[88646] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: protocols that don't meet the need...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Hain)
Tue Feb 14 16:18:14 2006
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
To: <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:17:46 -0800
In-Reply-To: <200602142110.k1ELAOq8025713@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
I agree that attendance is not required, but it can help some discussions.
Given the logistical differences it would be much easier to schedule NANOG
into a nearby hotel than to try to move the IETF around. For example this
time if NANOG had been a month later it would have been in the same city yet
different hotels. I understand that synchronized meetings it not trivial,
but it is worth considering.
Tony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:10 PM
> To: Tony Hain
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
>
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:35:19 PST, Tony Hain said:
> > Rather than sit back and complain about the results, why not try to
> > synchronize meeting times. Not necessarily hotels, but within a
> reasonable
> > distance of each other so the issue about ROI for the trip can be
> mitigated.
>
> The IETF apparently has some major scheduling problems as it is, because
> there
> are very few venues that can handle the number of people that show up
> *and*
> have the right mix of large rooms and many smaller break-out rooms.
> Trying to get
> it into a hotel opposite a NANOG would just exacerbate the problem.
>
> And there's nothing stopping NANOG types from joining an IETF working
> group and
> participating via e-mail - there's a large number of people who have
> contributed
> to the IETF process and never actually been sighted at an IETF meeting.
