Subject: Re: IETF Hosting Opportunity - March 2009

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:51:30 +0200

Hi,

On 2007-11-27, at 22:20, ext Terry Monroe wrote:
> The event is now planned to take place in North America, specific  
> location
> still to be determined.

Similar to IETF-67, which moved from Europe to San Diego, we're again  
moving a meeting that was planned to happen in Europe to North America.

Looking at IETF-60 to IETF-70, 8 out of the 10 IETFs were in North  
America. I'd be good if we could re-balance this in the future.

Lars

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

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:53:46 +0000

> America. I'd be good if we could re-balance this in the future.

+1.

---

From: Peter Sylvester <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:57:59 +0100

Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> Similar to IETF-67, which moved from Europe to San Diego, we're 
>> again  moving a meeting that was planned to happen in Europe to North 
>> America.
>>
+1

-- 
To verify the signature, see http://edelpki.edelweb.fr/ 
Cela vous permet de charger le certificat de l'autorité; 
die Liste mit zurückgerufenen Zertifikaten finden Sie da auch.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:00:33 -0800 (PST)

Keep in mind that the locations are subject to change until a host has 
been identified and the hotel contract signed. This means that you 
could well see one of the OTHER meetings in 2009 take place in Europe.
"TBD" and "Provisional" really does mean what it says.

Ole

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

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> > Looking at IETF-60 to IETF-70, 8 out of the 10 IETFs were in North  America.
> > I'd be good if we could re-balance this in the future.
> 
> +1.
>

---

From: Mohsen Souissi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:09:01 +0100

On 28 Nov, Lars Eggert wrote:
 | Hi,
 | 
 | On 2007-11-27, at 22:20, ext Terry Monroe wrote:
 | >The event is now planned to take place in North America, specific  
 | >location
 | >still to be determined.
 | 
 | Similar to IETF-67, which moved from Europe to San Diego, we're again  
 | moving a meeting that was planned to happen in Europe to North America.
 | 
 | Looking at IETF-60 to IETF-70, 8 out of the 10 IETFs were in North  
 | America. I'd be good if we could re-balance this in the future.
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

==> While we are at it, and even if I very much enjoy IETF meetings
taking place in nice cities in Europe, I think that we remain very far
from any geographic balance, if ever that were a creterion to be taken
into account regardless of its potential weight. As a matter of fact
and if my memory servers me well:

1) - Only one IETF meeting out of 69 so far took place in the southern
  hemisphere (IETF 47, Adelaide, Australia);

2) - IETF has never held a meeting in Africa.

Provisioning for future meetings, as far as one can understand from
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt, will not change 2). It
won't either change 1) unless some Asian coutries from the southern
hemisphere undertake the task.

Mohsen.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:09:52 +0000

>> America. I'd be good if we could re-balance this in the future.

Maybe I should elaborate. In several WG where I am active at least half 
of participants are from Europe or Asia.
Not all of them are working for companies that can sponsor them to go to 
IETF meetings or at least many employers are reluctant to send people to 
IETF meetings happening across the ocean (no doubts, this works the same 
way for North American). So having IETF meetings in Paris and Prague was 
very useful to get such people more involved.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:05:47 +0000

>"TBD" and "Provisional" really does mean what it says.
Fair enough, but I was replying +1 to the general trend I see, not 
because of a specific location of a particular IETF meeting.

I would be quite happy to get more airmiles flying to North America, but 
I am not sure that my employer would generally agree.

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:23:10 -0600

On 11/28/07 at 6:09 PM +0100, Mohsen Souissi wrote:

>While we are at it, and even if I very much enjoy IETF meetings 
>taking place in nice cities in Europe, I think that we remain very 
>far from any geographic balance, if ever that were a creterion to be 
>taken into account regardless of its potential weight.

It's not "geographic balance of places on the world map" that people 
are talking about here. It's "geographic balance of places where the 
people who write IETF documents live". The southern hemisphere, 
unfortunately, does not account for a large percentage of that 
balance.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:37:05 -0800

Mohsen Souissi wrote:

> unless some Asian coutries from the southern

Remind me which country connected the the asian landmass is in the
southern hemisphere?

Malaysia is albeit just barely. The islands of sumatra and borneo are etc...

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:40:30 +0200

> "TBD" and "Provisional" really does mean what it says.

Understod, and I'd be thrilled if that happens.

(And I do understand that it is more difficult and costly to have a  
meeting in Europe or Asia. But one out of three should still be doable.)

Lars

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:03:35 +0200

Ole,

> "TBD" and "Provisional" really does mean what it says.

Yes, but interestingly the note from Terry only indicated that the
sponsor could select something from North America for IETF-74. This is a
change from the published plan, which said Europe. There's probably a
good reason for that, such as us being close to agreeing the next
meeting to be in Europe or Asia. Then again, that was the plan already
in http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt ...

In any case, it appears that (1) the balance has shifted from what it
should be by participation and (2) we really need sponsors. My
conclusion would have been to indicate to the sponsors that outside-NA
is also possible.

Jari

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:08:10 -0500

Lars:

The IAOC plan for 2008 and 2009 is to have three meetings in North 
America, two meetings in Europe, and one meeting in Asia.  This 3:2:1 
ration will be repeated for 2010 and 2011.  So far, we are on track 
to make this happen.

The IETF web site is aligned with this plan:

    Spring 2008 - 71st IETF
         March 9-14, 2008
         Host: Comcast
         Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Summer 2008 - 72nd IETF
         July 27 - August 1, 2008
         Host: TBD
         Location: Europe (Provisional)

    Fall 2008 - 73rd IETF
         November 16-21, 2008
         Host: Google
         Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Spring 2009 - 74th IETF
         March 22-27, 2009
         Host: TBD
         Location: Europe (Provisional)

    Summer 2009 - 75th IETF
         July 26-31, 2009
         Host: TBD
         Location: Asia (Provisional)

    Fall 2009 - 76th IETF
         November 8-13, 2009
         Host: TBD
         Location: North America (Provisional)

As we discussed at the IETF 69 Plenary, we have had some difficulty 
arranging hosts.  We are be willing to discuss changing venues in 
order to get hosts.  This is the reason for "(Provisional)" on the 
web site.  However, we would make changes in a way that preserves the 
3:2:1 ratio.  So, we are in discussion with several potential hosts 
that could lead to exactly this type of juggling.  We have someone 
that wants to host the Summer 2009 meeting in Europe, and we have 
someone that wants to host the Fall 2009 in Asia.  If all of this 
comes to pass, we will be looking for a host for the Spring 2009 
meeting in North America in order to preserve the 3:2:1 ratio.

Russ

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:37:13 +0200

On 2007-11-28, at 20:08, ext Russ Housley wrote:
> America, two meetings in Europe, and one meeting in Asia.  This  
> 3:2:1 ration will be repeated for 2010 and 2011.  So far, we are on  
> track to make this happen.

I appreciate that the IAOC is trying hard to make this happen, and I  
understand that we have particular site requirements (There doesn't  
seem to be a good venue in Finland, for example.) I'm merely observing  
that in the recent past, we haven't been quite as successful in  
keeping to that ratio as we'd all have liked.

> web site.  However, we would make changes in a way that preserves  
> the 3:2:1 ratio.  So, we are in discussion with several potential  
> hosts that could lead to exactly this type of juggling.  We have  
> someone that wants to host the Summer 2009 meeting in Europe, and we  
> have someone that wants to host the Fall 2009 in Asia.  If all of  
> this comes to pass, we will be looking for a host for the Spring  
> 2009 meeting in North America in order to preserve the 3:2:1 ratio.

I might not be fully up-to-date on our sponsoring process, but as I  
understand it, a meeting sponsor pays for a fraction of the direct  
costs for a given meeting. Other organizations charge a sponsor a flat  
amount that is based on costs that are averaged over multiple  
meetings. Yes, that means that sponsors of meetings in cheaper  
locations subsidize meetings in more expensive ones, but it also makes  
it financially irrelevant to the sponsor which exact meeting they  
support.

By the way, is there another mailing list for us to move this  
discussion to? Does the IAOC have an open list?

Lars

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:48:22 -0500

Lars:

The URL from Terry's message leads to a web page with a lot of 
information about being a host.  Here it is  again: 
http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/iaoc/wiki/HostSponsorships

You can send email to the IAOC with the following email address: iaoc 
<at> ietf.org

Russ

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:45:01 +0100

Can we get it moved to Europe if a willing sponsor can be found?

--On 27. november 2007 15:20 -0500 Terry Monroe <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues-
>
> As you finalize your plans to attend IETF 70 in Vancouver next week, we
> wanted to make you aware of the opportunity for your organization to host
> IETF 74 in March 2009.
>
> The event is now planned to take place in North America, specific location
> still to be determined.  Since the site has not yet been selected, the
> interested host would be able to suggest a location within North America.
>
> A link to information on hosting can be found on the IETF website:
> http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/iaoc/wiki/HostSponsorships.  You also may
> contact me for additional information.
>
> Regards and see you in Vancouver!
>
> Terry Monroe
> Director of Development & Membership
> Internet Society
> +1 703 326 9880 x115
>
> "THE INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!"  - Join the
> Internet Society and help to make it so.
>
> http://www.isoc.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 06:55:13 +0200 (EET)

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Lars Eggert wrote:
> understand it, a meeting sponsor pays for a fraction of the direct costs for 
> a given meeting. Other organizations charge a sponsor a flat amount that is 
> based on costs that are averaged over multiple meetings. Yes, that means that 
> sponsors of meetings in cheaper locations subsidize meetings in more 
> expensive ones, but it also makes it financially irrelevant to the sponsor 
> which exact meeting they support.
>
> By the way, is there another mailing list for us to move this discussion to? 
> Does the IAOC have an open list?

You can follow IAOC activity from the minutes at 
http://iaoc.ietf.org/minutes/iaoc_minutes.html

Ooops, the latest minutes posted are from March 1st.

-- 
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: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:15:05 +0100

On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:23:10AM -0600,
 Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 22 lines which said:

> people who write IETF documents live".

Then, things can go on forever. We do not hold meetings in places
where there are not a lot of IETF members. As a result, people from
these countries do not come and do not participate. Then, the prophecy
becomes true. And so on.

If we want to be serious about breaking the vicious circle, we should
do meetings in places where there is *currently* few members (I do not
suggest Namibia or Papua-New Guinea but, may be, Egypt, Argentina,
India, places like that?)

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:00:46 -0000

> Maybe I should elaborate. In several WG where I am active at 
> least half of participants are from Europe or Asia.

Why do IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive?
Why can't the IETF hold partial meetings in Europe and Asia?
This would probably mean more IETF meetings but nobody has to
go to all of them.

Essentially, I am suggesting that WGs with a lot of participants
in Europe or Asia should be able to band together and hold
local IETF meetings leveraging the same IETF secretariat services
as the full meetings.

--Michael Dillon

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 06:15:55 -0500

I can tell you why we do - crosstalk. It can be incredibly useful for  
people from the Security Area to look in on Applications, or for  
Transport and RAI folks to understand the workings of the layers  
beneath them and their users, for example.

That doesn't make for a "has to", but it seems like a good reason to  
"choose to", from my perspective.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 06:23:06 -0500

> America. I'd be good if we could re-balance this in the future.

The plan we're working against is at http://ietf.org/meetings/0mtg- 
sites.txt. The thumbnail sketch of the rule we're following, which I  
understand to be the current consensus distribution, is that over two  
years we try to hit North America three times, Europe twice, and Asia  
once.

Does the plan work for you?

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:32:26 -0000

> Why do IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive?

Because there is already a lack of communicaiton between Areas.

Not to say that there can't be other smaller meetings as well.

Adrian
(IETF hotels are too expensive. Book into smaller ones, pay less, and don't 
get thrown out.)

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:33:21 -0500

> India, places like that?)

I would have to disagree.  How useful is it for someone who isn't
participating with the IETF to show up at an IETF meeting for the
first time with zero context?  The best way to participate is *on*
*the* *mailing* *lists*.  If we have the meeting in the middle of
Africa, do you honestly expect anyone who shows up out of curiosity is
likely to start authoring IETF documents and participating with the
IETF after that one meeting is over?

I personally have trouble beliving this....

						- Ted

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:14:48 -0500

--On Thursday, 29 November, 2007 10:15 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> It's not "geographic balance of places on the world map" that
>> people are talking about here. It's "geographic balance of
>> places where the people who write IETF documents live".
> 
> Then, things can go on forever. We do not hold meetings in
> places where there are not a lot of IETF members. As a result,
> people from these countries do not come and do not
> participate. Then, the prophecy becomes true. And so on.

Stephane,

If you believe this, it could easily be used to go back a decade
and used to prove that we would never hold a meeting in either
Europe or Asia.  Such a proof would clearly be false, since
people from those regions started participating actively and
writing documents without the presumed benefits of showpiece
meetings in their immediate vicinity.  

This isn't about making the IETF accessible to people.  It is
about the end of the horse on which the cart is to be placed.

Of course, if we were to decide that we would like to be more
like those organizations in which most of the work is done at
meetings and a great deal of the purpose of a meeting is to act
as a showpiece for the organization in some particular region or
country, these considerations would change.  I've had enough
experience with those organizations and the related side-effects
that I hope we don't go there.  Ever.  YMMD, but, if that were
to be even part of your goal, I think you should be explicit
about it, not raise spurious arguments about how people won't
participate unless we start holding meetings in their city/
country/ region.

     john

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:28:56 -0000

> I can tell you why we do - crosstalk. It can be incredibly 
> useful for people from the Security Area to look in on 
> Applications, or for Transport and RAI folks to understand 
> the workings of the layers beneath them and their users, for example.
> 
> That doesn't make for a "has to", but it seems like a good 
> reason to "choose to", from my perspective.

I agree with your reasoning. I should have asked,
why do *ALL* IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive?

Smaller meetings held outside North America could be located
in smaller cheaper hotels, and would encourage wider participation
in the IETF. In fact, smaller meetings in North America would 
achieve the same ends.

I'm not suggesting getting rid of the existing monolithic
meetings, but adding another type of meeting that is smaller,
cheaper to attend, and held in cities/countries that are
far from the USA but closer to people who should be more 
involved in the IETF. For instance, Pune and Bangalore India,
Moscow and Ekaterinburg Russia, Dalian and Shanghai China 
as well as places like Helsinki, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Seoul.

Note that smaller regional meetings still provide the opportunities
for some crosstalk, even if the variety of WG choices to attend
will be smaller. And it increases the amount of crosstalk and
cross-fertilization between people who regularly work in the IETF
and those who have not done IETF work because they have not had
the opportunity to see it in action, face to face.

Note also that RIPE does something along these lines with their
regional meetings having more focus on education. I expect that
an IETF regional meeting would also have to have more focus
on education since a higher proportion of first-timers would attend.

--Michael Dillon

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:37:00 -0800

On 11/29/07 at 10:15 AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

>On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:23:10AM -0600, Pete Resnick 
><[email-masked]> wrote a message of 22 lines which said:
>
>>people are talking about here. It's "geographic balance of places 
>>where the people who write IETF documents live".
>
>these countries do not come and do not participate. Then, the 
>prophecy becomes true. And so on.

Nonsense. As Alexey pointed out, in the Apps area we have plenty of 
participants who are from places in which we rarely meet. Some 
contribute to mailing lists, others actually write I-Ds. In the grand 
tradition of the IETF, showing up for meetings is not required to be 
a successful participant. Sure, it's helpful to go to meetings to 
work out thorny issues, but it should by no means be required.

On a tangential point: Some folks in the IETF think that meetings 
should be for presentations and tutorials, or to make more-or-less 
final decisions on open topics because nobody does anything on the 
mailing list. I tend not to go to such meetings and whine about them 
when I have to go. If that's your idea of a good use of IETF meeting 
time, then I see why you would think that meeting in places with few 
participants would be a good thing: Working on those mailing lists 
isn't all that useful and you can't be a good participant without 
going to the meetings. To me, that says that we should change WG 
chairs or ADs, not meeting locations.

>If we want to be serious about breaking the vicious circle, we 
>should do meetings in places where there is *currently* few members 
>(I do not suggest Namibia or Papua-New Guinea but, may be, Egypt, 
>Argentina, India, places like that?)

India is becoming interesting because (a) we're getting more folks 
from India participating and (b) the mean-time-to-travel to any place 
on earth for current participants might be trending toward India. 
(We've got more folks in east Asia who would have a shorter trip to 
India than to Europe or North America, and there are now direct 
flights over the pole between North America and India.) Finding a 
large enough venue in India is a different problem.

Personally, on similar mean-time-to-travel grounds, St. Johns in 
Newfoundland looks interesting. :-)

pr

---

From: "Darryl \(Dassa\) Lynch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:29:09 +1100

[email-masked] wrote:
|||| Why do IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive?
|| 
||| I can tell you why we do - crosstalk. It can be incredibly useful
||| for people from the Security Area to look in on Applications, or for
||| Transport and RAI folks to understand the workings of the layers
||| beneath them and their users, for example.
||| 
||| That doesn't make for a "has to", but it seems like a good reason to
||| "choose to", from my perspective.
|| 
|| I agree with your reasoning. I should have asked, why do
|| *ALL* IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive?
|| 
|| Smaller meetings held outside North America could be located
|| in smaller cheaper hotels, and would encourage wider
|| participation in the IETF. In fact, smaller meetings in
|| North America would achieve the same ends.
|| 
|| I'm not suggesting getting rid of the existing monolithic
|| meetings, but adding another type of meeting that is
|| smaller, cheaper to attend, and held in cities/countries
|| that are far from the USA but closer to people who should be
|| more involved in the IETF. For instance, Pune and Bangalore
|| India, Moscow and Ekaterinburg Russia, Dalian and Shanghai
|| China as well as places like Helsinki, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Seoul.
|| 
|| Note that smaller regional meetings still provide the
|| opportunities for some crosstalk, even if the variety of WG
|| choices to attend will be smaller. And it increases the
|| amount of crosstalk and cross-fertilization between people
|| who regularly work in the IETF and those who have not done
|| IETF work because they have not had the opportunity to see
|| it in action, face to face.
|| 
|| Note also that RIPE does something along these lines with
|| their regional meetings having more focus on education. I
|| expect that an IETF regional meeting would also have to have
|| more focus on education since a higher proportion of first-timers
|| would attend. 

Wouldn't the regional meetings you are suggesting have a totally different
focus and be a different type of event all together compared to the main
meetings currently?

I would expect such regional meetings to have a focus on educating the local
public about the IETF and be about increasing participation but not
including any actual work on IETF content.

Believe such regional meetings would be a great idea as a means to
facilitate mentoring of future participants and encouraging new blood into
the organization.  

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:22:20 -0800

Pete Resnick wrote:

> India is becoming interesting because (a) we're getting more folks from
> India participating and (b) the mean-time-to-travel to any place on
> earth for current participants might be trending toward India. (We've
> got more folks in east Asia who would have a shorter trip to India than
> to Europe or North America, and there are now direct flights over the
> pole between North America and India.) Finding a large enough venue in
> India is a different problem.

In the past, willing hosts who can make the costs pencil out have
succeeded in in hosting meetings in well connected locations that are a
substantial distance from either the united states or europe.

The collective set of volunteers the secretariat have made hostless
meetings work in locations where they have access to resources.

It doesn't seem to be reasonable or workable for the IAOC to attempt
meeting venues were there are neither hosts with resources (which
variously in the past have included, hands, facilities, circuits,
capital, government contacts etc) or ietf participants who are not hosts
with access to similar resources. The evolution of the hosting model
hasn't thus far (in my experience) eliminated this dependency on the
efforts of hosts and/or resources that members of community have access to.

Every meeting that I have been involved in since 37 located in the US or
outside, perceived to be successful network or otherwise has thus far
leveraged those sorts of resources to a lesser or greater extent.

If we have resources we can leverage in India there's no reason to be
believe that we can't host a successful meeting there. certainly there
are well connected cities with usable venues.

> Newfoundland looks interesting. :-)

Not, the coldest venue thus far...

---

From: "rajesh rajesh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:25:28 -0800

India is also becoming significant in terms of  well trained graduate IT
engineers and certified engineers,  it can be more interesting if  these IT
engineers are more involved in activities of IETF, ISOC, ICANN and other
standards related  organizations. Probably initiatives can start during
their graduate and certification course work by means of having to study a
subject related with standards. Right now IT engineers awareness even
existence of IEEE or the term 802.xx is very minimum.
but in terms of connectivity to  major Indian cities  are  good  and with
Bangalore like place there are venues available closely matching
International level.
ISOC fellowships concept needs big appreciation this goes long way in
developing countries like India will see major participation in IETF
activities and in future India can be venue for IETF meetings.

Rajesh
India

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:34:47 -0800

> why do *ALL* IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive?

They don't. Several WGs are holding interim meetings between the IETF  
meetings. I'm not sure if there have been joint interims with multiple  
WGs attending, but that could make sense if there's a difficult piece  
of work that they need to agree on. Our rules allow this.

Lars

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:05:52 -0600

>in the IETF. In fact, smaller meetings in North America would

instead of focusing on the "where to meet", shouldn't any discussion 
about meetings focus on the "why to meet"?

IETF WGs have few limitations for interim meetings, mostly having to do with

         - give 30 days notice to every in the WG, and
         - can't be too soon after or too near the next monolithic meeting

other than that, interims can occur in any and every WG.  But they 
often don't occur for many other reasons than "let's have the interim 
in Europe or Asia or Latin/South America or Africa to get away from the US"

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:09:46 -0600

At 10:34 AM 11/30/2007, Lars Eggert wrote:
>I'm not sure if there have been joint interims with multiple
>of work that they need to agree on

Geopriv and Ecrit had a joint meeting a couple of years ago that was 
mostly attended by folks that do SIP and SIPPING too.  It was a 
productive meeting.