Subject: IETF63 wireless

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:05:24 +0100

Just as a reminder to people, IETF63 will be a hosted meeting and
the host, France Telecom (with some partners) will be setting up
the network. I did talk with our host briefly during this week -
FT is very committed to making things work in Paris. But my point
is that each meeting is different - hosted or non-hosted, changes
in technology, etc. So it will always be a challenge.

    Brian

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:03:05 -0800

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:05:24 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>  each meeting is different - hosted or non-hosted, changes

Given the current state of our dependence on the wireless service, during an IETF, try imagine saying the same thing about cell phone service, or hotel room door key service, or...

We need to find a way for the core IETFF meeting to have Internet access service that demonstrates very high reliability, from the start of our using it, just like do for any other essential utility.  

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

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 12:22:55 -0500

> We need to find a way for the core IETFF meeting to have Internet
> access service that demonstrates very high reliability, from the start
> of our using it, just like do for any other essential utility.  

...and to do it all for zero cost.

actually I haven't attended an IETF meeting in the past several years
where I didn't get the impression that we'd be much more effective
at getting work done _without_ wireless access.   large rooms that are
full of people sitting down typing on laptops and not paying attention
to what is being said are not conducive to getting work done - even
among the people who are paying attention.  it further exacerbates the
phenomenon where meetings consist of highly scripted presentations 
rather than discussion time.  most people don't pay attention to the 
presentations because the information content is so low, so they use
their laptops to keep them occupied.

if we could get rid of wireless and powerpoint, we'd be much better off.

Keith

---

From: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:39:51 -0800 (PST)

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Given the current state of our dependence on the wireless service, 
> during an IETF, try imagine saying the same thing about cell phone 
> service, or hotel room door key service, or...
>
> We need to find a way for the core IETFF meeting to have Internet access 
> service that demonstrates very high reliability, from the start of our 
> using it, just like do for any other essential utility.

It hardly needs pointing out that IETF doesn't make special arrangements 
for telephone, electricity, water, air conditioning, etc.  They're 
expected to be adequate as part of the venue.

I don't know how many attendees at IETF 62 tried to use the hotel wireless 
Internet service, but I did, and it was terrible.  I purchased the 
week-long service on Sunday, and had to purchase it again several times 
during the week ("don't worry, we'll fix up the charging" said the front 
desk, and they did).  On Sunday all the protocols I needed worked (HTTP, 
IMAP, ssh, SIP, Kerberos, etc), but later in the week anything but HTTP 
was hit-or-miss (IMAP in particular never worked at all).  I considered 
complaining to the front desk ("your protocol isn't working, sir?") but it 
was easier just to go downstairs.

Unfortunately we seem to be quite a ways from having wireless Internet 
work as well as other utilities in the typical hotel.  Maybe we'll just 
have to go to the cafes ...

  - RL "Bob"

---

From: Baker Fred <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 12:36:13 -0600

On Mar 12, 2005, at 11:39 AM, RL 'Bob' Morgan wrote:
> I don't know how many attendees at IETF 62 tried to use the hotel 
> wireless Internet service, but I did, and it was terrible.  I 
> purchased the week-long service on Sunday, and had to purchase it 
> again several times during the week ("don't worry, we'll fix up the 
> charging" said the front desk, and they did).  On Sunday all the 
> protocols I needed worked (HTTP, IMAP, ssh, SIP, Kerberos, etc), but 
> later in the week anything but HTTP was hit-or-miss (IMAP in 
> particular never worked at all).  I considered complaining to the 
> front desk ("your protocol isn't working, sir?") but it was easier 
> just to go downstairs.

Interesting. I also purchased it for the week, and with the exception 
of one evening when I couldn't get through and went to the wired 
terminal room, the hotel service was the one that worked. Now, 
everything I did was over a VPN, so I didn't test some of the things 
you did, but I certainly had the traffic patterns of those applications 
within my encrypted data stream.

Something that could come out of this discussion that would be 
constructive and helpful might be a set of guidelines for hosts with 
respect to the network. I wonder if we could focus the thread in that 
direction?

What I think we have learned is that flash crowds impact the wireless 
strongly. We found that 802.11a was useful; I'm theorizing, but I would 
guess that has something to do with more capacity and less users. We 
found that 802.11g interacted poorly with 802.11b. Again, theorizing on 
the fly, I'm going to guess that the frequency collision and the fact 
that most people had 802.11b-only WiFi meant that the 802.11g users 
presented little more than a ddos. That can be fixed in two ways: do a 
better job of 802.11b AP placement, if that was the "other" issue, or 
have more of us buy 802.11b/g capable NICs. I think it would be wise if 
the did both - if I can say this without appearing to be casting 
aspersions on the IETF 62 network operation, let's encourage good 
network design, and also encourage IETF participants to bring 
802.11b//g cards.

Another issue may have been (Fred in theory mode again) with the DHCP 
service. I saw a number of cases where folks had trouble getting an 
address, or their address was changed a few moments after it came up, 
or they got one only to have it go away and not be replaced. That 
suggests that somehow the address assignment policy or the server 
software executing it had some problems.

The best bet, I think, would be for the IETF 62 team to put together a 
note (not to this list, but among the appropriate group) detailing the 
issues and making recommendations for future meetings.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:29:11 -0500

--On Saturday, 12 March, 2005 12:36 -0600 Baker Fred
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> constructive and helpful might be a set of guidelines for
> hosts with respect to the network. I wonder if we could focus
> the thread in that direction?

I agree that focus would be useful.  But another issue, and
maybe part of that one, is that we may need a stronger "if it
ain't broke don't fix it" attitude toward all of this.  I
understand that we had some "buyout resulting in unexpected
change of vendor" problems this time.  No one can avoid those
and certainly no one associated with the terminal room operation
can be blamed for them.  But we have run larger IETF meetings,
with presumably as many or more wireless users, in that hotel,
and not had nearly the problems of this week.  The "same hotel"
property indicates that we should not be having surprises with
building structure or layout either.

More generally, what most of us do when we are trying to
troubleshoot something that used to work better than it does now
is to ask "what changed" and hope we don't get a really complex
answer to that question.

This leads me to slightly different conclusions than Fred
reaches, with the understanding that I'm theorizing too, and
doing so with very little knowledge:

	* if we could run a pure and open 802.11b network
	without real problems a year and two years ago, maybe we
	should let the IEEE experiment with running a mixed
	802.11a/b/c environment with and without WEP and with
	and without 802.11x and we should skip it.   Our
	experience with Internet protocols at higher layers of
	the stack is that having lots of options for ways of
	doing something, intermixed in the same environment,
	often gets to be just too much to cope with under
	load... even if it works well in smaller-scale lab tests
	and ought to work in theory.   I'm not saying the mixed
	cases should not work, just that we don't need the added
	debugging excitement of having developers fly in (much
	as I appreciate their being willing to do that). The
	complex cases and interactions are IEEE 802's dogfood;
	we don't need to eat it for them.

	* if we need some of the more advanced features, let's
	pick one feature set and switch to it.   That would be
	inconvenient, but we have done it before and it worked
	for us.   I'm presumably not the only one who ended up
	with a souvenir FH (rather than DS) card to work at a
	meeting or two: it is now in the box next to my token
	ring adapter: I don't think either is likely to get a
	lot of future use, but so it goes.  If 802.11g and
	802.11x are the right way to go, let's just do it...
	even though, with a Centrino-equipped machine, I've
	learned to rather enjoy not carrying cards around.

>...
> Another issue may have been (Fred in theory mode again) with
> the DHCP service. I saw a number of cases where folks had
> trouble getting an address, or their address was changed a few
> moments after it came up, or they got one only to have it go
> away and not be replaced. That suggests that somehow the
> address assignment policy or the server software executing it
> had some problems.

I observed this too, along with spontaneous disconnects that
could not be attributed to the wireless setup (along with many
that could).   Now DHCP _is_ our dogfood and, if we can't find
implementations that work in a satisfactory way under heavy
load, I have to hope that someone is wondering about where the
protocols or their specifications might be weaker than they
should be.  But, again, since that basically worked a year or
more ago, we may also need to ask whether we are "modernizing"
more than is desirable in the sort of production/ support
environments that the wireless now represents for IETF.

> The best bet, I think, would be for the IETF 62 team to put
> together a note (not to this list, but among the appropriate
> group) detailing the issues and making recommendations for
> future meetings.

Concur.
   john

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 09:09:20 +0100

I'm seeing a lot of confusion in this thread.

In the past, we have had real problems with wireless.
802.11 implementations are too easy to confuse by stations with random 
settings, we have seen our share of stations that switched to 
ad-hoc/IBSS mode when there were connection problems, drawing other 
stations into their little disconnected bubbles as well.
I'm not sure we had this problem this time.
The base stations at IETF62 worked quite well, the signal was fine 
almost everywhere, and more people had configured their systems not to 
start ad-hoc networks (and not to join them).
I haven't even seen a rogue DHCP server this time.

To stamp out one urban legend in the making: 802.11b and 802.11g 
interoperate really well (if configured correctly on the APs); I'm 
don't think any of the effects I have seen can be explained by the 
increased presence of .11g stations or the ability of the APs to use 
higher rates with them.

.11a is welcome as there is lots more spectrum (and the decreased range 
also helps to reduce interference).  Again, no problem at all; there is 
no way a .11a network can disturb a .11b/g one (unless the station 
implementation is confused; in this case it should suffice to simply 
switch off .11a on the station, or .11b/g for that matter).

So, applying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it": The wireless part of 
the wireless network was fine, dont' try to "fix" it.

The main problem we had seemed to be one of too much intelligence in 
the infrastructure connecting the APs.
A situation where ARP works without fail but IP packets don't get 
through is not a problem with the wireless part.

It is sure nice to have an infrastructure that catches rogue DHCP 
servers, localizes/caches ARP traffic etc.
It is even nicer, though, when the infrastructure just works.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:15:16 -0800

> >  Something that could come out of this discussion that would be
> >  constructive and helpful might be a set of guidelines for
> >  hosts with respect to the network...
> >
>  ain't broke don't fix it" attitude toward all of this. 

Intending only to build on Fred's and John's constructive comments:

My reference to the IETF wireless as a 'utility' is in terms of both the maturity of the core technology (and its operations) as well as the role it now plays in the IETF meeting.  

By viewing this service as needing to be a utility -- and, yes, realizing that it doesn't come to us automatically, like electricity or air-con -- then we should take the (extra) steps necessary to ensure that it works reliably.  That is less a question of individual skill than it is of being clear about our group requirements and our process of satisfying them.  

Some of the problems we have come from experimentation.  Yet this is not a service that should be an experiment.

Some of the problems we have come from business transitions (like a vendor being bought or going out of business) yet these are not sudden surprisises, so they can be attended to and protected against.

This is most definitely not a matter of blaming or criticizing anyone. Rather it is a matter of our deciding that this must be treated a certain way and then ensuring that we set up a process to ensure it, where that process does not overburden the folks doing the work. 

>   The "same hotel"

exactly.

>  is to ask "what changed" and hope we don't get a really complex

yup.

>  and without 802.11x and we should skip it...
>
>  pick one feature set and switch to it...
>
>   Now DHCP _is_ our dogfood and, if we can't find
>  more ago, we may also need to ask whether we are "modernizing"...

I don't have an opinion about the particulars of these two points, but it is clear to me that they represent the style of thinking that is needed here.

> >  The best bet, I think, would be for the IETF 62 team to put
> >  together a note (not to this list, but among the appropriate
> >  group) detailing the issues and making recommendations for
> >  future meetings.
> >
>  Concur.

yes, but I think it would be better to add comments from the folks who delivered earlier, less problematic nets, and maybe formulate a requirements or planning document, for future use.

  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:47:05 -0800 (PST)

I think it is also worth pointing out that:

- In certain building enviorments, this technology simply does not
  scale to hundreds of users, unless both the access point and the
  client software cooperate. Given that we have a variety of clients,
  this isn't going to change any time soon. (I'll let the NOC people
  explain this in more detail, but let's give them a few days to rest
  first).

- There were lots of Ethernet drops in the terminal room that could
  be used as a fallback solution. And the hotel's own network and
  even phonelines could have been used. I know it's not ideal or
  convinenient, but sometimes one has to make do.

Simply saying that a network which is built by volunteers (or by anyone
else for that matter) MUST be reliable is just naive. It's a bit like
saying operating systems and other software must be bug free. Keep in
mind that the people who spend their time doing this have lots of
experience, but they, and by extension we the IETF, learn new lessons
every time. That can't be a bad thing.

The hot water did fail in Huston, but that was many IETFs ago :-)

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Academic Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:02:00 -0500

Since I have received a couple of notes about 802.11a/b/g
specifics and relationships since posting my note, I want to
reinforce one of Dave's points...

--On Sunday, 13 March, 2005 13:15 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>   load, I have to hope that someone is wondering about where
>> the   protocols or their specifications might be weaker than
>> they   should be.  But, again, since that basically worked a
>> year or   more ago, we may also need to ask whether we are
>> "modernizing"...
> 
> I don't have an opinion about the particulars of these two
> points, but it is clear to me that they represent the style of
> thinking that is needed here.

It is precisely the style of thinking, and not the specifics,
that I was trying to suggest and illustrate.  

I am not an 802.11 expert.  I don't have a competent opinion as
to whether we are better off with or without 802.11a, or how
well 802.11g mixes with 802.11b.  I do know, from long and
painful experience, that complexity is often the enemy of smooth
and productive operation.  So the question I was trying to ask
was not, e.g., "does 802.11a would well in an 802.11b/g
environment" but rather, "does running both (or all three)
protocols add complexity that is increasing the risks of
failures".   If the answer to that is "no", fine, but the
question needs asking.  Similar comments apply to the various
security settings and protocols: whether or not they work is not
the issue; the important question is whether they add complexity
and opportunities for things to go wrong that we don't have the
time or energy to diagnose and fix in the middle of an IETF
meeting.  

Similar comments apply to shiny new notions about wireless
network management and the associated software.   Those may be
wonderful ideas.  They may even prevent problems that have
bothered us in the past (but that we have mostly learned to live
with).  But an IETF meeting is not the right place to
demonstrate or experiment with them: let's stay a bit behind the
bleeding edge of the technology and stick to things that work.
And, if we need to experiment, let's run the risks over _our_
stuff: I would be much more patient about problems (if any)
encountered running IPv6, or even some new DHCP options, than
problems encountered in 802.11 network management and suggest
that others should be as well.

And so on.

In case it isn't clear, I think Dave and I are in violent
agreement.

   john

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:32:34 -0800

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:02:00 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>  But an IETF meeting is not the right place to

Exactly.  Just as any other serious operations activity does.

That we use "volunteers" is frankly misleading.  We use experienced professionals. If they do not get the support they need, it is not for lack of availability.  And, in this case, we used a familiar venue in which things have worked well in the past.

So, this is not about basic skills or basic venue problems or basic issues with the technology.  

This is about a mindset and an organizational approach that does not leave those volunteers out on a limb with fragile equipment, or insufficient resources. It is about our approaching this as a utility service and ensuring that that is what is delivered.

Every time.

>  In case it isn't clear, I think Dave and I are in violent agreement.

yup.

  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:07:22 +0000

> every time. That can't be a bad thing.

Given each IETF has 1200-ish delegates, paying $500US, there is $600K dollars
to hand for IETF.

How about removing some of those ghastly fattening breakfast/break pastries
and replacing them with the more basic breads that always disappear first
in the morning, and using the savings towards wireless? :)   [Getting a
healthy breakfast/snack in the IETF corridors is a separate thread...:]

The wireless is something we will have a growing dependency on; there were
many sessions that had no jabber log due to the failing network, nor could
attendees in the room see comments from remote participants/friends.

Tim

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:10:20 +0000

> that I was trying to suggest and illustrate.  

Indeed; there seems to be some 'smart' Alcatel software that is doing
some ARP/DHCP trickery (at least the APs are Alcatel, so the favourite
for the s/w is the same vendor...).

Note that my problem all week was getting dis-associated from WLAN a
few times each hour, then seeing a long, if not indefinite, wait to get
a v4 address once re-associated.  And when I was associated RTTs to the
default router of commonly >1000ms.

We have had many IETFs with more attendees that have had excellent WLAN.

We need to understand why - documenting past experience - good or bad - 
has to only be helpful.

Tim

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 01:07:41 -0800 (PST)

Tim,

I was trying to say that:

- Wireless 802.11 is an emerging technology (read "not fully cooked yet")

- Wireless 802.11 is a wireless (read "radio) technology subject to
  complex patterns of interference and station interactions ("station"
  includes both basestations and clients)

So, it is not clear that throwing extra money at the problem would help,
unless we use it to redesign hotels and convention centers, creating a
series of carefully interconnected Faraday Cages. Remember that each
and every location has its own set of radio characteristics.

PS:
I suspect the food will not be a problem in Paris. I've never managed to
find bad food there outside of those American "restaurants" :-)

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:40:44 +0100

Keith Moore wrote:
...
> if we could get rid of wireless and powerpoint, we'd be much better off.

Personal opinion: disagree. Wireless is immensely useful to grab a
document, check something on another SDO's web site, and - yes -
for instant messaging (e.g. "we need you in here right now"). And some
people simply have to multitask in order to be able to attend IETF
meetings in the first place. The jabber scribing has become very
important for remote participants - this time we even had one Area
Director who was partcipating actively by jabber (and audio streaming).
The wireless glitches that interrupted jabber were a real problem
this time.

As for presentations, the fact that they vary in quality can't be
blamed on PPT. It should be blamed on the presenters, perhaps.

    Brian

---

From: Bruce Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:26:17 +0100 (CET)

> important for remote participants - this time we even had one Area

The IETF Meeting crew should look at supplying an additional 3 ethernet
and power drops per room, labelled 'chair', 'presenter' and '(jabber)
scribe' with the expectation that they be used accordingly.  These
functions, IMHO, are too important to leave to the possible
failures/overloads of the wireless or laptop battery life.

( Actually, I'm surprised that these are either not there or are not
  advertised already; it really reduces the number of complaints about
  'the wireless failed in the middle of my presentation' )

-- 
                             Bruce Campbell                            RIPE
                   Systems/Network Engineer                             NCC
                 www.ripe.net - PGP562C8B1B

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:38:08 +0000

> failures/overloads of the wireless or laptop battery life.

Power has, in my experience, always been available to the chair &
presenter, but I agree that Ethernet drops as a backstop against
wireless problems is a good idea.

Stewart

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:07:05 -0500

> document, check something on another SDO's web site, and - yes - for 
> instant messaging (e.g. "we need you in here right now"). And some 
> Director who was partcipating actively by jabber (and audio 
> streaming). The wireless glitches that interrupted jabber were a real 
> problem this time.

yes, yes, and yes.  but in many meetings it's hard to escape the 
impression that most of the people in the room aren't really paying 
more than say 10% of their attention to the meeting.

> blamed on PPT. It should be blamed on the presenters, perhaps.

not on PPT as opposed to any of the other similar tools that exist for 
that purpose.  but there's something about that medium that seems to 
encourage poor presentations - slides consisting of a small amount of 
text (because of the low resolution of the medium) rather than drawings 
(because it's easier to type in text on a keyboard than it is to draw 
drawings with a mouse or trackpad).  even with the old-style 
transparencies you could get more readable information on a page, and 
you could draw on them in real time.

and yet even this is beside the point.  maybe this is age setting in, 
but it seems to me we used to get a lot more work done when we used our 
meetings primarily for discussion rather than scheduling presentations 
for most or all of the meeting time.   these days some IETF WG meetings 
remind me of Apple's 1984 commercial...except that there's nobody to 
throw a hammer through the screen.

one benefit of our somewhat reduced attendance should be that we can 
get more work done by reverting to a more effective meeting style.  (or 
maybe our reduced attendance can be attributed to a widespread 
realization that we're not getting much work done in these meetings?)

Keith

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 05:34:33 -0800 (PST)

> blamed on PPT. It should be blamed on the presenters, perhaps.

Edward Tufte makes a very convincing case that in the case of
powerpoint, the medium certainly influences the message:

Summary of Tufte's views in Wired:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html
"At a minimum, a presentation format should do no harm. Yet the PowerPoint 
style routinely disrupts, dominates, and trivializes content. Thus PowerPoint 
presentations too often resemble a school play - very loud, very slow, and 
very simple."

Tufte's own site:
http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/powerpoint
(Worth checking out for the cartoon).

Next slide please ...

Regards,

Carl

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:30:25 +0100

On Mar 14 2005, at 14:07 Uhr, Keith Moore wrote:

> we used to get a lot more work done when we used our meetings 
> primarily for discussion rather than scheduling presentations for most 
> or all of the meeting time.

Yes.  WG chairs planning WG meetings, take note.

But then, one difference is that a lot more stuff happens outside the 
WG meetings (e.g., on the mailing list) than ten years ago.
People don't convene in one place to do original work but to decide on 
the fate of work that has been done elsewhere.
Also, the things being worked on are simply way more complex than ten 
years ago.
(The best WG meeting I ever attended was one where Tony Li hammered out 
most of the IP-over-firewire details in one session by asking the 
attending firewire experts all the right questions in one sitting.  I'm 
still wowed for life.  But you can't do this for something as complex 
as VPLS.)

All that would explain a tendency to mainly do "progress reports".
This does not (fully) explain why we don't discuss things as much any 
more, however.

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

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:49:48 -0500

> powerpoint, the medium certainly influences the message:

The NY Times ran an article on PowerPoint and the deterioration of
public speaking a few years ago, before Tufte started pointing
out the problem, and the article had a photoshopped photograph
of Martin Luther King standing in front of a projected slide.
The slide heading was "I Have a Dream," and the body of the slide
was "The dream consists of:" and a bulleted list of items.

However, while slides do tend to lead to a presentation-type
meeting format, I think there are other factors substantially
contributing to that, as well.

Melinda

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:54:48 -0500

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:07:05 -0500
> you could draw on them in real time.

Edward Tufte has some useful things to say about power point (alas, not free).

I personally think that it may be appropriate that most people are not paying attention
much of the time. In some WG, you may only really care about 1 or 2 drafts, and not at all 
about the details of the editorial progress of some other draft.

It seems to me that the best discussion happens when there is a review of
some open issue; maybe that could be promoted as "invited reviews" by the chairs
and given slots in the schedule. 

Of course the real work of any meeting happens in the corridor...

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:00:09 -0500

> about the details of the editorial progress of some other draft.

Whenever I see a presentation about the editorial progress of some 
draft, I find myself wondering - does _anybody_ here need to be 
watching this?  If someone has typed in this summary in PPT, couldn't 
it as easily be posted to the WG mailing list, or placed in the 
appendix of the I-D?

Face to face time seems better used for interaction.

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:16:39 -0500

> default router of commonly >1000ms.

Somehow I think that a few of the recommendations from the old "IETF 
Meeting Network Infrastructure Lore" document (as archived at  http://www.ietf.org/meetings/draft-ymbk-termroom.txt) need to be remembered:

  2.1 LAN Separation
	...
       There MUST NOT be firewalls, NATs, or other end-to-end breakage
       between the public LAN(s) and the global internet.

Assuming claims about what the 802.11 infrastructure was doing are 
correct, this provision was ignored and bad things happened.  
Stateful DHCP lease tracking was clearly causing more trouble than 
it's worth to the IETF network.

  3.13 Advanced Technology

       While it is tempting for a host/vendor to show off fancy
       technology at an IETF, this audience runs and uses the most
       arcane assortment of services, and is a very poor place to find
       out that your fancy new switch breaks when someone tries to run
       IPv42 through it.  Run a simple production network.  If one must
       run a technology demo, isolate it onto a separate network segment
       so that it is unable to interfere with the production network.

And maybe we need a new entry in:

   3.14 Failed Technology

       Two attempts have been made to use ATM LAN Emulation, aka LANE,
       as the primary backbone protocol connecting all ethernet switches
       and routers at IETF meetings.  Both attempts were disasters.
       Some have asserted that IETF traffic patterns are unusually
       unsuited to LANE.  You MUST NOT try to use LANE.

For the next couple of meetings, for 802.11b service we should go back to 
using conventional AP's connected via a conventional switched ethernet 
to a conventional dhcp server/relay and a conventional router or three.

This, at least, would allow the folks running the network to reboot any
and all components without forcing clients to reinitialize/rerun DHCP/etc.

							- Bill

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:17:46 +0200 (EET)

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Keith Moore wrote:
> Whenever I see a presentation about the editorial progress of some draft, I 
> find myself wondering - does _anybody_ here need to be watching this?  If 
> someone has typed in this summary in PPT, couldn't it as easily be posted to 
> the WG mailing list, or placed in the appendix of the I-D?
>

>From the top of my head, there are at least three kinds of 
presentations I see frequently at the IETFs:

  a) about 5 slides (or less) of background for the work, some major 
points, and maybe what has changed, on the last slide soliciting for 
input on certain specific topics,

  b) presentations where the document editor goes through all the open 
issues in the document (typically sent to the list beforehand, but no 
comments there), trying to use face-to-face time for discussion and 
gaining consensus on these items

  c) longer presentations which often result in focus getting lost.

Do you see other kinds?  Do you feel (at least) a) and b) are good use 
of our time?

In any case, what I've seen in a dozen or two IETF presentations I 
made during the last year or so that people don't usually jump up and 
start discussing, unless you have a contentious topic or phrase the 
questions really well (in a contentiuous manner)?  Or maybe it's just 
my bad presentations..

Maybe the audience is also not what it once used to be.. :)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:18:43 -0500

On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 06:26, Bruce Campbell wrote:
> scribe' with the expectation that they be used accordingly.  

Power was most assuredly not a problem at this IETF; the seating areas were 
amply provisioned.  And since I've been a WG chair, with perhaps one exception,
power at the chair's table has pretty much always been available.

But, yes, two or three network drops at the front of the room would help in the 
event that the wireless network melts down.

							- Bill

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:48:56 -0500

> Do you see other kinds?  Do you feel (at least) a) and b) are good use

I see a lot of those in category c), fewer in categories a) and b).
I do feel that a) and b) are reasonable ways to use meeting time.
 
> questions really well (in a contentiuous manner)?  Or maybe it's just 

There's something about the medium.  Not just the use of PPT, but the
setting ... a room with theater seating and the projection screen the 
most prominent feature.  There is always something on the screen 
even if the information content is low.  Some low-level noise from 
air conditioning or whatever.  It all seems to encourage people to sit 
down, shut up, and watch the screen rather than to engage in dialogue.  

When the speaker speaks for more than a few minutes without any 
interaction with other attendees, that reinforces the one-way nature
of the meeting.

The need for those "on the floor" to use a microphone (not just in 
large rooms and multicast rooms now, but in _every_ room) further
discourages interaction. (aren't there microphones these days that can
pick up what is being said without being held next to the speaker's
mouth?)

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:44:41 +0200

> contributing to that, as well.

Yes. Another factor is the ratio of work items to meeting time.
If there are 5-6 or even more items per a two-hour slot there
isn't really that much time left for each one... and there's some
constant overhead in every presentation to bring in the context.
Chairs taking care of all status things in their document status
report, minimizing unnecessary non-controversial things in
presentations, etc. help this of course. Interim meetings, private
meetings within a draft author group, etc. can help to increase
the amount of available discussion time. So does cutting unneccessary
work items, but that can be hard in a large group that is developing
widely used technology with a lot of demand for new functions.

> gaining consensus on these items

These are good use of meeting time. Note that type b) presentations range
from listing minor issues to major architectural questions.

>  c) longer presentations which often result in focus getting lost.

I did not quite see what the difference between c) and others were, except
that c) was longer and the focus got lost.  I'm not sure "longer" is 
necessarily
bad, particularly if the issues in question are central to the WG.

In my experience the main indicators of successful discussion are that it
(1) there's some controversy or problem left so that it makes sense to
have a presentation about it, and (2) the presenter and other participants
have done enough preparation so that they have a reasonable chance of
making progress on the issue.

> questions really well (in a contentiuous manner)?  Or maybe it's just 

I have sensed this too. Not sure why.

--Jari

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:24:30 -0800 (PST)

> more than say 10% of their attention to the meeting.

I completely agree with this assessment, having made it and gotten angry about
it myself. However, I recall reaching this conclusion at the first IETF I
attended - St. Louis, circa 1990. Recall the state of laptops at the time -
wireless connectivity didn't enter into it.

The reality is that a fair number of the people who attend our meetings do not
participate in any meaningful way. It was true 15 years ago and it is true now.
The distaction of choice may have changed, but that's about it. And IMO
the benefits of wireless connectivity to thhose who do participate are
well worth it.

> maybe this is age setting in,

The only significant change I've noticed over time is that since the dot-bust
we no longer seem to attact nearly as many lookee loos. For a while there you
had a room where the majority of the overly large audience clearly didn't have
a clue what was being discussed, irrespective of whether or not they were
actually paying attention to what's going on.

The past two meetings I've been to (San Diego and Minneapolis) have to some
extent gotten us back to the way things used to be. But excluding the tourists
of the recent past I don't see any significant change in the amount of
attention people are paying to things.

> realization that we're not getting much work done in these meetings?)

There was a big change in the overall tone of the meeting this time. But it had
to do with the audio streaming and the need for everyone to use a microphone.
This plus the absence of microphones on stands created a flow control problem
we're unaccustomed to.

There were quite a few occasions where I noticed someone start to say
something, consider the microphone issue, and simply give up. Of course it is
impossible to know whether any of the comments they might otherwise have made
would actually have been useful, but the fact remains it has changed the scope
of participation materially.

Someone in another message suggested that better microphone technology is the
answer. Speaking as a someone with a fair amount of experience in this area,
there are effective solutions (for the smaller rooms at least) but they tend to
be expensive. Less expensive solutions are possible, but they tend to require
manual adjustment.

The ability for people to participate remotely was incredibly useful, however,
and it isn't something I would want to lose. I would therefore suggest that:

(1) We continue to stream all the sessions.
(2) One or two (depending on the room size) microphone stands be added to
    the "standard" setup. This should avoid wasting time fumbling for
    the wireless mic.
(3) We experiment with micing the entire room in one or two of the smaller
    meeting rooms the next time around.

				Ned

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:54:35 -0800 (PST)

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:

> This is about a mindset and an organizational approach that does not 
> leave those volunteers out on a limb with fragile equipment, or 
> insufficient resources. It is about our approaching this as a utility 
> service and ensuring that that is what is delivered.

So, how much are you(ietf attendees in general) willing to pay over and 
above the current cost of the meeting fee for the wireless service you 
want?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Joel Jaeggli  	       Unix Consulting 	       [email-masked] 
GPG Key Fingerprint:     5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 04:54:19 +1100

I believe that the concept that "meeting registration fees must cover all 
IETF suport costs" is, a best,  an historical statement (and not even 
correct in that context). With the changes with the IASA activity I believe 
we have the opportunity to get this right, rather than muddling around 
attempting to do something on the cheap every time that works sometimes and 
clearly does not work other times (such as last week). The IETF should 
state clearly what it needs to get its work done. Yes, its likely that ISOC 
will need to contribute more than it has done so historically to meet this 
objective of supporting financially what is required by the IETF to get the 
work done. But that's what ISOC has already done when it stood up and said 
"we are prepared to support the IETF to get its work done".

So perhaps the real question is "what is required to be able to set up a 
reliable and working network 3 times a year that meets the connectivity 
needs of IETF attendees", and work onward from there, rather than a 
somewhat orthogonal discussion about breakfast menus!

regards,

   Geoff

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:04:08 -0800

>  above the current cost of the meeting fee for the wireless service you

it would, in fact, be really nice to be presented with a concrete proposal, for assured service, that carried a firm price.  

by rights, however, this should divide at least between captial costs, management costs, and staff costs.  The reason is that the first is amortized over some number of years, the second probably is real, hard money for hiring professionals, and i bet the last is dandy to use volunteers for.

  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:38:08 -0800

> it's worth to the IETF network.

Ya' know, I'd be happy if I received a static IP address with my
meeting registration confirmation.  I'd even be happy to supply my
wireless MAC address...

--aaron

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:44:41 -0800

Carsten Bormann wrote:
>
> (The best WG meeting I ever attended was one where Tony Li hammered
> out most of the IP-over-firewire details in one session by asking
> the attending firewire experts all the right questions in one
> sitting.  I'm still wowed for life.  But you can't do this for
> something as complex as VPLS.)
> 

Carsten-

You've given an example for something that I've been wanting to
articulate.  WG chairs have *lot* of influence over how productive a
meeting is.  It takes thought and preparation to decide what the best
use of the wg time should be.  I've seen a tendency for wgchairs to
make agendas = list of drafts in development.  A better practice would
be to start the hard questions that need to be discussed (to take
advantage of the face time) and back into background reading from
there.  

I think the emphasis on tourists, surfing, and powerpoint is a red
herring.

--aaron

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:22:08 -0500

On Monday, March 14, 2005 09:18:43 AM -0500 Bill Sommerfeld 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Power was most assuredly not a problem at this IETF; the seating areas
> were  amply provisioned.

Indeed.  I don't know how much of the power was provided by the IETF 
Secretariat, but I saw an awful lot of power strips labelled "Hilton". 
This hotel is clearly getting to know us and our needs, and IMO has done a 
stellar job meeting them.

-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <[email-masked]>
   Sr. Research Systems Programmer
   School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
   Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:29:37 -0800

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:44:41 -0800, Aaron Falk wrote:
>  I've seen a tendency for wgchairs to

Y E S !!!

What are the desired outcomes for the meeting?  What should take place there, to ensure those outcomes?

yup.

  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker