On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:33 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
> The flip side of this argument is that it could be viewed as a helpful
> guide for the hosts/sponsors at any given venue. ("This is the kind of
> information you should provide.")
+ lots...
I work for a company that is sponsoring an upcoming meeting.
Most of the organization is being done by folk who have never attended an IETF meeting (but some of them will be coming to Paris to get a feel for things).
This document has been hugely useful (oddly enough we were talking about just how useful today) to help them understand the general feel, the sorts of things to pay attention to, what information is needed, the pain associated with trains (:-P), food considerations, etc.
>
> At APRICOT, we've developed an "Ops Manual"[1] that covers everything
> from room setup to "no kareoke" at the social event. I am not saying
> that our document needs to be an RFC, but we don't have a lot of
> alternative ways to publish things that can be quickly retrieved,
> printed off and so on.
>
> [1] http://www.apricot.net/docs/APRICOT-Op-Man.pdf
>
Something like this tailored to the IETF would be awesome.
The organizers at many of the sponsors are not IETF participant / attendees and having useful reference / background material would we really good for them -- a single document like the APRICOT-Op-Man or an RFC, self contained (and printable), in a single voice will be much better understood than a whole collections of pages with various voices....
I often (usually?) disagree with Wes, but think that this draft is *really* useful and is worth publishing...
W
>
> Ole
>
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
> Cisco Systems
> Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
> E-mail: ole@xxxxxxxxx URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
> Skype: organdemo
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Bob Hinden wrote:
>
>>
>> While I agree that the questions won't change as often as the
>> answers, it will likely change. We have come a long way from just
>> asking how many cookies there will be.
>>
>> Also, if it gets published as an RFC, it is going to be viewed as a
>> "specification". I think it's best to avoid that and just have a
>> wiki. I would be surprised if this topic continues to be as active
>> area of discussion in the future, making it unlikely that there
>> would be new RFCs published.
>>
>> Further, is this something we really want in the historical record.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf