Re: protocols that don't meet the need...

[Marshall Eubanks <tme () multicasttech com>]

Of course, there is nothing stopping NANOG or anyone else from  
collocating their meetings to be near the IETF's (in time or  
space)... but right now they would have a tough time figuring where  
that would be :)

The IETF commits to having its meetings
not collide with certain other meetings, and dates are typically set  
some years in advance :

http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt

Because of the recent reorganization, the IETF meetings are only  
specified through 2007, but
this will shortly be extended for another few years.

Once set, these date cannot be changed except for force majure.  
Recently IETF meetings have not been announced too long in advance  
(this summer's location is still officially TBD on this list, for  
example). I know that the IAD is scrambling to fill in the "where"  
part of this list into the future.

Hopefully, in the near future the IAOC and the IAD will have meeting  
sites planned out 2 years or so in advance.
Maybe, then, a collocation could be discussed.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

On Feb 14, 2006, at 4:37 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:

>         So, NANOG has worked in the past (eg: ARIN) at joint
> meetings at a venue before, perhaps something similar would work.
>
>         I find it interesting that NANOG and IETF are both in Dallas
> about a month from each other and both parties likely navigated
> the logistics issues of connectivity, etc.. for these hotels for
> a slightly overlapping audience.
>
>         Do people think something like the NANOG-ARIN would work for
> NANOG-IETF?  That might allow cross-breeding/ROI/whatnot and value to
> both communities.
>
>         - jared
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 01:17:46PM -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
> > I agree that attendance is not required, but it can help some  
> > discussions.
> >
> > Given the logistical differences it would be much easier to  
> > schedule NANOG
> > into a nearby hotel than to try to move the IETF around. For  
> > example this
> > time if NANOG had been a month later it would have been in the  
> > same city yet
> > different hotels. I understand that synchronized meetings it not  
> > trivial,
> > but it is worth considering.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:10 PM
> > > To: Tony Hain
> > > Cc: nanog () merit edu
> > > Subject: Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
> > >
> > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:35:19 PST, Tony Hain said:
> > > > Rather than sit back and complain about the results, why not try to
> > > > synchronize meeting times. Not necessarily hotels, but within a
> > > reasonable
> > > > distance of each other so the issue about ROI for the trip can be
> > > mitigated.
> > >
> > > The IETF apparently has some major scheduling problems as it is,  
> > > because
> > > there
> > > are very few venues that can handle the number of people that  
> > > show up
> > > *and*
> > > have the right mix of large rooms and many smaller break-out rooms.
> > > Trying to get
> > > it into a hotel opposite a NANOG would just exacerbate the problem.
> > >
> > > And there's nothing stopping NANOG types from joining an IETF  
> > > working
> > > group and
> > > participating via e-mail - there's a large number of people who have
> > > contributed
> > > to the IETF process and never actually been sighted at an IETF  
> > > meeting.
>
> --
> Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared () puck nether net
> clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are  
> only mine.