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>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>om>, 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>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>om>, 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