Re: bits-n-bites: Exhibitors and product vendors hawking wares at anIETF meeting?

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Wed, 04 July 2012 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2207121F8627 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 14:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 fENXDtLNblPw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 14:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1439721F8625 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 14:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from joels-MacBook-Air.local (c-71-193-176-225.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [71.193.176.225]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q64L0GBA003647 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 4 Jul 2012 21:00:17 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <4FF4AEDB.5030209@bogus.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:00:11 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120619 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Subject: Re: bits-n-bites: Exhibitors and product vendors hawking wares at anIETF meeting?
References: <20120704184933.79868.qmail@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20120704184933.79868.qmail@joyce.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Wed, 04 Jul 2012 21:00:17 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 21:00:07 -0000

On 7/4/12 11:49 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> NANOG is around 500 attendees. I daresay exposure to the average nanog
>> attendee is worth more, but ultimately the best feedback in that regard
>> will likely come from the sponsors.
> IETF is bigger, but on the other hand, IETF attendees probably spend
> less per capita on equipment than NANOGers do.
Yeah, that's what I said. ;)

If pitched correctly the folks that would be interested in the IETF 
community might not be equipment vendors. e.g. I* organizations, 
standards bodies doing outreach, contractors that provider services to 
organziations doing standards works, patent trolls with portfolios to 
sell and regular participants looking to rasie the visibility of their 
activities all seem like potential participants.
> It's an experiment, if we're turning away sponsors and people think it
> was overall a success, we can raise the price.  If not, well, we can
> do something else.
Indeed. A lot of things I might not be willing to support in the general 
case are fine in the guise of experiments.
> R's,
> John
>