On 11/8/12 8:12 AM, SM wrote:
Hello,
I was given the following link at the plenary:
http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IANA-ietf85-nov2012.pdf and it turned
out to be a 404. Could the IAOC please fix the link?
According to the the IAOC report there was one large interim meeting
where 38 people attended onsite and 23 attended online. The event
resulted in a US$ 18,000 loss. Can someone comment on what WG
progress was made [1]?
I wrote a draft summarizing my experience of the LIM.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jaeggli-interim-observations-03
Given an attendance fee of $100, and an expected attendance of ~70-100
the expenses were essentially cooked into the experiment from the outset
in my understanding.
There is a direct contribution of US $2.2 million by the Internet
Society next year. Is the plan to rely on Internet Society subsidies
or to fix the deficit? One argument made was that the fees have not
been increased over the last years. I'll point out that there hasn't
been significant increase in paid attendance over the years. Either
the IETF is only relevant to the usual folks or else the meetings are
not made relevant enough for (new) people to attend.
I read http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/IETFreports/ietf85.pdf It's the
usual reporting from the RFC Editor. I would like to suggest posting
that report a week before the meeting so that people can read it if
they have the inclination to do so. I gather that after the RFCFORM
side-meeting which started with the usual discussion about what to
discuss about, the *SE have understood that they should not negotiate
with terrorists. :-) It would be refreshing if the *SE could "think
outside the box" and share their thoughts about the RFC Series with
the community and comment on how they intend to reach out to the
audience which do not attend IETF meetings.
The IAB report is the usual fare. Why can't this be posted one week
before the meeting? The report mentions several drafts and the number
of open issues. That's not interesting. How about picking one issue,
explain the IAB angle and select someone who has provided feedback on
the draft to comment?
NomCom posted the list of candidates for an area to a public non-IETF
mailing list. This is a departure from past practice [2].
Harald Alvestrand mentioned IETF 55 [3]. Some people might find the
slides interesting.
Regards,
-sm
P.S. The audio quality was bad.
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75244.html
2.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg07929.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/55/slides/plenary-2/index.html