Hi,
I can follow and understand a lot of the discussions about not getting
involved into political issues, but I cannot follow the discussion about
not going to nice place, since people could get attracted by the
surroundings and not the IETF.
First, people are old enough to focus on their
Hi,
Sam Hartman wrote:
Two things brought up in this thread disturb me. First, there seems
to be the idea that we should be choosing where IETFs are held for
political purposes--to make statements for or against certain
governments. I'm not quite sure this was said or implied, but if it
was, I'm
G'day Martin,
From my own person experience, having these meetings in nice places tends to make
it more difficult to convince the powers that be internal to one's own company that
this is a legitimate business expense. I'm not saying impossible, after all, it is
still an IETF meeting, but just
--On Monday, 20 September, 2004 08:54 +0200 Lars Eggert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Secondly, I'm concerned that people are proposing optimizing
for pleasant climate and good vacation spots. I come to the
IETF to get work done; I'd rather be at meetings where the
other participants have the
John,
John C Klensin wrote:
I have no idea about actual IETF experience, but, based on
experience with other organizations and meetings of similar
technical focus, the key issue is not whether those who go can
get work done, or even whether some people decide to go it if is
a nice place. Rather,
I think the real point is that it's quite unrealistic at this
stage in the history of NAT to imagine that we can make the mess
(which was inevitable anyway) any better by codifying the
least-bad form of NAT behaviour. The NAT codes are shipped, burnt
into lots of devices, and the IETF can't do
Ben Crosby wrote:
Further, as the host of IETF61, we explored at least four possible venues,
one of which was Ottawa - too bloody awkward to get to, since there
are very few direct flights,
So Mineapolis (the mother of all IETF venues) is less bloodier to get
to? I am shocked. I would
--On 20. september 2004 14:03 +0200 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think the real point is that it's quite unrealistic at this
stage in the history of NAT to imagine that we can make the mess
(which was inevitable anyway) any better by codifying the
least-bad form of NAT
I think that we should have Foretec arrange all of the 2005 meetings
and run them, period. No arrangements to transfer, etc.
I second this.
I have often lamented that the IETF takes way too long to do anything.
But, this schedule for potentially transferring our meeting planning
starting in
On Monday, September 20, 2004, at 08:16 AM, jamal wrote:
So Mineapolis (the mother of all IETF venues) is less bloodier to get
to? I am shocked. I would claim Ottawa is more accessible, colder,
cheaper and doesnt have wimpy tunnels - which makes it a perfect
choice.
I think Minneapolis is a
Folks,
10 days ago, some members of the IAB and IESG started to review
the IETF discussion on the adminrest subject, attempting to
determine what recommendations to draw, or how to elicit more
discussion to lead to being able to provide some recommendations
for moving forward. It seemed like the
See:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/9710963.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp1c
regards
Hadmut
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I'll anta up again... Daytona Beach not only has a wide variety of
entertainment for ietf'ers (over 200 pubs at last count), but also an
international airport, and first class convention facilities.
Scott
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Melinda Shore wrote:
On Monday, September 20, 2004, at 08:16 AM,
On Mon, 2004-09-20 at 09:24, Melinda Shore wrote:
On Monday, September 20, 2004, at 08:16 AM, jamal wrote:
So Mineapolis (the mother of all IETF venues) is less bloodier to get
to? I am shocked. I would claim Ottawa is more accessible, colder,
cheaper and doesnt have wimpy tunnels - which
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 10:38:43AM -0500, Ben Crosby wrote:
We explored Vancouver and Montreal as other alternatives. Neither had availability
at a venue large enough for the meeting.
... which is the crux... availability far enough in advance.
If you plan out further, I suspect
I suspect so, but was led to believe that there is little flexibility with the dates,
and given that these are announced often well in advance of the hosts stepping
forward, it is difficult to plan.
The Ottawa congess centre was booked for that specific week of November, every year
until
On Mon, 2004-09-20 at 11:38, Ben Crosby wrote:
Jamal,
I fly into and out of Ottawa on average once a week - living there.
It is bloody awkward to travel from there, and very few locations are
direct flights.
Theres direct flights to and from toronto every hour.
Not to mention Montreal
I didn't want to waste everyone's time with a long discussion on one particular
location in Canada. I was merely pointing out that other options were explored before
we picked DC.
You can say what you like about the planning, but stepping in to host an already
announced meeting leaves ones
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
jamal == jamal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jamal I would agree with the sufficiently large venue - although it
jamal could be done (and there are a lot of things cooking this
jamal year in terms of new conference centres). Toronto or montreal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald My take (which is obviously biased) is that the number of
Harald NAT devices 2 years from now is likely to be significantly
Harald larger than the number of NAT devices currently
inline.
Michael Richardson wrote:
Harald And - here I am making a real leap of faith - if the IETF
Harald recommendations for NAT devices make manufacturers who
Harald listen to them create NAT devices that make their customers
Harald more happy, then many of these new NAT devices
--On mandag, september 20, 2004 14:38:51 -0400 Michael Richardson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harald And - here I am making a real leap of faith - if the IETF
Harald recommendations for NAT devices make manufacturers who
Harald listen to them create NAT devices that make their
Would the IEEE 802 Plenaries have comparable geographical/logistical
requirements to IETF meetings? Their next few plenaries are scheduled
in San Antonio, Atlanta, San Francisco, Vancouver, New Orleans, San
Diego, and Dallas. All but one are in the US, and all are in North
America.
I attended
Following up on my note from this morning...
Leslie Daigle wrote:
Accordingly, some people volunteered to write down some text
for each, drawing on and extending Carl's documents. The
outcome of that writing exercise will be circulated here
later today -- i.e., a note describing a possible
You are correct if you refer to the participation numbers in last couple of meetings.
Historically IEEE 802 Plenaries have been much smaller in size than the IETF meetings.
I believe that by the time when the Hilton Head and Kauai meetings were hold (2001,
2002), the IEEE plenaries were
Harald,
My take (which is obviously biased) is that the number of NAT devices 2
years from now is likely to be significantly larger than the number of NAT
devices currently deployed.
And - here I am making a real leap of faith - if the IETF recommendations
for NAT devices make manufacturers
On Monday, September 20, 2004, at 06:09 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
I think this ship has left port a long time ago and the likelihood
that the IETF can now effect enough change to make it possible to
write new applications that work consistently in the presence of NATs
is very low. The installed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I agree with Melinda.
I would very much like to be able to let the desk clerk at the hotel
know that I won't be paying for their Internet service, because it
wasn't RFC compliant. (I now wish that someone did get the trademark
on that word, and would deny
--On Monday, 20 September, 2004 21:38 +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do we really want customers of NAT devices to be happy?
Given that I'm one of them, and will continue to be one until
the IPv4 Internet fades to where I can ignore it yes.
Harald, let me
inline.
Michael Richardson wrote:
I agree with Melinda.
I would very much like to be able to let the desk clerk at the hotel
know that I won't be paying for their Internet service, because it
wasn't RFC compliant. (I now wish that someone did get the trademark
on that word, and would deny it
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Examples of S/MIME Messages '
draft-ietf-smime-examples-15.txt as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the S/MIME Mail Security Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Russ Housley and Steve Bellovin.
Technical Summary
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'OSPF Refresh and Flooding Reduction in Stable Topologies '
draft-pillay-esnault-ospf-flooding-07.txt as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Open Shortest Path First IGP Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Bill
32 matches
Mail list logo
