Re: IEEE Internet Award winner: Jon Crowcroft
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Some people here will remember that Jon was an IETF participant and an > IAB member a number of years ago. Well deserved. Congrats Jon! --dmm > >Brian > > > > 2014 IEEE Technical Field Award Recipients and Citations > > IEEE INTERNET AWARD-recognizes exceptional contributions to the advancement > of Internet technology for network architecture, > mobility, and/or end-use applications-sponsored by Nokia Corporation-to > JON CROWCROFT (FIEEE)-Professor, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United > Kingdom > "For contributions to research in and teaching of Internet protocols, > including multicast, transport, quality of service, > security, mobility, and opportunistic networking." > > (from > http://www.ieee.org/about/awards/news/2014_ieee_tfa_recipients_and_citations_list.pdf) > > > > >
Re: Evi Nemeth
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 4:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Friday, June 28, 2013 11:24 +1200 Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > >> Evi used to be an IETF regular. There is rather ominous news - >> she is lost at sea between New Zealand and Australia: >> >> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid= >> 10893482 >> >> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid= >> 10893503 > > Brian, > > Thanks for posting this. Truly scary... she and her colleagues > should be in all of our thoughts and prayers. Definitely. I spent a lot of time with Evi over the years. --dmm > > john >
Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Michael StJohns wrote: > At 09:51 AM 6/27/2013, David Meyer wrote: >>On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >>> >>> On 6/27/13 3:34 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >>>> >>>> Why not just say directly that 'to prevent "capture", no more than X% of >>>> the NomCom may work for a single organization' (where X is 15% or so, so >>>> that even if a couple collude, they still can't get control). >>>> >>> >>> It's already in RFC 3777. No more than 2 per company. >> >>BTW, while I understand the spirit of 3777 on this point, I have >>always found the restriction somewhat at odds with our belief (hope?) >>that we represent ourselves and the best interest of the Internet at >>the IETF. > > This is where acculturation comes in. You and I are old hands - we've been > doing this almost too long to remember. This is built into our personal > perception of the IETF. Sadly - I think this attitude has become less and > less prevalent, both in the newer companies that have sent people and in the > newer people. Part of this appears to be a belief that the IETF is exactly > like all the other standards bodies and can be managed/manipulated by > throwing people at it. Given the current buy-in for the nomcom is about $6K > per year per person (based on about a $4K per person direct cost - I don't > know how to reasonably estimate the indirect costs of lost production because > of travel if any), that provides at least a small barrier to entry to that > type of manipulation, as does the acculturation that actually happens if they > attend 3/5 meetings. > > I really wish the IETF were a group of individuals, but I don't think that's > ever been completely true, and I have then impression its getting to the > point where its not even mostly true. Agree with all of your points Mike. --dmm > > Mike > > > >>In addition, a central ethic (IMO anyway) of the IETF has >>always been to honor individualism and independence, so I find it a >>bit strange that in the NomCom context we're all just corporate (or >>otherwise) drones. All of that said, evidently reality doesn't always >>match our ideals, hence clauses like the one you cite from 3777. --dmm > >
Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > > On 6/27/13 3:34 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> >> Why not just say directly that 'to prevent "capture", no more than X% of >> the NomCom may work for a single organization' (where X is 15% or so, so >> that even if a couple collude, they still can't get control). >> > > It's already in RFC 3777. No more than 2 per company. BTW, while I understand the spirit of 3777 on this point, I have always found the restriction somewhat at odds with our belief (hope?) that we represent ourselves and the best interest of the Internet at the IETF. In addition, a central ethic (IMO anyway) of the IETF has always been to honor individualism and independence, so I find it a bit strange that in the NomCom context we're all just corporate (or otherwise) drones. All of that said, evidently reality doesn't always match our ideals, hence clauses like the one you cite from 3777. --dmm
Re: IETF Meeting in South America
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > I think this is an excellent idea. The Adelaide meeting worked out fine, and > this would be a lot closer for a great many participants than that meeting > was. Likewise. --dmm > > Cheers, > Andy > > > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:54 AM, The IAOC wrote: >> >> As you may know the IAOC has been investigating the feasibility of having >> an IETF >> meeting in South America. There was a site visit to South America last >> February. >> We have found two venues that we believe will support a successful IETF >> meeting >> and we would like to get feedback from the community. >> >> The venues are in Buenos Aires. They meet our requirements for the >> meeting >> space, networking, nearby restaurants and bars, hotel room rates in the >> mid $200 >> dollar range, nearby alternate hotels at a broad range of prices, nice >> area in the >> city, safe, direct international flights, and accessible visas. The IAOC >> thinks we >> could have a successful IETF meeting in Buenos Aires and that attendees >> would >> like the venues. >> >> There has been a consistent level of IETF participation from South and >> Central >> America, and it has been growing since IETF82. The data on this is posted >> at >> >>http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-Regional-Attendance-00.pdf. >> >> The current meeting regional rotation (announced at IETF79) allows for an >> occasional IETF meeting outside of our main regions (Europe, North >> America, >> Asia/Pacific). >> >> IETF standards are made more valuable the more relevant they are and the >> more >> uptake they get. IETF standards are also made more robust when all >> perspectives >> are represented during their development. Encouraging growing >> participation >> will help strengthen the Internet, further encourage participation from >> those areas >> that will see the most growth in the coming years, and will help advance >> the IETF >> in political and international circles which is becoming more of an >> imperative. >> >> We have asked the IESG for their feedback and they are supportive of a >> meeting in >> South America if there is community support and active participants >> attend. >> >> Things to consider are that it will be a long trip for the majority of >> IETFers and the >> air fares are more expensive (about 10% to 20% higher than average), >> though >> restaurants are less expensive. This would be a case where most IETFers >> would >> bear more travel pain and expense. >> >> The IAOC would like to understand if the IETF community thinks that the >> IETF >> should have a meeting in the next few years in Buenos Aires. The IAOC >> would >> also like to get feedback on how we can ensure the meeting is as >> successful as >> possible and on ways to grow participation in the region. >> >> We have set up a survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NWYLQCD where >> you can indicate your likelihood of attending, and we encourage you to >> send your >> general feedback to the IETF list . >> >> Thanks, >> Bob Hinden >> IAOC Chair > >
Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. > -- bob dylan > > we do not need measurements to know the ietf is embarrassingly > non-diverse. it is derived from and embedded in an embarrassingly > non-diverse culture. > > we need to do what we can to remedy this. progress not perfection is > our goal. > > measurement may be useful to see if we are having effect and/or what > things have effect (meeting locales, size of cookies, ...). > > we should be asking the minorities and those struggling to particiate > what we can do to help. > > randy > Nicely said Randy. --dmm
Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Apr 11, 2013, at 4:50 PM, David Meyer wrote: > > Agreed, however, it would seem to me that at least one question that one > might as is whether these percentages are representative of the IETF > population at large. > > > A rough eyeball check at the plenary in Orlando suggested that it was not. > But we don't have any statistics. Personally I'm not sure how much the > precise numbers matter when they are as low as they appear to be at > present, though. > Yes, but that is a different question. --dmm
Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > Hi, SM, > > This may be a misprint ... > > On 4/11/2013 3:21 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > >> On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:43 PM, SM wrote: >> >>> 12.5 % of IAOC voting members are female. >>>0.1% of IAB members are female >>>0 % of IESG members are female. >>> >>> Based on the above measurements the IAOC is more "diverse". The IAOC >>> already collects gender-related information. The other information >>> requested in the meeting registration form is strictly for meeting >>> attendance purposes. The sensitive questions referred to above have >>> nothing to do with meeting attendance. >>> >> >> With respect, this is sampling noise. 12.5% of 8 is 1. Don't get me >> wrong—it's great that we have some diversity on the IAOC, but I don't think >> anybody should be patting themselves on the back just yet! >> >> What diversity is the IAOC measuring? >> > > By my count, the current IAB membership is 15 (12 Nomcom-selected, plus > the IETF chair, plus the ExecDir, plus the IRTF Chair - these last two are > ex-officio and non-voting). > > If the IAB means "members", the number for females, as far as I know(*), > is 2/15, or 13 percent. If it means voting members, the number for females > is 1/13, or just under 8 percent. > > Other diversities also matter, and I'm just doing math here (**). > Agreed, however, it would seem to me that at least one question that one might as is whether these percentages are representative of the IETF population at large. --dmm > > Spencer > > (*) In my spare time, I'm co-president of PFLAG Dallas, which is a local > chapter of PFLAG, an abbreviated abbreviation of "Parents, Families and > Friends of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual _and Transgender_ people", so I know I > can't claim definitive knowledge on who's what ... only on what people > appear to be. > > (**) I think diversity matters, and didn't want us to look less > gender-diverse than we are ... >
Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
+1 --dmm On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Geoff Huston wrote: > > On 28/11/2012, at 5:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley > wrote: > >> > >>> That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a > >>> waste of time, that it was e-mail that was the main vehicle for work, > >>> and I think that the IETF web site has it about right when it says > >> > >> This is all true. Any decision come to during a meeting session must > >> be reviewed and approved on the WG mailing list. The reason for this > >> is to ensure that one can participate completely *without* attending > >> the meetings and paying the associated expenses. > > > > This brings up a question that I have as an AD: > > > > A number of times since I started in this position in March, documents > > have come to the IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into > > the document history for... to find that there's basically no history. > > We see a string of versions posted, some with significant updates to > > the text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion. Nothing at > > all. The first we see of the document on the mailing list is a > > working group last call message, which gets somewhere between zero and > > two responses (which say "It's ready."), and then it's sent to the > > responsible AD requesting publication. > > > > When I ask the responsible AD or the document shepherd about that, the > > response is that, well, no one commented on the list, but it was > > discussed in the face-to-face meetings. A look in the minutes of a > > few meetings shows that it was discussed, but, of course, the minutes > > show little or none of the discussion. > > > > We accept that, and we review the document as usual, accepting the > > document shepherd's writeup that says that the document has "broad > > consensus of the working group." > > > > So here's my question: > > Does the community want us to push back on those situations? > > I do not speak for the community, naturally, but this particular member of > the community says: Very much so. > > if neither the mailing list or the minutes of the meetings are showing no > visible activity then its reasonable to conclude that the document is not > the product of an open consensus based activity, and the proponents behind > the document, who presumably used other fora (presumably closed) to get > their document up the the IESG. If the IESG rubber stamps this because "its > just an informational" or "well, the document shepherd claimed that it had > been reviewed" then the IESG is as derelict in its duty. > > If a document in WG last call gets no visible support on the WG mailing > list then it should never head to the IESG, nor should the IESG publish to > draft. > > > > Does the > > community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing > > lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the > > community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose > > process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process > > was not properly followed? > > > I do not speak for the community, naturally, but this particular member of > the community says: yes, of course. > > regards, > > Geoff > > > >
Re: In Memoriam IETF web page
While I applaud the idea, I have to agree with Benson here. --dmm On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > I feel a little bad saying this, because these individuals deserve > recognition. But I rather think this memorial page is not a good idea. > > If the IETF is around long enough, eventually all members of the community > will die. (Unless medical science makes some amazing achievements, I > suppose...) It's easy today to recognize a few people that made large > contributions earlier in the IETF's history. But at some point the list will > grow large, until it has lost its significance. And yet, at that point, it > may be unseemly to stop the tradition, and even more unseemly to delete the > existing memorial. > > I don't want to be insensitive, and I'm sorry to point this out. But I think > we're better off with heart-felt, personal memorials from living people that > remember and care about the departed. > > -Benson > > > > On 10/21/12 11:43 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> >> Good idea, but suggest to go wider than your a-d and stick to: >>> >>> anyone who was "part >>> of the IETF community". >> >> In practice, that will mean, anyone who someone else thinks was a part of >> the >> community. >> >> It would not be seemly to squabble about whether someone had really played >> a >> significant part in the IETF, and would be better to include anyone on >> request. >> I think the reality is that no=one would make the request unless they felt >> that >> the IETF had been a significant part of the deceased's life. >> >> Cheers, >> Adrian >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >>> Dave >>> Crocker >>> Sent: 21 October 2012 17:32 >>> To: IETF Discussion >>> Subject: In Memoriam IETF web page >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> A thread on the nanog list, about abha ahuja, reminds me of a suggestion >>> I made casually to a few folk after the last IETF meeting: >>> >>>We should consider having a persistent IETF page in memory of >>> people who were part of our community. >>> >>> While the idea is simple, the comments I got back make clear that it >>> needs to be pursued carefully. That requires some formality. >>> >>> There are two different lines of consideration. These are offered as a >>> starting point for discussion: >>> >>> >>> 1. Who should be listed? >>> >>>A number of different models make sense, but the challenge is >>> something that is workable. For example, it does not seem like the sort >>> of thing that would be appropriate for a consensus call to the >>> community, for each entry. I think that means the rules should be >>> entirely mechanical. >>> >>>Conceptually, the goal should be to include anyone who was "part >>> of the IETF community". I'll suggest that any of these would qualify: >>> >>>a. Held a formal position in the IETF (AD, WG Chair, IAOC/Trust, >>> IAB, IRTF, Nomcom, ...are there others?) >>> >>>b. Held a position on an IETF committee (directorate, >>> advisory, ...) >>> >>>c. Held a position on IETF staff (IAD, RFC Editor and, I think, >>> this should include on-going contractors, including AMS and RFC >>> document editors. >>> >>>d. RFC author >>> >>> >>> 2. What should be the form of the page? >>> >>>I suggest we keep it extremely simple: an alphabetic listing by >>> name, with a photo, if available, and a pointer to a page if they have >>> one. In some cases, the IETF might formulate its own page for a person, >>> but that's distinct from this basic listing. >>> >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> d/ >>> >>> -- >>>Dave Crocker >>>Brandenburg InternetWorking >>>bbiw.net > >
Re: IPv6 networking: Bad news for small biz
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2012, at 5:21 35PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >>> From: Doug Barton >> >>> My comments were directed towards those who still have the mindset, >>> "NAT is the enemy, and must be slain at all costs!" >> >> In semi-defense of that attitude, NAT (architecturally) _is_ a crock - it >> puts >> 'brittle' (because it's hard to replicate, manage, etc) state in the middle >> of >> the network. Having said that, I understand why people went down the NAT road >> - when doing a real-world cost/benefit analysis, that path was, for all its >> problems, the preferable one. > > NAT didn't really exist when the basic shape of v6 was selected. Perhaps, but that it would happen is obvious (even to the most causal observer). Dave >> >> Part of the real problem has been that the IETF failed to carefully study, >> and >> take to heart, the operational capabilities which NAT provided (such as >> avoidance of renumbering, etc, etc), and then _failed to exert every possible >> effort_ to provide those same capabilities in an equally 'easy to use' way. > > They thought -- or claimed -- that they had renumbering... > > v6 is not the protocol I would have chosen. For that matter, it's not the > protocol I pushed for, as hard as I could, in the IPng directorate. At this > point -- with all of its technical mistakes, IETF omissions, and difficulty > of converting, we're stuck with it; we simply do not have time -- even if > we agreed now on what we should have done, way back when -- to start over. > Do the arithmetic... Assume we know, today, the basic structure of a > perfect replacement for v4. It would take a minimum of 3 years to get > through the IETF, not because of process but because there are so many > things that it touches, like the DNS, BGP, OSPF, and more. There are > also all of the little side-pieces, like the ARP/ND replacement, the PPP > goo, etc. After that, it's 3 years of design/code/test by Microsoft, > Apple, Cisco, Juniper, et al., following which we have the whole education > cycle, the replacement cycle while old boxes die off and are replaced, and > more. (Look at how many Windows XP boxes still exist -- and we're well > into the second major release of Windows since then, and Windows 8 might > be out before the end of the year.) By my arithmetic, it's a dozen years > minimum, *after* we've agreed on the basic design. > > > --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb > > > > >
Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > The question I would ask is: "who are the vendors marketing to, and what are > they selling?" At NANOG, that's fairly clear; companies like Cisco and > Juniper, and resellers like Network Hardware, are selling to their customers, > who are often technical decision makers or senior staff in companies that buy > the stuff. The vendors that sponsor the event go home with business cards, > which give them the opportunity for sales contacts after the event. Those > people also come to IETF, but many others at IETF are from exactly those > vendors, or from research and academia. I'm not convinced that the lead > generation exercise, which is the vendor's reason for showing up and > sponsoring the event, is going to be as useful for them. > > Not opposed to the experiment, but not sure that we're comparing apples to > apples. While I agree Fred, what the beer'n'gear really provides is another venue for our community to socialize (just like any other social event). Even at the IETF social events are "sponsored" to different degrees. So while vendors get to display their wares, for the most part B'n'G provides another "hallway" where people can socialize/talk while having free beer and food (as well as a way for NANOG to generate revenue). In the NANOG case this is a win-win, however, for the reasons you cite it would be an experiment at the IETF. Dave > > On Mar 16, 2012, at 12:49 PM, IAOC Chair wrote: > >> >> The IESG and IAOC are considering an addition to the IETF meeting week, and >> we would like your views before we develop the idea further. >> >> At NANOG, there is a Beer and Gear reception one evening. There are >> exhibitor tables with product vendors (hardware and software) and service >> providers (registries, registrars, ISPs, ESPs, etc.) and anyone else >> interested in face time with NANOG participants. They show their equipment >> and services. There is bar in the center of the room serving beer, wine, >> and soft drinks. There are hors d'oeuvres scattered around the room. >> >> QUESTION: What do you think about doing a Beer and Gear style >> of event on an evening that does not conflict with >> other IETF activities? >> >> This would be an opportunity for free food and drink for attendees, for >> vendors and service providers to talk with IETF participants, and for >> additional revenue to the IETF. Obviously, attendance would be optional. >> >> Technical people are at the tables, not sales or marketing staff. Vendors >> know that the audience is very technical, so they send the people that can >> communicate with that audience. >> >> We would charge for exhibit tables, to raise additional funds for the IETF. >> A stronger base of opportunities for IETF sponsorship distributes our >> funding, making it less fragile; this could make it less likely that we >> would have last-minute scrambles for additional sponsors, including hosts. A >> successful Beer-and-Gear like event would not solve this but it would help. >> >> In the past, the IETF has avoided vendor exhibits and demonstrations. >> However it is clear that NANOG has found a balance that works and that NANOG >> participants and the vendors consider the event valuable. We believe this >> could translate well to the IETF. >> >> We are considering some test events, hopefully to be held at IETF 84 >> (Vancouver, July 2012) and IETF 85 (Atlanta, November 2012). >> >> The kinds of evaluation criteria we are considering could include: >> >> - Did participants enjoy the event? >> >> - Did vendors consider the event successful? >> >> - Did the IETF raise additional funds? >> >> - Did the event "steal" potential sponsors away from other >> aspects of the meeting? >> >> So, what do you think? Is this something that we should try? >> >> Please respond on the ietf@ietf.org mail list. >> >> On behalf of the IESG and the IAOC, >> >> Russ Housley >> Bob Hinden >
Re: Steve Coya
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 02:53:36PM -0400, Steve Crocker wrote: > This is indeed sad news. Steve was energetic and dedicated, and we all > benefitted greatly from his contributions. Very sad. Steve was a great guy, always full of energy, optimistic, and very dedicated. And he had a great sense of humor. Dave signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: LISP: update to charter in external review
Harald, > My understanding (seen from a VERY long distance) is that the routing > scaling problems are substantially the same for both dialects > of IP, Correct. > and that initial efforts have focused on encapsulating either, > with the initial experiments using IPv4 as the encapsulating > protocol. > > Is this understanding correct? Close. First, no formal experiments have been defined in the WG context (to the best of my knowledge). Next, we have 4-to-4-over-6 (464), 6-to-6-over-4 (646), 4-to-4-over-4 (444) and 6-to-6-over-6 spec'ed and running in the field, so any combination of those is available for experimentation. Of course, any X6X (for X = 4 or 6) requires a 6 path between xTRs. Dave signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: bandwidth (and other support) required for multicast
A few comments: > > I'm very supportive of both trying to deploy multicast and trying to > make it possible to participate in IETF meetings from remote locations. > But if the current effort isn't working, maybe we need to try something > different. Do you think the broadcasts aren't working or multicast connectivity isn't working? Both? Something different? > Or as a first step perhaps we could take some concrete and relatively > easy steps to determine how well things are working: > > 1. poll WG chairs from the last IETF to see how many people contributed > things in real time from remote locations. Well, not relevant; most people listen, just as they do when they are present (and BTW, this is a completely legitimate reason to do the multicasts). > 2. if we have a list of email addresses of multicast participants from > the last IETF, ask those folks how well it worked for them. Surveys of this type are hard to do, but it would be interesting to understand what worked. Extrapolating from that to what the user problem is, however, is likely impossible (after the fact), and so the data will be less useful that one might like. > 3. for the next meeting, update the IETF web pages to describe how to > attend the meeting via multicast - where to get the tools for your > particular platform, how to determine whether your ISP supports > multicast, and so on. Much of this information is available on http://videolab.uoregon.edu Finally, its our (IETF) technology. If its not good enough for us to use, then we might want to think about what we're doing and why. Its also important to note that for the 1-to-many case of IETF broadcast, the problems that we face in todays multicast world will be somewhat eased by SSM deployment. Dave
Re: IETF logistics
Bill, just a minor note > it was done. And with a nod to our commercial brethren, it might bre > reasonable to retransmit sessions over some high-capacity, > under-utilized infrastructure like the I2 fabric to reach more people. > And given the lower costs for video-capture it ought to be possible to > do more than two sessions at a go. do you mean other than multicasting it? Dave
Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning
What I have observed is that the discussions in the face to
face WG meetings are very useful, and frequently result in
resolution (to be ratified by the WG's mailing list) of both
technical and procedural issues (if the meetings are not
useful for these purposes, why are we doing this in the first
place).
In addition, the number of people present certainly poses a
logistical problem (ie. the rooms/hallways were too small),
and in this way might have hurt WG progress (i.e., you
couldn't get in). However, as I noted, the damage is due to
logistical factors which are within our (IETF) control (i.e.,
get a bigger hotel). Said another way, I do not believe that
the increased number of people has harmed the S/N ratio in any
of my WGs, nor any that I attended. The people who participate
participate and the people who don't don't. I don't have
a problem with that.
Finally, adopting draconian measures that make the IETF some
kind of secret/privileged society will mark the beginning of
the end of the its usefulness. I would hate to see that
happen.
Dave
[BTW, none of this addresses the value of what happens in
the hallways and bars]
According to Scott Brim:
>
> On 19 Dec 2000 at 11:08 -0800, Matthew Goldman apparently wrote:
> > Speaking for myself, but I'm sure this applies to more than just me: I read
> > the relevant RFCs and drafts ("did my homework"), but I am not "active" by
> > the strict definitions some have used in this thread (at least not yet). I
> > pre-paid the meeting fee (in good faith that in return for accepting my
> > meeting fee, the IETF would provide meeting facilities commensurate to
> > enable my participation), I paid for travel and went. I followed all IETF
> > policies and procedures. Therefore, do I not have the "right" to be able to
> > sit comfortably in a meeting room and be able to hear the speakers, and
> > participate if I chose to, as much as anyone else?
>
> Why did you go? What did you get out of it that you didn't get out of
> the mailing list? Results of in-person meetings are never final, and
> can be challenged by mail if you have good engineering reasons to do so.
> (I admit this is sometimes mostly theory, but you can appeal to the IESG
> if you think practice is deviating too much from theory.)
>
> > If you strictly limit attendance to a meeting room based on previous
> > participation, you will have no new participation, or "cross fertilization"
> > of ideas (as someone stated).
>
> Participation by mail before participation in person.
>
> ...Scott
>
>
