Re: [re-ECN] Draft Agenda

"Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com> Sun, 11 October 2009 20:23 UTC

Return-Path: <richard_woundy@cable.comcast.com>
X-Original-To: re-ecn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: re-ecn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1488E3A6830 for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.463
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bVBx3+yKV1RU for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from paoakoavas10.cable.comcast.com (paoakoavas10.cable.comcast.com [208.17.35.59]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35EAA3A67FC for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([24.40.15.118]) by paoakoavas10.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id KP-TDCH7.70651982; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:23:22 -0400
Received: from PACDCEXCMB06.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.22]) by PACDCEXCSMTP04.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:23:23 -0400
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:23:22 -0400
Message-ID: <8A82D1BFEDDE7E4597978355239BBBCB0438BC@PACDCEXCMB06.cable.comcast.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [re-ECN] Draft Agenda
Thread-Index: AcpKVUHtXwWLqou6QtGpHnleP2wjzgAWRT3c
References: <200909281832.n8SIWijX024923@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk><4ACBC12A.3050507@thinkingcat.com><AEDCAF87EEC94F49BA92EBDD49854CC70D5DCFEA@E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net><200910071729.42797.mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> <AEDCAF87EEC94F49BA92EBDD49854CC70D646794@E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <8A82D1BFEDDE7E4597978355239BBBCB3BC15C@PACDCEXCMB06.cable.comcast.com> <AEDCAF87EEC94F49BA92EBDD49854CC70D646AD8@E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <8A82D1BFEDDE7E4597978355239BBBCB3BC2A7@PACDCEXCMB06.cable.comcast.com> <0FB25EB3-AA5E-465D-82A0-B206FE4D752D@nokia.com>
From: "Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com>
To: "Lars Eggert" <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2009 20:23:23.0732 (UTC) FILETIME=[AE972140:01CA4AB0]
Cc: re-ecn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Draft Agenda
X-BeenThere: re-ecn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: re-inserted explicit congestion notification <re-ecn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn>, <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/re-ecn>
List-Post: <mailto:re-ecn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn>, <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:23:43 -0000

Thanks Lars, I see your point about vendor demos.
 
>I don't think this applies to demos done in the scope of a WG or BOF 
 
Actually, folks in my group have coordinated several dual stack lite demos at IETF meetings; dual stack lite is being standardized in the Softwires working group. They definitely had to coordinate with the IETF meeting network engineers. That demo didn't generate much extra traffic, but it did require extra devices in the IETF meeting network.
 
Their concerns would seem to be proportional to the volume of traffic generated and/or the additional complexity in the IETF meeting network.
 
Again, I will defer to you and the BoF chairs.
 
-- Rich

________________________________

From: Lars Eggert [mailto:lars.eggert@nokia.com]
Sent: Sun 10/11/2009 5:28 AM
To: Woundy, Richard
Cc: toby.moncaster@bt.com; re-ecn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Draft Agenda



Hi,

I believe this text deals with demos that the organization *hosting* 
an IETF meeting might want to show on-site. For example, if Nokia were 
to host an IETF and we wanted to show some new phones, the secretariat 
- or the IESG? - would need to OK this. We don't want the hosts to do 
too much advertising at the venue.

I don't think this applies to demos done in the scope of a WG or BOF - 
there, it is up to the chairs to decide what is appropriate IMO.

On 2009-10-8, at 22:09, Woundy, Richard wrote:
> I looked for some additional information about IETF meeting
> demonstrations, and found this paragraph in "Hosting an IETF 
> Meeting" at
> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/hosting-an-ietf.html:
>
> Demonstrations
>
> All on-site demonstrations must be approved by the Secretariat. The
> determination will be based entirely on the subject matter and its
> applicability to the IETF. The opinion of the IESG may be solicited as
> well. Approval must be also given by local host, if, the individual
> giving the demo asks to use Terminal Room resources (i.e., equipment,
> power and/or space). The local host may decline to accommodate 
> requests
> to support demonstrations on-site, especially if there is no physical
> room, facilities or personnel available to support the effort.

Lars