Re: IETF 109 Preliminary Agenda

David Noveck <> Sun, 18 October 2020 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7D8C3A0A94 for <>; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 10:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fa3iGYH7Al5k for <>; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 10:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::633]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D16DC3A0A92 for <>; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 10:52:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p5so10744499ejj.2 for <>; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 10:52:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dMXu6lrfVM51bCL8suaLT3lcO/q3JdNbeYngIbaNXTc=; b=dhe+S/fKAQne0X1gQm2GYjW4qgAMJaZAsFceXEpNzfranc+6C58CqKqJ/k0M+V//NR QbGitZY+xu705eKqt5CYIIuVdbfGKN4KuAx28tvbstEslhl0zDGtxnL98vRaHiWmydG5 os9lQvHBFMyXdxOtJfXTwSZtRDMgJid6HcNNM/tBnA079nI2yOFVKmnXQ7DzvxJ3zwT1 GLwhpA+6MJR0qEo+rKzQeQClyYdl1VQqij0AxJVXnrn8jYHRYNc4yJUtUhH2GmSvAnvE AUmHLG5jgqzLOGXrNm/F7XxJUYgNkOhWNp1bB1SYx6ktE9JZTMPSF9p5fVDl7adghajo 2IMA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dMXu6lrfVM51bCL8suaLT3lcO/q3JdNbeYngIbaNXTc=; b=KaDrhG4PioqFJbFvRDESU+DiteofrygdEhHopgLqR8Hmstknlw6M+wovIb5WlDx9al Qqr0nqIr6gEPiKW98i+0bxjQAi1HxTtO/cEte57+4ate5QkPpbXjtAKmno065Vzpe+O5 4ynnr6JhX6DDjZEQzh4XIaADrVWB5arLmmYTNVBYpcLGXMbcRJ4X4oVHzE4Q+geimxXQ kzuT02lcY6zRCQPSXUn+g4dja1oQqu3wcJCleD3jH30rC5bEUqm34avIQkAOO6U2cqBG XGPTzoXv++zbkh469pGwpDvnKST95qOPGovMq5bNkthxNTwzD8SQB8ePuXmw2Vab83pv YBlA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531+EGDs/49BtmnpceVRejYM8APhi3C5I6GJNCCK/kcUu+QdFqI9 xifedy3DVCZXmJlthjcCsO1NDNzZv6fvjFLQzlE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwAp7zOyUOY/h3WEs8oZ9IK3PczCsEokAHfZCMRdjjCFOikSSzASd7JPu/FmU4QPsOsvaL+L7y5308sZkRj9sM=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:6d0c:: with SMTP id m12mr13803745ejr.498.1603043560258; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 10:52:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <30344.1602894208@localhost> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: David Noveck <>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 13:52:28 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: IETF 109 Preliminary Agenda
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <>, Working Group Chairs <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f7fffa05b1f5a995"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 17:52:44 -0000

On Sun, Oct 18, 2020, 9:17 AM Andrew G. Malis <> wrote:

> David,
> Speaking as another person in the upcoming midnight-6 AM zone ....
> Think about how the folks in Asia feel when we schedule a virtual meeting
> for our daylight hours.

I would not do that of it were a real issue.  Nfsv4wg has no active members
in Asia.   And no non-member has ever expressed an interest in attending,
regardless of time zone  issues.

It's convenient for us, but not for them.

So, in this case, except for the prospect of cross-polination, about which
I am becoming rather dubious, there is no "them" to be inconvenienced.

We do 1+1+1 for a reason


to spread the pain.

There's a difference between spreading unavoidable pain and creating
unnecessary pain.

It's only fair. And to your other point, the survey results were very clear
> that people prefer a shorter day (6 hours) for the online IETF meetings.

We've never had an explanation of why those particular six hours were
chosen and I don't think we ever will.

> You talked about turning your life upside down to attend the meeting

Really, I talked about my unwillingness to do that.

if the meeting had actually been in Bangkok, then you would have had two
> 20+ hour bouts of travel going and coming, and a week away from home.

I wouldn't have done that either.  The last time the working group met at
an asian venue was in Beijing.  For a while, these meetings were just
skipped but lately we have used virtual interims and I expect that pattern
to continue.

At least this way, you can still sleep in your own bed.

Since I'm unlikely to do either, it doesn't really matter.

If you don't want to become nocturnal for the entire week, then pick and
choose which sessions are most important to you and set your alarm.

I'll be looking at the schedule and seeing if there is anything
sufficiently interesting to justify the effort and fees.

> Cheers,
> Andy
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 6:34 AM David Noveck <> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 3:36 PM Benjamin Kaduk <> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 07:33:09AM -0400, David Noveck wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 8:34 PM Carsten Bormann <> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On 2020-10-17, at 02:23, Michael Richardson <>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > It appears that session are scheduled starting at 05:00 UTC, which
>>> would
>>> > > be
>>> > > > 12:00(noon) Bangkok time.   It's really as if this meeting was
>>> being
>>> > > held in Madrid.
>>> > >
>>> > > I don’t think you are aware when Spanish people tend to get up :-)
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > Fair enough but I don't know when people in Bangkok typically get up
>>> and
>>> > I'm not sure it is really relevant.  Typically on-site meetings start
>>> at
>>> > 10am local time and go on to 5:30, creating a 7.5-hour window for
>>> meeting
>>> > sessions.
>>> >
>>> > Given that this is a virtual meeting,  it would make sense to widen
>>> those
>>> > windows to allow some amelioration of the problems that this creates
>>> for
>>> > some time zones, in this case, for those in the Americas.  Instead, the
>>> > window has been shortened to six hours and I'm not sure why.
>>> Could you expound a bit on why you think widening the block of time in
>>> which sessions occur would be helpful?
>> First of all, given that the current block (midnight to 6AM) was
>> unworkable for me, I was looking to provide options that would allow us to
>> schedule an nfsv4wg meeting during IETF.
>> It never occurred to me that there were people who would attend the
>> entire 12Am-6Am meeting and had no expectation of people attending an
>> expanded version of that.  It now appears that there are such people but I
>> expect there will be very few.
>> IIRC we have survey results showing
>>> that in a virtual format even the 7.5-hour window is too long to be
>>> practical, and having a longer window is going to push more of the
>>> session
>>> timeslots into times that are quite painful for more participant
>>> timezones.
>>> My understanding was that the idea of having a consolidated virtual IETF
>>> was to enable the cross-polination that occurs at in-person IETF meetings
>>> where most participants are attending sessions in most of the timeslots.
>> If that is the goal, it does not appear to be realizable for those in the
>> Americas given the current ICT session times, except for a small group
>> willing to turn their lives upside down to attend the meeting. Although
>> these times were not chosen to make this difficult, if you were trying to
>> do exclude us, it would be hard to pick a more forbidding time slot.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ben