Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
Bravo! -- Jim Gettys Technology and Corporate Development Compaq Computer Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
At 21:22 15-02-00 , Tim Salo wrote: >The original poster may, in a very real sense, actually be representing a >company, whether the IETF wants to believe it or not. > >Of course, that leads to the rather interesting dilemma that we don't know >whether an individual is speaking on behalf or his or her self or on behalf >of an organization, (again, even if we tell that person that _we_ know >which it is). The IETF philosophy has always been that a bunch of engineers get together via IETF to solve technical problems, largely aside from pecuniary and petty corporate interests. This does break down on occasion, but having this philosophy has (IMHO) helped the IETF be more productive than a lot of the alternative standards bodies, where people absolutely do represent a specific entity. This philosophy has also helped ensure that better technical solutions arise than would be the case otherwise, IMHO. The IETF is far from perfect, but its the best setup we've found so far. Regards, Ran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
At 03:37 15-02-00 , Vernon Schryver wrote: >Could Civil Service employees find it hard to get travel requests approved >for attending meetings of an outfit that gets carried away in its rules >and regulations on who can talk to whom? No. Been there, done that. Lots of pain being part of the US Civil Service, but your specific speculation isn't reality. Ran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
At 10:55 AM 2/16/2000 -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: >Given airline load factors, I don't seem to be able to qualify for discounts >on my trips to San Francisco from New Jersey -- which means that my >tickets to >Adelaide are only very slightly more expensive. only San Francisco? I thought the airline loading factor was because so many people want to leave New Jersey... On the other hand, it would be amusing to imagine that high mortgage costs, or whatever, has people wanting to leave San Francisco... for New Jersey? d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA Gong Xi Fa Cai / Selamat Tahun Baru Cina
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
> It is not the case that few WGs are holding meetings. The published agenda > just isn't complete yet; it never is at this stage. This is very true. Looking at the Internet Area, I expect all but one of the WGs that normally have face-to-face meetings to meet in Adelaide. Plus, there are three potential BOFs in the works, none of which have been approved yet, and thus, also do not yet appear on the agenda. Thomas
RE: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
> -Original Message- > From: John Stracke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Probably worse than nothing, unless there are much better > translators than babelfish out there. WG discussions get > down to really niggly points; a translator that doesn't > work *perfectly* is likely to make things worse. At > least today, if we're talking through a language barrier, > there's a human brain doing the translation, able to > recognize problems and rephrase as needed. Via babelfish.altavista.com, and translated from English to German and back Probably falsely than nothing, it is it many better compilers/translators than babelfish gives out there. WG discussions down on really arrive niggly points; a compiler/translator, that does not operate * perfectly * is probable to form things falsely. At least today, if we speak by a language barrier, a human brain give it, which does the translation, able, to detect and again-formulate problems, how uses. And English/French/English:- Probably worse than anything, unless there are translators much better than the babelfish outside there. The discussions of WP descend really niggly at the points; a translator who does not function * perfectly * is likely to make things worse. At least today, if we speak by a linguistic barrier, there let us be a human making translation, able brain identify problems and reformulate them like necessary. You can see the decay in the clarity of the original message. If I had received something similar purporting to be from an IETF member in a country that I didn't speak the language of, I would assume someone had reinitialized Mark V. Chaney. cheers, Stewart
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jon Crowcroft writes: > note also, that provided the IETF doesnt start mimicing ITU in > choosing > meeting location, a lot of places outside the US offset travel costs > by cheaper accomodation costs.significantly in some cases > (i admit london england is not a good example for this, though it is > pretty cheap to get to from just about anywhere on average:-) And you may find that quirks in airfares can offset the distance factor. Given airline load factors, I don't seem to be able to qualify for discounts on my trips to San Francisco from New Jersey -- which means that my tickets to Adelaide are only very slightly more expensive. --Steve Bellovin
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
It is not the case that few WGs are holding meetings. The published agenda just isn't complete yet; it never is at this stage. Brian Graham Klyne wrote: > > At 01:30 PM 2/15/00 -0500, Jeffrey Altman wrote: > >The problem I have with the Adelaide meeting is very simple. With so > >few working groups holding sessions, I can't justify making the trip. > > I'd like to offer a personal observation. Yes, the working group sessions > are useful but, for me, the most valuable stuff happens between the sessions. > > #g > > > Graham Klyne > ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
Austin Schutz wrote: > It wouuld be possible to have all the mailing lists redistributed > using some babelfish-like mechanism for translation, though obviously that > wouldn't cover all languages and wouldn't do any well. Maybe better than > nothing. Probably worse than nothing, unless there are much better translators than babelfish out there. WG discussions get down to really niggly points; a translator that doesn't work *perfectly* is likely to make things worse. At least today, if we're talking through a language barrier, there's a human brain doing the translation, able to recognize problems and rephrase as needed. -- /==\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.| |Chief Scientist |=| |eCal Corp. |Never mind the GUIs--Unix won't be for the | |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|masses until we fix backspace & delete. | \==/
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
to people that think that the internet is mostly US centric, and will go on being so, and that this is relevant to the IETF anyhow - wrong, wrong, and also wrong! um the Internet is now mostly commercial - the Eu and Asia each have MORE money than the US, and also have growth economies. if you work for a vendor (s/w, h/w, services) and can't find a reason to visit, then yo uare missing an opportunity to "enhance shareholder value" - as a shareholder, i would be shocked and dismayedand think hard about other vendors... as an academic/researcher, too, generally, i can easly find good reasons to visit people with other viewpoints, and requirements and inventions... note that microsoft and cisco (examples - there are lots more) both set up strong european presences recently for these reasons. They also have strong asia/pacific presence - using current IETF national representation as a marker for where to hold meetings is going to lag, rather than lead the right thing to do imho note also, that provided the IETF doesnt start mimicing ITU in choosing meeting location, a lot of places outside the US offset travel costs by cheaper accomodation costs.significantly in some cases (i admit london england is not a good example for this, though it is pretty cheap to get to from just about anywhere on average:-) cheers jon
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
At 01:30 PM 2/15/00 -0500, Jeffrey Altman wrote: >The problem I have with the Adelaide meeting is very simple. With so >few working groups holding sessions, I can't justify making the trip. I'd like to offer a personal observation. Yes, the working group sessions are useful but, for me, the most valuable stuff happens between the sessions. #g Graham Klyne ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
At 12:20 PM 2/15/00 -0600, Mart Nurmet wrote: >Keith: > >How do I go about geting the schedule for the meetings for the rest of the >year? If you go to the IETF web site, click on "Meetings", and click on "list of future meetings", you will find a pointer the file http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt
RE: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
At 09:44 PM 2/15/00 -0800, Ian King wrote: >To those of you outside the US who don't think there are enough meetings >outside the US: IF YOU SPONSOR THEM, WE WILL COME. I've seen the open, >standing invitations to sponsor meetings -- so step up and sponsor. for the record, we have quite a few potential sponsors outside the US. We are considering future meetings in London and Tokyo, and have been offered sites in Geneva, Naples, Beijing, and other places. What tends to be interesting to find is the US sponsors, not the non-US ones. >Bottom line: go if you can and wish to, don't whine if you can't or won't. >And please quit with the "conspiracy theories" about US-centricity. Agreed. It is readily argued that there is strong US involvement. Going from there to some of the places this thread has taken it is quite a leap.
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 08:38:49 +0900, Masataka Ohta said: > So, all the future IETF meetings should be held in areas far away > from US and, in addition, where English is not the major language. "My hovercraft is full of eels" -- J. Cleese
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
- Original Message - From: "Vernon Schryver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In other words and politically correct pretense asside, the IETF is not > an international organization. Despite its posturing, the IETF is a U.S. > or perhaps North American organization that welcomes non-U.S. participants > and occasionally spends a lot of its U.S. participants' time and money to > try to make people outside of North America feel welcome. If the IETF > did honestly aspire to be an international organization, it would need > the characteristics of the ITU (e.g. translators and high prices for > documents). Do you think that would be a good thing? Now if this were to be the case, we should definitely set up an European Internet Engineering Task Force and so on. In such a scenario, maybe different parts of the world would even choose different working languages. This would definitely be a win towards reducing US centricness. But would it be a win to the Internet ? -hph
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd: > The primary concern in the IETF is producing good protocols. I believe that the IETF model -- for better or for worse -- is a good thing for developing countries, compared to a membership organization like ISOC. Having said, it does not mean that organizational improvement should be banned. P.S. the aging board and steering group members reminds me to the late stagnated Soviet Union empire... :^). regards, -- - Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim -- VLSM-TJT -- http://rms46.vlsm.org/ - - DOTCOM... coma coma banana fana coma dotcom... -- the DNS game --
RE: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
IMHO, people are reading way too much into this. Most of the participation is by folks from the US -- that stat is raised at every meeting. BTW, the Internet started in the US, those neat maps displayed at plenary sessions show an overwhelming focus of connectivity in the US, and many many technology companies are located in the US. Notwithstanding, the organization does hold meetings both inside and outside the US, because the Internet is a global entity with international involvement. While this is IMHO a Good Thing, reality is that the longer trips sometimes pose a problem for some participants -- whether that's traveling from the US to Australia, or Australia to the US. Statistically, the burden hits more people for meetings outside the US, simply because regardless of where we hold the meetings, there are more attendees from the US than from any other place. (At this juncture, I would like to salute the folks from outside the US who nonetheless attend the majority of US-based meetings.) To those of you outside the US who don't think there are enough meetings outside the US: IF YOU SPONSOR THEM, WE WILL COME. I've seen the open, standing invitations to sponsor meetings -- so step up and sponsor. For those who think Australia is a long way to go: you're right, if you are in North America or Europe. Many WG chairs may be making an 'economic' decision -- or their employers have made it for them. (I'm not going because I don't want to be away from my new baby daughter yet.) But since the work REALLY gets done on the mailing lists (so we say, officially), you can still make a difference, if you so choose. Not to say I don't think there's a lot of value to the face-to-face meetings, but when I chaired a WG, I got a lot of great input from people who never attended a single WG session in person. Bottom line: go if you can and wish to, don't whine if you can't or won't. And please quit with the "conspiracy theories" about US-centricity -- it's an accident of history, nothing more. Don't expect us Americans (or US residents) to feel guilty or go slit our wrists over it. And for whatever reason, English does seem to serve as a common tongue in the world of technology -- again, I'm not going to apologize for it. (And it doesn't stop us from working hard to figure out how to represent ALL the languages of humanity in digital form) Please forgive my typing -- my daughter is keeping one arm busy. -- Ian King, Speech Product Group, MICROSOFT CORPORATION -Original Message- From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 3:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs Jeffry; IETF is certainly US and English centric. The current rules of IETF does not explicitely prefer some country so much, though many important organizations have addresses in US and English is the language of the rules. However, the rules keep or amplify the US centric tendency, because a large number of US participants means a large number of IAB/IESG members is likely to be nominated. Moreover, English centric IETF meetings are hard to be actively attended by people whose primary language is not English. Compared to other International organizations, IETF requires too much in English capability. Worse, in IETF, inactive participation is nothing. Having a meeting in AU does not solve the latter, English, problem. However, > The problem I have with the Adelaide meeting is very simple. With so > few working groups holding sessions, I can't justify making the trip. > This would be true for a meeting at any location more than 400 miles > away. If only one group that I am interested in is holding a session, > I can't go. The powers that be just won't approve it. it is a good solution for the first, US, problem. Moreover, you are saying that the recent problem of IETF that there are too many bogus WGs with too many people is also solved. Very good. So, all the future IETF meetings should be held in areas far away from US and, in addition, where English is not the major language. There many be an exception once in 10 years, of course. Masataka Ohta
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
> Moreover, English centric IETF meetings are hard to be actively > attended by people whose primary language is not English. Compared > to other International organizations, IETF requires too much in > English capability. Worse, in IETF, inactive participation is > nothing. It wouuld be possible to have all the mailing lists redistributed using some babelfish-like mechanism for translation, though obviously that wouldn't cover all languages and wouldn't do any well. Maybe better than nothing. Reality is there has to be a standard language unless you have the vast resources of the UN. While I can fully understand why the rest of the world wouldn't be happy with English as the choice for that language, there isn't really any fundamental reason why it shouldn't be English. Austin
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
It is traditional that most IETF meeting attendees have given the organization they are affiliated with for identification purposes, whether it is an educational institution, government, other non-profit group or company. Donald PS: I don't see "being international" as a binary thing. Or at least I don't know of any orgnaization, including the UN, that you can claim is "perfectly" international. After all, there are plenty of languages that are not official UN languages and there are always distinctions based on whether you are privileged to have a permanent seat on the Security Council or have the UN HQ in your country, etc. The primary concern in the IETF is producing good protocols. I would hope that anyone whose primary concern is how international the IETF is would find more fertile ground in some other organization. From: "Scott W Brim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:51:44 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Why does the IETF registration form ask for a company name? > >> > From: Bill Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > Subject: Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs >> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mart Nurmet) >> > Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:14:26 -0800 (PST) >> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > [...] >> > and note that the IETF is composed of indivduals, not corporations. >> > You should not presume to "represent" a corporate entity within the >> > IETF. Your just the best engineer you can be. >
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
--On Tuesday, 15 February, 2000 15:22 -0600 Tim Salo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course, that leads to the rather interesting dilemma that > we don't know whether an individual is speaking on behalf or > his or her self or on behalf of an organization, (again, even > if we tell that person that _we_ know which it is). FWIW, in some other standards bodies, there is a policy that, if one wants to (or is constrained to) speak on behalf of an organization, or arrives with instructions as to what to say that the individual cannot change after hearing arguments in the meeting, those restrictions/relationships must be disclosed. The rule is unenforceable, but provides some protection to the individual (especially in "my company is full of idiots, but please don't mistake me for one" situations) and for the standards group. john
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
I think that, believing that the world is no bigger than America is a common problem among many US citizens. No offense, so would I if I lived in US, because after all there is quite a few states and cities to keep track of. But my point is that we, including the Americans, speak so proudly of the Internet as this global network interconnecting millions of computers around the world providing a relatively cheap means of communicating and informing across borders. Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia have all payed their part of what makes up this Internet, just like the US have. And yet some US citizens feel that the 'net somehow belongs to them and that they are superior in deciding its future. Luckily, German Daimler-Benz wasn't that short-sighted when they invented the automobile a century ago. - Anders Feder
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
Jeffry; IETF is certainly US and English centric. The current rules of IETF does not explicitely prefer some country so much, though many important organizations have addresses in US and English is the language of the rules. However, the rules keep or amplify the US centric tendency, because a large number of US participants means a large number of IAB/IESG members is likely to be nominated. Moreover, English centric IETF meetings are hard to be actively attended by people whose primary language is not English. Compared to other International organizations, IETF requires too much in English capability. Worse, in IETF, inactive participation is nothing. Having a meeting in AU does not solve the latter, English, problem. However, > The problem I have with the Adelaide meeting is very simple. With so > few working groups holding sessions, I can't justify making the trip. > This would be true for a meeting at any location more than 400 miles > away. If only one group that I am interested in is holding a session, > I can't go. The powers that be just won't approve it. it is a good solution for the first, US, problem. Moreover, you are saying that the recent problem of IETF that there are too many bogus WGs with too many people is also solved. Very good. So, all the future IETF meetings should be held in areas far away from US and, in addition, where English is not the major language. There many be an exception once in 10 years, of course. Masataka Ohta
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
I think that, believing that the world is no bigger than America is a common problem among many US citizens. No offense, so would I if I lived in US, because after all there is quite a few states and cities to keep track of. But my point is that we, including the Americans, speak so proudly of the Internet as this global network interconnecting millions of computers around the world providing a relatively cheap means of communicating and informing across borders. Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia have all payed their part of what makes up this Internet, just like the US have. And yet some US citizens feel that the 'net somehow belongs to them and that they are superior in deciding its future. Luckily, German Daimler-Benz wasn't that short-sighted when they invented the automobile a century ago. - Anders Feder
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
Why does the IETF registration form ask for a company name? > > From: Bill Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mart Nurmet) > > Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:14:26 -0800 (PST) > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [...] > > and note that the IETF is composed of indivduals, not corporations. > > You should not presume to "represent" a corporate entity within the > > IETF. Your just the best engineer you can be.
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
> From: Bill Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mart Nurmet) > Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:14:26 -0800 (PST) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [...] > and note that the IETF is composed of indivduals, not corporations. > You should not presume to "represent" a corporate entity within the > IETF. Your just the best engineer you can be. I believe that whether an individual is expected to represent the interests of an organization is largely a matter between that individual and the organization, (regardless of what the IETF says). The IETF may recognize individuals, not organizations, but that's far different than the IETF promising participants that they can say anything they want without the prospect of repercussions when they return home. The original poster may, in a very real sense, actually be representing a company, whether the IETF wants to believe it or not. Of course, that leads to the rather interesting dilemma that we don't know whether an individual is speaking on behalf or his or her self or on behalf of an organization, (again, even if we tell that person that _we_ know which it is). -tjs
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
% Keith: % % How do I go about geting the schedule for the meetings for the rest of the % year? % % I'm new to this forum and will be the Inet Technologies representative in % the future. % % Best regards, % Mart Nurmet % 972 543-3791 I'm not keith but can answer your question. www.ietf.org and note that the IETF is composed of indivduals, not corporations. You should not presume to "represent" a corporate entity within the IETF. Your just the best engineer you can be. --bill
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
The problem I have with the Adelaide meeting is very simple. With so few working groups holding sessions, I can't justify making the trip. This would be true for a meeting at any location more than 400 miles away. If only one group that I am interested in is holding a session, I can't go. The powers that be just won't approve it. So the side effect of not holding a session is that not only have the working groups decided that they do not want the interest and participation of non-U.S. members, but they don't want the interest and participation of U.S. members either. This leads me to question why the working group is in fact a working group in the IETF. Jeffrey Altman * Sr.Software Designer * Kermit-95 for Win32 and OS/2 The Kermit Project * Columbia University 612 West 115th St #716 * New York, NY * 10025 http://www.kermit-project.org/k95.html * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
Keith: How do I go about geting the schedule for the meetings for the rest of the year? I'm new to this forum and will be the Inet Technologies representative in the future. Best regards, Mart Nurmet 972 543-3791
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Parkinson, Jonathan" typed: >>There is more than America out there ? >>;-) you mean america still exists - i thought it was actually a myth like atlantis >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: John Stracke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 3:21 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs >> >> >>Graham Klyne wrote: >> >>> But I am still uncomfortable with it. It implies that, somehow, any >>non-US >>> participant is somehow a second class citizen, who is permitted to attend >>> purely as a concession by the US elite whose organization this is. Maybe >>> that also is true -- but I don't have to like it. I very much prefer the >>> "pretense" >> >>In other words, the pretense is self-fulfilling: by claiming (and striving) >>to >>be global, the IETF avoids driving away non-US participants, which makes the >>IETF more truly global. >> >>-- >>/\ >>|John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. | >>|Chief Scientist |===| >>|eCal Corp. |Yes, sir, we've graphed the data. It's a smiley| >>|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|face, sir. | >>\/ >> >> cheers jon
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
Vern, The IETF has no dependency of any kind on any government and as you yourself observed it does its decision taking in cyberspace, not geographical space. It is as international as any organization I have ever known, and I spent more 20 years working for an international treaty organisation. I agree with Fred. Objecting to crossing the Pacific once in 47 meetings is not right. (Not talking about you personally of course.) Brian
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
> From: Graham Klyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >In other words and politically correct pretense asside, the IETF is not > >an international organization. ... > As a non-US IETF participant, I found this statement mildly insulting. But > then I have to ask myself "why?". It is true that a majority of IETF > participation is US-based. It is true that the IETF secretariat is wholly > US-based. It is true that the IETF is an outgrowth of a US national > organization. So on the face of it, your statement appears entirely true. > > But I am still uncomfortable with it. Except for the cognitive dissonance caused by the political fiction, why feel insulted? There are many non-U.S. institutions that variously refuse, deign to allow, or eagerly invite and encourage participation by U.S. citizens. If the IETF only grudgingly allowed non-U.S. participation, you might have reason to feel insulted. The purpose of political correctness is to allow people to ignore and not deal with inconvenient facts. That more than one person found my statement offensive instead of silly shows its accuracy. Indignation is the mildest reaction to attacks on political correctness. In the U.S. we laws against disturbing some fig leaves, the Constitution not withstanding. I'll not be specific, since those messes are irrelevant, and I don't want to be lynched. > It implies that, somehow, any non-US > participant is somehow a second class citizen, who is permitted to attend > purely as a concession by the US elite whose organization this is. Maybe > that also is true -- but I don't have to like it. >From where are the notions of "US elite" and "second class"? None of the real IETF participants I've met have considered themselves members of an elite, aside from occasional weaknesses in suffering fools gladly. Like many U.S. institutions, the IETF has viewed non-U.S. participants as wonderful, as showing the IETF matters. Recall that the cachet of non-U.S. origin was a major part of the attraction of the ISO OSI protocol suite. > I very much prefer the > "pretense" that the IETF is an organization that provides technical > direction for a truly global facility, and that it aspires to do so for the > benefit of all the world's people, with equal status and consideration > allowed to any who can participate, from wherever they may originate. Exactly. ] From: John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] In other words, the pretense is self-fulfilling: by claiming (and striving) to ] be global, the IETF avoids driving away non-US participants, which makes the ] IETF more truly global. I don't know about self-fulfilling, but eventually the IETF might become an international organization. If it avoids the worst aspects of the ITU and the U.N., that could be a good thing. The biggest obstacle to the IETF becoming more international are the meetings, no matter where they are held. A major reason the IETF is as international as it is is its history of emphasizing email discussions. It can be hard to notice national origin in email. As that emphasis declines (and it has significantly in practice if not rule), the IETF risks becoming more instead of less insular and elitist. That a meeting in Washington is a long trip from Japan is not mitigated by the distance to Australia from Europe. SMTP doesn't care. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
Hi Keith! Your message and actions are right on In addition to the reasons and consequences you mentioned, such behavior opens the IETF to restraint of trade challenges at least in the U.S. Thanks, Kathy Dally MITRE Corp. Keith Moore wrote: > > It has come to the attention of the Applications Area Directors > that one or more Applications area working groups have elected > to not meet in Adelaide, and instead to hold an "interim meeting" > in the United States, presumably because of distance and/or cost issues. > > IETF is an international organization, and it is IETF's longstanding > practice to hold its meetings in various locations around the planet. > This serves both to encourage wider participation in IETF and also > to more fairly distribute travel costs and inconvenience (over time) > among all participants. The scheduleing of an interim WG meeting in > the US in lieu of a WG meeting in Adelaide undermines this policy. > This is insulting to non-US participants of IETF (many of whom have > attended meetings in the US for years), embarassing to IETF as > a whole, and a threat to IETF's international stature. > > Even if a working group has few participants outside the United > States, a working group does not work in isolation from other > working groups. Attendance at IETF meetings is an invaluable > mechanism for cross-group collaboration. > > RFC 2418 states: > >Interim meetings are subject to the >same rules for advance notification, reporting, open participation, >and process, which apply to other working group meetings. > > Since normal working group meetings require advance notification > via email to the entire IETF list, and the process for getting a meeting > slot involves prior approval of the Area Directors, the same > requirements apply to interim working group meetings. Part of the > reason for prior approval being required is to ensure that the > locations of the meetings are not being chosen to favor certain > participants over others. > > There have been several violations of this policy since publication > of RFC 2418. > > Therefore, > > - All interim meetings within the Applications Area which were not > previously and explicitly approved by the Applications Area Directors, > are hereby cancelled. > > - No Applications Area group will hold any interim meeting prior > to April 15. > > - No Applications Area group which does not hold a meeting in > Adelaide, will hold any interim meeting prior to July 31. > (i.e. prior to the Pittsburg IETF meeting) > > - This applies to all face to face meetings held for the purpose > of conducting working group discussion and to which the working > group is invited, even if labelled "informal" or otherwise > labelled to distinguish them from official working group meetings. > > - Exceptions to this policy may be made for recently chartered groups, > but Area Director approval is still required for such groups to > schedule interim meetings. > > for the Applications Area Directors, > > Keith Moore begin:vcard n:Dally;Kathy tel;fax:(703) 883-7142 tel;work:(703) 883-6058 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:MITRE Corp.;Network and Communications Engineering adr:;;1820 Dolley Madison Blvd., W650;McLean;VA;22102;U.S.A. version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Senior Technical Staff x-mozilla-cpt:;-13520 fn:Kathy end:vcard
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
John Stracke wrote: >In other words, the pretense is self-fulfilling: by claiming (and striving) to >be global, the IETF avoids driving away non-US participants, which makes the >IETF more truly global. Definately! /ikh
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:44:23 GMT, "Parkinson, Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > There is more than America out there ? There's a lot more out there. It's to make up for the fact that in reality, Idaho, Wyoming, and Rhode Island don't really exist - anybody claiming to be from one of these 3 states is obviously an alien impostor. ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech
RE: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
There is more than America out there ? ;-) -Original Message- From: John Stracke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 3:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs Graham Klyne wrote: > But I am still uncomfortable with it. It implies that, somehow, any non-US > participant is somehow a second class citizen, who is permitted to attend > purely as a concession by the US elite whose organization this is. Maybe > that also is true -- but I don't have to like it. I very much prefer the > "pretense" In other words, the pretense is self-fulfilling: by claiming (and striving) to be global, the IETF avoids driving away non-US participants, which makes the IETF more truly global. -- /\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. | |Chief Scientist |===| |eCal Corp. |Yes, sir, we've graphed the data. It's a smiley| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|face, sir. | \/
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
Graham Klyne wrote: > But I am still uncomfortable with it. It implies that, somehow, any non-US > participant is somehow a second class citizen, who is permitted to attend > purely as a concession by the US elite whose organization this is. Maybe > that also is true -- but I don't have to like it. I very much prefer the > "pretense" In other words, the pretense is self-fulfilling: by claiming (and striving) to be global, the IETF avoids driving away non-US participants, which makes the IETF more truly global. -- /\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. | |Chief Scientist |===| |eCal Corp. |Yes, sir, we've graphed the data. It's a smiley| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|face, sir. | \/
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
From: Keith McCloghrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:34:38 -0800 (PST) > Let's see, how many RFC's are not in English? How many WG meetings > or mailinglists? > > That the IETF is de facto an U.S. outfit is not by itself a bad thing. You seem to be making the assumption that the English language is the property of the USA. Perhaps, you have forgotten that the English language was spoken in a quite a lot of the world before the USA existed. For better or worse (and I'm sure I'm going to piss off some number of Frenchmen and Quebecois by saying this), English has become the Lingua Franca of the Internet. I was amazed when I first found out about the attitudes of a number of non-native-English-speaking programmers who consider it bad programming style to write use non-English variables, comments, or function names in their programs. This was for maintainability reasons. Even if a German were maintaining a program today, a year from now perhaps someone from the Netherlands or Belgium might need to pick and understand the software project. While this is attitude is most prevalent in the Open Source community, it even applies to some (many?) large commercial programming shops. (I first heard about this from a friend of mine who works for SAP AG, who pointed out that they had programmers from all over Europe.) This phenomenon is of course not unique to programming. I recall reading about some E.C. meetings where the committee members waived translation services and elected to conduct their exclusively in some common language, often English, simply to save money and because it's much less awkward than having to edit a document in three different languages simultaneously. (Presumably they would edit it once in English, and once the master document was agreed to, they would then translate it to other languages.) Perhaps it's not fair that English has won this privileged place, and not some other language, like French, or Esparanto. Speaking selfishly, it means that I never have a chance to practice my (by now very rusty) six years of Spanish that I took in high school and college. But if I had access to the source code of the universe and could give it a quick edit and recompile, I'd make many other changes, including outlawing software patents and #ifdef'ing out the MPAA. But fortunately or unfortunately, this is not one of our options for making changes in the world. :-) - Ted
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
At 05:45 PM 2/14/00 -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: >In other words and politically correct pretense asside, the IETF is not >an international organization. Despite its posturing, the IETF is a U.S. >or perhaps North American organization that welcomes non-U.S. participants >and occasionally spends a lot of its U.S. participants' time and money to >try to make people outside of North America feel welcome. As a non-US IETF participant, I found this statement mildly insulting. But then I have to ask myself "why?". It is true that a majority of IETF participation is US-based. It is true that the IETF secretariat is wholly US-based. It is true that the IETF is an outgrowth of a US national organization. So on the face of it, your statement appears entirely true. But I am still uncomfortable with it. It implies that, somehow, any non-US participant is somehow a second class citizen, who is permitted to attend purely as a concession by the US elite whose organization this is. Maybe that also is true -- but I don't have to like it. I very much prefer the "pretense" that the IETF is an organization that provides technical direction for a truly global facility, and that it aspires to do so for the benefit of all the world's people, with equal status and consideration allowed to any who can participate, from wherever they may originate. #g -- Graham Klyne ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
RE: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
well said! > -Original Message- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 3:37 PM > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs > > > It has come to the attention of the Applications Area Directors > that one or more Applications area working groups have elected > to not meet in Adelaide, and instead to hold an "interim meeting" > in the United States, presumably because of distance and/or > cost issues. > > IETF is an international organization, and it is IETF's longstanding > practice to hold its meetings in various locations around the planet. > This serves both to encourage wider participation in IETF and also > to more fairly distribute travel costs and inconvenience (over time) > among all participants. The scheduleing of an interim WG meeting in > the US in lieu of a WG meeting in Adelaide undermines this policy. > This is insulting to non-US participants of IETF (many of whom have > attended meetings in the US for years), embarassing to IETF as > a whole, and a threat to IETF's international stature. > > Even if a working group has few participants outside the United > States, a working group does not work in isolation from other > working groups. Attendance at IETF meetings is an invaluable > mechanism for cross-group collaboration. > > RFC 2418 states: > >Interim meetings are subject to the >same rules for advance notification, reporting, open participation, >and process, which apply to other working group meetings. > > Since normal working group meetings require advance notification > via email to the entire IETF list, and the process for > getting a meeting > slot involves prior approval of the Area Directors, the same > requirements apply to interim working group meetings. Part of the > reason for prior approval being required is to ensure that the > locations of the meetings are not being chosen to favor certain > participants over others. > > There have been several violations of this policy since publication > of RFC 2418. > > Therefore, > > - All interim meetings within the Applications Area which were not > previously and explicitly approved by the Applications Area > Directors, > are hereby cancelled. > > - No Applications Area group will hold any interim meeting prior > to April 15. > > - No Applications Area group which does not hold a meeting in > Adelaide, will hold any interim meeting prior to July 31. > (i.e. prior to the Pittsburg IETF meeting) > > - This applies to all face to face meetings held for the purpose > of conducting working group discussion and to which the working > group is invited, even if labelled "informal" or otherwise > labelled to distinguish them from official working group meetings. > > - Exceptions to this policy may be made for recently chartered groups, > but Area Director approval is still required for such groups to > schedule interim meetings. > > > for the Applications Area Directors, > > Keith Moore >
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
> Let's see, how many RFC's are not in English? How many WG meetings > or mailinglists? > > That the IETF is de facto an U.S. outfit is not by itself a bad thing. You seem to be making the assumption that the English language is the property of the USA. Perhaps, you have forgotten that the English language was spoken in a quite a lot of the world before the USA existed. Keith.
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
> From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... > > I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like it might conflict with the U.S. > > Constitution's provisions concerning freedom of assembly. > > (a) The U.S. constitution applies to the Federal government (and sometimes to > the state governments); it does not apply to private groups. How arms-length is the connection between the IETF and the Federal government? No more NFS money, but what about the ITU entanglements? Could Civil Service employees find it hard to get travel requests approved for attending meetings of an outfit that gets carried away in its rules and regulations on who can talk to whom? > (b) No one ever said that these folks can't meet; they just can't do it under > the imprimatur of the IETF. I read the dictum as stronger than that. Didn't it say something about prohibiting meetings that are nominally not WG meetings for the purpose of subverting RFC 2418? That's why I quoted } or otherwise } labelled to distinguish them from official working group meetings. That's the part that I don't see as enforcable or wise, although I sympathize with the motivation. > ... > The point is that some things are better accomplished in a high-bandwidth > environment. Yes, that's often true, but the talk of "high-bandwidth" has always been exaggerated. As I've said, I've never attended an IETF meeting, but I've read an awful lot of minutes over the last >dozen years. I haven't read many that showed evidence effective use of that high bandwidth. (Perhaps I'm too unimpressed by simply letting people have their say before continuing with what was inevitable.) > > ... If the IETF > > did honestly aspire to be an international organization, it would need > > the characteristics of the ITU (e.g. translators and high prices for > > documents). ... > I'm afraid I don't follow the logic of your penultimate sententce. The > current schedule has about 1 meeting out of 3 outside of North America. The locations of meetings do not make the IETF international any more than Congressional junkets do the same for Congress. (That there is no need to specify which congress I'm talking about is emblematic of the reality that contradicts the politically correct posturing.) The U.N. and the ITU are international organizations. I've attended as many meetings of them as of the IETF, so maybe my distinct impression that they do things differently than the IETF is mistaken. Let's see, how many RFC's are not in English? How many WG meetings or mailinglists? That the IETF is de facto an U.S. outfit is not by itself a bad thing. There are and for centuries have been many organizations in many places that are not really international, but that welcome distant participants. It is bad to refuse to call a "digging implement adapted for being pushed into the ground with the foot" a spade. ] From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Feb 14 18:54:53 2000 ]... Yes, we do ] most of our work on mailing lists, and we check meeting consensus on ] mailing lists before declaring it sealed in blood. But Face to Face ] meetings have always been places where high bandwidth discussions take ] place to clarify and progress work which is also being done on the mailing ] list. They are official meetings. "High-bandwidth" does not need official sanction. You can have productive technical discussions without any official sanction, and usually better without the burdens of officialness. What is the difference between "official but nothing is signed in blood" and "where things are signed in blood"? If nothing can be finally decided (i.e. signed in blood), what is the substance, of "official" besides ensuring that accountants accept expense reports? ] So, by the way, are interim meetings, under RFC 2418. We could discuss ] major initiatives which have made effective use of them the entire SNMP ] development, the development of RSVP and Diff-serv, the development of ] OSPF, and many more. PPP development has happened as much at the ] interoperability workshops held by Pac Bell and the PPP Consortium as they ] have at IETF meetings. Those are good examples of the distinction between engineering and official meetings. The PPP development I saw at Pac Bell's San Ramon facility was a matter individuals talking semi-privately. The semi-formal discussions at the ends of the days announced but did not decide anything. Note also that at least some of those meetings did not have any IETF sanction. I wonder if the uglier parts of the SNMP saga would not have come out far better without one or two of the official IETF WG meetings. ] ... Declaring an ] interim meeting for the purpose of avoiding a plenary meeting is a slap in ] the face ... That's certainly true, but I don
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
At 05:45 PM 2/14/00 -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: >Unless you going >to slide the IETF the rest of the way into the ITU/IEEE/ANSI swamp, won't >the mailing lists continue to be the only official forums for the working >groups? Won't the working group meetings continue to be effectively >informal, slightly more than social gatherings? I realize that you have not been (ahem) a regular attendee at IETF meetings, but in my experience this has never been the case. Yes, we do most of our work on mailing lists, and we check meeting consensus on mailing lists before declaring it sealed in blood. But Face to Face meetings have always been places where high bandwidth discussions take place to clarify and progress work which is also being done on the mailing list. They are official meetings. So, by the way, are interim meetings, under RFC 2418. We could discuss major initiatives which have made effective use of them the entire SNMP development, the development of RSVP and Diff-serv, the development of OSPF, and many more. PPP development has happened as much at the interoperability workshops held by Pac Bell and the PPP Consortium as they have at IETF meetings. Declaring an interim meeting to make progress is a Good Thing, and we don't see a problem with that. But we need to make sure that the process is open to all who choose to participate, and to that end the authors of RFC 2418 specified that there needed to be AD approval, sufficient notice, a strong agenda, and minutes just as there are at the plenary meetings. Declaring an interim meeting for the purpose of avoiding a plenary meeting is a slap in the face to the many engineers who come from all over to the interim and plenary meetings that we have had for lo these 14 years. They have paid quite a bit of money and time to be intimately involved in the process. It would be much easier, from a planning perspective, to have the meetings in one or two spots, as the ITU does in Geneva, but we have always worked on an ethic that says "if I am contributing to the work, the meeting must occasionally be near me." One sixth or more of our contributors come from Europe. A relatively small contingent comes from the South Pacific. Quite a large percentage come from North America. Hence, we put about one meeting in six in Europe and most of our meetings in North America. Is it not fair to put one meeting in 47 in the South Pacific? And why is it not an affront to those who have faithfully come from there, have contributed and chaired working groups from there, to complain about doing once what they have been doing for over a decade?
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vernon Schryver writes : > I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like it might conflict with the U.S. > Constitution's provisions concerning freedom of assembly. (a) The U.S. constitution applies to the Federal government (and sometimes to the state governments); it does not apply to private groups. (b) No one ever said that these folks can't meet; they just can't do it under the imprimatur of the IETF. > It also sounds > hard to police; if some working group participants encounter each other > in an airport waiting room, are they not allowed to talk business? What > about participants who work for the same outfit and see each other daily? > > Are you going to apply the same rules to meetings of the IAB and IESG? ?? I'll let the IESG speak for itself. The IAB does not meet physically except at IETF meetings. Instead, we have monthly conference calls. We do hold workshops (which is expressly provided for in RFC 1601); the last such workshop was in Utrecht. Not all IAB members attend all workshops; a number of outsiders are invited. > > You could doubtless fix those modest hassles with the wording of this > demand that RFC 2418 be honored, but what is the point? Unless you going > to slide the IETF the rest of the way into the ITU/IEEE/ANSI swamp, won't > the mailing lists continue to be the only official forums for the working > groups? Won't the working group meetings continue to be effectively > informal, slightly more than social gatherings? The point is that some things are better accomplished in a high-bandwidth environment. > > In other words and politically correct pretense asside, the IETF is not > an international organization. Despite its posturing, the IETF is a U.S. > or perhaps North American organization that welcomes non-U.S. participants > and occasionally spends a lot of its U.S. participants' time and money to > try to make people outside of North America feel welcome. If the IETF > did honestly aspire to be an international organization, it would need > the characteristics of the ITU (e.g. translators and high prices for > documents). Do you think that would be a good thing? > I'm afraid I don't follow the logic of your penultimate sententce. The current schedule has about 1 meeting out of 3 outside of North America. --Steve Bellovin
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... > RFC 2418 states: > >Interim meetings are subject to the >same rules for advance notification, reporting, open participation, >and process, which apply to other working group meetings. > ... > - This applies to all face to face meetings held for the purpose > of conducting working group discussion and to which the working > group is invited, even if labelled "informal" or otherwise > labelled to distinguish them from official working group meetings. I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like it might conflict with the U.S. Constitution's provisions concerning freedom of assembly. It also sounds hard to police; if some working group participants encounter each other in an airport waiting room, are they not allowed to talk business? What about participants who work for the same outfit and see each other daily? Are you going to apply the same rules to meetings of the IAB and IESG? You could doubtless fix those modest hassles with the wording of this demand that RFC 2418 be honored, but what is the point? Unless you going to slide the IETF the rest of the way into the ITU/IEEE/ANSI swamp, won't the mailing lists continue to be the only official forums for the working groups? Won't the working group meetings continue to be effectively informal, slightly more than social gatherings? In other words and politically correct pretense asside, the IETF is not an international organization. Despite its posturing, the IETF is a U.S. or perhaps North American organization that welcomes non-U.S. participants and occasionally spends a lot of its U.S. participants' time and money to try to make people outside of North America feel welcome. If the IETF did honestly aspire to be an international organization, it would need the characteristics of the ITU (e.g. translators and high prices for documents). Do you think that would be a good thing? (I've never attended an IETF working group meeting, despite working group participation for a lot of years. I've never felt the lack as far as technical things go. I can't find words in RFC 2418 that say that the mailing list is the authoritative forum, which strikes me as a terrible omission or catastrophic de facto change.) Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
