Subject: IETF meeting scaling: early schedules?

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:43:32 -0400

It occurred to me that IETF meetings might scale better if we
knew the meeting schedules further in advance.  I generally have
to plan to attend for the whole week, because the only
alternative is to wait until the meeting schedule is finalized,
by which time the hotels will be full and the airfares will be
outrageous.  As a result, I usually wind up sitting in on other
WGs just for my own edification.  If I could be sure that the WGs
I need to attend will be meeting on such-and-such days, I might
be able to attend for just those days.  If enough people could do
this, it might pull down total attendance on any given day.

Of course, it might not make a big enough difference to be worth
the work.  Just a thought.

--
/=============================================================\
|John Stracke    | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK  |
[email-masked]|============================================|
|Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed |
|eCal Corp.      |  by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch |
\=============================================================/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:00:28 -0500

Two comments:

1. It would be quite a challenge. There are only 3 or 4 months
between IETFs, during which WGs have to get created/deleted,
get their new drafts written, decide how much time they
need to meet, and negotiate their agenda slots and clashes
to avoid.  This is so dynamic a process I find it hard to imagine
getting it done sooner.

2. Cross-fertilization is a Good Thing. We actually *want* people
to attend WGs that they are not involved in; everything depends
on everything else, but it's amazing how little some people know
about what others are doing. 

   Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter (IAB Chair)
Program Director, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM Internet Div
On assignment for IBM at http://www.iCAIR.org 
Non-IBM email: [email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:00:28 -0500

Two comments:

   Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:11:18 -0700

>2. Cross-fertilization is a Good Thing. We actually *want* people

Hybrid suggestion:

Occasionally, there are working groups that are quite specialized and 
attract participants who, really and truly and legitimately, are only 
interested in that one topic.

For such groups, perhaps their chair could request and get early meeting 
assignment?

(This leaves the "isolationist" decision up to the working group.)

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:11:18 -0700

Hybrid suggestion:

d/

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:55:34 -0400

> For such groups, perhaps their chair could request and get early meeting 

Dave,

While it isn't universally true, I'd suggest that such groups are often
precisely the ones most in need of cross-fertilization and that it is often
the major benefit of their doing their work within IETF rather than
somewhere else entirely.

     john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:55:34 -0400

Dave,

     john

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:16:14 +0100 (BST)

On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:

> >to attend WGs that they are not involved in;  

Unless, of course, they're not involved in any WGs, don't know anyone,
don't get caught up in conversations in corridors, get into meeting
rooms first, and get to sit in the front two rows taking up valuable
space.

This cross-fertilization thing has to be a one-or-more minimum, I
think.

> interested in that one topic.

And that one topic doesn't have any interactions with e.g.
IPSec/NAT/Mobile IP, so awareness of impact on/from these areas and
attendance in these WGs isn't considered at all useful?

IMO, the participants in such a group should be interested in how
their favourite monomaniac topic interacts with the rest of the
protocol universe, present and future. I find it hard to legitimately
justify not being interested in interactions and other ongoing work
because you think it won't affect your WG's output in any way; do you
have counterexamples from existing WGs?

> (This leaves the "isolationist" decision up to the working group.)

This raises an obvious question: if you're going to be isolationist,
why be at the IETF WGs at all? I'm thinking W3C, WAP, ISO CLNP, ATM
Forum...

L.

Oh yeah, you want an IETF WG because you want Officially
Rubberstamped Approved RFC Standards. Sorry, I forgot.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:16:14 +0100 (BST)

L.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:08:37 -0400

> For such groups, perhaps their chair could request and get early meeting 

the number of groups for which such requests would really be legitimate 
is insignificantly small.  and the scheduling constraints on working group
groups are already so difficult to meet that the secretariat needs to 
have maximum flexibility to juggle groups around.

> (This leaves the "isolationist" decision up to the working group.)

in general, isolationist working groups don't belong in IETF.   

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:08:37 -0400

Keith