Subject: Re: possible solutions for the LISP scheduling problem

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:22:47 +0300

We have identified using one hour from DNSEXT meeting (Wednesday -- 
thanks Andrew) and another hour from the DHC meeting (last session of 
Thursday -- thanks Ralph) as the potential solution. Not perfect for me 
as I will have other things at that time as well, but maybe better than 
other options. Not everyone liked the lunch slot idea, for instance, and 
Monday is even worse both for me and I suspect some number of 
contributors. If you want more time you can keep the Friday slot or have 
lunch meetings. Does this work for everyone?

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:10:49 +0300

Vince,

> Can you quantify the "some number of contributors" who will be put out by
> the Monday morning slot? The comments that I have read so far suggest that
> said slot works pretty well for everyone except you.
>   

I know Joel would like to participate in SOFTWIRE. I suspect that some 
fraction of the general IETF IP & routing folk would like to be in 
SOFTWIRE, and I think it would be great if some of those people showed 
up in Lisp instead. None of these are hard issues, Joel can skip the 
SOFTWIRE meeting, I can rotate between three rooms, and the key 
contributors such as you are more important than other folk. But you did 
say earlier that you are OK with anything between Monday and Thursday 
and that DNSEXT was your second best option:

> My constraint is that I cannot be out of town for two consecutive weekends.
> Right now, my itinerary has me out of town for the weekend of the 6th and
> 7th of November; with the loss of a day traveling to China, it is not
> possible to arrive in China in time for Monday meetings without traveling
> during that weekend. If I have to stay through Friday, then I would have
> to change my outbound flight to be on Monday the 8th and my return to either
> Saturday the 13th or Sunday the 14th. Since I will be changing both the
> outbound and the return portions of a non-refundable ticket, I probably
> have to cancel and rebook the entire itinerary, which may involve the loss
> of >$1000 in ticket value.
>
> As Dino pointed out, changing flights at this point may likely mean middle
> seats for 14 hours each way as most of the aisle and window seats are
> already gone. I'm also not sure if there will be an issue rebooking the
> hotel reservation. All of this is unattractive enough that I am considering
> canceling my trip altogether if the WG meeting can't be moved.
>
> I am available for any WG slot from Monday through Thursday without making
> any travel arrangement changes.
> As I stated above, my strong preference is for the Monday option.
>
> An hour taken from the DNSEXT slot plus lunchtime would my second choice.

At this point we are just shifting pain around. All the available slots 
have some issues, including the ones that I suggested. I could make a 
similar list of issues for that as I did for Monday. Anyway, I think the 
ones that I suggest are a bit better but if you have some hard conflicts 
that I did not see, let me know. In particular, the DHC slot idea came 
up very late, and I did not have a chance to check with you or others if 
it has conflicts. Does it?

Jari

---

From: Vince Fuller <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:29:31 -0700

> lunch meetings. Does this work for everyone?

Hi Jari-

	--Vince

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 07:48:44 -0700

> lunch meetings. Does this work for everyone?

So is the idea to have a split session, with one half of DNSEXT and one half of DHCP on Friday?   That might work, although I have a presenter with a specific conflict for the first half of the DHC meeting, so I'd have to check with him to see if he can come on Friday.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:52:53 +0300

Ouch. That does change things.

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:17:39 +0300

Dino,

>
> But should not come as a surprise.

No, you did tell me that earlier. I missed it.

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:45:58 +0300

Ok, so Thursday afternoon is out. Looking at the remaining options, we 
have these:

1. Monday morning (against: MEXT, SOFTWIRE, NBS, APPAREA, P2PSIP, MPLS, 
IPPM)

2. Half of Wednesday DNSEXT slot + Wednesday lunch. Actually, if the 
DNSEXT people are accommodating you could probably go first, making your 
meeting 1200 - 1400... hopefully enough time to grab a sandwich and go 
to the meeting. DNSEXT is against AUTOCONF, MBONED, CCAMP, ALTO, EMAN, 
SIPREC, IPSECME. Lunch may be against WG chair's training lunch (if held 
at traditional time).

(Question: is Thursday lunch 1130-1300 still within your ability to, or 
are you leaving for airport earlier? IIRC the trip to the airport may 
have been pretty long in Beijing so maybe not...)

Either way, I have to be in multiple places simultaneously, though a bit 
more on Monday. But I think SOFTWIRE and NBS BOF at the same time as 
LISP pretty much means that many of the experts in this area will be 
split thinly between the meetings. Wednesday is a bit easier from that 
perspective. A bit non-traditional meeting time perhaps :-)

Given this, my preference would be to go for #2. Any serious issues?

Jari

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 07:43:27 -0700

I cannot make Thu afternoon. Either can Dave from what we mentioned.  
We said from Sunday evening to Thu noon was when we were available. I  
have a 5:30pm flight that day.

Dino

On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:

> thanks Andrew) and another hour from the DHC meeting (last session  
> of Thursday -- thanks Ralph) as the potential solution. Not perfect  
> for me as I will have other things at that time as well, but maybe  
> better than other options. Not everyone liked the lunch slot idea,  
> for instance, and Monday is even worse both for me and I suspect  
> some number of contributors. If you want more time you can keep the  
> Friday slot or have lunch meetings. Does this work for everyone?
>
> Jari
>

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:10:18 -0700

Dino

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:53:13 -0700

I have a feeling you are asking me a question, but I have no idea what  
it is. I have to leave the hotel at noon on Thu.

Dino

On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:

> Ok, so Thursday afternoon is out. Looking at the remaining options,  
> we have these:
>
> 1. Monday morning (against: MEXT, SOFTWIRE, NBS, APPAREA, P2PSIP,  
> MPLS, IPPM)
>
> DNSEXT people are accommodating you could probably go first, making  
> your meeting 1200 - 1400... hopefully enough time to grab a sandwich  
> and go to the meeting. DNSEXT is against AUTOCONF, MBONED, CCAMP,  
> ALTO, EMAN, SIPREC, IPSECME. Lunch may be against WG chair's  
> training lunch (if held at traditional time).
>
> (Question: is Thursday lunch 1130-1300 still within your ability to,  
> or are you leaving for airport earlier? IIRC the trip to the airport  
> may have been pretty long in Beijing so maybe not...)
>
> Either way, I have to be in multiple places simultaneously, though a  
> bit more on Monday. But I think SOFTWIRE and NBS BOF at the same  
> time as LISP pretty much means that many of the experts in this area  
> will be split thinly between the meetings. Wednesday is a bit easier  
> from that perspective. A bit non-traditional meeting time perhaps :-)
>

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:10:04 -0400

> SIPREC, IPSECME. Lunch may be against WG chair's training lunch (if held  

If this is the plan, I really do need to know about it soon, please.

Also, I want to emphasise that I'm willing to give up the hour, but
_only_ the hour.  We will need all of one hour for sure.  This
effectively means you get 50 minutes: think of it as an academic or
psychiatrist's hour.  I need the room clear and dnsext ready to go so
that we get all of the hour.  We're happy to help, of course, but I
want to make sure we don't end up hobbling ourselves.

Thanks,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:15:33 -0400

Andrew's time request is very reasonable.
I(f we can get sandwiches at the hotel, and if we can hav ethe first 
hour, then that would give us a suitable approximation of a 2 hour slot.
If not, I don't think this will work.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:19:46 +0200

On 2010-10-19, at 18:45, Jari Arkko wrote:
> 2. Half of Wednesday DNSEXT slot + Wednesday lunch.

I'd be unhappy if this got scheduled into a lunch slot. I really don't want us to get into a situation a few IETFs down the road and have chairs request lunch-time run-ins "like LISP had".

I appreciate that you want to be creative in finding time for the WG to do business, but IMO using lunch time is not an option, because it creates a bad precedent.

Lars

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:29:47 -0400

+1
especially to avoid a Friday time slot.

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 2:20 PM
> To: Jari Arkko
> Cc: Darrel Lewis (darlewis); Vince Fuller; Working Group 
> Chairs; [email-masked]; David Meyer; Gregg 
> Schudel; Dino Farinacci
> Subject: Re: possible solutions for the LISP scheduling problem
> 
> I'd be unhappy if this got scheduled into a lunch slot. I 
> really don't want us to get into a situation a few IETFs down 
> the road and have chairs request lunch-time run-ins "like LISP had".
> 
> I appreciate that you want to be creative in finding time for 
> the WG to do business, but IMO using lunch time is not an 
> option, because it creates a bad precedent.
> 
> Lars

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:47:38 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

I share the concern Lars expresses here. Allowing lunch breaks as WG 
meeting time has the potential to WG sessions during lunch time 
be just "normal" in the IETF.

Furthermore, for 99% of human beings it is impossible to concentrate on 
meetings for several hours in a row. The time a human being can stay 
attentive in a row is even drastically lower for non-nativate English 
speakers, as their CPUs additionally need to run the translation processes 
in parallel.

In short: Brakes have their purpose. Please do not consider them as 
"time to be allocated to WG sessions".

I would suggest to split up the LISP meeting into two slots, i.e. using 
the slot greatfully freed by DNSext (until lunch break) and the one at the 
end of the week, and optimize the agenda around the travel plans of the 
key contributors to the extent possible.

Make sense?

cheers,
  Bernie

--

http://ucom.ch/
Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:32:13 -0400

[to-list trimmed]

--On Tuesday, October 19, 2010 08:47:38 PM +0200 Bernie Hoeneisen 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> meetings for several hours in a row.

In the IETF, the other 1% are AD's, and need every lunch and cookie break 
for side meetings.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:32:08 +0300

Ralph and I discussed this and decided to ask the group to be scheduled 
on the Monday AM slot. I have not heard back from agenda yet but I hope 
the slot is still there and they can make it work...

Its not a great slot, however, given that so many hot things are going 
on in there at the same time, now including LISP as well. I am really 
glad however that we did not have to move other working groups and now 
we do not even need to loan time from DHC or DNSEXT. In the future, lets 
keep the chairs and ADs informed about any hard constraint significant 
contributors may have. In time. Track the agenda as it evolves and let 
us know if there's an issue, it is much easier to correct things early.

Jari