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

Ole Jacobsen <> Tue, 29 July 2008 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DF953A6891; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A9F23A6891 for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Rpi3W9q1TGs for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BE073A67A3 for <>; 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 ([]) by with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2008 16:35:17 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m6TGZGK1009081; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:35:16 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (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 <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
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;;; z=From:=20Ole=20Jacobsen=20<> |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;; dkim=pass ( sig from verified; );
Subject: Re: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re: Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <>
List-Id: "Discussion list for the attendees of IETF 72 meeting." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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 J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail:  URL:

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
72attendees mailing list