Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
--On Friday, 18 January, 2002 07:14 -0800 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Squeezing time out of turnip... Folks, There has been some suggestion about having a working meeting after the Sunday reception. I'm inclined to think that trying to have it afterwards (after socializing and alcohol) is problematic. But what about having a 90-120 minute plenary immediately BEFORE the Sunday reception? Besides technical presentations, IANA report and the like, it could include the IAB time, since the IAB is about 'strategic' issues. (Having the IESG later in the week is useful since it can reflect operational issues that might have cropped up.) Interesting and an idea that I don't think had come up. The (only) problem is that it would probably force the IAB into a Sunday afternoon, or, more likely (given conflicts with IEPG, IESG meetings, etc), a Saturday, business meeting. Based on some internal discussions, the level of within-IAB enthusiasm for starting meetings on Saturday or Sunday morning is quite low. Given that we tend to assume that IAB members are at least somewhat obligated to meet when the IAB decides to meet, it might be interesting were you, as a Nomcom member, to poll potential IAB candidates as to whether a regular requirement for such meetings would have any impact on their willingness to serve. On the other hand, if such an early plenary contained the sponsor greetings, technical presentations, and routine reports (IANA, RFC Editor, possibly IRTF), one might be able to do IAB and IESG on a single night later in the week. It would be a different split that would take us back a bit to the content of the former Monday-morning plenaries and would require a fair amount of community discipline to get through everything, but it might have some appeal. But... If I recall, a main reason we stopped those Monday morning plenaries was that many hotels couldn't handle taking down a room that was set up for a plenary and break it into multiple meeting room spaces quickly enough for us to move into morning WG sessions. For at least some hotels, I can imagine much the same problem in trying to shift from a plenary into the reception. So, even if we wanted to do this, it might not always be possible, at least without (further) overconstraining the choice of meeting places. john
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
AHA! A modification of my prior suggestion that the sponsor greetings, technical presentations, and routine reports (IANA, RFC Editor, possibly IRTF) might should simply be presented via the WEB, I here suggest an interesting addendum: At the Registration, reception. do a presentation of these reports in one corner of the Reception/Registration hall, and record it on DVD so that it can be repeated endlessly during the Reception, in one corner of the room, or maybe in a separate nearby room. And also post it on a web page for non-attending IETF folk. These reports should always be made available the net in any case, and this suggestion collapses all the effort into one compact production session, with an endless loop playback for those who were not able to be present at the recording session, or not able to attend the meeting...;-)... Cheers...\Stef PS: I realize that some folk in the IETF will reject anything that I suggest, so just pretend it was suggested by some anonymous fellow whose name you have forgotten;-)... At 16:22 -0500 19/01/02, John C Klensin wrote: --On Friday, 18 January, 2002 07:14 -0800 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Squeezing time out of turnip... Folks, There has been some suggestion about having a working meeting after the Sunday reception. I'm inclined to think that trying to have it afterwards (after socializing and alcohol) is problematic. But what about having a 90-120 minute plenary immediately BEFORE the Sunday reception? Besides technical presentations, IANA report and the like, it could include the IAB time, since the IAB is about 'strategic' issues. (Having the IESG later in the week is useful since it can reflect operational issues that might have cropped up.) Interesting and an idea that I don't think had come up. The (only) problem is that it would probably force the IAB into a Sunday afternoon, or, more likely (given conflicts with IEPG, IESG meetings, etc), a Saturday, business meeting. Based on some internal discussions, the level of within-IAB enthusiasm for starting meetings on Saturday or Sunday morning is quite low. Given that we tend to assume that IAB members are at least somewhat obligated to meet when the IAB decides to meet, it might be interesting were you, as a Nomcom member, to poll potential IAB candidates as to whether a regular requirement for such meetings would have any impact on their willingness to serve. On the other hand, if such an early plenary contained the sponsor greetings, technical presentations, and routine reports (IANA, RFC Editor, possibly IRTF), one might be able to do IAB and IESG on a single night later in the week. It would be a different split that would take us back a bit to the content of the former Monday-morning plenaries and would require a fair amount of community discipline to get through everything, but it might have some appeal. But... If I recall, a main reason we stopped those Monday morning plenaries was that many hotels couldn't handle taking down a room that was set up for a plenary and break it into multiple meeting room spaces quickly enough for us to move into morning WG sessions. For at least some hotels, I can imagine much the same problem in trying to shift from a plenary into the reception. So, even if we wanted to do this, it might not always be possible, at least without (further) overconstraining the choice of meeting places. john
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Dave Crocker wrote: There has been some suggestion about having a working meeting after the Sunday reception. I'm inclined to think that trying to have it afterwards (after socializing and alcohol) is problematic. Yes, but (as others have suggested) moving the social to Sunday night would not have that problem. Or just eliminate it. My perferred schedule modification: Sun: Reception + social Mon: Evening sessions Tue: Plenary Wed: Plenary Thu: Fine dinner after a hard week -- Steve
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
On 1/17/02 12:03 PM, Michael Mealling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... The two negatives are that a) some people do not work on Sunday, and 2) those currently traveling to the IETF on Sunday would be forced to do it on Saturday. That said, there are enough people who take advantage of the Saturday fare benefit to make it worth considering using Sunday for WG meetings. But most of those who do this also use Sunday to have pre-IETF meetings. I've known several folks who have Sunday booked solid with business/design-team/etc meetings weeks before the actual IETF begins. I would personally prefer extending into Friday... -MM If talking personal preference... I would rather prefer not to have anything officially scheduled on Sunday since that fundamentally requires we leave for the trip one day earlier. Friday is not too good either. How about moving the social to Monday evening, and have Tue and Wed evening for the two plenaries? Lixia
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
--On Saturday, January 19, 2002 17:32 -0800 Lixia Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If talking personal preference... I would rather prefer not to have anything officially scheduled on Sunday since that fundamentally requires we leave for the trip one day earlier. Friday is not too good either. How about moving the social to Monday evening, and have Tue and Wed evening for the two plenaries? So those who don't go to the meetings on a Monday night get to go to the social, but if your group is in that 2.5 hour slot you don't get to go...?
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
John Klensin wrote: * And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it better to let people explain their views at whatever length that takes? One simple scheduling algorithm would be to have two microphone queues: one for those speaking for the first time and one for those speaking for the second (and third, etc.) time. The second queue is called upon only if there's nobody waiting at the first queue. This might give everyone a fair shot and avoids the I'm done with my sermon, let's line up at the end of the queue again syndrome we saw in SLC. -- Henning Schulzrinne http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
Squeezing time out of turnip... Folks, There has been some suggestion about having a working meeting after the Sunday reception. I'm inclined to think that trying to have it afterwards (after socializing and alcohol) is problematic. But what about having a 90-120 minute plenary immediately BEFORE the Sunday reception? Besides technical presentations, IANA report and the like, it could include the IAB time, since the IAB is about 'strategic' issues. (Having the IESG later in the week is useful since it can reflect operational issues that might have cropped up.) d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 07:14:24 PST, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Sunday reception. I'm inclined to think that trying to have it afterwards (after socializing and alcohol) is problematic. Geeks on booze is actually OK if you're socializing - you get the most AMAZING war stories that way (particularly the ones you'd never get the geek to admit to if they were sober ;) But yeah - definitely not a state condusive to actual work.. ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech msg07287/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Plenaries at IETF 53
My two ag. IETF Community, During the London IETF Plenary, there was general consensus that the IAB and IESG should separate their plenaries to give more time for discussion of general architectural issues in the former. We did that in Salt Lake City, with the IESG Plenary in its usual slot on Wednesday night and the IAB one on Thursday evening. The latter was well-attended and our perception was that at least some of the discussion was helpful. At the same time, several members of the community told us that they would have liked to participate, but could not be present Thursday evening. We also believe that these discussions are useful to the extent that we can focus on specific topics and discourage speechmaking that takes up extended periods of time. So, we have several questions and request comments and discussion either to the IETF list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) or the IAB one ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): * Should we continue with the two-plenary model? Should we do so at every IETF, or consider some sort of periodic or occasional schedule? I think that the split is useful, and allows for more in depth discussions. I would like to see the two meetings happening at each IETF. * If so, should we continue with IESG on Wednesday and IAB on Thursday, or should we alternate them (or adopt some more radical schedule change -- probably too late for Minneapolis at this point). I do not know if this is a radical change, but what about swapping the current Monday evening and Thursday evening - i.e. make Monday the evening for the IAB meeting, and Thursday evening a full 2.5 hours meetings slot? * Do you have major architectural themes that should be addressed during the next IAB plenary if one is held? * And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it better to let people explain their views at whatever length that takes? I am an adept of democracy which IMO is translated in this context as free speech within the limits of decency. Regards, Dan
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
But what about having a 90-120 minute plenary immediately BEFORE the Sunday reception? Besides technical presentations, IANA report and the like, it could include the IAB time, since the IAB is about 'strategic' issues. (Having the IESG later in the week is useful since it can reflect operational issues that might have cropped up.) The only problem I see with that is psychological - with such a hard week of work ahead, I kind of like knowing that I can unlax on Sunday (after the IEPG.) To me, a Sunday plenary would make the week feel too packed.
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
At 12:43 AM 1/17/2002, Rodney Thayer wrote: If we seriously used the time on friday, thus making thursday night more legitmate to schedule staying in town, that would help. I'd be curious to know what would define using Friday seriously. We do usually put meetings on Friday which also have a meeting earlier in the week, meaning that if they get their job done earlier they can go home, but it's not like we fail to schedule meetings there. Do you mean the working groups assume that everyone leaves Thursday, and so don't actually plan to accomplish anything on Friday?
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, John Klensin wrote: [snip] * And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it better to let people explain their views at whatever length that takes? Definitely. How aggressively is another question (mainly a function of people's interest in the subject and remaining time, I think); it's all too easy to start endless debates (over and over again) that take the time from something more important. -- Pekka Savola Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
I think two plenary's is a good idea. If we seriously used the time on friday, thus making thursday night more legitmate to schedule staying in town, that would help. also would mitigate the horrible double booking of wg meetings I think devoting Thursday night to a plenary is one factor that helps to undermine Friday's status as a real working day. In most cases, Tuesday noght could have been used for a plenary with no adverse impact to the IETF at large.
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
* If so, should we continue with IESG on Wednesday and IAB on Thursday, or should we alternate them (or adopt some more radical schedule change -- probably too late for Minneapolis at this point). I like the idea of keeping to the two-plenary schedule at every IETF. * And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it Yes!
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
Fred == Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fred At 12:43 AM 1/17/2002, Rodney Thayer wrote: If we seriously used the time on friday, thus making thursday night more legitmate to schedule staying in town, that would help. Fred I'd be curious to know what would define using Friday Fred seriously. We do usually put meetings on Friday which also have a Fred meeting earlier in the week, meaning that if they get their job Fred done earlier they can go home, but it's not like we fail to Fred schedule meetings there. Do you mean the working groups assume Fred that everyone leaves Thursday, and so don't actually plan to Fred accomplish anything on Friday? Precisely. There is a strong urge to get the meeting rescheduled from Friday to an earlier day, and if that isn't possible, to compress the earlier meetings. Further, the desire to stay out of Friday causes scheduling conflicts earlier in the week for many that might not otherwise occur. Leaving early means leaving on Thursday afternoon/evening. I personally have never been able to reschedule a flight from late Friday to early Friday - the flights are full. I personally think that it would be nice to have a sign-up page for each WG session in advance. This would help scheduling and room allocations. ] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic(Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy); [
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
Matt == Matt Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Matt I think devoting Thursday night to a plenary is one factor that Matt helps to undermine Friday's status as a real working day. Matt In most cases, Tuesday noght could have been used for a plenary Matt with no adverse impact to the IETF at large. In particular, the only really important thing for a social event is that there be food and beverage. We provide all of the rest. As such, combining the plenary with a reception-like thing beforehand would work just fine for me. There may be some logistical problems (Sunday's reception usually occurs in the same room as the plenary does). ] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic(Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy); [
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
A couple of things happen with Friday meetings. One is, there aren't enough of them. It makes it hard to justify staying the extra day. The other thing is, recently, they've had a habit of scheduling multiple common interest meetings on top of each other, like PKIX and PGP, or two security meetings, or something like that, and yet leaving Friday sparsley populated. I'd rather stay through Friday than miss half of what I went to attend. My point here is that it seems to me we could use Friday's time better, if we have scheduling issues. At 10:40 AM 1/17/2002 +0100, Fred Baker wrote: At 12:43 AM 1/17/2002, Rodney Thayer wrote: If we seriously used the time on friday, thus making thursday night more legitmate to schedule staying in town, that would help. I'd be curious to know what would define using Friday seriously. We do usually put meetings on Friday which also have a meeting earlier in the week, meaning that if they get their job done earlier they can go home, but it's not like we fail to schedule meetings there. Do you mean the working groups assume that everyone leaves Thursday, and so don't actually plan to accomplish anything on Friday?
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
At 02:04 PM 1/17/2002 -0500, Jeffrey Altman wrote: Sunday with little to do other than catch up on work that really should have been done before I arrived. So maybe doing more on Sunday would be a possibility. This is an interesting suggestion. The two negatives are that a) some people do not work on Sunday, and 2) those currently traveling to the IETF on Sunday would be forced to do it on Saturday. That said, there are enough people who take advantage of the Saturday fare benefit to make it worth considering using Sunday for WG meetings. d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
At 01:42 PM 1/16/2002, John Klensin wrote: * Should we continue with the two-plenary model? Should we do so at every IETF, or consider some sort of periodic or occasional schedule? The two plenary model is good since it gives us time needed to address the issues. If people want to participate, they need to adjust their schedules to do so. Many of us were a bit surprised by the SLC schedule, but that should not be the case in the future. * Do you have major architectural themes that should be addressed during the next IAB plenary if one is held? Well we have major issues on the Internet these days with the rise of multimedia real-time apps and the even present concerns about NAT and IPv6. It should be clear that the way we viewed NAT and IPv6 a few years ago has changed dramatically. It sure couldn't hurt to revisit some of our positions. * And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it better to let people explain their views at whatever length that takes? Yes please control the mike! The same goes for the IESG. The usefulness of the plenary dissipates when people needlessly flog a dead horse on 10 minute rants. People at the mike should bring up their point or argument, then move on. We can always bring up our gripes in more detail on the IETF email list.
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Rodney == Rodney Thayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rodney I think two plenary's is a good idea. Rodney If we seriously used the time on friday, thus making thursday Rodney night more legitmate to schedule staying in town, that would Rodney help. also would mitigate the horrible double booking of wg Rodney meetings (I know, that's off topic...) I concur with both thoughts. Frequently for me I get triple booked for at least one session on Monday, and do nothing for at least one other day. I would remove the second plenary only if it were going to result in there being fewer tracks of meetings for the rest of the week. Use Friday morning as well. ] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic(Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy); [ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBPEb7hIqHRg3pndX9AQGl2gP/aNoP20sk9Lo+WIVY1vXvNxfihQAeIAj7 CnoDqjEHtsTz4mEwsSrEH4w+5B3/UXiDMen8vxxqT4MMLZFORw8W4sX4vgFNg+pz GVsIQuY5fn0eYfgAwzJc4JgvIW56mE/nHw+SdbYgMf0UIqVwDDvLIL4ewl9zXNMY KBIdUVrdLLg= =esok -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:34:35AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: At 02:04 PM 1/17/2002 -0500, Jeffrey Altman wrote: Sunday with little to do other than catch up on work that really should have been done before I arrived. So maybe doing more on Sunday would be a possibility. This is an interesting suggestion. The two negatives are that a) some people do not work on Sunday, and 2) those currently traveling to the IETF on Sunday would be forced to do it on Saturday. That said, there are enough people who take advantage of the Saturday fare benefit to make it worth considering using Sunday for WG meetings. But most of those who do this also use Sunday to have pre-IETF meetings. I've known several folks who have Sunday booked solid with business/design-team/etc meetings weeks before the actual IETF begins. I would personally prefer extending into Friday... -MM -- Michael Mealling| Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | http://www.neonym.net
RE: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
Jeffrey Altman wrote: Just to add my experience. I find that in order to get better airline rates I am forced to travel into town on Saturday. So I'm in town on Sunday with little to do other than catch up on work that really should have been done before I arrived. So maybe doing more on Sunday would be a possibility. The problem with Friday is that after having spent a week at IETF I really want to either get back home or to my weekend destination at a reasonable hour. That usually means getting on a plane by 11am if not earlier. So regardless of how important the Friday meeting is, I probably won't be attending it. I agree with Jeffrey here. I was just looking into booking flights for Minneapolis: Sacramento to Minneapolis, no connections: - Arrive Minneapolis Sunday afternoon, leave friday afternoon: round trip $1049 - Arrive Minneapolis Saturday evening, leave friday morning: round trip $289 SAME AIRLINE (Northwest), same planes. In SLC, the meeting I was in finished early and I was fortunate enough to fly standby and get home reasonably early, but if you have to stay at the hotel until noon, you are going to make it home very late that friday night and be so tired that your saturday is shot. Michel.
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:17:52 PST, Michel Py said: Sacramento to Minneapolis, no connections: - Arrive Minneapolis Sunday afternoon, leave friday afternoon: round trip $1049 - Arrive Minneapolis Saturday evening, leave friday morning: round trip $289 SAME AIRLINE (Northwest), same planes. Out of curiosity, what was the quote for arrive Sat evening, leave Fri morning? This looks like the stay over the weekend price break? Or am I missing something here? msg07276/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
Sunday with little to do other than catch up on work that really should have been done before I arrived. So maybe doing more on Sunday would be a possibility. This is an interesting suggestion. The two negatives are that a) some people do not work on Sunday, and 2) those currently traveling to the IETF on Sunday would be forced to do it on Saturday. One can make similar arguments for the later end of the week: We could hold meetings until Friday afternoon (or evening) and leave on Friday evening (or Saturday). But some people do not work on Saturday (or for that matter, on Friday evening). I don't think we should try to choose between those who don't work on Saturday and those who don't work on Sunday. I actually think our scheduling is within epsilon of optimal. Five days (currently Sunday evening - Friday morning) seems to be about as much as we can handle anyway. No matter which day of the week we end on, many people are going to leave a bit early, and the last meeting slot is going to be unpopular. Keith
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
I've known several folks who have Sunday booked solid with business/design-team/etc meetings weeks before the actual IETF begins. I would personally prefer extending into Friday... aol me too /aol randy
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
I actually think our scheduling is within epsilon of optimal. Five days (currently Sunday evening - Friday morning) seems to be about as much as we can handle anyway. No matter which day of the week we end on, many people are going to leave a bit early, and the last meeting slot is going to be unpopular. My conclusion as well. Bob
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
Responding to the total collection of this thread. You all could save a lot of group meeting time by publishing all those regular Reports (RFC-Ed, etc, et al) on the IETF Web site or via EMail. After all they are mostly cut and dried with no discussion, prepared long in advance. Further, why should they be presented in person and published on the net for those who are not able to attend. Besides, if they are on the net, people who really need to be exposed to them at the meeting can get their exposure by going to the Computer Room in their idle time, which cannot be usefully aggregated in any other way. So, just get real about doing on the net what is best done on the net, and limit what is done face/face at meetings, to that which really needs to be done that way. Cheers...\Stef (Who has not been to a meeting for a long time now;-)...
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
proposal: - each ietf: have the usual reports (rfc editor,...) on wednesday evening - alternating IAB and IESG plenaries on wednesday (after reports) at each IETF: ie. minneapolis: IAB plenary on wednesday (after reports) yokohama: IESG plenary on wednesday (after reports) next: IAB ... - have open mike and allocate enough time for discussions - keep thrusday evening free. Marc. -- mercredi, janvier 16, 2002 16:42:45 -0500 John Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote/a écrit: IETF Community, During the London IETF Plenary, there was general consensus that the IAB and IESG should separate their plenaries to give more time for discussion of general architectural issues in the former. We did that in Salt Lake City, with the IESG Plenary in its usual slot on Wednesday night and the IAB one on Thursday evening. The latter was well-attended and our perception was that at least some of the discussion was helpful. At the same time, several members of the community told us that they would have liked to participate, but could not be present Thursday evening. We also believe that these discussions are useful to the extent that we can focus on specific topics and discourage speechmaking that takes up extended periods of time. So, we have several questions and request comments and discussion either to the IETF list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) or the IAB one ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): * Should we continue with the two-plenary model? Should we do so at every IETF, or consider some sort of periodic or occasional schedule? * If so, should we continue with IESG on Wednesday and IAB on Thursday, or should we alternate them (or adopt some more radical schedule change -- probably too late for Minneapolis at this point). * Do you have major architectural themes that should be addressed during the next IAB plenary if one is held? * And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it better to let people explain their views at whatever length that takes? thanks, john (for the IAB) -- Marc Blanchet Viagénie tel: +1-418-656-9254x225 -- http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity -- http://www.normos.org: IETF(RFC,draft), IANA,W3C,... standards. --
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
At 04:42 PM 1/16/2002 -0500, John Klensin wrote: So, we have several questions and request comments and discussion either to the IETF list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) or the IAB one ([EMAIL PROTECTED])... I think two plenary's is a good idea. If we seriously used the time on friday, thus making thursday night more legitmate to schedule staying in town, that would help. also would mitigate the horrible double booking of wg meetings (I know, that's off topic...)
