Send ietf mailing list submissions to
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ietf-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
You can reach the person managing the list at
ietf-owner(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ietf digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
(Michael Richardson)
2. Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
(Michael Richardson)
3. Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
(mike stJohns)
4. Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
(Michael StJohns)
5. Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
(Bob Hinden)
6. Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
(Michael StJohns)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:23:14 -0400
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
Message-ID: <6955(_dot_)1491398594(_at_)obiwan(_dot_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Andrew G. Malis <agmalis(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
> At least once, I was questioned extensively when going from the US to
> a meeting in Canada. I had to show evidence of the meeting and my
> itinerary and convince them that I wasn?t entering Canada to take
work
> away from a Canadian. That said, I still support holding meetings in
> Canada.
IETF98 was among the only times I was *NOT* asked questions like that when
entering the US. I did enter at Midway. That none of are asked such
questions when entering europe always surprises me.
I'm not sure what "extensively" means; if that means you were taken aside,
or
not. I've been through that at the US border.
"Chair of work group" would always be a bad thing to say, since it has the
word "work" in it. Never talk about customers. The IETF is a meeting of
peers.
(Once because it was 5am, and I was just really loud since I was really
still
asleep).
But, in all cases I felt confident that I would be treated with respect,
(even by the border guard who didn't seem to believe that e-tickets were
real).
I did *not* feel that way while preparing to travel to IETF98.
My fears were not realized; but as Eliot has said, it's *exactly* the
uncertainty that is a problem.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software
Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/attachments/20170405/82807627/attachment.asc
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:25:54 -0400
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>
To: Jared Mauch <jared(_at_)puck(_dot_)Nether(_dot_)net>
Cc: John Levine <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com>, ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
Message-ID: <7538(_dot_)1491398754(_at_)obiwan(_dot_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jared Mauch <jared(_at_)puck(_dot_)Nether(_dot_)net> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 12:53:47AM -0000, John Levine wrote:
>> I agree that Canada is a fairly easy country to get in and out of
>> (unless you have a DUI arrest) but it varies a lot so anecdotes
about
>> entering Canada or any other country don't tell you much.
> Agreed. When I received my NEXUS card they explicity told me
> if I was traveling to a conference and was presenting that I would
> require additional paperwork, possibly including a letter of
invitation,
> and/or a visa. I presume if I were presenting at an IETF WG I would
> check the appropriate box when registering as well and I would get
> the paperwork.
No! Only if you have been paid to present.
i.e. you are Al Gore coming to talk at the Air Canada center in
Toronto.
We don't do presentations like that at the IETF.
The IETF is not like most non-technical "conferences".
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software
Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/attachments/20170405/7bafa802/attachment.asc
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:49:54 -0400
From: mike stJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo(_at_)tzi(_dot_)org>
Cc: IETF <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
Message-ID: <620C9C4C-413C-439C-9109-B30BBAB921B1(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Let's try this one more time
27 deaths in 100 would be 27%
27 deaths in 1000 would be 2.7%
27 deaths in 10000 would be .27%
27 deaths in 100000 would be a rate of .027%
The above are all expected deaths per year for the given population - so
divide .027% by 52 to get .00051% per week. That's roughly the chance per
individual to die during the week from murder. That's *my* risk for a
week of the IETF and that's what should matter to each individual.
If you take that and multiply it by the IETF population you get .005
expected deaths within the IETF for the entire week.
Now you're using the "at least one" criteria, which works out to be
1-(1-.0000051)^1000 = .005 or .5% of at least one person dying in the week
so your numbers are somewhat reasonable, but don't actually mean anything.
E.g this is basically the birthday paradox which grows the probability
quickly with the size of the set.
I'll give you an example. The death rate per 1000 in Germany per year
for all causes is about 11. That works out to about a 20% chance of at
least one person dying in the IETF during the week from all causes
including murder if we all lived in Germany. The equivalent statistic for
the US is 8 per 1000 which works out to 15% for the IETF for the week. But
we don't seem to be dropping at anywhere close to that rate ( e.g. A death
at the meting every 5 meetings).
Death probabilities are *highly* dependent on the specific populations
you're looking at and actuaries get paid a lot of money to calculate them.
The actual probabilities for the IETF would benefit from affluence, age,
medical care, education, location, etc.
Mike
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 5, 2017, at 01:56, Carsten Bormann <cabo(_at_)tzi(_dot_)org> wrote:
On Apr 5, 2017, at 01:06, mike stJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
wrote:
.005 deaths per week per 1000
Right, the 270 micromorts per year (~ 5 micromorts per week) you cited
would lead to a ~ 0.5 % chance of anyone of the ~ 1000 IETFers getting
killed ? a factor three less than the 1.5 % that my numbers result in, but
not off by a large factor.
(Still, I wonder where that factor three comes from.)
Luckily, we hit the other 98.5 % this week.
(I?m not that worried by the ~ 15 micromorts of risk I personally was
subjected to, given that I spent on the order of 250 microlives for the
time that went into this meeting.
But my wife, who had been planning our wonderful vacation in Colombia
earlier this year, definitely was.)
Gr??e, Carsten
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:26:20 -0400
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
Message-ID: <cd5a3b9d-29dd-0d8b-b0a4-2a2465ea89b1(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
I meant to include (damn iPad):
Carsten's original email was
Statistically, the chance of any IETFer being killed last week was about
1.5 %.
"Any IETFer being killed" (I read the above as "Any [given] IETFer") is
the .00051% chance. "At least one IETFer" is the .5% chance. "Anyone
in the IETF" could mean either - precision is important and I still
don't actually know which Carsten meant.
Later, Mike
On 4/5/2017 9:49 AM, mike stJohns wrote:
Let's try this one more time
27 deaths in 100 would be 27%
27 deaths in 1000 would be 2.7%
27 deaths in 10000 would be .27%
27 deaths in 100000 would be a rate of .027%
The above are all expected deaths per year for the given population - so
divide .027% by 52 to get .00051% per week. That's roughly the chance per
individual to die during the week from murder. That's *my* risk for a
week of the IETF and that's what should matter to each individual.
If you take that and multiply it by the IETF population you get .005
expected deaths within the IETF for the entire week.
Now you're using the "at least one" criteria, which works out to be
1-(1-.0000051)^1000 = .005 or .5% of at least one person dying in the week
so your numbers are somewhat reasonable, but don't actually mean anything.
E.g this is basically the birthday paradox which grows the probability
quickly with the size of the set.
I'll give you an example. The death rate per 1000 in Germany per year
for all causes is about 11. That works out to about a 20% chance of at
least one person dying in the IETF during the week from all causes
including murder if we all lived in Germany. The equivalent statistic for
the US is 8 per 1000 which works out to 15% for the IETF for the week. But
we don't seem to be dropping at anywhere close to that rate ( e.g. A death
at the meting every 5 meetings).
Death probabilities are *highly* dependent on the specific populations
you're looking at and actuaries get paid a lot of money to calculate them.
The actual probabilities for the IETF would benefit from affluence, age,
medical care, education, location, etc.
Mike
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 5, 2017, at 01:56, Carsten Bormann <cabo(_at_)tzi(_dot_)org> wrote:
On Apr 5, 2017, at 01:06, mike stJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
wrote:
.005 deaths per week per 1000
Right, the 270 micromorts per year (~ 5 micromorts per week) you cited
would lead to a ~ 0.5 % chance of anyone of the ~ 1000 IETFers getting
killed ? a factor three less than the 1.5 % that my numbers result in, but
not off by a large factor.
(Still, I wonder where that factor three comes from.)
Luckily, we hit the other 98.5 % this week.
(I?m not that worried by the ~ 15 micromorts of risk I personally was
subjected to, given that I spent on the order of 250 microlives for the
time that went into this meeting.
But my wife, who had been planning our wonderful vacation in Colombia
earlier this year, definitely was.)
Gr??e, Carsten
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 08:13:47 -0700
From: Bob Hinden <bob(_dot_)hinden(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob(_dot_)hinden(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>, IETF
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
Message-ID: <F51651E3-7668-4D00-8879-979680E19E38(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Apr 5, 2017, at 7:26 AM, Michael StJohns
<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
wrote:
I meant to include (damn iPad):
Carsten's original email was
Statistically, the chance of any IETFer being killed last week was
about 1.5 %.
"Any IETFer being killed" (I read the above as "Any [given] IETFer") is
the .00051% chance. "At least one IETFer" is the .5% chance. "Anyone in
the IETF" could mean either - precision is important and I still don't
actually know which Carsten meant.
I am happy that no IETFer got killed. We did have some heated debates :-)
Bob
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/attachments/20170405/f09b94af/attachment.asc
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:17:29 -0400
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
To: Bob Hinden <bob(_dot_)hinden(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Cc: IETF <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
Message-ID: <421b15b4-628c-d790-3c08-ce72cf725ab9(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
On 4/5/2017 11:13 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
I am happy that no IETFer got killed. We did have some heated debates
:-)
Bob
I once saw Dave Clark after a particularly contentious side meeting at
an early IETF and said that I was glad I didn't see blood. His response
was classic Dave: "It was the kind of meeting where the only blood came
from biting your tongue."
Mike
The IETF - 30 years of Standards by Combat!
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
ietf mailing list
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
------------------------------
End of ietf Digest, Vol 107, Issue 14
*************************************