Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense

On 7/31/2013 4:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: While that is true, I think it misses the point of the objections to the sit-and-watch-PowerPointTV. First, I observe that we already_have_ a great deal of written words: the drafts. I continue to believe that altogether too much time in WG meetings

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense

On Jul 31, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > It may be the case in some instances that if > it's going to be nothing but presentations there may not > be a need for a working group to meet at all. +1. If nothing else, when a WG agenda starts to shape up like this, this should be a big

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense

I have to say that I was very impressed with how the oauth session went. There was minimal presentation and maximal discussion, and the discussion was not interrupted until it started getting circular. But, I suspect that this is a reflection of the fact that there's some substantial disagreement

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense

On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> It's hard to tell how many of them >> would be participating if the meeting were more useful, but >> the very fact that the room contains so many nonparticipants >> is itself a deterrent to getting work done in the meeting. >> If nothing

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense

Hi Keith, On 31/07/2013 18:35, Keith Moore wrote: > On Jul 30, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> It's been pointed out before that in a group with very >> diverse languages, written words are usually better >> understood than speech. It's a fact of life that you can't >> have a ful

Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery-05

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at Document: draft-ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery-05 Reviewer: Peter Yee Review Date: Jul-31-2013 IETF LC End Date: Jul-31-2013 IESG Telecha

plenary slides

The missing two (diversity, IAOC) plenary slides have been uploaded. I'm sorry that they were missed in the heat of the preparations for the meeting. All materials are available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/87/materials.html Jari

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense (was: Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF)

Hi Barry, Sorry for long meesage, I will give you a real example which I experienced that includes my request regarding a WG ietf draft that has no presenter but two people in the WG that want discuss it in meetings as below real story. I want to confirm my statement of hidden discuss/information

Re: stability of iana.org URLs

> On 7/31/13 4:06 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > >> I just followed http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers.html > >> From RFC3315 (DHCPv6)'s reference section. Ten years later, the URL > >> doesn't work. > >> > >> I know that things were reworked when we went to XML based storage, but > >> I

volunteers to take notes in the plenary

I'd like to get a couple of volunteers to take notes in the plenary. Please send mail, or see me at the front before the meeting. Thanks. Jari

Re: Bringing back Internet transparency

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Hannes, On 30.07.2013 14:35, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > I raised the need for this transparency in this writeup: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tschofenig-hourglass-00 > > The document also points to some projects / paper I am aware of > that

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense (was: Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF)

On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:30 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall > conversations and side meetings The hall conversations and side meetings will continue to be immensely valuable. But working group sessions can, and should, also be v

Re: stability of iana.org URLs

> From: Barry Leiba > They have: they are keyed off the suffix-less URIs. That's why they > want us to use those. That doesn't change the point that breaking URLs in _previously-published, static_ documents is a Bad Thing. Noel

Re: stability of iana.org URLs

>>> I discovered that dropping the .html gets me the right data at: >>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers >> >> Yes: that's the form that IANA would like you to use. They changed >> their registries from HTML to XML, and the URLs changed. > > That's true, but cool URIs don't cha

Re: [Diversity] setting a goal for an inclusive IETF

That is correct, the diversity list is open and we will have a summary of suggested initiatives for the design team to research tonight. To the specific point below, we will do our best to also do outreach to speak with a wide range of people. Thank you! Kathleen Sent from my iPhone On Ju

Re: stability of iana.org URLs

On 7/31/13 4:06 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> I just followed http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers.html >> From RFC3315 (DHCPv6)'s reference section. Ten years later, the URL >> doesn't work. >> >> I know that things were reworked when we went to XML based storage, but >> I thought that

Re: stability of iana.org URLs

> I just followed http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers.html > From RFC3315 (DHCPv6)'s reference section. Ten years later, the URL > doesn't work. > > I know that things were reworked when we went to XML based storage, but > I thought that the old URLs would at least have a 301 error

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense (was: Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF)

>> The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall >> conversations and side meetings > > I think *side meetings* are killing IETF, I call it *hidden meetings*, there > is no input for IETF when we have side meetings. The input to IETF in > through meeting sessions and discus

Re: [Diversity] setting a goal for an inclusive IETF

Hi, On 31/07/13 14:45, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: Hi Jari, I have gave many feedback on the diversity issue, and I thank you for the article, I agree with iot totally. I will repeat my comment, that the design team of diversity SHOULD make clear what is its goals and milestones, therefore, we

stability of iana.org URLs

I just followed http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers.html From RFC3315 (DHCPv6)'s reference section. Ten years later, the URL doesn't work. I know that things were reworked when we went to XML based storage, but I thought that the old URLs would at least have a 301 error on them.

Re: [Diversity] setting a goal for an inclusive IETF

AFAIK anyone can participate. You just have to said "I". Regards, as On 7/31/13 2:45 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > I would prefer that the design team are selected by diversity > parameters ( gender, region, age, necomer-oldcomer, etc). Thanks again,

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense (was: Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF)

There are occasions when presentations are appropriate, but they should be the exception rather than the rule or default assumption. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 31, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > IMHO, The presenters are MUST, but the time channel for presenting is the > problem

Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF

Hi Jari, I have gave many feedback on the diversity issue, and I thank you for the article, I agree with iot totally. I will repeat my comment, that the design team of diversity SHOULD make clear what is its goals and milestones, therefore, we can give better feedback, but leaving that hidden to m

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense

comments below On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 08:38:26AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > > It's been pointed out before that in a group with very diverse languages, > > written words are usually better understood than speech. It's a fact o

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense (was: Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF)

I think *side meetings* are killing IETF, I call it *hidden meetings*, there is no input for IETF when we have side meetings. The input to IETF in through meeting sessions and discussion lists. So I agree with Keith that meeting sessions have low discussions, and may discourage remote participants

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense (was: Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF)

IMHO, The presenters are MUST, but the time channel for presenting is the problem or boring factor. I mentioned before that we need short presentations 5 minutes, and more discussions. AB On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > > On Jul 30, 2013, at 7:47 PM, Bob Braden wrote: > >

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense (was: Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF)

I agree with some of your points, thanks, comments below, On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > > > http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/07/a-diverse-ietf/ > > Also, I wanted to let everyone know that tomorrow in the Administrative > Plenary, Kathleen Moriarty and Suresh Krishnan will be

Re: PS to IS question from plenary

Hi Dave, At 14:11 30-07-2013, Dave Crocker wrote: And, of course, if it "can" be reshashed, in the IETF it will be. Agreed. However the specification for the new two-stage model provides criteria for the second stage, and it does not include re-evaluating the technology or its details. Inst

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense (was: Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF)

Donald Eastlake wrote: > The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall > conversations and side meetings So that implies to me that we should use our session time extremely efficiently, always finish sessions early (to facilitate time for ad-hoc conversations), a

Re: PS to IS question from plenary

> Just to make sure we have good data, can we go back a few more years? > Specifically, did we not previously have a restriction forbidding references > FS->DS, and {FS,DS}->PS? RFC3967 was in Dec. 2004, but I thought that we > had some other work more recently (2008?) that attempted to unjam

Re: making our meetings more worth the time/expense (was: Re: setting a goal for an inclusive IETF)

The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall conversations and side meetings Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Michae