Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
On Aug 3, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: My point was about the failure to make sure there was large-scale, multi-vendor, in-the-wild *service*. Anything that constraint [in] what can go wrong will limit the ability to make the technology robust and usable. There are currently millions of unconstrained large-scale, in-the- wild services being manipulated and controlled by criminals. Constraints that must be taken seriously are related to the economies limiting the staging of DDoS attacks. Criminals often utilize tens of thousands of 0wned systems. These systems often send large email campaigns. Any scheme that expects receipt of a message to invoke a process that initiates additional traffic must be carefully considered. Expecting recipients to employ the local-part of a purported originator's email-address to then construct dozens or even hundreds of DNS transactions wholly unrelated to the actual source of the message is a prime example of how economies related to DDoS attacks are being gravely shifted in the wrong direction. Spammer are already spamming, either directly or through an ISP's outbound server. Lacking a reasonable constraint on the recipient process, criminals can attack without expending their resources and not expose the location of their systems. Using SPF/Sender-ID as an example, just one DNS resource record is able to source an attack comprised of millions of recipient generated DNS transactions. The lack of receipt process constraint in this case is an example of either negligence or incompetence. Here an attack may employ several levels of indirection and yet nothing germane to the attack will be found within email logs. Not imposing reasonable constraints does not make the Internet either more robust or usable. -Doug ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
Tom.Petch wrote: Certainly there were early prototypes of OSI modules, and even running products. ... OSI got well beyond the prototype stage. Major manufacturers produced products and I was involved with their implementation. So did minor manufacturers. We (Wollongong) developed and sold a full OSI stack, from clnp up through x.400. That's why I said "running products". At base, however, such products were purchased more as a checklist item than for real use. My point was about the failure to make sure there was large-scale, multi-vendor, in-the-wild *service*. Anything that constraint what can go wrong will limit the ability to make the technology robust and usable. It is the focus on pragmatic steps that make the technology usable that I believe Clark was referring to, by saying "running code". d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
Tom.Petch wrote: Certainly there were early prototypes of OSI modules, and even running products. ... OSI got well beyond the prototype stage. Major manufacturers produced products and I was involved with their implementation. So did minor manufacturers. We (Wollongong) developed and sold a full OSI stack, from clnp up through x.400. that's why I said "running products". At base, however, such products were purchased more as a checklist item than for real use. My point was about the failure to make sure there was large-scale, multi-vendor, in-the-wild *service*. Anything that constraint what can go wrong will limit the ability to make the technology robust and usable. It is the focus on pragmatic steps that make the technology usable that I believe Clark was referring to, by saying "running code". d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
- Original Message - From: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "David Conrad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 8:22 PM Subject: Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?) > > David Conrad wrote: > > I'd offer that the OSI protocol stack was probably significantly more > > reviewed than the TCP/IP stack. > > Depends what you mean by "more reviewed". > > More eyes looking at the specs? Probably yes. More critical analysis by > senior technical architects? Probably not. > > > At the very least, running code is an empirical proof that an > > architecture _can_ work. > > Again, depends upon what one means by running code. > > Certainly there were early prototypes of OSI modules, and even running > products. Clearly, that was not enough. In contrast, the Internet code was > deployed and used in a running service, with increasing scale. So the > distinction between prototype and production is probably of fundamental > importance. (I think that Dave Clark really meant "running service" when he > said "running code".) > OSI got well beyond the prototype stage. Major manufacturers produced products and I was involved with their implementation. From c.1990 to c.1995 we all knew that, with such a weight of political pressure behind it, OSI was bound to sweep all before it. By 1995, the tide had turned, but it was not the lack of interoperable, production software that did the turning. Tom Petch > d/ > > -- > >Dave Crocker >Brandenburg InternetWorking >bbiw.net > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
On 2-aug-2007, at 21:17, Dave Crocker wrote: It was also interesting to open the Mac network control pannel, enable my Airport (WLAN) interface, and see the IPv6 global address appear almost instantaneously and in many case having to wait many seconds to minutes for DHCP provided IPv4 address to appear. Any chance this was merely due to a difference in scaling, with IPv4 DHCP usage being large-scale and IPv6 being small? I suppose the more constructive way to ask this is: Does anyone know why one worked better than the other? I don't think there was any IPv6 DHCP, and if there was, most hosts wouldn't have used it because they don't implement it. The advantage of stateless autoconf over DHCP is that with stateless autoconf, a singe router advertisement multicast to all IPv6 hosts can provide an unlimited number of hosts with address information (the hosts still need to do duplicate address detection, but since no reply means success it's hard to fail here) so it's eminently more scalable than DHCP. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
Bob Hinden wrote: It was also interesting to open the Mac network control pannel, enable my Airport (WLAN) interface, and see the IPv6 global address appear almost instantaneously and in many case having to wait many seconds to minutes for DHCP provided IPv4 address to appear. Any chance this was merely due to a difference in scaling, with IPv4 DHCP usage being large-scale and IPv6 being small? I suppose the more constructive way to ask this is: Does anyone know why one worked better than the other? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
> yes! > I tried to resist the 47th rehash of this thread, but... too late... > > Within a commercial environment, the organization has to be > fairly convinced that their better mousetrap is going to work, > in order to fund it, productize it, document it, sell it, and support it. > > This process will always find more bugs in the mousetrap than > simply documenting it and skipping all the other steps. > > If a vendor bothers to do all this, and multiple IETFers can say in a BoF > that they have used the mousetrap and it really does work, > that is worth a whole lot more than "I read the draft and > it looks pretty good". yes. but then again, vendors are insensitive to certain kinds of bugs. the myriad bugs produced by introduction of NAT are good examples. a little bit of analysis should have convinced any responsible vendor to either not sell NAT products, or to be honest in marketing them and to accompany them with rather strong disclaimers. (not to attack NATs specifically, they're just the most obvious of many examples and the easiest ones to cite) > There is a certain amount of healthy risk that the IESG > can take when chartering new standards-track work. > Prior implementations should not be a gating factor, but > it makes their decision much easier when there is objective > evidence the mousetrap actually works and it is already being > used by the industry. again, being used by the industry is no indicator of soundness. and being used by the industry in the absence of public protocol review is highly correlated with poor design. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
David Conrad wrote: I'd offer that the OSI protocol stack was probably significantly more reviewed than the TCP/IP stack. Depends what you mean by "more reviewed". More eyes looking at the specs? Probably yes. More critical analysis by senior technical architects? Probably not. > At the very least, running code is an empirical proof that an > architecture _can_ work. Again, depends upon what one means by running code. Certainly there were early prototypes of OSI modules, and even running products. Clearly, that was not enough. In contrast, the Internet code was deployed and used in a running service, with increasing scale. So the distinction between prototype and production is probably of fundamental importance. (I think that Dave Clark really meant "running service" when he said "running code".) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
Lixia Zhang wrote: .. I think we've seen several examples of where the IETF has spent significant amount of energy, ranging from heated discussions to specification work, on solutions that simply won't fly. It would be useful if that energy waste could be reduced. Having 'running code' as a barrier for serious consideration within the IETF may be one approach. I agree that running code should be given extra weight, but I am not sure that running code should be a requirement for something which is not well understood yet (some Lemonade WG documents come to mind). forgive me for jumping into the middle of a discussion (and I did not know which of the lemonade doc's the above referred to), but my past experience seems suggesting that an attempt to implement a "not well understood" idea is a good way towards a better understanding of how to make the idea work, or what can be potential issues. Yes, but this is only useful once one understands what is actually needed in a spec to begin with ;-). I found running code most useful when the spec is nearly ready for publication. IMHO, "running code" gets more credit than is warranted. While it is certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of implementability, mere existence of running code says nothing about the quality of the design, its security, scalability, breadth of applicability, and so forth. "running code" was perhaps sufficient in ARPAnet days when there were only a few hundred hosts and a few thousand users of the network. It's not sufficient for global mission critical infrastructure. it seems to me the above argues that running code is necessary, but not sufficient as evidence of a sound design. Agreed. Running code is useful to identify things that are difficult to implement or unclear. (well, that is the interpretation; I have not seen anywhere a claim that running code is sufficient, but rather simply to filter out the weed) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
Lixia Zhang wrote: .. I think we've seen several examples of where the IETF has spent significant amount of energy, ranging from heated discussions to specification work, on solutions that simply won't fly. It would be useful if that energy waste could be reduced. Having 'running code' as a barrier for serious consideration within the IETF may be one approach. I agree that running code should be given extra weight, but I am not sure that running code should be a requirement for something which is not well understood yet (some Lemonade WG documents come to mind). forgive me for jumping into the middle of a discussion (and I did not know which of the lemonade doc's the above referred to), but my past experience seems suggesting that an attempt to implement a "not well understood" idea is a good way towards a better understanding of how to make the idea work, or what can be potential issues. yes! I tried to resist the 47th rehash of this thread, but... too late... Within a commercial environment, the organization has to be fairly convinced that their better mousetrap is going to work, in order to fund it, productize it, document it, sell it, and support it. This process will always find more bugs in the mousetrap than simply documenting it and skipping all the other steps. If a vendor bothers to do all this, and multiple IETFers can say in a BoF that they have used the mousetrap and it really does work, that is worth a whole lot more than "I read the draft and it looks pretty good". There is a certain amount of healthy risk that the IESG can take when chartering new standards-track work. Prior implementations should not be a gating factor, but it makes their decision much easier when there is objective evidence the mousetrap actually works and it is already being used by the industry. But implementation and deployment are not enough alone. There also needs to be some pre-existing consensus that a standard version could be written and approved by the IETF, and people are willing to work on it. The slogan says "rough consensus and running code". It doesn't say "rough consensus, then running code". Without running code, there is no deployment. Without deployment, there is no point to this exercise. Andy IMHO, "running code" gets more credit than is warranted. While it is certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of implementability, mere existence of running code says nothing about the quality of the design, its security, scalability, breadth of applicability, and so forth. "running code" was perhaps sufficient in ARPAnet days when there were only a few hundred hosts and a few thousand users of the network. It's not sufficient for global mission critical infrastructure. it seems to me the above argues that running code is necessary, but not sufficient as evidence of a sound design. (well, that is the interpretation; I have not seen anywhere a claim that running code is sufficient, but rather simply to filter out the weed) Lixia ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
.. I think we've seen several examples of where the IETF has spent significant amount of energy, ranging from heated discussions to specification work, on solutions that simply won't fly. It would be useful if that energy waste could be reduced. Having 'running code' as a barrier for serious consideration within the IETF may be one approach. I agree that running code should be given extra weight, but I am not sure that running code should be a requirement for something which is not well understood yet (some Lemonade WG documents come to mind). forgive me for jumping into the middle of a discussion (and I did not know which of the lemonade doc's the above referred to), but my past experience seems suggesting that an attempt to implement a "not well understood" idea is a good way towards a better understanding of how to make the idea work, or what can be potential issues. IMHO, "running code" gets more credit than is warranted. While it is certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of implementability, mere existence of running code says nothing about the quality of the design, its security, scalability, breadth of applicability, and so forth. "running code" was perhaps sufficient in ARPAnet days when there were only a few hundred hosts and a few thousand users of the network. It's not sufficient for global mission critical infrastructure. it seems to me the above argues that running code is necessary, but not sufficient as evidence of a sound design. (well, that is the interpretation; I have not seen anywhere a claim that running code is sufficient, but rather simply to filter out the weed) Lixia ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
-- Original message -- From: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > --On Tuesday, 31 July, 2007 01:23 -0400 Jeffrey Altman > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The notion that NomCom eligibility should be determined by > > those who attend meetings just doesn't make a lot of sense for > > an organization that prides itself on only making consensus > > decisions on mailing lists. ... > I wouldn't go so far as "doesn't make a lot of sense", although > I agree that it is problematic. The difficulty has been, in > part, that no one has proposed a better system and, in part, > because of an assumption that the meeting-attendees are much > more likely to be in touch with personality, skills, and > behavior patterns than those who particular purely by mailing > list. I was one of the folks who invented the noncom eligibility scheme way back when. the nomcom's job is evaluating people and their suitability for a particular job. our view at the time, and my view still, was that the best way to accomplish that task is to actually see that person in action -- to see how they conduct themselves in meetings, how they deal with "issues", how they think on their feet, and so on. one might argue that looking at the email record would suffice -- but on the internet, no one knows if you're a dog or not... this does skew the candidate pools for both the nomcom and iab/iesg positions to people who attend meetings. we knew that then. we felt that it was a relatively minor downside. and besides, the meetings _are_ an important part of the ietf/etc... > Of course, the latter assumption becomes more dubious as > the community gets larger and the Nomcom members know > proportionately fewer people and need to rely more on what they > can learn from interviews and questionnaires than on their > personal knowledge and experience. while true, it is a significant problem if one wishes the nomcom to find The One Best person for a job. if one is willing to accept a person who is "good enough", then evaluating a smaller percentage of a larger pool is probably ok. the scheme is not perfect -- but perfection was not the goal. workability and simplicity were. frank kastenholz ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Hi Peter, --On July 30, 2007 2:11:38 PM -0600 Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Further, in-person meetings are so second-millennium. How about greater use of text chat, voice chat, and video chat for interim meetings? Are three in-person meetings a year really necessary if we make use of collaborative technologies that have become common in the last 15 years? All that will do is shift the discussion from "where shall we hold the meeting" to "what time/timezone shall we have for our conf call". Given that we have people participating from across the globe, trying to arrange a time that is acceptable for all participants will be just as hard as trying to find a meeting venue acceptable to all. Unfortunately we don't have scheduling tools that will help resolve issues like that (or at least make it easier than a multiple party email exchange/negotiation) - but some of us are working on that! -- Cyrus Daboo ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 05:51:21PM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 21 lines which said: > Five days in Minneapolis I thought we did not want to have meetings in dangerous places like Paris or Rio? http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/01/bridge.witness.ap/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
>A good start would be explaining what exactly went wrong with the >DHCP server(s) this time. "We have a problem and we're working on it" >is not all that helpful. I wasn't directly involved in debugging this, but this is what I gathered from later discussions: The bottom line seemed to be a DHCP server that was configured to use DNS UPDATE combined with a DNS server that was configured to refuse DNS UPDATE. The DHCP server started out working OK, but apparently had more and more threads working on sending updates to the DNS server and started to fail to be able to usefully send DHCP responses. After a restart, it would serve fine for a while and then bog down again. Each tweak to the configuration would seem to fix the problem since the associated restart would cause service to be zippy again for a while. Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
I'd offer that the OSI protocol stack was probably significantly more reviewed than the TCP/IP stack. At the very least, running code is an empirical proof that an architecture _can_ work. Rgds, -drc On Aug 1, 2007, at 8:35 AM, Eric Burger wrote: My faulty recollection is that in our game of rock-paper-scissors, Running Code beats Untested Idea, but Well Reviewed Architecture and Protocol beats Running Code. On 7/31/07 11:34 PM, "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: IMHO, "running code" gets more credit than is warranted. While it is certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of implementability, mere existence of running code says nothing about the quality of the design, its security, scalability, breadth of applicability, and so forth. "running code" was perhaps sufficient in ARPAnet days when there were only a few hundred hosts and a few thousand users of the network. It's not sufficient for global mission critical infrastructure. tend to agree. how about "multiple interoperable implementations"? that's certainly better than one implementation, especially if implemented on multiple platforms. though still, I think, this is not sufficient in general. again, I'm biased because I've heard too many arguments of the form "we have running code for , and it's already (somewhat) deployed so we have to approve it as a standard without changing it". Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
On Jul 31, 2007, at 6:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote: And, while I'm picking on DHCP because I personally had more problems with it, I see IPv6 authconfig as being exactly the same issue: we are telling the world that these things work and they should be using them; if we can't make them work for our own meetings... Whether one regards IPv6 as "ready for prime-time" depends upon location. IPv6 appears to represent a metric measurement in the only industrially developed nation, despite a 1975 act of Congress, still is using fahrenheit, ounce, pound, inch, feet, and mile. There will always be problems offering an excuse not to adopt change, even when the rest of world has. Oddly, a 2x4 is neither, but might be required to promote change. -Doug ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
My faulty recollection is that in our game of rock-paper-scissors, Running Code beats Untested Idea, but Well Reviewed Architecture and Protocol beats Running Code. On 7/31/07 11:34 PM, "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: >>> IMHO, "running code" gets more credit than is warranted. While it is >>> certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of implementability, >>> mere existence of running code says nothing about the quality of the >>> design, its security, scalability, breadth of applicability, and so >>> forth. "running code" was perhaps sufficient in ARPAnet days when there >>> were only a few hundred hosts and a few thousand users of the network. >>> It's not sufficient for global mission critical infrastructure. >>> >> >> tend to agree. how about "multiple interoperable implementations"? >> > that's certainly better than one implementation, especially if > implemented on multiple platforms. though still, I think, this is not > sufficient in general. > > again, I'm biased because I've heard too many arguments of the form "we > have running code for , and it's already (somewhat) > deployed so we have to approve it as a standard without changing it". > > Keith > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
Keith Moore wrote: The danger here is that when people bring work to IETF, they might refuse to change protocols which are already deployed. This already happens to far too great a degree. People keep arguing that because they have running/deployed code, IETF has to standardize exactly what they have already produced. In many cases things that are deployed before they get widespread design review are very poorly designed. Indeed. And I have to admit that I have been in situations like this myself. There were several cases when I was reluctant to upgrade my code to the latest draft when I've implemented a previous version. I think we've seen several examples of where the IETF has spent significant amount of energy, ranging from heated discussions to specification work, on solutions that simply won't fly. It would be useful if that energy waste could be reduced. Having 'running code' as a barrier for serious consideration within the IETF may be one approach. I agree that running code should be given extra weight, but I am not sure that running code should be a requirement for something which is not well understood yet (some Lemonade WG documents come to mind). IMHO, "running code" gets more credit than is warranted. While it is certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of implementability, Yes. I found that implementing a spec before WG/IETF LC pretty much always improves the spec. So although I see many benefits in running code, I don't think it should be given more weight that it deserves. mere existence of running code says nothing about the quality of the design, its security, scalability, breadth of applicability, and so forth. Agree. "running code" was perhaps sufficient in ARPAnet days when there were only a few hundred hosts and a few thousand users of the network. It's not sufficient for global mission critical infrastructure. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 17:24 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > IMHO, "running code" gets more credit than is warranted. While it is > certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of > implementability, mere existence of running code says nothing about > the quality of the design, its security, scalability, breadth of > applicability, and so forth. "running code" was perhaps sufficient in > ARPAnet days when there were only a few hundred hosts and a few > thousand users of the network. It's not sufficient for global mission > critical infrastructure. A simple axiom "Do not execute scripts from strangers" is often violated. The Noscript plugin for Firefox represents an excellent (and highly recommended) example of this principle in action. Unfortunately, a mouse-click is often not required for a computer to become 0wned. : ( When coping with spam, security issues related to DNS are often ignored. Concerns raised in the draft-otis-spf-dos-exploit were dismissed by suggesting list of bogus NS records are not limited to the same extent anyway. Many libraries implementing SPF do not impose limits on the MX record, or the number of NXDOMAIN, suggested as fixes in the OpenSPF group's rebuttal. http://www.openspf.org/draft-otis-spf-dos-exploit_Analysis Ironically, the rebuttal points out a bogus NS record method that worsens a DDoS barrage that can be caused by SPF. SPF remains a significant risk, even when limited to just 10 SPF record transactions per email-address evaluated. With local-part macro expansion, these DNS transactions represent a gift of a recipient's resources given at no cost to the spammer. DDoS attacks made absolutely free and unstoppable! Offering a method to macro expand elements of the email-address local-part, when used in a spam campaign, allows a _single_ cached SPF record to cause an _unlimited_ number of DNS transactions from any remote DNS resolver servicing SPF libraries. Uncached targeted DDoS attacks are not tracked by email logs and can not be mitigated. The gain of this attack can be highly destructive, while remaining virtually free to spammers wishing to also stage the attack. In addition to offering a means for staging a DDoS attack on authoritative servers, unfettered access afforded to remote recursive DNS servers by SPF scripts permits brute force DNS poisoning. Even knowing whether SPF related exploits are ongoing is not easily discerned. With the current state of affairs related to web browsers, the axiom "Do not execute scripts from strangers" is a concept that should be seriously taken to heart. -Doug ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: >> IMHO, "running code" gets more credit than is warranted. While it is >> certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of implementability, >> mere existence of running code says nothing about the quality of the >> design, its security, scalability, breadth of applicability, and so >> forth. "running code" was perhaps sufficient in ARPAnet days when there >> were only a few hundred hosts and a few thousand users of the network. >> It's not sufficient for global mission critical infrastructure. >> > > tend to agree. how about "multiple interoperable implementations"? > that's certainly better than one implementation, especially if implemented on multiple platforms. though still, I think, this is not sufficient in general. again, I'm biased because I've heard too many arguments of the form "we have running code for , and it's already (somewhat) deployed so we have to approve it as a standard without changing it". Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
> IMHO, "running code" gets more credit than is warranted. While it is > certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of implementability, > mere existence of running code says nothing about the quality of the > design, its security, scalability, breadth of applicability, and so > forth. "running code" was perhaps sufficient in ARPAnet days when there > were only a few hundred hosts and a few thousand users of the network. > It's not sufficient for global mission critical infrastructure. tend to agree. how about "multiple interoperable implementations"? itojun ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
--On Wednesday, 01 August, 2007 01:14 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> * get a DHCP arrangement (IPv4 and, for those who want >> to use it, IPv6) that performs reliably, consistently, >> and largely invisibly (if I have to worry about what a >> DHCP server is doing, it isn't working well). > > A good start would be explaining what exactly went wrong with > the DHCP server(s) this time. "We have a problem and we're > working on it" is not all that helpful. While I agree, I also believe that, if that story happens at one meeting, it is a local problem. If it happens at two, we either have a protocol problem (which might be reflected in a problem with equipment that doesn't quite conform, although I don't have any reason to believe that is the case) or a provider problem. If it is a protocol problem, we should know what went wrong and the DHC WG should have their noses pressed into it. If it isn't, we need to not have it again. Ever. And, while I'm picking on DHCP because I personally had more problems with it, I see IPv6 authconfig as being exactly the same issue: we are telling the world that these things work and they should be using them; if we can't make them work for our own meetings... john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
John, Almost independent of the IPv6 autoconfig issues, I find it deeply troubling that we seem to be unable to both * get the ducks lined up to run IPv6 fully and smoothly, with and without local/auto config. * get a DHCP arrangement (IPv4 and, for those who want to use it, IPv6) that performs reliably, consistently, and largely invisibly (if I have to worry about what a DHCP server is doing, it isn't working well). and have both of those working seamlessly no later than Sunday afternoon of the meeting. Agreed. In my case, I found the IPv6 support at IETF69 better than most past IETF meetings. It was also interesting to open the Mac network control pannel, enable my Airport (WLAN) interface, and see the IPv6 global address appear almost instantaneously and in many case having to wait many seconds to minutes for DHCP provided IPv4 address to appear. Bob ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
On 1-aug-2007, at 0:59, John C Klensin wrote: Almost independent of the IPv6 autoconfig issues, I find it deeply troubling that we seem to be unable to both * get the ducks lined up to run IPv6 fully and smoothly, with and without local/auto config. IPv6 worked pretty well this time, although still ~60 ms (1.5x) slower than IPv4. * get a DHCP arrangement (IPv4 and, for those who want to use it, IPv6) that performs reliably, consistently, and largely invisibly (if I have to worry about what a DHCP server is doing, it isn't working well). A good start would be explaining what exactly went wrong with the DHCP server(s) this time. "We have a problem and we're working on it" is not all that helpful. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
--On Tuesday, 31 July, 2007 15:40 -0700 Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> ... >> The poor network infrastructure is not only a question of the >> links. It is a >> question of having a good or bad network, like the problem >> that we had all >> this week with the DHCP. Having a good link the network was >> still unusable >> 60% of the time. > > I had no problem at all because the IPv6 path didn't rely on > the failing DHCP service. ;) >... Almost independent of the IPv6 autoconfig issues, I find it deeply troubling that we seem to be unable to both * get the ducks lined up to run IPv6 fully and smoothly, with and without local/auto config. * get a DHCP arrangement (IPv4 and, for those who want to use it, IPv6) that performs reliably, consistently, and largely invisibly (if I have to worry about what a DHCP server is doing, it isn't working well). and have both of those working seamlessly no later than Sunday afternoon of the meeting. If we can't do that, we should be very seriously reviewing our protocols and specifications: that sort of thing shouldn't be, in any sense, an experiment at this stage. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
On Aug 1, 2007, at 12:40 AM, Tony Hain wrote: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: ... The poor network infrastructure is not only a question of the links. It is a question of having a good or bad network, like the problem that we had all this week with the DHCP. Having a good link the network was still unusable 60% of the time. I had no problem at all because the IPv6 path didn't rely on the failing DHCP service. ;) That said, several of us did notice that the local DNS servers did not have any records, so likely they did not have any IPv6 configured either. Even if they did, we would need to finalize the work to put the DNS address in the RA to completely avoid the need for DHCP for those that rely on local configuration. thats why i like the " bonjour" idea;) http://www.dns-sd.org/ServerTestSetup.html marcM. Tony -- "Imagination is more important than Knowledge" http://www.braustelle.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > ... > The poor network infrastructure is not only a question of the links. It > is a > question of having a good or bad network, like the problem that we had > all > this week with the DHCP. Having a good link the network was still > unusable > 60% of the time. I had no problem at all because the IPv6 path didn't rely on the failing DHCP service. ;) That said, several of us did notice that the local DNS servers did not have any records, so likely they did not have any IPv6 configured either. Even if they did, we would need to finalize the work to put the DNS address in the RA to completely avoid the need for DHCP for those that rely on local configuration. Tony ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
> The danger here is that when people bring work to IETF, they might > refuse to change protocols which are already deployed. This already happens to far too great a degree. People keep arguing that because they have running/deployed code, IETF has to standardize exactly what they have already produced. In many cases things that are deployed before they get widespread design review are very poorly designed. >> I think we've seen several examples of where the IETF has spent >> significant amount of energy, ranging from heated discussions to >> specification work, on solutions that simply won't fly. It would be >> useful if that energy waste could be reduced. Having 'running code' as >> a barrier for serious consideration within the IETF may be one approach. > I agree that running code should be given extra weight, but I am not > sure that running code should be a requirement for something which is > not well understood yet (some Lemonade WG documents come to mind). IMHO, "running code" gets more credit than is warranted. While it is certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of implementability, mere existence of running code says nothing about the quality of the design, its security, scalability, breadth of applicability, and so forth. "running code" was perhaps sufficient in ARPAnet days when there were only a few hundred hosts and a few thousand users of the network. It's not sufficient for global mission critical infrastructure. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Cyrus Daboo wrote: > Hi Peter, > > --On July 30, 2007 2:11:38 PM -0600 Peter Saint-Andre > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Further, in-person meetings are so second-millennium. How about greater >> use of text chat, voice chat, and video chat for interim meetings? Are >> three in-person meetings a year really necessary if we make use of >> collaborative technologies that have become common in the last 15 years? > > All that will do is shift the discussion from "where shall we hold the > meeting" to "what time/timezone shall we have for our conf call". Given > that we have people participating from across the globe, trying to > arrange a time that is acceptable for all participants will be just as > hard as trying to find a meeting venue acceptable to all. You can hold multiple meetings at different times. Not ideal, but there has to be a better way to get all interested parties in a discussion at the same time than forcing them to burn jet fuel. I'm not opposed to in-person meetings -- there's nothing like a good Bar BOF. I just think that we could more productively leverage the real-time collaboration technologies we've developed to make progress between IRL meetings, and perhaps run more focused IRL meetings as a result. > Unfortunately we don't have scheduling tools that will help resolve > issues like that (or at least make it easier than a multiple party email > exchange/negotiation) - but some of us are working on that! Keep up the good work! Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Simon Josefsson wrote: Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Even further, how about breaking up the IETF into smaller, more agile standards development organizations? We essentially did that with XMPP by using the XMPP Standards Foundation for extensions to XMPP rather than doing all our work at the IETF (given the large number of XMPP extensions, doing all that work at the IETF would have represented a denial of service attack on the Internet Standards Process). I see a few potential benefits here: 1. Greater focus on rough consensus and running code. 2. Fewer bureaucracy headaches. 3. Reduced workload for our stressed-out IESG members. :) Just a thought... I think that is a good idea. The IETF could provide guidelines for self-organizing group efforts, such as mailing list policy, IPR templates, bug tracker, conflict resolution systems, etc, and let people standardize ideas and even experiment with implementations. When such efforts are successful, the technical work can be guided through the IETF process (potentially changing the design to fix problems). The danger here is that when people bring work to IETF, they might refuse to change protocols which are already deployed. And speaking of cross area review again: last thing I want is to be forced to go to multiple smaller meetings in various other organizations instead of attending 3 IETF meetings per-year. I think we've seen several examples of where the IETF has spent significant amount of energy, ranging from heated discussions to specification work, on solutions that simply won't fly. It would be useful if that energy waste could be reduced. Having 'running code' as a barrier for serious consideration within the IETF may be one approach. I agree that running code should be given extra weight, but I am not sure that running code should be a requirement for something which is not well understood yet (some Lemonade WG documents come to mind). ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Matt Pounsett wrote: for the two or three wg meetings I'm interested in, there's little point in me being at the meeting for a whole week. What about holding two or three meetings smaller meetings a year for each area, and then just one big meeting for the full IETF? That would bring down the cost of the individual area meetings and therefore the admission fee, make them smaller and therefore capable of fitting into a wider range of hotels, and would likely result in fewer nights of hotel stay for a lot of people. Depends on how much overlap there is for attendees. How many people want to attend meetings in both (say) security and applications, I am certainly in this group. I don't think I am alone ;-). or transport and RAI? This is an empirical question that could be answered through surveys. Further, in-person meetings are so second-millennium. How about greater use of text chat, voice chat, and video chat for interim meetings? I am in favor of this, but I don't think this can replace many ad-hoc meetings on yet-non-specified topics that happen all the time during IETF meetings. Are three in-person meetings a year really necessary if we make use of collaborative technologies that have become common in the last 15 years? As long as the number of face-to-face meetings is not 0, this might be something to think about. Even further, how about breaking up the IETF into smaller, more agile standards development organizations? We essentially did that with XMPP by using the XMPP Standards Foundation for extensions to XMPP rather than doing all our work at the IETF (given the large number of XMPP extensions, doing all that work at the IETF would have represented a denial of service attack on the Internet Standards Process). I see a few potential benefits here: 1. Greater focus on rough consensus and running code. 2. Fewer bureaucracy headaches. 3. Reduced workload for our stressed-out IESG members. :) + Less cross area review. I would rather you try to standardize XMPP extensions in IETF and see if this would actually cause any DoS. (Well, maybe not all of them. Some XMPP extensions should probably die inside XSF ;-)) Just a thought... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
We try to keep an updated list of services at http://www.ipv6-to-standard.org Type isp at the free search. Regards, Jordi > De: Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:19:33 -0400 > Para: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Asunto: Re: IPv6: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ? > > > On 30-Jul-2007, at 10:24, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> On 2007-07-30 07:05, Tony Li wrote: >>> On Jul 29, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Peter Dambier wrote: >>>> Is there any IPv6 activity inside the US? >>> Some. NTT/America, for example, is a Tier 1 provider with v6 >>> deployed. >>> Comcast (cable-based ISP) is rumored to be working on v6. >> >> Not to mention every supplier to the US Government. > > I've actually tried to buy v6 service from carriers who presumably > claim to provide it for the very reasons you allude to. It's very > hard to buy it if you're just a normal customer (at least, that was > my experience). > > > Joe > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
The day on which virtual meetings are as productive as face to face will be the day when the IETF has completed its purpose and is no longer necessary. I do far less work in the meetings than I do in the hallways. Face to Face still matters. From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 31/07/2007 11:22 AM To: Peter Saint-Andre Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ? Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Further, in-person meetings are so second-millennium. How about greater > use of text chat, voice chat, and video chat for interim meetings? Are > three in-person meetings a year really necessary if we make use of > collaborative technologies that have become common in the last 15 years? I agree with this. Being away from work (and family) decreases my productivity, and while being present at IETF meetings increases productivity, I don't think the advantages of being present outweighs the disadvantages (productivity-wise) for me. > Even further, how about breaking up the IETF into smaller, more agile > standards development organizations? We essentially did that with XMPP > by using the XMPP Standards Foundation for extensions to XMPP rather > than doing all our work at the IETF (given the large number of XMPP > extensions, doing all that work at the IETF would have represented a > denial of service attack on the Internet Standards Process). I see a few > potential benefits here: > > 1. Greater focus on rough consensus and running code. > > 2. Fewer bureaucracy headaches. > > 3. Reduced workload for our stressed-out IESG members. :) > > Just a thought... I think that is a good idea. The IETF could provide guidelines for self-organizing group efforts, such as mailing list policy, IPR templates, bug tracker, conflict resolution systems, etc, and let people standardize ideas and even experiment with implementations. When such efforts are successful, the technical work can be guided through the IETF process (potentially changing the design to fix problems). I think we've seen several examples of where the IETF has spent significant amount of energy, ranging from heated discussions to specification work, on solutions that simply won't fly. It would be useful if that energy waste could be reduced. Having 'running code' as a barrier for serious consideration within the IETF may be one approach. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
On 30-Jul-2007, at 01:05, Tony Li wrote: On Jul 29, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Peter Dambier wrote: Is there any IPv6 activity inside the US? Some. NTT/America, for example, is a Tier 1 provider with v6 deployed. Also Global Crossing and Teleglobe/VSNL International. There are also European providers who can do a native v6 handoff that sell transit in North America (e.g. C&W, Tiscali). In the scheme of things this is still a pretty small set, but it's not empty. Joe ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
On 30-Jul-2007, at 10:24, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2007-07-30 07:05, Tony Li wrote: On Jul 29, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Peter Dambier wrote: Is there any IPv6 activity inside the US? Some. NTT/America, for example, is a Tier 1 provider with v6 deployed. Comcast (cable-based ISP) is rumored to be working on v6. Not to mention every supplier to the US Government. I've actually tried to buy v6 service from carriers who presumably claim to provide it for the very reasons you allude to. It's very hard to buy it if you're just a normal customer (at least, that was my experience). Joe ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Further, in-person meetings are so second-millennium. How about greater > use of text chat, voice chat, and video chat for interim meetings? Are > three in-person meetings a year really necessary if we make use of > collaborative technologies that have become common in the last 15 years? I agree with this. Being away from work (and family) decreases my productivity, and while being present at IETF meetings increases productivity, I don't think the advantages of being present outweighs the disadvantages (productivity-wise) for me. > Even further, how about breaking up the IETF into smaller, more agile > standards development organizations? We essentially did that with XMPP > by using the XMPP Standards Foundation for extensions to XMPP rather > than doing all our work at the IETF (given the large number of XMPP > extensions, doing all that work at the IETF would have represented a > denial of service attack on the Internet Standards Process). I see a few > potential benefits here: > > 1. Greater focus on rough consensus and running code. > > 2. Fewer bureaucracy headaches. > > 3. Reduced workload for our stressed-out IESG members. :) > > Just a thought... I think that is a good idea. The IETF could provide guidelines for self-organizing group efforts, such as mailing list policy, IPR templates, bug tracker, conflict resolution systems, etc, and let people standardize ideas and even experiment with implementations. When such efforts are successful, the technical work can be guided through the IETF process (potentially changing the design to fix problems). I think we've seen several examples of where the IETF has spent significant amount of energy, ranging from heated discussions to specification work, on solutions that simply won't fly. It would be useful if that energy waste could be reduced. Having 'running code' as a barrier for serious consideration within the IETF may be one approach. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
--On Tuesday, 31 July, 2007 01:23 -0400 Jeffrey Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... > In my opinion you want to keep the cost of in person > participation down so that there aren't two classes of IETF > participants, those who are face-to-face and those who aren't. But we have had that participation model for many, many years, even when the registration fees were zero or trivial. You are part of it and, if you count lost at-office time in figuring out expenses, would probably remain part of it even if the registration fees change: the reality is that relatively few IETF participants are worth less than $600 a week > The notion that NomCom eligibility should be determined by > those who attend meetings just doesn't make a lot of sense for > an organization that prides itself on only making consensus > decisions on mailing lists. Instead, we should minimize the > challenges to active remote participation and find an > alternative source of funds. I wouldn't go so far as "doesn't make a lot of sense", although I agree that it is problematic. The difficulty has been, in part, that no one has proposed a better system and, in part, because of an assumption that the meeting-attendees are much more likely to be in touch with personality, skills, and behavior patterns than those who particular purely by mailing list. Of course, the latter assumption becomes more dubious as the community gets larger and the Nomcom members know proportionately fewer people and need to rely more on what they can learn from interviews and questionnaires than on their personal knowledge and experience. > One notion might be to charge for publications of Internet > Drafts. $500 for a draft name including five revisions and > then $25 for each additional revision. The rationale is that > it is the draft publications which create work for the entire > IETF and the cost of that work should be borne by those who > want to see the work accomplished. Of course, this would completely prevent the use of I-Ds to float new ideas and would reduce their utility for documenting alternate positions in a coherent way rather than just poking at the existing drafts on mailing lists. Sometimes drafts are produced for the convenience of the community or to help clarify the issues with a possibly-bad idea, by people who have little financial interest in "see[ing] the work accomplished". I think it would be a monumentally bad idea. If we were to do anything along those lines, I'd think about trying to spread the non-meeting overhead costs across the entire participant base, e.g., by making subscriptions to IETF-related mailing lists and access to documents free, but charging a yearly participation fee to anyone who wanted to post anything to any IETF mailing list. I think that is a very bad idea too, but one that is less bad than the I-D one. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Adrian Farrel writes: Well, the fee charged would appear to be directly correlated to the number of people attending. That is, because the IETF must cover its costs not just for the meetings but also for the rest of the year, a good proportion of the cost is independent of the meetings and so must increase per capita as the number of attendees decreases. But wait! There is also a direct correlation between the number of people attending and the cost. That is, the cost is a direct deterrent. But the two costs aren't the same... The deterrent is the sum of the IETF charge, the hotel charge, the cost of food, liquid refreshment and so on, travel, getting a visa, and finally the cost of being away from one's desk. Economists out there will recognise this problem, and will understand where the spiral is headed. The choice and cost of location can compound the problem, and it seems to me that one of the main objectives of setting meeting venues (both geography and hotel) must be to increase attendance and so to increase revenue. Decreasing the IETF meeting attendees' other costs ought to help: a) make it easier to attend by partially freezing the agenda early. If the secretariat could say "from now on only times can change, not days" early, that would help. (The WG meetings I care about are in a two-day block almost every time. Just coincidence or good work on part of the secretariat?) b) avoid meeting locations with obnoxious travel or visa issues, or very high costs otherwise. c) try to keep travel short for as many attendees as possible. How sad that there's a conflict between b) and c). Arnt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
The meeting fee is almost the single largest monetary expense for me, and it keeps going up. As an individual non-attendee, I couldn't agree more. Even though the December meeting is (literally) on my doorstep, there is no way I can justify $750 just to attend a pair of WG meetings. Well, the fee charged would appear to be directly correlated to the number of people attending. That is, because the IETF must cover its costs not just for the meetings but also for the rest of the year, a good proportion of the cost is independent of the meetings and so must increase per capita as the number of attendees decreases. But wait! There is also a direct correlation between the number of people attending and the cost. That is, the cost is a direct deterrent. Economists out there will recognise this problem, and will understand where the spiral is headed. The choice and cost of location can compound the problem, and it seems to me that one of the main objectives of setting meeting venues (both geography and hotel) must be to increase attendance and so to increase revenue. Adrian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Jeffrey Altman wrote: I think the IETF needs to decide what its goals are and create a funding structure that creates the appropriate incentives to achieve those goals. We want to encourage participation by the best and brightest and especially those who have time to accomplish the work. With the cost of attending a single working group session now in excess of $1000 when you include travel, overnight at the hotel, plus the flat rate meeting fee, we are discouraging participation. For meetings in the US, it easily exceeds 5000 USD for me (flight, hotel, several work days lost). ... In my opinion you want to keep the cost of in person participation down so that there aren't two classes of IETF participants, those who are face-to-face and those who aren't. The notion that NomCom eligibility should be determined by those who attend meetings just doesn't make a lot of sense for an organization that prides itself on only making consensus decisions on mailing lists. Instead, we should minimize the challenges to active remote participation and find an alternative source of funds. ... I completely agree with that. One notion might be to charge for publications of Internet Drafts. $500 for a draft name including five revisions and then $25 for each additional revision. The rationale is that it is the draft publications which create work for the entire IETF and the cost of that work should be borne by those who want to see the work accomplished. My understanding was that publishing the IDs today is mainly automatic (at least with the new tools). Charging for publication of IDs will essentially discourage people from doing so, which I think would be a not-so-good effect. Best regards, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Brian E Carpenter wrote: > The financial fallacy in that is failing to note that about half the > meeting fee isn't used to fund meeting expenses, but to fund continuing > operations of the IETF as a whole (secretariat, RFC Editor, etc.) So > restructuring the meetings would have to be done in a way that preserves > the meetings surplus at about the same annual total as today. I think the IETF needs to decide what its goals are and create a funding structure that creates the appropriate incentives to achieve those goals. We want to encourage participation by the best and brightest and especially those who have time to accomplish the work. With the cost of attending a single working group session now in excess of $1000 when you include travel, overnight at the hotel, plus the flat rate meeting fee, we are discouraging participation. I have stopped attending IETF meetings in person for a variety of reasons. Cost is certainly a major factor. The amount of time I must spend away from home and my company is another one. Besides, why should I spend my own time and money to solve other people's problems? In my opinion you want to keep the cost of in person participation down so that there aren't two classes of IETF participants, those who are face-to-face and those who aren't. The notion that NomCom eligibility should be determined by those who attend meetings just doesn't make a lot of sense for an organization that prides itself on only making consensus decisions on mailing lists. Instead, we should minimize the challenges to active remote participation and find an alternative source of funds. One notion might be to charge for publications of Internet Drafts. $500 for a draft name including five revisions and then $25 for each additional revision. The rationale is that it is the draft publications which create work for the entire IETF and the cost of that work should be borne by those who want to see the work accomplished. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Brian E Carpenter wrote: I was talking to a couple of people this week about what I consider to be a related issue: the fact that for the two or three wg meetings I'm interested in, there's little point in me being at the meeting for a whole week. What about holding two or three meetings smaller meetings a year for each area, and then just one big meeting for the full IETF? That would bring down the cost of the individual area meetings and therefore the admission fee, make them smaller and therefore capable of fitting into a wider range of hotels, and would likely result in fewer nights of hotel stay for a lot of people. The financial fallacy in that is failing to note that about half the meeting fee isn't used to fund meeting expenses, but to fund continuing operations of the IETF as a whole (secretariat, RFC Editor, etc.) So restructuring the meetings would have to be done in a way that preserves the meetings surplus at about the same annual total as today. I like the idea of trying a different meeting structure instead of, or in addition to, the '2 hour status meeting' structure we have now. It has nothing to do with money, but rather getting work done, by applying the right resources in the right place at the right time. I know all about the cross-participation/review argument. IMO, the ability for a few WGs (or entire area, whatever) to cancel all WG meetings for the area for an entire day and conduct some sort of on-site workshop or design meeting, would actually enforce cross participation. It might actually resemble the Real Engineering practices some of us go through in our 'day jobs'. It should be up to the ADs and the Chairs, and depend on the situation at hand, as to how many hours or even days worth of IETF WG meetings they would preempt for such a meeting. Also, personally, I think that once a year wouldn't be enough to keep the cross-checking between the areas at a sufficient level. And personally, even if I'm only active in two or three WGs, the chance to sample what's going in related and even in unrelated WGs, as well as research groups and BOFs, makes it well worth staying all week. Brian Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
On Jul 30, 2007, at 16:26, Michael Thomas wrote:
Would it really be so horrible to, say, have a per day rate? I know
that there
are a lot of people who are only interested in one or two wg
meetings and
would just assume go home instead of hanging around, kibbutzing in
wg's
that you're only peripherally involved, etc. That in and of itself
may help
improve the SNR...
Mike
Edward Lewis wrote:
At 15:51 -0400 7/30/07, Matt Pounsett wrote:
I was talking to a couple of people this week about what I
consider to be a
related issue: the fact that for the two or three wg meetings I'm
interested
in, there's little point in me being at the meeting for a whole
week.
I can relate, I left Chicago on Tuesday.
What about holding two or three meetings smaller meetings a year
for each
area, and then just one big meeting for the full IETF? That
would bring
down the cost of the individual area meetings and therefore the
admission
fee, make them smaller and therefore capable of fitting into a
wider range
of hotels, and would likely result in fewer nights of hotel stay
for a lot
of people.
This idea has been tossed around before. The rationale for
maintaining large meetings, all under "one roof" has been to
maintain coherency across all of the areas. I was told that there
have been times in some other standards bodies where one area will
develop a standard that is completely incompatible with a standard
developed by another area. ("I was told" meaning that I have
forgotten all the particulars of the story by now.) While all we
should need is the IESG to be present together, by the time you
count up the areas and weeks in a year and the ability of the IESG
to travel...we just keep up having our large conventions.
Take a look at this for an extreme counter example:
http://www.itu.int/events/monthlyagenda.asp?lang=en
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
I was talking to a couple of people this week about what I consider to be a related issue: the fact that for the two or three wg meetings I'm interested in, there's little point in me being at the meeting for a whole week. What about holding two or three meetings smaller meetings a year for each area, and then just one big meeting for the full IETF? That would bring down the cost of the individual area meetings and therefore the admission fee, make them smaller and therefore capable of fitting into a wider range of hotels, and would likely result in fewer nights of hotel stay for a lot of people. The financial fallacy in that is failing to note that about half the meeting fee isn't used to fund meeting expenses, but to fund continuing operations of the IETF as a whole (secretariat, RFC Editor, etc.) So restructuring the meetings would have to be done in a way that preserves the meetings surplus at about the same annual total as today. Also, personally, I think that once a year wouldn't be enough to keep the cross-checking between the areas at a sufficient level. And personally, even if I'm only active in two or three WGs, the chance to sample what's going in related and even in unrelated WGs, as well as research groups and BOFs, makes it well worth staying all week. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Would it really be so horrible to, say, have a per day rate? I know that
there
are a lot of people who are only interested in one or two wg meetings and
would just assume go home instead of hanging around, kibbutzing in wg's
that you're only peripherally involved, etc. That in and of itself may help
improve the SNR...
Mike
Edward Lewis wrote:
At 15:51 -0400 7/30/07, Matt Pounsett wrote:
I was talking to a couple of people this week about what I consider
to be a
related issue: the fact that for the two or three wg meetings I'm
interested
in, there's little point in me being at the meeting for a whole week.
I can relate, I left Chicago on Tuesday.
What about holding two or three meetings smaller meetings a year for
each
area, and then just one big meeting for the full IETF? That would bring
down the cost of the individual area meetings and therefore the
admission
fee, make them smaller and therefore capable of fitting into a wider
range
of hotels, and would likely result in fewer nights of hotel stay for
a lot
of people.
This idea has been tossed around before. The rationale for
maintaining large meetings, all under "one roof" has been to maintain
coherency across all of the areas. I was told that there have been
times in some other standards bodies where one area will develop a
standard that is completely incompatible with a standard developed by
another area. ("I was told" meaning that I have forgotten all the
particulars of the story by now.) While all we should need is the
IESG to be present together, by the time you count up the areas and
weeks in a year and the ability of the IESG to travel...we just keep
up having our large conventions.
Take a look at this for an extreme counter example:
http://www.itu.int/events/monthlyagenda.asp?lang=en
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
At 15:51 -0400 7/30/07, Matt Pounsett wrote:
I was talking to a couple of people this week about what I consider to be a
related issue: the fact that for the two or three wg meetings I'm interested
in, there's little point in me being at the meeting for a whole week.
I can relate, I left Chicago on Tuesday.
What about holding two or three meetings smaller meetings a year for each
area, and then just one big meeting for the full IETF? That would bring
down the cost of the individual area meetings and therefore the admission
fee, make them smaller and therefore capable of fitting into a wider range
of hotels, and would likely result in fewer nights of hotel stay for a lot
of people.
This idea has been tossed around before. The rationale for
maintaining large meetings, all under "one roof" has been to maintain
coherency across all of the areas. I was told that there have been
times in some other standards bodies where one area will develop a
standard that is completely incompatible with a standard developed by
another area. ("I was told" meaning that I have forgotten all the
particulars of the story by now.) While all we should need is the
IESG to be present together, by the time you count up the areas and
weeks in a year and the ability of the IESG to travel...we just keep
up having our large conventions.
Take a look at this for an extreme counter example:
http://www.itu.int/events/monthlyagenda.asp?lang=en
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468
NeuStar
Think glocally. Act confused.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Matt Pounsett wrote: > for the two or three wg meetings I'm > interested in, there's little point in me being at the meeting for a > whole week. > > What about holding two or three meetings smaller meetings a year for > each area, and then just one big meeting for the full IETF? That would > bring down the cost of the individual area meetings and therefore the > admission fee, make them smaller and therefore capable of fitting into a > wider range of hotels, and would likely result in fewer nights of hotel > stay for a lot of people. Depends on how much overlap there is for attendees. How many people want to attend meetings in both (say) security and applications, or transport and RAI? This is an empirical question that could be answered through surveys. Further, in-person meetings are so second-millennium. How about greater use of text chat, voice chat, and video chat for interim meetings? Are three in-person meetings a year really necessary if we make use of collaborative technologies that have become common in the last 15 years? Even further, how about breaking up the IETF into smaller, more agile standards development organizations? We essentially did that with XMPP by using the XMPP Standards Foundation for extensions to XMPP rather than doing all our work at the IETF (given the large number of XMPP extensions, doing all that work at the IETF would have represented a denial of service attack on the Internet Standards Process). I see a few potential benefits here: 1. Greater focus on rough consensus and running code. 2. Fewer bureaucracy headaches. 3. Reduced workload for our stressed-out IESG members. :) Just a thought... Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2007-Jul-30, at 15:38, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: The meeting fee is almost the single largest monetary expense for me, and it keeps going up. As an individual non-attendee, I couldn't agree more. Even though the December meeting is (literally) on my doorstep, there is no way I can justify $750 just to attend a pair of WG meetings. The IETF claims we all participate as individuals, but the entry fee pretty much wipes out the possibility of individuals attending. As the barrier to admission is raised we're simply giving the process over to the (large) corporate sector. I was talking to a couple of people this week about what I consider to be a related issue: the fact that for the two or three wg meetings I'm interested in, there's little point in me being at the meeting for a whole week. What about holding two or three meetings smaller meetings a year for each area, and then just one big meeting for the full IETF? That would bring down the cost of the individual area meetings and therefore the admission fee, make them smaller and therefore capable of fitting into a wider range of hotels, and would likely result in fewer nights of hotel stay for a lot of people. Matt -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFGrkFcae4z2vjbC8sRAkE5AKDF4sxIpp1jQoA7kb+uabooRQt9ZACgnlnk Wkx8gIrZUVbvGbhwCZazKi4= =OtWS -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
The meeting fee is almost the single largest monetary expense for me, and it keeps going up. As an individual non-attendee, I couldn't agree more. Even though the December meeting is (literally) on my doorstep, there is no way I can justify $750 just to attend a pair of WG meetings. The IETF claims we all participate as individuals, but the entry fee pretty much wipes out the possibility of individuals attending. As the barrier to admission is raised we're simply giving the process over to the (large) corporate sector. --lyndon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
I am of the opinion that the amount of work we get done is largely independent of where we meet. But who attends is very heavily influenced by where we meet. On Jul 29, 2007, at 8:04 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: Do we have any firm evidence that we would get more work done if we had more meetings outside the US? Stewart ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Well I was not indicating that, but simple maths can also say so. As it seems that more people is contributing from Europe than from US, it means for more people more traveling time, more time with immigration issues, etc. Probably we could count from 16 to 40 hours per each individual. Those hours can be applied to do more IETF work (it is not necessarily the case, but in any case is time worth saving). I support your desire to have more non-US meetings, but maybe not for the same reasons. There is a certain moral responsibility to fairly distribute the travel costs amongst the existing IETF participants. This has to be balanced with some very practical concerns wrt/ the actual meeting location and facility itself (as the Palmer House Hilton construction workers demonstrated for us). My participation in the IETF is self-funded. The airline flight is not a real factor because I can use FF miles. The hotel is the major cost but I could choose not to stay in the IETF hotel and significantly reduce that cost. (Same for food and beer choices. ;-) The meeting fee is almost the single largest monetary expense for me, and it keeps going up. I would rather the IETF hold sponsored meetings, than the IETF pick interesting vacation spots all over the world to hold meetings. I don't have any complaints with the current 'system'. I just want to meeting fees to be as low as possible, and the locations to be known far enough in advance so some frequent flier award seats are left. Regards, Jordi Andy De: Stewart Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fecha: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:04:23 +0100 Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: Asunto: Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ? Do we have any firm evidence that we would get more work done if we had more meetings outside the US? Stewart ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
--On Monday, 30 July, 2007 07:32 -0700 Bill Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > an observation. IETF meetings have a fairly high hit rate on > selecting venues where the hotel is in the middle of > restoration. I've have come to the dubious conclusion that > this tactic isused to get reduced overall rates. Bill, I'd guess that it is not a tactic on the part of IETF but on the part of the hotels. Many organizations have had enough experience with hotels under renovation to exclude them from consideration so the hotels, in order to get meeting traffic, lower rates.They may, of course, also promise that the renovations will not be disruptive, but we have been told that story before, haven't we? To make things worse, the on-site hotel staff often have no direct control over the contractors who are doing the construction work. They may beg and plead with more or less success, but are rarely in a position to say and enforce "stop". This is just a suggestion (which I have made before) rather than at attempt to micromanage the IAD/IAOC, but I believe that, if a hotel says "we are being renovated but it won't cause you any disruption" we should be responding with "post a performance bond and pay penalties if there are disruptions". I imagine that would cause some facilities to rapidly lose interest in giving us drastically reduced rates to fill up their rooms and we would at least have a better understanding of what we were likely to be up against. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
On Jul 30 2007, at 16:46, John C Klensin wrote: meetings held in tourist destinations Is that *really* still an issue for anyone? It's not that the IETF is considered a boondoggle org (like some other standards organizations I have known). Places like Mallorca in Spain (or Orlando in Florida) have great (cheap!) plane connectivity and quite affordable hotels. Gruesse, Carsten ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
--On Monday, 30 July, 2007 07:04 -0500 Spencer Dawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, with some hesitation, I'll say this out loud... >... > My IETF sponsor organization had a number of authors who were > not approved for travel to the US (probably about 10, or 25 > percent of our total, although I haven't seen a final number > yet), so it's not like Adrian just hangs around the people who > weren't approved. > > I was also told at this IETF about people who requested visas > in order to attend the Dallas IETF, who have not yet been > approved, but who have not yet been rejected, either. > Apparently "background investigation" is the new black hole of > Calcutta. Perhaps they will be approved in time for > Philedelphia, or Minneapolis. This has apparently become standard practice for visa handling: the visa applications are not rejected, which might require an explanation if US entitles get involves, but approval is simply postponed past the data at which the applications are relevant. > If current plans for upcoming IETF meetings hold, it will be > possible for IETF participants to qualify for NomCom without > attending any US-based meetings. If those plans do not hold - > specifically, if a non-US site "falls through" and is replaced > with a US site - people who are unable to travel to the United > States will be excluded from NomCom eligibility, and this also > includes other things based on NomCom eligibility - for > instance, participating in a recall petition. >... > If you aren't qualified to put someone on the IAB or IESG, you > aren't qualified to remove them, either. This isn't WRONG, but > I'm not sure how many people have noticed this. As you know, I believe that use of the Nomcom qualifications for recalls, etc., was chosen without adequate consideration of side-effects. In particular, I do not believe that barring either * IESG and IAB members, who are in the best position to observe some types of abuses, from being about to initiate recall actions or * active participants in the IETF who do not attend meetings but may nonetheless be victims of abusive behavior from initiating recalls was a bad idea. But the last time the former was probed, the community and IESG didn't seem enthused about changing it, the idea got no traction. It was also buried in noise about the possibility of IESG or IAB members using the recall procedure to attack each other (I believe that, if things get to the point that would occur without good cause, it is desirable that the community know about it and cope with it as quickly as possible, rather than looking for ways to suppress possible symptoms). > I suggested a few minutes ago (in private e-mail, before > reading the next slice of this thread) to Ray Pelletier that > he consider adding a survey question that might give some > guidance on "didn't attend because of visa problems" versus > "didn't attend because of problems unrelated to visas". I think this would be useful for the reasons you give and others. And best wishes to and for the new arrivals. > John Klensin also correctly pointed out that we have IETF > participants, AND IETF MEETING participants, and we're trying > to do the right thing for both of the two categories. > Doug's suggestion - to aim the survey at IETF participants, > rather than IETF MEETING participants, also seems helpful. To the extent to which we are moving toward decision-making by surveys, it is probably time tat we put some energy into understanding non-attendance patterns and reasons, not just patterns of attendance and satisfaction with the meetings. There are, for example, differences among... * people who would attend meetings, but can't get visas for some of them. * people who get visas for some US meetings but, seemingly arbitrarily, cannot get visas (on a timely basis) for others. * people who attend some meetings but not others due to travel distances, costs, or company policies. For example, some companies require an entirely different approval process for "foreign" meetings than for "domestic" ones, for meetings with "away" times over a week, or for meetings held in tourist destinations. Those extra approval processes may reduce attendance. * people for whom total costs of participation, or total budgets for registration fees, may permit attending only a subset of our meetings. * people who have concluded that our face-to-face meetings are a waste of time and resource, especially if they cannot count on flying in for the one WG session of interest and then flying back out, and hence prefer to participate only remotely. That list probably should be longer, but you get the idea. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 03:58:53PM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > ... missing the heart of the issue. Which in my opinion > is that the operation of the overhead functions that are the general > ietf infrastructure are funded out of the meeting fees which means the > amount made on the meeting has to exceed the actual costs by order of > 50%. At the sane time, the organization is if you haven't noticed > shrinking and it's character is changing. It has more professional > standards folks and fewer of the students, academics and network > operators that made it interesting to me 10 years ago. Pushing higher > costs onto potential attendees isn't likely to attract more of them. > Joel may have hit the nail on the head. Students, Academics, and Network Operators ahve all developed their own conferences that fit their own constraints. The IETF has deliberately chosen this path, with more paid staff, legal fees, and in general higher infrastructure costs - to cater to professional standards folks / corporations. And these folks can afford and expect to pay more for a well run conference that meets their needs. Adopting models that presume paid, outsourced support will only increase costs more. --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
> > That said, the hotel cost is as much of an issue for me. I continually have > to weigh up the convenience of staying in the host hotel, with the > exorbitant room rates. The 30% degradation of the US dollar over the last > six or seven years is a great help, but surely it would be even better to > pick a more reasonably priced hotel? > > Adrian an observation. IETF meetings have a fairly high hit rate on selecting venues where the hotel is in the middle of restoration. I've have come to the dubious conclusion that this tactic is used to get reduced overall rates. --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
On 2007-07-30 07:05, Tony Li wrote: On Jul 29, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Peter Dambier wrote: Is there any IPv6 activity inside the US? Some. NTT/America, for example, is a Tier 1 provider with v6 deployed. Comcast (cable-based ISP) is rumored to be working on v6. Not to mention every supplier to the US Government. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
OK, with some hesitation, I'll say this out loud... Another data point might be... In the CCAMP working group five editors or key authors of working group I-Ds were unable to travel to Chicago (for whatever reason). All of these are based outside the US. One new non-WG draft had to be introduced by a friend because none of the author team was able to travel. My IETF sponsor organization had a number of authors who were not approved for travel to the US (probably about 10, or 25 percent of our total, although I haven't seen a final number yet), so it's not like Adrian just hangs around the people who weren't approved. I was also told at this IETF about people who requested visas in order to attend the Dallas IETF, who have not yet been approved, but who have not yet been rejected, either. Apparently "background investigation" is the new black hole of Calcutta. Perhaps they will be approved in time for Philedelphia, or Minneapolis. If current plans for upcoming IETF meetings hold, it will be possible for IETF participants to qualify for NomCom without attending any US-based meetings. If those plans do not hold - specifically, if a non-US site "falls through" and is replaced with a US site - people who are unable to travel to the United States will be excluded from NomCom eligibility, and this also includes other things based on NomCom eligibility - for instance, participating in a recall petition. From RFC 3777: 1. At any time, at least 20 members of the IETF community, who are qualified to be voting members of a nominating committee, may request by signed petition (email is acceptable) to the Internet Society President the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG member. If you aren't qualified to put someone on the IAB or IESG, you aren't qualified to remove them, either. This isn't WRONG, but I'm not sure how many people have noticed this. Please don't shape your take on this based on whether you think the excluded people are likely to volunteer for NomCom, or something - the distinction covers more than the 100-or-so volunteers that sent Lakshminath their "I volunteer" e-mails. I suggested a few minutes ago (in private e-mail, before reading the next slice of this thread) to Ray Pelletier that he consider adding a survey question that might give some guidance on "didn't attend because of visa problems" versus "didn't attend because of problems unrelated to visas". If the plan goes as my son explained to me last week, I'll be grandfather to twin girls before the end of this coming week. If that happened last week, *I* would have been a no-show in Chicago. If someone registered with Iraq as a country code, and did not attend the meeting, that could be because of visa problems, or because of other problems, or simply because people in Iraq also have twins, and might even blow off an IETF to be present at the birth. The nice people trying to make sense of why people attended/did not attend any particular IETF meeting don't have a lot of information that helps you figure stuff like that out. John Klensin also correctly pointed out that we have IETF participants, AND IETF MEETING participants, and we're trying to do the right thing for both of the two categories. Doug's suggestion - to aim the survey at IETF participants, rather than IETF MEETING participants, also seems helpful. Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
On Jul 29, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Peter Dambier wrote: Is there any IPv6 activity inside the US? Some. NTT/America, for example, is a Tier 1 provider with v6 deployed. Comcast (cable-based ISP) is rumored to be working on v6. Tony ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: The survey that we have after each IETF meeting include a question related to this, and MANY MORE US participants are completing this survey, so the result, is obviously biased. I'm a complete outsider to IETF meetings and their planning, but isn't it generally the case that those who participate in a survey can expect to have their voices heard, and those who do not participate cannot? If you want to influence the outcome of a survey, it might help to identify people who you believe might make a difference, and encourage those people to participate in the survey. -- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
> well i am just lurking, but i am very interested in everything about > ipv6 and deployment in general > there is an upcomming event here in cologne: > > "European Conference on Applied IPv6" at the 6th and 7th of september > 2007 here in cologne > > http://www.guug.de/veranstaltungen/ecai6-2007/index.html > > hope to cu there would love to attend, if someone can take care of my flight :-) itojun ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
--On Sunday, 29 July, 2007 14:40 -0400 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I didn't said that operating a meeting outside US is cheaper > than in US. I said that the cost for *participants* is lower. Jordi, Let me add one comment to Joel's discussion, with which I agree. We've had a long-standing system by which the Secretariat (and IASA, I presume) try to hold meeting registration fees stable over some reasonable period of time. So while, as Joel points out, the fee for a given meeting reflects general IETF overhead as well as actual meeting costs, the latter are averaged over a year or so. If one increases average meeting costs _to the IETF_ by using more facilities that require separately paying for conference center space (the norm outside the US and parts of Canada), that will eventually translate into higher registration fees, which are a cost to participants. Your logic seems to assume that meeting costs do not vary with facilities, but that is true only because of the averaging: I think it is safe to estimate that, if we met in a larger proportion of facilities that required rental of external meeting space (often with associated problematic restrictions), registration fees would go up, possibly significantly. It is my personal belief that we are near the upper limit on registration fees, at least without spreading Secretariat and other overhead expenses out to the entire range of IETF participants, not just those who attend meetings. I note that we are now at USD 1800/year and rising, a level that starts to approach the costs of ITU-T Sector Membership and participation fees for a number of other bodies that we have periodically accused of being less open than we are by virtue of their fee structures. Trying to spread things out of course involves opening other cans of worms, some of them quite large and complex. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Jordi, You're being unrealistic as you usually are on this topic. I'm going to reply to couple of points in this thread in one message for the sake of brevity. JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Hi John, > > I didn't said that operating a meeting outside US is cheaper than in US. I > said that the cost for *participants* is lower. > > In fact, I know that a meeting in US is cheaper for the IETF, by the simple > fact that meeting rooms aren't charged, which is not true probably in most > of the other parts of the world. The meeting rooms are included in the the room block. if you don't make the room block Then there's a penalty associated with that. If for example everyone decides to stay in another hotel then you pay for the meeting space. We could pay for the meeting space in exchange for a lower room rate, but either way you slice it the hotel has a minimum number they need to make on a meeting of a gived size and duration and they won't go below that. > I also indicated that this is the reason why many sponsors prefer to have > the meetings in US, because it becomes cheaper to them, and one more reason > to split the "sponsor" from the "host" function and arrange the meetings in > venues not tied to a specific sponsor, in order to be able to have them more > frequently outside US. > > What this means is that we may need to increase the registration fee. You're just moving costs around, it's unlikely to make anything cheaper. If cost of hosting is more expensive in a given location and the participants will bear that additional cost under your model, your assertion is that it will be cheaper due to some of them having lower travel costs. Again that strikes me as unrealistic. the meeting fee doesn't have to get that much bigger before it eclipses either travel or lodging costs as the major expense. What's more you're missing the heart of the issue. Which in my opinion is that the operation of the overhead functions that are the general ietf infrastructure are funded out of the meeting fees which means the amount made on the meeting has to exceed the actual costs by order of 50%. At the sane time, the organization is if you haven't noticed shrinking and it's character is changing. It has more professional standards folks and fewer of the students, academics and network operators that made it interesting to me 10 years ago. Pushing higher costs onto potential attendees isn't likely to attract more of them. > AND > THIS IS THE RIGHT THING DO TO in order to evenly share the costs between ALL > the participants, but only if the sharing of event locations is also FAIR. > Otherwise, more people traveling from other regions to US means more cost > from them, which is not fairly shared among ALL the participants. Your basic beef appears be not that it's cheaper travel-wise from the perspective of some participants to hold the meeting outside the US (if it was you wouldn't be advocating for meetings in South America or Africa which don't have significant historical participation) but rather that the host sponsored model can require a significant capital outlay to make the meeting work in some potential destinations. Now I know you offered to host a meeting back in the CNRI days so perhaps you can share from direct experience what it would have cost you under the current model to host the meeting in Spain? > The poor network infrastructure is not only a question of the links. It is a > question of having a good or bad network, like the problem that we had all > this week with the DHCP. Having a good link the network was still unusable > 60% of the time. I don't believe the network was unusable 60% of the time. perhaps you are engaging in hyperbole? > It is also a question of good or bad luck, and this may > happen anywhere. The network runs smoothly in the hands of the most experienced operators with as much advance planning as is feasible. These things have costs. The best effort volunteer model in conjunction with an accommodating host has produced the best networks the IETF has experienced. The IAD and the IAOC are experimenting with contracted network services and models which involve both volunteer and contractor effort. If you provide them with feedback on your experiences that will no doubt be valuable information. > A road construction can break a fiber everywhere in the > world and you only avoid this with a backup link, which for example I > believe ICANN doesn't compared with IETF. The primary circuit was donated due to the diligent efforts of the volunteers and at&t participants. Obtaining connectivity in arbitrary locations is neither easy nor cheap. This location in Chicago was easier than some. > Regards, > Jordi > > In another message you wrote: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > And in the concrete case of the Palmer house, the price of the hotel > was not worth to pay for, in my opinion. Rooms very old and dark, not > even having wardrobe to hang up the clothes :-(, in addition to th
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
You said: "...but surely it would be even better to pick a more reasonably priced hotel?" Maybe. If it also has conference facilities, or sits next door to such (more or less). That's not likely to be easy to find. 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
And in the concrete case of the Palmer house, the price of the hotel was not worth to pay for, in my opinion. Rooms very old and dark, not even having wardrobe to hang up the clothes :-(, in addition to the construction issues. Yes, it was a very nice hotel (but I don't really mind that, because I come there to work and keep doing my regular daily tasks), and had an excellent gym, which I really appreciate, however, the one in Prague was much better in my opinion (including a much better and bigger gym). Regards, Jordi > De: Adrian Farrel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responder a: Adrian Farrel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:22:41 +0100 > Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: > Asunto: Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ? > > Stewart, > >> Do we have any firm evidence that we would get more work >> done if we had more meetings outside the US? > > That is probably a non-question, isn't it? > > Do we have any firm evidence that we would get less work done if we had more > meetings outside the US? > > Another data point might be... > > In the CCAMP working group five editors or key authors of working group I-Ds > were unable to travel to Chicago (for whatever reason). All of these are > based outside the US. > > One new non-WG draft had to be introduced by a friend because none of the > author team was able to travel. > > That said, the hotel cost is as much of an issue for me. I continually have > to weigh up the convenience of staying in the host hotel, with the > exorbitant room rates. The 30% degradation of the US dollar over the last > six or seven years is a great help, but surely it would be even better to > pick a more reasonably priced hotel? > > Adrian > > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Stewart, Do we have any firm evidence that we would get more work done if we had more meetings outside the US? That is probably a non-question, isn't it? Do we have any firm evidence that we would get less work done if we had more meetings outside the US? Another data point might be... In the CCAMP working group five editors or key authors of working group I-Ds were unable to travel to Chicago (for whatever reason). All of these are based outside the US. One new non-WG draft had to be introduced by a friend because none of the author team was able to travel. That said, the hotel cost is as much of an issue for me. I continually have to weigh up the convenience of staying in the host hotel, with the exorbitant room rates. The 30% degradation of the US dollar over the last six or seven years is a great help, but surely it would be even better to pick a more reasonably priced hotel? Adrian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Hi John,
I didn't said that operating a meeting outside US is cheaper than in US. I
said that the cost for *participants* is lower.
In fact, I know that a meeting in US is cheaper for the IETF, by the simple
fact that meeting rooms aren't charged, which is not true probably in most
of the other parts of the world.
I also indicated that this is the reason why many sponsors prefer to have
the meetings in US, because it becomes cheaper to them, and one more reason
to split the "sponsor" from the "host" function and arrange the meetings in
venues not tied to a specific sponsor, in order to be able to have them more
frequently outside US.
What this means is that we may need to increase the registration fee. AND
THIS IS THE RIGHT THING DO TO in order to evenly share the costs between ALL
the participants, but only if the sharing of event locations is also FAIR.
Otherwise, more people traveling from other regions to US means more cost
from them, which is not fairly shared among ALL the participants.
The poor network infrastructure is not only a question of the links. It is a
question of having a good or bad network, like the problem that we had all
this week with the DHCP. Having a good link the network was still unusable
60% of the time. It is also a question of good or bad luck, and this may
happen anywhere. A road construction can break a fiber everywhere in the
world and you only avoid this with a backup link, which for example I
believe ICANN doesn't compared with IETF.
Regards,
Jordi
> De: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:38:07 -0400
> Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC:
> Asunto: Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
>
>
>
> --On Sunday, 29 July, 2007 16:04 +0100 Stewart Bryant
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Do we have any firm evidence that we would get more work
>> done if we had more meetings outside the US?
>
> As far as I know, we do not.
>
> We also have no firm evidence that, despite the claim in Jordi's
> note, total costs of operating a meeting, measured as
>
> Hotel and travel expenses for secretariat staff +
> Direct meeting costs (rooms, cookies, AV, network) +
>The registration fee +
> Attendee costs for hotels +
> Total attendee travel and meal costs
>
> The first two of these must be calculated in current US dollars
> regardless of the location of the meeting because IASA does
> business in dollars. And the others need to be adjusted for
> the local (home) currencies of the attendees ("inexpensive
> place" may not be so inexpensive if exchange rates are poor for
> a significant number of attendees).
>
> In addition, one must consider the odds of meetings being
> disrupted by either poor network infrastructure that we need to
> deal with or the risk of long-haul connections being sporadic.
> ICANN may be able to live with outages in long-haul connections
> of several hours duration, but I don't think we can.
>
> I'm actually a strong advocate of non-US meetings, especially
> when I see key people prevented from attending by
> seemingly-arbitrary delays in approving visas that stretch past
> the meeting's starting date. But I am also tired of regular
> speeches about either going to places where we don't have
> significant participation locally or about claimed advantages of
> non-US meetings that I believe are dubious.
>
> And, FWIW, I believe that we are already suffering from too-high
> total costs to attendees. Getting a good room rate on a
> super-deluxe hotel is wonderful, but, if that hotel comes with
> super-deluxe prices for, e.g., breakfast and beer, it really
> doesn't help us: to take a recent example, knowing that cheap
> beer is a few blocks away doesn't create an obvious location for
> bar-bofs.
>
> john
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPv6: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
hello peter , all, well i am just lurking, but i am very interested in everything about ipv6 and deployment in general there is an upcomming event here in cologne: "European Conference on Applied IPv6" at the 6th and 7th of september 2007 here in cologne http://www.guug.de/veranstaltungen/ecai6-2007/index.html hope to cu there regards Marc On Jul 29, 2007, at 5:39 PM, Peter Dambier wrote: Stewart Bryant wrote: Do we have any firm evidence that we would get more work done if we had more meetings outside the US? Stewart Is there any IPv6 activity inside the US? Or multilingual namespace? Kind regards Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.com/ -- "Reality is what, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Failure is not an option. It is a privilege reserved for those who try." web: http://www.let.de .local http://stattfernsehen.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Well I was not indicating that, but simple maths can also say so. As it seems that more people is contributing from Europe than from US, it means for more people more traveling time, more time with immigration issues, etc. Probably we could count from 16 to 40 hours per each individual. Those hours can be applied to do more IETF work (it is not necessarily the case, but in any case is time worth saving). Regards, Jordi > De: Stewart Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:04:23 +0100 > Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: > Asunto: Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ? > > > Do we have any firm evidence that we would get more work > done if we had more meetings outside the US? > > Stewart > > > > > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Stewart Bryant writes: Do we have any firm evidence that we would get more work done if we had more meetings outside the US? I do get work done instead of spending two days applying for a US visa. My two cents. (But in all honesty, I'm not sure I'd go anyway. If an IETF meeting is held in a place I've always wanted to visit, I'll go there. Minneapolis isn't that. Five days in Minneapolis + travel time + US visa chores compares poorly with jabber and audio streaming for the few WGs that interest me. Maybe the attendee questionnaire should be extended with another question, «how much time did you spend playing Windows Solitaire?».) Arnt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IPv6: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Stewart Bryant wrote: Do we have any firm evidence that we would get more work done if we had more meetings outside the US? Stewart Is there any IPv6 activity inside the US? Or multilingual namespace? Kind regards Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
--On Sunday, 29 July, 2007 16:04 +0100 Stewart Bryant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do we have any firm evidence that we would get more work
> done if we had more meetings outside the US?
As far as I know, we do not.
We also have no firm evidence that, despite the claim in Jordi's
note, total costs of operating a meeting, measured as
Hotel and travel expenses for secretariat staff +
Direct meeting costs (rooms, cookies, AV, network) +
The registration fee +
Attendee costs for hotels +
Total attendee travel and meal costs
The first two of these must be calculated in current US dollars
regardless of the location of the meeting because IASA does
business in dollars. And the others need to be adjusted for
the local (home) currencies of the attendees ("inexpensive
place" may not be so inexpensive if exchange rates are poor for
a significant number of attendees).
In addition, one must consider the odds of meetings being
disrupted by either poor network infrastructure that we need to
deal with or the risk of long-haul connections being sporadic.
ICANN may be able to live with outages in long-haul connections
of several hours duration, but I don't think we can.
I'm actually a strong advocate of non-US meetings, especially
when I see key people prevented from attending by
seemingly-arbitrary delays in approving visas that stretch past
the meeting's starting date. But I am also tired of regular
speeches about either going to places where we don't have
significant participation locally or about claimed advantages of
non-US meetings that I believe are dubious.
And, FWIW, I believe that we are already suffering from too-high
total costs to attendees. Getting a good room rate on a
super-deluxe hotel is wonderful, but, if that hotel comes with
super-deluxe prices for, e.g., breakfast and beer, it really
doesn't help us: to take a recent example, knowing that cheap
beer is a few blocks away doesn't create an obvious location for
bar-bofs.
john
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Do we have any firm evidence that we would get more work done if we had more meetings outside the US? Stewart ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: H Of course, there are other reasons such as lower cost for the meetings and typically more sponsors able to fund those meetings, which again make me wonder why we still keep a model tying the sponsorship to a concrete meetings instead of an overall "IETF meetings" sponsorship and disconnect as much as possible the sponsorship from the hosting. Non-meeting sponsorship for the IETF is also known as "ISOC Platinum membership (directing the contribution to standards)". ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?
Hi, Yes, you read the subject correctly. The question is if you will like to have MORE meetings outside US ... This morning talking with one of the IOAC members he explained me *one* of the reasons we still have so many meetings in US. The survey that we have after each IETF meeting include a question related to this, and MANY MORE US participants are completing this survey, so the result, is obviously biased. So, I will suggest that if you want to have more meeting in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa, or wherever else, say so publicly. The US participation in IETF meetings now is only about 40%, and the number of non-US participants in the work is also increasing. HOWEVER we fail to say where we want to have the meetings ! In addition to that, it is clear to me that the number of participants and countries in US meetings is going low ... I guess is a clear sign. Probably if things don't change and we have more meetings outside US, we should make it make more clear and massively stop coming to the meetings in US ? The IOAC should seriously consider the consequences of this situation as they already know that the balance of people preferring meetings in US is due to the fact that much more US participants complete the survey, is not obvious ? And may be we need to CHANGE the actual planning, instead of waiting for changes in 3-4 years for having more meetings outside US. * So please, make sure to fill-in the IETF survey ! In fact, I will like to ask the IAD to make sure that there is a specific survey for ONLY this question *NOW*, separated from the overall meeting survey. Of course, there are other reasons such as lower cost for the meetings and typically more sponsors able to fund those meetings, which again make me wonder why we still keep a model tying the sponsorship to a concrete meetings instead of an overall "IETF meetings" sponsorship and disconnect as much as possible the sponsorship from the hosting. My view is that hosts are still needed if possible, and they can provide part of the "local" benefits, such as looking for lower cost or free connectivity, better deals with hotels, support from local authorities, etc. Regards, Jordi ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
