Subject: Making IETF happening in different regions

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:11:06 -0600

Hi all,

One more observation, which unfortunately I was not able to think before to
be made yesterday in the mic and ask for a show hands ...

I think it has been clear that this community want to have IETF happening in
different regions so frequently as in US, and consequently being fair to
others which have traveling issues, and especially with visas.

However, right now doing IETF in US or Canada has a lot of advantages for a
possible host/sponsor in terms of cost.

Hotels in US/Canada, don't charge for the cost of the meeting rooms. They
just want to fill a number of guest rooms for the week and get paid for the
food.

This is a totally different model than in the rest of the world, I guess
that basically because the number of hotels that have the space-capabilities
required for our meetings, which are available in sufficient number in most
of the big cities.

Instead, in Europe (for example), the hotels that can host an IETF are very
few, and consequently, they are not available unless you reserve them (and
pay for the cost) 2 years in advance, which require a planning that hast not
been the case for IETF in the last years. Of course, hotels know that and it
means they can increase the cost and charge for the meeting rooms (no
competition).

The obvious result of this situation is that a candidate host/sponsor will
always prefer to do it in US, especially for big companies (which typically
are the ones that can sponsor an IETF), so we end up being very unfair with
ourselves and our wish to do meetings also outside US.

Moreover, this is unfair to the hosts/sponsors that do it outside US, as
they will pay even 3-4 times the cost of an IETF in US.

I think the solution for this is quite clear and I don't think this
community can deny it.

We need to calculate the average cost of IETF hosted in all the continents,
and that cost is the one that need to be put on the table by any
sponsor/host regardless of where the meeting is actually going to be hosted.

Small negotiation over that cost (connectivity, social, terminal room, etc.)
should be obviously in the hands of the IAD/IAOC, because each location
could have very concrete needs.

Of course, the "average" sponsorship cost should be openly available in the
IETF web page for possible sponsors to know it in advance.

Seems fair and reasonable ?

Regards,
Jordi

**********************************************
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.

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

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:24:34 -0800

Jordi,

> sponsor/host regardless of where the meeting is actually going to be hosted.

Why would we go for the average instead of the cheapest ?

Overall price of a meeting location is an easier criteria to measure and
more fair than all kind of political considerations.

David Kessens
---

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:27:10 -0500

> sponsor/host regardless of where the meeting is actually going to be hosted.

my mind just boggled.  or my bogometer just pegged.

no, this does not seem at all fair.  nor reasonable.

Keith

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:34:21 -0500

What I think Jordi is saying is that he wants the US sponsors to 
subsidize the cost of the overseas meetings.  At least that's what it 
works out to be....

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:36:21 -0600

So you mean you think is reasonable and fair going for the cheapest even if
every time more and more people can't attend because a government decides
not to grant visas ?

I'm feeling very embarrassed and concerned hearing that.

I guess our concept of fairness is quite different.

Precisely following your recommendation we are being politically driven,
instead of openly-in-the-IETF-way driven.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:24:34 -0800
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
> CC: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: Making IETF happening in different regions
> 
> 
> Jordi,
>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:46:21 -0500

> subsidize the cost of the overseas meetings.  At least that's what it 

Well, that's how I interpreted it also.  What I found mind-boggling was 
the idea that companies that volunteer to host one meeting would somehow 
be willing to subsidize meetings held elsewhere.  Last I knew it was 
already quite difficult to find sponsors, and somehow this doesn't seem 
like a good way to express our gratitude to them for their generosity.

I have also been of the impression that our hotel bills and meeting fees 
were paying for most of the cost of our meetings, and that the sponsors 
were mostly providing local logistical support and paying for incidental 
costs - terminal room and wireless, t-shirts, subsidizing the social, 
etc.  And since the meeting fees are more-or-less constant and 
independent of location, to me it seems like the US-only _attendees_ are 
already partially subsidizing the cost of overseas meetings.  Which 
doesn't seem entirely "fair" but might be "reasonable" - unlike the idea 
to penalize _sponsors_ of US meetings.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:49:16 -0500

> every time more and more people can't attend because a government decides

you're conflating two problems - cost and immigration laws.

having fewer meetings in the US is a reasonable response to US 
immigration law.  asking US sponsors to pay for the additional cost of 
holding those meetings outside of the US is not reasonable.

Keith

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:54:07 -0800 (PST)

Except of course that many of the "US Sponsors" are in fact global 
companies anyway. Think about the list of recent and future sponsors.

Ole

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:44:48 -0600

> subsidize the cost of the overseas meetings.  At least that's what it 

This view can be mapped to a classic model that would have significant benefits 
for the IETF:

A "host" gets all sorts of marketing leverage out of the role in producing an 
IETF.

There is nothing that requires that the event site management effort be coupled 
with a particular host's venue.

If we moved to a model of having companies provide sponsorship funds, in return 
for which they get appropriate marketing presence, then we could have meeting 
venue management move to the sort of predictable and timely basis -- ie, far 
enough ahead of time -- that has been a concern for many years.

d/

-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:45:36 -0800

Jordi,

> instead of openly-in-the-IETF-way driven.

It's way easier to be an open organization if the cost for attending a
meeting is as low as possible. 

David Kessens
---

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:55:02 -0800

Keith,

On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 07:46:21PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> etc.

These costs vary a lot as well: telco costs are very differrent in
various locale, local staff cost is very different, social cost
depends a lot on the location etc.

David Kessens
---

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:05:37 -0500

> companies anyway. Think about the list of recent and future sponsors.

sure, but the sponsors get some leeway in where meetings are held (since 
we're more likely to hold a meeting in an area where someone is willing 
to sponsor it), and one of the factors in a sponsor's decision is 
probably cost.  so if we say to our potential sponsors, "sure you can 
host a meeting in city X, but you're going to have to pay for it as if 
it were in city Y", somehow that doesn't seem likely to fly.

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:11:13 -0800 (PST)

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Keith Moore wrote:

> we're more likely to hold a meeting in an area where someone is willing to 
> sponsor it), and one of the factors in a sponsor's decision is probably cost. 
> so if we say to our potential sponsors, "sure you can host a meeting in city 
> X, but you're going to have to pay for it as if it were in city Y", somehow 
> that doesn't seem likely to fly.

Bear in mind that potential sponsors like to host meetings where they 
actually have local presence. Having people on the ground for months 
before a meeting is a way better recipe for success then stagging it 
somewhere else and installing it on friday before the meeting started.

If you liked the network for this meeting bear in mind that the people 
putting it together have been working on it since like october.

joelja

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Jaeggli  	       Unix Consulting 	       [email-masked]
GPG Key Fingerprint:     5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:34:00 -0800

Dave Crocker wrote:
> This view can be mapped to a classic model that would have significant 
> benefits for the IETF:
> 
> 
> A "host" gets all sorts of marketing leverage out of the role in 
> producing an IETF.
> 
> There is nothing that requires that the event site management effort be 
> coupled with a particular host's venue.
> 
> If we moved to a model of having companies provide sponsorship funds, in 
> return for which they get appropriate marketing presence, then we could 
> have meeting venue management move to the sort of predictable and timely 
> basis -- ie, far enough ahead of time -- that has been a concern for 
> many years.

Amen!  And maybe the meeting fees could actually go down
with enough sponsors.  An additional room like the terminal
room (not out in the open) could be used.

Also, the IETF could maintain control of the
network if there were multiple sponsors instead
of a single host.   They would not be allowed to ignore
the advice of the NOC team, and let the wireless meltdown
right off the bat.

> d/

Andy

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:10:50 -0600

Not really. If you look to the recent sponsors, the current one and the next
one, they are all European companies, hosting IETF in North America.

Actually it can be presented in the other way around, as they host here, 50%
of the attendees are getting indirectly subsidized by those sponsors
decision to host here because their travel expenses are lower. So the cost
for the participants from the rest of the world is higher.

When these participants from the rest of the world want to host in their own
regions, they have a higher sponsoring cost.

On the other way around, most of the sponsors are typically big companies,
which despite being from AP, EU or NA, basically try to make it cheaper to
keep their cost down.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:34:21 -0500
> Para: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:14:15 -0600

That will be correct if they are really US sponsors, which don't seem to be
the case most of the time.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:49:16 -0500
> Para: <[email-masked]>

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:30:26 -0600

Making the sponsorship cost in different regions shared among all the
meetings will not significantly increase the sponsoring cost of those in
US/Canada, but will actually help to host more meetings everywhere,
according to the figures that I know.

It has not been, at all, my intend to complain about the sponsors,
absolutely on the contrary. It is great that companies like Nokia (in the
case of this meeting), take the lead to solve the IETF problem of lack of
adequate planning in the last couple of years to find venues and hosts. Is
the only reason we can meet here this week, because Nokia.

I'm convinced that this situation is going to improve with the new
administrative structure, actually is already happening.

To make it clear: Many thanks to Nokia and all the sponsors ! It is
fantastic. 

I think there is a big misunderstanding from the participants about how much
a meeting actually cost (and in different regions). What is clear is that:

1) The hotel bills may contribute a bit to the cost of the event, but not
really so much as you believe, and seems to be very dependant on the
location.

2) The fees only cover a small portion of the cost.

3) Long time ago the host responsibility was basically to provide the
network/connectivity, terminal room and if they wish so, organize the
social. This is no longer true and at least since Yokohama (I may be wrong),
the host need to contribute with a big amount of money to make it possible.

I will say that today we can't talk anymore about host, but sponsor(s).

Regards,
Jordi

> Fecha: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:46:21 -0500
> Para: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
> CC: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:35:20 -0600

I think is much easier to have a uniform and well-know stable cost, which
also facilitates long-term planning, which has been one of the IETF problems
for organizing our meetings.

Long-term planning also helps to keep the cost down for the meetings, the
IETF administrative cost, and the participants !

On the other way around, if the cost for attending the meeting is lower for
the place where the meeting is cheaper to organize, for only half of the
participants, which in fact seems to me that are the richer economies, we
are more open to those participants, but not to the rest.

Regards,
Jordi

> Fecha: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:45:36 -0800

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:40:35 -0600

Keith,

Is difficult to calculate with concrete figures, but it will not be as X and
Y, but a point in the middle.

It will also be a more open process. Today, in my opinion, having to
negotiate with each possible sponsor in secret, is a broken concept, and
against our openness.

I agree that there should be some degree of flexibility, but in the order of
10% or so, not 100%.

Regards,
Jordi

> Fecha: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:05:37 -0500
> Para: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:48:11 -0500

> negotiate with each possible sponsor in secret, is a broken concept, and

I'm a lot more concerned about openness in IETF protocol development. 
some kinds of negotiations really do need to be done in secret.

IMHO, having protocol engineers who know next to nothing about meeting 
logistics try to dictate such terms is a broken concept.

Keith

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:48:19 -0600

Actually this can be seen as an additional way to bring the sponsor "local"
cost down. There are several factors:

1) We bring the overall cost down by adequate anticipated planning.

2) The potential host prefers to host in the place where they have better
local support, is more convenient for them, or whatever.

3) The "monetary" contribution is the same in all the locations.

4) The local expenses, moving people, etc., get down because the sponsor is
choosing the venue of their preference.

At the end the venue selection is not biased by the cost difference, because
the sponsor want to bring down (3), which actually could mean increase their
"non-monetary" cost (4).

The results is also better for all (even participants), because the
logistics and local-planning is done more coherently.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:11:13 -0800 (PST)
> Para: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
> CC: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
> <[email-masked]>

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:52:29 -0600

I don't think the meeting fees could actually go down, may be more in the
other way around if we are realistic with the cost figures.

Actually the cost is already high for a sponsor, and I believe trying to get
more from the industry (or other kind of sponsors) for each meeting will be
really difficult.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:34:00 -0800
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> CC: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
> <[email-masked]>, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: Moving from "hosts" to "sponsors"
> 
> Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Michael StJohns wrote:

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:28:08 -0800

Andy,

I have been involved as local host now for two times (although I
wasn't very local this time ;-)). I agree that it doesn't make sense
to build a network each and every time completely from scratch. It is
an enormous effort to beg potential sponsors for accesspoints (or
spend a lot of money to buy them), to figure out how to build a
terminal room and how to equip it, to buy servers and install
monitoring software that gets wiped out right after the meeting to
mention just a few examples. Luckily, we and the very experienced
group of volunteers that helped us did have some memories
(nightmares?) from previous meetings but it would have been way more
efficient if a lot of the building blocks were simply already in place
before a host even volunteers to be the host (and I think a host would
more easily take on this role if the job was a bit more manageable).

I personally believe that we would be better off if the same
experienced (paid for) group would build the network each and every
time with the same equipment owned by IETF, while the sponsor does
what they are best at, and that is providing funding for the actual
meeting.

David Kessens
PS it will also be easier to deal with complaints: no cookies at the
   break ? well, maybe you or employer should have sponsored the
   break then.
---

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:29:32 -0600

Let me rephrase it for a better understanding:

I agree that some kind of confidentiality in the negotiation is required,
but the common starting point for the overall sponsorship cost should be
openly well-known. I think this thread has demonstrated the general
ignorance about the real costs, which in turn, doesn't help to take a good
decision about the right model to follow.

The confidentiality is needed mainly because small sponsorship variations
due to local specifics.

Moreover, is ridiculous to keep the process secret when people who may be
involved or informed about the negotiation being part of IETF bodies, and
should keep the confidentiality about that, may be spreading rumors before
they are facts.

I also agree with you, I'm very concerned and noticed this very recently,
about the lack of openness in IETF protocol development, which seem to turn
into secret negotiations and long-time planned WG guidance.

Regards,
Jordi

PS: I may be wrong, but I think that I know slightly more about meeting
logistics and negotiation than probably the average protocol engineer,
having organized entirely myself 3 events for up to 800 people, some others
for about half that people, and participated in all the details for a 3500+
event, in addition to several international exhibitions. I'm missing an IETF
itself though :-(.

> Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:48:11 -0500

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 06:33:58 -0500

I think that the IETF neglects (or, rather, has neglected in the  
past) many possible
opportunities for sponsorship. That implies that increasing the income
from sponsorship should be possible.

People who are concerned with this issue should talk (or email) our  
IAD, Ray Pelletier, who
has a number of ideas in this area (and who reads this list).
If people feel that some sorts of sponsorship are not
appropriate, I am sure that Ray would like that input too.

In the new IASA / NeuStar system, there is no choice but to be  
realistic with
cost figures. Note that the registration fee and the attendance both  
went
up with this meeting, which of course means that revenue increased. I  
actually think
that, with revenue and sponsorship both increasing, the IETF should be
able to improve the meeting support and experience even more in the  
future.

Regards
Marshall

On Mar 24, 2006, at 12:52 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> 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: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:37:09 -0800

Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> I think that the IETF neglects (or, rather, has neglected in the past) 
> many possible
> People who are concerned with this issue should talk (or email) our IAD, 
> Ray Pelletier, who
> In the new IASA / NeuStar system, there is no choice but to be realistic 
> with
> cost figures. Note that the registration fee and the attendance both went
> able to improve the meeting support and experience even more in the future.
> 

I know you've heard this all before, but it's been getting
increasingly difficult for us WG Chairs to get all the key
people working on a protocol to fly across the planet for
a 2 hour meeting.  These are busy people who can't
afford to block out an entire week because they don't
know when or where the 2 hour meeting is going to be.
(This even applies to some WG Chairs ;-)

I would support any plan that will make meetings cheaper
and easier to attend for everybody.  I'd like quick action,
not a 2 year study to think about it.

Andy

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:03:11 -0500

> (This even applies to some WG Chairs ;-)

...especially when the 2 hour meeting is all-too-often mostly consumed 
with PowerPoint presentations (not discussions) of half-baked or 
irrelevant proposals, given to a roomful of people who are mostly zoned 
out staring at their laptops (probably because staring at slides is just 
too painful).  I never cease to be amazed at how poorly we use our 
meeting time these days, especially given what we invest in those 
meetings in terms of money and travel stress.

(Or maybe I'm just attending the wrong groups?  once in awhile I do 
stumble on a group that is using its time productively)

> not a 2 year study to think about it.

sometimes I find remote participation (via audio streaming and jabber) 
more effective than actually attending the meeting.  I sometimes am 
surprised to find that the extra distance makes it easier for me to see 
what is relevant.  I also think it might be less distracting to attend a 
meeting from my own office than to be in a room full of people who 
aren't paying attention.

of course, that doesn't make up for the lack of face time in the bar - 
and the ability to work things out in the hallways and generally just 
get to know our fellow conspirators personally is a lot of the reason we 
need to have these meetings.  unfortunately, it's hard to get expensed 
to travel halfway across the world to drink with other geeks.

Keith

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 05:07:11 -0800

> more from the industry (or other kind of sponsors) for each meeting will be

IMO, the current trend and situation is not sustainable.
It may be fine for professional standards attenders, but
I'm trying to get some people to show up in my WG who
actually write code and run networks for a living.
They don't want to come here anymore.

Andy

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:40:39 -0500

> They don't want to come here anymore.

What changes would have to be made so that they would want to attend?
Ray

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:47:13 +0000

> logistics and local-planning is done more coherently.

I think there's some unfair handwaving in this thread.

One option however would be to seek 'partnerships' between vendors and
the IETF that span more than one meeting.  Unless that impacted the
perceived 'neutrality' of the IETF and its standardisation processes.

Tim

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:26:28 -0500

On Mar 24, 2006, at 7:37 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:

>> People who are concerned with this issue should talk (or email)  
>> our IAD, Ray Pelletier, who
>> up with this meeting, which of course means that revenue  
>> increased. I actually think

Now THAT is a different matter. I think that there should be a block  
in period,
starting maybe 1 week in advance, after which the schedule should  
only change
because of "force majeure." (Yes, that includes floods.)

If people are flying across the planet to a meeting,
the time of the meeting needs to be predictable something more than  
one RTT by airplane
in advance. Any policy to the contrary is just broken and wrong.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:13:08 -0600

> perceived 'neutrality' of the IETF and its standardisation processes.
I suspect that this would indeed be a question.

One of the services that ISOC provides to the IETF is a layer of 
indirection for sponsors; they give money into a pool administered by 
ISOC (and get a seat on the ISOC AC in return), but the procedures make 
it pretty clear that they do not get any direct influence over the IETF 
standardization process that way.

Among the issues Ray could want to calculate would be:
- the number of new ISOC Platinum members needed to cover the costs 
currently borne by the hosts
- the likely income/percieved influence tradeoff of sponsoring the IETF 
in smaller chunks (a cookie sponsor, a printer sponsor, a connectivity 
sponsor, a WLAN sponsor and a router sponsor....? some of these could be 
 > 1 meeting long; others could last no longer than a single cookie 
break....)
- what other creative options there are for cost/benefit tradeoffs

One option I do NOT want to consider (and which the 770 stand in the 
lobby kind of dented a little) is to add a tradeshow to the IETF 
meeting. The next steps in that progression have been travelled before - 
soon, the tradeshow has a standards adjunct, not the other way around.

                 Harald

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:29:23 +0000

On Fri Mar 24 13:03:11 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
> sometimes I find remote participation (via audio streaming and 
> jabber) more effective than actually attending the meeting.  I 
> sometimes am surprised to find that the extra distance makes it 
> easier for me to see what is relevant.  I also think it might be 
> less distracting to attend a meeting from my own office than to be 
> in a room full of people who aren't paying attention.
> 
> 
I don't actually have the choice, but I find remote participation 
generally okay, for the most part, albeit I have the slight advantage 
of starting off my internet experience in telnet BBS systems, so I'm 
generally used to the text chat thing, the lag, etc. The audio lag is 
more unnerving, in the cases where the Jabber scribe is helpfully 
typing in what people are going to say before they say it.

Many thanks to all the jabber scribes in those meetings I virtually 
attended, and, just as important, thanks to those physically present 
who also monitored and used the Jabber rooms, and thus made me feel 
somewhat like an attendee (albeit in the cheap seats) rather than a 
"not present".

I'm somewhat hoping that the use of the Jabber server outside the 
meetings might be able to take off as a method for more 
high-bandwidth discussion, paradoxically leaving more time in the 
"real" meetings for the kind of presentations that Keith hates, but 
this time having them aimed at cross pollination between groups and 
areas.

> of course, that doesn't make up for the lack of face time in the 
> bar - and the ability to work things out in the hallways and 
> generally just get to know our fellow conspirators personally is a 
> lot of the reason we need to have these meetings.

Sure, and meeting quite a few people back in Paris was great.

>   unfortunately, it's hard to get expensed to travel halfway across 
> the world to drink with other geeks.
> 
> 
"expensed"... Yeah, that'd be good too.

Dave.
-- 
           You see things; and you say "Why?"
   But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"
    - George Bernard Shaw

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:39:49 -0600

> I suspect that this would indeed be a question.

To invoke a particularly apt cliche punchline: we are merely haggling about price.

The IETF's long-term use of hosts already creates these partnerships, albeit one 
meeting at a time.  Hosts can enjoy very considerable marketing benefits during 
the IETF.

Moving to a sponsorship model permits the IETF to enjoy continue to enjoy the 
financial benefits that we rely on from hosts, but permits us to do vastly more 
rational (and cost-effective) meeting logistics planning.  It well might also 
permit us to obtain enough funds to reduce attendance fees.  By way of a simple 
goal, it might allow meeting fees to be reduced to cover only meeting costs, 
rather than also used for funding the basic Secretariat.

> standardization process that way.

 From a marketing standpoint, Hosts currently get a significantly more powerful 
position than you just described.

As for whose name is on the sponsorship check, I don't care.

> Among the issues Ray could want to calculate would be:

sounds like some good examples.

> soon, the tradeshow has a standards adjunct, not the other way around.

Yes, this is an important danger to pay close attention to.

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 07:06:59 -0800

> What changes would have to be made so that they would want to attend?

my $0.02:

Nothing -- not in the current meeting format.

A more workable model would be to treat the current
type of meeting as an Annual Plenary, full of Power-Point
laden 2 hour BOFs, and status meetings of almost no value
in the production of standards-track protocols.

The other 2 IETFs would be Working Group Meetings.
Essentially, this as a collection of WG Interim Meetings.
WGs meet for 1-3 days and mash through documents and
get them done fast.  Decisions validated on the WG mailing
list within 2 weeks of IETF Friday.

The meeting slot allocation (General Agenda)
is set in stone 30 days in advance of IETF Sunday.
BOF agendas are due 30 days in advance of IETF Sunday.
WG agendas are due 15 days in advance of IETF Sunday.
No exceptions.

Remote audio and jabber for all meetings of course,
and better remote meeting participation tools over time.
If the meeting fees could be lowered over time because
smaller venues are needed 2 out of 3 IETFs, then more
people will be able to participate.

The meeting fee represented 41% of the total cost of
my attendance to IETF 65.  IMO, sponsors at the Plenary
meeting would be appropriate, and could help the IETF
fund a cheaper, more stable, IETF-controlled, conference.

Andy

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:22:20 -0500

> To invoke a particularly apt cliche punchline: we are merely haggling about price.

ah yes, but perhaps the point of that joke is that there really is a
difference between a novelty and a commodity.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:22:25 -0600

> list within 2 weeks of IETF Friday.
are you seeing these as meetings of *all* WGs, or do you envision 
multiple meetings, each with some subset of WGs?
If (guesstimate) 50 of 120 WGs decide to meet in this format, the number 
of parallell tracks at one monster meeting will run between 15 and 30.

I'm intrigued by the idea of replacing one or more IETF meetings with 
"large interims", but would like to work through exactly what's being 
proposed. (Of course, scheduling 2 years out DOES interfere with "quick" 
experiments....)
> WG agendas are due 15 days in advance of IETF Sunday.
....and cancellation on those WGs who do not provide such agendas? Just 
checking....
> fund a cheaper, more stable, IETF-controlled, conference.
My cost for this meeting (VERY rough, off the top of my head):

- Hotel: 800 dollars
- Food: 400 dollars
- Airfare: 1200 dollars
- Meeting fee: 550 dollars
- Misc: 50 dollars

Total: 3000 dollars. Meeting fee percentage: 18%.
But we've been around the "how much does the meeting fee matter" bush 
before.
Cheaper is better, and how much it matters varies widely between people.

                        Harald

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:45:55 +0100

> list within 2 weeks of IETF Friday.
...
> people will be able to participate.

I think there are some good ideas here.

I find that WG meetings are too short to get anything useful done, and
all the issues that would benefit of longer face-to-face discussions
are taken to the mailing list before any concrete proposal are fleshed
out.

I agree that interim WG meetings would be useful, but here is a
further proposal:

Have open virtual interim-meetings for specific WG work items.  A
working group could declare to have a two-hour meeting on jabber (and
possibly audio) on a specific date to sort out all technical problems
with a specific document.  The audience will then be more inclined to
have actually read the document.  If there is an agenda and list of
open issues, going through the open issues until there is one (or
more) fully fleshed out proposed solution is hopefully not too
un-realistic.  The proposal can then be written up and taken back to
the WG for mailing list discussions.

/Simon

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 07:49:46 -0800

> meeting from my own office than to be in a room full of people who 

Maybe there's an intermediate between email and full f2f time?
Something like having well known jabber chats to simulate the
quickness of f2f conversation without having to be there? There
is some amount of precedence for this with the IESG's telechats.
They could be structured like regular wg meetings with moderation,
etc for well known ones, and the same room could be reused for
ad hoc/sidebar discussions when not in use.

		Mike

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:00:55 -0600

> I agree that interim WG meetings would be useful, but here is a

There are quite a few really good ideas for improvements to IETF productivity. 
The problem with taking a particular suggestion and then adding others to it 
will be that nothing gets considered in detail and nothing gets done.

The original suggestion was quite specific:

      Take the kinds of funds spent by meeting hosts and, instead, have them 
become meeting sponsors, with meeting venue logistics handled by the IETF 
itself, separately.  In return for meeting sponsorship, give the sponsor various 
marketing opportunities as the meeting, similar to what hosts currently enjoy.

      In other words, I am suggesting a single, conceptually small change to the 
current model.  Its purpose is to permit vastly better meeting planning than we 
currently can achieve, due to the delays inherent in having meeting hosts.

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:06:17 -0600

> lobby kind of dented a little) is to add a tradeshow to the IETF 

Thinking about this further, I am struck by the fact that the 770 booth and the 
wifi phone booth in Japan were wildly popular with attendees.  So the concern 
you raise is a very real and very serious slippery-slope, but portions of that 
slope seem to be entirely acceptable to the IETF attendees.

Here is a guess at the rule we should impose:

A sponsor donating a sufficiently large amount may have a small booth for the 
sale of a single product that is a) unannounced or has been announced within the 
last [6] months, and b) appropriate for purchase and use by individuals.

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:09:31 -0500

> will be that nothing gets considered in detail and nothing gets done.

you say that like it's a bad thing.

not to pick on you personally, but since you brought this up - it's
hard to escape the impression that you'd rather have one half-baked
idea adopted without much discussion, than to have serious discussion
about what the real problems are and how to solve them.

come to think of it, that resembles a lot of what passes for
'engineering' of IETF protocols.  

Keith

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:11:13 +0100

> > people will be able to participate.

In my case, the meeting fees are small compared to travel and hotel
costs.

>are taken to the mailing list before any concrete proposal are fleshed

But is the WG the place to have the discussion?  In most of the WG's
that I attended this week, technical discussions were typically between
3 to 5 experts in the field who know everything about the topic, the
rest of the room either couldn't follow the discussion or had nothing
to contribute.  That means that there are 50 or so people sitting there
doing nothing.  While I agree that face-2-face discussions are useful,
I much rather see the discussion take place in the hallway, then have
one person report on the outcome.

Henk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1160438400. Watch this space...

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:20:56 -0800 (PST)

The "wifi phone booth in Japan [...] wildly popular with attendees," was 
actually at APRICOT in Kyoto, but I know it all blends together after a 
while :-) At $50, vs the retail price of around $350, it was a loss-leader
give-away. I think we'd be happy to get more "free stuff" like that :-)

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:20:26 +0100

Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]> writes:

> to contribute.

That's my experience too.  However, usually there is not enough time
for the experts to sort out the issue and arrive at a proposal at the
meeting.  That means the primary reason for having the current
meetings are so that the experts can identify each other and then meet
and talk off-line in the hallways.  Formalizing that procedure, and
enable it to happen remotely at any time of the year may improve
productivity.

> That means that there are 50 or so people sitting there doing
> nothing.  While I agree that face-2-face discussions are useful, I
> much rather see the discussion take place in the hallway, then have

I think virtual interim meetings may have a similar end result.

/Simon

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:36:18 +0000

> I think virtual interim meetings may have a similar end result.

Virtual interims are far easier to organize, and therefore could be 
organized around a specific issue or small set of them, rather than 
trying to concern themselves with the entire output of a WG (or in 
the case of some WGs, not only their entire output but the output of 
two or more other WGs as well).

One would hope that organizing several specific virtual mini-interims 
would yield just the handful of interested parties making the time to 
attend, and not yield 50 people staring blankly at laptops. (Or if 
they do, at least their cost and travel ought to be minimal).

Dave.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:22:12 +0000

> ad hoc/sidebar discussions when not in use.

Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up with
rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;)
 
What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID cutoff,
is maybe look at such technology for interim meetings, and have the
IETF support some infrastructure to help interim meetings run more
effectively, maybe even without a physical meeting venue.   Some WGs
might then run more interim virtual meetings and help distribute the
workload over the year more smoothly.

-- 
Tim/::1

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:00 -0800

Dave Crocker wrote:
> There are quite a few really good ideas for improvements to IETF
> productivity. The problem with taking a particular suggestion and then
> adding others to it will be that nothing gets considered in detail and
> nothing gets done.
> 
>      Take the kinds of funds spent by meeting hosts and, instead, have
> them become meeting sponsors, with meeting venue logistics handled by
> the IETF itself, separately.  In return for meeting sponsorship, give
> the sponsor various marketing opportunities as the meeting, similar to
> what hosts currently enjoy.
> 
>      In other words, I am suggesting a single, conceptually small change
> to the current model.  Its purpose is to permit vastly better meeting
> planning than we currently can achieve, due to the delays inherent in
> having meeting hosts.

This is much closer to the model that most IEEE and ACM conferences use,
and it works well. It does, however, require a persistent organization
with legal and financial oversight, and who has sufficient pockets to
bear deficits occasionally.

Joe

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:47:04 -0500

> 'engineering' of IETF protocols.  

Let me follow up to my own message here because I think I responded a
bit too quickly, and because I think my original reply didn't
really address the point I was trying to make.  In particular I
didn't really want to single out Dave - he just happened to be the
person who sent the message that triggered this response.

I think that Dave's message reflects a common frustration in IETF that
we talk a lot about particular problems and never seem to do anything
about them.  When people express that frustration, they often seem to
think that the solution to this frustration is to do something rather
than just talk about it.  In other words, they prefer experimentation
to analysis.  I share the frustration, but have some doubts about the
solution.

There are circumstances where experimentation is appropriate.  Offhand,
these seem to include: (a) the cost of failure of the experiment is
small relative to the potential gain, (b) the problem being addressed
is so poorly understood or so complex that analysis isn't an option,
and (c) the results of the experiment can be evaluated with a
reasonable degree of objectivity to inform a decision about whether to
do things that way in the future. Even when those circumstances are
met, the experiment is usually more valuable if it is carefully
designed based on such undertstanding and analysis as is available.

What really bothers me is the apparent popularity of a mindset, in a
group of people that claims to be doing engineering, that we
should just try something without really thinking about it, and without
a good way to evaluate the experiment objectively.

The fundamental assumption of engineering is that you can make better
(more effective, reliable, and cost-effective) solutions to problems if
you (a) first understand what problem you are trying to solve, and (b)
analyze your proposed solutions (and choose and/or refine them based on
analysis) before building them.   

More and more in IETF we seem to be insisting that we (a) artifically
and prematurely limit the scope of an engineering effort to a narrow
solution space,  (b) decide on that solution without doing any
analysis, and (c) let the marketplace or the Internet community pay to
conduct very expensive and poorly designed experiments without any good
way to evaulate the results or much of an ability to change direction
based on what is learned. Examples that pop into my head of this
include DKIM, IMA, ZEROCONF. I'm not claiming that this is a complete
or representative sample, these are just three things that popped into
my head in three seconds.   (and hopefully a diverse enough sample that
nobody thinks I'm picking on him personally)

Of course our management and process issues are different than our
protocols, and it would make some sense for us to attack those problems
differently.  It would be understandable if, out of familiarity, we
tried to apply engineering techniques to solving our management and
process problems...and it would be understandable if we found that it
didn't work well because we didn't know how to do the right kinds of
analysis.  But what seems to be the case instead is that we hardly use
engineering discipline in protocol design.  We guess about what will
make a good protocol design, and guess about what will improve our
management and process also.   If it seems like we make good progress
on the former and poor progress on the latter, perhaps it's because for
management and process issues that affect all of us, we have no good way
to artifically narrow the scope of the discussion (and marginalize the
nay-sayers) in order to get the apperance of agreement.

I'm all for experimentation about how we run meetings as long as we
take reasonable care in designing the experiments, identify effective
ways to evaluate the results of the experiments, and leave ourselves
room to adopt a different course if we don't like the results.  It
helps if we have controls also.  For instance, if we wanted to
experiment with allowing vendors to pay for greater exposure, we could
do this at one meeting per year for a couple of years and see how we
like it in comparison with other meetings.

I'm much more concerned about how we design our protocols.  Our
longstanding habit of marginalizing dissenting voices in order to get
agreement within a working group - our failure to resolve basic design
conflicts before settling on designs - has contributed to a fragmented
and conflicted Internet architecture (if one can call it an
architecture).  But there's a catch-22 here: I don't see how we can do
better protocol design without some substantial changes in how working
groups operate, and more crucially - changes to the habits and
assumptions made by IETF participants.  And those very habits and
assumptions make it inherently difficult to evaluate possible new ways
of doing things.  

We cannot rationally evaluate ANY new proposals (technical, managerial,
or process) that potentially affect a large or diverse group, in an
environment where 

- Participants expect (and demand) to be able to talk incessantly and
without any structure to the discussion, thereby making progress
difficult.  They demand this at least in part because there is no other
way to get issues considered than to badger people about them.

- Because of the volume of talk, there tends to be a limited attention
span on the part of participants.

- The most effective way to achieve either real progress or the
apperance of progress is to limit the discussion scope, often in such a
way as to exclude important considerations.

- Because of this tendency to make decisions prematurely and without
analysis or adequate review, every new idea proposed becomes a threat.
Rather than carefully considering new ideas and refining some of those
that seem to be promising, we either adopt them without much refinement
or scuttle them.  The discussion of such ideas tends to happen at a
level, and in an environment, where detailed understanding is not
possible.

My question is - do others see this as a problem, and (without trying
to propose a concrete solution that will be seen as a threat) is there
a shared sense that this is a problem and general willingness to try
new ways of conducting our discussions?  

Keith

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:48:24 -0600

> ad hoc/sidebar discussions when not in use.

This is a great idea. We should do it.

--Jari

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:39:24 -0800

> of parallell tracks at one monster meeting will run between 15 and 30.

There would need to be lots of overlap.  Lots of preparation
for joint-meetings would be needed.  Not everybody
can work on everything at once.  (More accurately, most
people won't be able to read email while ignoring the
meeting in as many WGs. ;-)

Meeting slots would be divided into 3 categories, times, allocations,
and proportions decided by the IESG.

   - WG
   - intra-area
   - inter-area

This might even lead to more shared work, more cross area review,
more consistency. You know -- proper Engineering.

(Maybe we have way too many WGs.
That problem is out of scope here.)

It should take 1 year to get a standards-track RFC out the door.
Not 6+ years.  The solution is obvious.  Quit messing around
and get some work done.   This turtle pace has got to end.
Interim meetings should not be a almost-never way to get
work done.  Any IETF veteran knows it's the only way
anything gets done around here.

> But we've been around the "how much does the meeting fee matter" bush 

Next time I go to Europe instead of US, our expense ratios
will be reversed.  These 2 data points aren't meaningful.

Andy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:57:21 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:47 AM
> Subject: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF? (was: moving from hosts to sponsors)
...
...

I agree with much of your analysis, but I think the problem goes beyond
just the ways in which we conduct our discussions.  The process of
conducting BOFs and developing WG charters has a way of framing
discussion, that, although it serves to keep things focused, may also
marginalize attempts to look at the problem from a broader architectural
perspective.  If we could count on perfect architectural foresight in the
formulation of WG charters and deliverables, this would not be a serious
problem.  In some cases, however, I think working groups have carefully
engineered a solution to a problem very different from the one which
originally served to motivate the work, and may even have completely
missed the mark, all while satisfying their charters to the letter.

That said, I think there is much to learn about what does and does not
work, both from experience in other organizations as well as from what
has been tried by various WGs.  I expect, however, that we'll find that
there is no "one size fits all" solution.  I hope we end up with a "toolkit"
of techniques appropriate to different sizes and shapes of WGs for
doing new work, revisions, maintenance, integration and retrofitting.

Randy

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 19:27:48 +0000

> to analysis.  I share the frustration, but have some doubts about 
What you're saying, I've also heard people complain about in reverse.

In other words, there are working groups where a substantial number 
of people involved in the discussion are not only not going to be 
implementing the proposals, but don't actually do any kind of 
implementation within the "sphere" - we're talking about people 
discussing the precise semantics of some HTTP extension who aren't 
involved in doing any webserver related programming, or some people 
discussing an email issue who limit their interaction with email to 
having an email address.

Or, if you prefer, people are talking and not doing the "running 
code" bit.

> a good way to evaluate the experiment objectively.
Now, wait - I agree up to a point.

Yes, we need to carefully analyze what we're doing, because 
experimentation won't easily show if a proposed solution will 
actually scale to the level we need, is secure enough, and is 
flexible enough to cope with future demands that we've not thought 
of. This much is, hopefully, not up for debate.

But there's a really simple experiment that's easy to do, and results 
in a useful, concrete result. The hypothesis to test is "does it 
actually work", the experiment is "suck it and see", and the result 
is, one hopes, "yeah, I did this", with an optional "but this bit was 
tricky" that we can feed back into the design process.

Unless that experiment is done, we aren't engineers, we're 
philosophers.

> analysis) before building them.   
We're lucky, because we work in computers, so we can actually make a 
distinction between "building" and "deploying". Exchanging the word 
"building" in this portion of your message for "deploying" makes me 
happier with what it says. Changing "analyze" for "building", and I'm 
in agreement.

Dave.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:50:15 -0500

> > I think that Dave's message reflects a common frustration in IETF 
> > that we talk a lot about particular problems and never seem to do 
> > anything about them.  When people express that frustration, they 
> > often seem to think that the solution to this frustration is to do 
> > something rather than just talk about it.  In other words, they prefer 
> > experimentation to analysis.  I share the frustration, but have some 
> > doubts about the solution.
> 

I don' t have a problem with that.  IMHO we tend to design 
with too little regard for the needs of end users, and we need more
input from knowledgable users, rather than less.

> Or, if you prefer, people are talking and not doing the "running 

It may be that we place too much emphasis on running code in IETF today.
In ARPAnet days, when the user community was small and homogeneous but
platforms were diverse (different word/character sizes, different
character sets, different limitations of operating systems and
networking hardware), and goals for protocols were modest, merely being
able to implement a protocol across different platforms was one of the
biggest barriers to adoption.  In that environment,  being able to
demonstrate running code on multiple platforms was nearly sufficient to
demonstrate the viability of a protocol.  Besides, since the net was
small, it wasn't terribly hard to make changes should they be found to
be necessary.

These days running code serves as proof-of-concept and also as a way to
validate the specification.  It doesn't say anything about the quality
of the design - not efficiency, nor usability, nor scalability, nor
security.  etc.

> > should just try something without really thinking about it, and 
> > without a good way to evaluate the experiment objectively.
> 

I agree that those kinds of experiments can be quite valuable, though
I'm having a hard time remembering when such an experiment was
indicated in an IETF WG that I've been involved in.  

I have seen several kinds of experiments of the form "let's see what
happens if we do this nonstandard thing with SMTP - will existing
servers handle it?" and I've generally regarded those experiments as
invalid because they tend to lack any analysis of the sample space or
any attempt to get a representative sample.  They can prove that
something doesn't work, but rarely can they demonstrate that something
does work reliably in the wild.  (OTOH if you know reliably that there
are only a few implementations of a protocol, such experiments might be
more valuable.)

> > The fundamental assumption of engineering is that you can make 
> > better (more effective, reliable, and cost-effective) solutions to 
> > problems if you (a) first understand what problem you are trying 
> > to solve, and (b) analyze your proposed solutions (and choose 
> > and/or refine them based on analysis) before building them.   
> > 

I should have said "analyze...before deploying".  I also believe in 
building prototypes and reference implementations, but that's not a
substitute for analysis.

Keith

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:11:21 +0000

On Fri Mar 24 19:50:15 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
> > In other words, there are working groups where a substantial 
> number > of people involved in the discussion are not only not 
> going to be > implementing the proposals, but don't actually do any 
> kind of > implementation within the "sphere" - we're talking about 
> people > discussing the precise semantics of some HTTP extension 
> who aren't > involved in doing any webserver related programming, 
> or some people > discussing an email issue who limit their 
> interaction with email to > having an email address.
> 
> I don' t have a problem with that.  IMHO we tend to design with too 
> little regard for the needs of end users, and we need more
That input needs to be present in defining the problem, not the 
solution.

> It may be that we place too much emphasis on running code in IETF 

I'd say we place too little.

> small, it wasn't terribly hard to make changes should they be found 
We have fewer platforms, and they're all running with the same 8-bit 
byte, (or as close as makes no difference), and they all do UTF-8 
easily, let alone ASCII, so yes, that kind of problem has largely 
gone away.

However, if you're extending IMAP, say, there's a large number of 
IMAP servers out there which are, internally, massively different 
beasts, so the "in my day" argument merely highlights that problems 
move, they don't go away.

> of the design - not efficiency, nor usability, nor scalability, nor
No. It doesn't say much about the efficiency, usability, scalability, 
or security, but it does say a little, and it gives me, for one, a 
lot better an idea about where the problems in all those areas lie. 
Maybe I'm a drooling idiot, and this is the equivalent of having to 
read aloud, in which case I'm sorry.

> > > Yes, we need to carefully analyze what we're doing, because > 
> experimentation won't easily show if a proposed solution will > 
> actually scale to the level we need, is secure enough, and is > 
> > > But there's a really simple experiment that's easy to do, and 
> results > in a useful, concrete result. The hypothesis to test is 
> "does it > actually work", the experiment is "suck it and see", and 
> the result > is, one hopes, "yeah, I did this", with an optional 
> "but this bit was > tricky" that we can feed back into the design 
> process.
> > > Unless that experiment is done, we aren't engineers, we're > 
> philosophers.
> 
It's weird, because I thought that pretty well everyone implemented 
stuff to this level. For a long time - years - it never occured to me 
that PoC and probably even deployed implementations didn't exist for 
some specifications, let alone those going onto the standards track.

> any attempt to get a representative sample.  They can prove that

I've seen discussions of a similar nature, not formal experiments - 
perhaps we're saying the same thing. I've also seen discussions 
concerning "are we sure that feature X works in the wild", with the 
result as "we have done X for some time and have seen no failures".

> are only a few implementations of a protocol, such experiments 
I'm not sure that more than a cursory analysis proving something will 
work reliably in the wild on every possible concept is worth doing, 
though, until *after* some implementation work has been done. 
Implementation is cheaper.

> building prototypes and reference implementations, but that's not a

No, it's a fundamental part of it.

Dave.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:40:21 -0500

> That input needs to be present in defining the problem, not the 

Such input would also be useful in evaluating a potential solution.  

As for developing the solution, good solutions tend to be developed by
small design teams of clueful people.  Often, it takes more than
developer clue to make a good design team - protocol design clue,
operational clue, security clue, human factors clue, etc. would all be
useful. But I agree that it's the rare user who would make
significant contributions to a protocol design team.
 
> I'd say we place too little.
[...]
> move, they don't go away.

I guess I would say that testing of new features on a wide variety of
platforms, while sometimes useful or even necessary, usually isn't
sufficient to validate the design of a protocol or extension.    By all
means let's do the testing when it's appropriate to do so.   But let's
not take the results of those tests by themselves to mean the protocol
is good.  I've seen lots of arguments of the form "X is implemented,
therefore it's good" and that's often a totally bogus argument.  (e.g.
for X == DKIM)

> some specifications, let alone those going onto the standards track.

Scary.  Though of course, our process doesn't require that at Proposed.
I think the assumption was that we'd get early feedback on
implementations before deployment, and that things wouldn't get widely
deployed before Draft.  Of course, it hasn't worked out that way.

Keith

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:14:02 -0800 (PST)

> That input needs to be present in defining the problem, not the

Exactly.

> I'd say we place too little.

And I would agree. I still try to implement everything I write specifications
for. The few times I've deviated from this practice I've regretted it. (Can you
say RFC 2231?)

> easily, let alone ASCII, so yes, that kind of problem has largely

Agree on the 8 bit byte part. I wish I could agree on the UTF-8 part, but I
have too much (recent) experience to the contrary. It is getting better though,
and at least we do have a workablle reasonably universal solution in this
space, which is a heck of a lot better than where we were when I first started
working in the IETF back in 1991.

> move, they don't go away.

Exactly. And arguing about whehere they have or haven't gone away really misses
the point. There's always a new impedance mismatch lurking just around the
corner.

> read aloud, in which case I'm sorry.

To put it another way, the existance of such code says very little, but the
experience of writing that code says a lot as long as you're being honest with
yourself. Our ability to selld-delude is often part of the problem, but it is
much easier to go off the rails with no implementation experience.

				Ned

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:33:19 +0100

>new ways of conducting our discussions?

I do.

I would add to the list of examples from my own experience IDNA, 
Langtags, ethics.

I proposed a very simple solution which is the position links: every 
active participant maintains a position statement page. The consensus 
us when all the pages are white or equivalent. Considerably reduces 
volume. Everyone can evaluate rough consensus easily. In case of 
appeal the full file is here. Every outsider poping into the debate 
(for example to advise on an area of his expertise) can brief himself 
in minutes, and leave/update a comment of reference.

This was worked at at the WG-Review of the DNSO. I implemented it for 
some arduous debates. It works well. It would however be great if 
someone worked out a "plink" tool (as there are for blogs). Chair 
could use it to list the points he currently sees as needing to be 
solved. Rule here as always: KISS.

jfc

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:31:21 -0600

> this time having them aimed at cross pollination between groups and 

I love what you can do in text-based systems and support the idea of
having ongoing issue-specific discussions available.  In text-based
environments, input takes a little time, but everyone can speak at
once so progress can be rapid (if facilitated well when needed).

However, jabber is relatively primitive.  I don't need video or audio
but I would like to be able to collaborate on a figure with you,
highlight text I'm "talking" about, that sort of thing.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:13:37 -0500

Hello;

> highlight text I'm "talking" about, that sort of thing.

One thing you can do with timed text and an associated audio (or  
video) recording is
to cross link them, which gives you the ability to do easy audio  
searches
(by searching on the text, then using the
cross link to go to the same point in the audio). For example, the U  
Wisconsin DATN system does this
with the closed  captioning for their multicast video

http://datn.wisc.edu/about/

I wonder if the DATN software could be adopted to do this for the  
MP3s and the jabber logs.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:51:11 +0100

Thanks to Keith for changing the Subject when changing the subject.

>> (This even applies to some WG Chairs ;-)

Andy, you've heard _this_ before, I'm sure: the reason we do IETF
weeks with many WGs in one place is to foster cross-fertilization,
and to strongly encourage people to become aware of work in
other WGs and other Areas that may impact their own topic.
There are very few cases of WGs that can safely work in isolation
from the rest of the IETF. We're all busy, but missing out on
what's happening elsewhere is a good recipe for getting unpleasant
late surprises when a draft finally gets a cross-area review.

If somebody comes to the IETF for a two hour meeting and wastes
the opportunity of another 30+ hours of learning about what other
WGs and BOFs are up to, that would indeed be a shame.

     Brian

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:57:39 -0500

>WGs and BOFs are up to, that would indeed be a shame.

I agree with this, but find that (in some instances) that meetings 
are run counter to this goal.

I sat in an session outside my area of experience and heard this from 
the first speaker, "if you haven't read the drafts, you shouldn't 
participate here.  Therefore I will not have slides and dive into the 
details."  As this was outside my area of experience, I had not taken 
the time to read up on the session. I figured that having scribed for 
it at the previous meeting would give me enough cover.

Before each speaker in that session, the question "who has read" was 
asked, with few hands going up each time.  It would be far more 
helpful to try to be "inclusive" rather than "exclusive" towards us 
tourists.

If the IETF wants to foster cross-fertilization, which is the reason 
for the mass enclaves, then temper the theme of "you must have read 
all the drafts."  Temper, not "remove."  Taking a few moments to set 
the problem up for the uninitiated and then assuming they have the 
protocol engineering smarts is all I'm asking.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Nothin' more exciting than going to the printer to watch the toner drain...

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:20:47 -0800

> WGs and BOFs are up to, that would indeed be a shame.

I understand that is a goal of IETF participation for some people.
IMO, the people who can help the most on development of a
particular protocol are not doing that.

The current solution is for progress-conscious WGs to hold interim
meetings, which seem to be discouraged, and certainly increase
travel cost for most to participate.

I do not envision a WG Interim IETF to be a regular IETF,
except people read email all day in 1 WG instead of 5.

Cross-area review is a reactive process.  A cross-area interim
design meeting is a proactive process, that encourages better
design reuse, consistency, and robustness.  I think some
joint-WG interims, intra-area planned project development
meetings, inter-area interims are important.  The IESG
would need to prioritize the meeting slot usage as always.

It would be awesome if the key people to answer
an unexpected question that comes up in an interim just
happen to be in the building for a different interim.
We would get much more cross-area review in the design phase,
where it does the most good.

We could have every 3rd or 4th IETF be work-focused instead
of cross-review focused.  We could try it once.  Or we could
do nothing and just accept the slow pace of progress, and
the cost of WG interim meetings.

Andy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:21:18 +0100

> logistics try to dictate such terms is a broken concept.

Amen to that.

This is a balancing act. How much a host/sponsor is willing to contribute
depends on many factors, and I don't believe there is any single
formula that will cover all cases. So I think each case will be a special
case for a long time to come, and BTW we do have people paid to
work on this for us now.

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:34:20 +0100

>> > people will be able to participate.

My head hurts. If more people can participate how come
we would need *smaller* venues? And by what miracle does
lowering the fee allow us to reduce the cost per participant?

> In my case, the meeting fees are small compared to travel and hotel

Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:42:51 +0100

> A sponsor donating a sufficiently large amount may have a small booth 
> for the sale of a single product that is a) unannounced or has been 
> announced within the last [6] months, and b) appropriate for purchase 
> and use by individuals.

I really think any attempt to write a rule is doomed. A guideline
or principle would be OK. Such as "It's OK to sell really cool geeky
stuff."  Suggestions for more formal language welcome.

   Brian

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:43:57 -0500

> put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.

Brian,

this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying  
in the overpriced Hilton hotel rooms, my IETF65 meeting fee was  
almost exactly the same as my combined hotel and air fare costs. For  
those of us not on corporate expense accounts, it's the total amount  
that matters.

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:56:40 -0800

Edward Lewis wrote:
> I agree with this, but find that (in some instances) that meetings are 
> run counter to this goal.
> 
> the time to read up on the session. I figured that having scribed for it 
> at the previous meeting would give me enough cover.
> 
> asked, with few hands going up each time.  It would be far more helpful 
> to try to be "inclusive" rather than "exclusive" towards us tourists.
> 
> If the IETF wants to foster cross-fertilization, which is the reason for 
> the mass enclaves, then temper the theme of "you must have read all the 
> drafts."  Temper, not "remove."  Taking a few moments to set the problem 
> up for the uninitiated and then assuming they have the protocol 
> engineering smarts is all I'm asking.
> 

IMO, the purpose of a Working Group meeting is to gather
people together to work.  If 40 out of 45 people come to
the meeting totally unprepared to work on the stated agenda,
then don't be surprised if you don't get any work done.
The purpose is not to explain the entire draft to tourists
with slideware.

If the purpose of all our face to face meetings is to foster
cross-area review and not for WGs to get any work done, then
I guess this is not a problem.  IMO, 1 out of 3 of these
non-work-oriented meetings would be plenty, and 3 out of 3
is clearly harming productivity.

Andy

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:08:37 -0500

>>Temper, not "remove."  Taking a few moments to set the problem up for the
>>uninitiated and then assuming they have the protocol engineering smarts is
>>all I'm asking.

>The purpose is not to explain the entire draft to tourists

"Taking a few moments to set up the problem" doesn't mean "explain 
the entire draft."  In many cases, one a few sections of a draft need 
to be discussed face-to-face.  Even for the regular attendees, 
sometimes a restating of the problem is beneficial, if just to set 
the context.

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:08:37 -0500

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:09:17 -0500

I agree that having presentations which review all the detailed 
context is not helpful.  One slide reminding folks of context can be 
very helpful even for folks who have been reading and following all the drafts.

At the same time, I have always found it very helpful that different 
working groups are meeting at the same time, and that I can attend a 
number of different things.  I typically follow activities in 2 or 3 
(sometimes even 4) different areas.  And I do benefit from being 
there for the face-to-face discussion of issues (at least when the 
working group works properly.)

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 12:56 PM 3/25/2006, Andy Bierman wrote:
>>I sat in an session outside my area of experience and heard this 
>>from the first speaker, "if you haven't read the drafts, you 
>>shouldn't participate here.  Therefore I will not have slides and 
>>dive into the details."  As this was outside my area of experience, 
>>I had not taken the time to read up on the session. I figured that 
>>having scribed for it at the previous meeting would give me enough cover.
>>Before each speaker in that session, the question "who has read" 
>>was asked, with few hands going up each time.  It would be far more 
>>helpful to try to be "inclusive" rather than "exclusive" towards us tourists.
>>If the IETF wants to foster cross-fertilization, which is the 
>>reason for the mass enclaves, then temper the theme of "you must 
>>have read all the drafts."  Temper, not "remove."  Taking a few 
>>moments to set the problem up for the uninitiated and then assuming 
>>they have the protocol engineering smarts is all I'm asking.
>
>

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 10:22:16 -0800

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying in 
> the overpriced Hilton hotel rooms, my IETF65 meeting fee was almost 
> exactly the same as my combined hotel and air fare costs. For those of 
> us not on corporate expense accounts, it's the total amount that matters.

Sometimes, people even use frequent flier miles, double up
in rooms, and don't eat every meal in an over-priced restaurant,
just to attend an IETF.  (Not me, but some people ;-)

For people paying their own way, the meeting fee is the only
fixed cost in the trip.  It's expensive already, and trending
upwards (not expensive if you stay all 5 days, but some of us don't).

I guess I was just wishing out loud when I said maybe the
meeting fee could trend down instead of up.  I would be happy
if the IETF had more control over the meetings so the fees
were stable, the network was stable (use sponsor money to
buy more gear and let our ace NOC team control it), and
the venues were set far enough in advance to give me
the maximum travel options.

The old single sponsor system isn't working anymore.
I'm concerned the IETF will fix the problem by raising
the meeting fee $50 every 6 months.

Andy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:55:21 -0800

> put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.

1. There are more bean counters to consider, that only those in commercial 
corporations, if the IETF still considers it important to be inclusive beyond 
the interests of corporations.

2. Even corporations pay attention to the total cost for going to an event.

-- 

Dave Crocker

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:00:00 -0500

--On Saturday, 25 March, 2006 11:57 -0500 Edward Lewis
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> If somebody comes to the IETF for a two hour meeting and
>> wastes the opportunity of another 30+ hours of learning about
>> what other WGs and BOFs are up to, that would indeed be a
>> shame.
> 
> I agree with this, but find that (in some instances) that
> meetings are run counter to this goal.
> 
> I sat in an session outside my area of experience and heard
> this from the first speaker, "if you haven't read the drafts,
> you shouldn't participate here.  Therefore I will not have
> slides and dive into the details."  As this was outside my
> area of experience, I had not taken the time to read up on the
> session. I figured that having scribed for it at the previous
> meeting would give me enough cover.
> 
> Before each speaker in that session, the question "who has
> read" was asked, with few hands going up each time.  It would
> be far more helpful to try to be "inclusive" rather than
> "exclusive" towards us tourists.

Ed, although I don't remember seeing you there, I have a nervous
feeling that I know which WG you are referring to and who said
(roughly, although I don't recall "don't participate") those
words early in the session.  Whether that feeling is correct or
not, there are other WGs with the problems that one faced last
week.

Using the one I have in mind as an example...

	* The WG is working a topic that, because of the need to
	interact with the traditional version of the protocol,
	involves a large number of constraints and very subtle
	issues.
	
	* Despite the fact that there are a large number of
	documents on the table, documents that explore the
	issues rather than just making proposals, it is
	early-stage in its work.
	
	* The topic tends to draw flies and an assortment of
	ogres and trolls, most of the latter groups on the
	assumption that anyone who can use systems based on a
	protocol is obviously qualified to comment on the
	protocol.

	* A great deal about what is important about the
	documents that people were asked to confirm that they
	had read or otherwise keep quiet involved in-depth
	exploration of the issues and constraints, not (merely
	(!)) protocol details.  Without exposure to that
	material, someone trying to participate in the
	discussion would probably lack not only that
	understanding but even a vocabulary with which to
	discuss the topic.

And the WG was very much in need of the kind of discussion that
actually occurred:  by experts in the specific area or the areas
immediately surrounding it, who were familiar with prior
discussions and the documents, and who could focus in on
specific issues rather than implicitly asking for tutorials that
could easily take up the entire available time.  There had also
been a decision that the WG would concentrate on seeing if it
could develop a particular approach leading to Experimental
protocols, so there is little interest at this time in "what if
you did something completely different" discussions.  The result
was one of the better sets of discussions I've seen in a WG
meeting in some time, so there won't be any apologies for the
strategy.

However, at a later stage in the process, broader review, even
by people not familiar with the intimate details, will be more
appropriate and I trust that WG meetings will be handled
differently at that time.

If you are referring to a completely different WG, I'd encourage
you to see if there are any useful analogies.

regards,
    john

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:47:20 +0100

> those of us not on corporate expense accounts, it's the total amount  

Being trapped away from the IETF hotel for one night by the flood, the
quality of a nearish (5-10 min drive, probably 1h walk) motel was a
little of an eye opener, very similar quality for $69+taxes, and a
bigger bathroom.   Why the Hilton creates such enormous rooms with such
small en-suites is a mystery to me :)

-- 
Tim/::1

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 10:26:00 -0800 (PST)

> small en-suites is a mystery to me :)

The hotel was built by Trammell Crow and has a been a loews, wyndham and 
now a hilton (but only for 3 months). So, while hilton hotels inc gets 
some blame for certain things (rooms had better soap when it was wyndham) 
it hardly assumes blame for all of them.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:23:03 +0200

Andy,

As I hope everybody knows, about 60% of the IASA budget
comes from meeting fees, and we must make enough surplus on
the meetings to fund the secretariat. So, if we did
decide to change the nature of any of our meetings, we'd
really have to understand the budget implications. That being
said, we should certainly explore alternatives to the present
way of doing things. My own experience as a WG chair is that
interim meetings are highly effective when starting out on a
new effort and consensus has to be reached on fundamentals.
I'm less convinced that longer meetings are useful when
refining complex documents - that is when editorial teams
and issue trackers seem to be effective. As I said the other
day, cross-fertilization remains important. It's hard to imagine
how we could run multiple in-depth meetings in parallel
without losing cross-fertilization.

Maybe we could experiment with a meeting with one day (out of
4.5) dedicated to 7 in-depth WG meetings, and the other 3.5
days "traditional"?

    Brian

Andy Bierman wrote:
>> If (guesstimate) 50 of 120 WGs decide to meet in this format, the 
>> number of parallell tracks at one monster meeting will run between 15 
>> and 30.
>>
> 
> 
>> proposed. (Of course, scheduling 2 years out DOES interfere with 
>> "quick" experiments....)
>>
>>>
>> ....and cancellation on those WGs who do not provide such agendas? 
>> Just checking....
>>
>>>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:42:12 +0200

> us not on corporate expense accounts, it's the total amount  that matters.

Understood, but you are fortunate to find cheap airfares from where
you happen to live. Also note that the meeting rooms have to be paid for,
either by filling our room block at the main hotel, or with hard cash.

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:54:23 +0200

...
> if the IETF had more control over the meetings

We have complete control since December 15, 2005.

> so the fees
> were stable,

The fees have to cover our costs. It would be wonderful
if the costs were stable too, but they're not.

> the network was stable (use sponsor money to
> buy more gear and let our ace NOC team control it),

Firstly "our" NOC team is a group of volunteers. Secondly,
they are always significantly helped by the local host. Thirdly,
we do have some equipment but it's unclear that it's practical
to own 100% of what we need and to ship it to international
locations.

> the maximum travel options.

Agreed, we are trying to get ahead of the game on fixing locations.

> the meeting fee $50 every 6 months.

This year is the first time we have actually had full visibility
of the budget, now 100% controlled by IASA. So while I fully
agree with this concern, it's only when we plan the 2007 budget
that we'll have a complete handle on these questions.

    Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 00:54:44 -0800

...

Brian,

He is already staying at some other hotel.  Are we having a problem filling the 
room block.

More generally, how does the question of lower attendance fees and broader 
participation have anything to do with the room block?

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:37:24 +0200

Dave Crocker wrote:
> He is already staying at some other hotel.  Are we having a problem 
> filling the room block.

I don't have the numbers for Dallas yet, but it's a concern for every
meeting where the meeting rooms are free unless we don't fill the block.

> More generally, how does the question of lower attendance fees and 
> broader participation have anything to do with the room block?

Because money is fungible. More people paying a lower fee who
all stay at a budget hotel might make the overall budget better
or worse; it just depends how the numbers work out.

    Brian

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:31:11 -0500

>not, there are other WGs with the problems that one faced last

Well, I will neither confirm nor deny because I don't raise specific 
examples as an accusation in public, but only to server as a data 
point.  (If the data is inaccurate, then that ought to be dealt with 
publicly.)

Perhaps the words "don't participate" weren't said or insinuated, but 
I do recall hearing something to the extent that caused me to feel 
unwelcome (mentally) and I opened my laptop to read email in protest.

>	protocol is obviously qualified to comment on the

In this case I consider myself a fly.  I don't have the heft to be an 
ogre on the topic, and I'm disciplined enough not to post on the 
topic.

>meeting in some time, so there won't be any apologies for the

If it's the case that this is what the WG needed, then there isn't 
anything to fix or anyone to reprimand.  "In that case."

But to get back to the point at the top of this side-bar, the mass 
gatherings for the IETF are done for cross-area review.  The 
discussion in this case may have been needed by the core members of 
the WG, however, this was done forfeiting the opportunity cost of 
interacting with a wider circle of people.  I.e., the room and time 
slot (which was changed to avoid a conflict) could have been put to 
more general use - and use an interim meeting or mail thread for the 
focused discussion.

Again, the above isn't a "shot" at the particular meeting, but back 
to the observation that IETF meetings are held to provide cross-area 
review.  If a WG accidently makes progress at the time, well, that 
has to be brought back "to the list" anyway.

>regards,

I do want to make one other point, and this is reflective of the 
particular meeting...not having visual materials at all can be a 
problem just when considering the bridging of English dialects and 
accents.  "Visual material" need not be slide-ware, I've been in 
meetings where an open file in VI was used to record ideas, a la a 
white board.

PS - To give an example of what I consider a working dynamic:

A few IETF's ago (just to separate the example from current day), I 
was working on a group document in need of interaction of about 5-10 
core addicts.  We got a separate room, closed it (invite only), 
hammered out details for a few hours on a Tuesday of the IETF. 
(I.e., we didn't burden the IETF with this meeting.)  At the general 
session of the WG, Wednesday or Thursday, I went up and presented the 
"suggestions" of the closed room to the general audience.  Once 2 or 
3 of the issues hit the light of day, they were soundly rejected, 
others were accepted - all of this eventually caught on the mailing 
list.  All the issues/recommendations of the addicts were up on 
slides - to show the precise nature of the wording of each.

Note that the "closed" nature of the meeting did not mean any closed 
door decisions, negotiations, nor deliberations.  Anything/everything 
drained from the room was put before the open assembly.  The closed 
nature meant that we just dropped all the formalities and didn't 
worry about keeping to a time limit on anything.

What I thought was interesting was that the general audience 
participation was far more diversified than I would have thought.  As 
in - what did it mean to "ban" things in the protocol, a question the 
addicts took for granted.  We did benefit from cross-area review then 
while also showing marked progress during the week.  BTW, that was 
the last time the document was discussed in an open session before 
going to the IESG, i.e., it was just what was needed.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:53:17 -0800

>>> either by filling our room block at the main hotel, or with hard cash.

Oh.  This is the 'what if everyone does it' argument.

Given that they "everyone" doesn't go to the cheaper place now, what makes you 
think that reducing the meeting fees will cause those (types of attendees) 
currently staying in the conference hotel will not continue to do so?

There are multiple factors that come into the choice of hotel.  For some, price 
dominates.  For others convenience to the event and comfort in their room are 
more important.

That won't change.

d/

-- 

Dave Crocker

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:58:29 -0800

> 4.5) dedicated to 7 in-depth WG meetings, and the other 3.5

This would be great.
If we could get the sponsors who who have paid for
the entire interim meeting costs somewhere else chip in,
the the IETF could extend room and network services until
8 PM Friday, and we could have "Interim Friday".   This
would have the least impact on regular IETF activities.
Since only dedicated people show up to interims anyway,
holding them on Friday won't impact the masses in the slightest.

Of course, you would need volunteer WGs who even want to
have a 1 day interim instead of a 2 hour slot in Montreal.
(NETCONF WG volunteers right now ;-)

(IMO, BOFs should be early in the week, not on Friday.
Cross-area review of new ideas is just as important as
anything else.)

Andy

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:21:24 -0500

--On Monday, 27 March, 2006 09:31 -0500 Edward Lewis
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> But to get back to the point at the top of this side-bar, the
> mass gatherings for the IETF are done for cross-area review.

Ok, we disagree about the believe that cross-area review is the
only reason for holding such meetings and hence disagree about...

> Again, the above isn't a "shot" at the particular meeting, but
> back to the observation that IETF meetings are held to provide
> cross-area review.  If a WG accidentally makes progress at the
> time, well, that has to be brought back "to the list" anyway.

> The discussion in this case may have been needed by the core
> members of the WG, however, this was done forfeiting the
> opportunity cost of interacting with a wider circle of people.
> I.e., the room and time slot (which was changed to avoid a
> conflict) could have been put to more general use - and use an
> interim meeting or mail thread for the focused discussion.

Sorry, but sometimes face to face meetings serve the very
important role of permitting discussion and even confrontation
of issues.  Those are things that, often, can't be done
effectively or efficiently on mailing lists.  Such discussions
can also bring in a community of experts in the general area who
have not paid in-depth attention to the WG's subject matter -- a
result that is at least as important, if not more so, than
cross-area review.   So I believe that such meeting time is
often well-spent.  YMMD, of course.

    john

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:42:47 -0800

> Cross-area review of new ideas is just as important as

This is an interesting suggestion.

Any meeting that is early in the week gets the benefit of follow-on hallways 
discussions, during the rest of the week.  However BOFs are a specific class of 
meetings that tend to need this more than most.

BOFs are trying to gain interest and even a good BOF will tend to engender some 
fuzziness, with resulting efforts at clarification.  This often benefits most 
from the combinations of smaller discussions that are so common during IETF 
meetings.

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:45:45 -0500

For what it's worth, this approach seemed to work reasonably well for 
the SIP P2P BOF + ad-hoc (or "interim") meeting. The former was on 
Tuesday, the latter on Friday afternoon.

Dave Crocker wrote:
> Any meeting that is early in the week gets the benefit of follow-on 
> hallways discussions, during the rest of the week.  However BOFs are a 
> specific class of meetings that tend to need this more than most.
> 
> BOFs are trying to gain interest and even a good BOF will tend to 
> engender some fuzziness, with resulting efforts at clarification.  This 
> often benefits most from the combinations of smaller discussions that 
> are so common during IETF meetings.
> 
> d/

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:53:05 -0800

> are so common during IETF meetings.

It's not just hallway talk.
IETF attendance patterns clearly indicate that
a BOF on Friday will be more lightly attended than on
other days (especially M-W).

Andy

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 05:29:26 +0000

> the advice of the NOC team, and let the wireless meltdown

	ah yes, the IETF as a FormulaOne race car.
	I'll approach CocaCola & Visa for branding rights
	if that would help (esp for those folks denied a 770)

--bill

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 05:29:26 +0000

--bill

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:47:46 -0800

> 	if that would help (esp for those folks denied a 770)

ah yes, the ad absurdem form of argumentation.

The reality in having a host is that we already experience quite a bit of 
marketing from that host.

My suggestion was cast in terms of permitting that level to continue, not in 
permiting every attendee eye-blink to experience a new injection of promotional 
material.

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:13:40 +0200

Hi Jordi,

On Friday 24 March 2006 06:10, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Not really. If you look to the recent sponsors, the current one and
> the next one, they are all European companies, hosting IETF in
> North America.
>
> Actually it can be presented in the other way around, as they host
> here, 50% of the attendees are getting indirectly subsidized by
> those sponsors decision to host here because their travel expenses
> are lower. So the cost for the participants from the rest of the
> world is higher.

I do not agree that the cost for "rest of the world" participants is 
necessarily higher when me meet in US. It is usually cheaper for me to 
travel from EU to US than to travel from EU to EU. For example I paid 
350 euros and 460 euros to go from France to Washington DC and San 
Francisco, respectively. That's more or less the minimum I am used to 
pay for intra-EU trips.

So it rather seems that the cost of intercontinental flights is low 
when there is a lot of different carriers (competition!) on the 
hub-to-hub intercontinental trunk of the trip.

My two cents.

-- julien

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:35:16 +0000

> ah yes, the ad absurdem form of argumentation.

	testing the boundaries of an assertion is occasionally wise.

> marketing from that host.
	
	we do.

> 
> My suggestion was cast in terms of permitting that level to continue, not 
> in permiting every attendee eye-blink to experience a new injection of 
> promotional material.

	i was more concerned wiht Jordi's suggestion that we aquire 
	"sustaining" sponsors.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:49:09 +0200

Hi Julien,

I guess is a question of planning.

I tend to book my flights at least 3 months ahead.

Then a flight Madrid-Europe-Madrid, for example, could be so law as 80 Euros
(replace Europe with Munich, London, Paris, Brussels, or any other preferred
EU destination).

For the same period (a week, including Saturday night), Madrid-Dallas-Madrid
is about 550 Euros.

This typically works also just purchasing 5-6 weeks ahead of the flight
departure.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:13:40 +0200
> Para: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:56:41 +0200

> Francisco, respectively. That's more or less the minimum I am used to

So what's your secret? For me it has been 500+ on my last few trips  
and Vancouver would have been around 800 euros. The Vienna and Paris  
IETF meetings were much cheaper than that for me, especially Paris  
since it's easily reachable by train from  the Netherlands. I also  
travelled to Vienna by train but flying would have cost the same  
(~200 euros IIRC). Even if travel is the same Europe is generally  
cheaper because I don't have to include a saturday night to take the  
edge off of the jet lag and/or get a decent rate for a flight.

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:52:09 +0200

Jordi,

You are speaking about low cost flights. I am sure they are readily 
available from/to any capital like Madrid, but what about other 
places. When I want to go from a secondary french city to a secondary 
city in germany without over the week-end stay (say monday-thursday) 
the prices can start at 500 euros or more, even if booked three 
months in advance.

What I tried to say is that w.r.t. price, the continent location seems 
to matter more or less the same than the number of airlines going 
there. A major city with lot of connecting flights (Minneapolis ;) is 
much more cheaper to flight to than a secondary city.

You seems to agree since you mentioned below European flights between 
European capitals.

--julien

On Wednesday 29 March 2006 14:49, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Then a flight Madrid-Europe-Madrid, for example, could be so law as
> 80 Euros (replace Europe with Munich, London, Paris, Brussels, or
> any other preferred EU destination).
>
> For the same period (a week, including Saturday night),
> Madrid-Dallas-Madrid is about 550 Euros.
>
> This typically works also just purchasing 5-6 weeks ahead of the
> flight departure.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
> > Para: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
> > <[email-masked]> Asunto: Re: Making IETF happening in
> > different regions
> >
> > Hi Jordi,
> >
> >> Not really. If you look to the recent sponsors, the current one
> >> and the next one, they are all European companies, hosting IETF
> >> in North America.
> >>
> >> Actually it can be presented in the other way around, as they
> >> host here, 50% of the attendees are getting indirectly
> >> subsidized by those sponsors decision to host here because their
> >> travel expenses are lower. So the cost for the participants from
> >> the rest of the world is higher.
> >
> > I do not agree that the cost for "rest of the world" participants
> > is necessarily higher when me meet in US. It is usually cheaper
> > for me to travel from EU to US than to travel from EU to EU. For
> > example I paid 350 euros and 460 euros to go from France to
> > Washington DC and San Francisco, respectively. That's more or
> > less the minimum I am used to pay for intra-EU trips.
> >
> > So it rather seems that the cost of intercontinental flights is
> > low when there is a lot of different carriers (competition!) on
> > the hub-to-hub intercontinental trunk of the trip.
> >
> > My two cents.
> >
> > -- julien
> >

-- 
julien

-- 
julien

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:56:16 +0200

Hi Julien,

Well, that's not the case in Spain. If instead of Madrid I'm in small city
like Valencia, Murcia, Bilbao, etc., typically the cost different will be
only 10-15 Euros more. The companies make the money from the big hop, and if
necessary subsidize part of the small one to sell more seats.

At the end in any case is not so easy, because it will depend on agreements
among airlines, from and to, etc. For example, Minneapolis is more expensive
for me, because I need to fly to Amsterdam to get a cheaper fare. Instead
Latinamerican cities or a couple of US locations, can be below 400 Euros and
even a single hop from Madrid.

Definitively, from Europe, for me seems the most expensive Australia, then
Asia Pacific/Africa, but may be is only the case of if the "from" is Spain,
because typically I will need to fly first to Amsterdam, London, Paris or
Frankfurt.

Regards,
Jordi

> Fecha: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:52:09 +0200

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:45:43 -0500

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> IMHO, having protocol engineers who know next to nothing about 
>> meeting logistics try to dictate such terms is a broken concept.
>
>
> Amen to that.
>

Each venue's costs and each Host/Sponsor's ability and willingness to 
make an additional contribution to a meeting's cost is different.
The meeting room costs for Vancouver, Dallas and Montreal were/are zero.
The meeting room costs for Paris were well north of 150.000 euros which 
if that had not been picked up by sponsors could have resulted in a 
registration fee increase of about $150 per person.  Fortunately, we 
have had such Hosts and Sponsors. It may  not always be the case.

Ray
IAD