some others.
>
> Thanks,
> Kathleen
>
> From: John Levine [jo...@taugh.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 6:00 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: Moriarty, Kathleen
> Subject: Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials (was: IETF87
> Audio
, 2013 6:00 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: Moriarty, Kathleen
Subject: Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials (was: IETF87 Audio
Streaming Info)
In article <8ba59f96-a1de-460f-9a22-f2cd4ce5f...@emc.com> you write:
>I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could prov
On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:10 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> putting up yuotube/vimeo tutorials on the wg's technical space would be
> a good thing for folk with spare time to do. i am sure we could arrange
> pointer space on the wg's web page.
Effective video presentations are _hard_. Otherwise they're T
Il giorno Sat, 27 Jul 2013 16:43:40 +0200
Jari Arkko ha scritto:
> Simon,
>
> > for your information, the Meetecho team is going to record five
> > tutorials on Sunday:
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/meeting/87/remote-participation.html#meetecho
> >
> > We have already provided a URL for those wh
> I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could
> provide short video overviews to help people understand the work.
> This includes newcomers and also interested observers, who may include
> implementers.
putting up yuotube/vimeo tutorials on the wg's technical space would be
a
In article <8ba59f96-a1de-460f-9a22-f2cd4ce5f...@emc.com> you write:
>I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could provide short
>video overviews to help people understand the work. This includes newcomers
>and
>also interested observers, who may include implementers. Can th
I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could provide short
video overviews to help people understand the work. This includes newcomers
and also interested observers, who may include implementers. Can that be
accommodated, maybe at a future meeting? I am happy to help if I
Well, actually, the IETF is a continuation of the Network Working Group, which
formed organically in late 1968. We're a few days short of the 45 year mark.
The NWG had open meetings, developed the layered architecture and published
RFCs.
Steve
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:07 AM
Simon,
> for your information, the Meetecho team is going to record five tutorials on
> Sunday:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/87/remote-participation.html#meetecho
>
> We have already provided a URL for those who want to remotely attend the IAOC
> Overview Session. If you think this might be
Hello Jary and all,
for your information, the Meetecho team is going to record five tutorials on
Sunday:
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/87/remote-participation.html#meetecho
We have already provided a URL for those who want to remotely attend the IAOC
Overview Session. If you think this might be
> From: Abdussalam Baryun
> no one in IETF have been participating for longer than 30 years
The IETF was a renaming of things that existed before the formal first IETF
(in January, 1986). It's a direct descendant of the first 'TCP Working Group'
meeting, held in Washington DC on March 12
At 23:17 26-07-2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
The second quote is valid in most cases, though we've had some
sessions at times that were designed more as education than
discussion. For instance, the IAB WCIT BOF last time.
The following will be discussed in the DMARC BoF:
"a mechanism for protecti
On 27 Jul 2013, at 02:20, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> If I had known this was taking place I might have made the trip to Berlin.
>
> I am very interested in the problem this tries to solve. I think it is the
> wrong way to go about it but I am interested in the problem.
>
> The case for hav
I agree with John that audio and other things would be useful, but Brian is
also correct that they do involve some work. Let us see what we can do on audio
for IETF-88. Past recordings of the tutorials are available at
http://www.ietf.org/edu/process-oriented-tutorials.html#newcomers.
The meeti
Thanks, I agree with your points/suggestions. I want to add;
a) Work/Participation in IETF is remotely to run its daily business.
b) Newcomers (how many we have per meeting); are always welcomed, no
one in IETF have been participating for longer than 30 years, so some
how could we say participant
On 7/26/13, SM wrote:
>
> The consensus of the IETF is that:
>
>"newcomers who attend Working Group meetings are encouraged to
> observe and absorb whatever material they can, but should not
> interfere with the ongoing process of the group"
This is bad for IETF, why no interfer from
On 7/26/13, John C Klensin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> For a newcomer or someone expecting to write I-Ds, some of the
> most important sessions at the IETF are the various Sunday
> afternoon tutorials and introductions. Many of them are (or
> should be) of as much interest to remote participants as to f2f
>
If I had known this was taking place I might have made the trip to Berlin.
I am very interested in the problem this tries to solve. I think it is the
wrong way to go about it but I am interested in the problem.
The case for having some sort of local name discovery mechanism is clear in
both the e
--On Saturday, July 27, 2013 00:37 +0100 Tim Chown
wrote:
>...
> While we/you can try to guess what the problems are, it may be
> better to surveymonkey those who registered as newcomers in a
> couple of weeks and ask them about their experience, whether
> they were aware of certain things, and
On 26 Jul 2013, at 23:31, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Friday, July 26, 2013 22:48 +0100 Tim Chown
> wrote:
>>
>> That means the charter agreed from the bashing of the draft
>> charter in the previous 40 minutes, not that a charter is
>> already agreed.
>
> If there is something to be bashed f
--On Friday, July 26, 2013 22:48 +0100 Tim Chown
wrote:
>...
>> On a similar note, according to its agenda, the core of the
>> DNS-SD Extensions BOF (dnssdext) is apparently
>> draft-lynn-sadnssd-requirements-01. The link from the agenda
>> page [1] yields a 404 error and attempts to look up
On 26 Jul 2013, at 21:48, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Friday, July 26, 2013 11:29 -0700 SM
> wrote:
>
>> POSH has not published a session agenda. However, the BoF is
>> listed on the meeting agenda. Is the BoF cancelled or will
>> this be one of those willful violations of IETF Best C
--On Friday, July 26, 2013 11:29 -0700 SM
wrote:
> POSH has not published a session agenda. However, the BoF is
> listed on the meeting agenda. Is the BoF cancelled or will
> this be one of those willful violations of IETF Best Current
> Practices?
On a similar note, according to its agenda,
Hello,
At 08:32 26-07-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
For this particular meeting all of the following seem relevant
to at least some remote participants:
[snip]
with subscribing to the 87all list. It should no involve a
treasure hunt at which only very experienced IETF participants
can be expec
Hi.
For a newcomer or someone expecting to write I-Ds, some of the
most important sessions at the IETF are the various Sunday
afternoon tutorials and introductions. Many of them are (or
should be) of as much interest to remote participants as to f2f
attendees. Until and unless a newcomer's tuto
25 matches
Mail list logo
