Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

[Thomas Narten]

Total of 133 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Jul 25 00:53:01 EDT 2008
 
Messages   |  Bytes| Who
+--++--+
  7.52% |   10 |  8.78% |78012 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  6.77% |9 |  7.64% |67858 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  6.77% |9 |  5.94% |52781 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  5.26% |7 |  5.20% |46195 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  4.51% |6 |  5.06% |44912 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  4.51% |6 |  3.52% |31228 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  3.76% |5 |  4.03% |35842 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  3.76% |5 |  3.49% |30960 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  3.01% |4 |  3.34% |29687 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  3.01% |4 |  3.01% |26711 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  3.01% |4 |  3.00% |26622 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  3.01% |4 |  2.85% |25291 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  2.26% |3 |  3.53% |31337 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  3.01% |4 |  2.19% |19422 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  1.50% |2 |  3.48% |30891 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  2.26% |3 |  2.26% |20116 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  2.26% |3 |  1.76% |15658 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  1.50% |2 |  1.72% |15307 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  1.50% |2 |  1.34% |11931 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  1.50% |2 |  1.32% |11761 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  1.50% |2 |  1.30% |11568 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  1.50% |2 |  1.23% |10948 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  1.50% |2 |  1.14% |10156 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  1.50% |2 |  1.11% | 9887 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  1.50% |2 |  1.11% | 9835 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  1.13% |10043 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.98% | 8676 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.94% | 8384 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.90% | 8039 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.84% | 7489 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.84% | 7466 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.79% | 7061 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.79% | 7026 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.78% | 6952 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.78% | 6926 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.75% | 6685 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.72% | 6360 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.71% | 6348 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.70% | 6175 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.68% | 6072 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.68% | 6041 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.67% | 5992 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.66% | 5847 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.64% | 5713 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.61% | 5376 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.60% | 5361 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.59% | 5283 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.58% | 5132 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.57% | 5057 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.57% | 5031 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.56% | 4990 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.55% | 4857 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.53% | 4711 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  0.75% |1 |  0.49% | 4332 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+--++--+
100.00% |  133 |100.00% |   888341 | Total
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Missing Materials

[Eric Rescorla]

At Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:33:40 +0200,
Frank Ellermann wrote:
> 
> Eric Rescorla wrote:
>  
> > Missing drafts
> [...]
> >   draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-11.txt (wg=eai)
> >   draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-09.txt (wg=eai)
> [...]
> > Corrected dafts
> [...]
> >   draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-07.txt ->
> >   draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-08.txt (wg=eai)
> >   draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-02.txt ->
> >   draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-03.txt (wg=eai)
> [...]
> > Found 509 out of 533 drafts
> 
> Based on these four examples I'd guess that your script finds
> corrected drafts only for "+1", but not for "+2" or "+3", e.g.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-13 (11+2)
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-12 (09+3)

That's right. I assume the agendas are only sort of wrong, not
wildly wrong.

Really, though, even being off by one is a bug.

-Ekr
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Teleconf [Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73]

[Marc Manthey]

Am 24.07.2008 um 23:13 schrieb Brian E Carpenter:
 it's the extreme difficulty of running an effective remote meeting  
with
more than a very small number (4 or 5) of participating sites. So  
for a design team meeting it's fine, but for a WG meeting I think  
you'd be quite disappointed.


thanks for your clarification brian,
i will see if i can get some more information from the developers  
regarding this issue.


Recently i found 2 other  interesting projects :

xcast


About number of participants, logical limit is 126. It's because of
number of IPv6 address emmbed in one routing option header of IPv6
with other info. But when we cannot emmbed 126 when using ordinal
Ethernet, 1500 MTU. With 1024 octet payload with RTP/UDP header, we
can specify 14 participants in one IPv6 datagram with 1500 octet Ether
datagram. You can increase participants by reducing payload size.

We did video meetings with participants upto 16 approximately.



http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ooms-xcast-basic-spec-12.txt

http://www.xcast.jp/index.php/Main_Page

and telepathy , whitch is in a early  alpha phase

http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/wiki/Streamed%20Media


  Brian


regards

Marc

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Missing Materials

[Jari Arkko]

Ekr,

Just FYI on two of my WGs below:

  savi
  autoconf
  
Autoconf is in a situation where they have not made progress since the 
last meeting, and we decided to cancel the meeting and use the time 
off-line to progress the document. The latest agenda says the meeting is 
canceled.


Savi has no agenda because the WG has fallen between being approved by 
the IESG and actually being created by the secretariat. The problem was 
me finding the chairs and other crew members. This has now been fixed, 
and the secretariat will soon send out the announcement. This will also 
assign the chairs the credentials so that they can update the agenda :-) 
This group IS meeting, however, and I know there is an agenda.


Jari

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Missing Materials

[Frank Ellermann]

Eric Rescorla wrote:
 
> Missing drafts
[...]
>   draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-11.txt (wg=eai)
>   draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-09.txt (wg=eai)
[...]
> Corrected dafts
[...]
>   draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-07.txt ->
>   draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-08.txt (wg=eai)
>   draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-02.txt ->
>   draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-03.txt (wg=eai)
[...]
> Found 509 out of 533 drafts

Based on these four examples I'd guess that your script finds
corrected drafts only for "+1", but not for "+2" or "+3", e.g.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-13 (11+2)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-12 (09+3)

 Frank

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Teleconf [Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73]

[Brian E Carpenter]

> AFAIK , VRVS / EVO  is not available for PC

Not so, EVO works very well on Windows and is trivial
to install. The problem with EVO, Access Grid or the
commercial alternatives is not there - it's the extreme
difficulty of running an effective remote meeting with
more than a very small number (4 or 5) of participating
sites. So for a design team meeting it's fine, but for a
WG meeting I think you'd be quite disappointed.

   Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Missing Materials

[Stewart Bryant]

Eric



Missing drafts
  draft-shen-csi-ecc-00.txt (wg=csi)
  draft-ietf-ccid4-02.txt (wg=dccp)
  draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-11.txt (wg=eai)
  draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-09.txt (wg=eai)
  draft-ietf-ntp-dhcpv6-ntp-opt-00.txt (wg=ntp)
  draft-ietf-psamp-info-07.txt (wg=ipfix)
  draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos-01.txt (wg=ipfix)
  draft-dietz-ipfix-mib-04.txt (wg=ipfix)
  draft-kang-ccamp-wdm-switch-info-00.txt (wg=ccamp)
  draft-ietf-ntp-dhcpv6-ntp-opt-00.txt (wg=dhc)
  draft-willis-sip-infopackage-00.txt (wg=sip)
  draft-martini-pwe3-iccp-00.txt (wg=pwe3)
  draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-requirements-00.txt (wg=ecrit)
  draft-ietf-pim-port-00.txt (wg=pim)
  draft-dekok-radext-dtls-01.txt (wg=radext)
  draft-mediactrl-ivr-control-package-00.txt (wg=mediactrl)
  draft-mediactrl-mixer-control-package-00.txt (wg=mediactrl)
  draft-nishioka-pce-sve-list-02.txt (wg=pce)
  draft-eardley-pcn-marking-behavior-01.txt (wg=pcn)
  draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-06.txt (wg=sieve)
  draft-freed-sieve-notary-01.txt (wg=sieve)
  draft-ietf-dnsext-29.txt (wg=dnsext)
  draft-ietf-dna-frd-02.txt (wg=dna)
  draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-03.txt (wg=isms)


I had a report of three PWE3 related drafts submitted by
email not appearing in the archive. One is in your list above.
I wonder if any of the other authors had a similar problem.

Stewart


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Missing Materials

[Eric Rescorla]

As I have done for previous IETFs I just ran getdrafts 
(http://tools.ietf.org/tools/getdrafts/) on the entire agenda
and what follows is the output. As you can see, a pretty substantial
number of WGs are without agendas, about 10% of the drafts listed
are wrong, and about half of those appear to be simple version 
errors. 

-Ekr


WGs without agendas:
  softwire
  idnabis
  savi
  rtgwg
  capwap
  opsawg
  rtgarea
  pkix
  opsec
  isis
  autoconf

Missing drafts
  draft-shen-csi-ecc-00.txt (wg=csi)
  draft-ietf-ccid4-02.txt (wg=dccp)
  draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-11.txt (wg=eai)
  draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-09.txt (wg=eai)
  draft-ietf-ntp-dhcpv6-ntp-opt-00.txt (wg=ntp)
  draft-ietf-psamp-info-07.txt (wg=ipfix)
  draft-aitken-ipfix-new-infos-01.txt (wg=ipfix)
  draft-dietz-ipfix-mib-04.txt (wg=ipfix)
  draft-kang-ccamp-wdm-switch-info-00.txt (wg=ccamp)
  draft-ietf-ntp-dhcpv6-ntp-opt-00.txt (wg=dhc)
  draft-willis-sip-infopackage-00.txt (wg=sip)
  draft-martini-pwe3-iccp-00.txt (wg=pwe3)
  draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-requirements-00.txt (wg=ecrit)
  draft-ietf-pim-port-00.txt (wg=pim)
  draft-dekok-radext-dtls-01.txt (wg=radext)
  draft-mediactrl-ivr-control-package-00.txt (wg=mediactrl)
  draft-mediactrl-mixer-control-package-00.txt (wg=mediactrl)
  draft-nishioka-pce-sve-list-02.txt (wg=pce)
  draft-eardley-pcn-marking-behavior-01.txt (wg=pcn)
  draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-06.txt (wg=sieve)
  draft-freed-sieve-notary-01.txt (wg=sieve)
  draft-ietf-dnsext-29.txt (wg=dnsext)
  draft-ietf-dna-frd-02.txt (wg=dna)
  draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-03.txt (wg=isms)

Corrected drafts
  draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-01.txt -> 
draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-02.txt (wg=mpls)
  draft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label-01.txt -> 
draft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label-00.txt (wg=mpls)
  draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-00.txt -> 
draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-01.txt (wg=mpls)
  draft-tewari-nfsv4-federated-fs-protocol-01.txt -> 
draft-tewari-nfsv4-federated-fs-protocol-02.txt (wg=nfsv4)
  draft-ellard-nfsv4-federated-fs-00.txt -> 
draft-ellard-nfsv4-federated-fs-01.txt (wg=nfsv4)
  draft-jiang-sendcgaext-cga-config-01.txt -> 
draft-jiang-sendcgaext-cga-config-02.txt (wg=csi)
  draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases-09.txt -> 
draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases-08.txt (wg=speermint)
  draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-faster-restart-05.txt -> 
draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-faster-restart-06.txt (wg=dccp)
  draft-phelan-dccp-natencap-00.txt -> draft-phelan-dccp-natencap-01.txt 
(wg=dccp)
  draft-mohan-l2vpn-vpls-oam-00.txt -> draft-mohan-l2vpn-vpls-oam-01.txt 
(wg=l2vpn)
  draft-kamite-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements-00.txt -> 
draft-kamite-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements-01.txt (wg=l2vpn)
  draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying-00.txt -> 
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying-01.txt (wg=tsvwg)
  draft-cotton-tsvwg-iana-ports-00.txt -> draft-cotton-tsvwg-iana-ports-01.txt 
(wg=tsvwg)
  draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-07.txt -> draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-08.txt (wg=eai)
  draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-02.txt -> draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-03.txt (wg=eai)
  draft-ietf-eai-pop-03.txt -> draft-ietf-eai-pop-04.txt (wg=eai)
  draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt -> draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-05.txt (wg=ipfix)
  draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-10.txt -> draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-11.txt 
(wg=ipfix)
  draft-boschi-ipfix-anon-00.txt -> draft-boschi-ipfix-anon-01.txt (wg=ipfix)
  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib-04.txt -> 
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib-03.txt (wg=ccamp)
  draft-deng-dhc-service-identifiers-01.txt -> 
draft-deng-dhc-service-identifiers-02.txt (wg=dhc)
  draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-05.txt -> draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-06.txt 
(wg=rmt)
  draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-05.txt -> draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-06.txt 
(wg=rmt)
  draft-burger-sip-info-02.txt -> draft-burger-sip-info-03.txt (wg=sip)
  draft-kaplan-sipping-dtmf-package-00.txt -> 
draft-kaplan-sipping-dtmf-package-01.txt (wg=sip)
  draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-00.txt -> 
draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-01.txt (wg=roll)
  draft-melnikov-digest-to-historic-00.txt -> 
draft-melnikov-digest-to-historic-01.txt (wg=sasl)
  draft-ietf-ipdvb-sec-req-07.txt -> draft-ietf-ipdvb-sec-req-08.txt (wg=ipdvb)
  draft-combes-ipdvb-mib-rcs-02.txt -> draft-combes-ipdvb-mib-rcs-03.txt 
(wg=ipdvb)
  draft-cruickshank-ipdvb-sec-04.txt -> draft-cruickshank-ipdvb-sec-05.txt 
(wg=ipdvb)
  draft-noisternig-ipdvb-ulesec-00.txt -> draft-noisternig-ipdvb-ulesec-01.txt 
(wg=ipdvb)
  draft-knoll-idr-qos-attribute-01.txt -> draft-knoll-idr-qos-attribute-02.txt 
(wg=idr)
  draft-farinacci-lisp-07.txt -> draft-farinacci-lisp-08.txt (wg=grow)
  draft-chakeres-manet-dymo-default-00.txt -> 
draft-chakeres-manet-dymo-default-01.txt (wg=manet)
  draft-ietf-manet-timetlv-04.txt -> draft-ietf-manet-timetlv-05.txt (wg=manet)
  draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-06.txt -> draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-07.txt (wg=manet)
  draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-06.txt -> draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-07.txt (wg=manet)
  draft-daboo-

Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73

[Marc Manthey]

Am 24.07.2008 um 16:04 schrieb Marshall Eubanks:

Hello Marc;
On Jul 24, 2008, at 9:18 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:

Am 24.07.2008 um 14:52 schrieb Marshall Eubanks:

On Jul 24, 2008, at 8:10 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:

hello  experts
just a question ,  why not use
  you could save a lot of CO2 ;)
Accessgrid in my experience requires some work to set up and use  
(and troubleshoot).



hello Marshall,

thanks for your response ,  from my perspective , accessgrid run  
without trouble
on osx , just installed it from binary and it uses opensource  
( jabber ) and free resources
like vic and rat and is available for Windows aswell. There is  
continue developing , even h264 is available now






I am not sure why being acquired by Google makes it unusable for us,  
or if being open-source is a requirement or

even a SHOULD.


gday again

sorry i thought  IEFT SHOULD use  non - patented and propietairy  
technologie.like jaber for i.e.




But that's why there is a consensus process here.


i am looking forward to see / hear results ;)

regards

Marc



Regards
Marshall


AFAIK , VRVS / EVO  is not available for PC

UMeeting and Team Speak, or even Telepresence of the Cisco or  
Polycom RPX varieties.


Dont know "Umeeting "  but Teamspeak is not open source aswell and  
does not support video and this would be helpful for presenting  
slides

in a "venue"

I would recommend that we actually study and evaluate the choices  
available,


+1

i think it would be a great improvement for developers / attendies  
from third world countrys or people that cant afford traveling to  
the meeting.



> "Teleconferencing", in this context, includes any
> communications vehicle that enables participants to meet
> without having to travel,

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73

[Eric Burger]

Oh yes.  I too like the 4a option!!!

Thanks!

On Jul 23, 2008, at 12:37 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:


Dear Eric
On Jul 23, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Eric Burger wrote:


Can you enumerate the various options? Thanks.


See the attached email which describes them - here is the list with  
a description of each. If you can think up more,

let me know.

Marshall

Option DescriptionExtra  Rough Cost / Year
Biggest Drawback IMHO

   Slots / year
1More Friday Sessions  48-72  $ 100,000 to 140,000
Staying Friday night
2After Dinner Sessions 108$  90,000   
Staying late at night
39 simultaneous sessions48$ 140,000   
AD availability, collisions
44 meetings / year 117highly profitable   
Extra travel, would have to wait till at least 2010
4.a  4 meetings, no Friday  97profitable  
Extra travel, would have to wait till at least 2010
5Area interim meetings24-32   neutral or profitable   
Extra travel, inefficient for attendees



From an email to this list, July 17, 2008 9:48:22 PM EDT

Dear Russ;

After our discussions on this in San Jose, I spent a little time  
thinking of options for extra meeting time. Here are some more  
considered thoughts, focusing mostly on costs and meeting logistics,  
and intended to engender further discussion. I will be ruthless in  
doing back of the envelope cost estimates in the absence of actual  
ones. A detailed financial statement for IETF-70 (Vancouver) is  
available at


http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/Vancouver_Financial_Statement_Preliminary.pdf

and I use that for price estimates.

It seems to me that the IETF is bursting at the seams. Certainly  
both the number of interim meetings seems to be increasing (are  
statistics on the number and attendance of interim meetings  
available anywhere?), so it is reasonable to try and find means that  
will provide more meeting slots.


Possible solutions include

1 - Add meetings to Friday (the proposed experiment). We could add  
3, but the experiment is for 2. If we kept the rest of the meeting  
the same, then the 2 session option would add 16 sessions per  
meeting, or 48 per year. If we add 3 sessions, there would be 24 per  
meeting, or 72 per year. There would definitely be extra expenses  
for these options :


- Currently, the IETF is torn down starting at 1130 AM on Friday.  
This obviously would not be possible with this option, and there  
would almost certainly be an extra Verilan (Connectivity and NOC)  
and maybe a AMS (Secretariat) expense, which presumably Ray could  
estimate or get quotes for. For Vancouver, Verilan was $ 115,000, so  
an extra half day would be about $ 25,000.


- There would be an extra hotel charge, particularly if the Hotel is  
unable to use our space for Friday evening parties. This might show  
up (especially in the US) and an increased food and beverage cost  
even if we don't provide refreshments, and Ray should see if that is  
the case for Minneapolis. Likewise, there might be $ 5000 in Audio  
Visual costs.


- Since there are existing Hotel contracts for a number of future  
meetings, these would have to be renegotiated, and it is likely that  
some of these hotels will now be booked for Friday afternoon (or  
will have Friday evening parties that will need the setup time), so  
this option may not be possible for all of our future meetings.


- If the Friday meeting goes late enough that people have to get a  
Friday night hotel room, then both participants and the IETF will  
have a fairly considerable extra expense.


If we just assume that charges are linear with meeting time, this  
option would entail something between $ 35,000 and
$ 48,000 (based on Vancouver), or $ 105,000 to $ 140,000 / year or  
about $ 40 added to the meeting fee.


I would urge Ray to prepare a proper budget with actual quotes for  
this option.


2 - Add evening sessions to the existing meetings, presumably after  
a dinner break. This would add 8 x 4 = 36 slots per meeting, or 108  
per year. It would probably not cost the IETF much (it is not clear  
to me if Verilan would charge more for the longer hours; the total  
charge for this in Vancouver was $ 115,000; the extra cost would ~ $  
30,000 ($90,000 / year) per meeting assuming a linear charge for the  
extra time. I would expect the actual extra charge to be less; this  
could be determined by Ray while he was doing the estimates for # 1.  
I know that people did not like the meetings after dinner, so this  
would probably be resisted, but it would add more slots and probably  
at a lower price. I don't know if there would be extra hotel  
charges, but I suspect not.


3 - Go from 8 simultaneous sessions to 9. This would add 16 sessions  
per meeting, or 48 per year with the Dublin scheduling. This option  
would of course make collisions worse, and

Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73

[Eric Burger]

Can you enumerate the various options? Thanks.

On Jul 23, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:


Dear Eric;

On Jul 22, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Eric Burger wrote:


I will take a swag...

On the one hand, having had (and, believe it or not, this time by  
request) work group meetings on Friday morning, the Friday slot is  
an excellent filter to ensure that only the die-hard participants  
and those people paying their own way who need a Saturday Night  
Stay(tm) attend.


On the other hand, this guarantees more than a week away from  
home.  If you have no family or life or want to stay away from said  
family or life, this would be a good thing.  However, for the rest  
of us, this is not an attractive option.


Since Pandora's Box is now formally open, how about this: since the  
Internet Area has a lion's share of slots, and RAI draws huge  
crowds, what if we went summer / winter olympics and (gasp!) add a  
fourth annual meeting, but not have all areas meet at all meetings.


This is my option 4. I think that a variant, call it 4.a, might also  
be useful :


Have 4 meetings per year, but close the meeting down Thursday  
evening. This would save a little money per meeting, raise
more money for the IETF (by having 4 meetings) and would mean that  
for most of us, the IETF would only eat 1 weekend, not 2.


Here are the stats. I don't think that adding even a 4 day meeting  
could be scheduled before 2010, if then.


OptionExtra  Rough Cost / Year Biggest Drawback IMHO
Slots / year
1 48-72  $ 100,000 to 140,000  Staying Friday night
2 108$  90,000 Staying late at night
3 48 $ 140,000 AD availability,  
collisions
4 117highly profitable Extra travel, would  
have to wait till at least 2010
4.a   97 profitableExtra travel, would  
have to wait till at least 2010
5 24-32  neutral or profit Extra travel,  
inefficient  for attendees


Regards
Marshall





Yes, for me that just means four meetings to go to instead of  
three. However, one would hope we could get the work done Monday -  
Friday, instead of Saturday - Saturday, which we really are talking  
about here. Moreover, there really are people that will never  
venture outside their area, no matter how much we tell them it is  
important for them, and the IETF as a whole, to do it. Thus, rather  
than fighting physics, let us embrace gravity and make for a more  
sensible schedule all around.


On Jul 17, 2008, at 5:33 PM, IETF Chair wrote:

The IESG is considering an experiment for IETF 73 in Minneapolis,  
and

we would like community comments before we proceed.  Face-to-face
meeting time is very precious, especially with about 120 IETF WGs
competing for meeting slots.  Several WGs are not able to get as  
much

meeting time as they need to progress their work.  As an experiment,
we are considering adding two Friday afternoon one-hour meeting  
slots.

The proposed Friday schedule would be:

0900-1130 Morning Session I
1130-1300 Break
1300-1400 Afternoon Session I
1415-1515 Afternoon Session II

Please share your thoughts about this proposed experiment.  The
proposed experiment will be discussed on the IETF Didcussion mail
list (ietf@ietf.org).


___
IETF-Announce mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73

[Marshall Eubanks]

Hello Marc;

On Jul 24, 2008, at 9:18 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:


Am 24.07.2008 um 14:52 schrieb Marshall Eubanks:

On Jul 24, 2008, at 8:10 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:


hello  experts

just a question ,  why not use

  you could save a lot of CO2 ;)


Accessgrid in my experience requires some work to set up and use  
(and troubleshoot).



hello Marshall,

thanks for your response ,  from my perspective , accessgrid run  
without trouble
on osx , just installed it from binary and it uses opensource  
( jabber ) and free resources
like vic and rat and is available for Windows aswell. There is  
continue developing , even h264 is available now




There is no question that it could be useful - so could be VRVS /  
EVO and their commercial analogues such as Marratech,


marratech was aquired by google in 2005 , so i guess its not  
available anymore ( was java by the way and a bit slow )




Marratech is currently being used by the IAOC for its meetings, so I  
am familiar with it.

It works OK but has some tendency to crash.

I am not sure why being acquired by Google makes it unusable for us,  
or if being open-source is a requirement or

even a SHOULD. But that's why there is a consensus process here.

Regards
Marshall


AFAIK , VRVS / EVO  is not available for PC

UMeeting and Team Speak, or even Telepresence of the Cisco or  
Polycom RPX varieties.


Dont know "Umeeting "  but Teamspeak is not open source aswell and  
does not support video and this would be helpful for presenting slides

in a "venue"

I would recommend that we actually study and evaluate the choices  
available,


+1

i think it would be a great improvement for developers / attendies  
from third world countrys or people that cant afford traveling to  
the meeting.





regards

have a nice day

Marc




Regards
Marshall



just my 2 cents

regards

Marc



> "Teleconferencing", in this context, includes any
> communications vehicle that enables participants to meet
> without having to travel,


--

Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment
Marc Manthey - head of research and innovation
Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 Köln - Germany
Tel.:0049-221-3558032
Mobil:0049-1577-3329231
jabber :[EMAIL PROTECTED]
blog : http://www.let.de
ipv6 http://stattfernsehen.com
xing : https://www.xing.com/profile/Marc_Manthey
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73

[Marc Manthey]

Am 24.07.2008 um 14:52 schrieb Marshall Eubanks:

On Jul 24, 2008, at 8:10 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:


hello  experts

just a question ,  why not use

  you could save a lot of CO2 ;)


Accessgrid in my experience requires some work to set up and use  
(and troubleshoot).



hello Marshall,

thanks for your response ,  from my perspective , accessgrid run  
without trouble
on osx , just installed it from binary and it uses opensource  
( jabber ) and free resources
like vic and rat and is available for Windows aswell. There is  
continue developing , even h264 is available now




There is no question that it could be useful - so could be VRVS /  
EVO and their commercial analogues such as Marratech,


marratech was aquired by google in 2005 , so i guess its not available  
anymore ( was java by the way and a bit slow )


AFAIK , VRVS / EVO  is not available for PC

UMeeting and Team Speak, or even Telepresence of the Cisco or  
Polycom RPX varieties.


Dont know "Umeeting "  but Teamspeak is not open source aswell and  
does not support video and this would be helpful for presenting slides

in a "venue"

I would recommend that we actually study and evaluate the choices  
available,


+1

i think it would be a great improvement for developers / attendies  
from third world countrys or people that cant afford traveling to the  
meeting.


regards

have a nice day

Marc




Regards
Marshall



just my 2 cents

regards

Marc



> "Teleconferencing", in this context, includes any
> communications vehicle that enables participants to meet
> without having to travel,


--

Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment
Marc Manthey - head of research and innovation
Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 Köln - Germany
Tel.:0049-221-3558032
Mobil:0049-1577-3329231
jabber :[EMAIL PROTECTED]
blog : http://www.let.de
ipv6 http://stattfernsehen.com
xing : https://www.xing.com/profile/Marc_Manthey
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Jul 24, 2008, at 8:10 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:


hello  experts

just a question ,  why not use

  you could save a lot of CO2 ;)


Accessgrid in my experience requires some work to set up and use (and  
troubleshoot). There is
no question that it could be useful - so could be VRVS / EVO and their  
commercial analogues such as Marratech,
UMeeting and Team Speak, or even Telepresence of the Cisco or Polycom  
RPX varieties. All could be useful; there
are significant differences in cost, features and capabilities between  
solutions and it is not clear to me

which would be best for the IETF.

I would recommend that we actually study and evaluate
the choices available, rather than picking one because someone is  
familiar with it or some

other group uses it.

Regards
Marshall



just my 2 cents

regards

Marc



> "Teleconferencing", in this context, includes any
> communications vehicle that enables participants to meet
> without having to travel,


--

Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment
Marc Manthey - head of research and innovation
Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 Köln - Germany
Tel.:0049-221-3558032
Mobil:0049-1577-3329231
jabber :[EMAIL PROTECTED]
blog : http://www.let.de
ipv6 http://stattfernsehen.com
xing : https://www.xing.com/profile/Marc_Manthey
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73

[Marc Manthey]

hello  experts

just a question ,  why not use

  you could save a lot of CO2 ;)

just my 2 cents

regards

Marc



> "Teleconferencing", in this context, includes any
> communications vehicle that enables participants to meet
> without having to travel,


--

Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment
Marc Manthey - head of research and innovation
Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 Köln - Germany
Tel.:0049-221-3558032
Mobil:0049-1577-3329231
jabber :[EMAIL PROTECTED]
blog : http://www.let.de
ipv6 http://stattfernsehen.com
xing : https://www.xing.com/profile/Marc_Manthey___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73

[Russ Housley]

Michael:

There is at least one WG that never held a single face-to-face 
meeting.  They are certainly not required.


Many WGs do take advantage of non-face-to-face meeting alternatives 
to resolve issues between meetings.  For example, single-topic jabber 
chats have been scheduled and used.  The announcement of the jabber 
room and time were announced 30 days in advance to allow plenty of 
time for people to adjust their schedules, and then the agenda for 
each jabber session was posted as soon as the topic was 
selected.  All of this is well within the guidelines for interim meetings.


I'm sure others have similar experience to share.

Russ


At 05:31 PM 7/21/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


> "Teleconferencing", in this context, includes any
> communications vehicle that enables participants to meet
> without having to travel, and which they all agree to. Could
> be telephone, skype with or without video, Marratech, Webex,
> Citrix, or anything else as long as they all agree.

Sounds to me like it means "any technology which requires the Internet"
since email functions quite nicely using non-Internet technologies like
UUCP. Why does the IETF have rules which hamper using the Internet to
develop Internet-based protocols?

And then use that as an excuse to lengthen the face-to-face meetings
making it even harder for people who are not IETF fanatics, or funded by
their vendor-employer to attend them?

The IETF really needs to sit up and take notice of how other development
projects leverage the Internet, such as the many open-source software
projects. I'm not saying that all WGs should be forced to start using
blogs or IM chat sessions or whatever. Rather, I think the IETF should
formally get rid of that teleconference rule, and actively encourage WGs
to experiment with new ways of working that leverage Internet
technologies, and which reduce the amount of time needed in face-to-face
meetings.

That would be worthy of the title "experiment".

--Michael Dillon
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: www3.tools.ietf.org very heavily loaded

[Henrik Levkowetz]

Update:

On 2008-07-23 14:56 Henrik Levkowetz said the following:

www3.tools.ietf.org is currently very heavily loaded, and it's not possible
to ssh in to it.  I've removed the A and  records for it from the zone
file for tools.ietf.org, so any long delays you may have experienced reaching
the wg status pages, RFCs and drafts on tools.ietf.org should be eliminated.

The wiki pages and trackers are normally only available through www3, though,
unless I switch over to another machine as master.  I'm going to try to get
www3 back to normal a bit longer, before I take that step, though.  Sorry for
the temporary unavailability of those services.


www3.tools.ietf.org is up and running again.  What triggered the incident is
that during a short period of time yesterday the server was hit by about 14000
requests from a single client.  This by itself should have made it sluggish,
but shouldn't have made it unresponsive.  However, the configuration of the
apache server permitted a too high number of server processes, which led to
the machine running out of available RAM first, and later running out of
swap memory.  In the end, a power-down/power-up was necessary to bring it
back.

I've now changed the apache configuration so that the maximum number of server
processes will be a number I've seen the server survive at its earlier highest
load level, which should prevent this particular situation from arising again.

However, over the weeks after the IETF I'm going to add some more fail-over
mechanisms to ensure that services (like Wikis and Issue Trackers) which take
input from users, and thus can't easily be served simultaneously from multiple
servers, will be be automatically migrated to another server if the master
server for those services fails.  Hopefully that will mean that the next time
a tools server has problems (and of course that will happen again, at some
point) nobody will notice it except the administrator ;-)


Best,

Henrik
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf