Re: IESG's support

"L.H. Landweber" <lhl@cs.wisc.edu> Thu, 06 April 1995 02:15 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10181; 5 Apr 95 22:15 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10176; 5 Apr 95 22:15 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18954; 5 Apr 95 22:15 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10167; 5 Apr 95 22:15 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10163; 5 Apr 95 22:15 EDT
Received: from parmesan.cs.wisc.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18912; 5 Apr 95 22:15 EDT
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 95 21:15:23 -0500
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "L.H. Landweber" <lhl@cs.wisc.edu>
Message-Id: <9504060215.AA01646@parmesan.cs.wisc.edu>
Received: by parmesan.cs.wisc.edu; Wed, 5 Apr 95 21:15:23 -0500
To: 0001050002@mcimail.com
Subject: Re: IESG's support
Cc: bdains@linus.isoc.org, iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US, isoc-trustees@linus.isoc.org, lhl@cs.wisc.edu, pvm@isi.edu

vint
the idea would be to bring the inet and ietf communities 
together. if we were to hold the meetings in consecutive 
time slots, it would make it difficult for people to participate 
in both events and would defeat this goal.

we will have  enough space to accommodate both in the convention 
center. we had to take the entire center to avoid having a show that 
wanted exposure to the inet attendees take the part we were not going 
to use. so rental of the entire facility is already included in our
planned expenses. paul was in montreal when we toured the center and
perhaps can comment further on the question of having enough space.

on monday and tuesday, ietf would essentially have the ground
to itself, modulo various workshops, small meetings, and tutorials.

on wed-friday morning we would overlap.

my hope is that meals and social events can be held together.
some people will attend one of the meetings while others could
register for both.

details remain to be worked out but there is enough reason to 
believe that this is possible to justify continuing discussions.

if anyone sees a show stopper, please shout.

regards
larry
--------------------------

thanks, that makes some sense, although I assume you'd want to
take some care in scheduling so that the IETF and INET are not
completely on top of one another?

Are their likely to be adequate facilities to allow the roughly
10 meetings for IETF in parallel with the 5 or so INET tracks,
if the events are concurrent?