Subject: Re:reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless

From: Dennis Fazio <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:19:00 -0600

--On March 15, 2005 09:46:49 PM +0100 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

[...]
> If the meetings are planned much more ahead, there will be more resources,
> and even probably will not need for volunteers, because will be possible to
> find a host.

I'll also have to dispute that a lack of planning was a significant factor in 
the wireless difficulties. I've been involved in building every Minneapolis 
IETF (44, 50, 53, 58, and now 62) and there have been differing qualities in 
planning efforts. Except for the difficulty in getting base stations, 
planning efforts this time were more than adequate in spite of the short lead 
time available.

And no matter how far ahead one tries to plan, the secretariat is just not 
always able to find sponsors, especially in the recent economic times.

In Minneapolis, because of the good hotel infrastructure built up over the 
past few years and the extensive support with local individual volunteers and 
organizations (University of Minnesota, Onvoy), it's pretty easy now to put a 
network together here. The volunteer crew could easily put a reliable 
production-quality net together with gigabit access and backup links on 6 
weeks notice if necessary.

If we want a true guaranteed professional production network, then we will 
have to contract that to an experienced outfit who can bring in their own 
familiar equipment and give contractural accountability of service. So far, 
we have not been willing to fund that, so, you get the best that individual 
sponsors or groups of volunteers can do, and mostly, that's not bad.

The wired net and upstream systems were indeed professional and production 
quality and did their job well. High-density, high-load radio stuff is just a 
pain and maybe will always be; I don't know.

But it is interesting to note that at one time we were perfectly capable of 
conducting productive working group meetings and created great bunches of 
very good Internet protocols at them without large numbers of open laptops on 
our knees. But, the world changes and I guess that's not possible any more.

-- 
Dennis Fazio
Local Green Dot

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:55:47 +0100

Well, let's see:

The problem: We want a network that is available from Sunday morning until
  Friday afternoon, with no interruptions, supports 1500 users in parallel
  using RF technology, supports the all latest protocols and services, with a
  help desk available to solve problems for the most bizarre combinations of
  hardware, OS and software.

The solution: We build a network starting on Friday afternoon, with
  volunteers doing the installation and equipment that is borrowed from various
  sources, with no advance testing.

Does anybody on this list seriously think that this solution would be
acceptable to any of his customers?  Of course not, they'd probably still
be laughing while you are out on the street looking for a new job.

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
accept that the volunteers are doing their best but that we will not have
a perfect network.

Next problem, please.

Henk (who was, in general, quite happy with the network)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look here junior, don't you be so happy.
And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad.                 (Tom Verlaine)

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:02:30 +0100

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 visited the venue. Is a long time to
plan ahead ;-)

Is not acceptable to me to say "Madrid venue is the best we have ever seen"
(obviously, as is the bigger hotel in Europe, just 2 years old, and offers
free IPv6 in every guest room), "but is not downtown", and then have one
year later a meeting in San Diego which is not either downtown, more
expensive, less efficient transport (only taxi, while in Madrid taxi is
cheaper and there are two bus lines in front of the hotel), etc.

We need to balance if we prefer a sponsor, planned ahead, even if we need to
take a taxi or organize shuttles, as we offered for Madrid.

Now even if I should have throw away the towel, already working for one more
hosted in Barcelona.

One year ago I also have realized that several organizations in Latin
America are willing to sponsor it, in several big cities, and I'm working
with them towards making this happening.

So I will say that "not accepting" a sponsor is more correct in this case
than "not having" a sponsor.

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 ;-)

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Dennis Fazio <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:19:00 -0600
> Para: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re:reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless
> 

************************************
Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Call for Papers and information available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:30:07 -0800

>  accept that the volunteers are doing their best but that we will not have

we are told the planning effort was fine.  and i'll bet the competence of the folks doing the work was fine also.

that leaves equipment.

how much would it cost us to have our own equipment?

  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:12:59 -0500

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:30:07 -0800
> 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 their venting.

Paris is hosted (including the WLAN), so there is at least 6 months until it is needed
(is Nortel providing the Vancouver WLAN?).

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:39:54 +0100

Jordi,

> 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 the set of technical and logistical criteria
involved in site selection. Then we have to trust the IAD (not the
Chair, in future) to apply those criteria.

Writing the draft defining those criteria is distinct from
updating the draft on hosting requirements, I think, and needs
an editor.... Of course I would be suspicious if one of the
criteria stated "Must take place in the capital of Spain" :-)

    Brian

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:54:22 +0100

Hi Brian,

That's a challenge I guess ! It happens to me when talking too much ;-)

I can work on this, possibly could have something for a first draft by 10th
of April, but as you said, it will be nice if there is at least one more
co-author. Otherwise for sure Madrid will be a requirement and LATAM another
one, which I'm not sure will be bad anyway :-)

Agree, I was not talking about contractual issues, which in any case could
be open in most of the details, we should have nothing to hide, right ?

So we need a document which defines mainly:
1) Logistic criteria for the venue selection
2) Technical criteria for the venue selection
3) Logistic contingencies
4) Technical contingencies
5) Timing/planning

Possibly I'm missing some other issues ... Inputs welcome !

I will also take a look and try to update the hosting requirements one.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
> Organización: IBM
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:39:54 +0100
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> CC: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Site selection [Re: reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless]
> 
> Jordi,
>

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Mar 2005 17:51:38 +0000

> > 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 ;-)
> 
> actual process can ever be even 100% open.

i think that transparency serves us all.  can we have it be that the
existence of each "bid" is made public?  i'd like to be able to visit
the ietf web site and find out how many times jordi (and others) have
offered to host, and in which cities in which years.  naturally the
terms, and the reason for selection/nonselection, can't be transparent;
but in my sunshine-law way of looking at things, everything that can
be opened, should be opened.
-- 
Paul Vixie

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:33:07 -0800

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:39:54 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>  But what can, and IMHO
>  involved in site selection.

What are the primary goals, in defining those criteria?

That is, what do we want to have, once we have satisfied the requirements?

Some simplistic thoughts:

1. Cheap and easy travel and lodging, for diverse participation

2. Highly reliable Internet access for all attendees

3. ...?

  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:36:07 -0800

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:12:59 -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> >  how much would it cost us to have our own equipment?
> >

indeed. my question about cost was meant as the 'bottom line' information needed.

and before equipment choices comes the question of what services we need from all this.

for example, one posting said we require the latest, spiffiest features.  i think that is not correct.  we need highly reliable service possible, given the usage patterns.  newness and spiffiness are, i suspect, negatives.

  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker

---

From: "Steve Silverman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:43:26 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Marshall
> Eubanks
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 11:13 AM
> To: Dave Crocker; Henk Uijterwaal; Dennis Fazio; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless
>
>
What is the opinion of the volunteer teams on equipment?

One options would be to try to get a preferred vendor to supply some
equipment
in return for being able to claim that their equipment is used by the
IETF.

If I was a volunteer, I would certainly not like having to use
different equipment each time. There is a certain learning curve with
a lot of pressure for immediate results.

Steve Silverman

> This message was passed through
> [email-masked], which is a sublist of
> [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed. Decisions on
> what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML
> Administrator ([email-masked]).
>

---

From: Dave Singer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:47:55 -0800

>(is Nortel providing the Vancouver WLAN?).

There is also the minor question of how often one would want to 
replace/upgrade it.

(But I do agree, some makes of 802.11 equipment seem much more 
susceptible to less-than-perfect conditions than others).
-- 
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime

---

From: Dennis Fazio <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:23:03 -0600

> in return for being able to claim that their equipment is used by the

I think most would say, "something that is mainstream and I'm familiar with 
since I only have two days to get it working." Cisco and Juniper, on the 
router/switch side, have been consistently generous in this regard and there 
has been a general consistency and reliability on the backbone and wired 
network.

On the wireless side, that is an industry and technology that is still 
evolving and changing every 6 months, it seems, with new access and security 
standards and new system management varieties still coming onto the market.

I'm not a wireless expert, but it seems for something like an IETF meeting, 
you need industrial-strength managed systems, which means pricey. Standard 
independent APs without coordinated power management, tools for rogue AP 
detection, etc. would have a difficult time in such an assignment.

I'm not sure there would be many wireless vendors who would be eager to step 
up to the plate to "show off" their otherwise-fine new product in a 
non-typical, high-stress environment where less-than-satisfactory performance 
is a high probability. Also, I wouldn't overestimate the sales benefit of 
such a sponsorship among their typical business customer base who are more 
likely than not to respond, "IETF? What's that?"

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:19:54 -0800

On Mar 16, 2005, at 10:36, Dave Crocker wrote:

>>   Shouldn't the question of _which_ equipment to buy come first ? 
>> That will
>>   pretty much
>>   determine the price.
>
> for example, one posting said we require the latest, spiffiest 
> features.  i think that is not correct.  we need highly reliable 
> service possible, given the usage patterns.  newness and spiffiness 
> are, i suspect, negatives.

	that would have been my post....  i think the point was mangled...
	in the past, the IETF mtgs were targeted to discussion - network
	access was nice and occasionally highly operationally oriented
	(remembering when we switched from BGP3 to BGP-4 en-mass
	in the terminal room.... )
	BUT ... one in four mtgs each year were for live testing, the Interop
	event.  With the demise of Interop as a viable place for 
testing/debugging,
	much of this has reverted to the IETF network(s)....

	I'm of the opinion that if we need "highly reliable service" that such 
is
	available from a number of suppliers on a pay for use basis.
	
	I'd argue that having an IETF traveling circus is a not where i'd want 
to
	spend my money ....  unless the network was ammenable to kicking
	the tyres on new stuff.  We -NEED- to eat our own dogfood.   Loaner 
kit,
	eager volunteers, latest & greatest code.... all good stuff.... esp if 
we
	can make it work.  if not, then we have the chance to learn.

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 23:21:19 +0100

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)

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:01:28 +0100

> be opened, should be opened.

I don't think we could do that retrospectively, since as far as I can
judge these discussions have mainly been presumed confidential.

But when Jordi's (thanks, Jordi) document on site selection criteria
is agreed, so that reasonably objective criteria are in place, we could
certainly start a practice of asking people who propose sites whether
that information can be made public.

     Brian

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:15:15 -0600

> (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 hosts for IETFs 
OUTSIDE the US, but about 50-percent successful at finding hosts 
INSIDE the US, and especially in Minneapolis...

IETF 47 - Adelaide, hosted by Connect.com.au
IETF 48 - Pittsburg, hosted by Marconi Systems
IETF 49 - San Diego, hosted by Cisco and Qualcomm
IETF 50 - Minneapolis, hosted by Lucent Technologies
IETF 51 - London, hosted by BT Exact
IETF 52 - Salt Lake City, hosted by Novell
IETF 53 - Minneapolis, hosted by Cable and Wireless
IETF 54 - Yokohama, hosted by Fujitsu and The WIDE Project
IETF 55 - Atlanta, hosted by Nokia
*** IETF 56 - San Francisco, not hosted ***
IETF 57 - Vienna, hosted by Telecom Austria
*** IETF 58 - Minneapolis, not hosted ***
IETF 59 - Seoul, hosted by KT/Korea Telecom and Samsung
*** IETF 60 - San Diego, not hosted ***
IETF 61 - Washington, DC, hosted by Alcatel
*** IETF 62 - Minneapolis, not hosted ***
IETF 63 - Paris, hosted by France Telecom

I remember wondering what was happening when IETF 56 was unhosted, but 
hadn't thought about the topic since then (contrary to what my wife 
and boss believe, I do NOT attend IETFs primarily for the T-shirts).

- 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 another reason to move to a "two IETFs/year 
outside the US" model.

FWIW, I found Carsten's note terrifying, but can't argue accuracy with 
him:

> Right now, if you need significant discussion in a WG, it seems you
> have to schedule an interim.

It seems that we are pleased about every aspect of lower attendance at 
IETF 62 EXCEPT the financial impact of lower registrations - fewer 
tourists, participants who can actually get into the rooms to discuss 
their drafts (remember Coya ejecting participants in San Diego so the 
fire marshals wouldn't have to? remember draft authors who couldn't 
crowd-surf into the rooms at all?), shorter trips to microphones, 
easier to ambush people in the halls ... but having good in/out 
connectivity is critical if we're inviting people to participate 
remotely via audiocast/jabber.

- So - I'm wondering; have we gotten to the point where we HAVE to 
have a meeting sponsor, who can provide a non-volunteer terminal 
room/WLAN, in order to get work done?

See you guys in Paris,

Spencer

p.s. I was properly chastened by Brett's

> Maybe you have an answer.  But have you been on even one of the NOC
> teams for IETF 58 through 62?  If no -> Mod down 20 points, then
> re-evaluate.

Is there a place to sign up, out of curiosity?

p.p.s. I started being a repeat-offender note-taker in Yokohama, where 
sitting at the front as scribe was the easiest way to be sure I'd have 
laptop power :-) - if we DO go off to the land of "reliable 
connectivity = cable drops", this might make it easier to recruit 
scribes, and especially jabber scribes - I always scribe and never 
jabber-scribe because I can't spend time dorking with server 
connectivity in working groups I care about!

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:44:32 -0800

> INSIDE the US, and especially in Minneapolis...

I'm not privy to exactly how the secretariat decides on the venues,
but I suspect that the relationship may be the reverse. I.e.,
that we have meetings in Minneapolis when we don't get an
offer of a host somewhere else.

-Ekr

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:23:09 -0500

>offer of a host somewhere else.

One aspect was that the original Minneapolis deal was for several 
meetings -- it was a good deal, so they accepted it, but we had to go 
back.  The secretariat also found the hotel very good to work with, as 
I recall.

		--Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:41:12 -0800

> >  have to schedule an interim.

Using the Seoul IETF as an exemplar, attendance by "regular contributors" was 
quite poor.  We need to worry not just about overall attendance, but 
attendance by people who get the work done.

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 require more up-front and "objectives-based" 
planning.  I suspect that would also lead to fewer meeting slots, which might 
allow for more time available to the groups that do want to have significant 
discussion.

  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:39:10 +0000

>allow for more time available to the groups that do want to have significant

[Merely observing, not proposing anything...]

If your last point is true, it suggests a model more like the W3C technical 
plenary, in which the general format is an all-day plenary in the middle of 
the week, preceded and followed by parallel 2-day (sometimes 1-day) working 
group sessions for those WGs with face-to-face work to conduct.  Frequent 
coffee breaks and on-site lunches provide opportunity for informal cross-WG 
interactions. (This seems to work well for W3C, but that doesn't 
necessarily translate to IETF modi operandi, with their far grater emphasis 
on  core business conducted in email.)  The face-to-face meetings are 
commonly supported by IRC for recording and remote participants.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:36:41 -0600

> If your last point is true, it suggests a model more like the W3C 
> technical plenary, in which the general format is an all-day plenary 
> in the middle of the week, preceded and followed by parallel 2-day 
> (sometimes 1-day) working group sessions for those WGs with 
> face-to-face work to conduct.  Frequent coffee breaks and on-site 
> lunches provide opportunity for informal cross-WG interactions. 
> (This seems to work well for W3C, but that doesn't necessarily 
> translate to IETF modi operandi, with their far grater emphasis on 
> core business conducted in email.)  The face-to-face meetings are 

Also merely observing, not proposing anything...

When we are not devoting the majority of our plenary time to process 
reform or administrative restructuring, we actually do have technical 
discussions that can (and should) involve much of the community. I 
don't know if having a full-day technical plenary would translate to 
IETF mode, but another choice might be a half-day technical plenary 
mid-week.

And, having said this ... one significant difference between the IETF 
model and the IEEE model (as of two years ago, I haven't been 
attending recently) is that IEEE working groups usually rev documents 
once or twice while they are together face-to-face, one idea being to 
make sure that we are all on the same page while we can still have 
ANOTHER high-bandwidth exchange to resolve issues that came up with a 
new revision.

Some working groups do this in spite of the ID blackout period (by 
posting URLs to working group mailing lists), but the ID blackout 
period does seem to say we're not terribly interested in making sure 
that we have "agreement in the room", before we try to achieve 
"consensus on the mailing list".

I know there are lots of working groups that meet once during an IETF 
week, but most of the SIP community working groups meet twice, and at 
this IETF, the meeting pairs were closely grouped (SIP and SIMPLE were 
Monday-Tuesday, SIPPING was Thursday-Friday). I wish we had a little 
more hang time to talk during the week, and maybe work things out 
before an end-of-week slot.

Spencer

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:15:09 -0500

Two observations, merely historical, rather than suggestions for
the present or future...

--On Monday, 21 March, 2005 06:36 -0600 Spencer Dawkins
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> When we are not devoting the majority of our plenary time to
> process reform or administrative restructuring, we actually do
> have technical discussions that can (and should) involve much
> of the community. I don't know if having a full-day technical
> plenary would translate to IETF mode, but another choice might
> be a half-day technical plenary mid-week.

FWIW, we used to hold one or two technical plenary sessions
during IETF meetings, typically in daytime slots and typically
separate from the "throw ripe fruit at the IESG" session (which
used to be a lot less passive than it has been in recent years).
They were gradually phased out in favor of more WG sessions.

> And, having said this ... one significant difference between
> the IETF model and the IEEE model (as of two years ago, I
> haven't been attending recently) is that IEEE working groups
> usually rev documents once or twice while they are together
> face-to-face, one idea being to make sure that we are all on
> the same page while we can still have ANOTHER high-bandwidth
> exchange to resolve issues that came up with a new revision.
> 
> Some working groups do this in spite of the ID blackout period
> (by posting URLs to working group mailing lists), but the ID
> blackout period does seem to say we're not terribly interested
> in making sure that we have "agreement in the room", before we
> try to achieve "consensus on the mailing list".

The ancient historical origin of the posting deadlines was
simply the fact that the secretariat could not simultaneously
get I-Ds posted and operate a meeting.  For some time, we had a
site, usually operated by volunteers on a rotating basis, to
which unedited updated drafts and other materials could be
posted immediately before and during the meeting only.  The
greater amount of IETF activity (number of WGs and attendance)
and more hostile environment today would probably require more
procedures and/or human involvement today, but the intent was to
be make to get late updates and during-meeting updates,
available on an almost immediate basis.   Perhaps we have lost
something by letting those mechanisms quietly atrophy.  Speaking
personally, I certainly see no problem with the "post URL to WG
mailing list" or even "post document to WG web page" approaches,
although it would be nice to have repositories available for
those who don't have ready access to places where documents can
be posted during IETF meetings.

> I know there are lots of working groups that meet once during
> an IETF week, but most of the SIP community working groups
> meet twice, and at this IETF, the meeting pairs were closely
> grouped (SIP and SIMPLE were Monday-Tuesday, SIPPING was
> Thursday-Friday). I wish we had a little more hang time to
> talk during the week, and maybe work things out before an
> end-of-week slot.

Even for those that meet only once, there are usually
opportunities for pre-session and post-session informal
discussions.  And those discussions -- among design or editing
teams or informal gatherings of participants -- are, as others
have observed, where a lot of our real work gets done, at least
at the level of fine details.

        john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:12:54 +0100

Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> we're still pretty successful at finding hosts for IETFs
 > OUTSIDE the US, but about 50-percent successful at finding
 > hosts INSIDE the US,

About right. People outside the US are often eager to host
us (although many of them say "never again" around 11:30a.m.
on the Friday :-). Inside the US, we have largely tapped out
the companies motivated to host us.

    Brian

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:38:19 +0100

Hummmm ... I don't think that's correct.

I mean, several people from outside US offered for years (not just me, I
talked with others), and the feeling was somehow "hostile". In general no
clearly documented "why not", so the percentage is probably not a good
measure !

Also, is true that, at least in Europe, finding a good venue (in terms of
the number of simultaneous meeting rooms with size for more than 1.300
people), is more difficult.

Also it seems that the cost of the meeting rooms comes for free in US (not
in Europe in general), while this is also true in Latin America, and I think
in Asia.

So there are several reasons for the statistics that we have ...

Of course, that means that we only get meetings outside US if someone is
persistent enough to get the IETF convinced before giving up ! So only if
there is a host, I guess.

Regards,
Jordi

> Fecha: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:12:54 +0100
> Para: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: Unhosted IETF meetings
> 
> Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>

---

From: Baker Fred <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:53:20 -0800

On Mar 21, 2005, at 7:38 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> I mean, several people from outside US offered for years (not just me, 
> I talked with others), and the feeling was somehow "hostile". In 
> general no clearly documented "why not", so the percentage is probably 
> not a good measure !

My information is a little dated, but may be relevant...

When I was chair, the secretariat mostly set these things up, and my 
role was more one of "advice and consent" than "specification". I might 
be told that there had been "several" proposals, they had investigated 
A and B in detail, and what would I think about those two? The 
considerations I brought to the party were varied:

  - the likelihood that key contributors would make the trip
  - the cost of the meeting
  - projected attendance
  - location
  - the people involved

and a number of other points.

Specifically, before agreeing to go to Adelaide in 2000, I sent an 
email to each working group chair and each author of a current internet 
draft (total of just shy of 700 people; this would be hard today, as a 
similar poll would go to ~3000 people based on the addresses in this 
morning's internet draft directory) in spring 1998 placing those 
questions in some detail, and I got quite a number of detailed 
responses. The notes indicated that employers tended to have a 
more-or-less fixed sum that they planned to spend on travel, and if the 
travel costs went up the number of people they sent would go down. Some 
working groups chose to not meet; they were working groups whose ADs 
told me they were frequently not meeting or were not being productive. 
I got some personal observations as well. One person from a Nordic 
country told me that there was no way he would subject his body to that 
number of hours in flight to get to Adelaide; another person from a 
Nordic country told me that if it was outside the US he would come no 
matter what. The big picture I got in fact correlated with reality when 
we could measure it - attendance would be smaller and some groups would 
not meet, but the meetings that occurred would be productive, and in 
general folks believed that they had a business reason to attend 
regardless of the location.

In that note, I not only asked about Adelaide, but asked about several 
other locations that were on the table at the time. Without naming 
them, I got very negative comments on the other locations, and not just 
from the US folks - worries about pick-pockets, the number of airports 
one has to go through to get to them, likelihood of being able to get a 
meal on schedule (which is a question of customs - many places in 
Europe a restaurant assumes that you don't enter the restaurant to eat 
and leave, but to enjoy the evening with your associates in the context 
of a meal, but which can often mean that evening meetings are difficult 
and even having two meetings in an afternoon can be difficult), etc.

I have also been known to do my own site surveys, mostly in Asia and 
the Pacific Rim. When a meeting in Seoul was originally proposed, the 
venue was different, and on a visit to the region the proposed host 
walked me through it. He thought of it as fairly expansive, and I think 
my response was a surprise to him. Basically, the room the plenary 
would have occurred in would have seated half the required number of 
people, and while there was a food court nearby, the proposal for a 
terminal room was a gaming facility a 5-10 minute hike away from the 
facility. The facility we actually used was, of course, far more 
suitable, no doubt due in part to the proposed host looking through 
more practical eyes at the facilities.

The note to prospective hosts is this: we're walking in with a group of 
perhaps 1200-1500 people, operating on a schedule. We need for 1500 
people to be able to walk out of a room, get food, and return in 90 or 
120 minutes around both lunch and dinner, we need to have a certain 
number of rooms that seat a certain number of people, we need hotels in 
walking distance or with convenient and inexpensive transit, we need 
serious wireless networks and connection to the Internet, and we have 
people coming from all over who need to arrive on a schedule within a 
budget and leave in a similar way. If that can't happen, it's not a 
suitable venue. Saying as much isn't "hostile", it is speaking plainly.

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:13:10 +0100

On Mar 21 2005, at 17:53 Uhr, Baker Fred wrote:

> worries about pick-pockets, the number of airports one has to go 
> through to get to them, likelihood of being able to get a meal on 
> schedule (which is a question of customs - many places in Europe a 
> restaurant assumes that you don't enter the restaurant to eat and 
> leave, but to enjoy the evening with your associates in the context of 
> a meal, but which can often mean that evening meetings are difficult 
> and even having two meetings in an afternoon can be difficult)

Don't forget North-Korean invasions imminent every minute now *).

(I've been to Paris recently, my wallet was stolen because I was 
stupid, and a total stranger picked up the discarded wallet -- money 
taken, but all cards etc. intact, tracked down my university, managed 
to contact me while I was visiting the Louvre, and personally brought 
the remains of wallet to my hotel room, which was quite a way from her 
commute.  I'm going to Paris again (and will be reasonably careful this 
time).)
(Did I mention that I do worry about the published cases of TSA 
thievery each time I'm going to the US...)

Gruesse, Carsten

*) You had to be there.  It was a comment that was made at the plenary 
before Seoul.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:01:24 +0100

[...]
> be posted during IETF meetings.

The capability to upload new document revs (and sub-revs, when named
with an added dot and letter - e.g., ...-03.a.txt) is provided by
the prototype WG status and draft overview pages available under
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ ...

	Henrik