----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf(_at_)tndh(_dot_)net>
To: "'Brian E Carpenter'" <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>;
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 10:19 AM
Subject: RE: Meetings in other regions
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Outreach is important, and welcoming new active contributors
is important, but the dominant consideration is a location that
is convenient and effective for our current active contributors.
Uh No... there are two issues here and they need to be addressed
separately - the first is in conducting the IETF's business and in holding
the meetings so that from a statistical point of view - the most business is
accomplished per meeting as possible.
The second issue is in getting new members to join and participate but its a
separate issue from the process of operating the Standards Machine.
Outreach is important to grow the top line revenue, but its more important
value is in broadening and balancing the perspective.
Initially I would say "Depends on what it is you are trying to do" but after
giving it more thought I would respond "No - since the IETF's processes do
not accept just anyone who wants to play and there are no play-nice together
rules this simply isnt what's true at all IMHO... what is true is that the
potential pool of vetters is enlargened but beyond that - anything else
claimed is inaccurate IMHO.
important to sustaining participation, but that needs to be balanced by
reality outside the fiber connected large hotel world.
Uh - then this also says that there MUST be Internet connectivity for those
that cannot make it and that restricts the number of places further that
meet the needs.
As Fred suggested in
the Afghanistan note, there are places in the world that don't have zero
latency/loss fiber paths to the participant's home networks.
Is this a problem for the IETF or its participants?
I can still
hear the screams from the developers 20 years ago when I 'broke' the
by making them live like all their customers behind a 1/2 second delay.
A dose of reality would impact many of the assumptions people bring to the
Agreed but for different reasons.
If nothing else it would drive home a reason to be
explicitly clear in text rather than assume everyone knows something
they all have the same network experiences.
Tony - This may be a style issue with documents that are filed and accepted
as process-seeds for a WG's standards process portfolio. If so then its
about whether the WG Chair and the WG are willing to take sloppy
submissions... and as such has nothing really to do with the process of the
Standards Machine unless I missed something.
We continue facing a routing
crisis, which is a self-inflicted wound, primarily because the
vocal-majority of those deploying the technology have a parochial view
rather than a realistic global view.
This Parochial view is what is wrong with today's IETF...
We continue to fail with a viable QoS
toolset due to a lack of a system-wide architecture which accounts for the
real physical plant issues on a global basis.
We continue to see chatty
protocol efforts that fail under the stress of real-world latency and
IMHO at least one meeting every couple of years should be significantly
inconvenient as a way to keep the group grounded.
How about Mars?
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list