Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process
Curtis Villamizar <cvillamizar@infinera.com> Tue, 09 August 2011 16:59 UTC
Return-Path: <cvillamizar@infinera.com>
X-Original-To: 81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3223F21F8C91 for <81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.144
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.144 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.454, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pyZwxAusQvaw for <81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SV-CASHT-PROD3.infinera.com (sv-casht-prod3.infinera.com [8.4.225.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 159B121F8C59 for <81attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com ([fe80::dc68:4e20:6002:a8f9]) by SV-CASHT-PROD3.infinera.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:59:29 -0700
From: Curtis Villamizar <cvillamizar@infinera.com>
To: Dae Young KIM <dykim@cnu.ac.kr>
Thread-Topic: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process
Thread-Index: AQHMVq3DdF1HuDsve0mpe0ycsLvjhJUUuyXQ
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:59:27 +0000
Message-ID: <B819AC736B2D3745ADEA0C285E020CEB07612C50@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com>
References: <4E34C3A9.2020502@att.com> <A5B9F059BE69461F8008EBECD84A1E67@china.huawei.com> <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A6402713C27@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> <3DA9637F-1C72-43CB-B040-49F2A6FF26D9@softarmor.com> <4E398F03.1000806@dcrocker.net> <CA6BA2FE-13E7-438F-B943-7659A37DB3C5@cisco.com> <744D8CA9-9C01-41A5-A22C-CDF2F4E904EF@fugue.com> <p06240611ca64d0f07a2b@loud.pensive.org> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1108072112110.14256@sjc-vpn7-506.cisco.com> <p06240601ca65afd19752@loud.pensive.org> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1108080830460.18801@sjc-vpn7-506.cisco.com> <CAFgODJfSOHdt-Lzz6bpnHSCSi5kLMu3Yjjh2xU5b35Dtwm5tRw@mail.gmail.com> <B819AC736B2D3745ADEA0C285E020CEB076127BF@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com> <CAFgODJecoePK7RX=+4DpwZ93qKE1HvjBq7vPOEkToxy0LfnOXg@mail.gmail.com> <FF871B758C55949D49F19663@PST.JCK.COM> <p0624061aca6632f15733@loud.pensive.org> <CAFgODJcgVbEQt0V7wJ9VOjdUvU=hArCiuyn8dOM7TBqVcS=q=Q@mail.gmail.com> <0339E737-3061-45BF-9A4F-E787EF45D48D@checkpoint.com> <B819AC736B2D3745ADEA0C285E020CEB07612B8E@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com> <CAFgODJe5-5DRuZ6SK_pXdQr+5zPrbc4cd9NpLzKOfR57grG2cA@mail.gmail.com> <B819AC736B2D3745ADEA0C285E020CEB07612BC4@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com> <CAFgODJcm1HvS2+j51=VCjef=dyt8X4jh=0DwgV-Kn9BxchcQBw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFgODJcm1HvS2+j51=VCjef=dyt8X4jh=0DwgV-Kn9BxchcQBw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.100.99.21]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B819AC736B2D3745ADEA0C285E020CEB07612C50SVEXDBPROD1infi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "81attendees@ietf.org" <81attendees@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process
X-BeenThere: 81attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF 81 Attendee List <81attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/81attendees>, <mailto:81attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/81attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:81attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:81attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/81attendees>, <mailto:81attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:59:18 -0000
I made a few points. Maybe we can filter presentations on some criteria. Maybe some of the WGs need more time at the meeting. Maybe the routing area should make use of Friday. In the prior email I suggested that some participants may be trying to advance their own career, rather than advance work which is likely to be widely implemented, highly interoperable, and widely deployed. Advancing one's own career is not necessarily dumb, but it is a different goal than that of IETF. Therefore I missed the part about dumb participants. Other SDOs are much worse in their process and the outcome of their process. Curtis From: dykim6@gmail.com [mailto:dykim6@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Dae Young KIM Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 9:02 AM To: Curtis Villamizar Cc: Yoav Nir; 81attendees@ietf.org Subject: Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process Maybe, you're more talking about the management skill of WG chairs. Open and loose decision-making process has long or once been regarded as the winning side of IETF. If consensus is high enough that it may not be anymore, then perhaps it's time someone raise a high flag to change IETF. Other SDOs have their own operational methods which work on their own way; IEEE, ISO, and ITU-T, etc. I'm not sure whether people or you're thinking of a change towards the line of one of these.... perhaps, not. With the way of IETF is running, the unfortunate situation might not be helped. Or you might want to propose to process only drafts sanctioned by the chairs and let only those names on such drafts enter the room. But without changing the rule in that way or the other, you cannot blame those entering the room and sitting their for hours and, to your eyes, wasting/killing their time and only disrupting the real work. If they are not as dumb and silly as you might think, they might have their own reason to sit there for hours in usually uncomfortable chairs. Pity that you have to live with so many non-sense tourists. On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Curtis Villamizar <cvillamizar@infinera.com<mailto:cvillamizar@infinera.com>> wrote: It is a different topic. That is why I changed the subject line. I don't think this is an IETF governance issue. In some WGs there needs to either be a filter (WG interest) or a lot more time allocated. MPLS for example had mostly 10 minute slots and 4 hours (I think) of total meeting. With 6 hours, at least the presentations would be 15 minutes on average. Also if there was no interest at a prior meeting and not much has changed, then no time slot or a very short one or a Friday slot. This would be up to the MPLS chairs. The routing area could also make use of Friday. We had some overlap problem trying to squeeze into Monday first thing to Thursday. Only roll was on Friday and it seemed like that WG might be shutting down. BTW - there didn't seem to be a general comment session in the routing area open meeting, only a discussion of the paper on power optimization. Otherwise this could have been brought up (again). Curtis From: dykim6@gmail.com<mailto:dykim6@gmail.com> [mailto:dykim6@gmail.com<mailto:dykim6@gmail.com>] On Behalf Of Dae Young KIM Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 8:31 AM To: Curtis Villamizar Cc: Yoav Nir; 81attendees@ietf.org<mailto:81attendees@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Curtis Villamizar <cvillamizar@infinera.com<mailto:cvillamizar@infinera.com>> wrote: Before asking any question the WG chairs should ask "how many people read or at least thoroughly skimmed through this document prior to the meeting such that they understand what it contains". Then do the "favor/opposed" polling. One of the problems with some of the WGs is too many junk drafts. It seems like a number of authors just want to get their name on a WG draft or RFC so that they can cite it on their resume. In at least one case an employer was rewarding employees for submitting a draft and having it presented and the result was a lot of junk drafts from that company. This was counterproductive to the IETF WGs in which this was occurring. The process used to be more streamlined because a small group of people would commit to deploy a simple protocol or extension on a significant provider network, a small set of people would agree to implement it, and the WG would provide a venue for open discussion. In a number of WGs there are authors who persistently promote drafts with no provider or vendor interest or negative expressions of interest. We have lost touch with the "running code" part of "rough consensus and running code" and we may not be doing well on the "rough consensus" part either. We are headed toward the design by committee and voting methods used by other SDO along with including every half thought out feature anyone imagined during the process and no implementations. This leads to protocols that don't work with features that no one has ever implemented or where no one has ever succeeded in getting to interoperate among vendors. Curtis You do have a point here, but this is far stretched off the topic of the thread on how to select venues and that with diversity. I think you're raising a more fundamental issue of the governance/operational structure of IETF. If your elite core group want to do work in a more cozy environment, you'd better redefine the membership of IETF and scrutinize the applicants to each meeting to filter out non-core members. Is this what people want? Or is this what you ask the leadership to change the IETF to? -- DY -- DY
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randy Bush
- [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good job! Tony Hansen
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Monique Morrow (mmorrow)
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Keith Moore
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Leif Johansson
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Larissa Shapiro
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Debra Wilson
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Joe Touch
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… James Rafferty
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Kevin P. Fleming
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ray Bellis
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… david.black
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Damien Saucez
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Luigi Iannone
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… jonne.soininen
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Jim Rees
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Susan Hares
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… John R. Levine
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… John R. Levine
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… John R. Levine
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Joe Touch
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Joe Touch
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… david.black
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… John R. Levine
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Al Morton
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Joe Touch
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Benson Schliesser
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Joe Touch
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randy Bush
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Benson Schliesser
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Merike Kaeo
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Luyuan Fang (lufang)
- [81attendees] Simple feedback rating system?? Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Paul Coverdale
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Lou Berger
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Richard Shockey
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… David Kessens
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Keith Moore
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Fred Baker
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Keith Moore
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Fred Baker
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… David Kessens
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Dean Willis
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Dean Willis
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Joe Touch
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Fred Baker
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randy Bush
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… David Kessens
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randy Bush
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Kevin P. Fleming
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Tina TSOU
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… John R. Levine
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Adam Roach
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Fred Baker
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… david.black
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ted Lemon
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ted Lemon
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Mary Barnes
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Cui Yang
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Simon Perreault
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… John R. Levine
- [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ hub a… John C Klensin
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Joe Touch
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Joe Touch
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Ted Lemon
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Ted Lemon
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Mary Barnes
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Jakob Heitz
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Joe Touch
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Tony Hansen
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Rosen, Brian
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Ben Campbell
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Ted Lemon
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… kathleen.moriarty
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ross Callon
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Narelle
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Andrew McGregor
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: [81attendees] hijacked thread (was: connectio… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… John Bradley
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… John Bradley
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Randy Bush
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Sebastian Castro
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Yoav Nir
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Wes Hardaker
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Montgomery, Douglas
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Tim Chown
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… John R. Levine
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ted Lemon
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randy Bush
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… John C Klensin
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ted Lemon
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randy Bush
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Kevin P. Fleming
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Joel Halpern
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Dae Young KIM
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Adam Roach
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… James M. Polk
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Dae Young KIM
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ted Lemon
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ h… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Dae Young KIM
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Dae Young KIM
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randy Bush
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Adam Roach
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations Adam Roach
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Randy Bush
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Jim Martin
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… John C Klensin
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Dae Young KIM
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations Joe Touch
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations Dae Young KIM
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Randy Bush
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations James M. Polk
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Dae Young KIM
- Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good… Randy Bush
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… George Michaelson
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Yoav Nir
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Ted Lemon
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Yoav Nir
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Yoav Nir
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Burger Eric
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Dae Young KIM
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Ray Bellis
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Randy Bush
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Yoav Nir
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Randy Bush
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Nishal Goburdhan
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process Dae Young KIM
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Warren Kumari
- Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Ray Bellis
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Randy Bush
- Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process -… Steve Crocker
- Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process Dae Young KIM
- Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Randall Gellens
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… ALAIN AINA
- Re: [81attendees] divine meeting locations (was: … Ted Lemon
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… Ray Bellis
- Re: [81attendees] divine meeting locations Joe Touch
- Re: [81attendees] divine meeting locations Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was:… John C Klensin