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

Iljitsch van Beijnum <> Tue, 29 July 2008 08:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 122E928C1BB; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B0BF28C1BB for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.497
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mGViDX+l3u+J for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2001:1af8:2:5::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CE1C28C1B8 for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:df8::16:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13] ([IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m6T8fbFF073185 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:41:37 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from
Message-Id: <>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <>
To: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:41:53 +0100
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926)
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"; DelSp="yes"

On 29 jul 2008, at 0:07, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

> "the powers that be" are trying to optimize location /  
> internationalization / the host that PAYs preferences to location

The interesting thing is that the attendees ALSO pay for this.

Now I understand that the IETF needs to get its funding where it can  
find it, but it can hardly be a surprise that if you make two sets of  
people pay for the same thing and optimize for the convenience of one  
party, the other is unhappy.

However, the network is working just fine now (for me at least), and  
the strange funding structure of the IETF is not the fault of either  
the volunteers or the host, who are actually working very hard to make  
everything work within the constraints that have been set, so this  
might be a good point to end this discussion.
72attendees mailing list