Re: Meetings in other regions

[Marshall Eubanks]

Hello;

On Aug 17, 2006, at 8:44 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:


At 6:46 AM -0700 7/17/06, Andy Bierman wrote:


 Marshall Eubanks wrote:

 Nobody flies from LAX to San Diego because it ends up taking
 twice as long as driving for 10 times as much, so don't expect
 lots of flights from LA.


I fly between LAX and San Diego fairly often.  There are two  
airlines that offer flights at least every hour throughout the  
day.  During some periods the flights are every half hour.  You can  
generally connect in LAX without going through security again  
(unless arriving into LAX on an international flight).


It doesn't really work to apply typical logic to airline fares.   
That is, you can't predict a fare based on


Truer words were never typed.

distance or number of connections.  While it can be expensive to  
purchase a separate ticket between SAN and LAX, this is rarely  
done.  Usually a the fare is from point A to SAN and back.  In some  
cases it is slightly more than from point A to LAX and back, but  
often it is less.  Sometimes it is a lot less.  I'd be willing to  
believe that there are cases where it is a lot more, but I haven't  
personally seen them.




When I have seen be a lot more is at the last minute from the East  
Coast (alas, the form of
much of my business travel). All I am saying is, if the last minute  
fare to San Diego is too pricey, try LAX or

Long Beach or John Wayne and consider the drive.

Of course, no one who lives in the LA basin is likely to need our  
help on how to get to San Diego, so I was thinking about people  
flying in from far away.


I'm a great believer in the train between SAN and LA, by the way.  
I've taken it a number of times and always prefer it to driving.  
Note that for a slight extra charge you can get an upgrade to  
'custom class' where you get a larger seat, a power outlet, and  
something called a snack.  There are terrific views of the pacific  
ocean and beaches during the latter half of the trip, and for much  
of it the train is right on the sand.


I have heard that this is one of the best train trips in the US, and  
I have always wanted to take it, especially at Sunset. Can you get it  
near the coast (more specifically, near one of the 3 coastal  
airports), or do you have to go all the way to Union Station ?




The immigration checkpoint seems to be dormant for a year or so  
now. The electronic pass lanes have been turned off, the signs  
warning you to be prepared to stop have been removed, the officers  
standing in the lanes inspecting cars are gone.  The main structure  
is still there, and there are still border patrol cars at the  
sides, but that's it.


Interesting, given other news.



--
Randall Gellens


Regards
Marshall

Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself  
only

-- Randomly-selected tag: ---
As you know, any depiction of nasal mucus brings with it problems for
our sales division.
   --ABC's Broadcast Standards & Practices board, to producers of the
   cartoon "Bump in the Night"



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Randall Gellens]

At 3:54 PM +0100 7/19/06, Dave Cridland wrote:

 I seem to remember that at one point, Randall Gellens was actually 
providing the entire room with unblemished, albeit slow, internet 
access over his mobile.


It was much worse then that.  I used the single outside phone jack to 
get dial up connectivity, then made that available via 802.11 to the 
room.

--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only
-- Randomly-selected tag: ---
The well-bred contradict other people.  The wise contradict themselves.
--Oscar Wilde

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Randall Gellens]

At 6:46 AM -0700 7/17/06, Andy Bierman wrote:


 Marshall Eubanks wrote:

 Nobody flies from LAX to San Diego because it ends up taking
 twice as long as driving for 10 times as much, so don't expect
 lots of flights from LA.


I fly between LAX and San Diego fairly often.  There are two airlines 
that offer flights at least every hour throughout the day.  During 
some periods the flights are every half hour.  You can generally 
connect in LAX without going through security again (unless arriving 
into LAX on an international flight).


It doesn't really work to apply typical logic to airline fares.  That 
is, you can't predict a fare based on distance or number of 
connections.  While it can be expensive to purchase a separate ticket 
between SAN and LAX, this is rarely done.  Usually a the fare is from 
point A to SAN and back.  In some cases it is slightly more than from 
point A to LAX and back, but often it is less.  Sometimes it is a lot 
less.  I'd be willing to believe that there are cases where it is a 
lot more, but I haven't personally seen them.


I'm a great believer in the train between SAN and LA, by the way. 
I've taken it a number of times and always prefer it to driving. 
Note that for a slight extra charge you can get an upgrade to 'custom 
class' where you get a larger seat, a power outlet, and something 
called a snack.  There are terrific views of the pacific ocean and 
beaches during the latter half of the trip, and for much of it the 
train is right on the sand.


The immigration checkpoint seems to be dormant for a year or so now. 
The electronic pass lanes have been turned off, the signs warning you 
to be prepared to stop have been removed, the officers standing in 
the lanes inspecting cars are gone.  The main structure is still 
there, and there are still border patrol cars at the sides, but 
that's it.

--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only
-- Randomly-selected tag: ---
As you know, any depiction of nasal mucus brings with it problems for
our sales division.
   --ABC's Broadcast Standards & Practices board, to producers of the
   cartoon "Bump in the Night"

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meetings in other regions

[Brian Rosen]

It may have changed, but when Marconi sponsored an IETF, the budget was
about $250K for the network, terminal room, help desk, hospitality desk,
t-shirts and the difference between expense and receipts for the social
(hint: most socials cost more than the $25-30 that is charged).  No
equipment was bought (it was all borrowed from Marconi or other sponsors).
I think we went over the budget.  I am told most non U.S. meeting
sponsorship costs are significantly higher, but I have no direct knowledge.

You don't give the IETF any money, you just pay the costs detailed above.
The IETF doesn't really tell you that you have to do any of the above.
Everything really is optional, but most sponsors follow the established
pattern.  

For U.S. locations, the sponsor is not involved directly with the venue, the
hotels, A-V or other direct meeting support beyond the network; the
secretariat handles it all.

You don't see many companies rushing to spend hundreds of thousands of
dollars to sponsor an IETF.   There really isn't any glory, and lots of
potential grief.  

Brian

> -Original Message-
> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 4:20 PM
> To: Joel Jaeggli
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
> 
> On 24-jul-2006, at 16:28, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> 
> >> IETF should look for "global" sponsors, in a given time frame, for
> >> example
> >> for a year, or just a meeting if needed, but as said *decoupled*
> >> from the
> >> venue.
> 
> >> Local sponsors can take care of the social, breaks, etc.
> 
> > As you know Jordi local sponsors have historically been invaluable in
> > getting access to local resources, like network connectivity and
> > handling the logistics of network setup.
> 
> > having local support is always better than not having it.
> 
> 
> 
> I think Jordi brings up a good point, today "sponsors" are supposed
> to cough up a lot of cash AND do a lot of work. Presumably, it would
> be easier to find people with cash and people willing to volunteer
> work separately rather than insist on a package deal.
> 
> Also, it's unclear how much sponsoring an IETF meeting is supposed to
> cost in actual cash. The documentation doesn't talk about cash, only
> about facilities. I'm pretty sure I can arrange for facilities such
> as bandwidth, network operations/terminal room staffing and maybe
> even a social event for free or nearly free by having different
> organizations sponsor each, but if I could come up with the money to
> pay market price for this stuff then I wouldn't be on this list but
> I'd be paying someone else to be on it. So is the quarter million
> figure that I saw floating by in my inbox supposed to cover the
> published host duties, or is this in _addition_ to taking care of
> these duties?
> 
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[todd glassey]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Brian E Carpenter'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 10:19 AM
Subject: RE: Meetings in other regions


> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > ...
> > Outreach is important, and welcoming new active contributors
> > is important, but the dominant consideration is a location that
> > is convenient and effective for our current active contributors.
>

Uh No... there are two issues here and they need to be addressed
separately - the first is in conducting the IETF's business and in holding
the meetings so that from a statistical point of view - the most business is
accomplished per meeting as possible.

The second issue is in getting new members to join and participate but its a
separate issue from the process of operating the Standards Machine.

> Outreach is important to grow the top line revenue, but its more important
> value is in broadening and balancing the perspective.

Initially I would say "Depends on what it is you are trying to do" but after
giving it more thought I would respond "No - since the IETF's processes do
not accept just anyone who wants to play and there are no play-nice together
rules this simply isnt what's true at all IMHO... what is true is that the
potential pool of vetters is enlargened but beyond that - anything else
claimed is inaccurate IMHO.

> Convenience is
> important to sustaining participation, but that needs to be balanced by
> reality outside the fiber connected large hotel world.

Uh - then this also says that there MUST be Internet connectivity for those
that cannot make it and that restricts the number of places further that
meet the needs.

> As Fred suggested in
> the Afghanistan note, there are places in the world that don't have zero
> latency/loss fiber paths to the participant's home networks.

Is this a problem for the IETF or its participants?

> I can still
> hear the screams from the developers 20 years ago when I 'broke' the
network
> by making them live like all their customers behind a 1/2 second delay.
>
> A dose of reality would impact many of the assumptions people bring to the
> standards process.

Agreed but for different reasons.

> If nothing else it would drive home a reason to be
> explicitly clear in text rather than assume everyone knows something
because
> they all have the same network experiences.

Tony - This may be a style issue with documents that are filed and accepted
as process-seeds for a WG's standards process portfolio.  If so then its
about whether the WG Chair and the WG are willing to take sloppy
submissions... and as such  has nothing really to do with the process of the
Standards Machine unless I missed something.

> We continue facing a routing
> crisis, which is a self-inflicted wound, primarily because the
> vocal-majority of those deploying the technology have a parochial view
> rather than a realistic global view.

This Parochial view is what is wrong with today's IETF...

> We continue to fail with a viable QoS
> toolset due to a lack of a system-wide architecture which accounts for the
> real physical plant issues on a global basis.

AMEN

> We continue to see chatty
> protocol efforts that fail under the stress of real-world latency and
loss.
>
> IMHO at least one meeting every couple of years should be significantly
> inconvenient as a way to keep the group grounded.
>
> Tony
>

How about Mars?

Todd






> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 24-jul-2006, at 16:28, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

IETF should look for "global" sponsors, in a given time frame, for  
example
for a year, or just a meeting if needed, but as said *decoupled*  
from the

venue.



Local sponsors can take care of the social, breaks, etc.



As you know Jordi local sponsors have historically been invaluable in
getting access to local resources, like network connectivity and
handling the logistics of network setup.



having local support is always better than not having it.




I think Jordi brings up a good point, today "sponsors" are supposed  
to cough up a lot of cash AND do a lot of work. Presumably, it would  
be easier to find people with cash and people willing to volunteer  
work separately rather than insist on a package deal.


Also, it's unclear how much sponsoring an IETF meeting is supposed to  
cost in actual cash. The documentation doesn't talk about cash, only  
about facilities. I'm pretty sure I can arrange for facilities such  
as bandwidth, network operations/terminal room staffing and maybe  
even a social event for free or nearly free by having different  
organizations sponsor each, but if I could come up with the money to  
pay market price for this stuff then I wouldn't be on this list but  
I'd be paying someone else to be on it. So is the quarter million  
figure that I saw floating by in my inbox supposed to cover the  
published host duties, or is this in _addition_ to taking care of  
these duties?



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Joel Jaeggli]

Todd Glassey wrote:
> Joel... Wow - what can U say... This is an issue because of the gross 
> incompetence of an entity who is set up to propagate problems so that it will 
> have something to work on...  I bet the management of the IETF finds that 
> comment as offensive as I find their incompetence in these matters.

Presently it's an issue for the secretariat and the IAD when the meeting
is unhosted... As a volunteer I'm willing to cop to gross incompetence
anytime you want but if you want ascribe that to the IETF "management" I
should think you'd want to cite specific instances.

> The IETF should submit a RFP for a service provider to take this over for any 
> and all meetings held in... This is a problem for the IETF because of the 
> gross failure of the IETF's organizers to "get it"... Sorry but having been 
> the specific person responsible for raising money for supporting the meetings 
> of the American Bar Association's Information Security Committee and haveing 
> been a promoter for musical and other theatrical events in past-incarnations, 
> I speak from first hand knowledge...

The IAD and the IAOC have a  review of the hosting model in process. I'm
not competent to speak for them or anyone else, but I think it's safe to
assume that they are mindful of community input.

> Bluntly the reason the IETF has so many problems with its meetings is not the 
> IETF but the people organizing them and their level of expertise in 
> negotiating T's&C's  as well as their operating costs as the IETF.

My experience with project management would suggest that a contract is
only the starting point, successful execution is another matter.

> Todd
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
>> From: Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Jul 24, 2006 7:28 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
>>
>> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>>> That's part of the problem, sponsorship should be managed from a different
>>> perspective, and totally decoupled from the venue itself.
>>>
>>> IETF should look for "global" sponsors, in a given time frame, for example
>>> for a year, or just a meeting if needed, but as said *decoupled* from the
>>> venue.
>>>
>>> Local sponsors can take care of the social, breaks, etc.
>> As you know Jordi local sponsors have historically been invaluable in
>> getting access to local resources, like network connectivity and
>> handling the logistics of network setup.
>>
>> having local support is always better than not having it.
>>
>>> At this way the main costs (meeting rooms, AV, secretariat, etc.), are
>>> covered in a fair and planned way, and not dependant on each meeting itself.
>> Some costs. E.G. connectivity are in fact highly dependant on the
>> meeting location. You whole budget takes a bath the first time you have
>> to sign a 12 month lease with the ptt/ilec on an e/ds-3 to get
>> connectivity into a venue. Do you then go back to that venue for the
>> next meeting because you're still paying $8000 a month for the circuit?
>>
>>> Also this provides the IAD the budget ahead so can book the most convenient
>>> venues at least 18 months up-front, and allow a cost reduction for both IETF
>>> itself, and attendees which can get better traveling deals and more time for
>>> those that need to request an authorization to their management, etc.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jordi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> De: YAO Jiankang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> Fecha: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:31:56 +0800
>>>> Para: John L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> CC: 
>>>> Asunto: Re: Meetings in other regions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message -
>>>> From: "John L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: "YAO Jiankang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> Cc: 
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:34 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> I do think there is considerable merit in identifying a set of venues
>>>>>>> that are known to do a good job and using them whenever a meeting is
>>>>>>> scheduled for their part of the world.  Minneapolis is roughly in the
>>>>>>> middle of the populated part of North America, the hotel knows us,
>>>>>>> why not go back there?
&g

Re: Meetings in other regions

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Joel,

I know that in most of the cases, the connectivity can also be arranged as
part of the "local" sponsorship package. That's why I've used "etc." :-)

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:28:41 -0700
> Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: 
> Asunto: Re: Meetings in other regions
> 
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> That's part of the problem, sponsorship should be managed from a different
>> perspective, and totally decoupled from the venue itself.
>> 
>> IETF should look for "global" sponsors, in a given time frame, for example
>> for a year, or just a meeting if needed, but as said *decoupled* from the
>> venue.
>> 
>> Local sponsors can take care of the social, breaks, etc.
> 
> As you know Jordi local sponsors have historically been invaluable in
> getting access to local resources, like network connectivity and
> handling the logistics of network setup.
> 
> having local support is always better than not having it.
> 
>> At this way the main costs (meeting rooms, AV, secretariat, etc.), are
>> covered in a fair and planned way, and not dependant on each meeting itself.
> 
> Some costs. E.G. connectivity are in fact highly dependant on the
> meeting location. You whole budget takes a bath the first time you have
> to sign a 12 month lease with the ptt/ilec on an e/ds-3 to get
> connectivity into a venue. Do you then go back to that venue for the
> next meeting because you're still paying $8000 a month for the circuit?
> 
>> Also this provides the IAD the budget ahead so can book the most convenient
>> venues at least 18 months up-front, and allow a cost reduction for both IETF
>> itself, and attendees which can get better traveling deals and more time for
>> those that need to request an authorization to their management, etc.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> De: YAO Jiankang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Fecha: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:31:56 +0800
>>> Para: John L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> CC: 
>>> Asunto: Re: Meetings in other regions
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "John L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "YAO Jiankang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Cc: 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:34 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>>> I do think there is considerable merit in identifying a set of venues
>>>>>> that are known to do a good job and using them whenever a meeting is
>>>>>> scheduled for their part of the world.  Minneapolis is roughly in the
>>>>>> middle of the populated part of North America, the hotel knows us,
>>>>>> why not go back there?
>>>>> it seems boring that everytime we go to the same venue.
>>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you don't find IETF meetings to
>>>> be exciting enough on their own merits, it's OK if you don't go.
>>> Why not kill two birds with a stone? after enjoying the nice merits of the
>>> IETF meeting, you can appreciate the different life in the different cities
>>> at
>>> the weekend.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> It is also unfair to those who traveled from other regions such as
>>>>> europe and asia.
>>>> I said "whenever a meeting is scheduled for their part of the world."
>>>> When it's time for a meeting in North America, hold it in Minneapolis.
>>>> If we find similarly reliable venues in Europe or Asia, use them when the
>>>> meetings are in those parts of the world.
>>> Every IETF meeting is sponsored by the different companies. The sponsors
>>> normally love holding the meeting in the local city where the sponsor is
>>> located. Even you and me agree that the meeting is held in the same city,
>>> the
>>> sponsor may disagree.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> R's,
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>> ___
>>>> Ietf mailing list
>>>> Ietf@ietf.org
>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>> ___
>>> Ietf mailing list
>>> Ietf@ietf.org
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>> 
>> 
>

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Todd Glassey]

Joel... Wow - what can U say... This is an issue because of the gross 
incompetence of an entity who is set up to propagate problems so that it will 
have something to work on...  I bet the management of the IETF finds that 
comment as offensive as I find their incompetence in these matters.

The IETF should submit a RFP for a service provider to take this over for any 
and all meetings held in... This is a problem for the IETF because of the gross 
failure of the IETF's organizers to "get it"... Sorry but having been the 
specific person responsible for raising money for supporting the meetings of 
the American Bar Association's Information Security Committee and haveing been 
a promoter for musical and other theatrical events in past-incarnations, I 
speak from first hand knowledge...

Bluntly the reason the IETF has so many problems with its meetings is not the 
IETF but the people organizing them and their level of expertise in negotiating 
T's&C's  as well as their operating costs as the IETF.

Todd


-Original Message-
>From: Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Jul 24, 2006 7:28 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: ietf@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
>
>JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> That's part of the problem, sponsorship should be managed from a different
>> perspective, and totally decoupled from the venue itself.
>>
>> IETF should look for "global" sponsors, in a given time frame, for example
>> for a year, or just a meeting if needed, but as said *decoupled* from the
>> venue.
>> 
>> Local sponsors can take care of the social, breaks, etc.
>
>As you know Jordi local sponsors have historically been invaluable in
>getting access to local resources, like network connectivity and
>handling the logistics of network setup.
>
>having local support is always better than not having it.
>
>> At this way the main costs (meeting rooms, AV, secretariat, etc.), are
>> covered in a fair and planned way, and not dependant on each meeting itself.
>
>Some costs. E.G. connectivity are in fact highly dependant on the
>meeting location. You whole budget takes a bath the first time you have
>to sign a 12 month lease with the ptt/ilec on an e/ds-3 to get
>connectivity into a venue. Do you then go back to that venue for the
>next meeting because you're still paying $8000 a month for the circuit?
>
>> Also this provides the IAD the budget ahead so can book the most convenient
>> venues at least 18 months up-front, and allow a cost reduction for both IETF
>> itself, and attendees which can get better traveling deals and more time for
>> those that need to request an authorization to their management, etc.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> De: YAO Jiankang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Fecha: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:31:56 +0800
>>> Para: John L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> CC: 
>>> Asunto: Re: Meetings in other regions
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "John L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "YAO Jiankang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Cc: 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:34 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> I do think there is considerable merit in identifying a set of venues
>>>>>> that are known to do a good job and using them whenever a meeting is
>>>>>> scheduled for their part of the world.  Minneapolis is roughly in the
>>>>>> middle of the populated part of North America, the hotel knows us,
>>>>>> why not go back there?
>>>>> it seems boring that everytime we go to the same venue.
>>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you don't find IETF meetings to
>>>> be exciting enough on their own merits, it's OK if you don't go.
>>> Why not kill two birds with a stone? after enjoying the nice merits of the
>>> IETF meeting, you can appreciate the different life in the different cities 
>>> at
>>> the weekend.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> It is also unfair to those who traveled from other regions such as
>>>>> europe and asia.
>>>> I said "whenever a meeting is scheduled for their part of the world."
>>>> When it's time for a meeting in North America, hold it in Minneapolis.
>>>> If we find similarly reliable venues in Europe or Asia, use them when the
>>>> meetings are in those parts of the world.
>>> Eve

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Joel Jaeggli]

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> That's part of the problem, sponsorship should be managed from a different
> perspective, and totally decoupled from the venue itself.
>
> IETF should look for "global" sponsors, in a given time frame, for example
> for a year, or just a meeting if needed, but as said *decoupled* from the
> venue.
> 
> Local sponsors can take care of the social, breaks, etc.

As you know Jordi local sponsors have historically been invaluable in
getting access to local resources, like network connectivity and
handling the logistics of network setup.

having local support is always better than not having it.

> At this way the main costs (meeting rooms, AV, secretariat, etc.), are
> covered in a fair and planned way, and not dependant on each meeting itself.

Some costs. E.G. connectivity are in fact highly dependant on the
meeting location. You whole budget takes a bath the first time you have
to sign a 12 month lease with the ptt/ilec on an e/ds-3 to get
connectivity into a venue. Do you then go back to that venue for the
next meeting because you're still paying $8000 a month for the circuit?

> Also this provides the IAD the budget ahead so can book the most convenient
> venues at least 18 months up-front, and allow a cost reduction for both IETF
> itself, and attendees which can get better traveling deals and more time for
> those that need to request an authorization to their management, etc.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> De: YAO Jiankang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Fecha: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:31:56 +0800
>> Para: John L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> CC: 
>> Asunto: Re: Meetings in other regions
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "John L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "YAO Jiankang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc: 
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:34 AM
>> Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
>>
>>
>>>>> I do think there is considerable merit in identifying a set of venues
>>>>> that are known to do a good job and using them whenever a meeting is
>>>>> scheduled for their part of the world.  Minneapolis is roughly in the
>>>>> middle of the populated part of North America, the hotel knows us,
>>>>> why not go back there?
>>>> it seems boring that everytime we go to the same venue.
>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you don't find IETF meetings to
>>> be exciting enough on their own merits, it's OK if you don't go.
>> Why not kill two birds with a stone? after enjoying the nice merits of the
>> IETF meeting, you can appreciate the different life in the different cities 
>> at
>> the weekend.
>>
>>
>>>> It is also unfair to those who traveled from other regions such as
>>>> europe and asia.
>>> I said "whenever a meeting is scheduled for their part of the world."
>>> When it's time for a meeting in North America, hold it in Minneapolis.
>>> If we find similarly reliable venues in Europe or Asia, use them when the
>>> meetings are in those parts of the world.
>> Every IETF meeting is sponsored by the different companies. The sponsors
>> normally love holding the meeting in the local city where the sponsor is
>> located. Even you and me agree that the meeting is held in the same city, the
>> sponsor may disagree.
>>
>>
>>
>>> R's,
>>> John
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Ietf mailing list
>>> Ietf@ietf.org
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>> ___
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **
> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
> 
> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
> http://www.ipv6day.org
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

That's part of the problem, sponsorship should be managed from a different
perspective, and totally decoupled from the venue itself.

IETF should look for "global" sponsors, in a given time frame, for example
for a year, or just a meeting if needed, but as said *decoupled* from the
venue.

Local sponsors can take care of the social, breaks, etc.

At this way the main costs (meeting rooms, AV, secretariat, etc.), are
covered in a fair and planned way, and not dependant on each meeting itself.
Also this provides the IAD the budget ahead so can book the most convenient
venues at least 18 months up-front, and allow a cost reduction for both IETF
itself, and attendees which can get better traveling deals and more time for
those that need to request an authorization to their management, etc.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: YAO Jiankang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:31:56 +0800
> Para: John L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: 
> Asunto: Re: Meetings in other regions
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "John L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "YAO Jiankang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
> 
> 
>>>> I do think there is considerable merit in identifying a set of venues
>>>> that are known to do a good job and using them whenever a meeting is
>>>> scheduled for their part of the world.  Minneapolis is roughly in the
>>>> middle of the populated part of North America, the hotel knows us,
>>>> why not go back there?
>>> 
>>> it seems boring that everytime we go to the same venue.
>> 
>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you don't find IETF meetings to
>> be exciting enough on their own merits, it's OK if you don't go.
> 
> Why not kill two birds with a stone? after enjoying the nice merits of the
> IETF meeting, you can appreciate the different life in the different cities at
> the weekend.
> 
> 
>> 
>>> It is also unfair to those who traveled from other regions such as
>>> europe and asia.
>> 
>> I said "whenever a meeting is scheduled for their part of the world."
>> When it's time for a meeting in North America, hold it in Minneapolis.
>> If we find similarly reliable venues in Europe or Asia, use them when the
>> meetings are in those parts of the world.
> 
> Every IETF meeting is sponsored by the different companies. The sponsors
> normally love holding the meeting in the local city where the sponsor is
> located. Even you and me agree that the meeting is held in the same city, the
> sponsor may disagree.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> R's,
>> John
>> 
>> ___
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




**
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that 
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, including attached files, is prohibited.




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)

[Clint Chaplin]

Whoops, sorry.  I meant the upcoming weekend when I wrote the message
(the weekend after the IEEE meeting).

On 7/22/06, Scott W Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 07/19/2006 20:08 PM, Clint Chaplin allegedly wrote:
> Another data point; San Diego is hosting Comic-Con this weekend:
> they're expecting on the order of 100,000 attendees.

The weekend before the IETF?  Hey, that's an advantage!




--
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Wireless Security Technologist
Wireless Standards Manager

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)

[Scott W Brim]

On 07/19/2006 20:08 PM, Clint Chaplin allegedly wrote:
> Another data point; San Diego is hosting Comic-Con this weekend:
> they're expecting on the order of 100,000 attendees.

The weekend before the IETF?  Hey, that's an advantage!

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)

[Dave Crocker]

Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Dave,
>  
> Actually, airline hubs increase the risk of depending on a single
> airline, since most hubs (at least in the US) are dominated by a single
> airline, such as Northwest in Minneapolis and Detroit, US Airways in
> Philly and Pittsburgh, American in Dallas, Delta in Altanta and Salt
> Lake City, America West in Phoenix, United in Denver, and so on. 
> Chicago is one of the few major US airports that is a dual hub (American
> and United).  And yes, Minneapolis is a hub.


I failed to distinguish which type of 'hub' I meant.  You are, of course,
correct that an airline's hub will tend towards monopolistic fragility.

I mean "international" hub.  These are serviced by a wide range of airlines,
with direct flights all the heck over the place.  There are relatively few of
these in the world, and they have the major benefits of a) lots of capacity and
b) lots of alternatives, should a given airline have a problem.  For example in
the US, who "dominates"  LAX, SFO, JFK or ORD for international? Elsewhere even
with a national airline, there is massive variety for getting to places like
LHR, AMS, SIN, HKG, and so on.

Total numbers of passengers is probably a useful heuristic, but note that it is
not sufficient.  What we need are places that have high passenger numbers AND
good distributions of passengers/airline.  This latter ensures minimal 
"dominance".

d/

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meetings in other regions

[Tony Hain]

Pasi.Eronen wrote:
> ...
> For IETF67, I'm leaving home around 6AM, and arrive at LAX some 19
> hours later (and fly from LAX to San Diego). After this kind of trip,
> driving would be dangerous not just to myself, but everyone else on
> the road as well...

There are better hub options than LAX... There are flights from other
international hubs SFO, DEN, ORD, ATL that will get you directly into San
Diego. Even Seattle from Asia, or Portland OR. from Europe would be a better
route than LAX.

Tony 


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meetings in other regions

[Burger, Eric]

Point 2 is exactly my point.  Places which should have the best
connectivity (tons of international interconnect and PSTN connectivity)
can still be defeated by stupid firewall tricks and no host with
international PSTN conference services.

Conversely, places that North Americans might consider third tier often
have considerably better connectivity than one would expect.

-Original Message-
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:54 AM
To: Burger, Eric
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions



> Let me relate my *EXPERIENCE* with some interim meetings (lemonade).
[I
> suppose data is the closest we have to 'working code.']  Meeting held
in
> Dallas: 9 participants.  Meeting held in Vancouver: 10 participants.
> Meeting held in London: 14 participants.  Meeting held in Beijing: 21
> participants.
> 
> Worst Internet connectivity: London.
> 
> Best Internet connectivity: tied between Vancouver and Beijing.

Small nit-pick, on trying to generalize from your data:

1. Since we know that The London metropolitan area has excellent
Internet
connectivity and bandwidth, the problems you experienced must have been
due to
the particular meeting site and not the region.

2. For a region that is not obviously able to give excellent service,
the key is
the commitment by local staff (and government) to make sure it is
excellent.
They cannot do anything about the lack of fat pipes to the outside
world, but
they can do quite a bit about fat pipes within the venue and their
reliability.

3. Within the constraints of that basic connectivity to the outside
world, most
major cities are now able to deliver excellent service... given the
commitment
to do so.

d/

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)

[Clint Chaplin]

Another data point; San Diego is hosting Comic-Con this weekend:
they're expecting on the order of 100,000 attendees.

On 7/19/06, Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Dave,

A few points:

> If a non-hub venue offers dramatic net price savings, fabulous facilities, or
> some other strong justification, it makes sense to go there.
>
> Otherwise, a non-hum city forces virtually the entire set of attendees to:
>
> 1. Experience an extra  flight, each way, with its attendant inconveniences 
and
> risks (higher risk of lost luggage, missed connections, etc.)
>
This is a something of a fair point, but if we were to limit our
conferences to hub cities when in the U.S., that would mean San
Francisco, LA, Denver, Chicago, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Washington D.C,
and maybe Boston.  There's a trade off.  My absolute favorite location
for an IETF these many years was Santa Fe.  It was beautiful.  Aside
from the conference there was art, scenery, and history, including
Bandelier National Monument and the Sandia Mountains.  Santa Fe required
most of us to change planes, land in Albuquerque, and then drive for an
hour or so.  In as much as our size permits us to visit such locales,
it's a nice change of pace.  And honestly I think we all get along a
little better when we can see and do some fun things together outside of
work.
> 2. Pay higher air fares, since secondary venues do not have the airline
> competition that major hubs do.
>
This is not necessarily true.  Sometimes airfares are actually CHEAPER
for those spoke cities.  For instance, I have seen airfares to San Diego
that are cheaper than those to Los Angeles.  It's counter-intuitive and
demonstrates that one really has to be some sort of a clairvoyant to
understand airfares, but there it is.  My recollection is that the Savvy
Traveler and the Wall St. Journal have reported on this phenomenon.

> 3. Experience a higher risk of losing access completely, because of that lack 
of
> airline competition... The primary airline to the non-hub might go on strike,
> for example, as (nearly) happened to us in Minneapolis one time.
>

Minneapolis *is* a hub for Northwest.
> 4. More generally, secondary venues have less total airline seating capacity 
and
> the concentration of our 1200-1400 attendees flying in and out close together
> usually has a noticeable impact on their flights.
>

This is unlikely to be a problem, because we're merely the next
1200-1400 attendees that fly in, and in an area like San Diego we're one
of several conferences that will go on at the same time, I'm sure.
What's more, the next 1200-1400 will begin to fly in as we depart.  So
the capacity is probably there.

Eliot

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




--
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Wireless Security Technologist
Wireless Standards Manager

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: LA -> San Diego transportation (Was: Re: Meetings in other regions)

[Clint Chaplin]

The limitation on lack of eating and drinking places near the venue is
because of the choice of the particular hotel.  IEEE is in the Hyatt
on the waterfront, and Old Town is well within walking distace, with
lots of restaurant choices.

On 7/19/06, Andy Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> Clint Chaplin wrote:
>> One data point: IEEE 802 is in San Diego this week, and I've met at
>> least one attendee who flew through LAX to get here; that is, he took
>> LAX -> SAN as his last leg.
>
> the flight is so short, one can feel guilty taking it.  however the effort to
> rent a car from an airport, drive through Southern California traffic, and 
then
> either have the car sit for a week or try to dump it upon arrival, all make
> taking that short flight a reasonable choice.

First, I want to clarify my original mail.
I meant that if you live in LA, it doesn' pay
to fly to San Diego.  It's way faster and cheaper
to drive your own car there instead of flying.

Second, remember that the San Diego location is not close
to very many good dining and drinking spots, so having
a car at the next IETF will be useful.

Third, renting a car in LA and driving is a really bad idea
(instead of getting a free connecting flight) unless you
want to visit LA or the area between LA and San Diego while you
at the next IETF.  (Trust me, if you have never been to
Laguna Beach, go there if you want to see what SoCal is
really like.)


>
> d/

Andy

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




--
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Wireless Security Technologist
Wireless Standards Manager

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)

[Melinda Shore]

On 7/19/06 1:47 PM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All in all, San Diego seems like a pretty bad choice for a meeting
> place: it's even hard to get to from inside the US, and it's as far
> as you can get from Europe without leaving the continental US.

I'm not crazy about it either, but not because it's difficult to
get to.  Accessibility is a question of travel facilities, and
there are very nice places in the US that are a heck of a lot
harder to get to than San Diego, even on the east coast.  I live
in one of those places on the US east coast, and there are very
few places I can get to in Europe or Asia or even Canada without
having to change planes at least twice.  So, in terms of
reachability San Diego isn't that bad.  My disagreement with San
Diego is that the meeting facilities there have been consistently
lousy.

Melinda

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: LA -> San Diego transportation (Was: Re: Meetings in other regions)

[Andy Bierman]

Dave Crocker wrote:


Clint Chaplin wrote:

One data point: IEEE 802 is in San Diego this week, and I've met at
least one attendee who flew through LAX to get here; that is, he took
LAX -> SAN as his last leg.


the flight is so short, one can feel guilty taking it.  however the effort to
rent a car from an airport, drive through Southern California traffic, and then
either have the car sit for a week or try to dump it upon arrival, all make
taking that short flight a reasonable choice.


First, I want to clarify my original mail.
I meant that if you live in LA, it doesn' pay
to fly to San Diego.  It's way faster and cheaper
to drive your own car there instead of flying.

Second, remember that the San Diego location is not close
to very many good dining and drinking spots, so having
a car at the next IETF will be useful.

Third, renting a car in LA and driving is a really bad idea
(instead of getting a free connecting flight) unless you
want to visit LA or the area between LA and San Diego while you
at the next IETF.  (Trust me, if you have never been to
Laguna Beach, go there if you want to see what SoCal is
really like.)




d/


Andy

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 19-jul-2006, at 15:45, Dave Crocker wrote:


I agree that major hub airports are a little easier to reach,
but maybe that's why we can get meeting space more easily
in non-hub cities?


If a non-hub venue offers dramatic net price savings, fabulous  
facilities, or

some other strong justification, it makes sense to go there.


Otherwise, a non-hum city forces virtually the entire set of  
attendees to:


1. Experience an extra  flight, each way, with its attendant  
inconveniences and

risks (higher risk of lost luggage, missed connections, etc.)


2. Pay higher air fares, since secondary venues do not have the  
airline

competition that major hubs do.


I certainly don't fly as much as the next IETF-er, but in my  
experience, direct flights are almost always more expensive than  
indirect ones. Obviously a direct flight is much more convenient, but  
some indirect ones are actually pretty good while others are terrible  
and some direct flights are also pretty bad. Based on my experience  
past few years I would be happy to change planes again in Iceland  
(and probably in any other Schengen country where you only go through  
immigration when entering the Schengen zone initially) but not in the  
US if I can avoid it because either you have to build in ridiculous  
amounts of extra time or you run the risk of missing a connection  
because of the lines at immigration, especially at large airports  
such as JFK and LAX. As a rule, smaller is better, upto a point. This  
seems to go for the planes too, those 747 air-dinosaurs aren't very  
convenient, particularly with (un)boarding.


Another issue is ground transportation. I guess most people don't  
mind using a taxi, but having to stand in line for one isn't exactly  
what I need after an intercontinental flight...


All in all, San Diego seems like a pretty bad choice for a meeting  
place: it's even hard to get to from inside the US, and it's as far  
as you can get from Europe without leaving the continental US.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)

[Joel Jaeggli]

Eliot Lear wrote:

> Minneapolis *is* a hub for Northwest.
>> 4. More generally, secondary venues have less total airline seating capacity 
>> and
>> the concentration of our 1200-1400 attendees flying in and out close together
>> usually has a noticeable impact on their flights.
>>   
> 
> This is unlikely to be a problem, because we're merely the next
> 1200-1400 attendees that fly in, and in an area like San Diego we're one
> of several conferences that will go on at the same time, I'm sure. 
> What's more, the next 1200-1400 will begin to fly in as we depart.  So
> the capacity is probably there.

Sand Diego is the busiest single runway commercial airport in the United
states. it handles approximately 40,000 passenger arrivals/departures
per day with about 300 commercial flights arriving per day. 1/3 of all
flights are southwest which is the part that doesn't really help folks
connecting internationally.

If the entire IETF were to fly in Lindberg field on the same day that
would be approximately 5% of the seats. I would suspect that more people
than that fly in to visit seaworld  on a given day.


> Eliot
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: LA -> San Diego transportation (Was: Re: Meetings in other regions)

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist]

I did this the last time we where in San Diego. The only thing to be  
concerned about is at least United operated small planes with not to  
good frequency (at least then) and tends to fill up on Saturday  
afternoon and Sunday morning (I noticed).


Then going from International to domestic at LAX turned out to be a  
small adventure but I think that was a unique experience I would be  
happy to tell in a bar..:)


- kurtis -

On 19 jul 2006, at 00.29, Clint Chaplin wrote:


One data point: IEEE 802 is in San Diego this week, and I've met at
least one attendee who flew through LAX to get here; that is, he took
LAX -> SAN as his last leg.

On 7/18/06, Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ Disclaimer, I grew up in San Diego and now live in the LA area,  
so I have

biases in both directions. :) ]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> (BTW, how much would a taxi from LAX to San Diego cost? And would
> you expect taxis willing to do it?)

It's 120+ miles from LAX to the Sheraton San Diego, so a taxi isn't
practical. However, there are various ground transportation  
services that
ply that route, so if there is sufficient interest I wouldn't mind  
looking
into it and posting the results. I would say that the suggestion  
already
offered of the train from LA's Union Station to San Diego is a  
good one. The
city of Los Angeles recently introduced a low cost shuttle between  
the
station and the airport, and the train station in San Diego is  
just a few
miles away from the Sheraton. My mother takes the train up from  
San Diego

when she comes to visit her granddaughter (I am of course a second
consideration), and has very good things to say about it. The  
train spends a
good deal of its time within view of the coast, so you get a  
fairly scenic

ride as well.

All that said, they do have commuter flights between LAX and SAN,  
so a

connecting flight is not as absurd as it sounds.

hth,

Doug

--
If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




--
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Wireless Security Technologist
Wireless Standards Manager

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: LA -> San Diego transportation (Was: Re: Meetings in other regions)

[Michael Thomas]

Dave Crocker wrote:


Clint Chaplin wrote:
 


One data point: IEEE 802 is in San Diego this week, and I've met at
least one attendee who flew through LAX to get here; that is, he took
LAX -> SAN as his last leg.
   



the flight is so short, one can feel guilty taking it.  however the effort to
rent a car from an airport, drive through Southern California traffic, and then
either have the car sit for a week or try to dump it upon arrival, all make
taking that short flight a reasonable choice.
 


Or go through SFO. Given the fixed time costs of getting a plane in the air
at all, the time difference between SFO and LAX are probably negligible.
Of course one must make certain that SFO's runways are both open...

  Mike

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Dave Cridland]

On Wed Jul 19 14:53:59 2006, Dave Crocker wrote:
1. Since we know that The London metropolitan area has excellent 
Internet
connectivity and bandwidth, the problems you experienced must have 
been due to

the particular meeting site and not the region.


Indeed. The meeting site had confused "Full Internet Access" with 
"Braindead HTTP proxy web access". I can't remember if the proxy 
supported CONNECT or not. The bandwidth itself was fine and fast, I 
believe. I certainly couldn't recommend the venue for the IETF.


Of course, being good little Lemonade folk, many of us continued on 
GPRS et al quite happily, which was really quite fitting. I seem to 
remember that at one point, Randall Gellens was actually providing 
the entire room with unblemished, albeit slow, internet access over 
his mobile. In some respects, it focused discussions beneficially, by 
forcing us into using the kinds of connectivity and network we were 
trying to address.


It was one of the first times I'd intensively used my own MUA over 
that kind of bandwidth for anything more than quick mailchecks and 
testing, so I recall it with almost nostalgic pleasure.


Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
 - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)

[Andrew G. Malis]

Dave,
 
Actually, airline hubs increase the risk of depending on a single airline, since most hubs (at least in the US) are dominated by a single airline, such as Northwest in Minneapolis and Detroit, US Airways in Philly and Pittsburgh, American in Dallas, Delta in Altanta and Salt Lake City, America West in Phoenix, United in Denver, and so on.  Chicago is one of the few major US airports that is a dual hub (American and United).  And yes, Minneapolis is a hub.

 
Cheers,
Andy
 
-- 
On 7/19/06, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:> Starting from Europe, San Diego seems to be no harder to reach
> than any other major US city. The SPF route from Geneva> has two hops (e.g. via EWR or JFK).>> I agree that major hub airports are a little easier to reach,> but maybe that's why we can get meeting space more easily
> in non-hub cities?Meeting space is gotten more easily at hub cities when planning is done fartherin advance.If a non-hub venue offers dramatic net price savings, fabulous facilities, orsome other strong justification, it makes sense to go there.
Otherwise, a non-hum city forces virtually the entire set of attendees to:1. Experience an extra  flight, each way, with its attendant inconveniences andrisks (higher risk of lost luggage, missed connections, etc.)
2. Pay higher air fares, since secondary venues do not have the airlinecompetition that major hubs do.3. Experience a higher risk of losing access completely, because of that lack ofairline competition... The primary airline to the non-hub might go on strike,
for example, as (nearly) happened to us in Minneapolis one time.4. More generally, secondary venues have less total airline seating capacity andthe concentration of our 1200-1400 attendees flying in and out close together
usually has a noticeable impact on their flights.d/___Ietf mailing listIetf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)

[Eliot Lear]

Dave,

A few points:

> If a non-hub venue offers dramatic net price savings, fabulous facilities, or
> some other strong justification, it makes sense to go there.
>
> Otherwise, a non-hum city forces virtually the entire set of attendees to:
>
> 1. Experience an extra  flight, each way, with its attendant inconveniences 
> and
> risks (higher risk of lost luggage, missed connections, etc.)
>   
This is a something of a fair point, but if we were to limit our
conferences to hub cities when in the U.S., that would mean San
Francisco, LA, Denver, Chicago, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Washington D.C,
and maybe Boston.  There's a trade off.  My absolute favorite location
for an IETF these many years was Santa Fe.  It was beautiful.  Aside
from the conference there was art, scenery, and history, including
Bandelier National Monument and the Sandia Mountains.  Santa Fe required
most of us to change planes, land in Albuquerque, and then drive for an
hour or so.  In as much as our size permits us to visit such locales,
it's a nice change of pace.  And honestly I think we all get along a
little better when we can see and do some fun things together outside of
work.
> 2. Pay higher air fares, since secondary venues do not have the airline
> competition that major hubs do.
>   
This is not necessarily true.  Sometimes airfares are actually CHEAPER
for those spoke cities.  For instance, I have seen airfares to San Diego
that are cheaper than those to Los Angeles.  It's counter-intuitive and
demonstrates that one really has to be some sort of a clairvoyant to
understand airfares, but there it is.  My recollection is that the Savvy
Traveler and the Wall St. Journal have reported on this phenomenon.

> 3. Experience a higher risk of losing access completely, because of that lack 
> of
> airline competition... The primary airline to the non-hub might go on strike,
> for example, as (nearly) happened to us in Minneapolis one time.
>   

Minneapolis *is* a hub for Northwest.
> 4. More generally, secondary venues have less total airline seating capacity 
> and
> the concentration of our 1200-1400 attendees flying in and out close together
> usually has a noticeable impact on their flights.
>   

This is unlikely to be a problem, because we're merely the next
1200-1400 attendees that fly in, and in an area like San Diego we're one
of several conferences that will go on at the same time, I'm sure. 
What's more, the next 1200-1400 will begin to fly in as we depart.  So
the capacity is probably there.

Eliot

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: LA -> San Diego transportation (Was: Re: Meetings in other regions)

[Dave Crocker]

Clint Chaplin wrote:
> One data point: IEEE 802 is in San Diego this week, and I've met at
> least one attendee who flew through LAX to get here; that is, he took
> LAX -> SAN as his last leg.

the flight is so short, one can feel guilty taking it.  however the effort to
rent a car from an airport, drive through Southern California traffic, and then
either have the car sit for a week or try to dump it upon arrival, all make
taking that short flight a reasonable choice.

d/

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Dave Crocker]

> Let me relate my *EXPERIENCE* with some interim meetings (lemonade).  [I
> suppose data is the closest we have to 'working code.']  Meeting held in
> Dallas: 9 participants.  Meeting held in Vancouver: 10 participants.
> Meeting held in London: 14 participants.  Meeting held in Beijing: 21
> participants.
> 
> Worst Internet connectivity: London.
> 
> Best Internet connectivity: tied between Vancouver and Beijing.

Small nit-pick, on trying to generalize from your data:

1. Since we know that The London metropolitan area has excellent Internet
connectivity and bandwidth, the problems you experienced must have been due to
the particular meeting site and not the region.

2. For a region that is not obviously able to give excellent service, the key is
the commitment by local staff (and government) to make sure it is excellent.
They cannot do anything about the lack of fat pipes to the outside world, but
they can do quite a bit about fat pipes within the venue and their reliability.

3. Within the constraints of that basic connectivity to the outside world, most
major cities are now able to deliver excellent service... given the commitment
to do so.

d/

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)

[Dave Crocker]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Starting from Europe, San Diego seems to be no harder to reach
> than any other major US city. The SPF route from Geneva
> has two hops (e.g. via EWR or JFK).
> 
> I agree that major hub airports are a little easier to reach,
> but maybe that's why we can get meeting space more easily
> in non-hub cities?

Meeting space is gotten more easily at hub cities when planning is done farther
in advance.

If a non-hub venue offers dramatic net price savings, fabulous facilities, or
some other strong justification, it makes sense to go there.

Otherwise, a non-hum city forces virtually the entire set of attendees to:

1. Experience an extra  flight, each way, with its attendant inconveniences and
risks (higher risk of lost luggage, missed connections, etc.)

2. Pay higher air fares, since secondary venues do not have the airline
competition that major hubs do.

3. Experience a higher risk of losing access completely, because of that lack of
airline competition... The primary airline to the non-hub might go on strike,
for example, as (nearly) happened to us in Minneapolis one time.

4. More generally, secondary venues have less total airline seating capacity and
the concentration of our 1200-1400 attendees flying in and out close together
usually has a noticeable impact on their flights.

d/


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)

[Brian E Carpenter]

Starting from Europe, San Diego seems to be no harder to reach
than any other major US city. The SPF route from Geneva
has two hops (e.g. via EWR or JFK).

I agree that major hub airports are a little easier to reach,
but maybe that's why we can get meeting space more easily
in non-hub cities?

Brian

Burger, Eric wrote:

I would offer that it is easier for me to get to London, Paris, or
Frankfurt from New Hampshire than it is to get to San Diego.  LAX is
marginally better.

Chicago, Boston, New York, Toronto, Atlanta, and Las Vegas (!) are my
easy, one-hop cities.  That said, it was fun driving to Montreal :-)

-Original Message-
From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 8:45 AM

To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions

Hello;

On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:21 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




John C Klensin wrote:



It also means such things as:

   * picking places within those countries or regions that have
   good airports with easy (and multiple) international
   connections.  Even San Diego is a little marginal in that
   regard.  Based on experience in the last year or so, I'd
   suggest that Cape Town and Marrakech (suggested in another
   posting) should be utterly disqualified (although J-berg and
   Casablanca are more plausible on this dimension).


Some data about San Diego: Today, the flight information page on San
Diego "International" Airport web site shows a couple of flights
to/from Mexico and a couple to/from Canada -- all the others are
within US.

When meeting in North America, I would strongly prefer cities that
have several direct flight connections from both Europe and Asia.
Of the recent IETF meeting places, San Diego is the only one that
clearly fails this criteria... so why are we going there again?




Even direct flights within the US can be hard to find.

Depending on where you are coming from, and when you purchase your  
tickets,

you may find it faster / cheaper / better
to fly to LAX or Long Beach and drive down to San Diego. (LAX <-> San  
Diego is ~ 200 km, and LAX
is basically on the San Diego Freeway.) I did this for the one San  
Diego IETF.


If you do that, be aware that there is a permanent immigration  
checkpoint on the

San Diego freeway Northbound, which can cause backups returning.

Regards
Marshall




Best regards,
Pasi

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)

[Andrew G. Malis]

Eric,
 
All I can say is that you're not looking very hard - I just spent all of 5 mniutes searching for tickets and found a nonstop between Boston and San Diego for $418 on Alaska (this flight is also an American codeshare), and single-connection flights from Manchester NH starting at $315 on Northwest, Delta, and United.  These prices are all extremely reasonable for flights that are about as far as you can go within the continental US.  These prices are for flying out on Sunday 11/5 and returning on Saturday 11/11, so they don't require a Saturday night stayover.

 
Cheers,
Andy
 
-- 
On 7/18/06, Burger, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would offer that it is easier for me to get to London, Paris, orFrankfurt from New Hampshire than it is to get to San Diego.  LAX is
marginally better.Chicago, Boston, New York, Toronto, Atlanta, and Las Vegas (!) are myeasy, one-hop cities.  That said, it was fun driving to Montreal :-)
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meetings in other regions

[Burger, Eric]

I would offer the following:

Rather than look at extremes (e.g., Fred's "What about Kabul?"), let's
look at other "second tier" options, like Bangkok, Prague, Cairo (well,
maybe off the radar for the next few months), or Mexico City, to pick
well-connected, well-airported, rather inexpensive, cities on every
continent.

Let me relate my *EXPERIENCE* with some interim meetings (lemonade).  [I
suppose data is the closest we have to 'working code.']  Meeting held in
Dallas: 9 participants.  Meeting held in Vancouver: 10 participants.
Meeting held in London: 14 participants.  Meeting held in Beijing: 21
participants.

Worst Internet connectivity: London.

Best Internet connectivity: tied between Vancouver and Beijing.

Best participation by people (well, person) who absolutely refuse to
travel: Vancouver.

Second best participation by people who have difficulty to travel:
London.

Most new document authors and reviewers netted from meeting: Beijing.

Our interim meetings always have strong remote participation, as some
people in our work group cannot travel at all.  We do a lot of Jabber,
iChat, and conference bridges with access numbers local or toll-free for
most of the participants.  The biggest problem with the Beijing meeting
was the 12-15 hour differential for U.S. remote participants.  The
biggest benefit was expanding the protein. 

-Original Message-
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 11:53 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions



--On Saturday, July 15, 2006 6:36 PM +0200 Brian E Carpenter 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Patrick,
>
> It may have got lost in this thread, but Fred has got the nub
> of
> the argument here: the IETF's goal is to do its work as
> efficiently
> as possible, and that means assembling at locations that are
> (on some sort of average) convenient for our active
> participants.
> In practical terms, that means assembling in countries or
> regions
> with a good number of current participants.

It also means such things as:

* picking places within those countries or regions that have
good airports with easy (and multiple) international
connections.  Even San Diego is a little marginal in that
regard.  Based on experience in the last year or so, I'd
suggest that Cape Town and Marrakech (suggested in another
posting) should be utterly disqualified (although J-berg and
Casablanca are more plausible on this dimension).

* picking places where we can be assured of adequate, and
rock-solid, connectivity at both the meeting site and, if
different, the hotel(s).  That ought to be easy, but we
aren't there yet.  When I was in Marrakech (at an ICANN
meeting) a few weeks ago, we lost the network multiple times
due to difficulties with the international link and
insufficient backup/ alternate path bandwidth (see below).
There were also some problems that, in principle (but not in
practice) could have been fixed or avoided locally, but an
international link outage from a remote location can easily
be a showstopper.  Similarly, while last week's meeting was
superb in many respects, the condition of the network in the
Delta was effective at preventing many of us from working
overnight... whether to catch up on day job activities or to
work on drafts, the impact is reduced productivity and, to
some degree, an incentive to stay home rather than attend
meetings.

My own view, even if it is not politically correct, is that IETF 
should leave the outreach to exotic places to ISOC, ICANN, and 
others.  I'm very much in favor of our continuing to meet in 
some proportionate way in Europe, Asia, and the Pacific -- and 
other places if we have adequate participation.  But let's stick 
to the places from which we have adequate participation and 
where we can run an efficient meeting with efficient transport 
to and from the location.  The theory that we should go to 
places to stimulate participation from those places really does 
not work: our real work requires extensive read-in, not just 
skimming a few documents and going to a newcomer's orientation 
(if that).  The people from remote places whom we want to have 
participate in person should already be participating via 
mailing lists.

The model underlying the pie chart is a little weak in that 
regard, since it shows meeting attendance rather than 
participation.  Perhaps we should be looking to ways to measure 
participation that counts effective mailing list participants so 
as to increase the priority of the places from which they come. 
But going to a place that is difficult for most participants to 
get to, with network performance and availability that is hard 
to predict in advance, in the hope of getting more useful 

San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)

[Burger, Eric]

I would offer that it is easier for me to get to London, Paris, or
Frankfurt from New Hampshire than it is to get to San Diego.  LAX is
marginally better.

Chicago, Boston, New York, Toronto, Atlanta, and Las Vegas (!) are my
easy, one-hop cities.  That said, it was fun driving to Montreal :-)

-Original Message-
From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 8:45 AM
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions

Hello;

On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:21 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> It also means such things as:
>>
>> * picking places within those countries or regions that have
>> good airports with easy (and multiple) international
>> connections.  Even San Diego is a little marginal in that
>> regard.  Based on experience in the last year or so, I'd
>> suggest that Cape Town and Marrakech (suggested in another
>> posting) should be utterly disqualified (although J-berg and
>> Casablanca are more plausible on this dimension).
>
> Some data about San Diego: Today, the flight information page on San
> Diego "International" Airport web site shows a couple of flights
> to/from Mexico and a couple to/from Canada -- all the others are
> within US.
>
> When meeting in North America, I would strongly prefer cities that
> have several direct flight connections from both Europe and Asia.
> Of the recent IETF meeting places, San Diego is the only one that
> clearly fails this criteria... so why are we going there again?
>

Even direct flights within the US can be hard to find.

Depending on where you are coming from, and when you purchase your  
tickets,
you may find it faster / cheaper / better
to fly to LAX or Long Beach and drive down to San Diego. (LAX <-> San  
Diego is ~ 200 km, and LAX
is basically on the San Diego Freeway.) I did this for the one San  
Diego IETF.

If you do that, be aware that there is a permanent immigration  
checkpoint on the
San Diego freeway Northbound, which can cause backups returning.

Regards
Marshall


> Best regards,
> Pasi
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: LA -> San Diego transportation (Was: Re: Meetings in other regions)

[Clint Chaplin]

One data point: IEEE 802 is in San Diego this week, and I've met at
least one attendee who flew through LAX to get here; that is, he took
LAX -> SAN as his last leg.

On 7/18/06, Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[ Disclaimer, I grew up in San Diego and now live in the LA area, so I have
biases in both directions. :) ]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> (BTW, how much would a taxi from LAX to San Diego cost? And would
> you expect taxis willing to do it?)

It's 120+ miles from LAX to the Sheraton San Diego, so a taxi isn't
practical. However, there are various ground transportation services that
ply that route, so if there is sufficient interest I wouldn't mind looking
into it and posting the results. I would say that the suggestion already
offered of the train from LA's Union Station to San Diego is a good one. The
city of Los Angeles recently introduced a low cost shuttle between the
station and the airport, and the train station in San Diego is just a few
miles away from the Sheraton. My mother takes the train up from San Diego
when she comes to visit her granddaughter (I am of course a second
consideration), and has very good things to say about it. The train spends a
good deal of its time within view of the coast, so you get a fairly scenic
ride as well.

All that said, they do have commuter flights between LAX and SAN, so a
connecting flight is not as absurd as it sounds.

hth,

Doug

--
If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




--
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Wireless Security Technologist
Wireless Standards Manager

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meetings in other regions

[Hallam-Baker, Phillip]

> From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

> The network access in the Delta was a problem. But the 
> Montreal Venue was excellent. Well worth the minor walk. The 
> city was marvelous. I'd easily vote to go back again. This 
> potential pattern of one meeting in Canada one in the US and 
> the other in Euro/Asia-Pac is working out very well.

The walk to the conference center was no problem at all. The walk from one end 
of the conference center to the other...

Actually it was air conditioned and that was fine.

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

LA -> San Diego transportation (Was: Re: Meetings in other regions)

[Doug Barton]

[ Disclaimer, I grew up in San Diego and now live in the LA area, so I have
biases in both directions. :) ]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> (BTW, how much would a taxi from LAX to San Diego cost? And would
> you expect taxis willing to do it?)

It's 120+ miles from LAX to the Sheraton San Diego, so a taxi isn't
practical. However, there are various ground transportation services that
ply that route, so if there is sufficient interest I wouldn't mind looking
into it and posting the results. I would say that the suggestion already
offered of the train from LA's Union Station to San Diego is a good one. The
city of Los Angeles recently introduced a low cost shuttle between the
station and the airport, and the train station in San Diego is just a few
miles away from the Sheraton. My mother takes the train up from San Diego
when she comes to visit her granddaughter (I am of course a second
consideration), and has very good things to say about it. The train spends a
good deal of its time within view of the coast, so you get a fairly scenic
ride as well.

All that said, they do have commuter flights between LAX and SAN, so a
connecting flight is not as absurd as it sounds.

hth,

Doug

-- 
If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meetings in other regions

[Todd Glassey]

As a formal Standards Process - what is the records retention process - and 
what are the defined records that make up the Evidence Package from any given 
initiative?

This is a serious question for any and all  efforts within the IETF. The other 
issue is the authentication and guarantee that the Mail List Hostroy's are 
accurate and that the Mail Server's were not messed with to impact any 
individuals participation in the list profess are today essentially 
non-existant and are required in most all proofing models currently accepted.

Todd Glassey

-Original Message-
>From: Richard Shockey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Jul 18, 2006 11:45 AM
>To: 'Melinda Shore' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Dave Cridland' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: 'IETF-Discussion' 
>Subject: RE: Meetings in other regions
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 11:31 AM
>> To: Dave Cridland
>> Cc: IETF-Discussion
>> Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
>> 
>> On 7/17/06 11:26 AM, "Dave Cridland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I think Melinda's intention was to suggest that the meetings ought to
>> > be growing in significance.
>> > Is that better?
>> 
>> The wording is better, but it's still the case that I'd rather that
>> we made a better effort to conduct the bulk of the IETF's business on
>> mailing lists rather than in meetings.  What I'm saying is that it's
>> hard to get the toothpaste back in the tube, and that if the growing
>> role of meetings is inevitable let's acknowledge that and try to make
>> it work well.
>> 
>> I like Spencer's suggestion.  In the past I've prepared final meeting
>> minutes by editing together the minute-taker's notes and the jabber
>> log and I thought it worked very well.
>> 
>
>
>I've found that to be a very useful technique a well. The other thing that
>continually amazes me is that more WG's have not adopted the practice of
>appointing a WG Secretary to assist the chairs in various administrative
>functions like document tracking, NIT reviews and more importantly being the
>defacto permanent scribe. 
>
>I'm constantly amazed at WG meetings where 5 or 10 minutes being wasted
>trying to console some poor soul into acting as a scribe. 
>
>
>I cant imagine co-chairing the ENUM WG anymore without a WG Secretary. I
>wholeheartedly recommend enough the practice.
>
>
>
>
>___
>Ietf mailing list
>Ietf@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meetings in other regions

[Richard Shockey]

> -Original Message-
> From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 11:31 AM
> To: Dave Cridland
> Cc: IETF-Discussion
> Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
> 
> On 7/17/06 11:26 AM, "Dave Cridland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think Melinda's intention was to suggest that the meetings ought to
> > be growing in significance.
> > Is that better?
> 
> The wording is better, but it's still the case that I'd rather that
> we made a better effort to conduct the bulk of the IETF's business on
> mailing lists rather than in meetings.  What I'm saying is that it's
> hard to get the toothpaste back in the tube, and that if the growing
> role of meetings is inevitable let's acknowledge that and try to make
> it work well.
> 
> I like Spencer's suggestion.  In the past I've prepared final meeting
> minutes by editing together the minute-taker's notes and the jabber
> log and I thought it worked very well.
> 


I've found that to be a very useful technique a well. The other thing that
continually amazes me is that more WG's have not adopted the practice of
appointing a WG Secretary to assist the chairs in various administrative
functions like document tracking, NIT reviews and more importantly being the
defacto permanent scribe. 

I'm constantly amazed at WG meetings where 5 or 10 minutes being wasted
trying to console some poor soul into acting as a scribe. 


I cant imagine co-chairing the ENUM WG anymore without a WG Secretary. I
wholeheartedly recommend enough the practice.




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meetings in other regions

[Richard Shockey]

> On Monday, July 17, 2006 10:11:07 AM -0400 Jeffrey Altman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > For me Paris and Montreal were the
> > two worst meetings I have experienced in ten years because of the
> > separation of the IETF hotel from the meeting locations and the in
> > ability to provide network access in the hotel public spaces.  My
> > productivity dropped significantly because of those failures.
> 
> While I agree with most of what Jeff said, I have to comment on this.


The network access in the Delta was a problem. But the Montreal Venue was
excellent. Well worth the minor walk. The city was marvelous. I'd easily
vote to go back again. This potential pattern of one meeting in Canada one
in the US and the other in Euro/Asia-Pac is working out very well.

> However, the conference centers in both Paris and Montreal had excellent
> meeting facilities.  The network last week was fabulous, and as Jeff
> pointed out in a message to the WG chairs list, Paris was where we first
> discovered the utility of having a few extra wireless mics for supporting
> round-table discussion.
> 
> 
> > The best IETF meetings from my perspective are those held in
> > Minneapolis.  The hotel understands what we need.  The lounge and bar
> > areas are smoke free and plentiful.  There is accessible food via the
> > habitrails.  Things just work.
> 
> I strongly agree.  We've been away from Minneapolis for too long.

Gag .. Yes the Hilton in MN is nearly the perfect physical venue but frankly
enough is enough.  There are many other US cities with comparable
facilities. It makes a lot of sense to move the meetings around the vast
majority of us do like the opportunity to experience a different city from
time to time.




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Brian E Carpenter]

It's fun to chat but there are 2000+ people here so maybe the topic is 
exhausted?

At least please change the Subject when you change the subject.

   Brian

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meetings in other regions

[Pasi.Eronen]

Andy Bierman wrote:
> Nobody flies from LAX to San Diego because it ends up taking
> twice as long as driving for 10 times as much, so don't expect
> lots of flights from LA.

For IETF67, I'm leaving home around 6AM, and arrive at LAX some 19
hours later (and fly from LAX to San Diego). After this kind of trip,
driving would be dangerous not just to myself, but everyone else on
the road as well...

(BTW, how much would a taxi from LAX to San Diego cost? And would
you expect taxis willing to do it?)

> - I didn't find a terminal room, but instead a giant 'break room'
>   for ad-hoc meetings and food breaks.  This was wonderful, and
>   about time! 802.11 has thankfully made the terminal room obsolete.
>   I want this format every time.  Please consider 2 enhancements:
> 
> - A/C around the perimeter for laptop power
> - beverages available (at least pitchers of water) all day

Good suggestions, I second these!

Best regards,
Pasi

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

On Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:03:34 AM +0100 Tim Chown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:38:15AM -0400, Stephen Campbell wrote:


Or skip the car. Fly into LAX, take one of several shuttles to Los
Angeles Union Station, and take Amtrak's "Surfliner" to San Diego.
These trains run every 1 to 2 hours and get to San Diego in less than
3 hours. And it's hassle-free.


Not so good after 9+ hours on a plane though, is it?   Nor is driving.


Actually, it's pretty nice.  The seats are nicely spaced, there's plentiful 
power, beverages, and you can get up and walk around.


Of course, my opinions on this matter might be a bit biased.  For example, 
I see no reason to fly to LAX and take a shuttle to Los Angeles Union 
Station when it takes a mere two days to get there by rail from Chicago 
Union Station. :-)


-- Jeff

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

On Monday, July 17, 2006 06:46:11 AM -0700 Andy Bierman 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



  - I didn't find a terminal room, but instead a giant 'break room'
for ad-hoc meetings and food breaks.  This was wonderful, and
about time! 802.11 has thankfully made the terminal room obsolete.
I want this format every time.  Please consider 2 enhancements:

  - A/C around the perimeter for laptop power
  - beverages available (at least pitchers of water) all day


There actually was a terminal room, hidden around the corner to the left as 
you walked away from registration.  I went there exactly twice, to pick up 
printouts for the PGP session (once would have been nice, but my laptop 
crashed and I was late for a meeting, so had to go back afterward).



I definitely agree that the all-day "cookie room" was a great idea, and I'd 
very much like to see this sort of thing again.  It could do with a few 
more tables and power than we had this time, and an all-day supply of water 
or beverages would be good, too.


Of course, the potential negative aspect is that folks who aren't attenting 
the session right before a cookie break can "camp out" and grab cookies 
right as they arrive.  But, that can happen anywhere...


-- Jeff

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

On Saturday, July 15, 2006 05:24:45 AM -0400 Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



Thanks. gee whiz, that was a bunch of work for me. You had a tool?  arg...


It's best to always ask Henrik and/or Bill if they have a tool.
Often they do, and if not, it may take less time to produce it than it 
would take one of us to realize we need it.


-- Jeff

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

On Monday, July 17, 2006 10:11:07 AM -0400 Jeffrey Altman 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



For me Paris and Montreal were the
two worst meetings I have experienced in ten years because of the
separation of the IETF hotel from the meeting locations and the in
ability to provide network access in the hotel public spaces.  My
productivity dropped significantly because of those failures.


While I agree with most of what Jeff said, I have to comment on this.

I agree that having the hotel separated from the meeting locations is a 
significant issue, both because of the extra time required to travel 
between locations, and because of the lack of network connectivity.  I 
actually found Vienna worse for this than either Paris or Montreal, because 
people were scattered across many hotels, often several blocks away from 
the meeting site.


However, the conference centers in both Paris and Montreal had excellent 
meeting facilities.  The network last week was fabulous, and as Jeff 
pointed out in a message to the WG chairs list, Paris was where we first 
discovered the utility of having a few extra wireless mics for supporting 
round-table discussion.




The best IETF meetings from my perspective are those held in
Minneapolis.  The hotel understands what we need.  The lounge and bar
areas are smoke free and plentiful.  There is accessible food via the
habitrails.  Things just work.


I strongly agree.  We've been away from Minneapolis for too long.

-- Jeff

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[John L]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you don't find IETF meetings to
be exciting enough on their own merits, it's OK if you don't go.


Why not kill two birds with a stone? after enjoying the nice merits of 
the IETF meeting, you can appreciate the different life in the different 
cities at the weekend.


That would be a fine idea if all cities had venues that provided high 
quality meeting services at a reasonable price.  But they don't.


R's,
John

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[YAO Jiankang]

- Original Message - 
From: "John L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "YAO Jiankang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions


> >> I do think there is considerable merit in identifying a set of venues
> >> that are known to do a good job and using them whenever a meeting is
> >> scheduled for their part of the world.  Minneapolis is roughly in the
> >> middle of the populated part of North America, the hotel knows us,
> >> why not go back there?
> >
> > it seems boring that everytime we go to the same venue.
> 
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you don't find IETF meetings to 
> be exciting enough on their own merits, it's OK if you don't go.

Why not kill two birds with a stone? after enjoying the nice merits of the IETF 
meeting, you can appreciate the different life in the different cities at the 
weekend.


> 
> > It is also unfair to those who traveled from other regions such as 
> > europe and asia.
> 
> I said "whenever a meeting is scheduled for their part of the world." 
> When it's time for a meeting in North America, hold it in Minneapolis. 
> If we find similarly reliable venues in Europe or Asia, use them when the 
> meetings are in those parts of the world.

Every IETF meeting is sponsored by the different companies. The sponsors 
normally love holding the meeting in the local city where the sponsor is 
located. Even you and me agree that the meeting is held in the same city, the 
sponsor may disagree.



> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Marshall Eubanks]

Yes, the 405 can have traffic jams anywhere at any time, including  
2:00 AM. Those

seem particularly unjust.

Regards
Marshall

On Jul 17, 2006, at 7:43 PM, Stephen Casner wrote:


On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:


Depending on where you are coming from, and when you purchase your
tickets, you may find it faster / cheaper / better to fly to LAX or
Long Beach and drive down to San Diego. (LAX <-> San Diego is ~ 200
km, and LAX is basically on the San Diego Freeway.) I did this for
the one San Diego IETF.


Yes, but be prepared to find that the traffic may be stop-and-go all
the way except for the portion through Camp Pendleton.  That's how it
was last time I drove that route.

-- Steve



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[John L]

I do think there is considerable merit in identifying a set of venues
that are known to do a good job and using them whenever a meeting is
scheduled for their part of the world.  Minneapolis is roughly in the
middle of the populated part of North America, the hotel knows us,
why not go back there?


it seems boring that everytime we go to the same venue.


Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you don't find IETF meetings to 
be exciting enough on their own merits, it's OK if you don't go.


It is also unfair to those who traveled from other regions such as 
europe and asia.


I said "whenever a meeting is scheduled for their part of the world." 
When it's time for a meeting in North America, hold it in Minneapolis. 
If we find similarly reliable venues in Europe or Asia, use them when the 
meetings are in those parts of the world.


R's,
John

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[YAO Jiankang]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Levine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions


> >If it is that bad front of the house I don't trust their maintenance
> >crews.
> 
> No problem, they locked out the mechanics union and hired replacements
> quite a while ago.  While I think there is some chance that you would
> show up for a Northwest flight and find that the airline had suddenly
> gone out of business, I'm not worried about planes falling out of the
> air.
> 
> I do think there is considerable merit in identifying a set of venues
> that are known to do a good job and using them whenever a meeting is
> scheduled for their part of the world.  Minneapolis is roughly in the
> middle of the populated part of North America, the hotel knows us,
> why not go back there?

it seems boring that everytime we go to the same venue. It is also unfair to 
those who traveled from other regions such as europe and asia.

Jiankang Yao


> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> >Direct flight is not a must for me. 
> 
> There are plenty of connections via Chicago, Toronto, and New York
> that don't use Northwest.  If you're coming from the west you have
> fewer options but there are some reasonable connections via Denver and
> Phoenix.
> 
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> ___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[John Levine]

>If it is that bad front of the house I don't trust their maintenance
>crews.

No problem, they locked out the mechanics union and hired replacements
quite a while ago.  While I think there is some chance that you would
show up for a Northwest flight and find that the airline had suddenly
gone out of business, I'm not worried about planes falling out of the
air.

I do think there is considerable merit in identifying a set of venues
that are known to do a good job and using them whenever a meeting is
scheduled for their part of the world.  Minneapolis is roughly in the
middle of the populated part of North America, the hotel knows us,
why not go back there?

R's,
John

>Direct flight is not a must for me. 

There are plenty of connections via Chicago, Toronto, and New York
that don't use Northwest.  If you're coming from the west you have
fewer options but there are some reasonable connections via Denver and
Phoenix.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meetings in other regions

[Hallam-Baker, Phillip]

Mineapoilis is served by an airline that has Labor issues. Last time we waited 
two hours for a bag to come off the plane. 

If it is that bad front of the house I don't trust their maintenance crews.

Direct flight is not a must for me. 

> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 7:04 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
> 
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:38:15AM -0400, Stephen Campbell wrote:
> > 
> > Or skip the car. Fly into LAX, take one of several shuttles to Los 
> > Angeles Union Station, and take Amtrak's "Surfliner" to San Diego.
> > These trains run every 1 to 2 hours and get to San Diego in 
> less than
> > 3 hours. And it's hassle-free.
> 
> Not so good after 9+ hours on a plane though, is it?   Nor is driving.
> 
> Minneapolis has a good selection of direct flights, as does 
> Washington or San Francisco if people want 'nicer' places.
> 
> Having to hop just adds to the drain of travelling :(
> 
> --
> Tim/::1
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Stephen Casner]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> Depending on where you are coming from, and when you purchase your
> tickets, you may find it faster / cheaper / better to fly to LAX or
> Long Beach and drive down to San Diego. (LAX <-> San Diego is ~ 200
> km, and LAX is basically on the San Diego Freeway.) I did this for
> the one San Diego IETF.

Yes, but be prepared to find that the traffic may be stop-and-go all
the way except for the portion through Camp Pendleton.  That's how it
was last time I drove that route.

-- Steve

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Tim Chown]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:56:08AM -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:
> 
> As the number of meeting groups grow and the meetings become more
> densely packed, the jabber transcripts are useful for following
> what's going on in a meeting you're not in, as well as providing
> feedback.

Improving WLAN (802.11a seems popular :) helps jabber scribing.

-- 
Tim/::1



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Tim Chown]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:38:15AM -0400, Stephen Campbell wrote:
> 
> Or skip the car. Fly into LAX, take one of several shuttles to Los  
> Angeles Union Station, and take Amtrak's "Surfliner" to San Diego.  
> These trains run every 1 to 2 hours and get to San Diego in less than  
> 3 hours. And it's hassle-free.

Not so good after 9+ hours on a plane though, is it?   Nor is driving.

Minneapolis has a good selection of direct flights, as does Washington
or San Francisco if people want 'nicer' places.

Having to hop just adds to the drain of travelling :(

-- 
Tim/::1

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Marshall Eubanks]

Maybe we (or even I) should open a voting page where people could  
enter their desired locations; or, conversely, the iAD could make it  
part of the meeting survey.


Regards
Marshall



On Jul 17, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:


When meeting in North America, I would strongly prefer cities that
have several direct flight connections from both Europe and Asia.
Of the recent IETF meeting places, San Diego is the only one that
clearly fails this criteria... so why are we going there again?


Taking flight connections and visa requirements into account, I've  
always wondered why Vancouver doesn't get more meetings.  I'm sure  
sponsorship has a lot to do with it.


--lyndon

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Scott W Brim]

On 07/17/2006 15:46 PM, Andy Bierman allegedly wrote:
>  - I didn't find a terminal room, but instead a giant 'break room'
>for ad-hoc meetings and food breaks.  This was wonderful, and
>about time! 802.11 has thankfully made the terminal room obsolete.
>I want this format every time.  Please consider 2 enhancements:

Ignoring the subject, I just want to add enthusiastic praise for the
big all-day break room.  It was great for meeting people and getting
work done, instead of sitting on the floor in the hallways or out in a
park (well, we did that once).  It's a big productivity enhancer and I
hope it wouldn't cost too much to continue something like it.

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Dave Crocker]

Fred Baker wrote:
> On 7/17/06 10:51 AM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why do you need a jabber _scribe_ for input?
> 
> The primary value of a jabber scribe is that someone knows that *they*
> should type into the chat room. Absent that, yes, anyone *could* type,
> but who reliably *would*?


To underscore your point:

1. There is a clear benefit in having a reasonably something along the lines of
a meeting trascript.  The jabber log is a remarkably good means of obtaining
that and having it be available in real time.

2. The mere existence of a jabber session is not enough to produce the
transcript. Without having a person assigned the task, the group would be
relying on the happenstance of that different individuals would decide to
perform this task. There is quite a bit of research on group behavior that
assures us that this will not happen. (*)

(*) The body of formal, sociology and psychology research underscores what is
perhaps the best-known example of this phenomenon:
.

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Joel Jaeggli]

Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 7/17/06 10:51 AM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> One thing that could help here is reduce the audio lag. It's quite
>> common to see something appear in jabber before you hear it on the
>> audio feed. A long delay makes reacting to the audio over jabber
>> problematic.
> 
> To be honest that's not something I noticed, and I was participating
> from home last week.

Audio playout is heavily dependant on the client. Given the delay built
into the encoder the relay and the servers it doesn't get much better
than 1 or 2 seconds, but the clients will happily pad that out 10-30
seconds.

The encoder has improved a bit since the previous meeting.

joelja

> But anyway, if we're going to continue to allow the meetings
> to grow in significance (as a matter of process) it seems to me
> that the remote participation tools become more important, not
> less important.
> 
> Melinda
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Spencer Dawkins]

On 7/17/06 10:51 AM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Why do you need a jabber _scribe_ for input?


The primary value of a jabber scribe is that someone knows that  *they* 
should type into the chat room. Absent that, yes, anyone  *could* type, 
but who reliably *would*?


Having been here a few times, collisions are ugly (when you are typing, more 
slowly than usual, and someone tries to help, and the result looks like two 
different conversations, because one of you got the name wrong or missed 
some key point)... I'm guessing that not appointing a jabber scribe would 
give more collisions.


But this is still fairly new territory for me.

Thanks,

Spencer 




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Joel Jaeggli]

Edward Lewis wrote:

> I did listen to some of the sessions "on the radio" when I was caught in
> my hotel room and unable to make it to the venue in time.  While doing
> so, I found myself wistfully thinking of remote participation of ICANN
> meetings, where video is supplied. ;)  In-time video has also been
> available for other meetings as well.  (BTW, while the sessions were on
> in the venue, bandwidth was great in the hotel!)

Cool That's one more application for the audio streams.

I would note, that in the context of providing video streaming there is
a direct bearing on the costs involved in providing the service, which
has to be underwritten or passed to somewhere...

joelja

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Fred Baker]

On 7/17/06 10:51 AM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Why do you need a jabber _scribe_ for input?


The primary value of a jabber scribe is that someone knows that  
*they* should type into the chat room. Absent that, yes, anyone  
*could* type, but who reliably *would*?


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meetings in other regions

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

When meeting in North America, I would strongly prefer cities that
have several direct flight connections from both Europe and Asia.
Of the recent IETF meeting places, San Diego is the only one that
clearly fails this criteria... so why are we going there again?


Taking flight connections and visa requirements into account, I've always 
wondered why Vancouver doesn't get more meetings.  I'm sure sponsorship 
has a lot to do with it.


--lyndon

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Andy Bierman]

Marshall Eubanks wrote:

Nobody flies from LAX to San Diego because it ends up taking
twice as long as driving for 10 times as much, so don't expect
lots of flights from LA.

For visitors, you might want to fly to LAX, rent a car,
drive down the 405, and take a detour to the Laguna Beach
area on the way down (or back) for a little vacation time.

BTW, 3 comments on some real topics:

 - Meeting location is a minor factor for me when I go to the IETF meeting.
   Whether or not I have active drafts in WGs (author or chair) is the gating
   factor whether I go to the IETF at all, regardless of where it is located.

 - I strongly support Fred Baker's notion of location fairness,
   just as I did when Fred was IETF Chair.

 - I didn't find a terminal room, but instead a giant 'break room'
   for ad-hoc meetings and food breaks.  This was wonderful, and
   about time! 802.11 has thankfully made the terminal room obsolete.
   I want this format every time.  Please consider 2 enhancements:

 - A/C around the perimeter for laptop power
 - beverages available (at least pitchers of water) all day



Andy




On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:


Hello;

On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:21 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



John C Klensin wrote:


It also means such things as:

* picking places within those countries or regions that have
good airports with easy (and multiple) international
connections.  Even San Diego is a little marginal in that
regard.  Based on experience in the last year or so, I'd
suggest that Cape Town and Marrakech (suggested in another
posting) should be utterly disqualified (although J-berg and
Casablanca are more plausible on this dimension).


Some data about San Diego: Today, the flight information page on San
Diego "International" Airport web site shows a couple of flights
to/from Mexico and a couple to/from Canada -- all the others are
within US.

When meeting in North America, I would strongly prefer cities that
have several direct flight connections from both Europe and Asia.
Of the recent IETF meeting places, San Diego is the only one that
clearly fails this criteria... so why are we going there again?



Even direct flights within the US can be hard to find.

Depending on where you are coming from, and when you purchase your 
tickets,

you may find it faster / cheaper / better
to fly to LAX or Long Beach and drive down to San Diego. (LAX <-> San 
Diego is ~ 200 km, and LAX
is basically on the San Diego Freeway.) I did this for the one San 
Diego IETF.




s/the one San Diego IETF/the one San Diego IETF I attended/

Sorry for the typo
Marshall

If you do that, be aware that there is a permanent immigration 
checkpoint on the

San Diego freeway Northbound, which can cause backups returning.

Regards
Marshall



Best regards,
Pasi

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf





___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meetings in other regions

[John C Klensin]

--On Monday, 17 July, 2006 15:21 +0300 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

>> * picking places within those countries or regions that
>> have good airports with easy (and multiple) international
>> connections.  Even San Diego is a little marginal in that
>> regard.  Based on experience in the last year or so, I'd
>> suggest that Cape Town and Marrakech (suggested in another
>> posting) should be utterly disqualified (although J-berg
>> and Casablanca are more plausible on this dimension).
> 
> Some data about San Diego: Today, the flight information page
> on San  Diego "International" Airport web site shows a couple
> of flights to/from Mexico and a couple to/from Canada -- all
> the others are within US.

That is why I said "a little marginal".   If it were not for
fairly easy ground connections from major airports in the Los
Angeles area, "marginal" would have been too charitable.

Given the breakdown of advance planning and arrangements during
the Secretariat transition period, I think the Secretariat and
IASA deserve a little slack for a meeting or two, but I would
hope that careful attention would be paid to the airport issue
as future sites are evaluated. 

john


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Stephen Campbell]

On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:


Hello;

On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:21 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



John C Klensin wrote:


It also means such things as:

* picking places within those countries or regions that have
good airports with easy (and multiple) international
connections.  Even San Diego is a little marginal in that
regard.  Based on experience in the last year or so, I'd
suggest that Cape Town and Marrakech (suggested in another
posting) should be utterly disqualified (although J-berg and
Casablanca are more plausible on this dimension).


Some data about San Diego: Today, the flight information page on San
Diego "International" Airport web site shows a couple of flights
to/from Mexico and a couple to/from Canada -- all the others are
within US.

When meeting in North America, I would strongly prefer cities that
have several direct flight connections from both Europe and Asia.
Of the recent IETF meeting places, San Diego is the only one that
clearly fails this criteria... so why are we going there again?



Even direct flights within the US can be hard to find.

Depending on where you are coming from, and when you purchase your  
tickets,

you may find it faster / cheaper / better
to fly to LAX or Long Beach and drive down to San Diego. (LAX <->  
San Diego is ~ 200 km, and LAX
is basically on the San Diego Freeway.) I did this for the one San  
Diego IETF.


If you do that, be aware that there is a permanent immigration  
checkpoint on the

San Diego freeway Northbound, which can cause backups returning.

Regards
Marshall



Or skip the car. Fly into LAX, take one of several shuttles to Los  
Angeles Union Station, and take Amtrak's "Surfliner" to San Diego.  
These trains run every 1 to 2 hours and get to San Diego in less than  
3 hours. And it's hassle-free.


Regards,

Steve Campbell
Lyme, New Hampshire, US

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Melinda Shore]

On 7/17/06 11:26 AM, "Dave Cridland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Melinda's intention was to suggest that the meetings ought to
> be growing in significance.
> Is that better?

The wording is better, but it's still the case that I'd rather that
we made a better effort to conduct the bulk of the IETF's business on
mailing lists rather than in meetings.  What I'm saying is that it's
hard to get the toothpaste back in the tube, and that if the growing
role of meetings is inevitable let's acknowledge that and try to make
it work well.

I like Spencer's suggestion.  In the past I've prepared final meeting
minutes by editing together the minute-taker's notes and the jabber
log and I thought it worked very well.

Melinda

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Joel M. Halpern]

In one session, I provided jabber note taking.
Participants indicated that my real-time efforts to create concise 
statements of what was being discussed where helpful even with the 
audio feed.  (I asked because I was not sure I was adding value.)


Yours,
Joel

At 10:51 AM 7/17/2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

...
Why do you need a jabber _scribe_ for input? I think the idea of
projecting the jabber discussion on a screen is interesting, although
in theory it should be unnecessary as everyone can log in to jabber
on their laptop.
... 




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Dave Cridland]

On Mon Jul 17 16:21:49 2006, Melinda Shore wrote:

On 7/17/06 11:17 AM, "Dave Cridland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon Jul 17 16:10:49 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> Did I say it should become less important? I don't see how the
>> meetings are growing in significance, though.
> I think Melinda's intention was to suggest that they ought to be.

I'd rather they didn't, actually.


Hmmm Yes, that was rather vague, wasn't it?

I think Melinda's intention was to suggest that the meetings ought to 
be growing in significance.


Is that better?

Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
 - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Melinda Shore]

On 7/17/06 11:17 AM, "Dave Cridland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon Jul 17 16:10:49 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> Did I say it should become less important? I don't see how the
>> meetings are growing in significance, though.
> I think Melinda's intention was to suggest that they ought to be.

I'd rather they didn't, actually.

Melinda

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Spencer Dawkins]

That said, and given the difficulties of balancing competing
priorities in site location, it seems reasonable to me to make
a decent, good-faith effort without getting overly bogged down
in "where should we meet?" discussions, and really try to get
the remote participation thing nailed down a little better.  The
ratio of good to bad remote meeting input has improved a lot
over the past year or so but there are still too many working
groups without a Jabber scribe in the room (which prevents remote
listeners from providing inputs), etc.


OK, this is only a thought, and I'm out of the process improvement business 
anyway, but I've been seeing a consistent improvement in the quality of 
jabber logs for at least two years, and I'm wondering if there are working 
groups who would be willing to try "minutes = chair summary plus jabber 
logs" for a few IETFs (without what we usually think of as "detailed 
minutes"), and see if this is actually workable.


I'm a many-time repeat offender as WG note-taker, and am watching my notes 
look more and more like a jabber log with only one jabberer; the advantages 
of jabber (in my experience) are


- it's nice for the note-taker to be able to participate in the meeting - as 
an extreme case, in the SIPPING Ad Hoc on Friday, Gonzalo and Mary handed me 
the mike about twenty times, but very litte of what I said appeared in the 
notes, and it's worse when someone is already talking when I stop talking. 
That's typical in my experience. With Jabber, people can type until I get 
back to my seat.


- It's really nice when I misquote, or mis-attribute, something that was 
said and another jabberer corrects it right away. This is SO much better 
than the WG chair having to listen to the audio stream to check my notes 
after some number of days has elapsed (and sometimes all the chair can tell 
from the audio is that I got it wrong, without knowing what "right" would 
have been).


- and, obviously, this works better for remote participants (what's the 
alternative - send e-mail to the list?)


Now that all this stuff is on the IETF website, it should be more enduring 
than if the jabber rooms and logs were hosted somewhere else.


Of course, Jabber has to work; our wireless network has been pretty solid 
the last couple of meetings, but even so, if you offer a Jabber scribe an 
Ethernet connection and guaranteed power at the front of the room, that 
would be pretty compelling for me, most IETFs.


Thanks,

Spencer 




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Dave Cridland]

On Mon Jul 17 16:10:49 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

On 17-jul-2006, at 16:56, Melinda Shore wrote:
Although I did jabber scribing for a couple of sessions the past 
week

I don't see all that much value in doing that: the audio feeds are
much more useful for following what's going on.



As the number of meeting groups grow and the meetings become more
densely packed, the jabber transcripts are useful for following
what's going on in a meeting you're not in, as well as providing
feedback.


Yes, I've heard that before.


Also, you can't always get the audio, and if often cuts, and is 
generally quite noisy, and people tend to forget to come to 
microphones in the heat of the moment.



But anyway, if we're going to continue to allow the meetings
to grow in significance (as a matter of process) it seems to me
that the remote participation tools become more important, not
less important.


Did I say it should become less important? I don't see how the  
meetings are growing in significance, though.


I think Melinda's intention was to suggest that they ought to be.

Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
 - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 17-jul-2006, at 16:56, Melinda Shore wrote:


Why do you need a jabber _scribe_ for input?



To allow remote participants to provide input.


You can't type and run upto the microphone to relay comments at the  
same time...



Although I did jabber scribing for a couple of sessions the past week
I don't see all that much value in doing that: the audio feeds are
much more useful for following what's going on.



As the number of meeting groups grow and the meetings become more
densely packed, the jabber transcripts are useful for following
what's going on in a meeting you're not in, as well as providing
feedback.


Yes, I've heard that before.

By the way, was it just me or was the schedule a bit strange last  
week? On wednesday and thursday we had sessions until 16.10 and then  
the plenary at 17.00. That's a 50 minute break, a bit on the long  
side, especially as the sesson ending at 16.10 had only a 10 minute  
break before it which doesn't accommodate for sessions running late  
and/or a quick discussion afterward and then walking all the way to  
the other side of the palais. Ending at 19.30 / 20.00 is much better  
for remote participants from the east, though.



One thing that could help here is reduce the audio lag. It's quite
common to see something appear in jabber before you hear it on the
audio feed. A long delay makes reacting to the audio over jabber
problematic.



To be honest that's not something I noticed, and I was participating
from home last week.


Maybe it was better last week than other meetings since we have  
audio. I didn't use the audio last week.



But anyway, if we're going to continue to allow the meetings
to grow in significance (as a matter of process) it seems to me
that the remote participation tools become more important, not
less important.


Did I say it should become less important? I don't see how the  
meetings are growing in significance, though.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[bmanning]

MEXICO


On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 10:54:16AM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > There are two issues:
> > 
> > 1) Cost. IETF has limited resources, so unless each of us want to pay more
> > and more for the registration fees or we are able to compensate the cost
> > with more sponsors (which is every day more difficult), we need to look for
> > cheaper locations.
> > 
> > 2) Is un fair that the main driver is only looking at where more people
> > comes from (this is fortunately changing anyway, and thus will less and less
> > easy to match). Even worst if that's a country with doesn't allow everyone
> > to come in.
> 
> So where is this mythical low cost easy to travel to country within
> easy reach of an untapped resource of potential ietf participants?
> 
> Once we've located it, it should be easy for the IAD to book us a hotel
> on the dates we've fixed in stone 2 years in advance...
> 
> > Regards,
> > Jordi
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> De: Scott W Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Organización: Cisco Systems, Inc.
> >> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Fecha: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:14:34 -0400
> >> Para: Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> CC: , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Asunto: Re: Meetings in other regions
> >>
> >> On 07/14/2006 10:01 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote:
> >>> Once upon a time,
> >>> the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of the IETF was from Europe,
> >>> a smattering was from elsewhere, and the lion's share was from the US,
> >>> so I scheduled a meeting every other year in Europe, the odd one in
> >>> random places, and the lion's share in the US. Those statistics are
> >>> essentially meaningless now.
> >> Why are they meaningless?  The IETF should overwhelmingly meet where
> >> the participants are, wherever that might be.  I still like your
> >> algorithm.
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Ietf mailing list
> >> Ietf@ietf.org
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > **
> > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
> > 
> > Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
> > http://www.ipv6day.org
> > 
> > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
> > confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
> > individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
> > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
> > information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 
> -- 
> -
> Joel Jaeggli ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> GPG Key Fingerprint:
> 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Melinda Shore]

On 7/17/06 10:51 AM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do you need a jabber _scribe_ for input?

To allow remote participants to provide input.

> Although I did jabber scribing for a couple of sessions the past week
> I don't see all that much value in doing that: the audio feeds are
> much more useful for following what's going on.

As the number of meeting groups grow and the meetings become more
densely packed, the jabber transcripts are useful for following
what's going on in a meeting you're not in, as well as providing
feedback.

> One thing that could help here is reduce the audio lag. It's quite
> common to see something appear in jabber before you hear it on the
> audio feed. A long delay makes reacting to the audio over jabber
> problematic.

To be honest that's not something I noticed, and I was participating
from home last week.

But anyway, if we're going to continue to allow the meetings
to grow in significance (as a matter of process) it seems to me
that the remote participation tools become more important, not
less important.

Melinda

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 17-jul-2006, at 16:35, Melinda Shore wrote:


it seems reasonable to me to make
a decent, good-faith effort without getting overly bogged down
in "where should we meet?" discussions, and really try to get
the remote participation thing nailed down a little better.  The
ratio of good to bad remote meeting input has improved a lot
over the past year or so but there are still too many working
groups without a Jabber scribe in the room (which prevents remote
listeners from providing inputs), etc.


Why do you need a jabber _scribe_ for input? I think the idea of  
projecting the jabber discussion on a screen is interesting, although  
in theory it should be unnecessary as everyone can log in to jabber  
on their laptop.


But the problem is that we don't know what jabber is to us: is it a  
low-bandwidth copy of the audio and/or a live version of the notes,  
or is it an extra out of band channel?


Although I did jabber scribing for a couple of sessions the past week  
I don't see all that much value in doing that: the audio feeds are  
much more useful for following what's going on. I really like using  
jabber to insert comments without the need to go up to the mike and  
interrupt what's going on there (or stand in line until the  
discussion is on a very different subject).


One thing that could help here is reduce the audio lag. It's quite  
common to see something appear in jabber before you hear it on the  
audio feed. A long delay makes reacting to the audio over jabber  
problematic.




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Edward Lewis]

At 10:11 AM -0400 7/17/06, Jeffrey Altman wrote:


My belief is that working group sessions should avoid presentations
whenever possible.


Visual material is something that is helpful but it need not be a 
presentation.  E.g., if we still had blackboards it would often times 
be easier to express ideas in multiple dimensions.


After Dallas I commented on the lack of visual material as being 
detrimental to the process.  One of the persons in the WG I used as 
an example took exception to that (not in a personal way, in an 
approach way) but this time did indeed have one slide to accompany 
his words.  The slide was precisely what I thought was needed - one 
thing to focus on not a tutorial presentation.  I noted during the 
meeting that non-English native (assuming I can judge this by looks) 
were taking photos of the screen for later reference.


I did listen to some of the sessions "on the radio" when I was caught 
in my hotel room and unable to make it to the venue in time.  While 
doing so, I found myself wistfully thinking of remote participation 
of ICANN meetings, where video is supplied. ;)  In-time video has 
also been available for other meetings as well.  (BTW, while the 
sessions were on in the venue, bandwidth was great in the hotel!)



not physically present.  This model worked so well in fact that in
SASL one of the primary document authors who was not present at the
meeting was able to lead the discussion with him typing away on
Jabber and the rest of the room responding via voice.


That's an example of visual material.


When I attend IETF it is rare that I ever get to experience the world
outside the conference hotel.


That is a red herring.  The purpose of travelling the IETF is not to 
enable sightseeing or even cultural awareness.  There are many side 
meetings, not on the public agenda, that are made possible via the 
travel.  Some of these are private business meetings - those that 
really make the Internet go.  Some are quasi-public meetings of 
policy folks who spend time tracking the IETF and then mixing with 
regulatory agencies and other organizations to provide a better 
(perhaps non-tech) environment for the technical work.


In the development of DNSSEC, we have had technical workshops 
connected to the IETF and other meetings.  Local attendance at these 
were enabled by travelling the main meeting around.


The advancement of the Internet isn't just engineering anymore.  It's 
about the use of a tool in civilization.  There's still engineering 
work needed but it is not the (only) "long pole" in the tent.


--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Soccer/Futbol. IPv6.  Both have lots of 1's and 0's and have a hard time
catching on in North America.

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Melinda Shore]

On 7/17/06 10:11 AM, "Jeffrey Altman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking as a working group chair, what is important to me is the
> ability to make progress on the milestones the working group is
> committed to achieve.

Sure, but you don't want to risk insularity, which I think
clearly has been at least partly responsible for some less-than-
stellar work.  There's a need to look a little beyond the
next deliverable and think about what's needed to avoid turning
working groups into echo chambers.  Clearly this is more important
in the early stages of a working group, but there are always
working groups in their early stages.

And while there's an idealized picture of how work gets done in
the IETF, the truth is that as the organization has grown and
has gotten broader participation, culture from other standards
bodies has been gradually been incorporated to the point where
you cannot honestly say that the main work of the IETF is done
on mailing lists.  The role of meetings has changed.  It seems
to me that either we should make a better effort to stick to
the ideal or try to be more explicit about the changing role
of meetings.

That said, and given the difficulties of balancing competing
priorities in site location, it seems reasonable to me to make
a decent, good-faith effort without getting overly bogged down
in "where should we meet?" discussions, and really try to get
the remote participation thing nailed down a little better.  The
ratio of good to bad remote meeting input has improved a lot
over the past year or so but there are still too many working
groups without a Jabber scribe in the room (which prevents remote
listeners from providing inputs), etc.

Melinda

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Jeffrey Altman]

Speaking as a working group chair, what is important to me is the
ability to make progress on the milestones the working group is
committed to achieve.  Traveling to some far away location in order
to fill the seats with spectators does not result in work being
accomplished.   I require that not only can I afford to travel there
but that the half dozen active participants be able to do so as well.
We are already at the point where I and others are experimenting
with methods to improve the capabilities of remote participants to
actively partake in the working group sessions.

My belief is that working group sessions should avoid presentations
whenever possible.  The working group gets two hours of face to face
time every four months.  I'm not going to waste that time on
presentations meant to instruct the locals and if you don't know what
is going on before you arrive in the meeting room chances are you will
not be able to contribute in a meaningful way.

At IETF66 the Kitten, Kerberos and SASL working groups used a format
that involved wandering microphones in the audience to permit natural
dialogs among the active contributors in the room similar to that
experienced at any technical design meeting while ensuring that those
listening on the audio stream do not miss a beat.  At the same time
the Jabber room was projected on a second display in order to enable
all of the participants in the meeting room to see the input of those
not physically present.  This model worked so well in fact that in
SASL one of the primary document authors who was not present at the
meeting was able to lead the discussion with him typing away on
Jabber and the rest of the room responding via voice.

When I attend IETF it is rare that I ever get to experience the world
outside the conference hotel.  My days are filled from breakfast
meetings to late night work sessions.  There is so much that needs to
be done that I could care less about where in the world I am or what
the weather is like outside.  What is important is that when I am not
in a session that there be lounges in the hotel for to use for meetings
that have working network access.  For me Paris and Montreal were the
two worst meetings I have experienced in ten years because of the
separation of the IETF hotel from the meeting locations and the in
ability to provide network access in the hotel public spaces.  My
productivity dropped significantly because of those failures.

The best IETF meetings from my perspective are those held in
Minneapolis.  The hotel understands what we need.  The lounge and bar
areas are smoke free and plentiful.  There is accessible food via the
habitrails.  Things just work.

To summarize, before the IETF should visit new countries folks from
those countries need to participate on the mailing lists and begin to
actively involve themselves reviewing documents and editing documents.
That is the work we do.  Traveling to Casablanca is not going to help
get the work done.

The one piece of evidence that might change my opinion would be this.
Show me evidence that first time attendees at a local meeting results
in those attendees editing a document and becoming repeat attendees
in the future.

Jeffrey Altman



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:


Hello;

On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:21 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



John C Klensin wrote:


It also means such things as:

* picking places within those countries or regions that have
good airports with easy (and multiple) international
connections.  Even San Diego is a little marginal in that
regard.  Based on experience in the last year or so, I'd
suggest that Cape Town and Marrakech (suggested in another
posting) should be utterly disqualified (although J-berg and
Casablanca are more plausible on this dimension).


Some data about San Diego: Today, the flight information page on San
Diego "International" Airport web site shows a couple of flights
to/from Mexico and a couple to/from Canada -- all the others are
within US.

When meeting in North America, I would strongly prefer cities that
have several direct flight connections from both Europe and Asia.
Of the recent IETF meeting places, San Diego is the only one that
clearly fails this criteria... so why are we going there again?



Even direct flights within the US can be hard to find.

Depending on where you are coming from, and when you purchase your  
tickets,

you may find it faster / cheaper / better
to fly to LAX or Long Beach and drive down to San Diego. (LAX <->  
San Diego is ~ 200 km, and LAX
is basically on the San Diego Freeway.) I did this for the one San  
Diego IETF.




s/the one San Diego IETF/the one San Diego IETF I attended/

Sorry for the typo
Marshall

If you do that, be aware that there is a permanent immigration  
checkpoint on the

San Diego freeway Northbound, which can cause backups returning.

Regards
Marshall



Best regards,
Pasi

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Marshall Eubanks]

Hello;

On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:21 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



John C Klensin wrote:


It also means such things as:

* picking places within those countries or regions that have
good airports with easy (and multiple) international
connections.  Even San Diego is a little marginal in that
regard.  Based on experience in the last year or so, I'd
suggest that Cape Town and Marrakech (suggested in another
posting) should be utterly disqualified (although J-berg and
Casablanca are more plausible on this dimension).


Some data about San Diego: Today, the flight information page on San
Diego "International" Airport web site shows a couple of flights
to/from Mexico and a couple to/from Canada -- all the others are
within US.

When meeting in North America, I would strongly prefer cities that
have several direct flight connections from both Europe and Asia.
Of the recent IETF meeting places, San Diego is the only one that
clearly fails this criteria... so why are we going there again?



Even direct flights within the US can be hard to find.

Depending on where you are coming from, and when you purchase your  
tickets,

you may find it faster / cheaper / better
to fly to LAX or Long Beach and drive down to San Diego. (LAX <-> San  
Diego is ~ 200 km, and LAX
is basically on the San Diego Freeway.) I did this for the one San  
Diego IETF.


If you do that, be aware that there is a permanent immigration  
checkpoint on the

San Diego freeway Northbound, which can cause backups returning.

Regards
Marshall



Best regards,
Pasi

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meetings in other regions

[Pasi.Eronen]

John C Klensin wrote:

> It also means such things as:
> 
> * picking places within those countries or regions that have
> good airports with easy (and multiple) international
> connections.  Even San Diego is a little marginal in that
> regard.  Based on experience in the last year or so, I'd
> suggest that Cape Town and Marrakech (suggested in another
> posting) should be utterly disqualified (although J-berg and
> Casablanca are more plausible on this dimension).

Some data about San Diego: Today, the flight information page on San 
Diego "International" Airport web site shows a couple of flights
to/from Mexico and a couple to/from Canada -- all the others are
within US.

When meeting in North America, I would strongly prefer cities that
have several direct flight connections from both Europe and Asia. 
Of the recent IETF meeting places, San Diego is the only one that
clearly fails this criteria... so why are we going there again?

Best regards,
Pasi

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Jari Arkko]

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:

>For authors of active drafts, these are the numbers as of July 7,
>2006, according to http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/contdistr.html :
>  
>
FWIW, the stats have been updated on the web now. As new
documents and new people come in, I usually have to add
some heuristics or adjust the tool in some other ways. For
instance, the graphical country charts had become
unreadable due to the addition of new countries and their
long names. This is now fixed.

In terms of predicting the future, these charts may be the
most interesting ones:

  http://www.arkko.com/tools/rfcstats/d-contdistrhist.html
  http://www.arkko.com/tools/rfcstats/countrydistrhist.html

Note that this tracks RFC publications. We know from the
other stats, for instance, that there is a lot of IETF participation
and drafts from China. This does not yet show up on the
RFC chart (0.2% of recent RFCs vs. 4% of drafts), but
it will, later.

--Jari


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Dave Crocker]

John C Klensin wrote:
>>the IETF's goal is to do its work as>> efficiently
>> as possible, and that means assembling at locations that are
>> (on some sort of average) convenient for our active
>> participants.
...
>* picking places within those countries or regions that have
>good airports with easy (and multiple) international
>connections.  Even San Diego is a little marginal in that
...
>* picking places where we can be assured of adequate, and
>rock-solid, connectivity at both the meeting site and, if
>different, the hotel(s).  
...
> My own view, even if it is not politically correct, is that IETF should
> leave the outreach to exotic places to ISOC, ICANN, and others
...
> But let's stick to the places from which we have
> adequate participation and where we can run an efficient meeting with
> efficient transport to and from the location. 


+1 to each of these points.

d/

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[John C Klensin]

--On Saturday, July 15, 2006 6:36 PM +0200 Brian E Carpenter 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Patrick,

It may have got lost in this thread, but Fred has got the nub
of
the argument here: the IETF's goal is to do its work as
efficiently
as possible, and that means assembling at locations that are
(on some sort of average) convenient for our active
participants.
In practical terms, that means assembling in countries or
regions
with a good number of current participants.


It also means such things as:

   * picking places within those countries or regions that have
   good airports with easy (and multiple) international
   connections.  Even San Diego is a little marginal in that
   regard.  Based on experience in the last year or so, I'd
   suggest that Cape Town and Marrakech (suggested in another
   posting) should be utterly disqualified (although J-berg and
   Casablanca are more plausible on this dimension).

   * picking places where we can be assured of adequate, and
   rock-solid, connectivity at both the meeting site and, if
   different, the hotel(s).  That ought to be easy, but we
   aren't there yet.  When I was in Marrakech (at an ICANN
   meeting) a few weeks ago, we lost the network multiple times
   due to difficulties with the international link and
   insufficient backup/ alternate path bandwidth (see below).
   There were also some problems that, in principle (but not in
   practice) could have been fixed or avoided locally, but an
   international link outage from a remote location can easily
   be a showstopper.  Similarly, while last week's meeting was
   superb in many respects, the condition of the network in the
   Delta was effective at preventing many of us from working
   overnight... whether to catch up on day job activities or to
   work on drafts, the impact is reduced productivity and, to
   some degree, an incentive to stay home rather than attend
   meetings.

My own view, even if it is not politically correct, is that IETF 
should leave the outreach to exotic places to ISOC, ICANN, and 
others.  I'm very much in favor of our continuing to meet in 
some proportionate way in Europe, Asia, and the Pacific -- and 
other places if we have adequate participation.  But let's stick 
to the places from which we have adequate participation and 
where we can run an efficient meeting with efficient transport 
to and from the location.  The theory that we should go to 
places to stimulate participation from those places really does 
not work: our real work requires extensive read-in, not just 
skimming a few documents and going to a newcomer's orientation 
(if that).  The people from remote places whom we want to have 
participate in person should already be participating via 
mailing lists.


The model underlying the pie chart is a little weak in that 
regard, since it shows meeting attendance rather than 
participation.  Perhaps we should be looking to ways to measure 
participation that counts effective mailing list participants so 
as to increase the priority of the places from which they come. 
But going to a place that is difficult for most participants to 
get to, with network performance and availability that is hard 
to predict in advance, in the hope of getting more useful 
participation from that area, strikes me as yet another way to 
shoot ourselves in the foot.



Outreach is important, and welcoming new active contributors
is important, but the dominant consideration is a location that
is convenient and effective for our current active
contributors


Yes, and that brings me to


Patrick Vande Walle wrote:



The place where we had the ICANN meeting in Marrakech
provided fast connectivity, very good mobile phone coverage
and all you would need for a productive meeting, despite the
fact that it was located  in Africa.


Interesting.  We either have different criteria or were at 
different meetings.  Let's ignore the 802.11 network, which 
frequently became unusable apparently due to causes one could 
have experienced anywhere.  I saw the audio stream to outside 
locations collapse several times, the international links suffer 
outages that took some time to resolve, and so on.   Until ICANN 
staff managed to cut the hotel network over into the meeting 
network, the hotel network and its provisioning arrangements 
were completely swamped by ICANN participants (and that type of 
cutover arrangement can't always be worked out on short notice) 
I don't have hard data, but my subjective impression from 
listening to people complain is that the meeting may have set a 
record for lost luggage in recent years. I'd love to go back 
there on vacation, but it is not a place I can recommend holding 
a meeting that is strongly dependent on good quality Internet 
connections with 100% uptime.



 This is a counter
example to what your are trying to demonstrate.


Unfortunately, it is an example, not a counter-example.


There are
many places places in Africa, Asia-Pacific  and Lat

Re: Meetings in other regions

[JFC Morfin]

Brian,
it may have got loast in this thread too, but Patrick has got the nub 
of your argument there. The IETF goal is to efficiently do a work 
which is as afficient as possible. RFC 3935 says that the IETF has to 
"influence" the world. I say that it has to "serve" it, what also 
means to educate its own members about what is efficient in our real 
world. A world where "NA" is understood as the country code for 
Namibia. IMHO you and Patrick are equally true. And so I am: there 
are three meetings a year. Why not one for efficiency, one for 
efficient deliverables, one for more efficient working methods?

jfc


At 18:36 15/07/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:


Patrick,

It may have got lost in this thread, but Fred has got the nub of
the argument here: the IETF's goal is to do its work as efficiently
as possible, and that means assembling at locations that are
(on some sort of average) convenient for our active participants.
In practical terms, that means assembling in countries or regions
with a good number of current participants.  I show a pie chart
at every plenary (a tradition started by my predecessors) that
gives a pretty strong indication of what those countries or regions
are. You saw the version of that pie chart from IETF65 in the
ISOC Board meeting in Marrakech. The IETF66 version is in the
Wednesday plenary proceedings from this week.
(temporary location:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=66 )

Outreach is important, and welcoming new active contributors
is important, but the dominant consideration is a location that
is convenient and effective for our current active contributors.

Regards

Brian

Patrick Vande Walle wrote:

Fred Baker said the following  on 13/07/2006 13:38:


My point is that it is not about the price of the hotel, nor is it
about taking the Internet gospel to those who haven't been able to
participate in its development [...]
It's about having productive meetings in an atmosphere conducive to
them

Fred,
The place where we had the ICANN meeting in Marrakech provided fast
connectivity, very good mobile phone coverage and all you would need for
a productive meeting, despite the fact that it was located  in Africa.
This is a counter example to what your are trying to demonstrate. There
are many places places in Africa, Asia-Pacific  and Latin America where
you could have a productive meeting. One only needs to look for them.
In terms of image, I tend to think that it would indeed help the IETF to
have meetings outside the Northern America  and European regions. It is
not so much about spreading the Internet gospel - others do it better -
although it would help.  It is more in terms of interacting with the
local community  to find out  what they expect to come out  of a
standardization process. The hypothesis by which whatever is good for
the Northern hemisphere is automatically fine for the rest of the world
seems slightly colonialist to me.
Best,
Patrick Vande Walle
ISOC Luxembourg
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meetings in other regions

[Hallam-Baker, Phillip]

> From: Patrick Vande Walle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

> In terms of image, I tend to think that it would indeed help 
> the IETF to have meetings outside the Northern America  and 
> European regions. It is not so much about spreading the 
> Internet gospel - others do it better - although it would 
> help.  It is more in terms of interacting with the local 
> community  to find out  what they expect to come out  of a 
> standardization process. The hypothesis by which whatever is 
> good for the Northern hemisphere is automatically fine for 
> the rest of the world seems slightly colonialist to me.

It would go a long way to ease the tensions with Brazil and Egypt.

Marrakech or Cape Town would also be a good idea to pre-empt similar feelings.

Incidentally I do NOT suggest that we go to Egypt. While the security situation 
there is currently good it is not a good idea to take an international 
organization there which is likely to become a target.







___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meetings in other regions

[Stephane H. Maes]

 
Brian,

Possibly.

But when putting all under consideration even from that point of view, travel 
(time and cost) is only one factor. Cost of facilities, facilities it self, 
quality of service, cost for participants on site etc is also important and 
often way lower in some of the locations not considered so far by IETF.

Attendance of the usual contributors is important. But that arguments seems to 
have be rehashed endlessly. Still I have seen this year WG meetings organized 
in NA and in a (far away) Asia location outside currently typical IETF 
locations. There were more than double of active participants at the meeting 
away from NA...

So I think so me of the basic assumptions may be revisited (or at least more 
carefully stated) namely 1) that cost / time is really higher outside NA (and 
sometimes selected European or Asian location) - it is often not true even 
factoring in travel costs and travel time is a quite relative considerations 2) 
that main contributors mostly come only to NA (and sometimes selected European 
or Asian location) and that therefore we would not have active participants 
when going there...

Stephane


-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 9:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions

Patrick,

It may have got lost in this thread, but Fred has got the nub of the argument 
here: the IETF's goal is to do its work as efficiently as possible, and that 
means assembling at locations that are (on some sort of average) convenient for 
our active participants.
In practical terms, that means assembling in countries or regions with a good 
number of current participants.  I show a pie chart at every plenary (a 
tradition started by my predecessors) that gives a pretty strong indication of 
what those countries or regions are. You saw the version of that pie chart from 
IETF65 in the ISOC Board meeting in Marrakech. The IETF66 version is in the 
Wednesday plenary proceedings from this week.
(temporary location:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=66 )

Outreach is important, and welcoming new active contributors is important, but 
the dominant consideration is a location that is convenient and effective for 
our current active contributors.

Regards

 Brian

Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
> Fred Baker said the following  on 13/07/2006 13:38:
>
>>My point is that it is not about the price of the hotel, nor is it 
>>about taking the Internet gospel to those who haven't been able to 
>>participate in its development [...] It's about having productive 
>>meetings in an atmosphere conducive to them
>
> Fred,
>
> The place where we had the ICANN meeting in Marrakech provided fast 
> connectivity, very good mobile phone coverage and all you would need 
> for a productive meeting, despite the fact that it was located  in Africa.
> This is a counter example to what your are trying to demonstrate. 
> There are many places places in Africa, Asia-Pacific  and Latin 
> America where you could have a productive meeting. One only needs to look for 
> them.
>
> In terms of image, I tend to think that it would indeed help the IETF 
> to have meetings outside the Northern America  and European regions. 
> It is not so much about spreading the Internet gospel - others do it 
> better - although it would help.  It is more in terms of interacting 
> with the local community  to find out  what they expect to come out  
> of a standardization process. The hypothesis by which whatever is good 
> for the Northern hemisphere is automatically fine for the rest of the 
> world seems slightly colonialist to me.
>
> Best,
>
> Patrick Vande Walle
> ISOC Luxembourg
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Brian E Carpenter]

Patrick,

It may have got lost in this thread, but Fred has got the nub of
the argument here: the IETF's goal is to do its work as efficiently
as possible, and that means assembling at locations that are
(on some sort of average) convenient for our active participants.
In practical terms, that means assembling in countries or regions
with a good number of current participants.  I show a pie chart
at every plenary (a tradition started by my predecessors) that
gives a pretty strong indication of what those countries or regions
are. You saw the version of that pie chart from IETF65 in the
ISOC Board meeting in Marrakech. The IETF66 version is in the
Wednesday plenary proceedings from this week.
(temporary location:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=66 )

Outreach is important, and welcoming new active contributors
is important, but the dominant consideration is a location that
is convenient and effective for our current active contributors.

Regards

Brian

Patrick Vande Walle wrote:

Fred Baker said the following  on 13/07/2006 13:38:

My point is that it is not about the price of the hotel, nor is it  
about taking the Internet gospel to those who haven't been able to  
participate in its development [...]
It's about having productive meetings in an atmosphere conducive to  
them 


Fred,

The place where we had the ICANN meeting in Marrakech provided fast
connectivity, very good mobile phone coverage and all you would need for
a productive meeting, despite the fact that it was located  in Africa.
This is a counter example to what your are trying to demonstrate. There
are many places places in Africa, Asia-Pacific  and Latin America where
you could have a productive meeting. One only needs to look for them.

In terms of image, I tend to think that it would indeed help the IETF to
have meetings outside the Northern America  and European regions. It is
not so much about spreading the Internet gospel - others do it better -
although it would help.  It is more in terms of interacting with the
local community  to find out  what they expect to come out  of a
standardization process. The hypothesis by which whatever is good for
the Northern hemisphere is automatically fine for the rest of the world
seems slightly colonialist to me.

Best,

Patrick Vande Walle
ISOC Luxembourg

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meetings in other regions

[Stephane H. Maes]

Add Singapore, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, ... 


Stephane



-Original Message-
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 3:00 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions

Definitively there are several countries: Spain, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, 
Cuba, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Panama.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:54:16 -0700
> Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: 
> Asunto: Re: Meetings in other regions
> 
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> There are two issues:
>> 
>> 1) Cost. IETF has limited resources, so unless each of us want to pay 
>> more and more for the registration fees or we are able to compensate 
>> the cost with more sponsors (which is every day more difficult), we 
>> need to look for cheaper locations.
>> 
>> 2) Is un fair that the main driver is only looking at where more 
>> people comes from (this is fortunately changing anyway, and thus will 
>> less and less easy to match). Even worst if that's a country with 
>> doesn't allow everyone to come in.
> 
> So where is this mythical low cost easy to travel to country within 
> easy reach of an untapped resource of potential ietf participants?
> 
> Once we've located it, it should be easy for the IAD to book us a 
> hotel on the dates we've fixed in stone 2 years in advance...
> 
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> De: Scott W Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Organización: Cisco Systems, Inc.
>>> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Fecha: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:14:34 -0400
>>> Para: Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> CC: , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Asunto: Re: Meetings in other regions
>>> 
>>> On 07/14/2006 10:01 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote:
>>>> Once upon a time,
>>>> the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of the IETF was from 
>>>> Europe, a smattering was from elsewhere, and the lion's share was 
>>>> from the US, so I scheduled a meeting every other year in Europe, 
>>>> the odd one in random places, and the lion's share in the US. Those 
>>>> statistics are essentially meaningless now.
>>> Why are they meaningless?  The IETF should overwhelmingly meet where 
>>> the participants are, wherever that might be.  I still like your 
>>> algorithm.
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Ietf mailing list
>>> Ietf@ietf.org
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>> 
>> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
>> http://www.ipv6day.org
>> 
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged 
>> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
>> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be 
>> aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the 
>> contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 
> --
> -
> Joel Jaeggli ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> GPG Key Fingerprint:
> 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




**
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that 
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, including attached files, is prohibited.




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

+1

At 17:00 15/07/2006, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:

In terms of image, I tend to think that it would indeed help the IETF to
have meetings outside the Northern America  and European regions. It is
not so much about spreading the Internet gospel - others do it better -
although it would help.  It is more in terms of interacting with the
local community  to find out  what they expect to come out  of a
standardization process. The hypothesis by which whatever is good for
the Northern hemisphere is automatically fine for the rest of the world
seems slightly colonialist to me.




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 15-jul-2006, at 17:00, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:

In terms of image, I tend to think that it would indeed help the  
IETF to
have meetings outside the Northern America  and European regions.  
It is
not so much about spreading the Internet gospel - others do it  
better -

although it would help.  It is more in terms of interacting with the
local community  to find out  what they expect to come out  of a
standardization process.


I don't see how some 1300 engineers running around who are more than  
busy enough with technical work and the endless IETF process stuff  
(was it just me or was the difference between the "administrative"  
and "technical" plenaries especially hard to determine this time?)  
helps a community found out what to expect from a standardization  
process. A much, MUCH smaller number of engineers taking the time to  
do this specific job would be much more effective and efficient than  
having all IETF attendees incur extra travel time/costs and other  
inconveniences.



The hypothesis by which whatever is good for
the Northern hemisphere is automatically fine for the rest of the  
world

seems slightly colonialist to me.


If you remove the northern hemisphere there isn't much inhabited  
world left.


I don't think the problems of the developing world can be solved  
through protocol standardization... Being able to reuse protocols  
designed and standardized elsewhere allows these parts of the world  
to focus on other problems.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Patrick Vande Walle]

Joel M. Halpern said the following  on 15/07/2006 17:13:

  That does not match the report I received from another attendee.
He commented on
2 days of travel to get there,
  

... but 2 hours from  Europe ...

  multiple 1 hour plus outages of external connectivity
  

I did not, once I switched to wired ethernet. The technical team took
some time to identify the guy who purposely created ghosts APs to break
other people's connectivity. So, it was not the external connectivity
which was broken, but only the local WLAN. 

Best,

Patrick


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Henrik Levkowetz]

Hi,

on 2006-07-15 10:43 Scott W Brim said the following:
> Can you normalize like this?  1523 drafts have "authors" from North
> America, and so on.  If a draft has three authors from North America
> and two from Europe, is the draft counted five times or two times?

No, you can't really normalize this way, as far as I can see.
But luckily the desired data are available from the same source
(Jari's http://www.arkko.com/tools/authorstats.html).  These
are the numbers I should have posted the first time - I guess
I was a bit too tired...

For authors of active drafts, these are the numbers as of July 7,
2006, according to http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/contdistr.html :

# 1164 authors (51.28%) come from North America.
# 573 authors (25.24%) come from Europe.
# 390 authors (17.18%) come from Asia.
# 24 authors (1.06%) come from Australia.
# 4 authors (0.18%) come from Africa.
# 2 authors (0.09%) come from OTHER.
# 7 authors (0.31%) come from South America.
# unknown author location for 106 authors (4.67%).

Please note that there are large amounts of heuristics involved
in extracting the underlying author data, and no way of knowing
the accuracy, short of manually assembling the data from all
active drafts.  There's more about this on the referenced tool
page.  For the current discussion the figures should give a
reasonable indication of geographic distribution, though.


Henrik


> swb
> 
> On 07/15/2006 00:18 AM, Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote:
>> > From: Henrik Levkowetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 
>> > (Note that since drafts can have multiple authors, the sum of the
>> > following percentages are more than 100%),
>> 
>> > # 1523 drafts (73.08%) have authors from North America.
>> > # 1116 drafts (53.55%) have authors from Europe.
>> > # 417 drafts (20.01%) have authors from Asia.
>> > # 33 drafts (1.58%) have authors from Australia.
>> > # 9 drafts (0.43%) have authors from South America.
>> > # 3 drafts (0.14%) have authors from Africa.
>> > # 1 drafts (0.05%) have authors from OTHER.
>> 
>> Renormalizing percentages so that they sum to 100%, we get:
>> 
>>   49.09% of authors are from North America.
>>   35.97% of authors are from Europe.
>>   13.44% of authors are from Asia.
>>1.06% of authors are from Australia
>> .28% of authors are from South America.
>> .09% of authors are from Africa.
>> .03% of authors are from OTHER.
>> 
>> Sounds like out of every 6 IETF's, one should be in Asia, two in Europe, and
>> the other three in North America: NA/Europe/NA/Europe/NA/Asia spreads things
>> out evenly.
>> 
>>  Noel
>> 
>> ___
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Joel M. Halpern]

That does not match the report I received from another attendee.
He commented on
2 days of travel to get there,
multiple 1 hour plus outages of external connectivity
and generally concluded that it would be a very bad choice of locale 
for the IETF.


Personally, I find the view that we hold meetings where we have 
active participants makes good sense.
And folks can actively participate by email / I-D writing without 
attending meetings.


Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 11:00 AM 7/15/2006, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:

Fred Baker said the following  on 13/07/2006 13:38:
> My point is that it is not about the price of the hotel, nor is it
> about taking the Internet gospel to those who haven't been able to
> participate in its development [...]
> It's about having productive meetings in an atmosphere conducive to
> them
Fred,

The place where we had the ICANN meeting in Marrakech provided fast
connectivity, very good mobile phone coverage and all you would need for
a productive meeting, despite the fact that it was located  in Africa.
This is a counter example to what your are trying to demonstrate. There
are many places places in Africa, Asia-Pacific  and Latin America where
you could have a productive meeting. One only needs to look for them.

In terms of image, I tend to think that it would indeed help the IETF to
have meetings outside the Northern America  and European regions. It is
not so much about spreading the Internet gospel - others do it better -
although it would help.  It is more in terms of interacting with the
local community  to find out  what they expect to come out  of a
standardization process. The hypothesis by which whatever is good for
the Northern hemisphere is automatically fine for the rest of the world
seems slightly colonialist to me.

Best,

Patrick Vande Walle
ISOC Luxembourg

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Patrick Vande Walle]

Fred Baker said the following  on 13/07/2006 13:38:
> My point is that it is not about the price of the hotel, nor is it  
> about taking the Internet gospel to those who haven't been able to  
> participate in its development [...]
> It's about having productive meetings in an atmosphere conducive to  
> them 
Fred,

The place where we had the ICANN meeting in Marrakech provided fast
connectivity, very good mobile phone coverage and all you would need for
a productive meeting, despite the fact that it was located  in Africa.
This is a counter example to what your are trying to demonstrate. There
are many places places in Africa, Asia-Pacific  and Latin America where
you could have a productive meeting. One only needs to look for them.

In terms of image, I tend to think that it would indeed help the IETF to
have meetings outside the Northern America  and European regions. It is
not so much about spreading the Internet gospel - others do it better -
although it would help.  It is more in terms of interacting with the
local community  to find out  what they expect to come out  of a
standardization process. The hypothesis by which whatever is good for
the Northern hemisphere is automatically fine for the rest of the world
seems slightly colonialist to me.

Best,

Patrick Vande Walle
ISOC Luxembourg

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Marshall Eubanks]

Hello;

On Jul 14, 2006, at 10:17 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:


At 16:01 13/07/2006, Sam Weiler wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:

I think it is quite simple: What matters to me is the total costs  
of meeting rooms, breakfast, coffee and connectivity, or the  
stuff covered by the registration fee.  I'm prepared to pay a  
registration fee at roughly the current level for those things,  
plus the costs of my hotel room and plane ticket.


I'd expect you to be concerned about the total cost of lodging 
+registration, rather than just the registration fee treated in  
isolation.


Well, I care about the costs of the trip in total as travel is a  
factor

too.  (And probably more about the costs of the bar, since I cannot
charge those to my employer.)

My point is that as long as we get the whole package, I don't really
care about what it says for the individual items.  So what if we  
have to

pay for breakfast and coffee but get the meeting rooms free?  Do you
really think that we'd get the rooms for free if we didn't order food?
Of course not, the hotels look at the whole package that we order and
come up with a price for that.  Take out one item and the price for  
the

others will change.




I think that that is the way to look at it.



According to the slides presented last night, the hotel room cost  
subsidizes the other items -- IASA got a commission on the room  
block in Dallas


The commission usually requires that at least X people stay in the  
host

hotel.



Yes, which is why you generally cannot just not apply it to the room  
rate. At any rate, "money is fungible" and

anything lost from commission would have to come from somewhere else.



 and presumably will get one here.  And, as Jordi pointed out, the  
convention in many regions is for hotels to provide breafast,  
which presumably shifts the breakfast cost from the meeting fee  
into the hotel room cost.


The thing with hotel rooms is that they also strongly depend on the
location of the hotel, so it is not easily possible to compare a X$  
room

without breakfast in city A, with a Y$ room with breakfast in city B.



Very true.

Regards
Marshall



 One might imagine that we could even charge more for hotel rooms  
and less for registration across the board.


But if you charge too much, people will start to look for hotel rooms
elsewhere and less people will stay in the host hotel.   Which means
that we don't get the commission (or pay more for food and meeting  
rooms).


Bottom line: I think that the IETF gets good deals for registration  
and

rooms, I certainly don't want to second guess what they could have
negociated for individual items.

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
-- 



1160438400 + 381600 = 116082.

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Scott W Brim]

Can you normalize like this?  1523 drafts have "authors" from North
America, and so on.  If a draft has three authors from North America
and two from Europe, is the draft counted five times or two times?

swb

On 07/15/2006 00:18 AM, Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote:
> > From: Henrik Levkowetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > (Note that since drafts can have multiple authors, the sum of the
> > following percentages are more than 100%),
> 
> > # 1523 drafts (73.08%) have authors from North America.
> > # 1116 drafts (53.55%) have authors from Europe.
> > # 417 drafts (20.01%) have authors from Asia.
> > # 33 drafts (1.58%) have authors from Australia.
> > # 9 drafts (0.43%) have authors from South America.
> > # 3 drafts (0.14%) have authors from Africa.
> > # 1 drafts (0.05%) have authors from OTHER.
> 
> Renormalizing percentages so that they sum to 100%, we get:
> 
>   49.09% of authors are from North America.
>   35.97% of authors are from Europe.
>   13.44% of authors are from Asia.
>1.06% of authors are from Australia
> .28% of authors are from South America.
> .09% of authors are from Africa.
> .03% of authors are from OTHER.
> 
> Sounds like out of every 6 IETF's, one should be in Asia, two in Europe, and
> the other three in North America: NA/Europe/NA/Europe/NA/Asia spreads things
> out evenly.
> 
>   Noel
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meetings in other regions

[Henrik Levkowetz]

on 2006-07-15 05:24 Fred Baker said the following:
> Thanks. gee whiz, that was a bunch of work for me. You had a tool?  
> arg...
> 
> :-)

Well, in this case, I knew about a tool ;-) which was written by
Jari Arkko, not by me.

Best,

Henrik

> On Jul 14, 2006, at 11:33 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>>
>> on 2006-07-14 22:45 Fred Baker said the following:
>> ...
>>> Assumption: the "we" in question is folks who post internet drafts.
>>> Attendance at an IETF meeting or being on the mailing list doesn't
>>> qualify for consideration here.
>>>
>>> Criticism: there are SO many ways to approach that one. This is the
>>> assumption I made for this analysis. So there.
>> ...
>>
>> More data on this:
>>
>>   http://www.arkko.com/tools/authorstats.html
>>
>> and a subsidiary page listing authors of active drafts
>> by region (Note that since drafts can have multiple
>> authors, the sum of the following percentages are more
>> than 100%),
>>   http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/d-contdistr.html:
>>
>> # 1523 drafts (73.08%) have authors from North America.
>> # 1116 drafts (53.55%) have authors from Europe.
>> # 417 drafts (20.01%) have authors from Asia.
>> # 33 drafts (1.58%) have authors from Australia.
>> # 9 drafts (0.43%) have authors from South America.
>> # 3 drafts (0.14%) have authors from Africa.
>> # 1 drafts (0.05%) have authors from OTHER.
>>
>> and by country:
>> http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/d-countrydistr.html:
>>
>> ...
>> # 1395 drafts (66.94%) have authors from Usa.
>> # 218 drafts (10.46%) have authors from Germany.
>> # 196 drafts (9.40%) have authors from United kingdom.
>> # 170 drafts (8.16%) have authors from Finland.
>> # 163 drafts (7.82%) have authors from France.
>> # 151 drafts (7.25%) have authors from Japan.
>> # 128 drafts (6.14%) have authors from Canada.
>> # 83 drafts (3.98%) have authors from Sweden.
>> # 81 drafts (3.89%) have authors from China.
>> # 70 drafts (3.36%) have authors from South korea.
>> # 61 drafts (2.93%) have authors from Belgium.
>> # 53 drafts (2.54%) have authors from Israel.
>> # 41 drafts (1.97%) have authors from Spain.
>> # 41 drafts (1.97%) have authors from India.
>> # 38 drafts (1.82%) have authors from Italy.
>> # 36 drafts (1.73%) have authors from Switzerland.
>> # 29 drafts (1.39%) have authors from Australia.
>> # 21 drafts (1.01%) have authors from The netherlands.
>> # 19 drafts (0.91%) have authors from Norway.
>> # 17 drafts (0.82%) have authors from Austria.
>> # 11 drafts (0.53%) have authors from Ireland.
>> # 10 drafts (0.48%) have authors from Hungary.
>> ...
> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf