Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-24 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
Hi Ray,

I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is
unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT
list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list.

Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those
organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash, not
just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are
hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them,
which has not been the case up to now all the time.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500
> Para: "ietf@ietf.org" 
> Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
> 
> The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through
> 2010.  Those dates can be found at
> http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html
> 
> The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards
> development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other
> organizations to the extent possible.  Those organizations can be found
> on the Clash List from the same url.
> 
> Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 - 2010
> will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC.
> 
> Regards
> Ray Pelletier
> IAD
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




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

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

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: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-24 Thread Joel Jaeggli 

yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:


Hi Ray,

I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is
unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT
list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list.


having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap 
between the two communites is a little lower. also. having attended every 
afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You have to have some 
priorities.



Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those
organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash, not
just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are
hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them,
which has not been the case up to now all the time.

Regards,
Jordi





De: Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500
Para: "ietf@ietf.org" 
Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through
2010.  Those dates can be found at
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html

The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards
development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other
organizations to the extent possible.  Those organizations can be found
on the Clash List from the same url.

Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 - 2010
will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC.

Regards
Ray Pelletier
IAD

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





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

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

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   Unix Consulting [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

RE: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-25 Thread Ray Plzak 
Why should AfriNIC be considered any less of an RIR than the other APNIC,
ARIN, LACNIC, or RIPE NCC(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? Why should AFNOG be
considered any less of an operator's forum than NANOG or EOF(meeting is at
RIPE meeting)? We are talking about an entire continent. It seems to me in
this case that the priority should be equality of treatment based on the
function being performed for a region and not any other perceived reason for
inequity. Or doesn't the IETF care about the Internet in the developing
regions of the world?

Ray

> -Original Message-
> From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:53 AM
> To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
> 
> yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
> > Hi Ray,
> >
> > I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is
> > unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT
> > list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list.
> 
> having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap
> between the two communites is a little lower. also. having attended every
> afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You have to have some
> priorities.
> 
> > Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those
> > organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash,
> not
> > just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are
> > hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them,
> > which has not been the case up to now all the time.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jordi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> De: Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500
> >> Para: "ietf@ietf.org" 
> >> Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
> >>
> >> The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through
> >> 2010.  Those dates can be found at
> >> http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html
> >>
> >> The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards
> >> development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other
> >> organizations to the extent possible.  Those organizations can be found
> >> on the Clash List from the same url.
> >>
> >> Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 -
> 2010
> >> will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Ray Pelletier
> >> IAD
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Ietf mailing list
> >> Ietf@ietf.org
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **
> > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
> >
> > Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
> > Slides available at:
> > http://www.ipv6-es.com
> >
> > 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 Unix Consulting
> [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: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-25 Thread Brian E Carpenter 

Ray,

I think our goal is to not lose essential participants from the IETF due
to clashes. In fact that's why we want to schedule several years out, so
as to make it easier for many other organizations to do their scheduling.
If we do that, it's each organization's choice whether or not they avoid IETF
weeks. (This week, for example, ITU-T NGN chose to schedule two major meetings
in other cities.)

I don't think it's discriminatory to put the NICs and NOGs that don't seem
to have a large overlap with IETF participants in the second category. It's
just a matter of practicality, given that optimal scheduling is a
fundamentally imsoluble problem anyway. I'd be delighted to see growth in
African participation in the IETF (the spreadsheet shows two people from
Africa pre-registered this week).

Brian

Ray Plzak wrote:

Why should AfriNIC be considered any less of an RIR than the other APNIC,
ARIN, LACNIC, or RIPE NCC(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? Why should AFNOG be
considered any less of an operator's forum than NANOG or EOF(meeting is at
RIPE meeting)? We are talking about an entire continent. It seems to me in
this case that the priority should be equality of treatment based on the
function being performed for a region and not any other perceived reason for
inequity. Or doesn't the IETF care about the Internet in the developing
regions of the world?

Ray



-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:53 AM
To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:



Hi Ray,

I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is
unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT
list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list.


having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap
between the two communites is a little lower. also. having attended every
afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You have to have some
priorities.



Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those
organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash,


not


just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are
hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them,
which has not been the case up to now all the time.

Regards,
Jordi






De: Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500
Para: "ietf@ietf.org" 
Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through
2010.  Those dates can be found at
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html

The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards
development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other
organizations to the extent possible.  Those organizations can be found
on the Clash List from the same url.

Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 -


2010


will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC.

Regards
Ray Pelletier
IAD

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





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

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

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   Unix Consulting
[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




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

Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-25 Thread Marshall Eubanks 

Hello all;

Note that IETF 79 includes Halloween.

IETF 79 October 31 -November 5 2010

I know it's a little far away, but I think that this might be a good  
time for the first Masked Ball / Costume Party Social. I plan to come  
as the dreaded IPv6 NAT.


Regards
Marshall

On Mar 24, 2006, at 9:41 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote:

The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008  
through 2010.  Those dates can be found at http://www.ietf.org/ 
meetings/future_meetings0810.html


The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's  
standards development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with  
SDOs and other organizations to the extent possible.  Those  
organizations can be found on the Clash List from the same url.


Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 -  
2010 will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC.


Regards
Ray Pelletier
IAD

___
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: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-25 Thread Brian E Carpenter 

Ray Plzak (private),

Can you give the email addresses of the AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG
leaders? I'd like to write to them explicitly about this. It would
be good to get them more involved in the IETF.

Thanks

Brian

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Ray,

I think our goal is to not lose essential participants from the IETF due to 
clashes. In fact that's why we want to schedule
several years out, so as to make it easier for many other organizations to do 
their scheduling. If we do that, it's each
organization's choice whether or not they avoid IETF weeks. (This week, for example, ITU-T NGN chose to schedule two major 
meetings in other cities.)


I don't think it's discriminatory to put the NICs and NOGs that don't seem to 
have a large overlap with IETF participants in
the second category. It's just a matter of practicality, given that optimal 
scheduling is a fundamentally imsoluble problem
anyway. I'd be delighted to see growth in African participation in the IETF 
(the spreadsheet shows two people from Africa
pre-registered this week).

Brian

Ray Plzak wrote:


Why should AfriNIC be considered any less of an RIR than the other APNIC, ARIN, 
LACNIC, or RIPE NCC(meeting is at RIPE
meeting)? Why should AFNOG be considered any less of an operator's forum than 
NANOG or EOF(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? We
are talking about an entire continent. It seems to me in this case that the 
priority should be equality of treatment based
on the function being performed for a region and not any other perceived reason 
for inequity. Or doesn't the IETF care
about the Internet in the developing regions of the world?

Ray



-Original Message- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 
Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:53 AM
 To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 
IETF Meeting dates

yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:



Hi Ray,

I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is unfair 
and discriminatory to have all the RIRs
and *NOGs in the MUST NOT list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list.



having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap between 
the two communites is a little lower. also.
having attended every afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You 
have to have some priorities.



Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those organizations 
to chat together and make sure the there
is not a clash,



not


just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are hosted 
in different places of the world) to
allow traveling among them, which has not been the case up to now all the time.

Regards, Jordi





De: Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500 
Para: "ietf@ietf.org"  Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates


The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through 2010.  Those dates can be found at 
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html


The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards 
development objectives, while avoiding
conflicts with SDOs and other organizations to the extent possible.  Those 
organizations can be found on the Clash
List from the same url.

Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]

It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 -



2010


will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC.

Regards Ray Pelletier IAD

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






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

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com

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 Unix Consulting [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







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

Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-25 Thread Carl Malamud 
Hi Brian -

I understand the difficulty of adding too many constraints to the
scheduling process, but I'd like to point out that particpants in
events such as AFNOG and AfriNIC meetings don't necessarily all
come from Africa.  In fact, strong participation from other
regions is one of the most important mechanisms for building
the institutions involved.

Again, I understand the constraints you face, but it is certainly
worth paying attention to the fact that many of the IETF's key
participants also take very seriously their responsibility to
help other organizations gain critical mass.

Regards,

Carl

> Ray,
> 
> I think our goal is to not lose essential participants from the IETF due
> to clashes. In fact that's why we want to schedule several years out, so
> as to make it easier for many other organizations to do their scheduling.
> If we do that, it's each organization's choice whether or not they avoid IETF
> weeks. (This week, for example, ITU-T NGN chose to schedule two major meetings
> in other cities.)
> 
> I don't think it's discriminatory to put the NICs and NOGs that don't seem
> to have a large overlap with IETF participants in the second category. It's
> just a matter of practicality, given that optimal scheduling is a
> fundamentally imsoluble problem anyway. I'd be delighted to see growth in
> African participation in the IETF (the spreadsheet shows two people from
> Africa pre-registered this week).
> 
>  Brian
> 
> Ray Plzak wrote:
> > Why should AfriNIC be considered any less of an RIR than the other APNIC,
> > ARIN, LACNIC, or RIPE NCC(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? Why should AFNOG be
> > considered any less of an operator's forum than NANOG or EOF(meeting is at
> > RIPE meeting)? We are talking about an entire continent. It seems to me in
> > this case that the priority should be equality of treatment based on the
> > function being performed for a region and not any other perceived reason for
> > inequity. Or doesn't the IETF care about the Internet in the developing
> > regions of the world?
> > 
> > Ray
> > 
> > 
> >>-Original Message-----
> >>From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:53 AM
> >>To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> >>Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> >>Subject: Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
> >>
> >>yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hi Ray,
> >>>
> >>>I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is
> >>>unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT
> >>>list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list.
> >>
> >>having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap
> >>between the two communites is a little lower. also. having attended every
> >>afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You have to have some
> >>priorities.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those
> >>>organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash,
> >>
> >>not
> >>
> >>>just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are
> >>>hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them,
> >>>which has not been the case up to now all the time.
> >>>
> >>>Regards,
> >>>Jordi
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>De: Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500
> >>>>Para: "ietf@ietf.org" 
> >>>>Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
> >>>>
> >>>>The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through
> >>>>2010.  Those dates can be found at
> >>>>http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html
> >>>>
> >>>>The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards
> >>>>development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other
> >>>>organizations to the extent possible.  Those organizations can be found
> >>>>on the Clash List from the same url.
> >>>>
> >>>>Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at
> >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>
> >>>&

Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-27 Thread Brian E Carpenter 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:


Ray,

I think our goal is to not lose essential participants from the IETF due
to clashes. In fact that's why we want to schedule several years out, so
as to make it easier for many other organizations to do their scheduling.
If we do that, it's each organization's choice whether or not they avoid 
IETF
weeks. (This week, for example, ITU-T NGN chose to schedule two major 
meetings

in other cities.)



and how does one define "essectial participants"?


WG chairs, authors, active contributors to technical discussions.
It is a matter of judgement of course.


I don't think it's discriminatory to put the NICs and NOGs that don't seem
to have a large overlap with IETF participants in the second category. It's
just a matter of practicality, given that optimal scheduling is a
fundamentally imsoluble problem anyway. I'd be delighted to see growth in
African participation in the IETF (the spreadsheet shows two people from
Africa pre-registered this week).



the same arguments could have been applied to europe
	15 years ago...  but they were not - 


I don't think the analogy holds, for a number of reasons. (As a matter
of interest, there were about 6 participants out of 350 with addresses
in Europe at the March 1991 IETF meeting, and about 19 out of 530
in March 1993. At that point, scheduling against RIPE would certainly
have become a practical problem.)

   Brian



--bill



   Brian

Ray Plzak wrote:


Why should AfriNIC be considered any less of an RIR than the other APNIC,
ARIN, LACNIC, or RIPE NCC(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? Why should AFNOG be
considered any less of an operator's forum than NANOG or EOF(meeting is at
RIPE meeting)? We are talking about an entire continent. It seems to me in
this case that the priority should be equality of treatment based on the
function being performed for a region and not any other perceived reason 
for

inequity. Or doesn't the IETF care about the Internet in the developing
regions of the world?

Ray




-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:53 AM
To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:




Hi Ray,

I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is
unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT
list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list.


having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap
between the two communites is a little lower. also. having attended every
afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You have to have some
priorities.




Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those
organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash,


not



just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are
hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them,
which has not been the case up to now all the time.

Regards,
Jordi







De: Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500
Para: "ietf@ietf.org" 
Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through
2010.  Those dates can be found at
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html

The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards
development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other
organizations to the extent possible.  Those organizations can be found
on the Clash List from the same url.

Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 -


2010



will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC.

Regards
Ray Pelletier
IAD

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





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

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

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   Unix Consul

Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-27 Thread Tim Chown 
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:38:03AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> I don't think the analogy holds, for a number of reasons. (As a matter
> of interest, there were about 6 participants out of 350 with addresses
> in Europe at the March 1991 IETF meeting, and about 19 out of 530
> in March 1993. At that point, scheduling against RIPE would certainly
> have become a practical problem.)

You have to consider the most important clashes;  IETF66 clashes with 
the World Cup Final on July 9th.   I hope Canada has good coverage,
if not a good football team :)

Tim

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

Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-27 Thread Scott W Brim 
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 04:18:42PM +0100, Tim Chown allegedly wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:38:03AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > 
> > I don't think the analogy holds, for a number of reasons. (As a matter
> > of interest, there were about 6 participants out of 350 with addresses
> > in Europe at the March 1991 IETF meeting, and about 19 out of 530
> > in March 1993. At that point, scheduling against RIPE would certainly
> > have become a practical problem.)
> 
> You have to consider the most important clashes;  IETF66 clashes with 
> the World Cup Final on July 9th.   I hope Canada has good coverage,
> if not a good football team :)

There are plenty of bars in Montreal.

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

Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-28 Thread bmanning 
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Ray,
> 
> I think our goal is to not lose essential participants from the IETF due
> to clashes. In fact that's why we want to schedule several years out, so
> as to make it easier for many other organizations to do their scheduling.
> If we do that, it's each organization's choice whether or not they avoid 
> IETF
> weeks. (This week, for example, ITU-T NGN chose to schedule two major 
> meetings
> in other cities.)

and how does one define "essectial participants"?


> I don't think it's discriminatory to put the NICs and NOGs that don't seem
> to have a large overlap with IETF participants in the second category. It's
> just a matter of practicality, given that optimal scheduling is a
> fundamentally imsoluble problem anyway. I'd be delighted to see growth in
> African participation in the IETF (the spreadsheet shows two people from
> Africa pre-registered this week).

the same arguments could have been applied to europe
15 years ago...  but they were not - 

--bill

> 
> Brian
> 
> Ray Plzak wrote:
> >Why should AfriNIC be considered any less of an RIR than the other APNIC,
> >ARIN, LACNIC, or RIPE NCC(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? Why should AFNOG be
> >considered any less of an operator's forum than NANOG or EOF(meeting is at
> >RIPE meeting)? We are talking about an entire continent. It seems to me in
> >this case that the priority should be equality of treatment based on the
> >function being performed for a region and not any other perceived reason 
> >for
> >inequity. Or doesn't the IETF care about the Internet in the developing
> >regions of the world?
> >
> >Ray
> >
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:53 AM
> >>To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> >>Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> >>Subject: Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
> >>
> >>yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hi Ray,
> >>>
> >>>I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is
> >>>unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT
> >>>list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list.
> >>
> >>having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap
> >>between the two communites is a little lower. also. having attended every
> >>afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You have to have some
> >>priorities.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those
> >>>organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash,
> >>
> >>not
> >>
> >>>just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are
> >>>hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them,
> >>>which has not been the case up to now all the time.
> >>>
> >>>Regards,
> >>>Jordi
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>De: Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500
> >>>>Para: "ietf@ietf.org" 
> >>>>Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
> >>>>
> >>>>The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through
> >>>>2010.  Those dates can be found at
> >>>>http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html
> >>>>
> >>>>The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards
> >>>>development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other
> >>>>organizations to the extent possible.  Those organizations can be found
> >>>>on the Clash List from the same url.
> >>>>
> >>>>Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at
> >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>
> >>>>It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 -
> >>
> >>2010
> >>
> >>>>will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC.
> >>>>
> >>>>Regards
> >>>>Ray Pelletier
> >>>>IAD
> >>>>
> >>>>

Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-28 Thread bmanning 
 Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:27:22AM -0500, Scott W Brim wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 04:18:42PM +0100, Tim Chown allegedly wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:38:03AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > 
> > > I don't think the analogy holds, for a number of reasons. (As a matter
> > > of interest, there were about 6 participants out of 350 with addresses
> > > in Europe at the March 1991 IETF meeting, and about 19 out of 530
> > > in March 1993. At that point, scheduling against RIPE would certainly
> > > have become a practical problem.)
> > 
> > You have to consider the most important clashes;  IETF66 clashes with 
> > the World Cup Final on July 9th.   I hope Canada has good coverage,
> > if not a good football team :)
> 
> There are plenty of bars in Montreal.

bars do not good coverage make.  trying to find the olympics
on - in real time - during the IceHockey finals, in Perth,
was a futile gesture.

--bill
> 
> ___
> 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: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-28 Thread Fleischman, Eric 
An alternative to coordinating meeting dates with a growing list of peer
entities is to simply say that the IETF will meet on the second week of
March, July, and November every year. Such a stance would help everyone
to schedule.
[Note: these weeks are suggestions only, select a permanent variant of
your choice.]


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

RE: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-28 Thread Joel Jaeggli 

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Fleischman, Eric wrote:


An alternative to coordinating meeting dates with a growing list of peer
entities is to simply say that the IETF will meet on the second week of
March, July, and November every year. Such a stance would help everyone
to schedule.
[Note: these weeks are suggestions only, select a permanent variant of
your choice.]


proposed meeting dates through 2010 are posted on the meetings page, 
fixing them in stone reduces leway on negotiating future hotel contracts.


There are other unforseen exegiencies that fixing the data in absence of a 
location create like inconvenient national holidays, that make travel to 
or from a location infeasible.






--
--
Joel Jaeggli   Unix Consulting [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

Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-28 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
I think is clear that we need to fix the meeting dates, and that should be
done in advance so we avoid clashes with other events and we can negotiate
with hotels and sponsors ahead of time enough to make it cheaper.

While I don't agree is to take in consideration national holidays unless
they are (almost) *worldwide* ones. Otherwise, taking the national holidays
from one or the other country will be discriminatory for the rest. Moreover
when we don't know the place we will meet 3-4 years in advance. Otherwise we
need to manage at the same time the meeting date and the place for each
meeting, which we know is impossible.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:54:14 -0800 (PST)
> Para: "Fleischman, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: Carl Malamud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "ietf@ietf.org" , JORDI
> PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Asunto: RE: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
> 
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Fleischman, Eric wrote:
> 
>> An alternative to coordinating meeting dates with a growing list of peer
>> entities is to simply say that the IETF will meet on the second week of
>> March, July, and November every year. Such a stance would help everyone
>> to schedule.
>> [Note: these weeks are suggestions only, select a permanent variant of
>> your choice.]
> 
> proposed meeting dates through 2010 are posted on the meetings page,
> fixing them in stone reduces leway on negotiating future hotel contracts.
> 
> There are other unforseen exegiencies that fixing the data in absence of a
> location create like inconvenient national holidays, that make travel to
> or from a location infeasible.
> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> Joel Jaeggli  Unix Consulting [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

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

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: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-28 Thread Joel Jaeggli 

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:


I think is clear that we need to fix the meeting dates, and that should be
done in advance so we avoid clashes with other events and we can negotiate
with hotels and sponsors ahead of time enough to make it cheaper.

While I don't agree is to take in consideration national holidays unless
they are (almost) *worldwide* ones. Otherwise, taking the national holidays
from one or the other country will be discriminatory for the rest. Moreover
when we don't know the place we will meet 3-4 years in advance. Otherwise we
need to manage at the same time the meeting date and the place for each
meeting, which we know is impossible.


I mean at the meeting venue.


Regards,
Jordi





De: Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fecha: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:54:14 -0800 (PST)
Para: "Fleischman, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Carl Malamud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "ietf@ietf.org" , JORDI
PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Asunto: RE: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Fleischman, Eric wrote:


An alternative to coordinating meeting dates with a growing list of peer
entities is to simply say that the IETF will meet on the second week of
March, July, and November every year. Such a stance would help everyone
to schedule.
[Note: these weeks are suggestions only, select a permanent variant of
your choice.]


proposed meeting dates through 2010 are posted on the meetings page,
fixing them in stone reduces leway on negotiating future hotel contracts.

There are other unforseen exegiencies that fixing the data in absence of a
location create like inconvenient national holidays, that make travel to
or from a location infeasible.





--
--
Joel Jaeggli  Unix Consulting [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

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

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   Unix Consulting [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

Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-31 Thread Brian E Carpenter 

Joel,

Joel Jaeggli wrote:

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

I think is clear that we need to fix the meeting dates, and that 
should be
done in advance so we avoid clashes with other events and we can 
negotiate

with hotels and sponsors ahead of time enough to make it cheaper.

While I don't agree is to take in consideration national holidays unless
they are (almost) *worldwide* ones. Otherwise, taking the national 
holidays
from one or the other country will be discriminatory for the rest. 
Moreover
when we don't know the place we will meet 3-4 years in advance. 
Otherwise we

need to manage at the same time the meeting date and the place for each
meeting, which we know is impossible.



I mean at the meeting venue.


It works the other way round. We fix our dates 2 or 3 years in advance,
avoiding clashes with other organizations and international holidays
as much as possible. Site selection inevitably comes later, which means
local holidays may influence site selection, but not date selection.

Also note that local holidays may be city specific not country specific.
It's quite impractical to consider city holidays three years out.

Brian

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

RE: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-31 Thread Hallam-Baker, Phillip 

> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

> It works the other way round. We fix our dates 2 or 3 years 
> in advance, avoiding clashes with other organizations and 
> international holidays as much as possible. Site selection 
> inevitably comes later, which means local holidays may 
> influence site selection, but not date selection.
> 
> Also note that local holidays may be city specific not 
> country specific.
> It's quite impractical to consider city holidays three years out.

Booking the Moscone three years out is the cannonical way that conference
companies fail. 

The IETF is nowhere near big enough for shortage of venues of sufficient
size to be a serious problem. If you are running a 10,000+ person conference
there are few venues that work, if you get to 20,000 there are serious
issues and you may get forced into doing advance booking.

The meeting could have been twice as large without straining the facilities
in Dallas. There are probably at least 500 hotels in the US that are
designed to take a conference of IETF size. The IETF is not a desperately
profitable conference from the hotel point of view but it does make more
money than an empty hotel. They are only going to be willing to offer the
type of rate the IETF is willing to pay if they are confident that no more
profitable alternative is on offer.



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

Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-03-31 Thread Dave Crocker 



Also note that local holidays may be city specific not country specific.
It's quite impractical to consider city holidays three years out.


Not if the city is chosen 2-3 years out.

d/

--

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking


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

Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-04-07 Thread Brian E Carpenter 

Dave Crocker wrote:



Also note that local holidays may be city specific not country specific.
It's quite impractical to consider city holidays three years out.



Not if the city is chosen 2-3 years out.


That really isn't likely for a meeting of our size; you need to be
in the 5000+ range for that to make sense. For our size of meeting,
choosing a venue 1-2 years out is about right, in terms of putting
sponsors and space availability together.

   Brian

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

Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates

2006-04-07 Thread Dave Crocker 



Brian E Carpenter wrote:

choosing a venue 1-2 years out is about right, in terms of putting
sponsors and space availability together.


Presumably you mean hosts, not sponsors.  The idea behind moving to a sponsors 
model is to decouple their money from any specific venue.


In which case, they are not a factor in choosing the city and we do not have to 
delay choosing a city, waiting to find a host.


d/
--

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking


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