Subject: Last Call: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting Calendar

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 06:58:36 -0400

All;

This is a 1 week Last Call for feedback on Version 01 proposed 2008 - 
1010 IETF Meeting dates.  The IAOC anticipates taking action to formally 
adopt dates on 25 May 2006.  These dates differ from the originally 
proposed dates based upon community feedback, a review of meeting dates 
of those organizations on the Clash List and maintenance of a reasonably 
similar period between meetings.  While every effort was made to avoid 
conflicts where known, it was not always possible with those 
organizations in the "should avoid" category.  Your feedback to 
[email-masked] on conflicts with these dates would be appreciated.

Proposed 2008 - 2010 meeting dates:

2008

IETF 71  Mar 30 - Apr 4

IETF 72  Jul 27 - Aug 1

IETF 73  Dec 7 - 12

2009

IETF 74  Mar 22 - 27

IETF 75  Aug 2 - 7

IETF 76  Dec 6 - 11

2010

IETF 77  Mar 28 - Apr 2

IETF 78  Jul 25 - 30

IETF 79  Dec 5 - 10

Our findings of the schedule of other organization's meetings can be 
found at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html .

Thanks for your assistance.

Ray Pelletier
IAD

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

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:02:19 +0300

Hi Ray,

I think it is very unfair, especially after previous comments done on this
topic some weeks ago, to keep ignoring in our calendar the already fixed
events of AfriNIC/AfNOG, APNIC and LACNIC.

I'm not saying they are not actually being considered, but they aren't
listed in the calendar (http://www.ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html), while
others from other regions are all listed. In my opinion, either we do that
calendar correctly and fair to all (just need to google !), or we don't do
it at all and rely in others which seem more fair to all the regions.

Regards,
Jordi

De: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: Wed, 17 May 2006 06:58:36 -0400
Para: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Last Call: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting Calendar

All;

2008

IETF 71  Mar 30 - Apr 4

IETF 72  Jul 27 - Aug 1

IETF 73  Dec 7 - 12

2009

IETF 74  Mar 22 - 27

IETF 75  Aug 2 - 7

IETF 76  Dec 6 - 11

2010

IETF 77  Mar 28 - Apr 2

IETF 78  Jul 25 - 30

IETF 79  Dec 5 - 10

Ray Pelletier
IAD

------ Fin del mensaje reenviado

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides 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: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:22:08 -0400

> it at all and rely in others which seem more fair to all the regions.

It may be helpful to know that SANOG, AfNOG, NANOG, PACNOC and other  
meetings now coordinate their dates using the ISOC/NSRC calendar,  
which can be found here:

   http://ws.edu.isoc.org/calendar

There's also a mailing list, [email-masked], that  
some of us find useful for event planning.

Joe

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:31:46 -0400

John,
Thanks for the feedback.  Responses in line.

John C Klensin wrote:

>Ray,
>
>I don't know if there are other problems, but the events.cal
>list appears to have not been kept up to date: 
>  
>
As the opening paragraph for the page ( 
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html ) states:
The information below has been submitted to the IETF Secretariat as a 
means of notifying readers of future events. Readers are requested to 
send in dates of events that are appropriate for this calendar section. 
Please send submissions, corrections, etc., to: 
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

We are not staffed to monitor others' calendars and rely on others to 
submit and correct data

>	* IETF 66 appears to have a location, but the calendar
>	does not show it (we can't blame another organization
>	for not telling us about  that one).
>  
>
Correct.  Needs to be updated.

>I could go on, but perhaps that makes the point.
>
>While those schedules are earlier than any you have asked about,
>locations are an issue in whether or not conflicts occur and I
>hope coordination (not merely looking at calendars) is occurring
>with organizations with whom avoiding conflicts is critical.
>Again taking a near-term example, the time-adjacency of the
>ICANN meeting last March 26-31 with IETF 64 from the 19th-24th
>would have been a major inconvenience were they in the same part
>of the world; when one was in Dallas, TX, USA and the other in
>Wellington, NZ, the times turn into a conflict.  I notice that
>we have IETF 68 marked 18-23 March 2006, location TBD, and ICANN
>26-30 March, location "Europe".   Are you endeavoring to assure
>that they are at least on the same or adjacent continents?
>  
>
As I announced on May 3rd, IETF 68 will be in Europe - unless, as for 
IETF 67, we cannot find a suitable and financially satisfactory venue.

>Moving out into the 2008 time frame, I see similar adjacencies
>between ANSI T11 and IETF 71 and again between T11 and IETF 72
>and 73 (in all three cases, adjacent dates, neither location
>announced, but it is a safe bet that T11 will meet in North
>America).
>
>I don't know whether T11 is on your "must avoid" or "should
>avoid" lists or whether there are similar relationships going
>forward.  
>
They are on "Should Avoid" list,  
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/clash_list.html ,which was adopted by the 
IAOC after input from the IESG and WG Chairs.  Recommendations regarding 
that list can be made to [email-masked].

>Personally, I consider avoiding conflicts, or even
>close adjacencies, with ICANN to be of higher priority than most
>or all other bodies because they are, as far as I know, the only
>to which IETF formally appoints a Board Liaison and a voting
>Nomcom member, and on which we are dependent for critical
>services (the IANA function).
>
ICANN is on the "Must Avoid" list and their known dates and any feedback 
have been and will be considered for this proposed calendar.

>  But, if we are going to have
>back-to-back meetings with any critical group (or, IMO, with the
>same group three times in a row), dates are not quite good
>enough to know whether conflicts exist.
>  
>
I agree.  In the 3 May announcement Europe, North America/Asia, and 
North America/Asia were identified for the 3 meetings in 2007.  I 
believe we can identify target continents for 2008 - 2010 as well - of 
course, implementation will be subject to identifying and closing on 
financially acceptable, suitable venues with appropriate Hosts. 

best,
Ray

>regards,
>   john
>
>
>
>--On Wednesday, 17 May, 2006 06:58 -0400 Ray Pelletier
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>All;
>>
>>This is a 1 week Last Call for feedback on Version 01 proposed
>>2008 - 1010 IETF Meeting dates.  The IAOC anticipates taking
>>action to formally adopt dates on 25 May 2006.  These dates
>>differ from the originally proposed dates based upon community
>>feedback, a review of meeting dates of those organizations on
>>the Clash List and maintenance of a reasonably similar period
>>between meetings.  While every effort was made to avoid
>>organizations in the "should avoid" category.  Your feedback
>>to [email-masked] on conflicts with these dates would be
>>appreciated.
>>
>>Our findings of the schedule of other organization's meetings
>>can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html .
>>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 08:39:13 -0400

Ray,

For example, starting from the present,

	* 3GPP CN is shown as meeting 31 May- 2 June at location
	TBD, but is definitely scheduled for Warsaw.
	
	* 3GPP SA is shown a week later, also TBD, but scheduled
	for Warsaw.
	
	* NANOG 37 is shown as location TBD, but is definitely
	scheduled for San Jose, CA 4-7 June.

	* The 3GPP meetings in the last half of September also
	have locations established that are not shown on the
	list.
	
	* The October meetings of NANOG and ARIN have locations
	assigned and ARIN has a date.

forward.  Personally, I consider avoiding conflicts, or even
services (the IANA function).  But, if we are going to have

regards,
   john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:43:08 -0400

--On Wednesday, 17 May, 2006 09:31 -0400 Ray Pelletier
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The information below has been submitted to the IETF
> Secretariat as a means of notifying readers of future events.
> Readers are requested to send in dates of events that are
> appropriate for this calendar section. Please send
> submissions, corrections, etc., to: [email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>
> 
> We are not staffed to monitor others' calendars and rely on
> others to submit and correct data

Ray,

This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think that is good
enough.   If we have "must avoid" entities, then we ought to be
establishing administrative<-> administrative liaisons/ contact
points as well as technical ones, we ought to be proactively
sending out lists and requesting updates before we make
decisions, etc.  I'm particularly concerned about the adjacency
cases as well as the overlap ones -- when time-adjacent meetings
need to occur, I believe we should be working actively with
those other groups to have things be plausibly convenient, not
waiting for announcements to come sailing over the wall in one
direction or another.

The fact that this list hasn't been kept current with regard to
IETF site decisions is a pretty good indication of the problem
with passively sitting around waiting for updates.  IASA
certainly can't claim that IETF didn't tell you.

It may also be that, in critical, must-avoid, cases, IAB should
be formally tasking the technical liaisons to be sure these
lists are kept up to date, but that is, IMO, no substitute for
staff-level coordination.

Again, just my opinion, but I've tried to be in IETF meetings
and meetings IETF has tasked me with attending, on opposite
sides of the world, at the same time or nearly so, a few times
too often.  It is seriously inconvenient for the people involved
and reflects very badly on the IETF.

     john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 18:16:04 +0200

Jordi,

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> listed in the calendar (http://www.ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html)

As Ray has responded to John, the calendar is maintained on a best effort
basis, so if people send precise details about meetings that are
missing, they can be included.

[cross postings reduced]

    Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:15:01 -0700

John C Klensin wrote:
> decisions, etc.  

Exactly.

This is a community.  It extends beyond the boundaries of the IETF and 
the IETF is not the "center' of that community. 

The model of passively waiting for a random person to notify event 
planners of conflicts should be a fallback mechanism, not a primary 
means of coordination among principal organizations within the community.

There is plenty of history with IETF-related scheduling conflicts to 
make it possible to list the other organizations with which coordination 
should be proactive.

d/

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:41:53 -0500

Hi, Ray,

Without reference to the useful discussion on 2006-2007 dates also in this 
thread, I would like to thank you guys for putting the 2008-2010 stake in 
the ground. It is easier for other SDOs to avoid us if we schedule before 
they do.

And thanks for doing so, in a public way, so that you got the needed 
feedback before 2009 :-)

Going 18 months out on continent selection will help, too, but I understand 
that this is harder because you are planning two IETFs for each one we hold 
this year, just to catch up.

Spencer

> All;
>
> This is a 1 week Last Call for feedback on Version 01 proposed 2008 - 1010 
> IETF Meeting dates.

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 12:53:23 -0400

inline.

>waiting for announcements to come sailing over the wall in one
John,
The process followed in the development of the 2008 - 2010 calendar was 
as you described. A Clash List of 34 organizations we Must (13) and 
Should (21) avoid was developed.  Calendar ver 00 was developed using 
historical dates as a template and then efforts were undertaken by 
Secretariat staff and through Liaisons to contact each organization, 
make them aware of our proposed dates and learn their dates for 2008 - 
2010.  The calendar at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html 
reflects what was learned.  Few had yet calendared 2009 - 2010. 
In version 01 the Must avoids have been avoided by at least 1 week, 
while some Should avoids could not be avoided.  Moreover adjacency 
cannot be avoided with 34 groups and 52 weeks.

>certainly can't claim that IETF didn't tell you.
Passively sitting around might suggest that staff aren't busy and I can 
assure you that it absolutely not the case.  It was an oversight to 
which I and they will be more attentive.

>staff-level coordination.
The Liaisons were part of the process, although not as a formal tasking 
by the IAB.  This initiative has established new staff-level, two-way 
relationships which we expect to result in better maintenance of the 
calendar.

>and reflects very badly on the IETF.
We are working to schedule our events 18 - 24 months in advance to 
reduce the inconvenience for you and others. 
Best
Ray

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 12:59:42 -0400

> the IETF is not the "center' of that community.

Is there a center?  Is there a centroid?  If so, what/where?

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 09:04:29 +0200

Since Joe has identified a calendar (even an ISOC-sponsored one!) that 
seems to be updated with less work from the secretariat than the current 
meeting-planning list/calendar, perhaps the IAD should evaluate whether 
the IETF should switch to using this calendar for coordination, and 
retire its "events.cal.html" page?

I'd rather have one, public, calendar to look at than two less complete 
ones....

                  Harald

Joe Abley wrote:
>> listed in the calendar 
>> (http://www.ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html), while

---

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 09:49:10 -0400

Ray,

Thanks for doing this it helps a lot.

I think the selection criteria needs one more variable:
         Time between meetings.

With 3 meetings a year 122 days is about right, but some times during the
year are less productive than others so we should try to space the
meetings out longer in those time periods.

In my experience the productivity between winter and spring meetings is the
lowest, due to multiple global holidays and corporate end of year
issues, as well as people in many countries, having to file their
taxes in this period.
I would like to see longer interval between these two meetings.

In the current schedule between
         Jul/2008  to Dec/2008  is 133
         Dec/2008  to Mar/2009  is 105
         Mar/2009  to Aug/2009  is 133
These meetings need to be better spaced.

IMHO, good spacing of meetings should be as an important criteria as
conflicts with other organizations.

         Olafur

At 06:58 17/05/2006, Ray Pelletier wrote:
>All;
>
>This is a 1 week Last Call for feedback on Version 01 proposed 2008 
>- 1010 IETF Meeting dates.  The IAOC anticipates taking action to 
>formally adopt dates on 25 May 2006.  These dates differ from the 
>originally proposed dates based upon community feedback, a review of 
>meeting dates of those organizations on the Clash List and 
>maintenance of a reasonably similar period between meetings.  While 
>every effort was made to avoid conflicts where known, it was not 
>always possible with those organizations in the "should avoid" 
>category.  Your feedback to [email-masked] on conflicts with these 
>dates would be appreciated.
>

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:25:52 -0400

> I think the selection criteria needs one more variable:

I agree.  I was particularly concerned with the Dec to March timeframe 
as I believed there would be lower productivity during that period 
leading up to the March meeting possibly resulting in less draft 
progress.  I had computed the weeks in between but will revisit the 
spacing with the other feedback.  Thanks
Ray

>> 1010 IETF Meeting dates.  The IAOC anticipates taking action to

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 09:56:58 -0500

Dear Ray (offlist)

Welcome to the wonderful world of guessing geek behavior.

I agree with Olafur on the symptom (people basically take December and/or 
January off), but wonder whether allowing more time will make any 
difference - we seem to produce about half the drafts within two weeks of a 
cutoff, no matter how long the interval between meetings is, and if we want 
to get more work done, having more deadlines (as happens when people must 
produce a document before an interim meeting) seems more helpful.

But I, too, am guessing what geeks really do, so I'll leave that to the 
professionals Good luck!  :-)

Thanks,

Spencer

From: "Ray Pelletier" <[email-masked]>

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:09:46 -0400

Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> I agree with Olafur on the symptom (people basically take December 
> and/or January off), but wonder whether allowing more time will make 
> any difference - we seem to produce about half the drafts within two 
> weeks of a cutoff, no matter how long the interval between meetings 
> is, and if we want to get more work done, having more deadlines (as 
> happens when people must produce a document before an interim meeting) 
> seems more helpful.

Deadlines are great - if it weren't for the last minute, nothing would 
get done.  I wish folks would abide by them, especially getting agendas 
and presentations in.  People want to know when and where, but most 
importantly they want to know "why" and "why" is the agenda.  
Registrations spike when the agenda begins to shape up.  I think we 
would get more onsite attendance if the agenda could be promulgated earlier.
Ray

>
> But I, too, am guessing what geeks really do, so I'll leave that to 
> the professionals Good luck!  :-)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:21:12 -0500

Hi, Ray,

My apologies for offlisting and still copying [email-masked]... Apparently I 
should still be asleep!

Spencer

From: "Ray Pelletier" <[email-masked]>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Ólafur Guðmundsson" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting Calendar

>> difference - we seem to produce about half the drafts within two weeks of 
>> a cutoff, no matter how long the interval between meetings is, and if we 
>> want to get more work done, having more deadlines (as happens when people 
>> must produce a document before an interim meeting) seems more helpful.
>
> Deadlines are great - if it weren't for the last minute, nothing would get 
> done.  I wish folks would abide by them, especially getting agendas and 
> presentations in.  People want to know when and where, but most 
> Registrations spike when the agenda begins to shape up.  I think we would 
> get more onsite attendance if the agenda could be promulgated earlier.
> Ray
>
>>
>>>> meeting dates of those organizations on the Clash List and maintenance 
>>>> of a reasonably similar period between meetings.  While every effort 
>>>> was made to avoid conflicts where known, it was not always possible 
>>>> with those organizations in the "should avoid" category.  Your feedback 
>>>> to [email-masked] on conflicts with these dates would be appreciated.
>>>>

---

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 18:17:59 +0200

Regarding the ITU-T meetings, 
would it be possible to specify the SG involved
rather than cryptically notating "ITU-T".

I think that the only SGs of interest to many IETF'ers are 
SG13, SG15, SG16 and SG17 (and maybe a few attendees to SG12).
There are also meetings of the NGN-GSI (run by SG13).
Only full meetings should be noted (there are just too many interim
meetings).
There may also be interesting special meetings
(such as last year's joint meeting of SG13 and IETF management teams).

The meetings in 2006 are as follows:

SG13 and NGN-GSI
2006-01-16  2006-01-27 (past)
2006-07-17  2006-07-28 
2006-10-23  2006-11-03 

SG15
2006-02-06  2006-02-17 (past)
2006-10-30  2006-11-10          <- not listed

SG16
2006-04-03  2006-04-13 (past)
2006-11-14  2006-11-24             

SG17
2006-01-16  2006-01-20 (past)
2006-04-19  2006-04-28 (past)
2006-12-06  2006-12-15 

You also list 
May 24-June 2  SG4
June 5-13         SG12
July 3-7            TSAG
Sept 18-22        SG5 and 6

I think that TSAG can probably be removed
(Do any of the TSAG members attend IETF meetings?)

The likelihood of SG5 and 6 people (radiation and outside phone wires)
attending IETF is vanishingly small. So I believe that date can be
removed.

I also don't imagine that there are that many co-participants
of SG4 and IETF.

Y(J)S

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:03:43 -0400

> I also don't imagine that there are that many co-participants

Well, we have at least one SG4 rapporteur who is pretty active.