Subject: Re: Spring 2003 IETF - Why San Francisco?

From: "Kevin C. Almeroth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 14:40:15 -0800 (PST)

>>San Francisco is very convenient for many people (including me) - but 
>>perhaps it's just *too* convenient.  Every other IETF meeting held in the 
>>Bay Area in recent years has been a zoo.
>>
>>I thought there was consensus to try not to hold IETF meetings in the Bay Area?
>>
>>	Ross.

I didn't think there was anyone left in San Fran.

-Kevin

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 13:28:49 -0800

Harald,

I have two dumb questions about IETF-56:

1. My understanding is that there is no host and no terminals. Does it
mean no wireless setup too?

2. Is there a reason the meeting location is not posted with the dates?

Thanks
Michel.

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 18:13:32 -0500

In message <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E4B0@server2000>, "Michel Py" wri
>mean no wireless setup too?

THere will be wireless.
>2. Is there a reason the meeting location is not posted with the dates?

It is posted at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt .  But if 
you mean the hotel -- that's always released a bit later.  

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:50:53 -0800

Harald,

> The tradition is that the hotel information is not
> released until the negotiation of the room block has
> been completed.

I can understand why, but it has been short notice. Posting the location
as soon as it is available would be appreciated.

Some of people are beginning to make their airline reservations now, not
only because of price but also because early reservation will sometimes
make the difference between a direct flight or not. Same reasoning
applies to the hotel.

Thanks
Michel.