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

Dave Crocker <> Wed, 30 July 2008 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07583A6979; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D389628C1B0 for <>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xWrv8PDXPOdu for <>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7146]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D5B28C1A9 for <>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6UCO6oE006634 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:24:08 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:24:05 +0100
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ole Jacobsen <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/7891/Wed Jul 30 03:03:53 2008 on
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:13:22 -0700
Subject: Re: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re: Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for the attendees of IETF 72 meeting." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"

Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> And we also have consistent history which says that a hosted meeting 
> is much easier on everyone involved (except the host :-) and that

First, we have very, very little experience with meetings that do not have a 
"local" host.  So that making generalizations like this is pretty risky.

Second, my recollection of the one or two meetings we've had without hosts was 
that they went well.

> 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.

And a new venue requires lots of additional volunteers, in order to figure out 
the new things and fix the new problems.

> 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.

That's based on the idea that the 'host' needs to be associated with the venue. 
  They don't.


(A side-benefit is that this makes it plausible to have multiple hosts for the 
event, with each able to pay a smaller amount...)

> The new location syndrome also has good sides such as permitting more
> participants from a given local region.

That was important in the mid-90s.  It isn't any more, in terms of getting IETF 
work done.

The core question that was put forward during one of these discussions -- by 
Fred Baker while he was Chair, I think -- was:  What helps get IETF work done?

I think that's the right question.

A venue that is remote, expensive, unreliable, or otherwise problematic does not 
help the IETF do its work.


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
72attendees mailing list