Re: IESG's support

John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net> Thu, 06 April 1995 08:07 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00385; 6 Apr 95 4:07 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00381; 6 Apr 95 4:07 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00979; 6 Apr 95 4:07 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00371; 6 Apr 95 4:07 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00367; 6 Apr 95 4:07 EDT
Received: from mail1.Reston.mci.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00971; 6 Apr 95 4:07 EDT
Received: from klensin (klensin.Reston.mci.net) by MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET (PMDF V5.0-1 #8388) id <01HP06YOTZ2O000Y3X@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET>; Thu, 06 Apr 1995 04:04:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 1995 04:03:12 -0400
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>
Subject: Re: IESG's support
X-Sender: klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net
To: "L.H. Landweber" <lhl@cs.wisc.edu>, 0001050002@mcimail.com
Cc: bdains@linus.isoc.org, iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US, isoc-trustees@linus.isoc.org, lhl@cs.wisc.edu, pvm@isi.edu
Message-id: <01HP06YXZVOQ000Y3X@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>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.

Larry and Paul,

While I think that "bringing the ... communities together" is an excellent
idea, I'm worried about bringing some other elements together.  My sense of
this week, when we are down to "only" 850-ish attendees is that we are
getting a lot more done than we do with 1000.  Perhaps the new scheduling
plan, which cuts the pressures a bit, is helping also.  We also seem to have
slightly fewer reporters and other representatives of the randomly curious
around which again helps.

Now let's think about a joint meeting.  INET attracts the reporters, the
people who want to learn about [inter]networking, and the people in search
of tutorials, overviews, and clues.  That is what it is supposed to do--no
complaints there.  But then we tell them that IETF is meeting concurrently,
and that the real "advanced engineering" action is occurring in the IETF
sessions.  We can't keep them out under our openness rules (and because we
don't want them to leave INET angry at either IETF or ISOC).  And, while we
keep telling WG Chairs that telling someone to "sit down and shut up unless
you've read the documents and mailing list", few do it very often (that may
be just as well).

I suggest that a joint meeting runs a real and significant risk of a
completely lost IETF meeting.  That would be a pretty high price for letting
the INET attendees see what the IETF participants look like.

Anyone else share this concern?

    john