Subject: T-shirts and other Tao questions

From: "Susan R. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:40:55 -0400 (EDT)

Hi Don - I really like your edits to the Tao.  Just a couple of questions:

> 1.10 Social Event
> 
>    Another of the things normally organized and managed by the local
>    hosts is the IETF social event.  The social event has become a
>    tradition for Tuesday evening at the IETF meetings.

I noticed you omitted the language about Marshall and T-shirts:

   [the social event was] immortalized by Marshal T. Rose with his
   reference to "many fine lunches and dinners" [ROSE], and by Claudio and
   Julia Topolcic with their rendition of "Nerds in Paradise" on a pink T-shirt.
 
Did the original seem too out-of-date?
  
And a few paragraphs later you added this new text:

>    At the 47th IETF Meeting in Adelaide, Australias, in the absence of
>    an official T-shirt, an un-official "T-shirt BOF" was held resulting
>    in a design available from a local T-shirt store in the city.  This
>    was announced by the following notice which appeared on a bulletin
>    board at the IETF meeting:
> 
>       xxx

What should the "xxx" be?

<big snip>

>    Time at the IETF meetings is a precious thing.  Working groups are
>    encouraged to do as much work as possible over their mailing list.
>    This reduces the amount of work which must be done at the meeting and
>    is accessible to everyone.  Working groups are discouraged form
>    having meetings between IETF meetings as they tend to disenfrachise
>    those who can not afford to travel, even though the results of any
>    such meetings must be posted to the working group mailing list and
>    confirmed there.  Such "interim" working group meetings outside of
>    the IETF meetings require Area Director approval and must be
>    announced on the IETF Announce list.

This is quite different that the original, and I'd welcome Don's and
others' comments.  Specifically, in the third line above, Don says WGs are
"discouraged" from meeting between IETFs, while the original says
"encouraged."  Which is right?

<another big snip>

Towards the end, Don added a list of IETF meetings - do others agree that
this is useful?

> 3.4 IETF Meeting List
> 
>    Note: some meeting have no "sponsor".  In those cases, the
>    Secretariat has filled in for the sponsor duties.
> 
>    Num. Attnd. Date    Location                Sponsor
>    ---- ------ ----    --------                -------
>     1    15  Jan 1986  San Diego, California   Linkabit
>     2    21  Apr 1986  Aberdeen, Maryland      Army Ballistic Research
> Lab.
>     3    18  Jul 1986  Ann Arbor, Michican     University of Michigan
>     4    35  Oct 1986  Menlo Park, California  SRI
>     5    35  Feb 1987  Moffett Field, Calif.   NASA Ames Research Lab.
>     6    88  Apr 1987  Boston, Massachusetts   BBN
>     7   101  Jul 1987  McLean, Virginia        MITRE
>     8    56  Nov 1987  Boulder, Colorado       NCAR
>     9    82  Mar 1988  San Diego, California   San Diego Supercomputer
> Ctr.
>    10   112  Jun 1988  Annapolis, Maryland     US Naval Academy
>    11   114  Oct 1988  Ann Arbor, Michigan     University of Michigan
>    12   120  Jan 1989  Austin, Texas           University of Texas
>    13   114  Apr 1989  Cocoa Beach, Florida    Kennedy Space Center
>    14   217  Jul 1989  Standord, California    Stanford University
>    15   138  Nov 1989  Honolulu, Hawaii        University of Hawaii
>    16   196  Feb 1990  Tallahassee, Florida    Florida State Univ. SC Ctr.
>    17   244  May 1990  Pittsburgh, Penn.       Pittsburgh S. C. Center
>    18   293  Aug 1990  Vancouver, BC           Univ. of British Columbia
>    19   292  Dec 1990  Boulder, Colorado       University of Colorado
>    20   348  Mar 1991  St. Louis, Missouri     Washington University
>    21   387  Aug 1991  Atlanta, Georgia        BellSouth
>    22   372  Nov 1991  Santa Fe, New Mexico    Los Alamos National Lab.
>    23   530  Mar 1992  San Diego, Californai   San Diego Supercomputer
> Ctr.
>    24   677  Jul 1992  Cambridge, Mass.        NEARnet
>    25   633  Nov 1992  Washington, DC          US Sprint
>    26   638  Mar 1993  Columbus, Ohio          OARnet & Ohio State Univ.
>    27   493  Jul 1993  Amsterdam, Netherlands  Surfnet & RARE
>    28   636  Nov 1993  Houston, Texas          SESQUINET & Rice University
>    29   785  Mar 1994  Seattle, Washington     NorthWestNet
>    30   710  Jul 1994  Toronto, Ontario        University of Toronto
>    31  1079  Dec 1994  San Jose, California    Sun Microsystems
>    32   983  Apr 1995  Danvers, Masshchusetts  FTP Software & NEARnet
>    33   617  Jul 1995  Stockholm, Sweden       Royal Inst. Tech & NORDUnet
>    34  1007  Dec 1995  Dallas, Texas           MCI
>    35  1038  Mar 1996  Los Angeles, Calif.      - none -
>    36  1283  Jun 1996  Montreal, Quebec         - none -
>    37  1993  Dec 1996  San Jose, California    Cisco Systems
>    38  1321  Apr 1997  Memphis, Tennessee      Federal Express
>    39  1308  Aug 1997  Munich, Germany         ISOC-Germany Chapter
>    40  1897  Dec 1997  Washington, DC          Newbridge Networks
>    41  1775  Apr 1998  Los Angeles, Calif.      - none -
>    42  2106  Aug 1998  Chicago, Illinois       Motorola
>    43  2124  Dec 1998  Orlando, Florida        Microsoft
>    44  1705  Mar 1998  Minneapolis, Minnesota  Ascend Communications
>    45  1710  Jul 1999  Oslo, Norway            Uninett
>    46  2379  Nov 1999  Washington, DC          Nortel Networks
>    47        Mar 2000  Adelaide, Australia     connnect.com.au
>    48        Jul 2000  Pittsburg, Penn.        Marconi Communications
>    49        Dec 2000  San Diego, California   Qualcom and Cisco
>    50        Mar 2001  Minneapolis, Minn.      Lucent
>    51        Aug 2001  London, England         British Telecom

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:35:57 -0700

>Did the original seem too out-of-date?

Yes, it did to me when I was putting this together.

>  >    board at the IETF meeting:

This might be a tad too detailed for a document that is introducing 
people to IETF meetings. I think saying "there are many fun t-shirts" 
is enough; a running commentary on each meeting's t-shirts is 
overkill.

>"encouraged."  Which is right?

Don is. I look forward to hearing from the IESG on this, but most 
folks I have talked to believe that interim meetings are discouraged. 
That is a good thing.

>Towards the end, Don added a list of IETF meetings - do others agree that

Not I. We already cover the approximate number, attendance, and the 
locations of them. A detailed list seems to lose the introductory 
flavor of the document. A pointer to such a list is sufficient.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:58:18 -0400

From:  Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Message-Id:  <p04320413b59a7d31c335@[165.227.249.17]>
In-Reply-To:  <[email-masked]>
References:  <[email-masked]>
Date:  Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:35:57 -0700
To:  "Susan R. Harris" <[email-masked]>,
            "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Cc:  USWG <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

>>...

<enter quasi-humor mode> I think it would be a tragedy of the highest
order to lose the stiring words of the notice composed by the
unofficial T-Shirt BOF which neatly ties together IETF IPR problems
and its rough consensus and running code motto.  Already the original
text has been lost due to the dastardly theft of its sole electronic
form.  Even so, we must preserve its essense in the best paraphrase we
can compose.  Inclusion of this one exceptional case is not "a running
commentary of each meeting's t-shirts" but is rather the exception
that proves the rules that you shouldn't include such descriptions.
<end quasi-humor mode>

>folks I have talked to believe that interim meetings are discouraged. 

Since this document give some very brief impressions of how things have
evolved in the IETF, assuming the IESG confirms that interim meetings
are discouraged, how about saying something like:

"Time at the IETF meetings is a precious thing. Working groups are
encouraged to do as much work as possible over their mailing list.
This reduces the amount of work which must be done at meetings and is
accessible to everyone.  When the IETF was much smaller and
geographically more localized, working groups were encouraged to have
meetings between IETF meetings; however, now that the IETF is so much
larger and more global, working groups are discouraged from having
such "interiim" meetings. They tend to disenfrachise those who can not
afford to travel, even though the results of any such meetings must be
posted to the working group mailing list and confirmed there.  Any
"interim" working group meetings outside of the IETF meetings require
Area Director approval and must be announced on the IETF Announce
list."

>...

Donald

---

From: "Susan R. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:34:40 -0400 (EDT)

> unofficial T-Shirt BOF which neatly ties together IETF IPR problems
							 ^^^
        					     What is IPR?

---

From: Steve Coya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:47:51 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Howdy,

Sorry for not responding sooner, but things have been hectic here.

Couple of thoughts:

>Even when I wrote this, attendance was typically one-third newbies; I
>assume that percentage hasn't changed much.  Most of them were people
>who attended because the IETF was convenient to them.  About one-third
>of them did return for the next meeting; the rest were pretty much
>passive watchers.

>> Question for Steve Coya: are these numbers still accurate?

Don't know anymore. But there is one clarification to the last
sentence. It should read:

About one-third of them did return for ONE OF the next TWO meetingS; the
rest were pretty much passive watchers.

(CAPs are the changes).

>> Gary: do you like my proposed outline change, to essentially "WG
>> stuff first, meeting stuff second"?

I'm not Gary :-), but I prefer seeing the MEETING stuff first, then the WG
stuff. But I will have no problem agreeing with consensus.

>Also, interim meetings are most definitely encouraged.  That's
>the official IETF line.

This is true (though I do recall someone writing they are DIScouraged...
they are not.

Note that the IESG is working on a statement pertaining to interim
meetings. The jist is:

1. They are NOT to be substituted for IETF meetings (ie. we won't meet in
   Pittsburgh; instead we'll have an interim meeting in Cancun 3 weeks
   later).

2. Will require AD approval

3. Must be announced at least one month prior to the start of the interim
   meeting.

4. Just as for IETF meetings, there must be notes and they should be sent 
   to [email-masked] and attendence must be taken.

Steve

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:57:49 -0400

When do the restrictions, caveats, and controls on something wich is
"encouraged" pile up so much that it is more accurate to say it is
"discouraged"?

Donald

From:  Steve Coya <[email-masked]>
Date:  Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:47:51 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Reply-To:  Steve Coya <[email-masked]>
To:  "Susan R. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Cc:  "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>, USWG <[email-masked]>
In-Reply-To:  <[email-masked]>
Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

---

From: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:38:53 -0700 (PDT)

Oh good, I see STeve has answered the question that was my action item (re
interim meetings).  :-)  I was going to say the same thing--just took me
longer to look up the relevant drafts on the interim mtg guidelines.

It's this kind of thing that just reinforces procrastination!

thanks!
April