Stig Venaas wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up
with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;)
What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID
cutoff, is
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
Thanks to Keith for changing the Subject when changing the subject.
I know you've heard this all before, but it's been getting
increasingly difficult for us WG Chairs to get all the key
people working on a protocol to fly across the planet for
a 2 hour meeting. These are busy people who can't
The IAOC will have a look at this issue.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Terry Gray wrote:
Perhaps someone could document what was done differently this time, so
that all may learn the secret?
A lot of it is obsessive attention to detail, but the other part is
choosing equipment that is known to work at IETF scale.
Writing it up is a good idea, if our good friends
Sam Hartman wrote:
Ed == Ed Juskevicius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ed I wonder if part of the reason is we often resort to a modus
Ed operandi of let a thousand flowers bloom and let the market
Ed decide for contentious issues. While that *might* work for a
Ed technology spec,
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
Hello;
On Mar 25, 2006, at 1:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe we should leave the Jabber meeting rooms up all the time, and
use them for more dynamic discussions.
John
Do you mean during the meetings (which I think was done this time,
Monday - Friday) or
permanently ?
Regards
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
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Hello;
On Mar 25, 2006, at 1:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe we should leave the Jabber meeting rooms up all the time, and
use them for more dynamic discussions.
John
Do you mean during the meetings (which I think was done this time,
Monday - Friday) or
Dear Stig;
On Mar 25, 2006, at 11:27 AM, Stig Venaas wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Hello;
On Mar 25, 2006, at 1:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe we should leave the Jabber meeting rooms up all the time, and
use them for more dynamic discussions.
John
Do you mean during the
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
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
On 24 mar 2006, at 18.07, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
If I am going to send a copy of a $200 million action movie to a
viewer I am
going to expect to be paid for that. The viewer is going to expect
a high
quality viewing experience. The problem is that the bandwidth they
subscribe
to for
At 15:51 +0100 3/25/06, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If somebody comes to the IETF for a two hour meeting and wastes
the opportunity of another 30+ hours of learning about what other
WGs and BOFs are up to, that would indeed be a shame.
I agree with this, but find that (in some instances) that
Geoff, things were indeed different then, as long distance
bandwidth costs were a serious concern. That has changed. I think
the fact that content providers who are paid for that content
don't (in effect) pay for the congestion that they cause hasn't
changed. But mainly I was interested to see
Just a general comment: I think that as far as decision-taking
is concerned, we need to treat WG jabber sessions (and
teleconferences) exctly like face to face meetings - any
decisions taken must in fact be referred to the WG mailing
list for rough consensus. Otherwise, the people who happen
to
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Thanks to Keith for changing the Subject when changing the subject.
I know you've heard this all before, but it's been getting
increasingly difficult for us WG Chairs to get all the key
people working on a protocol to fly across the planet for
a 2 hour meeting. These
Keith Moore wrote:
It will also be a more open process. Today, in my opinion, having to
negotiate with each possible sponsor in secret, is a broken concept, and
against our openness.
I'm a lot more concerned about openness in IETF protocol development.
some kinds of negotiations really do
--On Friday, 24 March, 2006 16:28 -0600 Scott W Brim
sbrim@cisco.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 05:00:07AM -0500, John C Klensin
allegedly wrote:
There are two strategies that make more sense and have more
chance of success. One is precisely what 4084 attempted to
do: lay out
If the meeting fees could be lowered over time because
smaller venues are needed 2 out of 3 IETFs, then more
people will be able to participate.
My head hurts. If more people can participate how come
we would need *smaller* venues? And by what miracle does
lowering the fee allow us to reduce
one thing, the first thing we would have to do in the IETF -
if we adopted a model like this - is to establish a marketing
over-sight function to ensure fair and equitable disposition of
sponsorship funds.
Eric, I am not sure why this would be required.
In so far as it's required, it's
Here is a guess at the rule we should impose:
A sponsor donating a sufficiently large amount may have a small booth
for the sale of a single product that is a) unannounced or has been
announced within the last [6] months, and b) appropriate for purchase
and use by individuals.
I really
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
Brian,
this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying
in the overpriced Hilton hotel rooms, my IETF65 meeting fee was
almost exactly the
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 05:56:09PM +0100, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote:
Only path forward is, I think, that end users start to demand better
service, and the ones that do are prepared on paying more. Like if
you just want broadband, buy blue service, but if you want better
quality, buy red service
Edward Lewis wrote:
At 15:51 +0100 3/25/06, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If somebody comes to the IETF for a two hour meeting and wastes
the opportunity of another 30+ hours of learning about what other
WGs and BOFs are up to, that would indeed be a shame.
I agree with this, but find that (in
--On Wednesday, 22 March, 2006 13:43 -0500 Sam Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
However I don't think we're building the sort of community
consensus behind RFC 3933 as an approach to breaking process
reform deadlock that it will actually be useful to us. What
happens when John submits
At 9:56 -0800 3/25/06, Andy Bierman wrote:
Edward Lewis wrote:
Temper, not remove. Taking a few moments to set the problem up for the
uninitiated and then assuming they have the protocol engineering smarts is
all I'm asking.
The purpose is not to explain the entire draft to tourists
with
--On Saturday, 25 March, 2006 12:54 -0500 Jeffrey I. Schiller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is how do we differentiate between cases where
content providers pay to get a higher then default QOS for
their streams vs. the case where the provider pays to prevent
the ISP from
I agree that having presentations which review all the detailed
context is not helpful. One slide reminding folks of context can be
very helpful even for folks who have been reading and following all the drafts.
At the same time, I have always found it very helpful that different
working
Brian,
Actually the document I referenced is also around 9 years old - so even then
we were having a Fine Debate about settlement systems in this industry.
The introduction of Content into this debate has also been interesting
with the earliest intersection of the two groups (ISPs and content
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
Brian,
this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying in
the overpriced Hilton hotel rooms, my IETF65 meeting fee
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
1. There are more bean counters to consider, that only those in commercial
corporations, if the IETF still considers it important to be
--On Saturday, 25 March, 2006 11:57 -0500 Edward Lewis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 15:51 +0100 3/25/06, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If somebody comes to the IETF for a two hour meeting and
wastes the opportunity of another 30+ hours of learning about
what other WGs and BOFs are up to, that
I also noticed that IPv6 disappeared from the network and reported it to the
NOC. I think they figured out the problem at least in one of the APs or
whatever it was. I've requested to know the reason but got no information at
the time being.
Jordi,
At the heart of this problem was that we
Mmm... well, my laptop (Mac Powerbook) fell off the b/g network
several times, mostly during plenary sessions, but the problems were
brief, and I usually had no trouble getting back on.
Ken,
I experienced this too, several times. Our best guess was that it
had to do with the older IOS
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Just a general comment: I think that as far as decision-taking
is concerned, we need to treat WG jabber sessions (and
teleconferences) exctly like face to face meetings - any
decisions taken must in fact be referred to the WG mailing
list for rough consensus. Otherwise,
I don't mean to hijack this conversation, only add a data point...
I have a great deal of respect for the people who have done the heavy
lifting in BEHAVE, but it seems like every time we meet, someone discovers a
new and previously un-observed NAT behavior that Is Not Helpful. This week
was
38 matches
Mail list logo
