Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Oh lets just hold the next meeting on the train itself and save the arguing. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On May 25, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: The Hague, largest room: 2161 (30 min by train from Schiphol + tram or taxi) http://www.worldforumcc.com/wfcc/uk/factsfigures_uk/capaciteitenov_uk.html The Hague is easy to get to. I attended an ISOC meeting there last fall, and the location met all my success criteria. It has excellent support infrastructure, good airport accessibility (an airport shuttle train that is basically door to door) and easy walkability. There is a vast variety of housing. Crime is trivial, the locals are friendly and used to weirdo foreigners, and the beer reasonably priced. While Maastricht may offer some of those optimizations, it's much easier to reach The Hague: any basically unskilled traveller can probably succeed by accident; stumble out of the airport and onto a random train, and you have a 50% chance of being on the right one even if you can't translate the large sign saying "Den Haag". -- Dean ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Antoin, On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 03:45:20PM +0200, Antoin Verschuren wrote: > > Paris Charles de Gaulle airport > Is a reasonable alternative if your airline doesn't do Amsterdam or Brussels. > The train journey to Maastricht will take you approx 3,5 hours, and includes > 2 stopovers. > First from Paris CDG to Paris Nord by RER, then take the TGV to Brussels, and > then to Maastricht: > > Aeroport Charles de Gaulle 1--Paris Nord > Paris Nord-- Bruxelles-Sud/Midi >Bruxelles-Sud/Midi--Maastricht There are many TGVs that go directly from CDG to brussels which cuts out one connection and if your plane arrives at the right time, cuts down the trip to 3 hours and 10 minutes which puts it in the same order of magnitude as traveling from Amsterdam and has the advantage of not having to travel at all on the congested dutch railway system (and in fact one could argue whether you ever set foot on dutch soil ;-)) Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > So suppose you're flying from SFO with Northwest, leaving on friday. > Land at 10:30 on saturday. (Results based on doing all of this the > same week this year.) I don't think you'll make the 11:00 train, so it > would have to be the 11:30 or 12:00 one, which gets you to the > Maastricht train station at 14:04 or 14:34 with 6 minutes to change > trains in Utrecht. So far so good. Having flown this route many times, it is entirely possible to catch the 11:00am train if you didn't check in, and even if you checked in, more often than not this flight and other transatlantic flights arrive early and you can also make it. Also, if the meeting was held in Amsterdam, you would have still needed to catch a train to Amsterdam. Catching the train to Maastricht from Schiphol airport would not have caused an increase in difficulty level compared to a train to Amsterdam. The only difference would have been the longer travel time. I agree that Maastricht is not an ideal location from a travel time perspective and that locations like Paris are a better choice if venues and sponsors happened to be available. On the other hand it is really not that hard to get to Maastricht and certainly worth the few extra travel hours compared to some of the cold and icy locations that the IETF has visited in the recent past. And when comparing it to Dublin, getting from the airport to the meeting venue might actually not be much of a difference time wise thanks to the horrible traffic situation around Dublin (unless you were one of the lucky few who managed to into one of the black helicopters). David Kessens --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Subject: Re: IETF 78 Annoucement Date: Tue, May 26, 2009 at 03:04:13PM +0200 Quoting Tom.Petch (sisyp...@dial.pipex.com): > > So May, delightful, June, pleasant, July, nightmare. I wonder if that is why > RIPE meet in May. RIPE meets in May to get to sample Koninginnedag -- indeed an experience. Now, Maastricht, to get things back on topic, isn't that bad. From home, it is 5 swaps and 21h on the European rail system. Narrator: You will now listen to my voice. My voice will help you and guide you still deeper into Europa. Every time you hear my voice, with every word and every number, you will enter into a still deeper layer, open, relaxed and receptive. I shall now count from one to ten. On the count of ten, you will be in Europa. (From the movie Europa, by Lars Von Trier, about an American native trying to work in the post-war European railway system. Kind of appropriate.) -- Måns Nilsson ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IETF 78 Annoucement
Ah, yes Ole, you're right. I missed that one because it involves traveling in 3 countries and it didn't show up in the regular travel planner from the Dutch railways because my subscribtion ticket isn't valid for the 3th country. I never take the Maastricht-Liege route to Frankfurt from Eindhoven where I board the train, since that is longer for me, and I have to buy a surplus ticket. As said, we will make a detailed trip advisor, and perhaps I'll even make pictures of the train stations, platforms, vending machines, scedules, signs and the one and only train conductor in the Netherlands that doesn't speak english just in case he has duty on the train you'll be in (or perhaps he is retired by 2010) just to make it even more comfortable for non-train travelers. You did a great job on Hiroshima, thank you for that. Antoin Verschuren Technical Advisor Policy & Business Development SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525510 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschu...@sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/ -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Ole Jacobsen [mailto:o...@cisco.com] Verzonden: di 2009-05-26 17:33 Aan: Antoin Verschuren CC: IETF Discussion Onderwerp: RE: IETF 78 Annoucement "Frankfurt airport Is probably your worst choice. Although there are lots of international flights, the train connection to Maastricht is poor. There is a 1 stopover train via Utrecht which takes 5:21 and a 3 stopover journey that takes 4:25" According the DB, the 3-connection ride is actually 3:35, but yeah, the scenic route via Utrecht is 5:21. But you can also go via: Frankfurt(M) Flughafen Fernbf Su, 26.07.09 dep 13:43Fern 7 Liege-Guillemins Su, 26.07.09 arr 15:42 Liege-Guillemins Su, 26.07.09 dep 16:21 Maastricht Su, 26.07.09 arr 16:50 4b That's ONE change and 3:07 from Frankfurt. And the departure is late enough in the day that you could do it the same day after flying in to FRA. I am not pushing for FRA as the arrival point, just pointing out that it's no worse than Amsterdam and there are of course lots of flights to FRA from all over the world as you say. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On Sun, 24 May 2009, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: Not sure if making attending IETF meetings as difficult as possible is a winning strategy. But at least this venue is not "as difficult as possible". For comparison, consider Mar del Plata, Argentina, the venue for the April 2005 ICANN meeting[2]. It's 400km from Buenos Aires[1]. There is a train from Buenos Aires. It takes 5.5 hours[1]. Aerolineas runs one or two flights a day (in the off season) from Buenos Aires' Arpt. Jorge Newbery (AEP). But international flights arrive at EZE, which means there's a long surface transfer involved in you want to fly. Or you can drive. Or take the bus. Besides, July is a lovely time to visit the Netherlands. :-) -- Sam [1] http://wikitravel.org/en/Mar_del_Plata [2] http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/mardelplata/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > Coming from Tokyo to Minneapolis isn't exactly a single hop either if > you want to consider another case. Actually, it is a single hop. There is daily non-stop service from Tokyo to MSP: http://www.orbitz.com/flight-info/NW/NW-MSP-NRT.html And there are quite a few non-stop flights to MSP from Europe as well, including Paris, Amsterdam, and Heathrow, plus Mumbai and Singaporeand this is just the Northwest (Delta) non-stops. So while personally I love visiting the Netherlands and think Maastricht will be a very fun trip indeed, it will be quite difficult to get to, and arguing this is somehow even remotely similar to Minneapolis in terms of air service is pretty far off the mark. Minneapolis is not Chicago or London, and lack of competition might make it a bit pricier than some other airports, but it has a very well served international airport. David > > Plug: See hiroshima-info.info for general travel information for IETF > 76. > >> >> I also assume that you have attempted to launch a "sponsor IETF meetings" >> program on a "contribute to a fund" basis, as distinct from "host this >> particular meeting", and either gotten no useful response or discovered that >> host in-kind contributions in specific locations dominate possible cash >> contributions. Can you confirm that as well? > > I think Ray and Drew can answer this better, but let's just say that > the "money pool" idea is very difficult to sell to most sponsors. > >> >> Finally, I assume that the IAOC has done an analysis, not only of what it >> would cost us to abandon hosted meetings entirely, but of what it would cost >> --both in absolute and meeting-fee terms-- to say "no" to hosts who insisted >> on out of the way locations. May we see that analysis not later than the >> plenary in Stockholm? > > I don't think we've ever had hosts who have "insisted on out of the > way locations," but I agree that such an analysis would be good to > present. > > Ole > >> >> john >> >> ___ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Hi, Antoin, This was quite tranquilizing. Thank you for posting. I haven't been an adventurous traveler in Europe, but did have a nice day-long train trip from Amsterdam (SHIM6 interim) to Paris (Softwires interim) a couple of years ago, and that was OK. So I think there's hope. On the other hand, my most adventurous IETF was the Dallas IETF And Watersports Event, and that was about 40 miles from my house, so I bet the biggest issue for IETF 78 turns out to be a surprise, too! Spencer However, the Netherlands only has a single airport with decent connections and ground transportation. For those of us traveling to IETF-78 from within Europe it's still doable (probably have to sacrifice the friday afternoon sessions, though) but I'm glad I don't have to fly in from the US west coast or Asia. First to respond to Iljitsch comments of more plausible venues. The major issue here in NL are Hotels, not conference centers. That's because conference attendees usually don't stay over in NL, but go home to wife and kids in this densely populated country. The trip home is on average about an hour from any congress location. The largest hotel in NL is yet to be build, and has a capacity of 500 rooms. All other hotels are (much) smaller, and they usually are for tourists. There are cities that have a joint hotel capacity for an IETF, but if you don't want to end up in Youth hostels, Budget Hotels or sloppy Airport hotels with no facilities at all in the hotel or neighborhood, there are 3 places left. So Utrecht and Rotterdam are not viable options due to spreading out over too many and too uncomfortable hotels. Some of us don't mind about hotel quality, but other frequent travelers do. An IETF should provide capacity for both. Maastricht wouldn't have been my first choice due to the absence of an International airport, but I'm sure the location was chosen because of other logistics that could not be met in Amsterdam or The Hague. You might also have noticed that there are multiple sponsors for this meeting, none of them being major international corporations. None of these sponsors could carry the sponsoring budget all by themselves, but they all wanted to contribute to make your cost less. That might also explain the choice of the venue, as there are sponsors from NL, BE and DE. If you don't want sponsors like that anymore, and only choose large multinationals that don't care about location of the meeting, fine. You'll have less sponsors to choose from, and end up in the same places like Minneapolis every time. And perhaps it's time to tranquilize some people. I live in the south of the Netherlands, and I have to make the journey to/from Amsterdam/Brussels/Paris/Frankfurt airport on EVERY IETF or other trip that involves flying. And I travel 100 km to work every day, which takes me less time than to get from an Amsterdam outskirt to Amsterdam center, so reach ability is something else than proximity. There used to be scheduled domestic flights between Amsterdam Schiphol Airport and other Dutch airports like Maastricht-Aachen Airport, but they abolished them a number of years ago because the train between those airports was faster, cheaper, more frequent, more economical and more efficient than a flight. I'll make sure there will be a good guide in due time. But to give you some of my experiences in advance: Train travel is the most used and comfortable way to reach an airport in Western Europe. I find a taxi ride from any airport anywhere in the world more adventurous and risky than a train from Schiphol in the Netherlands. Trains are clean, comfortable and run on schedule here. You'll also find that this is more true on the Amsterdam-Maastricht intercity line than on local trains near Amsterdam/The Hague/Rotterdam. Your figure of 80% trains that run on time is only because we consider a train late when it's 1 minute overdue, even when the next train is scheduled 15 minutes later. By that definition, a taxi ride during rush hour is less predictable, and will never run on time. The 4 major International airports for Maastricht are Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris and Frankfurt. Amsterdam Schiphol airport. This is probably your best choice. The train journey to Maastricht will take you 2:34 on weekdays, 2:50 in the weekends and runs every half hour between 5:02 and 22:14. It involves 1 stopover in either Utrecht, 's-Hertogenbosch or Eindhoven, so there is enough choice and no reason for panic: Schiphol--Utrecht--'s-Hertogenbosch--Eindhoven Utrecht--'s-Hertogenbosch--Eindhoven--Maastricht Maastricht is an end station, so no reason to panic getting off. Everybody leaves the train in Maastricht, you will not miss your stop. Brussels airport Also a good choice, but with less international flights. If your airline does do Brussels, it's an excellent choice. The train journey to Maastricht will take you 1:46 or 1:58 and runs every hour between 5:50 and 21:5
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On May 25, 2009, at 4:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote: With a train, you have to pick the correct train, and then leave the train at the correct stop. A bit more complicated to be honest. By interacting with people, you often can handle the most complicated train ride, but yes, it might be more complicated with train. Complication that, in many cases, is severely complicated by being tired, exhausted, and out of focus from a long flight. It could be there are only two more generations be able to travel extensively by jet airplanes. Perhaps zeppelin travel will return. Trains are about 5 times more energy efficient that planes, and about 3 times that of autos. While there is little safety difference between planes and trains, there is a significant difference between that of autos. Dealing with trains is also much less common for those in North America than from other locales. While I agree making sense of train schedules, and at times even knowing which direction the train should be heading to find the correct tracks, can be challenging. Patrik is right. Sometimes you need to ask. :^) -Doug ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
- Original Message - From: "Ole Jacobsen" To: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" Cc: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" ; "IETF Discussion" Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 6:09 PM Subject: Re: IETF 78 Annoucement > I don't know why you think moving the meeting to June will make more > facilities available in Europe. July-August is the traditional > vacation season and hence "off season" for conferences. Precisely, and if facilities include travel, which for me as a potential participant they do, then yes, more is available. When last I used Schipol, it was for a July meeting and, for a one hop flight to another European country, I was told to check in three hours beforehand. This was before the security scares, when a one hour check-in would be lengthy. When I asked why so long, I was told never to use Schipol at a weekend in July; holiday season, always a nightmare. And it was; the check-in queue is etched in my brain still. So May, delightful, June, pleasant, July, nightmare. I wonder if that is why RIPE meet in May. Tom Petch > The extreme > example might be IETF in Paris which one could argue suffered slightly > from the fact that Paris was basically "closed for vacation" at that > time, but I am sure it made it easier to get the convention center > and hotel and probably cheaper too. And the "closed" condition didn't > seem to cause anyone to starve etc. > > Ole > > Ole J. Jacobsen > Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal > Cisco Systems > Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 > E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IETF 78 Annoucement
"Frankfurt airport Is probably your worst choice. Although there are lots of international flights, the train connection to Maastricht is poor. There is a 1 stopover train via Utrecht which takes 5:21 and a 3 stopover journey that takes 4:25" According the DB, the 3-connection ride is actually 3:35, but yeah, the scenic route via Utrecht is 5:21. But you can also go via: Frankfurt(M) Flughafen Fernbf Su, 26.07.09 dep 13:43Fern 7 Liege-Guillemins Su, 26.07.09 arr 15:42 Liege-Guillemins Su, 26.07.09 dep 16:21 Maastricht Su, 26.07.09 arr 16:50 4b That's ONE change and 3:07 from Frankfurt. And the departure is late enough in the day that you could do it the same day after flying in to FRA. I am not pushing for FRA as the arrival point, just pointing out that it's no worse than Amsterdam and there are of course lots of flights to FRA from all over the world as you say. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IETF 78 Annoucement
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 26 mei 2009, at 23:33, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > However, the Netherlands only has a single airport with decent > connections and ground transportation. For those of us traveling to > IETF-78 from within Europe it's still doable (probably have to > sacrifice the friday afternoon sessions, though) but I'm glad I don't > have to fly in from the US west coast or Asia. First to respond to Iljitsch comments of more plausible venues. The major issue here in NL are Hotels, not conference centers. That's because conference attendees usually don't stay over in NL, but go home to wife and kids in this densely populated country. The trip home is on average about an hour from any congress location. The largest hotel in NL is yet to be build, and has a capacity of 500 rooms. All other hotels are (much) smaller, and they usually are for tourists. There are cities that have a joint hotel capacity for an IETF, but if you don't want to end up in Youth hostels, Budget Hotels or sloppy Airport hotels with no facilities at all in the hotel or neighborhood, there are 3 places left. So Utrecht and Rotterdam are not viable options due to spreading out over too many and too uncomfortable hotels. Some of us don't mind about hotel quality, but other frequent travelers do. An IETF should provide capacity for both. Maastricht wouldn't have been my first choice due to the absence of an International airport, but I'm sure the location was chosen because of other logistics that could not be met in Amsterdam or The Hague. You might also have noticed that there are multiple sponsors for this meeting, none of them being major international corporations. None of these sponsors could carry the sponsoring budget all by themselves, but they all wanted to contribute to make your cost less. That might also explain the choice of the venue, as there are sponsors from NL, BE and DE. If you don't want sponsors like that anymore, and only choose large multinationals that don't care about location of the meeting, fine. You'll have less sponsors to choose from, and end up in the same places like Minneapolis every time. And perhaps it's time to tranquilize some people. I live in the south of the Netherlands, and I have to make the journey to/from Amsterdam/Brussels/Paris/Frankfurt airport on EVERY IETF or other trip that involves flying. And I travel 100 km to work every day, which takes me less time than to get from an Amsterdam outskirt to Amsterdam center, so reach ability is something else than proximity. There used to be scheduled domestic flights between Amsterdam Schiphol Airport and other Dutch airports like Maastricht-Aachen Airport, but they abolished them a number of years ago because the train between those airports was faster, cheaper, more frequent, more economical and more efficient than a flight. I'll make sure there will be a good guide in due time. But to give you some of my experiences in advance: Train travel is the most used and comfortable way to reach an airport in Western Europe. I find a taxi ride from any airport anywhere in the world more adventurous and risky than a train from Schiphol in the Netherlands. Trains are clean, comfortable and run on schedule here. You'll also find that this is more true on the Amsterdam-Maastricht intercity line than on local trains near Amsterdam/The Hague/Rotterdam. Your figure of 80% trains that run on time is only because we consider a train late when it's 1 minute overdue, even when the next train is scheduled 15 minutes later. By that definition, a taxi ride during rush hour is less predictable, and will never run on time. The 4 major International airports for Maastricht are Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris and Frankfurt. Amsterdam Schiphol airport. This is probably your best choice. The train journey to Maastricht will take you 2:34 on weekdays, 2:50 in the weekends and runs every half hour between 5:02 and 22:14. It involves 1 stopover in either Utrecht, 's-Hertogenbosch or Eindhoven, so there is enough choice and no reason for panic: Schiphol--Utrecht--'s-Hertogenbosch--Eindhoven Utrecht--'s-Hertogenbosch--Eindhoven--Maastricht Maastricht is an end station, so no reason to panic getting off. Everybody leaves the train in Maastricht, you will not miss your stop. Brussels airport Also a good choice, but with less international flights. If your airline does do Brussels, it's an excellent choice. The train journey to Maastricht will take you 1:46 or 1:58 and runs every hour between 5:50 and 21:50. It involves 1 stopover in Brussels: Bruxelles-Nat.-Aéroport-- Brussel Noord/Bruxelles Nord Brussel Noord/Bruxelles Nord--Maastricht Paris Charles de Gaulle airport Is a reasonable alternative if your airline doesn't do Amsterdam or Brussels. The train journey to Maastricht will take you approx 3,5 hours, and includes 2 stopovers. First from Paris CDG to Paris Nord
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Please, let us keep a couple of things in mind here. Firstly, I am quite sure that a large number of factors, both formal and informal, are evaluated by the IAOC in selecting a venue. While we may or may not want more information, asking them to give us "all" the information they consider is, in my opinion, a request that can not and should not be fulfilled. Let us also remember that we are actually getting better visibility to the selection process, and a better ability to provide input. Most importantly, given the real world constraints, venue selection is hard. As a community, we tend to articulate sets of mutually incompatible requirements. (usually, it is different people with different requirements, but sometimes) Yours, Joel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On Tue, 26 May 2009, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> It just doesn't make sense to me to meet in places that are that hard to
> reach. I've skipped San Diego for exactly this reason in the past and I'm not
> sure I'll be going to Hiroshima.
Neither are hard to reach, that's just your own definition.
>
> The fact that there is very little information coming out about how this
> decision was reached and some of it has been of questionable quality ("MAYBE 3
> venues big enough", I listed 4 so with Maastricht that's 5; "reason for
> meeting during European holiday season lost in the mists of time") doesn't
> help.
You are either deliberately distorting what was said or you didn't
understand it. Whether there are 3, 4 or 5 event venues that YOU think
might be suitable isn't relevant. The availability of said venues,
nearby hotels, cost, network-ability and so are the factors that have
to be considered. I hope you understand that selecting a venue takes
more than 5 minutes with Google.
As for "lost in the mist of time", I think Fred explained the sequence
of events that led to the current schedule, and let's not forgot the
STRONG desire from the IETF community to have events that don't clash
with other meetings and that can be planned for more than 6 months
out. Besides, you haven't offered a single reason why moving the
meeting back to say June would be benefitial. You have theories about
availability, that's all.
Ole
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 25 mei 2009, at 23:33, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > >> Of all the people who have to travel to this meeting, I would not have >> imagined that you would be the one to complain. > > It just doesn't make sense to me to meet in places that are that hard to > reach. I've skipped San Diego for exactly this reason in the past and I'm > not sure I'll be going to Hiroshima. San Diego is, perhaps, the only IETF meeting where it is practical to walk from the airport to the usual hotel. Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home) 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IETF 78 Annoucement
While Netherlands is one of my favorite countries, over the last couple of
years, the train service has become much less dependable. Maintenance
activities are common, especially on weekends, where a bus is available between
the two points, but the timing is unpredictable. And only if you have looked
on-line and can read Dutch, will you be aware of it. And sometimes there are
strikes - sometimes while you are on the train - it happened to me on the train
between the airport and Amsterdam - and again the announcements were only in
Dutch. Most Dutch can speak English, and someone will translate for you.
Suggest if you need to make a morning flight, stay the night before at an
airport hotel or in Amsterdam where you can also take a taxi/airport bus. And
this gives you the opportunity to also see Amsterdam:-)
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of Iljitsch van Beijnum
Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 4:10 AM
To: Ole Jacobsen
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On 25 mei 2009, at 23:33, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> Of all the people who have to travel to this meeting, I would not have
> imagined that you would be the one to complain.
It just doesn't make sense to me to meet in places that are that hard
to reach. I've skipped San Diego for exactly this reason in the past
and I'm not sure I'll be going to Hiroshima.
The fact that there is very little information coming out about how
this decision was reached and some of it has been of questionable
quality ("MAYBE 3 venues big enough", I listed 4 so with Maastricht
that's 5; "reason for meeting during European holiday season lost in
the mists of time") doesn't help.
> The Netherlands is not
> a large country and it's not far from a lot of places in continental
> Europe.
However, the Netherlands only has a single airport with decent
connections and ground transportation. For those of us traveling to
IETF-78 from within Europe it's still doable (probably have to
sacrifice the friday afternoon sessions, though) but I'm glad I don't
have to fly in from the US west coast or Asia.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On 25 mei 2009, at 23:33, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Of all the people who have to travel to this meeting, I would not have
imagined that you would be the one to complain.
It just doesn't make sense to me to meet in places that are that hard
to reach. I've skipped San Diego for exactly this reason in the past
and I'm not sure I'll be going to Hiroshima.
The fact that there is very little information coming out about how
this decision was reached and some of it has been of questionable
quality ("MAYBE 3 venues big enough", I listed 4 so with Maastricht
that's 5; "reason for meeting during European holiday season lost in
the mists of time") doesn't help.
The Netherlands is not
a large country and it's not far from a lot of places in continental
Europe.
However, the Netherlands only has a single airport with decent
connections and ground transportation. For those of us traveling to
IETF-78 from within Europe it's still doable (probably have to
sacrifice the friday afternoon sessions, though) but I'm glad I don't
have to fly in from the US west coast or Asia.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, May 25, 2009 9:47 PM +0200 Patrik Fältström wrote: One difference is that a plane is quite easy to use. You have someone that will (at least this has happened to me) stop you if you try to enter the wrong flight. Then the plane moves, and when it arrived everyone have to exit. With a train, you have to pick the correct train, and then leave the train at the correct stop. A bit more complicated to be honest. By interacting with people, you often can handle the most complicated train ride, but yes, it might be more complicated with train. Complication that, in many cases, is severely complicated by being tired, exhausted, and out of focus from a long flight. 95% of the people going to/from the airport are tourists, who do not travel frequently, often don't understand Dutch, are nerveous and exhausted. They make it from/to the airport just fine. And all this is before the local host even got a chance to provide instructions on how to get to the conference location from the airport. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
--On Monday, May 25, 2009 9:47 PM +0200 Patrik Fältström wrote: One difference is that a plane is quite easy to use. You have someone that will (at least this has happened to me) stop you if you try to enter the wrong flight. Then the plane moves, and when it arrived everyone have to exit. With a train, you have to pick the correct train, and then leave the train at the correct stop. A bit more complicated to be honest. By interacting with people, you often can handle the most complicated train ride, but yes, it might be more complicated with train. Complication that, in many cases, is severely complicated by being tired, exhausted, and out of focus from a long flight. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Seems to be time to start the 78attend...@ietf.org list. - RL "Bob" ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On Mon, 25 May 2009, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > > One difference is that a plane is quite easy to use. You have someone that > will (at least this has happened to me) stop you if you try to enter the wrong > flight. Then the plane moves, and when it arrived everyone have to exit. With > a train, you have to pick the correct train, and then leave the train at the > correct stop. A bit more complicated to be honest. By interacting with people, > you often can handle the most complicated train ride, but yes, it might be > more complicated with train. Right, you have to be awake and alert, and sometimes it requires help from the locals. The train from Amsterdam to Groningen splits in half at Amersfoort and one half goes somewhat North-West to Leuwarden while the other goes somewhat North-East to Groningen. I did miss this detail and ended up in Leuwarden, but this wasn't the end of the world and I got to Groningen eventually. An unexpected adventure for sure, but probably one I could have avoided with a little more prior research, and by asking for help. But generally speaking, trains run on time better than planes do and we're not talking about routes where there is only one train per day here, whereas some second-hop flights that you miss may well be the final one of the day... Ole > > That said, people (myself included) often make mistakes and fly when train is > easier. Yes, I have been flying domestic in the Netherlands. I do though > believe it was only two different runways on AMS :-) And, I will still > tomorrow take a train from Lund to Stockholm instead of flying because trains > are so much more comfortable (and cheaper). :-) > > Patrik > > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Iljitsch, As I said, a given conference facility (which *could* be in a hotel, but you have precious few that size in NL) has to have: * Enough meeting roomS (that's S as in plural, rooms, we do paralell sessions at the IETF). And a large one for the plenary of course. * Enough hotel rooms around/nearby at acceptable rates * Infrastructure that lends itself to building the IETF network. * Cost of meeting room rental and F&B within an acceptable range (There is a wide range here and in these economic times, this is a real issue). * Be available/rentable for the dates in question. Given those constraints, we ended up in Maastricht. Of all the people who have to travel to this meeting, I would not have imagined that you would be the one to complain. The Netherlands is not a large country and it's not far from a lot of places in continental Europe. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On 25 mei 2009, at 20:15, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Well, my suggestion would be to spend a night in a hotel and tackle the wonderful world of train travel the next day when you are rested. How the above is more painful than connecting flights (subject to more irregularities and weather delays etc) is beyond me, sorry. Yes, changing to a train is slightly different from going from Terminal A gate 5 to Terminal D gate 27, but so what? I very much disagree. Train travel and air travel are both ok and both have pros and cons. (I traveled to the Vienna and Paris meetings by train.) However, mixing the two means having to deal with the downsides of both, and with the fact that the failure modes are different. Both when flying and traveling by train you'll get where you need to be when there are delays. But if you miss your flight because the train was late you're in trouble. Having to spend a night in a hotel in the middle of a journey is certainly a big deal, and, in my opinion, something the IETF can't reasonably impose on its meeting attendees if it can be avoided. I once traveled from Holland to Dublin by trains and boats and staying overnight in London rather than fly because I wanted to, but I can't imagine wanting to after an IETF week. I think Henk answered this, but let me repeat: There are MAYBE 3 convention centers in The Netherlands that could hold an IETF size meeting. Rotterdam, largest room: 1850 (45 min by train from Schiphol + 5 min walk) http://www.dedoelen.nl/congresgebouw/pagina/57/algemeen/ Utrecht, largest room: 1533 (25 min by train from Schiphol + 5 min walk) http://www.meetingmoods.nl/zalenoverzicht.aspx The Hague, largest room: 2161 (30 min by train from Schiphol + tram or taxi) http://www.worldforumcc.com/wfcc/uk/factsfigures_uk/capaciteitenov_uk.html Amsterdam, largest room: 1746 (15 min by train from Schiphol + 10 min walk) http://www.rai.nl/Voor_organisatoren/locatie/Zalen_en_Hallen.aspx So unless the secondary rooms are insufficient, that's 4 right here. None of them are near airports, Google says that Anaheim is 51 km from LAX (and no reasonable public transport, it seems). Rotterdam - Schiphol is 64, The Hague 45, Utrecht 47, Amsterdam 13, Maastricht 217. and each have pros and cons in terms of cost, availability, ease of deploying a network and so on. We picked the "best" one, based on a number of criteria. Please send us all the information used in the decision making process. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
At 02:15 PM 5/25/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote: >Right, well the Internet has improved availability of this info, >besides you would expect a local host to provide the most crucial >bits Mostly they do and it's - "Get off the plane, grab your luggage and take a taxi or bus to the hotel" or occasionally "Get off the plane, go down a level from baggage claim and grab the X train which runs every 15-30 minutes to the Y stop and then walk/take a taxi to the hotel". Here we seem to have (and I'm paraphrasing you and others) "there are at least 3 international airports that might make sense to come in to. For each of them you will have to take a train and make at least one train change en route. For some routes and airports it could be as high as three changes. Trains are on time 80% of the time so you may or may not make the connections and may or may not have to wait for up to X minutes at each connection point. If you need to arrive or leave intercontinentallly, because of the possible connection issues, we recommend you travel by train to a hotel near the airport the day before your flight and/or arrive a day early and rest at the airport hotel before braving the train system." And so on. As Patrik points out - train travel is qualitatively different than plane travel for a number of reasons. Familiarity with the specific train system is generally more critical than familiarity with a specific airline in determining successful and comfortable travel. I have no doubt we'll be getting all sorts of information on how to get there from the hosts, but even they can't list all the possibilities. I'm not saying we can't figure out how to get there - just that the process for doing so for this meeting seems overly complicated, even for the process-bound group we've become. With respect to your suggestion of adding hotels as stopping points - many companies won't permit/reimburse such stops unless transportation schedules mandate them. Again, I'll do it if I have to, but if I'm not on vacation, travel is all about getting there and back in the least stressful and most timely, effective, productive and risk-averse manner. Later, Mike ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On 25 maj 2009, at 20.15, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Yes, changing to a train is slightly different from going from Terminal A gate 5 to Terminal D gate 27, but so what? One difference is that a plane is quite easy to use. You have someone that will (at least this has happened to me) stop you if you try to enter the wrong flight. Then the plane moves, and when it arrived everyone have to exit. With a train, you have to pick the correct train, and then leave the train at the correct stop. A bit more complicated to be honest. By interacting with people, you often can handle the most complicated train ride, but yes, it might be more complicated with train. That said, people (myself included) often make mistakes and fly when train is easier. Yes, I have been flying domestic in the Netherlands. I do though believe it was only two different runways on AMS :-) And, I will still tomorrow take a train from Lund to Stockholm instead of flying because trains are so much more comfortable (and cheaper). :-) Patrik PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
don´t forget to "annouce" over there, from time to time :-) http://twitter.com/IETF regards http://twitter.com/macbroadcast/ P.S. First Rule FOLLOW all your followers -- Les enfants teribbles - research / deployment Marc Manthey Vogelsangerstrasse 97 D - 50823 Köln - Germany Vogelsangerstrasse 97 Geo: 50.945554, 6.920293 PGP/GnuPG: 0x1ac02f3296b12b4d Tel.:0049-221-29891489 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 web : http://www.let.de 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). Please note that according to the German law on data retention, information on every electronic information exchange with me is retained for a period of six months. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On Mon, 25 May 2009, Michael StJohns wrote: > Hi Ole - > > You actually are answering questions I didn't ask. What I asked was > "which IETF meetings did you find problematic and why"? One of the > reasons I'm asking is because of your IAOC membership. I'm just > curious what your thresholds are for travel pain (and how and maybe > even why they differ from others on the list). I didn't say that ANY IETF location has been "problematic". That term was used by someone else. I was just saying that landing in Amsterdam and taking a train somewhere is no worse than landing in Chicago and waiting for a connecting flight. > > To respond to your comment that this group believes that "train" == > "pain" - its not that exactly, but it is the number of changes and > segments and delays and connections for each and a general > unfamiliarity with each of the destination train systems Speaking > for myself, I'm perfectly happy taking the train if there are a) > lots of schedule possibilities to match up with the airplane - after > flying for 10-24 hours the last thing I want to do is sit in a train > station waiting room for 2-3 hours and b) that (a) doesn't require > me to spend 3 hours changing trains in a system I'm not familiar > with and that I might not travel again for years if ever and c) > getting there by air is either impossible or not timely. Well, my suggestion would be to spend a night in a hotel and tackle the wonderful world of train travel the next day when you are rested. How the above is more painful than connecting flights (subject to more irregularities and weather delays etc) is beyond me, sorry. Yes, changing to a train is slightly different from going from Terminal A gate 5 to Terminal D gate 27, but so what? > > I know how to travel in the air system and I can figure out the > connections well in advance - the same has not always been the case > for trains in the destination countries and at least once I boarded > a train that wasn't going where I needed to go (fortunately, I > realized the error in time) because of poor signage, and local > spelling that didn't match what I'd researched. This was 10-12 > years back, and the Internet has improved the availability of > information quite a bit - but still the ground truth of the train > station is not always immediately perceivable to a traveler who > hasn't been there before. Right, well the Internet has improved availability of this info, besides you would expect a local host to provide the most crucial bits. In the case of Hiroshima I have personally put together a set of web pages at hiroshima-info.info which are meant to augment the local host pages once they become available. So, the basic information about how to get there is available today, 7 months in advance of the event. (Also linked from the main IETF page). > > For this trip the questions have mostly been "why Maastricht and not > someplace with an airport" and I still don't think we've gotten a > great answer on this. E.g. why didn't the IAOC go looking for > another venue that met the "close to airport" criteria? I think Henk answered this, but let me repeat: There are MAYBE 3 convention centers in The Netherlands that could hold an IETF size meeting. None of them are near airports, and each have pros and cons in terms of cost, availability, ease of deploying a network and so on. We picked the "best" one, based on a number of criteria. Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Hi Ole - You actually are answering questions I didn't ask. What I asked was "which IETF meetings did you find problematic and why"? One of the reasons I'm asking is because of your IAOC membership. I'm just curious what your thresholds are for travel pain (and how and maybe even why they differ from others on the list). Thanks for clarifying the time in Japan to Yokohama - it was a while back and I'm not surprised I was off by a 1/2 hour. Of what I've read so far, John Levine's note was probably the most helpful on understanding the train pain for this trip. To respond to your comment that this group believes that "train" == "pain" - its not that exactly, but it is the number of changes and segments and delays and connections for each and a general unfamiliarity with each of the destination train systems Speaking for myself, I'm perfectly happy taking the train if there are a) lots of schedule possibilities to match up with the airplane - after flying for 10-24 hours the last thing I want to do is sit in a train station waiting room for 2-3 hours and b) that (a) doesn't require me to spend 3 hours changing trains in a system I'm not familiar with and that I might not travel again for years if ever and c) getting there by air is either impossible or not timely. I know how to travel in the air system and I can figure out the connections well in advance - the same has not always been the case for trains in the destination countries and at least once I boarded a train that wasn't going where I needed to go (fortunately, I realized the error in time) because of poor signage, and local spelling that didn't match what I'd researched. This was 10-12 years back, and the Internet has improved the availability of information quite a bit - but still the ground truth of the train station is not always immediately perceivable to a traveler who hasn't been there before. For this trip the questions have mostly been "why Maastricht and not someplace with an airport" and I still don't think we've gotten a great answer on this. E.g. why didn't the IAOC go looking for another venue that met the "close to airport" criteria? Mike At 02:58 AM 5/25/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote: >Mike, > >Why is it harder, i.e., "more problematic" to fly to Amsterdam (assume >for the sake of the argument that this is one hop) and then take ONE >train to Maastrich from the airport train station, compared to me >flying SFO-ORD wait an hour and then fly ORD-MSP? > >The "3 changes" was assuming you flew to FRANKFURT which is what *I* >said *I* might do because *I* have a non-stop flight all the way from >SFO to FRA and a favorite airport hotel there. This has nothing to do >with what the average attendee will or should do. The train from >Amsterdam airport to Maastricht is a single journey. > >For the record, Yokohama is at least 90 minutes from Narita (the >official Narita Express time to Tokyo is 60 minutes). Average travel >time might approach 120 minutes, which compares to the Dusseldorf >to Maastricht time mentioned by someone else. > >It seems to me that the moment someone said "train" this whole >discussion descended into "problematic" when in reality train travel >is far more convenient, inexpensive etc when you're not in the US. > >I've been told I can fly non-stop to Minneapolis, to which I replied >"not on our preferred carrier". > >Ole > >Ole J. Jacobsen >Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal >Cisco Systems >Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 >E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj > > >On Mon, 25 May 2009, Michael StJohns wrote: > >> At 04:44 PM 5/24/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote: >> >I would >> >hardly characterize a 3-4 hour train journey as "problematic" if you >> >consider what other venues the IETF historically has used. >> >> Hi Ole - >> >> That's a 3-4 hour train journey with 3 changes (and a cab ride at >> the end? not sure where the venue is relative to the train >> station). >> >> Having been to all of the IETF venues except Stockholm, I'm unclear >> to which venues you might be referring. Could you clarify? As far >> as I can recall, the Yokohama trip was the only one any great >> distance from an airport and the train pretty much went straight >> there (e.g. no "3 changes") in an hour or so with trains every 30 >> minutes or so. There was a reasonable length cab ride at the end. >> London had a train as well, but shorter and a short walk at the end. >> >> I literally can't think of a single venue we've been at that is >> anywhere near this far from a national/international class airport. >> I also can't think of any venue where the last hop from the airport >> required more than one change - and that was the Yokohama train/taxi >> switch. >> >> So which ones and why did you consider them problematic? >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.o
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On 25 mei 2009, at 18:09, Ole Jacobsen wrote: I don't know why you think moving the meeting to June will make more facilities available in Europe. July-August is the traditional vacation season and hence "off season" for conferences. That's a good point. However, I was thinking of hotels, which tends to be the sore point in Europe. Every city with an airport code has a convention center that will do, but it seems that in Europe people just don't congregate overnight in high enough numbers to allow for the same kind of convention hotels that you see in the US. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
I don't know why you think moving the meeting to June will make more facilities available in Europe. July-August is the traditional vacation season and hence "off season" for conferences. The extreme example might be IETF in Paris which one could argue suffered slightly from the fact that Paris was basically "closed for vacation" at that time, but I am sure it made it easier to get the convention center and hotel and probably cheaper too. And the "closed" condition didn't seem to cause anyone to starve etc. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Mon, 25 May 2009, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 25 mei 2009, at 16:56, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > >spoon-feeding: > > >by figuring out when the IETF meeting is and placing its own meeting at least > >1, preferably at least 2, weeks away. > > Right, because I obviously asked about the difference in possibilities between > july and june because I wanted to have this particular meeting to be moved > exactly one month such that it overlaps with something that's on the clash > list, rather than use this information in future decision making. > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
For better or for worse, several years ago, in reaction to the difficulty people were having attending IETF meetings due to the late announcement of meeting dates and/or clashes with other groups, the decision was made to build a comprehensive do-not-clash list and announce meeting dates as far in advance as possible. This also helps other groups that don't schedule quite so far in advance to avoid clashing with the IETF. This is much more convenient, IMHO, then the way it used to be, which tried to optimize meeting costs/locations while keeping dates relatively fluid for as long as possible. Scheduling meetings this large is not an easy task, and the relative certainty on dates makes it easier on both the attendees and the planners. The current schedule does a relatively good job of not clashing with either other meetings of importance, and major religious or other holidays. You obviously can't please everyone, but in the aggregate, I think the IETF is doing a pretty good job on meeting planning. Try being an ITU-T regular and you'll end up in places where it's not safe to leave the hotel (like the Caracas meeting, where at least one attendee was kidnapped and robbed by his taxi driver) or you'll be in Geneva all the time, where they charge $500 for a decent hotel room. Cheers, Andy On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 25 mei 2009, at 16:56, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > >> spoon-feeding: > >> by figuring out when the IETF meeting is and placing its own meeting at >> least 1, preferably at least 2, weeks away. > > Right, because I obviously asked about the difference in possibilities > between july and june because I wanted to have this particular meeting to be > moved exactly one month such that it overlaps with something that's on the > clash list, rather than use this information in future decision making. > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On 25 mei 2009, at 16:56, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: spoon-feeding: by figuring out when the IETF meeting is and placing its own meeting at least 1, preferably at least 2, weeks away. Right, because I obviously asked about the difference in possibilities between july and june because I wanted to have this particular meeting to be moved exactly one month such that it overlaps with something that's on the clash list, rather than use this information in future decision making. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Iljitsch van Beijnum skrev: On 25 mei 2009, at 16:15, Harald Alvestrand wrote: And as I said before, I would be very interested to learn whether doing this in june rather than july would have made a different location in the Netherlands a more viable option. ICANN's holding its Latin America meeting June 20-25. Guess why they chose those dates? Hm, maybe the same way the IETF apparently does it, by simply doing what they've always done without examing the consequences of that practice? spoon-feeding: by figuring out when the IETF meeting is and placing its own meeting at least 1, preferably at least 2, weeks away. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On 25 mei 2009, at 16:15, Harald Alvestrand wrote: And as I said before, I would be very interested to learn whether doing this in june rather than july would have made a different location in the Netherlands a more viable option. ICANN's holding its Latin America meeting June 20-25. Guess why they chose those dates? Hm, maybe the same way the IETF apparently does it, by simply doing what they've always done without examing the consequences of that practice? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: And as I said before, I would be very interested to learn whether doing this in june rather than july would have made a different location in the Netherlands a more viable option. ICANN's holding its Latin America meeting June 20-25. Guess why they chose those dates? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Andrew G. Malis wrote: It took me three flights and about 35 or so hours of travel to get to the Adelaide meeting, but that didn't keep me away. Grow up, people - it's one trip out of your life! Go with the flow and enjoy it I think it really depends. It usually takes me three flights to get anywhere (I live in a rural area), and it took four to get to Adelaide. Any individual flight is probably not a problem but back when I was traveling about 30% of the time, in aggregate it became pretty onerous, not just because of time spent loitering around airports but mainly because of things like the increased incidence of lost bags, missed connections, etc. I've noticed that most of the people doing the kvetching are people who I believe have to travel quite a bit. For those for whom the IETF is their only meeting it's probably not a big deal, but for people who are on the road a lot it can become really very wearing. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
It took me three flights and about 35 or so hours of travel to get to
the Adelaide meeting, but that didn't keep me away. Grow up, people -
it's one trip out of your life! Go with the flow and enjoy it
Cheers,
Andy
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
wrote:
> On 25 mei 2009, at 1:15, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>> SBA-LAX-AMS-Den Hague, the last hop in both cases being by train instead
>> of an airplane.
>
> ("'s-Gravenhage", "Den Haag", "The Hague", "La Haye", "La Haya" but not "Den
> Hague".)
>
> Yes, but that's a 30 minute train ride (to Amsterdam is 15 from the
> airport), running every 15 minutes (every hour after midnight) and close
> enough to take a taxi if you are so inclined. However:
>
> On 25 mei 2009, at 8:29, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
>
>> I'm not quite sure how a 1:50 or 2:30 hour train ride translates
>> to 4 hours of extra travel time.
>
> Easy: on the way back you need to build in extra time so if there is a
> problem with the train you don't miss your flight. Don't forget that unlike
> the major cities in the Netherlands Maastricht has a "single homed"
> connection to the Dutch rail network and I wouldn't want to take a 200 km
> taxi ride.
>
> So suppose you're flying from SFO with Northwest, leaving on friday. Land at
> 10:30 on saturday. (Results based on doing all of this the same week this
> year.) I don't think you'll make the 11:00 train, so it would have to be the
> 11:30 or 12:00 one, which gets you to the Maastricht train station at 14:04
> or 14:34 with 6 minutes to change trains in Utrecht. So far so good.
>
> However, on the way back your flight leaves at 11:10 which means you need to
> be at the airport at 9:00 or so. The first train in the morning leaves at
> 6:26 and is at Schiphol at 8:59 but that leaves almost no room for error.
> Dutch trains run on time 80% or so of the time and you need two, so 64%
> chance they're both on time...
>
> Maastricht is certainly not the worst IETF location ever, but sticking to
> one of the four main cities in the Netherlands would have been a whole lot
> better. Someone made the argument that the venues there are popular so you
> need to book long in advance. Don't we now have the dates set for the next
> five years??
>
> And as I said before, I would be very interested to learn whether doing this
> in june rather than july would have made a different location in the
> Netherlands a more viable option.
>
>> Anyway, during those hours, you
>> will be sitting on a chair as comfortable as in most planes. I'd
>> think that most of us do what IETF'ers typically do: open their laptop
>> and start working.
>
> The non-double decker intercity trains are pretty nice and if you use first
> class then it's roomy and quiet. As long as you travel outside peak hours
> you should at least be able to sit in second class but lots of people
> talking and making phone calls.
>
> In case you get stuck at Schiphol or a train station (or if you can log into
> your mail within 2 minutes during stops):
>
> http://www.nshispeed.nl/en/services-ns-business-card-international/kpn-hotspots
>
> On 25 mei 2009, at 8:59, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
>> It is 3 changes from FRA, on one of the routes, but no changes from AMS or
>> BRU.
>
> Last time I checked planes don't land at the central station in Amsterdam or
> Brussels...
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On 25 mei 2009, at 1:15, Fred Baker wrote:
SBA-LAX-AMS-Den Hague, the last hop in both cases being by train
instead of an airplane.
("'s-Gravenhage", "Den Haag", "The Hague", "La Haye", "La Haya" but
not "Den Hague".)
Yes, but that's a 30 minute train ride (to Amsterdam is 15 from the
airport), running every 15 minutes (every hour after midnight) and
close enough to take a taxi if you are so inclined. However:
On 25 mei 2009, at 8:29, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
I'm not quite sure how a 1:50 or 2:30 hour train ride translates
to 4 hours of extra travel time.
Easy: on the way back you need to build in extra time so if there is a
problem with the train you don't miss your flight. Don't forget that
unlike the major cities in the Netherlands Maastricht has a "single
homed" connection to the Dutch rail network and I wouldn't want to
take a 200 km taxi ride.
So suppose you're flying from SFO with Northwest, leaving on friday.
Land at 10:30 on saturday. (Results based on doing all of this the
same week this year.) I don't think you'll make the 11:00 train, so it
would have to be the 11:30 or 12:00 one, which gets you to the
Maastricht train station at 14:04 or 14:34 with 6 minutes to change
trains in Utrecht. So far so good.
However, on the way back your flight leaves at 11:10 which means you
need to be at the airport at 9:00 or so. The first train in the
morning leaves at 6:26 and is at Schiphol at 8:59 but that leaves
almost no room for error. Dutch trains run on time 80% or so of the
time and you need two, so 64% chance they're both on time...
Maastricht is certainly not the worst IETF location ever, but sticking
to one of the four main cities in the Netherlands would have been a
whole lot better. Someone made the argument that the venues there are
popular so you need to book long in advance. Don't we now have the
dates set for the next five years??
And as I said before, I would be very interested to learn whether
doing this in june rather than july would have made a different
location in the Netherlands a more viable option.
Anyway, during those hours, you
will be sitting on a chair as comfortable as in most planes. I'd
think that most of us do what IETF'ers typically do: open their laptop
and start working.
The non-double decker intercity trains are pretty nice and if you use
first class then it's roomy and quiet. As long as you travel outside
peak hours you should at least be able to sit in second class but lots
of people talking and making phone calls.
In case you get stuck at Schiphol or a train station (or if you can
log into your mail within 2 minutes during stops):
http://www.nshispeed.nl/en/services-ns-business-card-international/kpn-hotspots
On 25 mei 2009, at 8:59, Patrik Fältström wrote:
It is 3 changes from FRA, on one of the routes, but no changes from
AMS or BRU.
Last time I checked planes don't land at the central station in
Amsterdam or Brussels...
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, May 24, 2009 6:02 PM -0700 Dave CROCKER wrote: What do you think the incremental cost is, for making 1000 senior engineers people take an additional 8 hours (4 each way) and pay for an additional leg of travel. I'm not quite sure how a 1:50 or 2:30 hour train ride translates to 4 hours of extra travel time. Anyway, during those hours, you will be sitting on a chair as comfortable as in most planes. I'd think that most of us do what IETF'ers typically do: open their laptop and start working. Incidentally, is is those "lost time" costs that most concern me. I'm worried about airplane and other connections, but far more in terms of lost time and what people are expected to do after getting off a long flight than in terms of any absolute "hub airport" principle. From that point of view, the "hub airport" principle is just a surrogate for some harder-to-measure issues. At Schiphol, getting on the train to Maastricht is as easy as getting on a taxi to downtown Amsterdam, with the added advantage that the driver of the train cannot rip you off by taking a longer route than necessary. Trains leave about every 15 minutes. The wait for a taxi is about 5 to 10 minutes, depending on the time of day. I'm happy to post detailed instructions closer to the time of the meeting. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
think that Minneapolis is incovenient, it's not one hop from San It is from Amsterdam, the only place worth living anyway. I like the new long planning for the IETF. Gives people more time for whining. jaap ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Mike, Why is it harder, i.e., "more problematic" to fly to Amsterdam (assume for the sake of the argument that this is one hop) and then take ONE train to Maastrich from the airport train station, compared to me flying SFO-ORD wait an hour and then fly ORD-MSP? The "3 changes" was assuming you flew to FRANKFURT which is what *I* said *I* might do because *I* have a non-stop flight all the way from SFO to FRA and a favorite airport hotel there. This has nothing to do with what the average attendee will or should do. The train from Amsterdam airport to Maastricht is a single journey. For the record, Yokohama is at least 90 minutes from Narita (the official Narita Express time to Tokyo is 60 minutes). Average travel time might approach 120 minutes, which compares to the Dusseldorf to Maastricht time mentioned by someone else. It seems to me that the moment someone said "train" this whole discussion descended into "problematic" when in reality train travel is far more convenient, inexpensive etc when you're not in the US. I've been told I can fly non-stop to Minneapolis, to which I replied "not on our preferred carrier". Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Mon, 25 May 2009, Michael StJohns wrote: > At 04:44 PM 5/24/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > >I would > >hardly characterize a 3-4 hour train journey as "problematic" if you > >consider what other venues the IETF historically has used. > > Hi Ole - > > That's a 3-4 hour train journey with 3 changes (and a cab ride at > the end? not sure where the venue is relative to the train > station). > > Having been to all of the IETF venues except Stockholm, I'm unclear > to which venues you might be referring. Could you clarify? As far > as I can recall, the Yokohama trip was the only one any great > distance from an airport and the train pretty much went straight > there (e.g. no "3 changes") in an hour or so with trains every 30 > minutes or so. There was a reasonable length cab ride at the end. > London had a train as well, but shorter and a short walk at the end. > > I literally can't think of a single venue we've been at that is > anywhere near this far from a national/international class airport. > I also can't think of any venue where the last hop from the airport > required more than one change - and that was the Yokohama train/taxi > switch. > > So which ones and why did you consider them problematic? > > Mike > > > > > > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On 25 maj 2009, at 08.43, Michael StJohns wrote: That's a 3-4 hour train journey with 3 changes (and a cab ride at the end? not sure where the venue is relative to the train station). It is 3 changes from FRA, on one of the routes, but no changes from AMS or BRU. paf PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
At 04:44 PM 5/24/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote: >I would >hardly characterize a 3-4 hour train journey as "problematic" if you >consider what other venues the IETF historically has used. Hi Ole - That's a 3-4 hour train journey with 3 changes (and a cab ride at the end? not sure where the venue is relative to the train station). Having been to all of the IETF venues except Stockholm, I'm unclear to which venues you might be referring. Could you clarify? As far as I can recall, the Yokohama trip was the only one any great distance from an airport and the train pretty much went straight there (e.g. no "3 changes") in an hour or so with trains every 30 minutes or so. There was a reasonable length cab ride at the end. London had a train as well, but shorter and a short walk at the end. I literally can't think of a single venue we've been at that is anywhere near this far from a national/international class airport. I also can't think of any venue where the last hop from the airport required more than one change - and that was the Yokohama train/taxi switch. So which ones and why did you consider them problematic? Mike ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Wow. Time for a reality check. So, we've gone from a discussion of additional travel time in the 2-4 hour range to an entire "lost day" in the USD 1000 range for someone on your side of the Atlantic?? I hate to sound sarcastic, but last time I checked, we are not a group of in-court lawyers, house builders, or craftsmen. Last time I checked, most of the participants in the IETF are perfectly capable of working "offline," heck I've even seen some people reading those pesky Internet Drafts ON PAPER, while a very large number of us seem to be in possesion of portable devices with various communication capabilities, even if some of that communication is temporarily disabled by air travel. Do you remember the early days of the IETF, waiting for the "terminal room" to open, or perhaps even earlier when said room was a small computing center at a University? How could we possibly have survived? In the words of Chopper Reed, I think we need to HTFU ;-) [YouTube is your friend] Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Sun, 24 May 2009, John C Klensin wrote: > Exactly. And, Ole, I think Dave meant "local" in the optimization > sense, not the geographical one. There are several issues with > these kinds of numbers. First, in many organizations, registration > fees, travel expenses, and the direct and/or marginal opportunity > costs of people's time may come out of sufficiently different budget > pools to make the cost of one much different from the cost of > another even though the number of Euros, Yen, Francs, Crowns, or > Dollars (or whatever) are the same. However, I'd guess that, > whether it is measured in marginal opportunity costs, lost income, > or something in between, the IETF average for a lost day is in the > vicinity of USD 1000 loaded. If we get even 1000 non-local > attendees at a meeting, adding an extra day in travel amounts to > very significant money --certainly not a lot smaller than what the > typical sponsor invests in a meeting. > > Incidentally, is is those "lost time" costs that most concern me. > I'm worried about airplane and other connections, but far more in > terms of lost time and what people are expected to do after getting > off a long flight than in terms of any absolute "hub airport" > principle. From that point of view, the "hub airport" principle is > just a surrogate for some harder-to-measure issues. > > That is the reason why some of us are pushing back on these topics: > we wonder whether, in its effectively hidden deliberations (that is > not a statement about intent, only about what the community can > learn without complaining first), the IAOC is overestimating the > importance of the costs of facilities and meeting overhead and > underestimating the importance of the costs to participants and/or > their employers or sponsors. The questions produced by those > concerns are very important in these times because, if a bad > judgment on the IAOC's part is amplified by the economy, we could > have an attendance collapse. Were such a thing to occur with > current IETF budget models, knowing that a sponsor contributed at > lot to a given meeting would be scant solace for the problems that > would follow. > > john > > > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On 25 maj 2009, at 01.15, Fred Baker wrote: With all due respect to the participants in this thread, the one-hop dogma is pretty self-centric. I understand it, but I would really prefer that folks thought in terms of one hub-hub hop with a potential leg at each end. For many of us, that is reality. I think the choice of IETF78 was great. I will do it in one hop, by driving from Sweden. 1000km from home. A nice scenic drive (but long day). People that want to come with me, let me know offline. I have three spare seats. Patrik -- very tired on all discussions as soon as we are outside of the US PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
--On Sunday, May 24, 2009 6:02 PM -0700 Dave CROCKER wrote: What do you think the incremental cost is, for making 1000 senior engineers people take an additional 8 hours (4 each way) and pay for an additional leg of travel. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's probably more than US$ 40 per person. When talking about costs and "savings", we really do need to aggregate, lifecycle estimates, rather than indulge solely in local optimizations. Exactly. And, Ole, I think Dave meant "local" in the optimization sense, not the geographical one. There are several issues with these kinds of numbers. First, in many organizations, registration fees, travel expenses, and the direct and/or marginal opportunity costs of people's time may come out of sufficiently different budget pools to make the cost of one much different from the cost of another even though the number of Euros, Yen, Francs, Crowns, or Dollars (or whatever) are the same. However, I'd guess that, whether it is measured in marginal opportunity costs, lost income, or something in between, the IETF average for a lost day is in the vicinity of USD 1000 loaded. If we get even 1000 non-local attendees at a meeting, adding an extra day in travel amounts to very significant money --certainly not a lot smaller than what the typical sponsor invests in a meeting. Incidentally, is is those "lost time" costs that most concern me. I'm worried about airplane and other connections, but far more in terms of lost time and what people are expected to do after getting off a long flight than in terms of any absolute "hub airport" principle. From that point of view, the "hub airport" principle is just a surrogate for some harder-to-measure issues. That is the reason why some of us are pushing back on these topics: we wonder whether, in its effectively hidden deliberations (that is not a statement about intent, only about what the community can learn without complaining first), the IAOC is overestimating the importance of the costs of facilities and meeting overhead and underestimating the importance of the costs to participants and/or their employers or sponsors. The questions produced by those concerns are very important in these times because, if a bad judgment on the IAOC's part is amplified by the economy, we could have an attendance collapse. Were such a thing to occur with current IETF budget models, knowing that a sponsor contributed at lot to a given meeting would be scant solace for the problems that would follow. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Ole Jacobsen wrote: > Like any engineering product, we can all argue about how well the > compromise worked at the end of the day. Knowing this crowd, I am > sure we'll get all kinds of useful feedback from Stockholm, Hiroshima > and even Maastricht. Not to put to fine a point on it or anything but the distance between brussels (which has quite a large airport) or dusseldorf (which is a biggish secondary) and maastricht is less than the distance between Narita and Yokohama. You can almost but not quite fit greater los angeles between brussels and maastricht. > Ole > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
--On Sunday, May 24, 2009 4:07 PM -0700 Fred Baker wrote: ... I'm also not very happy with the tone. What's this "confirm or deny" stuff that you and JCK are using? Could you please confirm or deny that the members of the IAOC are also IETF participants, travel at least as much as you do, and generally have similar sets of concerns? Could you, perhaps, confirm or deny that we're all in this boat together and nobody is out to make things difficult for anyone else? Fred, The IAOC is not in the habit of publishing timely minutes. Even when minutes are published, they seem more likely to say "we decided to meet at X" than "we considered the following options ..., with the following advantages and disadvantages, including estimating net IETF operational costs (Secretariat and staff travel and accommodations, meeting rooms. cookies, network, etc.) at A for X, B for Y, and C for Z, and estimating modal costs per attendee at D for X, E for Y, F for Z. I hope those analyses are being done even if they are not the only analyses or only controlling factors. I have never seen them nor, as far as I know, has any other IETF participant who is not on the IAOC. I think we ought to be seeing the numbers. If there are reasons for not exposing the numbers, I think we are at least entitled to ask questions about whether the analyses were actually done or whether other factors so dominated one or another of those considerations that the analyses were not worth the trouble. Independent of choices or words and the tone you perceive, in the absence of minutes that expose the decision-making process or availability to the community of the actual evaluations (numerical estimates and all), I think people are entitled to ask "were these analyses even done and what conclusions did you rely on?". If the IAOC were being as open, transparent, and timely about reporting information as many of us anticipated when BCP 101 was adopted, no one would be asking such questions because they would effectively have already been answered. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On Sun, 24 May 2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > What do you think the incremental cost is, for making 1000 senior engineers > people take an additional 8 hours (4 each way) and pay for an additional leg > of travel. > > Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's probably more than US$ 40 per person. > > When talking about costs and "savings", we really do need to aggregate, > lifecycle estimates, rather than indulge solely in local optimizations. > > d/ > Right, and "local" is the key word here. We've already agreed that having IETF in different places is Good for some value of Good and that some notion of regional rotation is Good. If we picked, say, London then that might be more optimal for you and me and less so for the guys in Paris if Paris was an option and so on. Picking an IETF meeting location is at best a compromise between competing requirements, available resources and suitable facilities. Travel considerations do indeed enter into the equation, but are not the only deciding factor. Like any engineering product, we can all argue about how well the compromise worked at the end of the day. Knowing this crowd, I am sure we'll get all kinds of useful feedback from Stockholm, Hiroshima and even Maastricht. Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Henk Uijterwaal wrote: At the one but last plenary, you (Dave) were amongst the first persons to object against a potential increase from $635 to $675. And the amount this sponsor contributes is far more than than $40x1,000 attendees. What do you think the incremental cost is, for making 1000 senior engineers people take an additional 8 hours (4 each way) and pay for an additional leg of travel. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's probably more than US$ 40 per person. When talking about costs and "savings", we really do need to aggregate, lifecycle estimates, rather than indulge solely in local optimizations. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Ole Jacobsen wrote: On Sun, 24 May 2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: It's rarely just a matter of "the hosts chosen location," but what is available at a given time and what is suitable for an IETF meeting in So, in this economy, you think that the choices were severely restricted 15 months from the time the contract was made? If you are talking about venues in the Netherlands, yes. The IETF is a relatively BIG meeting, The Netherlands is a relatively SMALL country at least in terms of convention venue space (including hotels). There are, I think, about 3 reasonable choices to hold an IETF meeting in this country. All 3 are quite popular even in the present economy, if you want to be sure that you can have a meeting in a particular week, you have to book >1 year in advance. Starting with the assumption that it has to be the Netherlands -- no matter how nice that country is -- is already a problematic constraint, if it produces problematic choices. Link host to venue -- at all -- and this is what happens. It's not that it HAS to be The Netherlands, but that is where Drew found a (number of) host sponsors in this particular case. The sponsor is an organization that focusses on the Dutch market only and I seriously doubt that they would sponsor anything outside this country. Remove the money from the sponsors and the meeting fees would have to go up. At the one but last plenary, you (Dave) were amongst the first persons to object against a potential increase from $635 to $675. And the amount this sponsor contributes is far more than than $40x1,000 attendees. Finally, in the present economy, finding sponsors isn't easy either. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On May 24, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: OK, fine. The general point was: We meet and have met in places in the US and Canada that are not one hop from "everywhere". For me, the only places that are one hop are SFO, SJC, LAX, PHX, DEN, and DFW. Most places that I travel to are in fact at least three hops - SBA-SFO-FRA-PRG, or SBA-SFO-KIX-Hiroshima or SBA-LAX-AMS-Den Hague, the last hop in both cases being by train instead of an airplane. Heck, a couple of days ago I had to get a VP's signature to take a direct flight SBA-SJC instead of SBA-LAX-SJC, the difference in cost being ~$100. With all due respect to the participants in this thread, the one-hop dogma is pretty self-centric. I understand it, but I would really prefer that folks thought in terms of one hub-hub hop with a potential leg at each end. For many of us, that is reality. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Stephan Wenger wrote: For a German, the most intuitive way to get to Maastricht would actually be to go through Cologne, Dusseldorf, or Frankfurt. From Koeln or Duesseldorf it should be around an hour by car---no more than two hours even considering traffic. Both airport have a rather limited number of intercontinental flights, but good connections within Europe. From Frankfurt, when going by car, add another hour. Yes, Koeln-Duesseldorf has very good connections inside Europe and is about an hour by car from Maastricht. I know at least 1 Maastricht based company that does most of its air travel starting there. I wouldn't take a train from K-D to Maastricht (3.5 hours), but there are a number of shuttle buses. It takes a 3 hour train ride (longer during weekends) to get to Maastricht from Schiphol (Amsterdam airport) and a 2 hour one from Zaventem (Brussels airport). On the Sunday that the IETF starts, it is 2:34 or 2:38 from Schiphol to Maastricht. The train station on Schiphol is below the arrivals hall, in Maastricht it ends in downtown. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On May 24, 2009, at 2:37 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: Can someone involved confirm or deny that the requirement to stick to the predetermined dates (as opposed to, say, having a window of +/- a month) reduced the number of viable venues in general, and those for summer meetings in Europe in particular? not sure I understand the question. What specifically would you like confirmed or denied? I'm also not very happy with the tone. What's this "confirm or deny" stuff that you and JCK are using? Could you please confirm or deny that the members of the IAOC are also IETF participants, travel at least as much as you do, and generally have similar sets of concerns? Could you, perhaps, confirm or deny that we're all in this boat together and nobody is out to make things difficult for anyone else? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Also: Train service is the answer in most places other than the US. I was comparing travel time and hops, not air service vs air service. Maastricht is CLEARLY not an easy place to fly to, but why bother? Ole > David, > > OK, fine. The general point was: We meet and have met in places in the > US and Canada that are not one hop from "everywhere". Dave seems to > think that Minneapolis is incovenient, it's not one hop from San > Francisco or San Jose generally speaking, but I don't think this rules > it (or San Diego, or Philadelphia, or Pittsburg) out as an IETF > meeting venue. > > Ole > > Ole J. Jacobsen > Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal > Cisco Systems > Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 > E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
David, OK, fine. The general point was: We meet and have met in places in the US and Canada that are not one hop from "everywhere". Dave seems to think that Minneapolis is incovenient, it's not one hop from San Francisco or San Jose generally speaking, but I don't think this rules it (or San Diego, or Philadelphia, or Pittsburg) out as an IETF meeting venue. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Sun, 24 May 2009, David A. Bryan wrote: > On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > > > Coming from Tokyo to Minneapolis isn't exactly a single hop either if > > you want to consider another case. > > Actually, it is a single hop. There is daily non-stop service from Tokyo to > MSP: > > http://www.orbitz.com/flight-info/NW/NW-MSP-NRT.html > > And there are quite a few non-stop flights to MSP from Europe as well, > including Paris, Amsterdam, and Heathrow, plus Mumbai and > Singaporeand this is just the Northwest (Delta) non-stops. So > while personally I love visiting the Netherlands and think Maastricht > will be a very fun trip indeed, it will be quite difficult to get to, > and arguing this is somehow even remotely similar to Minneapolis in > terms of air service is pretty far off the mark. Minneapolis is not > Chicago or London, and lack of competition might make it a bit pricier > than some other airports, but it has a very well served international > airport. > > David ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On 24 mei 2009, at 23:26, Ole Jacobsen wrote: And of course nowadays, the meeting times are locked down several years in advance If moving the dates allows for better venue selections that save me hours of travel, I'm 100% ok with breaking those locks for any and all meetings beyond Stockholm, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone would be inconvienienced more than very slightly by changing dates more than a year out. Can someone involved confirm or deny that the requirement to stick to the predetermined dates (as opposed to, say, having a window of +/- a month) reduced the number of viable venues in general, and those for summer meetings in Europe in particular? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
And of course nowadays, the meeting times are locked down several years in advance, according to our "must not clash with" list and so on... It's always possible to start with a blank sheet and redesign the whole thing, and since the IETF has such a good track record on that, maybe be should :-) Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Sun, 24 May 2009, Fred Baker wrote: > > On May 24, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > >How did we end up with march, late july, november anyway? > > It has something to do with the mists of time. Once upon a time there were > quarterly meetings, and starting with 1991 we changed to three. I was not part > of the decision, but I would imagine that it included some logic similar to: > > "we right now have a meeting every 3 months. We have contracts for meetings in > ..., Boulder Colorado in December 1990, and St Louis three months later in > March 1991. The next meeting should be four months after that (July 1991, > Atlanta) and proceed every four months after that (which gets us to November, > Santa Fe, New Mexico)." > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/directory2.html > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Ole Jacobsen wrote: [..] > Train time is around 3 and 1/2 hours with 3 changes, but I'd actually > recommend going all the way to Utrecht on the German ICE which gives If you are going to hop over Utrecht, better just take a direct flight to Amsterdam (AMS) :) For The Netherlands, one can plan train rides using: http://www.ns.nl Top right corner has a link to the English edition. Amsterdam->Maastricht will take at least 3 hours though... :( Greets, Jeroen (and Zurich->Maastricht by train is also 8 hours, or by plain 3 train + 3 plane would make 6, oh well, bit silly though for that short distance, lets see how Hiroshima works out at least I get to see something new then ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On May 24, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: How did we end up with march, late july, november anyway? It has something to do with the mists of time. Once upon a time there were quarterly meetings, and starting with 1991 we changed to three. I was not part of the decision, but I would imagine that it included some logic similar to: "we right now have a meeting every 3 months. We have contracts for meetings in ..., Boulder Colorado in December 1990, and St Louis three months later in March 1991. The next meeting should be four months after that (July 1991, Atlanta) and proceed every four months after that (which gets us to November, Santa Fe, New Mexico)." http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/directory2.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On 24 mei 2009, at 21:54, Ole Jacobsen wrote: It's rarely just a matter of "the hosts chosen location," but what is available at a given time and what is suitable for an IETF meeting How did we end up with march, late july, november anyway? Seems to me that if we can do each meeting a month earlier we'd get two benefits: the summer meeting no longer coincides with European vacations, so it's possible to have them in Europe without having to compete with vacationers = better availability and rates, and better weather for the summer and fall meetings. In june it's nice in northern Europe and better than july in more southern locales. In october it's still good weather in places where it gets cold in the winter. Of course a februari meeting would be in the middle of winter but that's only one meeting a year where we'd have to be in the southern half of the contintent if in North America or Europe. Also, all of this would be much better if rather than getting a final decision out of the blue, we'd get to choose between at least two places, where the meeting fee is adjusted so that the choices are financially neutral to the IETF. For instance, for me Vancouver and Quebec City take the same time to travel to, but if Quebec is a good deal cheaper that could make a difference. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Unless I'm mistaken, the ICE requires a reservation. You are mistaken. No, it doesn't. (Sprinter trains do, but they are not relevant here.) (But, yes. it's nice to have a reservation -- actually, get as many of them as you need :-) Again, these are easy to get on-line. At the Paris IETF I had to spend the friday afternoon at the gare du nord Didn't I say "accept no substitutes"? :-) That probably was the TGV. Gruesse, Carsten (who just returned from Belgium using the great Brussels-Frankfurt ICE) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On Sun, 24 May 2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > > It's rarely just a matter of "the hosts chosen location," but what is > > available at a given time and what is suitable for an IETF meeting in > > So, in this economy, you think that the choices were severely restricted 15 > months from the time the contract was made? If you are talking about venues in the Netherlands, yes. The IETF is a relatively BIG meeting, The Netherlands is a relatively SMALL country at least in terms of convention venue space (including hotels). > > > > In the case of The Netherlands (where the major sponsors for this meeting > > are based), it's a choice between maybe 3 possible venues and, no they don't > > care which one nor are they the sole decider. > > Starting with the assumption that it has to be the Netherlands -- no matter > how nice that country is -- is already a problematic constraint, if it > produces problematic choices. Link host to venue -- at all -- and this is > what happens. It's not that it HAS to be The Netherlands, but that is where Drew found a (number of) host sponsors in this particular case. I would hardly characterize a 3-4 hour train journey as "problematic" if you consider what other venues the IETF historically has used. > > > > In the case of Japan, Hiroshima would not necessarily have been the #1 > > choice if they had been given the option to host "any year", but this wasn't > > the case for that particular meeting. > > Another example of the problem with linking host to venue. Well, Dave, the host is WIDE a very major networking organization in Japan and hardly one we could "avoid" if we want to meet there, and of course we would be very foolish to try to avoid their gracious support ;-) That kind of limits the venue to "Japan" (which by the way includes Okinawa, but I digress...) Beyond "Japan" there is no tight linkage between a given venue and this host. And, again, characterizing this as a "problem" I think is a gross exaggeration. > > > Coming from Tokyo to Minneapolis isn't exactly a single hop either > > if you want to consider another case. > > Right. If we are serious about choosing "convenient" venues, then > Minneapolis well might not qualify, no matter its other benefits. It would be interesting to see how many people actually think Minneapolis is "inconvenient". I can think of a lot of pros and cons of the place (especially in winter), but getting in and out has never seemed like a major problem from my point of view. Sure, not a single hop, but I'll be departing for Sydney in a few weeks and that's REALLY far away... Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On 24 mei 2009, at 22:27, Carsten Bormann wrote: And, yes, you want to spend as much of the train time as possible in an ICE (accept no substitutes, although THA might almost qualify). Unless I'm mistaken, the ICE requires a reservation. This is extremely inconvenient because it's hard to accurately predict what time you'll arrive at the station after a long flight. (At the Paris IETF I had to spend the friday afternoon at the gare du nord because I had a reservation for a late train to allow for some last minute sight seeing but I was fried and it rained so that didn't happen and I couldn't take an earlier train.) Note that Maastricht has a decent train connection to Brussels so if you're arriving from Belgium, France or England (as well as Holland, of course) you may consider taking the train rather than fly. I don't know Maastricht very well and don't know where the venue and hotels will be, but "historic" = predates cars by a dozen or so centuries so I wouldn't recommend getting a car. If I still lived in Holland I'd go by bicycle... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On May 24, 2009, at 22:04, Ole Jacobsen wrote: you can order the tickets online and they will arrive (at least to California) in less than a week Nowadays, we tend to print them ourselves (www.bahn.de supplies them as PDF), this is confusingly called "online-ticket" at Deutsche Bahn. You need to supply the last four digits of the number of a credit card (or other semi-official type card) that you will carry to validate the self-printed ticket. And, yes, you want to spend as much of the train time as possible in an ICE (accept no substitutes, although THA might almost qualify). Gruesse, Carsten ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
Ole Jacobsen wrote: On Sun, 24 May 2009, John C Klensin wrote: Let me see if I can ask the question in a slightly more productive way. Ray and IAOC: I assume that, in each of these out-of-the-way cases, you have asked potential hosts to pick locations that meet other criteria, such as the airport one, and that they have said "no, we won't sponsor except in our chosen location". Could you confirm that? It's rarely just a matter of "the hosts chosen location," but what is available at a given time and what is suitable for an IETF meeting in So, in this economy, you think that the choices were severely restricted 15 months from the time the contract was made? In the case of The Netherlands (where the major sponsors for this meeting are based), it's a choice between maybe 3 possible venues and, no they don't care which one nor are they the sole decider. Starting with the assumption that it has to be the Netherlands -- no matter how nice that country is -- is already a problematic constraint, if it produces problematic choices. Link host to venue -- at all -- and this is what happens. In the case of Japan, Hiroshima would not necessarily have been the #1 choice if they had been given the option to host "any year", but this wasn't the case for that particular meeting. Another example of the problem with linking host to venue. In other words, availability of venues is a major factor. Availability within some larger context of constraints. Coming from Tokyo to Minneapolis isn't exactly a single hop either if you want to consider another case. Right. If we are serious about choosing "convenient" venues, then Minneapolis well might not qualify, no matter its other benefits. I think Ray and Drew can answer this better, but let's just say that the "money pool" idea is very difficult to sell to most sponsors. I've heard that, too, from multiple sources. It's odd that few folks mind the hidden, additional costs of an inconvenient venue. I don't think we've ever had hosts who have "insisted on out of the way locations," but I agree that such an analysis would be good to present. I have not heard anyone suggest that the hosts are unreasonable. This is a systemic issue and, oddly, has nothing to do with the hosts themselves, I believe. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
The train from FRA does indeed stop at the airport station which is connected to the airport itself. I've used the ICE to go from Frankfurt airport to Amsterdam several times and it is both scenic, comfortable and inexpensive compared to most flights. Go to: http://www.bahn.de/international/view/en/index.shtml And enter Frankfurt and Maastricht as the endpoints, you'll want to choose "Frankfurt(M) Flughafen Fernbf" as the starting point if going from the airport (which also has a nice connected Sheraton hotel if you need to overnight on the way in or out). Train time is around 3 and 1/2 hours with 3 changes, but I'd actually recommend going all the way to Utrecht on the German ICE which gives you only one change but adds nearly 2 hours, because the German ICE is a much nicer train and changes can be a hassle if you have a lot of luggage. If you decide to use the train, you can order the tickets online and they will arrive (at least to California) in less than a week, and they even have an attended e-mail box where you can ask questions and get answers. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Sun, 24 May 2009, Stephan Wenger wrote: > For a German, the most intuitive way to get to Maastricht would actually be > to go through Cologne, Dusseldorf, or Frankfurt. From Koeln or Duesseldorf > it should be around an hour by car---no more than two hours even considering > traffic. Both airport have a rather limited number of intercontinental > flights, but good connections within Europe. From Frankfurt, when going by > car, add another hour. > > For those not able or willing to rent a car, you can also take the ICE > (German bullet train) non-stop from Koeln or Frankfurt (central, but I > believe this one also stops right at the airport) to Maastricht; it takes > about 3.5 hours from FRA and is in part a very scenic ride (other parts are > just tunnel-bridge-sound-wall sceneries, but the train goes at 280 km/h > there). > > Stephan > > > > > On 5/24/09 5:57 AM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" wrote: > > > On 22 mei 2009, at 16:55, Ray Pelletier wrote: > > > >> The IAOC is pleased to announce the beautiful, historic city of > >> Maastricht in the Netherlands as the site for IETF 78 from July 25 - > >> 30, 2010. > > > > Beautiful, historic and nowhere near a reasonably-sized airport. > > > > It takes a 3 hour train ride (longer during weekends) to get to > > Maastricht from Schiphol (Amsterdam airport) and a 2 hour one from > > Zaventem (Brussels airport). > > > > Trivia: Maastricht has the same population as Ann Arbor. So the IETF > > meeting would temorarily increase it by 1%. > > > > Not sure if making attending IETF meetings as difficult as possible is > > a winning strategy. > > ___ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On Sun, 24 May 2009, John C Klensin wrote: > Let me see if I can ask the question in a slightly more productive way. > > Ray and IAOC: > > I assume that, in each of these out-of-the-way cases, you have asked potential > hosts to pick locations that meet other criteria, such as the airport one, and > that they have said "no, we won't sponsor except in our chosen location". > Could you confirm that? It's rarely just a matter of "the hosts chosen location," but what is available at a given time and what is suitable for an IETF meeting in terms of: hotels, venue and network-ability to coin a phrase. In the case of The Netherlands (where the major sponsors for this meeting are based), it's a choice between maybe 3 possible venues and, no they don't care which one nor are they the sole decider. In the case of Japan, Hiroshima would not necessarily have been the #1 choice if they had been given the option to host "any year", but this wasn't the case for that particular meeting. In other words, availability of venues is a major factor. At the end of the day it's a tradeoff between competing requirements. Having said that, Hiroshima is considerably less expensive than Tokyo/Yokohama. Hiroshima is also superbly connected by train to Tokyo (and Osaka), perhaps the best train service in the world, but yes, it takes a few extra hours to get there. I would also like to note that never in the history of Hiroshima has there been so much effort put into making sure the IETF is happy, all the way to the Mayor level. They're really going out of their way to support this meeting. Coming from Tokyo to Minneapolis isn't exactly a single hop either if you want to consider another case. Plug: See hiroshima-info.info for general travel information for IETF 76. > > I also assume that you have attempted to launch a "sponsor IETF meetings" > program on a "contribute to a fund" basis, as distinct from "host this > particular meeting", and either gotten no useful response or discovered that > host in-kind contributions in specific locations dominate possible cash > contributions. Can you confirm that as well? I think Ray and Drew can answer this better, but let's just say that the "money pool" idea is very difficult to sell to most sponsors. > > Finally, I assume that the IAOC has done an analysis, not only of what it > would cost us to abandon hosted meetings entirely, but of what it would cost > --both in absolute and meeting-fee terms-- to say "no" to hosts who insisted > on out of the way locations. May we see that analysis not later than the > plenary in Stockholm? I don't think we've ever had hosts who have "insisted on out of the way locations," but I agree that such an analysis would be good to present. Ole > > john > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
For a German, the most intuitive way to get to Maastricht would actually be to go through Cologne, Dusseldorf, or Frankfurt. From Koeln or Duesseldorf it should be around an hour by car---no more than two hours even considering traffic. Both airport have a rather limited number of intercontinental flights, but good connections within Europe. From Frankfurt, when going by car, add another hour. For those not able or willing to rent a car, you can also take the ICE (German bullet train) non-stop from Koeln or Frankfurt (central, but I believe this one also stops right at the airport) to Maastricht; it takes about 3.5 hours from FRA and is in part a very scenic ride (other parts are just tunnel-bridge-sound-wall sceneries, but the train goes at 280 km/h there). Stephan On 5/24/09 5:57 AM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" wrote: > On 22 mei 2009, at 16:55, Ray Pelletier wrote: > >> The IAOC is pleased to announce the beautiful, historic city of >> Maastricht in the Netherlands as the site for IETF 78 from July 25 - >> 30, 2010. > > Beautiful, historic and nowhere near a reasonably-sized airport. > > It takes a 3 hour train ride (longer during weekends) to get to > Maastricht from Schiphol (Amsterdam airport) and a 2 hour one from > Zaventem (Brussels airport). > > Trivia: Maastricht has the same population as Ann Arbor. So the IETF > meeting would temorarily increase it by 1%. > > Not sure if making attending IETF meetings as difficult as possible is > a winning strategy. > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
--On Sunday, May 24, 2009 11:42 AM -0700 Dave CROCKER wrote: but often concluded that it is less important than other concerns As long as the host gets to choose the venue, other concerns will remain secondary, including incremental travel time and cost. This was the key point that was, once again, explored the last time we had a plenary discussion about venue. Yes, exactly. Let me see if I can ask the question in a slightly more productive way. Ray and IAOC: I assume that, in each of these out-of-the-way cases, you have asked potential hosts to pick locations that meet other criteria, such as the airport one, and that they have said "no, we won't sponsor except in our chosen location". Could you confirm that? I also assume that you have attempted to launch a "sponsor IETF meetings" program on a "contribute to a fund" basis, as distinct from "host this particular meeting", and either gotten no useful response or discovered that host in-kind contributions in specific locations dominate possible cash contributions. Can you confirm that as well? Finally, I assume that the IAOC has done an analysis, not only of what it would cost us to abandon hosted meetings entirely, but of what it would cost --both in absolute and meeting-fee terms-- to say "no" to hosts who insisted on out of the way locations. May we see that analysis not later than the plenary in Stockholm? john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
but often concluded that it is less important than other concerns As long as the host gets to choose the venue, other concerns will remain secondary, including incremental travel time and cost. This was the key point that was, once again, explored the last time we had a plenary discussion about venue. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
--On Sunday, May 24, 2009 2:57 PM +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 22 mei 2009, at 16:55, Ray Pelletier wrote: The IAOC is pleased to announce the beautiful, historic city of Maastricht in the Netherlands as the site for IETF 78 from July 25 - 30, 2010. Beautiful, historic and nowhere near a reasonably-sized airport. Of course, much the same comment could be made about Hiroshima. ... Not sure if making attending IETF meetings as difficult as possible is a winning strategy. My impression is that the IAOC and its predecessors have been repeatedly told "near a major airport with good international connections and multiple carriers". I assume that they have considered that factor among others when selecting sites, but often concluded that it is less important than other concerns (I note that, in the case of Vancouver vs Quebec, they made an attempt at asking). It seems to me that, if the community doesn't like the way that tradeoff is being made, it needs to make the importance of this consideration much more clear. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 78 Annoucement
On 22 mei 2009, at 16:55, Ray Pelletier wrote: The IAOC is pleased to announce the beautiful, historic city of Maastricht in the Netherlands as the site for IETF 78 from July 25 - 30, 2010. Beautiful, historic and nowhere near a reasonably-sized airport. It takes a 3 hour train ride (longer during weekends) to get to Maastricht from Schiphol (Amsterdam airport) and a 2 hour one from Zaventem (Brussels airport). Trivia: Maastricht has the same population as Ann Arbor. So the IETF meeting would temorarily increase it by 1%. Not sure if making attending IETF meetings as difficult as possible is a winning strategy. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IETF 78 Annoucement
The IAOC is pleased to announce the beautiful, historic city of Maastricht in the Netherlands as the site for IETF 78 from July 25 - 30, 2010. Our friends at SIDN (www.sidn.nl) will be hosting this meeting. SIDN is responsible for the functional stability and development of the .nl Internet domain. We are very grateful for their support. Additional sponsors for the meeting include: RIPE, NLNet Foundation, AMS-IX, SurfNet, and DEnic. Thank you! Don't miss this meeting in Maastricht! Ray Pelletier IETF Administrative Director ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
