure what the traffic is like heading that way (out of the city) in the mornings. S. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
--On Friday, 01 February, 2008 11:57 +0100 Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> (e.g., if we want to eat lunch or dinner somewhere other than >> the hotel)? What transportation options are available, and >> how long will the take? > > Bus -> "cheap" (in a sense), but takes about 45mins (ex > waiting time) > Taxi -> "expensive", takes about 30 mins If even a taxi takes 60 minutes round trip, am I correct in assuming that the options for lunch not supplied by the meeting facility are non-existent? If so, I think we have repeatedly discussed a meeting-site guideline that prohibited sites with that property for at least three reasons: (i) If the facility can't handle the load, the meetings are disrupted, with no recourse. (ii) If one doesn't like their selections, there are no options. (iii) Expensive facilities tend to have expensive restaurants and other facilities. Oh, but there are golf courses. Guess that makes it ok for both the non-golfers and the golfers who will be spending all their time in meeting rooms and figuring out where to eat. Here we go again. Could I request that the IESG schedule one old-fashioned, open-ended, evening plenary? :-( john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
Ross Finlayson wrote: > How easy will it be to commute between the hotel and central Dublin > (e.g., if we want to eat lunch or dinner somewhere other than the > hotel)? You couldn't make lunch in the city centre from citywest. Dinner should be ok, even if it might take a bit longer than usual. There are also some dinner options closer to the hotel. I'll try to post some info somewhere before the meeting happens. > What transportation options are available, and how long will the take? FWIW, I plan to drive out there some morning in the next few weeks. I'm not at all sure what the traffic is like heading that way (out of the city) in the mornings. S. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
Excerpts from Dean Willis on Thu, Jan 31, 2008 09:37:53PM -0600: > Excuse me, but isn't this in the boonies way outside town? Are we > going to be stuck in a $200 a night hotel with no reasonable > alternative accommodations eating vastly overpriced hotel food and > facing a one-hour commute to anywhere else? I've started to explore places to stay. For example the first I came up with is the Hotel Ibis Dublin West. They claim it is on a tram line to the city center (~20 minutes) and about 8 km from the IETF site, for 86 Euros. Looking ... Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin == golf!
On Feb 1, 2008 12:18 AM, Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Dean Willis wrote: > > And no, I don't play golf, which appears to be the entire focus of > > this sort of location. > > This could be an opportunity to do something different. (Though I > agree that having the IETF on a location 15km from downtown could have > some challenges.) > > Ok, hands up (off-list) everyone who's interested in an IETF golf > competition or just casual golf :-) ? Sorry, no. I'm bringing my bike. :D Greg > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oykingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
Ross Finlayson wrote: Excuse me, but isn't this in the boonies way outside town? Are we going to be stuck in a $200 a night hotel with no reasonable alternative accommodations eating vastly overpriced hotel food and facing a one-hour commute to anywhere else? How easy will it be to commute between the hotel and central Dublin (e.g., if we want to eat lunch or dinner somewhere other than the hotel)? What transportation options are available, and how long will the take? Bus -> "cheap" (in a sense), but takes about 45mins (ex waiting time) Taxi -> "expensive", takes about 30 mins The bus is funny btw, as it only runs once every while, in Dublin that will mean that they come at random times and might just not come, or there might be two busses directly after each other. The ride is a nice one though as you are guided through large parts of Dublin because of it. For the people with a bit more cash, they have heli-pads at that hotel, so you might be able to pull an Oracle and just fly in and out, but you should be able to pay the taxi then too ;) Oh and one major thing not to forget: umbrella's! No sunshine in that part of the country (unless you are very lucky to accidentally hit some sunshine). For sunshine you will have to go south, or west, that is, of the country, not of the city ;) There is one trick around it though: when it starts raining, just jump into a pub, take a beer, wait till it is over and go to the next pub before it starts raining again, that should keep you busy. For the golfers: don't forget to take along a nice wetsuit to keep you dry ;) Museums are mostly gratis/free and actually pretty good, except for instance Trinity College, if you want to see the Book of Kells, the Library above it (The Long room, aka The Jedi Archives*) which is included in that tour is more worth it though. Don't forget to crash the local Eddy Rockets for a Oreo milkshake and a fish&chips place for a battered mars bar. Enjoy ;) Greets, Jeroen * = http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2002/000238.htm signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
>Excuse me, but isn't this in the boonies way outside town? Are we >going to be stuck in a $200 a night hotel with no reasonable >alternative accommodations eating vastly overpriced hotel food and >facing a one-hour commute to anywhere else? How easy will it be to commute between the hotel and central Dublin (e.g., if we want to eat lunch or dinner somewhere other than the hotel)? What transportation options are available, and how long will the take? Ross. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!
On 1 feb 2008, at 4:37, Dean Willis wrote: > Excuse me, but isn't this in the boonies way outside town? Are we > going to be stuck in a $200 a night hotel with no reasonable > alternative accommodations eating vastly overpriced hotel food and > facing a one-hour commute to anywhere else? I agree that this is not ideal, but I was in much the same position in Paris: no hotels in my price range near the congress center so I had to commute halfway across Paris every day. (And the food was expensive pretty much everywhere.) It seems that all or at least most hotels in Dublin are in the city center, which means a significant bus or taxi ride back and forth. However, Dublin has lots of bed and breakfasts (I think I saw half of them on my first trip to Dublin, when I didn't book a place to sleep in advance and it turned out to be the date of a delayed saint Patrick's day because of the foot and mouth disease). You may be able to find one closer to the conference hotel. For anyone who will be staying some extra days I suggest doing that closer to the city center, which will probably save you money and that way it's easy to explore Dublin by foot, which is absolutely worth a blister or two. And I highly recommend the train ride between Dublin and Belfast. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin == golf!
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Dean Willis wrote: > And no, I don't play golf, which appears to be the entire focus of > this sort of location. This could be an opportunity to do something different. (Though I agree that having the IETF on a location 15km from downtown could have some challenges.) Ok, hands up (off-list) everyone who's interested in an IETF golf competition or just casual golf :-) ? -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
