At 11:41 20/03/05 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
In a very real sense, we do not require IETF meeting scheduling requests to
obligate the requests' organizers to get any productive work done. If we
treated IETF meeting time as the scarce, valuable resource that it really is,
we would almost certainly
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:15:15 -0600, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> - I've been hearing continued discussion in the hallway of "X can't
> get into the US for the IETF due to immigration issues". If we're more
> successful finding sponsors outside the US than inside the US,
> sponsorship may be yet an
Paris is hosted (including the WLAN), so there is at least 6 months
until it is needed
(is Nortel providing the Vancouver WLAN?).
OK, on a side note... a quick look back at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/directory.html enties since 2000 makes
me think we're still pretty successful at finding ho
On 18 Mar 2005, at 12:33, Keith Moore wrote:
I find myself thinking that these are the most important things for
wireless:
1. advertise up front that wireless is an experimental, not production,
service.
For people with operational responsibilities, this (above) presents a
problem. But, see bel
I find myself thinking that these are the most important things for
wireless:
1. advertise up front that wireless is an experimental, not production,
service.
2. make the wired network production quality. make sure that there are
wires to all essential services (e.g. audiocast, chairs, pr
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:08:08 -0800 (PST), Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
> As if the community speaks with one mind...
there is a reason we call our consensus process 'rough'...
on the other hand, we supposedly have some practise at reaching it.
> *disclaimer* these notes are very old - and as all Ma
> right now, the folks doing the choosing pretty much have to guess what
> the folks doing the using want/need. open discussion could eliminate
> the guessing.
> if instead the community feels that reliability for a core set of
> functions is paramount, then new features can only be added after t
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 07:51:27 -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
> The fact that
> they are considered 'emergency' at this point shows that in fact people do
> expect new features from the equipment,
it shows that SOME people decided to add new features.
it does not show that the network really needed t
On Mar 17 2005, at 19:40 Uhr, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
they could have broken out the emergency AP's and provided worse
coverage to fewer areas than we had last week. It would have been
better than nothing, but it would _not_ have been better than what we
got.
Actually, for those of us who had
On Thursday, March 17, 2005 07:51:27 AM -0800 Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
FWIW: Those 350s were provided after a similar bad experience specifically
so there would be consistent and stable equipment available. The fact that
they are considered 'emergency' at this point shows that in fact
Odonoghue, Karen F wrote:
- We did not deploy anything new or experimental. We
deployed what we had available. In the case of the
wireless, the alternative was about a dozen Cisco 350s
the secretariat had stashed away in case of emergency.
FWIW: Those 350s were provided after a similar bad ex
On Mar 16 2005, at 19:33 Uhr, Dave Crocker wrote:
Cheap and easy travel and lodging, for diverse participation
I wouldn't want to completely rule out the US that quickly...
Gruesse, Carsten (who has had to stand in for a colleague with a Sri
Lanka passport on 2 out of 3 IETFs recently)
__
On Mar 16, 2005, at 10:36, Dave Crocker wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:12:59 -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> how much would it cost us to have our own equipment?
>
Shouldn't the question of _which_ equipment to buy come first ?
That will
pretty much
determine the price.
indeed. my questi
At 11:12 AM -0500 3/16/05, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> how much would it cost us to have our own equipment?
Shouldn't the question of _which_ equipment to buy come first ? That
will pretty much
determine the price.
I know that the volunteer teams have some strong opinions on this, as
I have heard
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:12:59 -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> > how much would it cost us to have our own equipment?
> >
> Shouldn't the question of _which_ equipment to buy come first ? That will
> pretty much
> determine the price.
indeed. my question about cost was meant as the 'bottom lin
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:39:54 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> But what can, and IMHO
>
> should be, open is the set of technical and logistical criteria
> involved in site selection.
What are the primary goals, in defining those criteria?
That is, what do we want to have, once we have satisf
Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organización: IBM
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:39:54 +0100
> Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: "ietf@ietf.org"
> Asunto: Site selection [Re: reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wirel
Jordi,
In my opinion we need a 200% open process to qualify if a sponsor and venue
are acceptable or not. I'm sure Brian will heard us on this ;-)
Since site selection involves contract negotiations, I doubt if the
actual process can ever be even 100% open. But what can, and IMHO
should be, open is
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:30:07 -0800
Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:55:47 +0100, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
> > So, if we really want this production level network, we should pay people
> >
> > to do the work, and add the costs to the meeting fees. If not, we should
I did have a problem Friday morning before the session start. I got
an IP address, but couldn't even ping the router. The person next to
me was fine. Reboot and release/renew didn't help. I finally walked
to a different place to force a roam, and everything worked fine.
One data point.
On Tu
Hi Dennis,
I guess is a big combination of issues, but not having a sponsor is not
exactly correct. I know several people tried to sponsor IETF, and have been
waiting for long time.
I'm biased here, obviously, but I offered myself for Madrid since summer
2001. Only after the Vienna one, they visi
> For me getting the equipment, or even knowing what equipment with more than
> one week, is a matter of planning. Making sure that you can make some
> staging, access the venue earlier, and even more resources is also planning
> in my opinion.
So what you are saying is that the people who are cur
As I wrote this it got longer and longer, so the abridged version is:
- We had problems on Monday, but we believed the wlan to
be operational (albeit without IPv6) with a few obscure
problem reports from Tuesday onward. If people were
I mostly had no problems from Tuesday onwards with one excepti
One thing I have heard from the trenches is that the WLAN would be a
lot easier to set up and debug if
- the IETF owned its own base stations
- and these were selected for their functionality for supporting large meetings
with
lots of RFI (i.e., as opposed to having to take whatever the sponsors
Title: Re:reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless
I
would contend that it isn't a planning issue as much as a resource issue.
We had
a mailing list to discuss planning. What we lacked was
resources
including time, equipment, and facilities. This is
always going to be an issue
as
On Mar 15, 2005, at 9:08, Odonoghue, Karen F CIV B35-Branch wrote:
I distinctly remember
sitting in the health club hot tub at the end of IETF58 swearing
I would never do the wireless again.
well... call me old fashioned - I appreciate those good
folks who go forth and try and give us an env
Title: reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless
Folks,
After a few days of decompressing, I have been considering
what to say that is helpful without unnecessarily prolonging
this conversation. I have been involved in the delivery of
wireless for six IETF meetings (#s 46, 56
27 matches
Mail list logo
