Re: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re: Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)

Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com> Tue, 29 July 2008 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <72attendees-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 72attendees-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-72attendees-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DF953A6891; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: 72attendees@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 72attendees@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A9F23A6891 for <72attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Rpi3W9q1TGs for <72attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BE073A67A3 for <72attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.31,273,1215388800"; d="scan'208";a="59009907"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2008 16:35:17 +0000
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m6TGZGK1009081; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:35:16 -0700
Received: from pita.cisco.com (pita.cisco.com [171.71.177.199]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6TGZGGb029922; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:35:16 GMT
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
In-Reply-To: <488F4098.1040106@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0807290926120.17270@pita.cisco.com>
References: <C4B41B20.76FCE%jonne.soininen@nsn.com> <94A3C924-DB32-43B1-B9F5-66C54EA32926@muada.com> <1217326884.3851.12.camel@victoria.pingtel.com> <488F4098.1040106@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1709; t=1217349316; x=1218213316; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=ole@cisco.com; z=From:=20Ole=20Jacobsen=20<ole@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[72attendees]=20Clarifying=20Host=20Res ponsibilities=20(was=20Re=3A=20Guestroom=0A=20Network=20not= 20under=20NOC=20Control) |Sender:=20; bh=32P4P+nMBTcrwWj/55uNDvm2MbYe6K4J2gglpUp8Bnw=; b=ADWvRPRXKVUmoAVtSbXUhloHIadhKtYuOZ/sxcQMF4Am/cl9F/oFBjlhOp qhzhtL0y0aMKjaPKnJvPDXPmEk6HAlGh/YUbrDCmy4bpdWDhL+Kxp4FWzdrv 0y6hGWo3iZ6QJ9NGWkacxtL71hhzxpWFdUzNNxOicuOkcUN8hrbBI=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=ole@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
Cc: 72attendees@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re: Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)
X-BeenThere: 72attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>
List-Id: "Discussion list for the attendees of IETF 72 meeting." <72attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees>, <mailto:72attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/72attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:72attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:72attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees>, <mailto:72attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: 72attendees-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: 72attendees-bounces@ietf.org

And we also have consistent history which says that a hosted meeting 
is much easier on everyone involved (except the host :-) and that 
hosts typically want some say in where the meeting is held. If your 
headquarters is in say, Philadelphia, you can recruit a lot of 
"volunteers" and run back to the office and borrow a printer, hub, 
switch, paper ream, or what have you.

This works well, and while I agree that having a few "hub" locations 
would be good, I also know that it isn't easy to find a willing host
for a "repeating" location.

The new location syndrome also has good sides such as permitting more
participants from a given local region. I don't have the stats on how
many more people we have this time from the UK *and* Ireland, but I
bet you there is a significant increase.

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@cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj


On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> This is key.
> 
> As long as our model has us usually going to places one time, there can be no
> learning curve.
> 
> In spite of the considerable effort to get things right each time, actually
> achieving that will fail regularly.
> 
> The only way to get reliable performance of a meeting venue is to find a few
> that we like and keep going back.
> 
> As long as we make the first priority be to find a host and let the host
> choose a (new) venue, we will keep having venue problems.  We have 15+ years
> of consistent history on this score.
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> 
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
72attendees@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees