My understanding is that even not considering Austria, the connectivity has
been much better in the last meetings (not counting this and the W DC one).
I also agree that 1 year is much better than just one week, but one week
on-site, plus several months up-front for planning, PLUS SEVERAL IETFs
having being organized here, seems to me a failure this time.
The suggestion about writing down the experience has been raised already in
previous occasions in this list, and not sure if this has been done.
I still believe there is an interesting coincidence in the usage of the same
equipment in the last two meetings (this and W DC). What measures had been
taken since the last meeting, once was clearly recognized that that
equipment had some problems ?
Regards,
Jordi
De: "Lucy E. Lynch" <llynch(_at_)darkwing(_dot_)uoregon(_dot_)edu>
Responder a: <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Fecha: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:18:00 -0800 (PST)
Para: Tim Chown <tjc(_at_)ecs(_dot_)soton(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
CC: "ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: IETF62 Network and Terminal Room Information
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Tim Chown wrote:
<snip>
I recall Austria had probably the best network seen in some time (even
Randy Bush praised it in the plenary ;) but the magic secret was lost in
the mists of time.
Not exactly, Telekom Austria spent more than a year ramping up for the
meeting AND they had installed and controled all of the in building
network for the Austria Center Vienna. They did a great job, but they
had way more access and way more time in building than most IETF network
teams ever get. The difference between a production network and Rock &
Roll.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf