Re: Travel/Attendees list FAQ

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




--On Wednesday, December 07, 2011 10:41 -0800 Bob Hinden
<bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>...
> 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. 

Oddly, although I think some clarifying language about intent
and the difference between preferences and requirements would be
in order, I think "specification" --of information that the IETF
hoped that a sponsor, local host, the secretariat, or someone
else would provide or help the community to obtain-- is entirely
in order.  I see little, if anything, on his list that is not
asked for, in one form or another, at almost every meeting
(unless we have been to the location already, and sometimes
then).  I see little on that list that hasn't been routinely
supplied at least a few times in the past at prior IETF meetings
or at other international meetings I attend.   By and large,
when things are left out, that is the result of accidental
omission rather than intention... and the accidental omissions
cause unnecessary problems or concerns.  By organizing the
questions, as Wes is doing, we can eliminate some of those
difficulties with (at least if we are clear about intent) little
marginal cost to anyone.  

I do note something that Wes, by only listing the questions,
omits, which is that there are several of these questions to
which "not really relevant here" or "we don't have a clue" would
be perfectly reasonable answers... and would actually provide
information.

If, as you suggest, the topic is not likely to be discussed
regularly --presumably, given this community, because the list
of questions is fairly stable-- to me that reinforces the
desirability of publishing the list in readily-accessible (and,
as others have pointed out, compact and printable) form rather
than making it undesirable.

> Further, is this something we really want in the historical
> record.  

Why not? If there is anything on the list that can be construed
as "we think your city is a bad place" or "we think hosts and
facilities are out to screw us", it should be revised so those
inferences are not possible.  Actually, that is another
advantage of having a standard, published, list of questions: it
demonstrates that we ask the same questions of everyone rather
than singling out particular locations for suspicion.  If hosts,
facilities, or local people think some of them just aren't
applicable, they simply note that and move on (again, a little
more introductory text might be in order, but I think the
principle is just fine).

best,
   john

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]