As longs as I've attended meetings (13 years) and followed the feedback on
the IETF list re. meeting network support, the expectation has always been
that there would be a very high priority set on creating and maintaining a
smoothly operating network to support the meeting. New technologies were
deployed along side of the production network and not in lieu of it.
It is really absurd to disrrupt the master network to conduct an
experiment. I spend a high percentage of my professional life configuring
and debugging network hardware and software. There is no way I'll risk any
configuration change to my 'production' laptop to attempt to adapt to an
experiment/demonstration. The risk of system corruption is too high and I
don't have the time or inclination to bring along an image backup/restore
to make it safe.
Find the funding to staff and equip an experimental lab and network.
Make it available in the plenary if you wish as an alternative, but
primarily provide it in a dedicated space for those with the time and
inclination to experiment. Provide the software and system pre-req
guildance ahead of time. Make sure you have Windows/Linux/Apple network
experts in the room and we might have a really useful experiment.
I for one would consider bringing an extra laptop which could be used on
the experimental net and which I would willingly install software, etc.
Otherwise forget it ... the direct and indirect cost incurred by each
attendee dictates that the IETF make sure their time is well used.
This experiment doesn't meet that objective.
Dave Morris
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Mark Andrews wrote:
But the IETF network has for as long as I've attended (12
years) been a proving ground for new technology.
DHCP, multicast, wireless, IPv6, etc.
I'm quite happy to see more testing of future technology /
configurations on the network.
I'd like to see DNSSEC validation deployed on the recursive
DNS servers advertised by DHCP to the network. I'd like
to see IETF.ORG signed. I'd like to see SIG(0) deployed
on the recursive DNS servers.
The IETF net should be a actively hostile network from a
security perspective once we have the technology to detect
and mitigate the attacks. If you ask a plain DNS question
you should expect to get a compromised answer.
Most of us don't harden our systems nearly enough. We
should be able to do work with hardened system otherwise
we have failed as engineers.
Mark
Expectations of support infrastructure change as technology evolves.
In those days, we got along just fine without cell phones as well.
Based on new technology our co-workers expect a level of internation not
previously possible. We are also used to immediate access to reference
material and as one person noted, they may take advantage of local laptop
access to the presentation material to be able to read it.
...
How things were done in the past really has little bearing on how we do
then now.
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 01:45:24PM -0500,
John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote
a message of 57 lines which said:
Between this and apparent efforts by the IAOC, IESG, and sponsor to
deliberately disrupt the network, this is beginning to sound like
the meeting to miss.
I am not old enough to have personal experience of the oldest IETF
meetings but I've heard that there was no Internet connectivity at all
at these times and yet the IETF was able to work.
_______________________________________________
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