On Dec 6, 2007 8:59 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Only part of the meeting fee is profit for the IETF and an even smaller part
> of the attendee costs. It cost my employer roughly $2,000 for me to attend
> the Vancouver IETF for two days. That is $6,000 for the IETF to m
possible that at some point it will be 2.
> -Original Message-
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 6:33 PM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IETF Eurasia
>
>
> Since our main
many people would find unacceptable.
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 29/11/2007 6:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF Eurasia
>> Maybe I should elaborate. In several WG where I am active at
>> least half of participants are from Eu
do that we would
have to change our approach to doing work in ways that many people would find
unacceptable.
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 29/11/2007 6:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF Eurasia
>> M
At 10:34 AM 11/30/2007, Lars Eggert wrote:
I'm not sure if there have been joint interims with multiple
WGs attending, but that could make sense if there's a difficult piece
of work that they need to agree on
Geopriv and Ecrit had a joint meeting a couple of years ago that was
mostly attended
At 08:28 AM 11/29/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That doesn't make for a "has to", but it seems like a good
> reason to "choose to", from my perspective.
I agree with your reasoning. I should have asked,
why do *ALL* IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive?
Smaller meetings held
On 2007-11-29, at 6:28, ext [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with your reasoning. I should have asked,
why do *ALL* IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive?
They don't. Several WGs are holding interim meetings between the IETF
meetings. I'm not sure if there have been joint inte
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive?
||
||| I can tell you why we do - crosstalk. It can be incredibly useful
||| for people from the Security Area to look in on Applications, or for
||| Transport and RAI folks to understand the workings of th
> > Why do IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive?
> I can tell you why we do - crosstalk. It can be incredibly
> useful for people from the Security Area to look in on
> Applications, or for Transport and RAI folks to understand
> the workings of the layers beneath them and thei
Maybe I should elaborate. In several WG where I am active at
least half of participants are from Europe or Asia.
Why do IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive?
Because there is already a lack of communicaiton between Areas.
Not to say that there can't be other smaller meetings
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I can tell you why we do - crosstalk. It can be incredibly useful for
people from the Security Area to look in on Applications, or for
Transport and RAI folks to understand the workings of the layers
beneath them and their users, for example.
11 matches
Mail list logo
