RE: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
Hi The "one day pass" is a good idea and the conditions are very reasonable, actually I stumbled across this issue when I asked for a one day pass on behalf of one of my colleagues who wanted to attend only one session at the last IETF. $700+ USD for a 1.5h session is stiff, $200 is much more acceptable. Regards Ingemar > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:37:29 -0400 > From: Ray Pelletier > Subject: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers > To: Doug Barton > Cc: John C Klensin , 'IETF-Discussion' > > Message-ID: <51282fb5-4392-4131-940a-91ac1a7e3...@isoc.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > All; > > Let me offer a suggestion for which we would like to receive > quick and constructive feedback so that the opening of the > IETF 76 registration will not be delayed. > > One Day Pass Program > > A person may purchase a One Day Pass to attend any one day of > the IETF Meeting for $200. > > Benefits of the One Day Pass: > 1. Attend all sessions during any one day of the Meeting, and > partake of the food and beverage during the breaks that day > 2. Day can be selected during online registration, but can be > changed onsite without penalty 3. Payments may be made onsite > without a late fee 4. Pass can be upgraded to a full Meeting > Registration, however, late fee may apply if initial Pass > payment not made before Early Bird deadline (Note: Intended > to discourage gaming the system) 5. Attend Sunday Tutorials > at no additional charge 6. Attend Sunday Welcome Reception at > no additional charge 7. Attend Wednesday and Thursday > Plenaries at no additional charge 8. Purchase a ticket 4 - 5 > PM on Tuesday to attend the Host's Tuesday evening Social, if > tickets are available > > Ray > IAD > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > On Aug 24, 2009, at 5:21 PM, James M. Polk wrote: > These are valid observations, but I don't see that they affect the > current day pass proposal. We plan to allow freedom to change the pass > at will. While I would love to be able to change airline policy to > match, I don't think they will listen to the IETF on this issue. Bear in mind that we change schedules and cancel meetings right up to and during the ietf week. There likely is an element of risk associated with planning on being there for one or very few meetings that is no different than was previously present. local attendees are less handicapped in this regard. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
Marshall Eubanks wrote: > I would not want to be the man who takes the last available cookie with > an expired day pass. > While I'm always shocked by the extend to which all ietf organizational discussions eventually revolve around either fod or ipr, if someone goes without in Hiroshima it's because they somehow missed the uniformly ubiquitous distribution of convenience stores and vending machines in urban centers. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-iaoc-member-00.txt
Hi, Is this the correct list for discussing draft-klensin-iaoc-member? >o workload and full-time positions > Even without IAOC and Trustee roles, the IETF Chair and IAB Chair > roles require considerable time and effort. This has been true for many years of the IETF Chair role. Indeed one of the main motivations for creating the IAOC and IAD roles was to tackle this. From personal experience, as the IETF Chair who bridged the changeover, there is no doubt in my mind that this changed the IETF Chair job from essentially impossible to reasonably possible. So it was a success in this respect. If anyone's interested in how I thought about the workload at that time, see: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-ietf-chair-tasks The question I have (as I did when writing that draft) is whether any further organisational change would have a *significant* effect on the IETF Chair workload. More on that below. My feeling is that the IAB Chair role has grown in recent times, and not in the sense of being able to spend more time on Internet Architecture. That seems like a Bad Thing. To some extent this is a short term effect due to the need to reorganise the RFC Editor service, which is a clear IAB non-architecture responsibility. However, it generates the same question about organisational change. >In addition, it is useful to clarify the role of the IAB and IESG >representatives by making them (and the chairs, if different) non- >voting liaisons. That statement doesn't seem to be justified by anything above. Why is it useful, and what is unclear about their present (voting) roles? I'm missing a few steps in the argument. >... This reduces the requirement that IAB and/or IESG >members be selected for the specific types of expertise needed on the >IAOC and Trustees. NomCom has major difficulty in this anyway. We need IAOC members with good technical and community understanding *and* the IAOC/Trustee skills. This seems essentially unfixable to me. Also, it isn't discussed in the draft that by removing two voting members, the IAOC quorum becomes quite a bit smaller and the concentration of power perhaps too great. Wouldn't we want to add at least one regular member, which would make the NomCom task even harder? >o If one or both of the liaisons specified immediately above are not > the IAB Chair or IETF Chair, those individuals have permanent > liaison status with the IAOC (and Trustees): they are not expected > to attend meetings on a regular basis, but may do so and may not > be excluded from any meeting, even executive sessions. Two points on this: 1. One possible effect of this is to add two people to every IAOC or Trust meeting. That doesn't seem like workload reduction. 2. In any case, it seems to me to be unrealistic to imagine that an IETF Chair would drop out of IAOC participation; in fact I would regard it as downright irresponsible to do so. Being non-voting would perhaps reduce formal responsibility, or even legal liability, but the IETF Chair should still read everything and debate everything. So I think the workload reduction is illusory. The IAB Chair might be able to step back from some matters, but not when the IAB's oversight areas (IANA and RFC Editor) are concerned. Bottom line: I don't see this change as producing a significant net gain, unless there are arguments that I've missed. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
Bob, It's honestly not intended for "you and me", but for locals. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Bob Braden wrote: > > Ray, > > My concern about your One Day Pass experiment is that the Hiroshima meeting is > a particularly bad venue for the experiment. Japan is a lovely country, but it > is half way around the world for the US and Europe. I cannot imagine anyone > enduring the pain of endless hours on an airplane, plus the hassle of > international travel, for one day at IETF. > > Bob Braden > > ___ > 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: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
On Aug 24, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Fred Baker wrote: Agreed. Also, we know of some other groups that have tried it and the place didn't burn down, and we are told that Japan specifically is a place that really appreciates the option for Japanese locals. On Aug 24, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Doug Barton wrote: Bob Braden wrote: Ray, My concern about your One Day Pass experiment is that the Hiroshima meeting is a particularly bad venue for the experiment. Japan is a lovely country, but it is half way around the world for the US and Europe. I cannot imagine anyone enduring the pain of endless hours on an airplane, plus the hassle of international travel, for one day at IETF. Concur. I anticipate this will only be attractive for locals, but each region will have its opportunity in turn. Ray That concern is equally valid for those in Asia for any IETF held in !Asia. There are at least 2 obvious benefits of this proposal. 1. Encourage participation from people in the local area who would otherwise never be able to attend IETF in person. 2. Expose people in the local area to the value of attending IETF in person so that they are more likely to travel to a future IETF (whether they then choose to attend the whole conference or not). Both of those benefits are equally valid regardless of the value of "local area" that the meeting happens to be held in. Doug ___ 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: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
Agreed. Also, we know of some other groups that have tried it and the place didn't burn down, and we are told that Japan specifically is a place that really appreciates the option for Japanese locals. On Aug 24, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Doug Barton wrote: Bob Braden wrote: Ray, My concern about your One Day Pass experiment is that the Hiroshima meeting is a particularly bad venue for the experiment. Japan is a lovely country, but it is half way around the world for the US and Europe. I cannot imagine anyone enduring the pain of endless hours on an airplane, plus the hassle of international travel, for one day at IETF. That concern is equally valid for those in Asia for any IETF held in !Asia. There are at least 2 obvious benefits of this proposal. 1. Encourage participation from people in the local area who would otherwise never be able to attend IETF in person. 2. Expose people in the local area to the value of attending IETF in person so that they are more likely to travel to a future IETF (whether they then choose to attend the whole conference or not). Both of those benefits are equally valid regardless of the value of "local area" that the meeting happens to be held in. Doug ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
Bob Braden wrote: > > Ray, > > My concern about your One Day Pass experiment is that the Hiroshima > meeting is a particularly bad venue for the experiment. Japan is a > lovely country, but it is half way around the world for the US and > Europe. I cannot imagine anyone enduring the pain of endless hours on an > airplane, plus the hassle of international travel, for one day at IETF. That concern is equally valid for those in Asia for any IETF held in !Asia. There are at least 2 obvious benefits of this proposal. 1. Encourage participation from people in the local area who would otherwise never be able to attend IETF in person. 2. Expose people in the local area to the value of attending IETF in person so that they are more likely to travel to a future IETF (whether they then choose to attend the whole conference or not). Both of those benefits are equally valid regardless of the value of "local area" that the meeting happens to be held in. Doug ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
On Aug 24, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Bob Braden wrote: Adrian Farrel wrote: Bob, It may not have been you're intention, but your comment sounds a little odd. Are there no people who live in Japan? Of course, that is why I specified the US and Europe. There is obviously a large potential attendance from Asian/Pacific Rim countries, for which my concern does not apply. It still seems like a concern to me. This has been under discussion for a while and it has to start somewhere; in my opinion any meeting is about as a good a place to try the experiment as any other. Regards Marshall Bob Braden Cheers, Adrian - Original Message - From: "Bob Braden" To: "Ray Pelletier" Cc: "'IETF-Discussion'" Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 11:36 PM Subject: Re: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers Ray, My concern about your One Day Pass experiment is that the Hiroshima meeting is a particularly bad venue for the experiment. Japan is a lovely country, but it is half way around the world for the US and Europe. I cannot imagine anyone enduring the pain of endless hours on an airplane, plus the hassle of international travel, for one day at IETF. Bob Braden ___ 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
Adrian Farrel wrote: Bob, It may not have been you're intention, but your comment sounds a little odd. Are there no people who live in Japan? Of course, that is why I specified the US and Europe. There is obviously a large potential attendance from Asian/Pacific Rim countries, for which my concern does not apply. It still seems like a concern to me. Bob Braden Cheers, Adrian - Original Message - From: "Bob Braden" To: "Ray Pelletier" Cc: "'IETF-Discussion'" Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 11:36 PM Subject: Re: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers Ray, My concern about your One Day Pass experiment is that the Hiroshima meeting is a particularly bad venue for the experiment. Japan is a lovely country, but it is half way around the world for the US and Europe. I cannot imagine anyone enduring the pain of endless hours on an airplane, plus the hassle of international travel, for one day at IETF. Bob Braden ___ 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: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
Bob, It may not have been you're intention, but your comment sounds a little odd. Are there no people who live in Japan? Cheers, Adrian - Original Message - From: "Bob Braden" To: "Ray Pelletier" Cc: "'IETF-Discussion'" Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 11:36 PM Subject: Re: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers Ray, My concern about your One Day Pass experiment is that the Hiroshima meeting is a particularly bad venue for the experiment. Japan is a lovely country, but it is half way around the world for the US and Europe. I cannot imagine anyone enduring the pain of endless hours on an airplane, plus the hassle of international travel, for one day at IETF. Bob Braden ___ 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: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
Ray, My concern about your One Day Pass experiment is that the Hiroshima meeting is a particularly bad venue for the experiment. Japan is a lovely country, but it is half way around the world for the US and Europe. I cannot imagine anyone enduring the pain of endless hours on an airplane, plus the hassle of international travel, for one day at IETF. Bob Braden ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
[OT] Sun Contact
Hi fellow IETFers, Can someone from sun.com (preferably in a managerial position) contact me in private please? I have a non-technical question not worth more bandwidth on the list. Thanks Michel. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Tools-discuss] meta-issues on charter discussions
On 2009-08-24 18:15 Richard Barnes said the following: > As a side issue, it appears that Ekr is chairing TLS twice, at least > according to the linked TLS tools page. > --Richard Yah. That's something the secretariat will have to fix in the metadata for the WG; the tools page just uses the info which is in the database. Best, Henrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
On Aug 24, 2009, at 5:21 PM, James M. Polk wrote: I think this doesn't address the concern about having a meeting agenda done before anyone needs to make travel adjustments. Quite simply having the agenda done the week before any meeting in the past 30 makes any flight or hotel booking adjustments laughable. This pressure to have a more robust agenda will be amplified greatly by those that count on sessions being on any one given day (say, on that provided on any version of a draft agenda) -- and will possibly explode some individuals when any session *they* wanted to go to gets moved off their day of choice. I don't see this mentioned in Ray's proposal -- though I don't have a good suggestion to solve this, as many things go into getting the agenda done early, even though its availability hasn't delivered it any earlier. These are valid observations, but I don't see that they affect the current day pass proposal. We plan to allow freedom to change the pass at will. While I would love to be able to change airline policy to match, I don't think they will listen to the IETF on this issue. Regards Marshall James At 03:00 PM 8/24/2009, David Harrington wrote: Looks good to me. I have concerns about #6, since it is fairly common that we run light on food during the reception. And if there are limits on the reception, then I think it reaosnable to favor those who paid for the full week. But I can support the experiment. Will One Day Pass first-timers be invited to the First-Time Attendees reception as well? dbh > -Original Message- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Ray Pelletier > Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 2:37 PM > To: Doug Barton > Cc: John C Klensin; 'IETF-Discussion' > Subject: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers > > All; > > Let me offer a suggestion for which we would like to receive > quick and > constructive feedback so that the opening of the IETF 76 > registration > will not be delayed. > > One Day Pass Program > > A person may purchase a One Day Pass to attend any one day of > the IETF > Meeting for $200. > > Benefits of the One Day Pass: > 1. Attend all sessions during any one day of the Meeting, and > partake > of the food and beverage during the breaks that day > 2. Day can be selected during online registration, but can be > changed > onsite without penalty > 3. Payments may be made onsite without a late fee > 4. Pass can be upgraded to a full Meeting Registration, > however, late > fee may apply if initial Pass payment not made before Early Bird > deadline (Note: Intended to discourage gaming the system) > 5. Attend Sunday Tutorials at no additional charge > 6. Attend Sunday Welcome Reception at no additional charge > 7. Attend Wednesday and Thursday Plenaries at no additional charge > 8. Purchase a ticket 4 - 5 PM on Tuesday to attend the Host's > Tuesday > evening Social, if tickets are available > > Ray > IAD > > On Aug 23, 2009, at 9:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > > > John C Klensin wrote: > >> > >> --On Sunday, August 23, 2009 14:18 -0700 Doug Barton > >> wrote: > >> > >>> ... > >>> So, if someone doesn't get at > least a day pass, I'd be happier if we charged a nominal (even > if only $10 - $20) fee for registration for the tutorial than > just open the doors. > >> > >>> I disagree here. I think that opening the newcomer's session > >>> and (if the host is agreeable) the reception on Sunday to all > >>> comers would have way more benefits than costs. Of course we > >>> would have to capitalize on all those fresh bodies by having > >>> registration open and suitable promotional materials for both > >>> full and one-day registration prominently (yet tastefully) > >>> displayed. > >> > >> Doug, > >> > >> I think that the ability for active participants in the IETF to > >> get into the reception and even eat is fairly important, > >> probably more important than encouraging first-timers and > >> visitors. I hope that you would agree with that, even though we > >> would both prefer to have no restrictions in that regard. > > > > I definitely agree that if I pay for IETF I want my shot at > the dried > > out chicken wings, yes. :) FWIW I'm not trying to minimize your > > concerns, which I think are valid. I simply think that reasonable > > minds can differ on the cost/benefit analysis. > > > >> What caused my suggestion for a nominal fee and some sort of > >> preregistration (which that fee would imply) was a vision of the > >> IETF meeting in a location with nearby college campuses and the > >> possibility of signs (possibly put up by third parties) > >> advertising the reception and noting "free food" and, depending > >> on the location and sponsor "free beer". I leave the rest to > >> your imagination. > > > > Well, you seem to have a darker view of human nature than I do, and > > that's saying something. There are ways to solve both problems I > > think, s
RE: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
I think this doesn't address the concern about having a meeting agenda done before anyone needs to make travel adjustments. Quite simply having the agenda done the week before any meeting in the past 30 makes any flight or hotel booking adjustments laughable. This pressure to have a more robust agenda will be amplified greatly by those that count on sessions being on any one given day (say, on that provided on any version of a draft agenda) -- and will possibly explode some individuals when any session *they* wanted to go to gets moved off their day of choice. I don't see this mentioned in Ray's proposal -- though I don't have a good suggestion to solve this, as many things go into getting the agenda done early, even though its availability hasn't delivered it any earlier. James At 03:00 PM 8/24/2009, David Harrington wrote: Looks good to me. I have concerns about #6, since it is fairly common that we run light on food during the reception. And if there are limits on the reception, then I think it reaosnable to favor those who paid for the full week. But I can support the experiment. Will One Day Pass first-timers be invited to the First-Time Attendees reception as well? dbh > -Original Message- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Ray Pelletier > Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 2:37 PM > To: Doug Barton > Cc: John C Klensin; 'IETF-Discussion' > Subject: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers > > All; > > Let me offer a suggestion for which we would like to receive > quick and > constructive feedback so that the opening of the IETF 76 > registration > will not be delayed. > > One Day Pass Program > > A person may purchase a One Day Pass to attend any one day of > the IETF > Meeting for $200. > > Benefits of the One Day Pass: > 1. Attend all sessions during any one day of the Meeting, and > partake > of the food and beverage during the breaks that day > 2. Day can be selected during online registration, but can be > changed > onsite without penalty > 3. Payments may be made onsite without a late fee > 4. Pass can be upgraded to a full Meeting Registration, > however, late > fee may apply if initial Pass payment not made before Early Bird > deadline (Note: Intended to discourage gaming the system) > 5. Attend Sunday Tutorials at no additional charge > 6. Attend Sunday Welcome Reception at no additional charge > 7. Attend Wednesday and Thursday Plenaries at no additional charge > 8. Purchase a ticket 4 - 5 PM on Tuesday to attend the Host's > Tuesday > evening Social, if tickets are available > > Ray > IAD > > On Aug 23, 2009, at 9:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > > > John C Klensin wrote: > >> > >> --On Sunday, August 23, 2009 14:18 -0700 Doug Barton > >> wrote: > >> > >>> ... > >>> So, if someone doesn't get at > least a day pass, I'd be happier if we charged a nominal (even > if only $10 - $20) fee for registration for the tutorial than > just open the doors. > >> > >>> I disagree here. I think that opening the newcomer's session > >>> and (if the host is agreeable) the reception on Sunday to all > >>> comers would have way more benefits than costs. Of course we > >>> would have to capitalize on all those fresh bodies by having > >>> registration open and suitable promotional materials for both > >>> full and one-day registration prominently (yet tastefully) > >>> displayed. > >> > >> Doug, > >> > >> I think that the ability for active participants in the IETF to > >> get into the reception and even eat is fairly important, > >> probably more important than encouraging first-timers and > >> visitors. I hope that you would agree with that, even though we > >> would both prefer to have no restrictions in that regard. > > > > I definitely agree that if I pay for IETF I want my shot at > the dried > > out chicken wings, yes. :) FWIW I'm not trying to minimize your > > concerns, which I think are valid. I simply think that reasonable > > minds can differ on the cost/benefit analysis. > > > >> What caused my suggestion for a nominal fee and some sort of > >> preregistration (which that fee would imply) was a vision of the > >> IETF meeting in a location with nearby college campuses and the > >> possibility of signs (possibly put up by third parties) > >> advertising the reception and noting "free food" and, depending > >> on the location and sponsor "free beer". I leave the rest to > >> your imagination. > > > > Well, you seem to have a darker view of human nature than I do, and > > that's saying something. There are ways to solve both problems I > > think, such as setting aside the first 30 minutes for paid > > participants and opening the doors wide after that. > > > > In any case I don't want to overengineer the social events. I > > personally think that we should use the golden rule. > Whoever pays the > > gold for the event gets to make the rules. > > > > Regardless of where we come out on the socials I think
Re: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
Excerpts from Lars Eggert on Mon, Aug 24, 2009 10:40:54PM +0200: > Hi, > > looks good. > > I have one (probably stupid) question: who checks this and how? Will > we use different colored paper for the name tags for different days? > Will the secretariat patrol the hallways? Or is the abuse angle > something that we don't think is a realistic issue? > > Lars RFID -> alerts to Ops. pgpcUsUnXt9L4.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
On Aug 24, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Lars Eggert wrote: Hi, looks good. I have one (probably stupid) question: who checks this and how? Will we use different colored paper for the name tags for different days? Will the secretariat patrol the hallways? Or is the abuse angle something that we don't think is a realistic issue? I think that this will be largely on the honor system. Obvious suggestions are to print each day's pass on colored paper and / or to print the date of validity on the pass. I would not want to be the man who takes the last available cookie with an expired day pass. Regards Marshall Lars On 2009-8-24, at 20:37, Ray Pelletier wrote: All; Let me offer a suggestion for which we would like to receive quick and constructive feedback so that the opening of the IETF 76 registration will not be delayed. One Day Pass Program A person may purchase a One Day Pass to attend any one day of the IETF Meeting for $200. Benefits of the One Day Pass: 1. Attend all sessions during any one day of the Meeting, and partake of the food and beverage during the breaks that day 2. Day can be selected during online registration, but can be changed onsite without penalty 3. Payments may be made onsite without a late fee 4. Pass can be upgraded to a full Meeting Registration, however, late fee may apply if initial Pass payment not made before Early Bird deadline (Note: Intended to discourage gaming the system) 5. Attend Sunday Tutorials at no additional charge 6. Attend Sunday Welcome Reception at no additional charge 7. Attend Wednesday and Thursday Plenaries at no additional charge 8. Purchase a ticket 4 - 5 PM on Tuesday to attend the Host's Tuesday evening Social, if tickets are available Ray IAD On Aug 23, 2009, at 9:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote: John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, August 23, 2009 14:18 -0700 Doug Barton wrote: ... So, if someone doesn't get at least a day pass, I'd be happier if we charged a nominal (even if only $10 - $20) fee for registration for the tutorial than just open the doors. I disagree here. I think that opening the newcomer's session and (if the host is agreeable) the reception on Sunday to all comers would have way more benefits than costs. Of course we would have to capitalize on all those fresh bodies by having registration open and suitable promotional materials for both full and one-day registration prominently (yet tastefully) displayed. Doug, I think that the ability for active participants in the IETF to get into the reception and even eat is fairly important, probably more important than encouraging first-timers and visitors. I hope that you would agree with that, even though we would both prefer to have no restrictions in that regard. I definitely agree that if I pay for IETF I want my shot at the dried out chicken wings, yes. :) FWIW I'm not trying to minimize your concerns, which I think are valid. I simply think that reasonable minds can differ on the cost/benefit analysis. What caused my suggestion for a nominal fee and some sort of preregistration (which that fee would imply) was a vision of the IETF meeting in a location with nearby college campuses and the possibility of signs (possibly put up by third parties) advertising the reception and noting "free food" and, depending on the location and sponsor "free beer". I leave the rest to your imagination. Well, you seem to have a darker view of human nature than I do, and that's saying something. There are ways to solve both problems I think, such as setting aside the first 30 minutes for paid participants and opening the doors wide after that. In any case I don't want to overengineer the social events. I personally think that we should use the golden rule. Whoever pays the gold for the event gets to make the rules. Regardless of where we come out on the socials I think it would be good to have some kind of consensus on opening the newcomer session and the plenaries, at minimum to those who pay for day passes (and IMO for all comers). There's only a little over 2 months till Hiroshima, so it would be nice to have a settled policy on this soon-ish so that people can make their plans appropriately. Doug ___ 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
Hi, looks good. I have one (probably stupid) question: who checks this and how? Will we use different colored paper for the name tags for different days? Will the secretariat patrol the hallways? Or is the abuse angle something that we don't think is a realistic issue? Lars On 2009-8-24, at 20:37, Ray Pelletier wrote: All; Let me offer a suggestion for which we would like to receive quick and constructive feedback so that the opening of the IETF 76 registration will not be delayed. One Day Pass Program A person may purchase a One Day Pass to attend any one day of the IETF Meeting for $200. Benefits of the One Day Pass: 1. Attend all sessions during any one day of the Meeting, and partake of the food and beverage during the breaks that day 2. Day can be selected during online registration, but can be changed onsite without penalty 3. Payments may be made onsite without a late fee 4. Pass can be upgraded to a full Meeting Registration, however, late fee may apply if initial Pass payment not made before Early Bird deadline (Note: Intended to discourage gaming the system) 5. Attend Sunday Tutorials at no additional charge 6. Attend Sunday Welcome Reception at no additional charge 7. Attend Wednesday and Thursday Plenaries at no additional charge 8. Purchase a ticket 4 - 5 PM on Tuesday to attend the Host's Tuesday evening Social, if tickets are available Ray IAD On Aug 23, 2009, at 9:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote: John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, August 23, 2009 14:18 -0700 Doug Barton wrote: ... So, if someone doesn't get at least a day pass, I'd be happier if we charged a nominal (even if only $10 - $20) fee for registration for the tutorial than just open the doors. I disagree here. I think that opening the newcomer's session and (if the host is agreeable) the reception on Sunday to all comers would have way more benefits than costs. Of course we would have to capitalize on all those fresh bodies by having registration open and suitable promotional materials for both full and one-day registration prominently (yet tastefully) displayed. Doug, I think that the ability for active participants in the IETF to get into the reception and even eat is fairly important, probably more important than encouraging first-timers and visitors. I hope that you would agree with that, even though we would both prefer to have no restrictions in that regard. I definitely agree that if I pay for IETF I want my shot at the dried out chicken wings, yes. :) FWIW I'm not trying to minimize your concerns, which I think are valid. I simply think that reasonable minds can differ on the cost/benefit analysis. What caused my suggestion for a nominal fee and some sort of preregistration (which that fee would imply) was a vision of the IETF meeting in a location with nearby college campuses and the possibility of signs (possibly put up by third parties) advertising the reception and noting "free food" and, depending on the location and sponsor "free beer". I leave the rest to your imagination. Well, you seem to have a darker view of human nature than I do, and that's saying something. There are ways to solve both problems I think, such as setting aside the first 30 minutes for paid participants and opening the doors wide after that. In any case I don't want to overengineer the social events. I personally think that we should use the golden rule. Whoever pays the gold for the event gets to make the rules. Regardless of where we come out on the socials I think it would be good to have some kind of consensus on opening the newcomer session and the plenaries, at minimum to those who pay for day passes (and IMO for all comers). There's only a little over 2 months till Hiroshima, so it would be nice to have a settled policy on this soon-ish so that people can make their plans appropriately. Doug ___ 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 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
On Aug 24, 2009, at 4:00 PM, David Harrington wrote: Looks good to me. I have concerns about #6, since it is fairly common that we run light on food during the reception. And if there are limits on the reception, then I think it reaosnable to favor those who paid for the full week. But I can support the experiment. Will One Day Pass first-timers be invited to the First-Time Attendees reception as well? If they self-identify as First Timers they will be invited. Ray dbh -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ray Pelletier Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 2:37 PM To: Doug Barton Cc: John C Klensin; 'IETF-Discussion' Subject: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers All; Let me offer a suggestion for which we would like to receive quick and constructive feedback so that the opening of the IETF 76 registration will not be delayed. One Day Pass Program A person may purchase a One Day Pass to attend any one day of the IETF Meeting for $200. Benefits of the One Day Pass: 1. Attend all sessions during any one day of the Meeting, and partake of the food and beverage during the breaks that day 2. Day can be selected during online registration, but can be changed onsite without penalty 3. Payments may be made onsite without a late fee 4. Pass can be upgraded to a full Meeting Registration, however, late fee may apply if initial Pass payment not made before Early Bird deadline (Note: Intended to discourage gaming the system) 5. Attend Sunday Tutorials at no additional charge 6. Attend Sunday Welcome Reception at no additional charge 7. Attend Wednesday and Thursday Plenaries at no additional charge 8. Purchase a ticket 4 - 5 PM on Tuesday to attend the Host's Tuesday evening Social, if tickets are available Ray IAD On Aug 23, 2009, at 9:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote: John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, August 23, 2009 14:18 -0700 Doug Barton wrote: ... So, if someone doesn't get at least a day pass, I'd be happier if we charged a nominal (even if only $10 - $20) fee for registration for the tutorial than just open the doors. I disagree here. I think that opening the newcomer's session and (if the host is agreeable) the reception on Sunday to all comers would have way more benefits than costs. Of course we would have to capitalize on all those fresh bodies by having registration open and suitable promotional materials for both full and one-day registration prominently (yet tastefully) displayed. Doug, I think that the ability for active participants in the IETF to get into the reception and even eat is fairly important, probably more important than encouraging first-timers and visitors. I hope that you would agree with that, even though we would both prefer to have no restrictions in that regard. I definitely agree that if I pay for IETF I want my shot at the dried out chicken wings, yes. :) FWIW I'm not trying to minimize your concerns, which I think are valid. I simply think that reasonable minds can differ on the cost/benefit analysis. What caused my suggestion for a nominal fee and some sort of preregistration (which that fee would imply) was a vision of the IETF meeting in a location with nearby college campuses and the possibility of signs (possibly put up by third parties) advertising the reception and noting "free food" and, depending on the location and sponsor "free beer". I leave the rest to your imagination. Well, you seem to have a darker view of human nature than I do, and that's saying something. There are ways to solve both problems I think, such as setting aside the first 30 minutes for paid participants and opening the doors wide after that. In any case I don't want to overengineer the social events. I personally think that we should use the golden rule. Whoever pays the gold for the event gets to make the rules. Regardless of where we come out on the socials I think it would be good to have some kind of consensus on opening the newcomer session and the plenaries, at minimum to those who pay for day passes (and IMO for all comers). There's only a little over 2 months till Hiroshima, so it would be nice to have a settled policy on this soon-ish so that people can make their plans appropriately. Doug ___ 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: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
Looks good to me. I have concerns about #6, since it is fairly common that we run light on food during the reception. And if there are limits on the reception, then I think it reaosnable to favor those who paid for the full week. But I can support the experiment. Will One Day Pass first-timers be invited to the First-Time Attendees reception as well? dbh > -Original Message- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Ray Pelletier > Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 2:37 PM > To: Doug Barton > Cc: John C Klensin; 'IETF-Discussion' > Subject: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers > > All; > > Let me offer a suggestion for which we would like to receive > quick and > constructive feedback so that the opening of the IETF 76 > registration > will not be delayed. > > One Day Pass Program > > A person may purchase a One Day Pass to attend any one day of > the IETF > Meeting for $200. > > Benefits of the One Day Pass: > 1. Attend all sessions during any one day of the Meeting, and > partake > of the food and beverage during the breaks that day > 2. Day can be selected during online registration, but can be > changed > onsite without penalty > 3. Payments may be made onsite without a late fee > 4. Pass can be upgraded to a full Meeting Registration, > however, late > fee may apply if initial Pass payment not made before Early Bird > deadline (Note: Intended to discourage gaming the system) > 5. Attend Sunday Tutorials at no additional charge > 6. Attend Sunday Welcome Reception at no additional charge > 7. Attend Wednesday and Thursday Plenaries at no additional charge > 8. Purchase a ticket 4 - 5 PM on Tuesday to attend the Host's > Tuesday > evening Social, if tickets are available > > Ray > IAD > > On Aug 23, 2009, at 9:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > > > John C Klensin wrote: > >> > >> --On Sunday, August 23, 2009 14:18 -0700 Doug Barton > >> wrote: > >> > >>> ... > >>> So, if someone doesn't get at > least a day pass, I'd be happier if we charged a nominal (even > if only $10 - $20) fee for registration for the tutorial than > just open the doors. > >> > >>> I disagree here. I think that opening the newcomer's session > >>> and (if the host is agreeable) the reception on Sunday to all > >>> comers would have way more benefits than costs. Of course we > >>> would have to capitalize on all those fresh bodies by having > >>> registration open and suitable promotional materials for both > >>> full and one-day registration prominently (yet tastefully) > >>> displayed. > >> > >> Doug, > >> > >> I think that the ability for active participants in the IETF to > >> get into the reception and even eat is fairly important, > >> probably more important than encouraging first-timers and > >> visitors. I hope that you would agree with that, even though we > >> would both prefer to have no restrictions in that regard. > > > > I definitely agree that if I pay for IETF I want my shot at > the dried > > out chicken wings, yes. :) FWIW I'm not trying to minimize your > > concerns, which I think are valid. I simply think that reasonable > > minds can differ on the cost/benefit analysis. > > > >> What caused my suggestion for a nominal fee and some sort of > >> preregistration (which that fee would imply) was a vision of the > >> IETF meeting in a location with nearby college campuses and the > >> possibility of signs (possibly put up by third parties) > >> advertising the reception and noting "free food" and, depending > >> on the location and sponsor "free beer". I leave the rest to > >> your imagination. > > > > Well, you seem to have a darker view of human nature than I do, and > > that's saying something. There are ways to solve both problems I > > think, such as setting aside the first 30 minutes for paid > > participants and opening the doors wide after that. > > > > In any case I don't want to overengineer the social events. I > > personally think that we should use the golden rule. > Whoever pays the > > gold for the event gets to make the rules. > > > > Regardless of where we come out on the socials I think it would be > > good to have some kind of consensus on opening the newcomer session > > and the plenaries, at minimum to those who pay for day > passes (and IMO > > for all comers). There's only a little over 2 months till Hiroshima, > > so it would be nice to have a settled policy on this > soon-ish so that > > people can make their plans appropriately. > > > > > > Doug > > ___ > > 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: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
Ray Pelletier wrote: > All; > > Let me offer a suggestion for which we would like to receive quick and > constructive feedback so that the opening of the IETF 76 registration > will not be delayed. > > One Day Pass Program > > A person may purchase a One Day Pass to attend any one day of the IETF > Meeting for $200. > > Benefits of the One Day Pass: > 1. Attend all sessions during any one day of the Meeting, and partake of > the food and beverage during the breaks that day > 2. Day can be selected during online registration, but can be changed > onsite without penalty > 3. Payments may be made onsite without a late fee > 4. Pass can be upgraded to a full Meeting Registration, however, late > fee may apply if initial Pass payment not made before Early Bird > deadline (Note: Intended to discourage gaming the system) > 5. Attend Sunday Tutorials at no additional charge > 6. Attend Sunday Welcome Reception at no additional charge > 7. Attend Wednesday and Thursday Plenaries at no additional charge > 8. Purchase a ticket 4 - 5 PM on Tuesday to attend the Host's Tuesday > evening Social, if tickets are available I agree with all of this except that I would s/may/will/ in item 4. Thanks for taking the community feedback into account and acting so quickly on this Ray. I look forward to hearing how well it works! Doug ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
Me too ... this nicely covers the concerns I've expressed earlier. On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Marshall Eubanks wrote: All of this works for me. Marshall On Aug 24, 2009, at 2:37 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote: All; Let me offer a suggestion for which we would like to receive quick and constructive feedback so that the opening of the IETF 76 registration will not be delayed. One Day Pass Program A person may purchase a One Day Pass to attend any one day of the IETF Meeting for $200. Benefits of the One Day Pass: 1. Attend all sessions during any one day of the Meeting, and partake of the food and beverage during the breaks that day 2. Day can be selected during online registration, but can be changed onsite without penalty 3. Payments may be made onsite without a late fee 4. Pass can be upgraded to a full Meeting Registration, however, late fee may apply if initial Pass payment not made before Early Bird deadline (Note: Intended to discourage gaming the system) 5. Attend Sunday Tutorials at no additional charge 6. Attend Sunday Welcome Reception at no additional charge 7. Attend Wednesday and Thursday Plenaries at no additional charge 8. Purchase a ticket 4 - 5 PM on Tuesday to attend the Host's Tuesday evening Social, if tickets are available Ray IAD On Aug 23, 2009, at 9:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote: John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, August 23, 2009 14:18 -0700 Doug Barton wrote: ... So, if someone doesn't get at least a day pass, I'd be happier if we charged a nominal (even if only $10 - $20) fee for registration for the tutorial than just open the doors. I disagree here. I think that opening the newcomer's session and (if the host is agreeable) the reception on Sunday to all comers would have way more benefits than costs. Of course we would have to capitalize on all those fresh bodies by having registration open and suitable promotional materials for both full and one-day registration prominently (yet tastefully) displayed. Doug, I think that the ability for active participants in the IETF to get into the reception and even eat is fairly important, probably more important than encouraging first-timers and visitors. I hope that you would agree with that, even though we would both prefer to have no restrictions in that regard. I definitely agree that if I pay for IETF I want my shot at the dried out chicken wings, yes. :) FWIW I'm not trying to minimize your concerns, which I think are valid. I simply think that reasonable minds can differ on the cost/benefit analysis. What caused my suggestion for a nominal fee and some sort of preregistration (which that fee would imply) was a vision of the IETF meeting in a location with nearby college campuses and the possibility of signs (possibly put up by third parties) advertising the reception and noting "free food" and, depending on the location and sponsor "free beer". I leave the rest to your imagination. Well, you seem to have a darker view of human nature than I do, and that's saying something. There are ways to solve both problems I think, such as setting aside the first 30 minutes for paid participants and opening the doors wide after that. In any case I don't want to overengineer the social events. I personally think that we should use the golden rule. Whoever pays the gold for the event gets to make the rules. Regardless of where we come out on the socials I think it would be good to have some kind of consensus on opening the newcomer session and the plenaries, at minimum to those who pay for day passes (and IMO for all comers). There's only a little over 2 months till Hiroshima, so it would be nice to have a settled policy on this soon-ish so that people can make their plans appropriately. Doug ___ 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
All of this works for me. Marshall On Aug 24, 2009, at 2:37 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote: All; Let me offer a suggestion for which we would like to receive quick and constructive feedback so that the opening of the IETF 76 registration will not be delayed. One Day Pass Program A person may purchase a One Day Pass to attend any one day of the IETF Meeting for $200. Benefits of the One Day Pass: 1. Attend all sessions during any one day of the Meeting, and partake of the food and beverage during the breaks that day 2. Day can be selected during online registration, but can be changed onsite without penalty 3. Payments may be made onsite without a late fee 4. Pass can be upgraded to a full Meeting Registration, however, late fee may apply if initial Pass payment not made before Early Bird deadline (Note: Intended to discourage gaming the system) 5. Attend Sunday Tutorials at no additional charge 6. Attend Sunday Welcome Reception at no additional charge 7. Attend Wednesday and Thursday Plenaries at no additional charge 8. Purchase a ticket 4 - 5 PM on Tuesday to attend the Host's Tuesday evening Social, if tickets are available Ray IAD On Aug 23, 2009, at 9:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote: John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, August 23, 2009 14:18 -0700 Doug Barton wrote: ... So, if someone doesn't get at least a day pass, I'd be happier if we charged a nominal (even if only $10 - $20) fee for registration for the tutorial than just open the doors. I disagree here. I think that opening the newcomer's session and (if the host is agreeable) the reception on Sunday to all comers would have way more benefits than costs. Of course we would have to capitalize on all those fresh bodies by having registration open and suitable promotional materials for both full and one-day registration prominently (yet tastefully) displayed. Doug, I think that the ability for active participants in the IETF to get into the reception and even eat is fairly important, probably more important than encouraging first-timers and visitors. I hope that you would agree with that, even though we would both prefer to have no restrictions in that regard. I definitely agree that if I pay for IETF I want my shot at the dried out chicken wings, yes. :) FWIW I'm not trying to minimize your concerns, which I think are valid. I simply think that reasonable minds can differ on the cost/benefit analysis. What caused my suggestion for a nominal fee and some sort of preregistration (which that fee would imply) was a vision of the IETF meeting in a location with nearby college campuses and the possibility of signs (possibly put up by third parties) advertising the reception and noting "free food" and, depending on the location and sponsor "free beer". I leave the rest to your imagination. Well, you seem to have a darker view of human nature than I do, and that's saying something. There are ways to solve both problems I think, such as setting aside the first 30 minutes for paid participants and opening the doors wide after that. In any case I don't want to overengineer the social events. I personally think that we should use the golden rule. Whoever pays the gold for the event gets to make the rules. Regardless of where we come out on the socials I think it would be good to have some kind of consensus on opening the newcomer session and the plenaries, at minimum to those who pay for day passes (and IMO for all comers). There's only a little over 2 months till Hiroshima, so it would be nice to have a settled policy on this soon-ish so that people can make their plans appropriately. Doug ___ 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
One Day Pass Proposal was Re: One Day Pass for newcomers
All; Let me offer a suggestion for which we would like to receive quick and constructive feedback so that the opening of the IETF 76 registration will not be delayed. One Day Pass Program A person may purchase a One Day Pass to attend any one day of the IETF Meeting for $200. Benefits of the One Day Pass: 1. Attend all sessions during any one day of the Meeting, and partake of the food and beverage during the breaks that day 2. Day can be selected during online registration, but can be changed onsite without penalty 3. Payments may be made onsite without a late fee 4. Pass can be upgraded to a full Meeting Registration, however, late fee may apply if initial Pass payment not made before Early Bird deadline (Note: Intended to discourage gaming the system) 5. Attend Sunday Tutorials at no additional charge 6. Attend Sunday Welcome Reception at no additional charge 7. Attend Wednesday and Thursday Plenaries at no additional charge 8. Purchase a ticket 4 - 5 PM on Tuesday to attend the Host's Tuesday evening Social, if tickets are available Ray IAD On Aug 23, 2009, at 9:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote: John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, August 23, 2009 14:18 -0700 Doug Barton wrote: ... So, if someone doesn't get at least a day pass, I'd be happier if we charged a nominal (even if only $10 - $20) fee for registration for the tutorial than just open the doors. I disagree here. I think that opening the newcomer's session and (if the host is agreeable) the reception on Sunday to all comers would have way more benefits than costs. Of course we would have to capitalize on all those fresh bodies by having registration open and suitable promotional materials for both full and one-day registration prominently (yet tastefully) displayed. Doug, I think that the ability for active participants in the IETF to get into the reception and even eat is fairly important, probably more important than encouraging first-timers and visitors. I hope that you would agree with that, even though we would both prefer to have no restrictions in that regard. I definitely agree that if I pay for IETF I want my shot at the dried out chicken wings, yes. :) FWIW I'm not trying to minimize your concerns, which I think are valid. I simply think that reasonable minds can differ on the cost/benefit analysis. What caused my suggestion for a nominal fee and some sort of preregistration (which that fee would imply) was a vision of the IETF meeting in a location with nearby college campuses and the possibility of signs (possibly put up by third parties) advertising the reception and noting "free food" and, depending on the location and sponsor "free beer". I leave the rest to your imagination. Well, you seem to have a darker view of human nature than I do, and that's saying something. There are ways to solve both problems I think, such as setting aside the first 30 minutes for paid participants and opening the doors wide after that. In any case I don't want to overengineer the social events. I personally think that we should use the golden rule. Whoever pays the gold for the event gets to make the rules. Regardless of where we come out on the socials I think it would be good to have some kind of consensus on opening the newcomer session and the plenaries, at minimum to those who pay for day passes (and IMO for all comers). There's only a little over 2 months till Hiroshima, so it would be nice to have a settled policy on this soon-ish so that people can make their plans appropriately. Doug ___ 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: draft-zorn-radius-pkmv1-05.txt
Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e...@gmail.com] writes: > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the > IESG. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. Sorry for the rather slow response, but I honestly didn't know what to say. > This document defines seven RADIUS Attributes to support the > implementation of 802.16 (WiMax) PKMv1 (Privacy Key Management version > 1). I would guess that RADIUS can be used between the 802.16 Base > Station and an authorization server but I don't know how you could > tell. > Maybe I missed it but it looks like the RADIUS protocol isn't > mentioned anywhere in 802.16-2004. From the text in some of these > RADIUS attribute descriptions, it appears that they are not used > between the Subscriber Station and the Base Stations but may be the > basis of 802.16 Attributes that are used on that hop. Given this, I > think a paragraph is needed (maybe even accompanied by a little ASCII > art) at the beginning show what's going on would be useful. Your comments seem to suggest a lack of familiarity with RFC 2865 and the RADIUS protocol in general. Leaving aside the question of how one could expect to usefully review a document that _extends_ a protocol w/o understanding the protocol being extended, RADIUS is only defined between a NAS (in this case, an 802.16 Base Station) and a RADIUS server. > Many document have security considerations section that only refer to > other documents and may be missing specifics to the document contents. > I think this document has the opposite problem good security specifics > in the security consideration section but could usefully add > references to the 802.16-2004 and RADiUS security sections. I'm not at all sure what 802.16 security has to do with RADIUS, but I guess I can add a reference to RFC 2869 in the Security Considerations section. > The security considerations section rightly warns to protect against > modification of the PKM-Auth-Key attribute. But is it really clear > there is no problem with modification of the Security Association ID > attribute or the attribute listing cryptosuites? No, apparently not. I had originally thought that modifying the list of supported cryptosuites would just result in DoS, but that's not right. I'll fix it. > > The wording in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 see to almost be designed to allow > the possibility of the multiple *-Cert Attributes carrying a > certificate to appear in more than one Access-Request message. But I > would assume that's not meaningful and/or was not intended to allow > that. There is no way to do such a thing in standard RADIUS. > > The table of attributes in Section 4 that gives the number of times > each attribute can occur in different message types seems to have > problems. Since there is no key giving it another meaning, I assume > "0-1" means zero or one. But PKM-SS-Cert and PKM-CA-Cert are described > and possibly occurring multiple times due to fragmentation of > certificates. If the table is supposed to be in terms of logical > attributes so that multiple PKM-SS-Cert attributes only count as one > if they have parts of one certificate, then the table should say so. > On the other hand, the PKM-SA-Descriptor attribute is shown as "0+", > which presumably means zero or more, but the text description in 3.6 > clearly says it can occur one or more times, which presumably would be > written "1+". The relevant text from section 3.6 says "One or more instances of the PKM-SA-Descriptor Attribute MAY occur in an Access-Accept message." RFC 2119 says about the keyword "MAY", "This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is truly optional"; this says to me that zero, one or more instances of the PKM-SA-Descriptor Attribute can be in an Access-Accept message, just in a more compact and formal way. If this is not clear, however, I'm open to suggestions for alternate text. > This whole table need to be carefully checked, the > inconsistencies resolved, and it should be clear if literal binary > attributes or some sort of logical aggregate attributes (in the case > of the "Cert" attributes at least), is being counted. I can add notes to the table regarding the "logical" vs. "physical" nature of the PKM-*-Cert Attributes, as well as a key to the meaning of "0+", etc. Is that OK? > > The text between the Section 6. header line and the Section 6.1 header > line as well as the Section 6.1 header line itself seem superfluous > and can be deleted. Fine. ... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Tools-discuss] meta-issues on charter discussions
As a side issue, it appears that Ekr is chairing TLS twice, at least according to the linked TLS tools page. --Richard On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:55 AM, wrote: > The tools WG pages used to have diffs between charter versions > (see e.g. http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tls/charters/ -- the "delta" > symbol leads to side-by-side diff between the versions), but > it looks like this broke when new www.ietf.org was deployed > in July > > Best regards, > Pasi > >> -Original Message- >> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> ext Tony Hansen >> Sent: 21 August, 2009 17:57 >> To: tools-disc...@ietf.org >> Cc: ietf@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: meta-issues on charter discussions >> >> This was posted to the ietf list. >> >> While the charter history pages are nice, they can be made better using >> a format similar to how tools.ietf.org presents RFCs and I-Ds: a >> non-printing list of versions at the top with ways to show differences >> between versions. >> >> Sounds like a job for the tools team. :-) >> >> Tony Hansen >> t...@att.com >> >> Thomas Narten wrote: >> > Re: old charters and such. >> > >> > While poking around earlier this week, I found: >> > >> > http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/history/ >> > >> > (it is hanging of the WG pages, so not that hard to find.) >> > >> > It appears to be a snapshot of charters whenever they change. But, >> > they "change" often due to events that are probably not the kind of >> > changes we are thinking about, and there is no indication about what >> > has changed, so there are a lot of copies and wading through them to >> > find stuff appears pretty daunting. And the history only goes back 3 >> > years or so... >> > >> > But they might be a basis for some tools to extract stuff. But, if >> > tools are going to do this, it seems like an archival format other >> > than HTML would be desirable. >> >> ___ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ > Tools-discuss mailing list > tools-disc...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
BOFs for Hiroshima
I just wanted to bring to people's attention this (fairly early) cut off date for Hiroshima : - 2009-09-14 (Monday): Cutoff date for Area Directors to approve BOFs at 17:00 PDT (24:00 UTC/GMT). This is not that far off. People who are thinking about preparing BOFs should get to it. Regards Marshall ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Tools-discuss] meta-issues on charter discussions
Hi Tony, Pasi, On 2009-08-24 09:55 pasi.ero...@nokia.com said the following: > The tools WG pages used to have diffs between charter versions > (see e.g. http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tls/charters/ -- the "delta" > symbol leads to side-by-side diff between the versions), but > it looks like this broke when new www.ietf.org was deployed > in July Ouch. Mmm. I'll see if I can fix this. Henrik > Best regards, > Pasi > >> -Original Message- >> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> ext Tony Hansen >> Sent: 21 August, 2009 17:57 >> To: tools-disc...@ietf.org >> Cc: ietf@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: meta-issues on charter discussions >> >> This was posted to the ietf list. >> >> While the charter history pages are nice, they can be made better using >> a format similar to how tools.ietf.org presents RFCs and I-Ds: a >> non-printing list of versions at the top with ways to show differences >> between versions. >> >> Sounds like a job for the tools team. :-) >> >> Tony Hansen >> t...@att.com >> >> Thomas Narten wrote: >>> Re: old charters and such. >>> >>> While poking around earlier this week, I found: >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/history/ >>> >>> (it is hanging of the WG pages, so not that hard to find.) >>> >>> It appears to be a snapshot of charters whenever they change. But, >>> they "change" often due to events that are probably not the kind of >>> changes we are thinking about, and there is no indication about what >>> has changed, so there are a lot of copies and wading through them to >>> find stuff appears pretty daunting. And the history only goes back 3 >>> years or so... >>> >>> But they might be a basis for some tools to extract stuff. But, if >>> tools are going to do this, it seems like an archival format other >>> than HTML would be desirable. >> ___ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ > Tools-discuss mailing list > tools-disc...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-iana-ipv4-examples (IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation) to Informational RFC
To my knowledge, ARIN does not have a standalone master db that maintains all of it's *current *and *future *reserved blocks. Most ACLs that implicitly block this block tag it as "bogus" or "bad" IP addresses. With documentation, it's important to broadcast this knowledge to industry so that there is a concise understanding. v/r, -AJ Chief Architect, Data Network & Security ciscowo...@gmail.com On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 4:35 PM, IETF Member Dave Aronson < ietf2d...@davearonson.com> wrote: > Jari Arkko wrote: > > > What should we do about this block? Some of the potential answers include > > documenting its role, marking it as reserved but deprecating its use in > > examples, and returning it to the free pool immediately (with a warning > sign > > about possible filtering problems). > > If we can arrive at an agreement with ARIN, maybe we could document it > indirectly, by pointing to some place where ARIN would document *all* > its reserved spaces. (Possibly even including things like "reserved > for expansion of the previous block", or "reserved for future use".) > A very brief Googling of arin.net did not reveal such a master list. > > -Dave > > -- > Dave Aronson, software engineer or trainer for hire. > Looking for job (or contract) in Washington DC area. > See http://davearonson.com/ for resume & other info. > ___ > 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: Last Call: draft-iana-ipv4-examples (IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation) to Informational RFC
Joel Jaeggli wrote: > By definition, if the IETF directed IANA to reserve it, it's not a Arin > prefix. D'oh, sorry, I mean IANA. That's what I get for typing in a hurry, juggling too many ETLAs -Dave, putting on dunce cap and sitting in corner -- Dave Aronson, software engineer or trainer for hire. Looking for job (or contract) in Washington DC area. See http://davearonson.com/ for resume & other info. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-iana-ipv4-examples (IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation) to Informational RFC
IETF Member Dave Aronson wrote: > Jari Arkko wrote: > >> What should we do about this block? Some of the potential answers include >> documenting its role, marking it as reserved but deprecating its use in >> examples, and returning it to the free pool immediately (with a warning sign >> about possible filtering problems). > > If we can arrive at an agreement with ARIN, maybe we could document it > indirectly, by pointing to some place where ARIN would document *all* > its reserved spaces. By definition, if the IETF directed IANA to reserve it, it's not a Arin prefix. > (Possibly even including things like "reserved > for expansion of the previous block", or "reserved for future use".) > A very brief Googling of arin.net did not reveal such a master list. > > -Dave > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Important Information about IETF 76 Meeting Registration
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 01:56:17PM -0700, Alexa Morris wrote a message of 135 lines which said: > 2) RFID Tagging Experiment at IETF 76 ... > While you will be given the option to "opt out" of this experiment when > you register for the meeting, we sincerely hope you will participate. Any statement somewhere explaining what will be done with the data? Since you talk about "electronic blue sheets", I assume there will be many sensors, at least one per room so, in theory, the readers may be able to gather a lot of data about attendees. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: meta-issues on charter discussions
The tools WG pages used to have diffs between charter versions (see e.g. http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tls/charters/ -- the "delta" symbol leads to side-by-side diff between the versions), but it looks like this broke when new www.ietf.org was deployed in July Best regards, Pasi > -Original Message- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > ext Tony Hansen > Sent: 21 August, 2009 17:57 > To: tools-disc...@ietf.org > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: meta-issues on charter discussions > > This was posted to the ietf list. > > While the charter history pages are nice, they can be made better using > a format similar to how tools.ietf.org presents RFCs and I-Ds: a > non-printing list of versions at the top with ways to show differences > between versions. > > Sounds like a job for the tools team. :-) > > Tony Hansen > t...@att.com > > Thomas Narten wrote: > > Re: old charters and such. > > > > While poking around earlier this week, I found: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/history/ > > > > (it is hanging of the WG pages, so not that hard to find.) > > > > It appears to be a snapshot of charters whenever they change. But, > > they "change" often due to events that are probably not the kind of > > changes we are thinking about, and there is no indication about what > > has changed, so there are a lot of copies and wading through them to > > find stuff appears pretty daunting. And the history only goes back 3 > > years or so... > > > > But they might be a basis for some tools to extract stuff. But, if > > tools are going to do this, it seems like an archival format other > > than HTML would be desirable. > > ___ > 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
