Re: ietf Digest, Vol 107, Issue 14
Zack Cylinder <zack@cloudbakers.net> Wed, 05 April 2017 17:24 UTC
Return-Path: <zack@cloudbakers.net>
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 6ECBD12948F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cloudbakers-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QriihM7jZ4Zd for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x236.google.com (mail-wr0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 487E21287A7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x236.google.com with SMTP id w11so22782306wrc.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Apr 2017 10:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudbakers-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=UOqakt3IxDrSyOM28iga2mNLwWrW18O08wBhBcRxSBw=; b=VN6pM/TgoJ8javhRJIcN3U0WtcVa8pIylqfmAQIDg9wpv0aqZeRjkWm/sT9Es6VuCY HkPAseUXXuET26B5z5YD798MQ2O87rJOX3YrewVaf37Vvw0JSIuE50+2vg9GPHdkbg+g ZYKbMFRYbFzpJxxt1rV0+m10m6QQo2W3SBKSMRETAbEHwePZVBTm3wC2ag1d2tlGEtf2 iBmOXUYclmZkSRsl8Ez7JQp0nJq03klONdVX4/cNutXejKDhqpMR43G/Gqow1hVLtxnW Rc/uCbzOjJ/PGR86Q04q7veg0I5+3kXxmFLbIYD5cUTQiPEy0AVv3PJ3oRTd4FoIiy1l 5cgA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=UOqakt3IxDrSyOM28iga2mNLwWrW18O08wBhBcRxSBw=; b=YiOwD786L9B6Jm1OVHDjBVp8wV0xoCQN5oDxYwGY1Wm5spVUepciqxFNXxnkp0umhO Ff3hNPnU3mUq6FPKQa0ITXYwGRdFKcr9TIEPBe9pwMKrc3vyweF549QDCKssw6/0W0Xr DBfxjCdTuxYeknUjt3AnTPZ9k2ys5dwz+qDz8HuPXmgVpox465l3NXu/GBTBfNxB6OBL C6L30jmyhIVjkFeSKsoPJyWYjG2Tuhti2R/8Qti5D6iycXYTXkivdlbk0BmIEpdSiGup X4v1aa9K5cckO3n6z4wT8fXLRcCPhh0HEr5LnWnPglBpZMTShycI6erF2Sn8NKborlfb D2zA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1E8izsoMsqioJMPMswBxrFt9abGibxrERJ9WdIpOr1IR8KPTo/9lWxDyyI02urYhLVbG9v4jC5WLhDpX9i9GNRet+q/9n5nzZzZj41ygwBX6LzyQbKe1znOyR+l9wizyQpHbfERcqSibny1Z7as48PyNAj67IJMFdHNJuKL03OaMoEzYOCueiJVha9yfNUn4ghJavClCD9ITy0GKLv3dzMcQI/mnL99/6eUbZG3coJGsBwokbw
X-Received: by 10.28.137.211 with SMTP id l202mr20678991wmd.118.1491413042219; Wed, 05 Apr 2017 10:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <mailman.5562.1491405436.3760.ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5562.1491405436.3760.ietf@ietf.org>
From: Zack Cylinder <zack@cloudbakers.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 17:23:51 +0000
Message-ID: <CADc3KoKmfZuD03TtsX7iC=6jrvMe3LLJjjPy4eMX=iD-kEJajA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ietf Digest, Vol 107, Issue 14
To: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114444969862d0054c6ea839"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TAdQGThOHePWYfQ4lxGEWhEqQTk>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 05 Apr 2017 17:24:12 -0000
Hey everyone, Please see below and let me know if you have questions On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:17 AM <ietf-request@ietf.org> wrote: > Send ietf mailing list submissions to > ietf@ietf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ietf-request@ietf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ietf-owner@ietf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ietf digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities > (Michael Richardson) > 2. Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities > (Michael Richardson) > 3. Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities > (mike stJohns) > 4. Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities > (Michael StJohns) > 5. Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities > (Bob Hinden) > 6. Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities > (Michael StJohns) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:23:14 -0400 > From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> > To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities > Message-ID: <6955.1491398594@obiwan.sandelman.ca> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote: > > At least once, I was questioned extensively when going from the US to > > a meeting in Canada. I had to show evidence of the meeting and my > > itinerary and convince them that I wasn?t entering Canada to take > work > > away from a Canadian. That said, I still support holding meetings in > > Canada. > > IETF98 was among the only times I was *NOT* asked questions like that when > entering the US. I did enter at Midway. That none of are asked such > questions when entering europe always surprises me. > > I'm not sure what "extensively" means; if that means you were taken aside, > or > not. I've been through that at the US border. > > "Chair of work group" would always be a bad thing to say, since it has the > word "work" in it. Never talk about customers. The IETF is a meeting of > peers. > > (Once because it was 5am, and I was just really loud since I was really > still > asleep). > > But, in all cases I felt confident that I would be treated with respect, > (even by the border guard who didn't seem to believe that e-tickets were > real). > > I did *not* feel that way while preparing to travel to IETF98. > My fears were not realized; but as Eliot has said, it's *exactly* the > uncertainty that is a problem. > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 487 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/attachments/20170405/82807627/attachment.asc > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:25:54 -0400 > From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> > To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.Nether.net> > Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities > Message-ID: <7538.1491398754@obiwan.sandelman.ca> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > Jared Mauch <jared@puck.Nether.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 12:53:47AM -0000, John Levine wrote: > >> I agree that Canada is a fairly easy country to get in and out of > >> (unless you have a DUI arrest) but it varies a lot so anecdotes > about > >> entering Canada or any other country don't tell you much. > > > Agreed. When I received my NEXUS card they explicity told me > > if I was traveling to a conference and was presenting that I would > > require additional paperwork, possibly including a letter of > invitation, > > and/or a visa. I presume if I were presenting at an IETF WG I would > > check the appropriate box when registering as well and I would get > > the paperwork. > > No! Only if you have been paid to present. > i.e. you are Al Gore coming to talk at the Air Canada center in > Toronto. > > We don't do presentations like that at the IETF. > The IETF is not like most non-technical "conferences". > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 487 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/attachments/20170405/7bafa802/attachment.asc > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:49:54 -0400 > From: mike stJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> > To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> > Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities > Message-ID: <620C9C4C-413C-439C-9109-B30BBAB921B1@comcast.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Let's try this one more time > > > 27 deaths in 100 would be 27% > 27 deaths in 1000 would be 2.7% > 27 deaths in 10000 would be .27% > 27 deaths in 100000 would be a rate of .027% > The above are all expected deaths per year for the given population - so > divide .027% by 52 to get .00051% per week. That's roughly the chance per > individual to die during the week from murder. That's *my* risk for a > week of the IETF and that's what should matter to each individual. > > If you take that and multiply it by the IETF population you get .005 > expected deaths within the IETF for the entire week. > > Now you're using the "at least one" criteria, which works out to be > 1-(1-.0000051)^1000 = .005 or .5% of at least one person dying in the week > so your numbers are somewhat reasonable, but don't actually mean anything. > E.g this is basically the birthday paradox which grows the probability > quickly with the size of the set. > > I'll give you an example. The death rate per 1000 in Germany per year > for all causes is about 11. That works out to about a 20% chance of at > least one person dying in the IETF during the week from all causes > including murder if we all lived in Germany. The equivalent statistic for > the US is 8 per 1000 which works out to 15% for the IETF for the week. But > we don't seem to be dropping at anywhere close to that rate ( e.g. A death > at the meting every 5 meetings). > > Death probabilities are *highly* dependent on the specific populations > you're looking at and actuaries get paid a lot of money to calculate them. > The actual probabilities for the IETF would benefit from affluence, age, > medical care, education, location, etc. > > Mike > > > > Sent from my iPad > > >> On Apr 5, 2017, at 01:56, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Apr 5, 2017, at 01:06, mike stJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> wrote: > >> > >> .005 deaths per week per 1000 > > > > Right, the 270 micromorts per year (~ 5 micromorts per week) you cited > would lead to a ~ 0.5 % chance of anyone of the ~ 1000 IETFers getting > killed ? a factor three less than the 1.5 % that my numbers result in, but > not off by a large factor. > > (Still, I wonder where that factor three comes from.) > > > > Luckily, we hit the other 98.5 % this week. > > > > (I?m not that worried by the ~ 15 micromorts of risk I personally was > subjected to, given that I spent on the order of 250 microlives for the > time that went into this meeting. > > But my wife, who had been planning our wonderful vacation in Colombia > earlier this year, definitely was.) > > > > Gr??e, Carsten > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:26:20 -0400 > From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> > To: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities > Message-ID: <cd5a3b9d-29dd-0d8b-b0a4-2a2465ea89b1@comcast.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > I meant to include (damn iPad): > > Carsten's original email was > > Statistically, the chance of any IETFer being killed last week was about > 1.5 %. > > "Any IETFer being killed" (I read the above as "Any [given] IETFer") is > the .00051% chance. "At least one IETFer" is the .5% chance. "Anyone > in the IETF" could mean either - precision is important and I still > don't actually know which Carsten meant. > > Later, Mike > > On 4/5/2017 9:49 AM, mike stJohns wrote: > > Let's try this one more time > > > > > > 27 deaths in 100 would be 27% > > 27 deaths in 1000 would be 2.7% > > 27 deaths in 10000 would be .27% > > 27 deaths in 100000 would be a rate of .027% > > The above are all expected deaths per year for the given population - so > divide .027% by 52 to get .00051% per week. That's roughly the chance per > individual to die during the week from murder. That's *my* risk for a > week of the IETF and that's what should matter to each individual. > > > > If you take that and multiply it by the IETF population you get .005 > expected deaths within the IETF for the entire week. > > > > Now you're using the "at least one" criteria, which works out to be > 1-(1-.0000051)^1000 = .005 or .5% of at least one person dying in the week > so your numbers are somewhat reasonable, but don't actually mean anything. > E.g this is basically the birthday paradox which grows the probability > quickly with the size of the set. > > > > I'll give you an example. The death rate per 1000 in Germany per year > for all causes is about 11. That works out to about a 20% chance of at > least one person dying in the IETF during the week from all causes > including murder if we all lived in Germany. The equivalent statistic for > the US is 8 per 1000 which works out to 15% for the IETF for the week. But > we don't seem to be dropping at anywhere close to that rate ( e.g. A death > at the meting every 5 meetings). > > > > Death probabilities are *highly* dependent on the specific populations > you're looking at and actuaries get paid a lot of money to calculate them. > The actual probabilities for the IETF would benefit from affluence, age, > medical care, education, location, etc. > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > >>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 01:56, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 01:06, mike stJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> .005 deaths per week per 1000 > >> Right, the 270 micromorts per year (~ 5 micromorts per week) you cited > would lead to a ~ 0.5 % chance of anyone of the ~ 1000 IETFers getting > killed ? a factor three less than the 1.5 % that my numbers result in, but > not off by a large factor. > >> (Still, I wonder where that factor three comes from.) > >> > >> Luckily, we hit the other 98.5 % this week. > >> > >> (I?m not that worried by the ~ 15 micromorts of risk I personally was > subjected to, given that I spent on the order of 250 microlives for the > time that went into this meeting. > >> But my wife, who had been planning our wonderful vacation in Colombia > earlier this year, definitely was.) > >> > >> Gr??e, Carsten > >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 08:13:47 -0700 > From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> > To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> > Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities > Message-ID: <F51651E3-7668-4D00-8879-979680E19E38@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > On Apr 5, 2017, at 7:26 AM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> > wrote: > > > > I meant to include (damn iPad): > > > > Carsten's original email was > >> Statistically, the chance of any IETFer being killed last week was > about 1.5 %. > > > > "Any IETFer being killed" (I read the above as "Any [given] IETFer") is > the .00051% chance. "At least one IETFer" is the .5% chance. "Anyone in > the IETF" could mean either - precision is important and I still don't > actually know which Carsten meant. > > I am happy that no IETFer got killed. We did have some heated debates :-) > > Bob > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 496 bytes > Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP > URL: < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/attachments/20170405/f09b94af/attachment.asc > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:17:29 -0400 > From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> > To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> > Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities > Message-ID: <421b15b4-628c-d790-3c08-ce72cf725ab9@comcast.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 4/5/2017 11:13 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: > > > > I am happy that no IETFer got killed. We did have some heated debates > :-) > > > > Bob > > > > > I once saw Dave Clark after a particularly contentious side meeting at > an early IETF and said that I was glad I didn't see blood. His response > was classic Dave: "It was the kind of meeting where the only blood came > from biting your tongue." > > Mike > > The IETF - 30 years of Standards by Combat! > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > ietf mailing list > ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > ------------------------------ > > End of ietf Digest, Vol 107, Issue 14 > ************************************* > -- Zack Cylinder Cloudbakers Cloud Training Specialist
- Re: ietf Digest, Vol 107, Issue 14 Zack Cylinder