From fgont@si6networks.com Thu May 2 06:44:46 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA4021F850F for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 06:44:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.484 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.484 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.115, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J2spgZf5aR7v for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 06:44:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8755521F84BD for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 06:44:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [186.134.26.236] (helo=[192.168.123.125]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1UXtns-00080y-4s; Thu, 02 May 2013 15:44:08 +0200 Message-ID: <518255DB.9090004@si6networks.com> Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 09:02:35 -0300 From: Fernando Gont User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carsten Bormann References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130428234454.06a3c160@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ericas@irtf.org, S Moonesamy , Vinayak Hegde Subject: Re: [ericas] Stuck getting visas for IETF meetings X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 13:44:46 -0000 On 04/30/2013 06:28 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > There is not much we can do about the visa complexity at the IETF level. > > But we can do two things: > > -- collect information about relative levels of complexities exhibited > by different venues. Right now I would guess (but don't know) that > it is easier for many to go to Canada than to the US. That's mostly a myth, I would say. In the same way that quite a few times the folks at the Canadian border have been much less polite (if you know what I mean) than at the US border. Another related topic that might be of interest: When granted a US visa, the US immigration office does not care about the expiration date of your passport: hence you may be granted a 10-year visa for 5-year passport (once the passport has expired, you just bring the old passport (with the visa) with the new passport, and that's it). However, at least in the Canadian Embassy in Buenos Aires, they will not grant you a Canadian visa for longer than your passport's expiration date. Which means that if your passport expires in, say, one year, your Canadian visa will have to expire at the same time. i.e., it is not possible to "bring the old passport with the visa, together with the new passport". This means that you will have to renew your visa much more frequently. Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nicolas@internettraffic.com Thu May 2 07:02:24 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA0921F8AD1 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:02:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CKnlpiN79cpg for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.hostingnet.com (mail.hostingnet.com [208.87.35.115]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AB1221F8523 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.2.15] (unknown [74.222.88.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nicolas@internettraffic.com) by mail.hostingnet.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F9A743BAB3 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <518271E6.5000805@internettraffic.com> Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 09:02:14 -0500 From: Nicolas Ruiz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130116 Icedove/10.0.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ericas@irtf.org References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130428234454.06a3c160@elandnews.com> <518255DB.9090004@si6networks.com> In-Reply-To: <518255DB.9090004@si6networks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ericas] Stuck getting visas for IETF meetings X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 14:02:24 -0000 On 05/02/2013 07:02 AM, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 04/30/2013 06:28 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >> >> There is not much we can do about the visa complexity at the IETF level. >> But we can do two things: >> >> -- collect information about relative levels of complexities exhibited >> by different venues. Right now I would guess (but don't know) that >> it is easier for many to go to Canada than to the US. > > That's mostly a myth, I would say. In the same way that quite a few > times the folks at the Canadian border have been much less polite (if > you know what I mean) than at the US border. I don't think is a myth. In my experience it's more difficult to be granted a visa to visit the US than western Europe. nicolas From fgont@si6networks.com Thu May 2 07:15:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A32EE21F8B9C for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:15:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.513 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D5qIgE3KdWbY for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25EB621F84F5 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [186.134.26.236] (helo=[192.168.123.125]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1UXuHz-0000Rv-49; Thu, 02 May 2013 16:15:15 +0200 Message-ID: <518274EA.9040904@si6networks.com> Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 11:15:06 -0300 From: Fernando Gont User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nicolas Ruiz References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130428234454.06a3c160@elandnews.com> <518255DB.9090004@si6networks.com> <518271E6.5000805@internettraffic.com> In-Reply-To: <518271E6.5000805@internettraffic.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ericas@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] Stuck getting visas for IETF meetings X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 14:15:18 -0000 On 05/02/2013 11:02 AM, Nicolas Ruiz wrote: > On 05/02/2013 07:02 AM, Fernando Gont wrote: >> On 04/30/2013 06:28 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >>> >>> There is not much we can do about the visa complexity at the IETF level. >>> But we can do two things: >>> >>> -- collect information about relative levels of complexities exhibited >>> by different venues. Right now I would guess (but don't know) that >>> it is easier for many to go to Canada than to the US. >> >> That's mostly a myth, I would say. In the same way that quite a few >> times the folks at the Canadian border have been much less polite (if >> you know what I mean) than at the US border. > > I don't think is a myth. In my experience it's more difficult to be > granted a visa to visit the US than western Europe. Wasn't the discussion about "US vs Canada"? -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nicolas@internettraffic.com Thu May 2 07:23:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B45521F86BB for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:23:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lTUbczR-ke4T for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:23:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.hostingnet.com (mail.hostingnet.com [208.87.35.115]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA0521F8554 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:23:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.2.15] (unknown [74.222.88.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nicolas@internettraffic.com) by mail.hostingnet.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A4A743674D for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:23:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <518276D0.1050805@internettraffic.com> Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 09:23:12 -0500 From: Nicolas Ruiz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130116 Icedove/10.0.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ericas@irtf.org References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130428234454.06a3c160@elandnews.com> <518255DB.9090004@si6networks.com> <518271E6.5000805@internettraffic.com> <518274EA.9040904@si6networks.com> In-Reply-To: <518274EA.9040904@si6networks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ericas] Stuck getting visas for IETF meetings X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 14:23:22 -0000 On 05/02/2013 09:15 AM, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 05/02/2013 11:02 AM, Nicolas Ruiz wrote: >> On 05/02/2013 07:02 AM, Fernando Gont wrote: >>> On 04/30/2013 06:28 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >>>> >>>> There is not much we can do about the visa complexity at the IETF level. >>>> But we can do two things: >>>> >>>> -- collect information about relative levels of complexities exhibited >>>> by different venues. Right now I would guess (but don't know) that >>>> it is easier for many to go to Canada than to the US. >>> >>> That's mostly a myth, I would say. In the same way that quite a few >>> times the folks at the Canadian border have been much less polite (if >>> you know what I mean) than at the US border. >> >> I don't think is a myth. In my experience it's more difficult to be >> granted a visa to visit the US than western Europe. > > Wasn't the discussion about "US vs Canada"? > I understand that the question is in regard to different venues, and pose the issue of Canada vs USA visa as an example. But even if the issue is strictly Canada vs USA, I think the perception that obtaining a visa to the USA is more difficult that a visa to Canada is accurate. nicolas From jabley@hopcount.ca Thu May 2 07:25:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525EA21F8AD5 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:25:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vNYQiLNTpMdr for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com (mail-pd0-f178.google.com [209.85.192.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9413521F86BB for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f178.google.com with SMTP id w11so383141pde.9 for ; Thu, 02 May 2013 07:25:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=qS1TcG6Ei2SwkAvCKYHRf3+Np6RD4uydTuQuH6Mh554=; b=Q7batW0YVH+rYtaeT77TDkyTgQaokYF59+8bG0YB/MndLf6N7oZMsJXx45YQji0eM4 /lSGNXle6KBhNWs73rKamYRIVXbQX+pTuRDX+qNrTjl7eRWzviOYeaEQ8NBcv+rl8MrK 9f1evl6P2Fl8nONKarr4tCVPxnp3s1Hs57Cvs= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=qS1TcG6Ei2SwkAvCKYHRf3+Np6RD4uydTuQuH6Mh554=; b=l90D9DUQr7JzOpDOjggkk6MGwxQ0EDc/LtqVfCQH+S0p+T8gKpETAZ2D4W+ZFX0Y00 LkjLTCrGpQlO5dQ1QC2QhlHa5W+iYQ1yHyPUrLoQcqqo+jCQeEHTI1pZnUeHbIf8dfMf IQ4+89pJdxIquoBqNvII3LqKMOYJhbNNsk/Y95J0ke9L6udqxMNOpeRzhkbXsLGPBji+ aJWrZ+qZ7gMYtrIZ3NUNJ4J4/UlU+TY3zZSNbBgtN3sN2wIFF18r3P81kxzKA2KsqPdg L98L3B0asULwnB6Fh6OclWYeUOHvAsra6AdTwFMHN8M/iFB22oW9o+jBgAIKuG1cT0uH XiSw== X-Received: by 10.68.11.73 with SMTP id o9mr9330397pbb.18.1367504742199; Thu, 02 May 2013 07:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:4900:1042:100:6d24:6d12:bc7a:94ef? ([2001:4900:1042:100:6d24:6d12:bc7a:94ef]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ea15sm8470638pad.16.2013.05.02.07.25.40 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 02 May 2013 07:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) From: Joe Abley In-Reply-To: <518274EA.9040904@si6networks.com> Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 10:25:37 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1A1C38C6-1516-4B47-8982-F8CB9612A58D@hopcount.ca> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130428234454.06a3c160@elandnews.com> <518255DB.9090004@si6networks.com> <518271E6.5000805@internettraffic.com> <518274EA.9040904@si6networks.com> To: Fernando Gont X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnYNGDgYxDOA587+XruCtRyCwv2OJnm9UTrCkgcUKvjmadCVr1jj07x0OSR9Bqiixk7Y/ak Cc: Nicolas Ruiz , ericas@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] Stuck getting visas for IETF meetings X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 14:25:47 -0000 On 2013-05-02, at 10:15, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 05/02/2013 11:02 AM, Nicolas Ruiz wrote: >> On 05/02/2013 07:02 AM, Fernando Gont wrote: >>> On 04/30/2013 06:28 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> There is not much we can do about the visa complexity at the IETF = level. >>>> But we can do two things: >>>>=20 >>>> -- collect information about relative levels of complexities = exhibited >>>> by different venues. Right now I would guess (but don't know) = that >>>> it is easier for many to go to Canada than to the US. >>>=20 >>> That's mostly a myth, I would say. In the same way that quite a few >>> times the folks at the Canadian border have been much less polite = (if >>> you know what I mean) than at the US border. >>=20 >> I don't think is a myth. In my experience it's more difficult to be >> granted a visa to visit the US than western Europe. >=20 > Wasn't the discussion about "US vs Canada"? I think the discussion was about "lowering barriers to attend meetings = from developing regions". I don't think in general there's a useful answer here. Whether or not = visas are necessary, expensive or difficult to get for particular = destinations depends wildly on the nationalities and travel histories of = individuals. Everybody is different. Attendance at particular meetings = varies for reasons other than visa/travel challenges. I doubt there is a = good general solution, IETF-wide. (For example, I hold three passports. I rarely need visas for anywhere, = but when I do it's visas to African countries that take the most time. = The only place I've been declined is Nigeria, and they were happy to = accept me when I reapplied. I would have preferred them to just double = the application fee rather than make me apply twice, but their visa, = their rules. Travel to or through the US is more painful for me than = Canada, but then again one of my passports is Canadian and hence my = opinion there is not useful.) It does seem possible that we could shift the balance of pain away from = potential participants in developing regions and onto those from = developed regions; perhaps a balance could be found where the pain = subsidy could be judged to be appropriate and worthwhile if it promotes = more diverse (there, I said it) attendance. I don't know how we'd do = this in practice, though. Joe= From melinda.shore@nomountain.net Thu May 2 10:00:48 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD1A821F8EDF for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 10:00:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 76MLRFxbZXJe for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 10:00:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdccah.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.207]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8AB421F8E4E for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 10:00:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5091C2AC079 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 10:00:43 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=nomountain.net; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=nomountain.net ; b=O+geCdh1qKshEzCDee+kgaF5NMefUKuGjfmxtIaCS70u8hOopkdiRRkRKafP xFe8EUHNEXtPjYCb6NIHWVUP8rN3gW2v47muCzFaxg1p8l9gCgeukPQRSbuDfm0t xfiBuevDqRLCXTK0Vc1mDDn+8FwWUHnoxRyuo6hdopvWpvo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=nomountain.net; h= message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= nomountain.net; bh=toThSSh2aX5hzHUiTs6ivZ0EtYs=; b=0DW2g3vAHsR3f 1rA7cbjphA/SaotX9BXfkioWZ3Eg+rOJnvt4MSVV0YXOUTGXa8SliXE0CGuldDLN p+xE6SwfAdLJyyRd5J9hp+7rdnVq8SuWQqto/24mLHWFYt8AWZnRz/CIOaXHr3Zc K3Sj5+wOZMss2+0T/50r44nAOtpXYo= Received: from spandex.local (66-230-87-94-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net [66.230.87.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: melinda.shore@nomountain.net) by homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F2B322AC075 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 10:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51829BB9.8060406@nomountain.net> Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 09:00:41 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ericas@irtf.org References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130428234454.06a3c160@elandnews.com> <518255DB.9090004@si6networks.com> <518271E6.5000805@internettraffic.com> In-Reply-To: <518271E6.5000805@internettraffic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ericas] Stuck getting visas for IETF meetings X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 17:00:48 -0000 On 5/2/13 6:02 AM, Nicolas Ruiz wrote: > I don't think is a myth. In my experience it's more difficult to be > granted a visa to visit the US than western Europe. I believe the situation is that it's easier to get a visa to get into Canada than into the US, but the customs and immigration people at the border are more diligent. The latter can be annoying but it's really the former that impacts meetings the most. Melinda -- Melinda Shore No Mountain Software melinda.shore@nomountain.net "Software longa, hardware brevis." From andres.arcia@ula.ve Sun May 5 12:06:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A5E521F93B3 for ; Sun, 5 May 2013 12:06:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.182 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.182 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_47=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WaLV89LDQT3B for ; Sun, 5 May 2013 12:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.ictp.it (smtp1.ictp.it [140.105.16.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA3E21F972C for ; Sun, 5 May 2013 12:06:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.ictp.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97226100D1E2; Sun, 5 May 2013 21:06:32 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at Received: from smtp1.ictp.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with LMTP id DK5gOuXAmkXk; Sun, 5 May 2013 21:06:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.101] (93-57-62-128.ip163.fastwebnet.it [93.57.62.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp1.ictp.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10B2A100D1C1; Sun, 5 May 2013 21:06:24 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F1CEC285-AE55-48AA-B748-5D1A86588BC4" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9s_Arcia-Moret?= In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 21:06:19 +0200 Message-Id: <43E9B243-E910-43B5-AABC-8A1A0C91023B@ula.ve> References: To: Alejandro Acosta X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 05 May 2013 12:26:47 -0700 Cc: ericas@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] Examples of Internet protocols not working well in emergent regions X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 19:06:43 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_F1CEC285-AE55-48AA-B748-5D1A86588BC4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Hello=20 This is an interesting proposal. Nowadays I'm working at the = International Centre of Theoretical Physics (Italy), specifically at = Marconi Lab. http://wireless.ictp.it/ At the wireless lab we're mainly interested in bringing the Internet = technologies to emerging regions. So, I'll be willing to participate.=20 Alejandro, I have some questions regarding your mail, so I write them = between lines. On Apr 29, 2013, at 3:59 AM, Alejandro Acosta = wrote: > Hi Arturo, > This is a copy/paste from the mailing list archive. I just = subscribed. > Regarding satellite networks I can mention few things. > Some toughs: >=20 > - TCP spoofing increases and improves a lot satellite links. I fully > recommend it. Very, very few problems reported when using TCP > spoofing, mainly some https connections. But one more time, almost > none. The improvement is over >25 % spoofing like in the PEP approach at BT? or do you rather mean = *snooping*? >=20 > - Andres Arcia (co-author of RFC 5690, on cc) has some recommendations > in this respect since he has done several studies in this area. He > recommends different handling of tcp acks, he has already some > Linux-modified kernels to test. We've also gathered a lot of data and > we can continue testing some things. >=20 > - Delay looks (and it's) impossible to improve In what sense? >=20 > - VoIP runs ok using SIP with QoS and good tunning of g.729 (better > than what most documents say). I don't recall the MOS but anyway it's > very good. >=20 > - SCPC links are extremely expensive (anywhere in the world), I think > the trend is to move to eSCPC over some VSAT technologies >=20 > - Transactional information (ATMs, Point of Sale) work just fine over > regular VSAT (no eSCPC). Please be careful if VPNs+routing protocols > run on this links, if so,, it's no any longer transactional. >=20 > - Let's remember that most satellite link are asymmetric. and so, AckCC may be of use (RFC 5690). See also: =20 http://www.saber.ula.ve/handle/123456789/31038 >=20 > - Regarding bandwidth I can only think in good compression > technologies built in modems, more gzip in http. >=20 > just my two cents, >=20 > Alejandro Acosta, >=20 >=20 > ----- >=20 > From: Arturo Servin > To: ericas at irtf.org > Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:19:04 -0300 > List-id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet > Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " >=20 > Some ideas of possible challenges for the IP suite in emergent = regions: >=20 > - Long delay networks > - Low bandwidth networks > - Satellite networks (which are low BW and have long delays) > - Mesh wireless networks > - Networks not connected all the time > - Not reliable/slow backup networks (i.e. in many countries = there is > just one ISP, how can we provide multi-home for critical services = using > a not very reliable backup link, for example a satellite link, a 3/4G, > dial-up, etc.) > =09 > These are the problems that for instance, I suffer or I know = people > that do. Nevertheless I imagine there should be many more of these. >=20 > I imagine that a first step would be to document a set of = problems on > which we could try to solve. >=20 > =09 > Regards, > as - A/A/ --Apple-Mail=_F1CEC285-AE55-48AA-B748-5D1A86588BC4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 http://wireless.ictp.it/
<= br>
At the wireless lab we're mainly interested in bringing = the Internet technologies to emerging regions. So, I'll be willing = to participate. 

Alejandro, I have some = questions regarding your mail, so I write them between = lines.


On Apr 29, = 2013, at 3:59 AM, Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.= com> wrote:

Hi = Arturo,
 This is a copy/paste from the mailing list archive. I = just subscribed.
 Regarding satellite networks I can mention = few things.
 Some toughs:

- TCP spoofing increases and = improves a lot satellite links. I fully
recommend it. Very, very few = problems reported when using TCP
spoofing, mainly some https = connections. But one more time, almost
none. The improvement is over = >25 %

spoofing like in the PEP = approach at BT? or do you rather mean *snooping*?


- Andres Arcia (co-author of RFC 5690, on cc) has some = recommendations
in this respect since he has done several studies in = this area. He
recommends different handling of tcp acks, he has = already some
Linux-modified kernels to test. We've also gathered a = lot of data and
we can continue testing some things.

- Delay = looks (and it's) impossible to improve

In = what sense?


- VoIP runs ok = using SIP with QoS and good tunning of g.729 (better
than what most = documents say). I don't recall the MOS but anyway it's
very = good.

- SCPC links are extremely expensive (anywhere in the = world), I think
the trend is to move to eSCPC over some VSAT = technologies

- Transactional information (ATMs, Point of Sale) = work just fine over
regular VSAT (no eSCPC). Please be careful if = VPNs+routing protocols
run on this links, if so,, it's no any longer = transactional.

- Let's remember that most satellite link are = asymmetric.

and so, AckCC may be of = use (RFC 5690). See also:
 



- Regarding bandwidth I can only think in good = compression
technologies built in modems, more gzip in = http.

just my two cents,

Alejandro = Acosta,


-----

   From: Arturo Servin = <arturo.servin at gmail.com>
=    To: ericas at irtf.org
   Date: Sun, = 28 Apr 2013 22:19:04 -0300
   List-id: "Discussion = list for \"Emerging Regions Internet
Challenges And Solutions\" = \(ERICAS\) " <ericas.irtf.org>

Some = ideas of possible challenges for the IP suite in emergent = regions:

= - Long delay networks
- Low bandwidth networks
- = Satellite networks (which are low BW and have long delays)
- Mesh = wireless networks
- Networks not connected all the = time
= - Not reliable/slow backup networks (i.e. in many countries there = is
just one ISP, how can we provide multi-home for critical services = using
a not very reliable backup link, for example a satellite link, = a 3/4G,
dial-up, etc.)

These are the problems that for = instance, I suffer or I know people
that do. Nevertheless I imagine = there should be many more of these.

I imagine that a first step would = be to document a set of problems on
which we could try to = solve.

=
Regards,
as

-
A/A/
=

= --Apple-Mail=_F1CEC285-AE55-48AA-B748-5D1A86588BC4-- From alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com Sun May 5 17:13:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6A4A21F973B for ; Sun, 5 May 2013 17:13:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_47=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u2SQO2wxIqsQ for ; Sun, 5 May 2013 17:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E1721F9739 for ; Sun, 5 May 2013 17:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id m17so209221vca.17 for ; Sun, 05 May 2013 17:13:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QjqCgDrjEDjDgwTsbVOTSP3HSPoQ8kOCbG3T/vPR9ac=; b=yjlUftYGmLJnbGQYVeeanWBpNZ5wycPzBcDxSHwjkuppYysFXyviIn40p4cUynIwFQ WzquuAvk6QuSaUHHSm8RMD8CJQdknpF93TbDU2hdGO+3LKLKnrmYrJ+snVlIwC6Peb+I 4RD2/ZLNWfJBAdivw5lVbB6+Kce+BJbMgzUnZF4yUheaPzSQzTlw6AnmlWoweb06GbIt RBW1IzaYJdfSM6ZVWXM0ftiNVSLWUVv41oXar9Ta67CqOWiunPU8Qz4pKFUR2BSaUmpm 6jYw4ogMzXl6fv1A0wTLRQhfSs+FV8vYGTYB9k7L5BqyIiA5hhO8w9pat6WcZDVrE7mz 5kKw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.111.231 with SMTP id il7mr5267156vdb.96.1367799227243; Sun, 05 May 2013 17:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.76.161 with HTTP; Sun, 5 May 2013 17:13:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <43E9B243-E910-43B5-AABC-8A1A0C91023B@ula.ve> References: <43E9B243-E910-43B5-AABC-8A1A0C91023B@ula.ve> Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 19:43:47 -0430 Message-ID: From: Alejandro Acosta To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9s_Arcia=2DMoret?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: ericas@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] Examples of Internet protocols not working well in emergent regions X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 00:13:51 -0000 Hi Andres, On 5/5/13, Andr=E9s Arcia-Moret wrote: > Hello > > This is an interesting proposal. Nowadays I'm working at the Internationa= l > Centre of Theoretical Physics (Italy), specifically at Marconi Lab. > > http://wireless.ictp.it/ > > At the wireless lab we're mainly interested in bringing the Internet > technologies to emerging regions. So, I'll be willing to participate. Good!, can you share some ideas about it? > > Alejandro, I have some questions regarding your mail, so I write them > between lines. > > > On Apr 29, 2013, at 3:59 AM, Alejandro Acosta > wrote: > >> Hi Arturo, >> This is a copy/paste from the mailing list archive. I just subscribed. >> Regarding satellite networks I can mention few things. >> Some toughs: >> >> - TCP spoofing increases and improves a lot satellite links. I fully >> recommend it. Very, very few problems reported when using TCP >> spoofing, mainly some https connections. But one more time, almost >> none. The improvement is over >25 % > > spoofing like in the PEP approach at BT? or do you rather mean *snooping*= ? No, I meant spoofing. > >> >> - Andres Arcia (co-author of RFC 5690, on cc) has some recommendations >> in this respect since he has done several studies in this area. He >> recommends different handling of tcp acks, he has already some >> Linux-modified kernels to test. We've also gathered a lot of data and >> we can continue testing some things. >> >> - Delay looks (and it's) impossible to improve > > In what sense? I mean, satellites are about 35.000 km of distance, signal has to go to the satellite and return to earth. Even at speed of light it takes about 250 ms one way. This is the time that _today_ it looks impossible to improve/eliminate,. > >> >> - VoIP runs ok using SIP with QoS and good tunning of g.729 (better >> than what most documents say). I don't recall the MOS but anyway it's >> very good. >> >> - SCPC links are extremely expensive (anywhere in the world), I think >> the trend is to move to eSCPC over some VSAT technologies >> >> - Transactional information (ATMs, Point of Sale) work just fine over >> regular VSAT (no eSCPC). Please be careful if VPNs+routing protocols >> run on this links, if so,, it's no any longer transactional. >> >> - Let's remember that most satellite link are asymmetric. > > and so, AckCC may be of use (RFC 5690). See also: > > http://www.saber.ula.ve/handle/123456789/31038 Thanks for pointing this out. Regards, Alejandro Acosta, > > >> >> - Regarding bandwidth I can only think in good compression >> technologies built in modems, more gzip in http. >> >> just my two cents, >> >> Alejandro Acosta, >> >> >> ----- >> >> From: Arturo Servin >> To: ericas at irtf.org >> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:19:04 -0300 >> List-id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet >> Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " >> >> Some ideas of possible challenges for the IP suite in emergent regions: >> >> - Long delay networks >> - Low bandwidth networks >> - Satellite networks (which are low BW and have long delays) >> - Mesh wireless networks >> - Networks not connected all the time >> - Not reliable/slow backup networks (i.e. in many countries there is >> just one ISP, how can we provide multi-home for critical services using >> a not very reliable backup link, for example a satellite link, a 3/4G, >> dial-up, etc.) >> =09 >> These are the problems that for instance, I suffer or I know people >> that do. Nevertheless I imagine there should be many more of these. >> >> I imagine that a first step would be to document a set of problems on >> which we could try to solve. >> >> =09 >> Regards, >> as > > - > A/A/ > > --=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ^A.......o$ From lars@netapp.com Wed May 8 08:44:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1B8121F9352 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 08:44:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gd+cuTfdBi1L for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 08:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx12.netapp.com (mx12.netapp.com [216.240.18.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED6B21F901B for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 08:44:29 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,635,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="50820285" Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx12-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 08 May 2013 08:44:29 -0700 Received: from vmwexceht05-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht05-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.77.35]) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id r48FiTgF000825 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 08:44:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.71]) by vmwexceht05-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 8 May 2013 08:44:29 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: "ericas@irtf.org" Thread-Topic: ISOC white paper: Lifting barriers to Internet development in Africa: suggestions for improving connectivity Thread-Index: AQHOTALt0U8QoyPJ706nIgP0egsdLA== Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 15:44:29 +0000 Message-ID: <50D036D9-96B1-4CA5-BA3D-92C9903BFDD6@netapp.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.116] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9A5D682F52E3194187F0FA9CC215CEC0@hq.netapp.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [ericas] ISOC white paper: Lifting barriers to Internet development in Africa: suggestions for improving connectivity X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 15:44:38 -0000 Hi, FYI - ISOC has just published the following white paper: http://www.interne= tsociety.org/doc/lifting-barriers-internet-development-africa-suggestions-i= mproving-connectivity Lars= From dhruv.ietf@gmail.com Wed May 8 09:43:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE3321F9253 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 09:43:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JU-H6taGux0a for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 09:43:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x234.google.com (mail-ie0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76FBE21F92CF for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 09:43:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id ar20so3593679iec.39 for ; Wed, 08 May 2013 09:43:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:x-google-sender-delegation :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=wtNW+cP4eeokckLdJ9pe735dZ0ZSi7Y/F3aFUas5ZYM=; b=uWGXsarrG55NvVSuf7EWJD2P/6CQBcBzYKS5BkeD9F+6RXoq3Vs63G1tLLRd8g0Om/ VnAnSJz5HH5UwEvEGuuwvAyShbDet54gEk35WE3Mp7qWdC9YHlZBBmYyhp/H4sv/OjpB LJ9uIrGQ2w85KD6LpfV8jEjvjsDPiOevph1f5BTOCgDnOHvqLo6keoEvmJAEdSe9VhdI LewvSxD7wTQuk0mlzDzoe82vxPE+1fOCbRhAw0EyCelwqGoCV4pIGFmaFTb3PHK0dfnR c1xFntbZTYkFSyKFPDq8oFliBA2kUMxFG4KEYnsReV5dZ2QRtN/IvxBloXt964QNnczl 4KnQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.168.198 with SMTP id x6mr2376572icy.45.1368031418449; Wed, 08 May 2013 09:43:38 -0700 (PDT) Sender: dhruvdhody@gmail.com X-Google-Sender-Delegation: dhruvdhody@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.217.162 with HTTP; Wed, 8 May 2013 09:43:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130428091705.0cbc0b60@elandnews.com> Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 22:13:38 +0530 X-Google-Sender-Auth: WG33I3Zjpig8SZRoQyxo6V4P-F4 Message-ID: From: Dhruv Dhody To: Vinayak Hegde Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e8a20bd076a04dc37a2fc Cc: ericas@irtf.org, S Moonesamy Subject: Re: [ericas] Starting the discussion X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 16:43:55 -0000 --90e6ba6e8a20bd076a04dc37a2fc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > True. A chicken-and-egg problem. Thanks to ISOC, we have some participants > from India. I am planning to get them together and create a small community > in Bangalore (which has enough critical mass of techies related to > Internet). Also I think people from emerging countries should help > themselves and not wait for outside help. > +1 I strongly believe we have to help ourselves. I have been advocating at my work to follow IETF mailing list, participate remotely, access old meeting proceedings and understand IETF culture. Take bangalore for instance, even though all major vendors have shop here, it is sadly not reflected in IETF participation. The long term members of the same vendor companies can help here by making sure their colleagues from emerging regions do get involved in IETF early on. The local managers should be made to see value in investing in IETF participation as a long term benefit. Dhruv --90e6ba6e8a20bd076a04dc37a2fc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
True. A chicken-= and-egg problem. Thanks to ISOC, we have some participants from India. I am= planning to get them together and create a small community in Bangalore (w= hich has enough critical mass of techies related to Internet). Also I think= people from emerging countries should help themselves and not wait for out= side help.

+1=A0

I strongly=A0believe=A0we have to help ourselves. I have been advocating a= t my work to follow IETF mailing list, participate remotely, access old mee= ting proceedings and understand IETF culture.=A0

Take bangalore for instance, even though al= l major vendors have shop here, it is sadly not reflected in IETF participa= tion.=A0

The long term members of the = same vendor companies can help here by making sure=A0their=A0colleagues=A0f= rom emerging regions do get involved in IETF early on. The local managers s= hould be made to see value in investing in IETF participation as a long ter= m benefit.=A0

Dhruv=A0

--90e6ba6e8a20bd076a04dc37a2fc-- From sm@elandsys.com Wed May 8 11:18:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB6F21F90AC for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 11:18:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.115 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.115 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.485, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9tjbupcv92iZ for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 11:18:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB37021F9079 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 11:18:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.145.230]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r48IHqO0001624 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 11:18:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1368037083; bh=5HKQPPxSbEcuO1GLe2E+hKaQa49Ou7o926pZdmjso/E=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=hKpeRMCpZnDv1pCdhTficoECnWJ7RwmfFLLeNmKjO2TOY8h/eawvAz0eYWZbr/5c5 /ZFxAjUaV6T1ceRRZ4NRw2WytOw05XuZATWsE71SbapeX7pEKCeM/zfoJNpuF+xWPD x08pCpNgiEj0vfsdJPj5fHgF56CD8kBqXvnYpPDI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1368037083; i=@elandsys.com; bh=5HKQPPxSbEcuO1GLe2E+hKaQa49Ou7o926pZdmjso/E=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=WwOOTYagEX5k/sa2tcQ71zNIDiipKeinY6gyqcrbHlvUK0lfMKe6Mv6BMVJLXr19w zV0XFnKfMkqnXVVBfsTuPp5YImxdBz5s9GbUpvOCuVbigIykYdR52bID78JLX1NNQA GsESGf6cQpW0wG/ZVlCo8mzbFK7ju4UKdfwlU7A8= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130508101940.0c02ff00@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 10:49:43 -0700 To: ericas@irtf.org From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <50D036D9-96B1-4CA5-BA3D-92C9903BFDD6@netapp.com> References: <50D036D9-96B1-4CA5-BA3D-92C9903BFDD6@netapp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [ericas] ISOC white paper: Lifting barriers to Internet development in Africa: suggestions for improving connectivity X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 18:18:08 -0000 At 08:44 08-05-2013, Eggert, Lars wrote: >FYI - ISOC has just published the following white paper: Intra-continental capacity in South America costs nearly the same as Kenya. It's at least ten times more expensive as in Europe. There was some discussion (I don't remember the reference) about why the cost was so high in Nigeria. Given the high cost it may seem economical to exchange traffic locally whenever it is possible. That's not the case though. The following was posted last year: GIXA 16 Mb/s KIXP 2 Gb/s MEIX 26 Kb/s MIX (no information available) MIXP (no information available) RINEX 99 Mb/s UiXP 35 Kb/s Policy-wise, Kenya and South Africa are interesting to compare. There are many more countries in Africa. I don't think that it is possible to extrapolate from the countries mentioned in the report there is significant diversity within the continent. It is strange that Egypt is not mentioned in the report. The report does not say anything new. The policy suggestions are about connectivity. Is that the barrier to Internet development in Africa? Regards, S. Moonesamy From sm@elandsys.com Thu May 23 13:46:09 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B025521F878C for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 13:46:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.416 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.416 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.183, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PF4mq33Bnva2 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 13:45:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 414EB21F9822 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 13:07:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.155.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4NK6re9003812 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 May 2013 13:07:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1369339628; bh=Mfs32lCIPshXK1G+wkncTWx5qfk5Nu9JDe1f4cWdnaA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=swJOolKzfNrwM5GvPD4fonhbbHwsTgIAcxaBkD2X/lDB0xsEWoVFmZK/sS4Dq82R8 ChRrrKP388P0DLgh0LcM3VA3Ns4iVpZSoFD9UZZjBktqOCEaJZq6vaJPZLAwJiX2iF G5SMaVOFq4SJ7jwemMtqqsXfqI+JvTaBv/8KR8PA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1369339628; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Mfs32lCIPshXK1G+wkncTWx5qfk5Nu9JDe1f4cWdnaA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=xHtKfaRSrJPGFdY8C69Cue2t0pyPUjSwEHkh2ls73BN938Est6VfGj7fKQMdZBCnS F1X3E0bEs6djenS+0qvpcs7nNaRi820zJKMlgERObbhy+mvGuClyC0T/t159FNWkLm YqvrcIkFyyAzQfnUO8BFlDZbOmQhdK3XTWpYzOjI= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130523125422.0d266078@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 13:05:23 -0700 To: ericas@irtf.org From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <20130523155412.29158.24895.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20130523155412.29158.24895.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:46:10 -0000 Hola, At 08:54 23-05-2013, The IAOC wrote: >The IAOC would like to understand if the IETF community thinks that the IETF >should have a meeting in the next few years in Buenos Aires. The IAOC would >also like to get feedback on how we can ensure the meeting is as successful as >possible and on ways to grow participation in the region. There is a thread on the ietf@ietf.org mailing list about the above ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg79456.html ). If I recall correctly some of you have been asking for the IETF to organize a meeting in South America. I suggest that you provide feedback on the ietf@ietf.org mailing list about this. If you remain quiet the IETF might not cross the Rio Grande. :-) Regards, S. Moonesamy From arturo.servin@gmail.com Thu May 23 14:07:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA3E721F97C7 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 14:07:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2eQt-nnmu6lF for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 14:07:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x235.google.com (mail-qc0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9717921F9731 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 13:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id u11so2032131qcx.12 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 13:23:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8vJ0KqxaLNqfQZfXGwZ0pHoThRKiSIkZOMrGOVPQHaQ=; b=vYhCmzFB595U0Stum2p9aZkPh3TM/reymGXF6RKMc1euEamnqPh1Jo/9c20D4ocuZt hpZ1zZHee1fLFBfbVtDx3es2ANlgBxFpawJ08PT2El0vAQNCFJJeOYvY2P6QwzmoWjiz ZKMI3z+UVDlp399phidnmSY5Gl1Yox6CH2wgUq4gkQN3hEidrhXJQ0ufFhC6s/etxdD/ +rsfH4BHDIE+31YwhxOqefDEje8sQImZDKA6ZnLfvD+Ha7Vr1jw1dPpy7flBxkRZqq8e IP4THk0jTJxuXjaSptUzRqRpHJN4MUYWkM/XufMTLyojaVtXuxecc6uMXyQBKJ0ORsKs hHlA== X-Received: by 10.229.201.73 with SMTP id ez9mr5121707qcb.4.1369340603868; Thu, 23 May 2013 13:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Arturos-MacBook-Pro.local ([2800:af:ba31:ac6:dcf:a7ff:862f:cdfa]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bc5sm12705598qeb.3.2013.05.23.13.23.21 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 23 May 2013 13:23:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <519E7ABF.20805@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 17:23:27 -0300 From: Arturo Servin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <20130523155412.29158.24895.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130523125422.0d266078@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130523125422.0d266078@resistor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ericas@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 21:07:38 -0000 We have provided feedback. So far a bit more of 40% of the people that has responded the survey is from Latin America/Caribbean or South America. Regards, as On 5/23/13 5:05 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hola, > At 08:54 23-05-2013, The IAOC wrote: >> The IAOC would like to understand if the IETF community thinks that >> the IETF >> should have a meeting in the next few years in Buenos Aires. The IAOC >> would >> also like to get feedback on how we can ensure the meeting is as >> successful as >> possible and on ways to grow participation in the region. > > There is a thread on the ietf@ietf.org mailing list about the above ( > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg79456.html ). If I > recall correctly some of you have been asking for the IETF to organize a > meeting in South America. I suggest that you provide feedback on the > ietf@ietf.org mailing list about this. If you remain quiet the IETF > might not cross the Rio Grande. :-) > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy From melinda.shore@nomountain.net Thu May 23 15:04:30 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3924421F8825 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 15:04:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iXKzJXItxDPM for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 15:04:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a96.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbhh.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D11321F9752 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 14:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a96.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a96.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253753B805C for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 14:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spandex.local (66-230-83-62-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net [66.230.83.62]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: melinda.shore@nomountain.net) by homiemail-a96.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9DE333B805B for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 14:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <519E8753.3090607@nomountain.net> Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 13:17:07 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ericas@irtf.org References: <20130523155412.29158.24895.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130523125422.0d266078@resistor.net> <519E7ABF.20805@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <519E7ABF.20805@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 22:04:30 -0000 On 5/23/13 12:23 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: > So far a bit more of 40% of the people that has responded the survey is > from Latin America/Caribbean or South America. I continue to think that we need to keep our focus on increasing participation from those areas. If having a meeting there helps solve that problem, outstanding. If having a meeting there doesn't help, well, there we are. Melinda -- Melinda Shore No Mountain Software melinda.shore@nomountain.net "Software longa, hardware brevis." From sm@elandsys.com Thu May 23 16:14:50 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F300021F8630 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 16:14:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.431 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.168, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ROD6PWTsNSQs for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 16:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C103721F9339 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 16:14:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.155.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4NNETjR003241 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 May 2013 16:14:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1369350882; bh=8uHvi+Wei2UHACMrU0yFLEeGyGiz3yTS5rwIL0500U8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=dvTk64xVYdkr8InA0QHdrXtN3CkfeDasRHOyvV7/ngjaqvXBBgV6b8H4zc53WaedD 9FtSKi4JO0taZWGAWTbFwGn7AfqD1ufztooIObyCqa+WIzdvAiq8Zk0AoWxa+5PINN WZh0yxk/t5R9udYT8lFdddjqp2rKVtee/3mxLEkg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1369350882; i=@elandsys.com; bh=8uHvi+Wei2UHACMrU0yFLEeGyGiz3yTS5rwIL0500U8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=GH8eBAj2O2KdTg7TWrVnAzCNL/jRRoBkdqFlKPTu+FG4KWnxiQOXVKjYmPwEGzra/ GqKRc0vBEyVakePMkYzB7t4PX9kgPjRKJcneqyga66W6tS3iftBZ2gg0Yxs4HDgo0G 1ixHJtmyMjIOr66hBAFrCDgnS+xi8KThPp7SjvFU= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130523152350.0db1f490@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 16:08:46 -0700 To: Melinda Shore From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <519E8753.3090607@nomountain.net> References: <20130523155412.29158.24895.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130523125422.0d266078@resistor.net> <519E7ABF.20805@gmail.com> <519E8753.3090607@nomountain.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ericas@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 23:14:50 -0000 Hi Melinda, At 14:17 23-05-2013, Melinda Shore wrote: >I continue to think that we need to keep our focus on increasing >participation from those areas. If having a meeting there helps >solve that problem, outstanding. If having a meeting there doesn't >help, well, there we are. Agreed. A meeting by itself will only bring one-off participation (people attend the meeting and disappear after that). In my opinion the IETF would not consider that as participation. If after having a meeting in South America there is no significant increase in participation it is improbable that there will be more meetings in that region. People can find reasons for the lack of participation but that won't help much. There was a stalemate in a WG discussion last year. An alternative to resolve that was to have a face-to-face discussion at the next IETF meeting. The issue was not resolved through a vote or a hum. Working group participants had to express their opinion so that the Working Group Chairs could find an acceptable way to resolve the issue. That required having the people who were participating in the mailing list discussions in the room. If these people cannot come to a meeting in South America it is a problem as the work of the working group has to be delayed or else the working group has to be shut down. There was an IETF interim meeting which coincided with a RIPE (RIR) meeting. The interim meeting (see draft-jaeggli-interim-observations-01) was a failure. My guess is that it would likely be the same if the interim meeting was held together with a LACNIC meeting. Regards, S. Moonesamy From juliao@braga.eti.br Fri May 24 10:19:10 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB7D021F9654 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 10:19:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.433 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CJ1pef-lsXNX for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 10:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f179.google.com (mail-vc0-f179.google.com [209.85.220.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2508721F968E for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 10:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id hz10so3283668vcb.38 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 10:19:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=cOZJKGJOr5RlB/S4xcNoDw1lKM6SWRqHd2Y7WcOg4HM=; b=SBhX6PuQhkPxwqnqjIOWmV0k6gfifNDVWFqB1patgmzwSWCtFqVy0hP7qKWwVT9H/v a445drI/AZwTG2/+SeowqANKLugXT4pA4KxZ8g9VF9LbiL45aZxFCwbqvJc1dtmwJBDF f3PFQCGt7LZ3uutmdYQ0cV5u1TlGCQmXf3TpzJRu6V1imkgvOXzHLJ53HNRXhnj4woDx j9bMAIaU47cBPo4qjrOgFDqnBrKPmDn7+JRwNIO4c9NsQi8Hv1TY/A6pM2fuU66cpSTk kvjuR8CTkDbhVfdHpbYKMd0ymlUw5Q0r4IbZFml70iPVDOtGBjv3k90WpsRfnPDoef9C z8Hg== X-Received: by 10.58.221.134 with SMTP id qe6mr9253148vec.2.1369415945483; Fri, 24 May 2013 10:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1294:1295:1295::167? ([2001:1294:1295:1295::167]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id aq10sm9375125ved.2.2013.05.24.10.19.03 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 24 May 2013 10:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 14:19:00 -0300 From: Juliao Braga User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ericas@irtf.org, j@braga.net.br Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlRImss3I0Sk6smETwccGwO324SlEJq7hp6njNCvRErXlHHhzV754Y+Il3TXDNeLj9I3SgR Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 17:19:10 -0000 Hello SM, I'd like to remember that the Regional IETF Meetings not necessarily must to have the same format as Annual Meetings. The main concern is that they are (a) motivators for participation in the Annual Meetings, (b) strengthen and give more flexibility in the progress of WG (not that the progress is slow, currently), and (c) encourage participation in Annual Meetings, even remotely, including write drafts, doing reviews as Melinda said. Whenever possible I'm talking about the IETF in articles and lectures, as you know. I'm returning to my academic life and therefore will be more effective in spreading within the Brazilian Computer Society (SBC). IETF will create a form and we can ask in the mailing list of SBC (and others). Who knows we can have numbers and others informations? Regards, Julião Em 24/05/2013 11:43, SM escreveu: > Hi Juliao, > At 18:34 23-05-2013, Juliao Braga wrote: >> I stare at the map of where the IETF meetings occurred >> (http://ws.org.br/index.php/IETF_Meetings) and wondering if the fact of >> bringing some of the meetings to below the Equator could lead to >> increase people participation. > > That's a nice map. It highlights the division between the northern and > southern hemispheres. > >> The answer is always negative. Will not increase participation of more >> people. >> >> Fellowships will help? Certainly not. Resources are finite. > > Agreed. > >> How then can we increase participation in meetings of the IETF? My >> answer to the question may seem strange: increasing the number of annual >> meetings. > > The answer did sound strange at first. I think that your answer might > be appropriate for a different question. > > At 19:37 23-05-2013, Juliao Braga wrote: >> I think we will have new challenges to be defined. New opportunities for >> change that can stimulate, for example, the coming of researchers >> immersed in universities and / or research centers, not yet >> participating in the IETF. Maybe they can not submit drafts, but can >> contribute to foster the knowledge of those who produce drafts or >> working as reviewers. Regarding the participation in discussions of the >> mailing lists, I think that they might be involved with reasonable >> intensity, ideas, and knowledge. > > Agreed. > >> Perhaps the IETF should and can change (not where it has always been a >> success) to capture new people. > > It would take a huge effort to do the above. A person trying to do it > will make a lot of enemies. > > Do you know people in universities or research centers in South America > who might be interested in contributing their knowledge? If so, could > you ask them to comment on ericas? > > Regards, > -sm > From stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Fri May 24 10:32:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ACC021F9633 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 10:32:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QbS9A2k84S+u for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 10:32:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 964A621F940D for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 10:32:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2BFBEAF; Fri, 24 May 2013 18:32:06 +0100 (IST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e7d-cons5ToM; Fri, 24 May 2013 18:32:02 +0100 (IST) Received: from [10.87.48.5] (unknown [86.41.48.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D3D22BEA4; Fri, 24 May 2013 18:32:01 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <519FA407.8010102@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:31:51 +0100 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Juliao Braga References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> In-Reply-To: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: j@braga.net.br, ericas@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 17:32:38 -0000 Hi Julião, On 05/24/2013 06:19 PM, Juliao Braga wrote: > Hello SM, > > I'd like to remember that the Regional IETF Meetings not necessarily > must to have the same format as Annual Meetings. The main concern is > that they are (a) motivators for participation in the Annual Meetings, > (b) strengthen and give more flexibility in the progress of WG (not that > the progress is slow, currently), and (c) encourage participation in > Annual Meetings, even remotely, including write drafts, doing reviews as > Melinda said. Isn't that a bit backwards in a sense? The easiest and most important form of participation is remote - contributing to list discussions, reviewing and authoring drafts. Going to meetings is important too, but less so. Sorry to jump on just this point, but I think its important that everyone realise that if you can write good technical emails about protocols then you have all you need to be an as-fully-paid-up-as-anyone IETF participant. Cheers, S. > > Whenever possible I'm talking about the IETF in articles and lectures, > as you know. I'm returning to my academic life and therefore will be > more effective in spreading within the Brazilian Computer Society (SBC). > > IETF will create a form and we can ask in the mailing list of SBC (and > others). Who knows we can have numbers and others informations? > > Regards, > > Julião > > Em 24/05/2013 11:43, SM escreveu: >> Hi Juliao, >> At 18:34 23-05-2013, Juliao Braga wrote: >>> I stare at the map of where the IETF meetings occurred >>> (http://ws.org.br/index.php/IETF_Meetings) and wondering if the fact of >>> bringing some of the meetings to below the Equator could lead to >>> increase people participation. >> >> That's a nice map. It highlights the division between the northern and >> southern hemispheres. >> >>> The answer is always negative. Will not increase participation of more >>> people. >>> >>> Fellowships will help? Certainly not. Resources are finite. >> >> Agreed. >> >>> How then can we increase participation in meetings of the IETF? My >>> answer to the question may seem strange: increasing the number of annual >>> meetings. >> >> The answer did sound strange at first. I think that your answer might >> be appropriate for a different question. >> >> At 19:37 23-05-2013, Juliao Braga wrote: >>> I think we will have new challenges to be defined. New opportunities for >>> change that can stimulate, for example, the coming of researchers >>> immersed in universities and / or research centers, not yet >>> participating in the IETF. Maybe they can not submit drafts, but can >>> contribute to foster the knowledge of those who produce drafts or >>> working as reviewers. Regarding the participation in discussions of the >>> mailing lists, I think that they might be involved with reasonable >>> intensity, ideas, and knowledge. >> >> Agreed. >> >>> Perhaps the IETF should and can change (not where it has always been a >>> success) to capture new people. >> >> It would take a huge effort to do the above. A person trying to do it >> will make a lot of enemies. >> >> Do you know people in universities or research centers in South America >> who might be interested in contributing their knowledge? If so, could >> you ask them to comment on ericas? >> >> Regards, >> -sm >> > > From juliao@braga.eti.br Fri May 24 11:53:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B644F21F9619 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 11:53:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ysTttbJdZSaH for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 11:53:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-x233.google.com (mail-gg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c02::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8344421F9617 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 11:53:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-gg0-f179.google.com with SMTP id c4so1485790ggn.10 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 11:53:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=qj2RK0mGYuhSao3snCrubnx+bpULvTijYjrX1b70bJU=; b=pDwlzds8QnPzX7r5zQLVvg37I1aboBeS0Rms0Jz2/5FGcXppL7AgyzM2hsi9F4duNj 5ZaIV2JXjH5j0DPKjGDH59JLPa6//X22cnY/2ZlbQ0v+KaI5erSyAmqgiQQ7CHq+SBta UA9wAunihBECTUFyRBJAlfo63I6po6vdwLolhznVqZB1BjXb1iLXKz0slQJ/UObrLZtk 3wTEx7V2r9zcX7EMqDbmKxY3yk1LAlTeDNQVR1GzLgWoYKihcTr2vUXlzJ9Jeo6eX5/4 o96pZa0hLQ28DUo6J/Pb3Z95DH7fIjUKNHFJy8jVnaP6eZGeSead4aysqhFrlriN/OAJ p5YA== X-Received: by 10.236.220.138 with SMTP id o10mr10999330yhp.149.1369421580889; Fri, 24 May 2013 11:53:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1294:1295:1295::167? ([2001:1294:1295:1295::167]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v27sm25286650yhk.5.2013.05.24.11.52.58 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 24 May 2013 11:53:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <519FB707.1020008@braga.eti.br> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 15:52:55 -0300 From: Juliao Braga User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ericas@irtf.org References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <519FA407.8010102@cs.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <519FA407.8010102@cs.tcd.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlDhJpvOceYl6vE+AgF8vN5KbN9P8AM7/Qcl3R3JI5umpkNBX1lX4+lZ1aexlJVkOx4AkqC Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:53:03 -0000 Hello Stephen, Probably I'm lost. So I need some answers. 1. What we looking for? 1.1. Realize a IETF below the Equator line (Buenos Aires is a great option)? 1.2. Encouraging people of so-called "emerging countries" to participate in IETF meetings (in person or remotely)? 2. Why? 2.1. (1.2) <=> (1.1)? My answer is NO! 2.2. IETF needs more people to work? My answer is YES! Protocols are in change, new technologies (ontologies, Semantic Web, ...), new techniques, etc. 2.3. We want more people to participate, effectively (a.k.a. Melinda three points)? So, what do we need to do? 3. What kind of things should we discuss? 3.1. Costs of travel and stay? In the context of this can be irrelevant (we can participate remotely...). In any place of the world, costs are equivalent, I think. 3.2. Show what do IETF, ISOC, and others for people who do not know yet? 3.3. Food an meals in the IETF meetings? 4. Some observations: 4.1. The personal attendance at meetings of the IETF are falling after year 2000. See the blue line at Figure 3 (Figura 3, in Portuguese) in http://ii.blog.br/2013/01/10/ietf-d-58-como-participar-das-reunioes-do-ietf/, at the end. I do not know about the remote participation. The red line is participation of Brazilians (a real disaster!) 4.2. The participation of LACNIC is in the last position (2.? %). 4.3. Clearly the issues related to Infrastructure Internet are becoming more complex. (2.2 above). Finally, where should we discuss this? In ericas list or ietf list? Regards, Julião PS: We can not forget that I express better in Portuguese. So I can be causing, eventually, some problems of understanding, which will require further clarification. Em 24/05/2013 14:31, Stephen Farrell escreveu: > > Hi Julião, > > On 05/24/2013 06:19 PM, Juliao Braga wrote: >> Hello SM, >> >> I'd like to remember that the Regional IETF Meetings not necessarily >> must to have the same format as Annual Meetings. The main concern is >> that they are (a) motivators for participation in the Annual Meetings, >> (b) strengthen and give more flexibility in the progress of WG (not that >> the progress is slow, currently), and (c) encourage participation in >> Annual Meetings, even remotely, including write drafts, doing reviews as >> Melinda said. > > Isn't that a bit backwards in a sense? The easiest and most > important form of participation is remote - contributing to > list discussions, reviewing and authoring drafts. Going to > meetings is important too, but less so. > > Sorry to jump on just this point, but I think its important > that everyone realise that if you can write good technical > emails about protocols then you have all you need to be an > as-fully-paid-up-as-anyone IETF participant. > > Cheers, > S. > From stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Fri May 24 12:20:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104FE11E80C5 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 12:20:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fDeECDxXKzyJ for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 12:20:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866B721F915B for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 12:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9672DBEDB; Fri, 24 May 2013 20:19:39 +0100 (IST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fiwB1wtKkYPX; Fri, 24 May 2013 20:19:33 +0100 (IST) Received: from [10.87.48.5] (unknown [86.41.48.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2053BBEC9; Fri, 24 May 2013 20:19:33 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <519FBD3B.3050904@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 20:19:23 +0100 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Juliao Braga References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <519FA407.8010102@cs.tcd.ie> <519FB707.1020008@braga.eti.br> In-Reply-To: <519FB707.1020008@braga.eti.br> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: ericas@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 19:20:17 -0000 Hiya, On 05/24/2013 07:52 PM, Juliao Braga wrote: > Hello Stephen, > > Probably I'm lost. So I need some answers. Sure. In my mind at least there's a 0-th level requirement that comes before these: 0. Make the Internet better by getting more geographically diverse, technically good, input and participation. And again you do not need to be at meetings to participate. Email is fine. Of course if you want to do lots of IETF stuff, then getting to meetings becomes important. > 1. What we looking for? > 1.1. Realize a IETF below the Equator line (Buenos Aires is a great option)? > 1.2. Encouraging people of so-called "emerging countries" to participate > in IETF meetings (in person or remotely)? 1.2 for me. But I'm also in favour of 1.1, though at a lower priority. > > 2. Why? > 2.1. (1.2) <=> (1.1)? My answer is NO! I don't get that. > 2.2. IETF needs more people to work? My answer is YES! Protocols are in > change, new technologies (ontologies, Semantic Web, ...), new > techniques, etc. Sort of. I think we need more people who are technically clueful about stuff, for a wide set of different kinds of stuff. > 2.3. We want more people to participate, effectively (a.k.a. Melinda > three points)? So, what do we need to do? > > 3. What kind of things should we discuss? > 3.1. Costs of travel and stay? In the context of this can be irrelevant > (we can participate remotely...). In any place of the world, costs are > equivalent, I think. > 3.2. Show what do IETF, ISOC, and others for people who do not know yet? > 3.3. Food an meals in the IETF meetings? Seems ok, but too much focus on your 3.x often distract people on IETF lists. > 4. Some observations: > 4.1. The personal attendance at meetings of the IETF are falling after > year 2000. See the blue line at Figure 3 (Figura 3, in Portuguese) in The dot-com bust was the biggest factor in the decline in numbers compared to 1999/2000. That was economic (craziness;-) and not geographic. > http://ii.blog.br/2013/01/10/ietf-d-58-como-participar-das-reunioes-do-ietf/, > at the end. I do not know about the remote participation. The red line > is participation of Brazilians (a real disaster!) Yeah. Mind you, the level of Irish participation is also pretty crappy;-( > 4.2. The participation of LACNIC is in the last position (2.? %). > 4.3. Clearly the issues related to Infrastructure Internet are becoming > more complex. (2.2 above). > > Finally, where should we discuss this? In ericas list or ietf list I'd say generic issues here, BA specifics on the thread on the IETF list. Cheers, S. > > Regards, > > Julião > PS: We can not forget that I express better in Portuguese. So I can be > causing, eventually, some problems of understanding, which will require > further clarification. > > Em 24/05/2013 14:31, Stephen Farrell escreveu: >> >> Hi Julião, >> >> On 05/24/2013 06:19 PM, Juliao Braga wrote: >>> Hello SM, >>> >>> I'd like to remember that the Regional IETF Meetings not necessarily >>> must to have the same format as Annual Meetings. The main concern is >>> that they are (a) motivators for participation in the Annual Meetings, >>> (b) strengthen and give more flexibility in the progress of WG (not that >>> the progress is slow, currently), and (c) encourage participation in >>> Annual Meetings, even remotely, including write drafts, doing reviews as >>> Melinda said. >> >> Isn't that a bit backwards in a sense? The easiest and most >> important form of participation is remote - contributing to >> list discussions, reviewing and authoring drafts. Going to >> meetings is important too, but less so. >> >> Sorry to jump on just this point, but I think its important >> that everyone realise that if you can write good technical >> emails about protocols then you have all you need to be an >> as-fully-paid-up-as-anyone IETF participant. >> >> Cheers, >> S. >> > > From sm@elandsys.com Fri May 24 12:54:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08B311E8105 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 12:54:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.774 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.774 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.504, BAYES_00=-2.599, NA_DOLLARS=1.329, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id caASk-lu9eSY for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 12:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05FFC11E80FB for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 12:54:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.152.207]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4OJrb85027594 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 24 May 2013 12:53:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1369425230; bh=+ZEcD7GbVfbtY/kO7rEqoI6hXrxAl0H7dFuYC3YCS3Q=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=FcPg4EZFCepOMNYqtoG93pe+93Jt1OSf18+72njdSIBGXxCHjM4EvCZS3n+zroUgX AGxc0fNNTn9eW+HVvx0Qn/pw48T3777HFQlDtwIeI6r7Ttm+Pl8b2rkbWXt0G/kp2h 829ob0Y4SVZBvrL1pJ47NoZSYSAEFa8VXqP5uuHI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1369425230; i=@elandsys.com; bh=+ZEcD7GbVfbtY/kO7rEqoI6hXrxAl0H7dFuYC3YCS3Q=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=GYaoDw1RjjlkyBFkFWC92ZaZj2zCigdz7+MhnyMbNZde4YYEqz9rImF5nR6+dAkQo it3KtfFXU9iyTa3wxe9RXWa9jpJb1oMs0qQQhJl5rBc8Wxt8fCjh4YiQANMgmhYnn1 rhdKPP4Ojw9oWNZkqNUGoMuvIZAeTXG/JuEHG4kM= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 12:18:26 -0700 To: Juliao Braga From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: j@braga.net.br, ericas@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 19:54:02 -0000 Hi Juliao, At 10:19 24-05-2013, Juliao Braga wrote: >I'd like to remember that the Regional IETF Meetings not necessarily >must to have the same format as Annual Meetings. The main concern is >that they are (a) motivators for participation in the Annual Meetings, >(b) strengthen and give more flexibility in the progress of WG (not that >the progress is slow, currently), and (c) encourage participation in >Annual Meetings, even remotely, including write drafts, doing reviews as >Melinda said. The IETF revenue from meeting registration fees is around three million US dollars. IETF expenses are around five million US dollars. ISOC contributes around two million US dollars to the IETF. LACNIC's budget is about four and a half million US dollars. ICANN's revenue is around 232 million US dollars. ISOC's revenue is around 27 million. Let's assume that there are four Regional IETF meetings and they cost around two million US dollars. The IETF does not have money to pay that cost. That cost is about half of LACNIC's budget. As I know that I cannot suggest that LACNIC helps out with the cost. I don't know whether ICANN or ISOC would help with the cost. Let's assume that money is not a problem. You still have to get at least the main WG participants at the meeting. Each individual will have to spend about ten thousand US dollars per individual. In my opinion a format which is a scaled-down version of an IETF (Annual) meeting is not workable. There are interesting points in your message: (a) motivators for participation (b) helping people from South America participate in the IETF Both points require money. Somebody will have to have to convince organizations to give, for example, one million US dollars. The next step would be to identify people who are motivated to participate. The "helping people" is the most difficult part. I think it is doable with a lot of effort. It is more than one year to do all this. Most of the effort will have to come from people from South America. >Whenever possible I'm talking about the IETF in articles and lectures, >as you know. I'm returning to my academic life and therefore will be >more effective in spreading within the Brazilian Computer Society (SBC). This is what could be described as "outreach". You could try and convince LACNIC or CGI.br to help out. >IETF will create a form and we can ask in the mailing list of SBC (and >others). Who knows we can have numbers and others informations? Could you ask the people from SBC to comment on this mailing list about the above? In another message you mentioned that there is very low participation from Brazil. There are one or two persons from Brazil who participate in DNS-related discussions. That's like participating in two IETF working groups. Most of the IETF work is not about DNS. As a starting point I suggest asking people from Brazil to come and discuss on this mailing list if they need help in finding out which IETF working groups may be relevant to what they are interested in. Thanks, S. Moonesamy From juliao@braga.eti.br Fri May 24 13:58:19 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3B7C11E8139 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:58:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.474 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tocQqd9qdRZY for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ye0-f176.google.com (mail-ye0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F78E21F8FA3 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ye0-f176.google.com with SMTP id m13so417950yen.21 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:58:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=Um+vcf02jpLjjEujCqeD7yPGjtmbAk0/0UQsYwlaerc=; b=jM2YZV0omzC35hNWqX7zYpapMu0Zi7DdNLX3xS2yRp13bVB7Evv630LOxRCTs3Gfwm JITUfTNSs1kmGDd06fXD9CYhZD/sfWNV5bnxq6ScOVITBLq7d7/UPr4DBjFGxK3+hOit 3/Cd0gHlOIEZduJeqj1Hg8IjuAWu+fmJ5B8B9b/7iJclTgHEXWf18A1eODG2N/1vrFEZ tFtu67bHSfSkS2FMMcCznc8ks6XHo9LkEGj99Vdn+dov3zJ8sMDMcGRMbxUB0OWZPYmx EuFetGfeQPKK34CTs8aM8h5wEeFgeVj4GxLnhZ9gcgNKXVcxmBL+th/RTcMMka9muI19 oP0w== X-Received: by 10.236.23.67 with SMTP id u43mr10988192yhu.8.1369429093716; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:58:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1294:1295:1295::167? ([2001:1294:1295:1295::167]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id w62sm25832135yhd.27.2013.05.24.13.58.10 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 24 May 2013 13:58:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 17:58:08 -0300 From: Juliao Braga User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ericas@irtf.org References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnxKSNhonb6+HU7+uo1/toxMmTIq4moOGKLlEBDhkWhgq6wLNi1VhscrU0k9F+Shdkve7kE Cc: j@braga.net.br Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 20:58:19 -0000 Hi SM, I think there are a lot of people from LACNIC and from CGI.br / Nic.br in this list. The Chair of Brazilian ISOC Chapter is member of CGI.br. Certanly, they will transmit your message. When possible I will remember, too. In the next Brazilian Congress of SBC I will try to invite interested peoples for BoF about IETF. And in some especific Symposium, too. IETF could develop a form to send via the mailing list of the SBC, as I said. I suppose this is the correct way. If the IETF need help I'm available. Regards, Julião Em 24/05/2013 16:18, S Moonesamy escreveu: >> Whenever possible I'm talking about the IETF in articles and lectures, >> as you know. I'm returning to my academic life and therefore will be >> more effective in spreading within the Brazilian Computer Society (SBC). > > This is what could be described as "outreach". You could try and > convince LACNIC or CGI.br to help out. > >> IETF will create a form and we can ask in the mailing list of SBC (and >> others). Who knows we can have numbers and others informations? > > Could you ask the people from SBC to comment on this mailing list > about the above? > > In another message you mentioned that there is very low participation > from Brazil. There are one or two persons from Brazil who participate > in DNS-related discussions. That's like participating in two IETF > working groups. Most of the IETF work is not about DNS. As a > starting point I suggest asking people from Brazil to come and discuss > on this mailing list if they need help in finding out which IETF > working groups may be relevant to what they are interested in. > > Thanks, > S. Moonesamy From alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com Fri May 24 14:41:20 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CCC821F962D for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 14:41:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m85GoCzadUq7 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 14:41:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f178.google.com (mail-vc0-f178.google.com [209.85.220.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7AEF21F9626 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 14:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id id13so3523590vcb.9 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 14:41:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jPcqvLI/3IazeKoe2TcTidCdTbJ68IcEDEmf/Fo17VE=; b=mCAkzTLKc++t/EJh8p6sN9P5mZc4E1tPytxraswB4Gx9PQacyFpXHWrRx+Z40HJv1s 0+kahSSC1fWS23lYzW5fW7VZwKAb5TssALajdQin+e4NQoUXU53FQ8YxPPgaHQp5qfCY hVSbZ3aZ2ZClyvi58NvD1Kfdbosu9pbvtHf9Hr0AkEHyIr/fNSkC7tT3w1b6kab4t4Pe jnJ6fElqMh6mLprGHfdzxnWxlaYrtGlosLPQv4uyRhx8Qjq63ZvigUVxeHe2U10xJQJS 5miTU5+5c/FRKW2QclaTDi3swU6l6GErOK8lDNdxEfzae7EJ0l7VdblZbEG5trG9hZ4f uEBQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.171.135 with SMTP id au7mr8299575vdc.126.1369431675113; Fri, 24 May 2013 14:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.76.161 with HTTP; Fri, 24 May 2013 14:41:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <519FA407.8010102@cs.tcd.ie> References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <519FA407.8010102@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 17:11:14 -0430 Message-ID: From: Alejandro Acosta To: Stephen Farrell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: j@braga.net.br, Juliao Braga , ericas@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 21:41:20 -0000 Hi Stephen, On 5/24/13, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hi Juli=E3o, > > On 05/24/2013 06:19 PM, Juliao Braga wrote: >> Hello SM, >> >> I'd like to remember that the Regional IETF Meetings not necessarily >> must to have the same format as Annual Meetings. The main concern is >> that they are (a) motivators for participation in the Annual Meetings, >> (b) strengthen and give more flexibility in the progress of WG (not that >> the progress is slow, currently), and (c) encourage participation in >> Annual Meetings, even remotely, including write drafts, doing reviews as >> Melinda said. > > Isn't that a bit backwards in a sense? The easiest and most > important form of participation is remote - contributing to > list discussions, reviewing and authoring drafts. Going to > meetings is important too, but less so. > > Sorry to jump on just this point, but I think its important > that everyone realise that if you can write good technical > emails about protocols then you have all you need to be an > as-fully-paid-up-as-anyone IETF participant. > You are absolutely right, and there are people who have written I+D and RFCs without attending a single IETF meeting. The point here is that if you have a meeting in LATAM it might help bringing more people to the IETF. Of course it won't be a radical change and it won't bring 100 people. But at least bringing few people is just fine. Additionally, to attend a meeting, to see the people, to talk with them makes a big different, after it, it's easier to write emails, to participate in the IETF community. After this discussion started I haven't stop comparing it with the Olympics games. The Olympics logo (flag) which have 5 interlaces rings, each of them representing a continent. Until now, after more than 2000 years LATAM have not has an Olympics games (I know we are not comparing apples with apples, just a thought) > Cheers, > S. > Alejandro, >> >> Whenever possible I'm talking about the IETF in articles and lectures, >> as you know. I'm returning to my academic life and therefore will be >> more effective in spreading within the Brazilian Computer Society (SBC). >> >> IETF will create a form and we can ask in the mailing list of SBC (and >> others). Who knows we can have numbers and others informations? >> >> Regards, >> >> Juli=E3o >> >> Em 24/05/2013 11:43, SM escreveu: >>> Hi Juliao, >>> At 18:34 23-05-2013, Juliao Braga wrote: >>>> I stare at the map of where the IETF meetings occurred >>>> (http://ws.org.br/index.php/IETF_Meetings) and wondering if the fact o= f >>>> bringing some of the meetings to below the Equator could lead to >>>> increase people participation. >>> >>> That's a nice map. It highlights the division between the northern and >>> southern hemispheres. >>> >>>> The answer is always negative. Will not increase participation of more >>>> people. >>>> >>>> Fellowships will help? Certainly not. Resources are finite. >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>>> How then can we increase participation in meetings of the IETF? My >>>> answer to the question may seem strange: increasing the number of >>>> annual >>>> meetings. >>> >>> The answer did sound strange at first. I think that your answer might >>> be appropriate for a different question. >>> >>> At 19:37 23-05-2013, Juliao Braga wrote: >>>> I think we will have new challenges to be defined. New opportunities >>>> for >>>> change that can stimulate, for example, the coming of researchers >>>> immersed in universities and / or research centers, not yet >>>> participating in the IETF. Maybe they can not submit drafts, but can >>>> contribute to foster the knowledge of those who produce drafts or >>>> working as reviewers. Regarding the participation in discussions of th= e >>>> mailing lists, I think that they might be involved with reasonable >>>> intensity, ideas, and knowledge. >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>>> Perhaps the IETF should and can change (not where it has always been a >>>> success) to capture new people. >>> >>> It would take a huge effort to do the above. A person trying to do it >>> will make a lot of enemies. >>> >>> Do you know people in universities or research centers in South America >>> who might be interested in contributing their knowledge? If so, could >>> you ask them to comment on ericas? >>> >>> Regards, >>> -sm >>> >> >> > --=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ^A.......o$ From arturo.servin@gmail.com Fri May 24 15:22:05 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DF2D21F8EBB for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 15:22:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CdKLUNalmZWV for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 15:21:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ye0-f180.google.com (mail-ye0-f180.google.com [209.85.213.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F82211E80E2 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 15:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ye0-f180.google.com with SMTP id r11so425886yen.25 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 15:21:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vv5ofIKCsLsqVYeb3bvESjUEap7m6jYZZ3wQAsdGsd4=; b=vpT7qvMimlGSWGYNx1RAoP0du17/xBguVGJkqfFU60xx0uR537Y8ccaO8MWlaoKJGR GDxgADuX9h8MLSboyJW1q+mVKI5ImgcisexmiC7yxLgA8a+6E38E7W6hhPHq4asre8Cw tFIfXyEI+AJGtQcUnBqyENKa/PAJuuKSYaaMfadOVb0OCr7DbHuOFTvF6+lvTIKrnoOl OOLEXc27yhakP7EVEzNBwBuaPes93ZyqcHtTAN2KNlxCzg/H6Vt2nRuY0YjiVCL+4pR3 IhmAUAtfQLvFr8VAjH6BUc453/DAJqyl/VtGqkVfhkvWUcXgM6kbYwFM9UceJGSgusJw XKeg== X-Received: by 10.236.69.167 with SMTP id n27mr10857267yhd.178.1369434115904; Fri, 24 May 2013 15:21:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Arturos-MacBook-Pro.local (r186-49-10-155.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy. [186.49.10.155]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g70sm26374063yhm.7.2013.05.24.15.21.53 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 24 May 2013 15:21:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <519FE7FC.7020304@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 19:21:48 -0300 From: Arturo Servin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ericas@irtf.org References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <519FA407.8010102@cs.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 22:22:05 -0000 Mexico City 1968. :) Regards as On 5/24/13 6:41 PM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: > After this discussion started I haven't stop comparing it with the > Olympics games. The Olympics logo (flag) which have 5 interlaces > rings, each of them representing a continent. Until now, after more > than 2000 years LATAM have not has an Olympics games (I know we are > not comparing apples with apples, just a thought) From sm@elandsys.com Fri May 24 15:30:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F7521E8082 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 15:30:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.419 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9WwUswMHjWCs for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 15:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7C0821E8087 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 15:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.152.207]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4OMUMGa018325 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 24 May 2013 15:30:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1369434634; bh=cQK3VkIVCYvdA9hcI/NuKosi9FVMJLaNT25nvZK4aqk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Nw6fgUkGiQ5pKnjdeiX53I4pOAeEoeXHkD+JILif98UV8HToshPZ23d3Co1GFP4wD /QdE+Cuzp5c4yjQbZ5uqqTREccp/G9QwXh+n0kSQsNY2IygZVrmR4Uq6Ub57Ee6Y2k zDGvBaTbK3SrBrwbHrPJYfYha+lSeg5axE6iDciw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1369434634; i=@elandsys.com; bh=cQK3VkIVCYvdA9hcI/NuKosi9FVMJLaNT25nvZK4aqk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=R0TBY9B1188K6t1lNc3Ez66W//7oAsjKG6w/GtcdxCB4MkVzMjb5PS85HCcosBWMh XiWUmsvoUHV1Mptmel5xn9NGarwLRqzqLVYCXNDcKlK5pDvZsmQ3KJOKpGNVHVPrq9 3amcqMKoZSJpHToXErqiLMxpY0GQ1edahxxnVrZQ= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 15:18:23 -0700 To: Juliao Braga From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: j@braga.net.br, ericas@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 22:30:47 -0000 Hi Juliao, At 13:58 24-05-2013, Juliao Braga wrote: >I think there are a lot of people from LACNIC and from CGI.br / Nic.br >in this list. The Chair of Brazilian ISOC Chapter is member of CGI.br. I went through the mail archives for this mailing list. I saw only one person from LACNIC. I did not see anyone from CGI.br/Nic.br. >In the next Brazilian Congress of SBC I will try to invite interested >peoples for BoF about IETF. And in some especific Symposium, too. That is a positive initiative. >IETF could develop a form to send via the mailing list of the SBC, as I >said. I suppose this is the correct way. If the IETF need help I'm >available. As you have attended an IETF meeting you might have noticed that the IETF works in an informal way. In my opinion there isn't a correct way. Vinayak Hegde explained some of the problems that people who do not usually speak English encounter and that it is a barrier to participation( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg79479.html ). That barrier will remain as long as the people from, for example, the Brazilian Computer Society do not show interest in participating in the IETF. If there is interest an IETF Area Director or someone else will try to find a way to help the people from the Brazilian Computer Society. We can discuss about whether it is for the IETF to contact the Brazilian Computer Society or you could convince some people from the Brazilian Computer Society to comment on this mailing list about the problems they face. I think that having people discussing here would be the easier alternative. Regards, S. Moonesamy From juliao@braga.eti.br Fri May 24 16:36:05 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC67811E8103 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 16:36:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3YsnCFEUUxsB for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 16:36:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f177.google.com (mail-vc0-f177.google.com [209.85.220.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B856E11E80D2 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 16:36:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f177.google.com with SMTP id ib11so3519485vcb.22 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 16:36:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=Q+lGNqcc1HYbH5v0mf8coOpsHuRqs+5xipaTDlPDgQI=; b=QTuatX6Hzn+Crs8FAc29a6YlwKfzBvkL0ldKNgZwZdeq9p+6y1MvqF0RKeJeiJw8FN F8F/nTJ+WurewLRJ01nMNHlCrVLRHGV/Z3LUNkZ6JOgqM6htYybArTRALnICcqzTmajF 2A2JJLvl3o13Zi112sZu1bIlug0dlvSncMcJQwzipQuaaE5P7u5Bkq1E4NV9T8Bjv8hR uOOnFi2Tk4MtAQpaFzEPIUATkphKs0+dtE1XDYMr2CamB/QKgDLnlrHTW3HtX2l/hutS 9RDnje4bxvV3e/4AjnUGfc8JscBBTMeA96+WehBJjuEYrmyls5TN55/eZ/GsClhBPw7E FzEQ== X-Received: by 10.220.228.74 with SMTP id jd10mr9983136vcb.65.1369438561092; Fri, 24 May 2013 16:36:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1294:1295:1295::167? ([2001:1294:1295:1295::167]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id io3sm10880789vdb.12.2013.05.24.16.35.58 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 24 May 2013 16:36:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 20:35:53 -0300 From: Juliao Braga User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ericas@irtf.org References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlXEZK1Bij/hwcjvjTvRFDdwFopsMKLmSDnm07f6bDFex4KnaWkULCWQ0AANCYYHCLURIxT Cc: j@braga.net.br Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 23:36:05 -0000 Em 24/05/2013 19:18, S Moonesamy escreveu: > Hi Juliao, > At 13:58 24-05-2013, Juliao Braga wrote: >> I think there are a lot of people from LACNIC and from CGI.br / Nic.br >> in this list. The Chair of Brazilian ISOC Chapter is member of CGI.br. > > I went through the mail archives for this mailing list. I saw only one > person from LACNIC. I did not see anyone from CGI.br/Nic.br. > So, you can see these peoples in ietf list. What about you call them via ietf list? Also, if you want I can foward some message from you to the ISOC chapter and GTER (Nic.br) lists, and some lists of Lacnic. >> IETF could develop a form to send via the mailing list of the SBC, as I >> said. I suppose this is the correct way. If the IETF need help I'm >> available. > > As you have attended an IETF meeting you might have noticed that the > IETF works in an informal way. In my opinion there isn't a correct > way. Vinayak Hegde explained some of the problems that people who do > not usually speak English encounter and that it is a barrier to > participation( > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg79479.html ). That > barrier will remain as long as the people from, for example, the > Brazilian Computer Society do not show interest in participating in the > IETF. If there is interest an IETF Area Director or someone else will > try to find a way to help the people from the Brazilian Computer Society. > The most of people from SBC don't have problems with English. They are academic / research people and students in computer science area. There are a wide variety of interests within the computer science and I do not tell you how many people from SBC would be interested in the IETF. For this reason I commented about the form. I'll prospect for you, some lists of interests which would be people interested in the IETF and will let you know as soon as possible. > We can discuss about whether it is for the IETF to contact the Brazilian > Computer Society or you could convince some people from the Brazilian > Computer Society to comment on this mailing list about the problems they > face. I think that having people discussing here would be the easier > alternative. > I think is necessary a formal contact of an IETF representative. One here, one there, I can convince to join the list. And I will do this. > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > Regards, Julião From sm@elandsys.com Fri May 24 18:07:20 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC09F21E8050 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 18:07:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.425 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.174, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PhLPg-kAPF0z for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 18:07:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F94021E804A for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.152.207]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4P16o9m001613 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 24 May 2013 18:07:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1369444025; bh=TCaCS9DBWRMhz3K6M9kWPd24qpOi/V7xrFrCJtZuhSE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=VG2eO3kfspKWgpg0mwX09lYfioWUjJCUi1uer2rlY3RkcejT24aqpFUwhDJFG0GX4 +2Y2eKhGIfEClMgDZ1gzLDxVZ7t/9OUvWQilwzyJqK2x6T4QXQX542LhvkmnQbKvUv sP5xK2FxJtDOBrS7Y5URE8XvSZKkZKg0hwUPvYR8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1369444025; i=@elandsys.com; bh=TCaCS9DBWRMhz3K6M9kWPd24qpOi/V7xrFrCJtZuhSE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=vhbJQWoRUyNyjALl1OUJRgWKZLicnCflkHjWOqAJb05EBvCZ1V+VhMEssXZUdg5Ka nvxUS6wc4vth4d4cIZCjYxUVF3XVMM8RaSpKYLuC/JcYJ8aDUcNrMtyhNhrgyAT/9A vlrfLyXKsoMkWp3JxEI1ZQWArgwfpsY0Y8pGTMxM= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:04:15 -0700 To: Juliao Braga From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: j@braga.net.br, ericas@irtf.org, info@isoc.org.br Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 01:07:21 -0000 Hi Juliao, At 16:35 24-05-2013, Juliao Braga wrote: >So, you can see these peoples in ietf list. What about you call them via >ietf list? Also, if you want I can foward some message from you to the >ISOC chapter and GTER (Nic.br) lists, and some lists of Lacnic. I would like to mention that I can only comment as an individual. I do not represent the IETF or speak on behalf of the IETF. If you look at the IETF discussion archive you will see that a message was sent to politicas mailing list. There are people from Nic.br and LACNIC subscribed to that mailing list. If they are interested in helping out there already know how to do that. Regards, S. Moonesamy From humbertogaliza@gmail.com Fri May 24 18:41:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19FF621E8064 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 18:41:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4WxA8nxFEmTg for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 18:41:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-x230.google.com (mail-gg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c02::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA27E11E80A5 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 18:41:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-gg0-f176.google.com with SMTP id b1so1544833ggm.7 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 18:41:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date :to; bh=E84b5dXaDg48PxRrA35hPKum+xRx9zNX2xkKAKzWhuc=; b=Q273/SvZFpOxhMxFdOjt2gUVzINPdP4UXT70l+IuqyHuocq9LEVLmYD7LVv5Tumowg vdNdIb5g5WhUpgKlB7DSpfZExA67oCQ8ni8h4tHtBpb/GZBnqxBl1wIDN///PRhL0+sF JaggcOo2G6zv40ruK5NLlf+C8/1M6/DLYpG5cI4Aeq1nq0yQ+48OFnyUi90icQ4XL/WQ OhR60pi8VPdG/2IzCvidYsjwn1iM6Bby88GkjhzQ4vdEpOGePdMNLnRhwuC44JEqmlwV yqKXeuLtBsKlvDCIucP0Z0RAL8PTdXbO5w100xgw8OFJty00efn9EEcDgupFMLabc1h+ uLAw== X-Received: by 10.236.150.44 with SMTP id y32mr10910847yhj.200.1369446079393; Fri, 24 May 2013 18:41:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.1.15] ([177.98.242.27]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f19sm26408789yhj.3.2013.05.24.18.41.16 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 24 May 2013 18:41:18 -0700 (PDT) References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B329) From: Humberto Galiza Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 22:40:37 -0300 To: S Moonesamy Cc: "j@braga.net.br" , Juliao Braga , "ericas@irtf.org" , "info@isoc.org.br" Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 01:41:21 -0000 Hi folks, In my point of view the main reason why Brazilian people (from academia) don= 't get involved with IETF is related to the fact that IETF and it's process a= re not evaluated in view of Brazil's academic council (cnpq). Drafts, BCPs o= r even RFCs writings or IETF meetings doesn't mean anything in the to they '= academic production'. Its like an egg-and-chicken problem: if they don't publish papers on 'recogn= ized conferences' they cant earn resources ($$) to research. In my opinion t= he fight here is: how ISOC/IETF people can help us to talk with Brazilian Re= search Council to recognize the IETF process as an academic initiative. I think that Brazillian ISOC chapter had tried to speak with SBC/CNPQ before= ...but anyway any help would be great. Cheers, Humberto Galiza Enviado via iPhone Em 24/05/2013, =C3=A0s 22:04, S Moonesamy escreveu: > Hi Juliao, > At 16:35 24-05-2013, Juliao Braga wrote: >> So, you can see these peoples in ietf list. What about you call them via >> ietf list? Also, if you want I can foward some message from you to the >> ISOC chapter and GTER (Nic.br) lists, and some lists of Lacnic. >=20 > I would like to mention that I can only comment as an individual. I do no= t represent the IETF or speak on behalf of the IETF. >=20 > If you look at the IETF discussion archive you will see that a message was= sent to politicas mailing list. There are people from Nic.br and LACNIC su= bscribed to that mailing list. If they are interested in helping out there a= lready know how to do that. >=20 > Regards, > S. Moonesamy=20 From melinda.shore@nomountain.net Fri May 24 19:05:30 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C353B21F9452 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 19:05:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xEpt0skA6IFn for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 19:05:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a30.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbbj.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.119]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C1921F944F for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 19:05:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a30.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a30.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A21421DE58 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 19:05:25 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=nomountain.net; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=nomountain.net ; b=hWuKO97Oqp4X8kWWskoV38kRrarHJWl3DYpgIV2LqfhbCsj6rwha1D+I/y3E WbRH1oV322yFffC/e5hmEMOe8FfrtyP46Zi2avlhRjZuJT7GB7cV5rqRY0BdBPFO aZi6AAIwTmciQDRrS7PzX0PuL13D0WH6oPLxQgRz4BKg7L4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=nomountain.net; h= message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= nomountain.net; bh=S/o4z4gTPjzT0sukybXoz7IcQDI=; b=BczZTvoLU9ZX5 F/iIXQCnQ05MJD2xM0osa7K75zUp+XyL1O00TOetSpXLHfyc3t7TsNJJdXj++69l RKCzg9MYPfFGiHvQ3sbJ+3xSGq9YtW7Pzpn5E9hLYBNIP5ZJDG/BnfpFA0ZtW0V0 8oPQh5hJ2YTANl+2N3skquAvEQjI1g= Received: from spandex.local (66-230-83-62-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net [66.230.83.62]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: melinda.shore@nomountain.net) by homiemail-a30.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF0D021DE55 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 19:05:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51A01C62.2080708@nomountain.net> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:05:22 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ericas@irtf.org References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 02:05:30 -0000 On 5/24/13 5:40 PM, Humberto Galiza wrote: > In my point of view the main reason why Brazilian people (from > academia) don't get involved with IETF is related to the fact that > IETF and it's process are not evaluated in view of Brazil's academic > council (cnpq). Drafts, BCPs or even RFCs writings or IETF meetings > doesn't mean anything in the to they 'academic production'. Right - it's not research. I would *love* to see more input from Brazilian operators (telcos and ISPs). We don't currently get enough operator review of our documents and it's one area in which you could both help the IETF and have an impact (visibility). Maybe it's just me but I am not convinced that computer science researchers in academic careers have that much of a role to play in protocol standards. Melinda -- Melinda Shore No Mountain Software melinda.shore@nomountain.net "Software longa, hardware brevis." From humbertogaliza@gmail.com Fri May 24 19:17:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F7121F95E9 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 19:17:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id deNeq82Ix9ml for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 19:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f52.google.com (mail-oa0-f52.google.com [209.85.219.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 081C921F9425 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 19:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id h1so7051601oag.11 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 19:17:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kri1hBSYpqjenVmbLp9wzwatW/iZWUKKu7vyO8Ah88k=; b=pM/5UOdBq4L6MefeoVGc+yGbcSINanNEv5qY4ivDPx6RJCE0O7SHVIgcSPPPYo/VcR aSjvC7pSRAGqDfz6ktte/bQYZQ7auL0v0ZwFRvV+bmKh9/jELMcviwCJxQz5e20oJjv1 nxOjxFVg0jaPB//JPAIuzzPz03RkPyUIZzPwo4w/oUCC61X8E1T1OevigLbjonFU2DqI nCpfrBsOICRrJQF7wmW6mwgLPCqR0UXkZ+TCE4gT5A9h0z0HCvvRt3Y2pBXtIi5/AyDz j08eCjoAuVciur9TUtGtm+ooZ2ZxmUfMDNuS30P4CKyiumuYLxv0xhK1DV4Hot6o+0fG LUaA== X-Received: by 10.182.171.99 with SMTP id at3mr13521349obc.25.1369448225761; Fri, 24 May 2013 19:17:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.1.73 with HTTP; Fri, 24 May 2013 19:16:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51A01C62.2080708@nomountain.net> References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> <51A01C62.2080708@nomountain.net> From: Humberto Galiza Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 23:16:45 -0300 Message-ID: To: Melinda Shore Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: ericas@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 02:17:17 -0000 2013/5/24 Melinda Shore : > On 5/24/13 5:40 PM, Humberto Galiza wrote: >> In my point of view the main reason why Brazilian people (from >> academia) don't get involved with IETF is related to the fact that >> IETF and it's process are not evaluated in view of Brazil's academic >> council (cnpq). Drafts, BCPs or even RFCs writings or IETF meetings >> doesn't mean anything in the to they 'academic production'. > > Right - it's not research. I would *love* to see more input > from Brazilian operators (telcos and ISPs). We don't currently > get enough operator review of our documents and it's one area > in which you could both help the IETF and have an impact > (visibility). I agree with you: it=B4s not research, but you should agree with me that many people that are engaged and producing standards are from academia (see the past meetings attendee list), so I think these people play an important role in the process. > > Maybe it's just me but I am not convinced that computer > science researchers in academic careers have that much of > a role to play in protocol standards. I think so, at least people from network (and security?) areas. There are a lot of subjects that are being discussed on IETF=B4s mailing lists at this time that are common interest with academia, do you agree? > > Melinda > > -- > Melinda Shore > No Mountain Software > melinda.shore@nomountain.net > > "Software longa, hardware brevis." From melinda.shore@nomountain.net Fri May 24 19:50:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B125821F931B for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 19:50:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9nqmfR1mBbLP for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 19:49:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbhh.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A8D21F8517 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 19:49:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8256C1DE058; Fri, 24 May 2013 19:49:58 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=nomountain.net; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=nomountain.net ; b=HcbnEGrpK3j+YS818K8tpbAMieX3Zi5VpazdGGk/VbqfollGBLk8k0ioIOky 2WDhhAjUCTVn/WHQVDrPe2OFtCoA1LahnN1MMLpDBUGUnVL8KbUvVN+EhkziLkMR c/MaLHsHYkt+5I1raalPcz6OMQT9bQqdBQsqTJR0qTFbu88= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=nomountain.net; h= message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= nomountain.net; bh=J0JLxsHUu6puIalFdw0S69UvtwI=; b=o8SyUAGzNCDJM AUKPzaUWvvDXZJ5LflRE/yLY8Szmrx9Z2EaWbwe+lPiISHVcwGPUT+aFve6dGx2w AWOwGGMcz6ssMhBO+Qe2CbNRZ480QQlz0tvqHOh2sdS/cRT6V9PfqL5yDjtJKNr2 25OvJRKwB0vXk0jn1TtRRpOTOLkIVk= Received: from spandex.local (66-230-83-62-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net [66.230.83.62]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: melinda.shore@nomountain.net) by homiemail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 15FE61DE005; Fri, 24 May 2013 19:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51A026D4.5040204@nomountain.net> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:49:56 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Humberto Galiza References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> <51A01C62.2080708@nomountain.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: ericas@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 02:50:04 -0000 On 5/24/13 6:16 PM, Humberto Galiza wrote: > I agree with you: it=B4s not research, but you should agree with me tha= t > many people that are engaged and producing standards are from academia > (see the past meetings attendee list), so I think these people play an > important role in the process. I attended for many years from a university, but only for a few of those in a pure research role even though the email address and institutional affiliation stayed the same. From having participated in the IETF for many, many years, it's my feeling that there are very few academics, in large part because the IETF really just does not do research. If you look back to the early days the affiliations were academic because that's who the "internet" was at the time. Now, IETF participation is overwhelmingly from vendors (equipment manufacturers). I think to change that would mean changing the incentives to participate in the IETF, which doesn't make that much sense to me. Seriously: there's a need for operator participation. It's a bit less clear that there's a need for academics. Melinda --=20 Melinda Shore No Mountain Software melinda.shore@nomountain.net "Software longa, hardware brevis." From juliao@braga.eti.br Fri May 24 21:16:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A0DD21F93E1 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 21:16:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id enVZBQ6gglcP for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 21:16:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f181.google.com (mail-vc0-f181.google.com [209.85.220.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A5B21F93D4 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 21:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id lf11so3657288vcb.12 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 21:16:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=mZxlOBiQ0iBF1E3i1nHzPbZiJZ7zp7y8xGG06tt0MmI=; b=GrqmD/vXl/SqBq+fPtdWT9QDNcw5+ZKeT+toc0ockQblEqS+B2mZWfkeig6w8+NaNu iXQN3qsq3NFaWs7ZuKGQHJQu2CCzmF2FVKp5gHmtNFnuAnPXOGZcsY73ZAjbb0ASvU4T UgnAlDoJ7AbyIihWJVs3/fjWHi/DIt2egVB7X32yzim9MwMisPDqz8rxHQ58kLfC7oe9 Fkg/Fih3jkJtZafdLstXY+za6EUYYP3g5oXjy2GqWZzrF066nGBJU5+O9sVQaxvPqS8F fUmibhy/B23Uuq6xfYlo8IUxnmnIFBt/3uZYuLyS3TtgtV6H1II3dsPyAwLRTo36VRUe 2JKA== X-Received: by 10.59.12.106 with SMTP id ep10mr7611449ved.47.1369455361099; Fri, 24 May 2013 21:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1294:1295:1295::167? ([2001:1294:1295:1295::167]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pu5sm11515804veb.5.2013.05.24.21.15.58 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 24 May 2013 21:16:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51A03AFC.4090507@braga.eti.br> Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 01:15:56 -0300 From: Juliao Braga User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ericas@irtf.org References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> <51A01C62.2080708@nomountain.net> <51A026D4.5040204@nomountain.net> In-Reply-To: <51A026D4.5040204@nomountain.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm7+UtFF9amSoqSvJxEoy8Eftj+wsiKtsu6fSWNYR/C80sV7xgXSIu6n+hcazyHWt0I6xVx Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 04:16:07 -0000 In Brazil, for example there are a lot of operators / vendors that only do business for here, nothing more. All of them are mere subsidiaries / offices / representatives of international corporations. They write codes here? Never! They adapt codes to the location. So, no chance to have people interesting to the IETF in the sense based in your qualifications. Thus there is a significant divergence between the people here and the people of other countries in relation to the interest over the IETF. Probably, if we understand these differences we can adjust our viewpoints. I think we are actually agreeing with the same things but speaking orthogonally, by elementary cultural / geographical reasons, to say the least. Julião Em 24/05/2013 23:49, Melinda Shore escreveu: > I attended for many years from a university, but only for a > few of those in a pure research role even though the email > address and institutional affiliation stayed the same. From > having participated in the IETF for many, many years, it's > my feeling that there are very few academics, in large part > because the IETF really just does not do research. If you > look back to the early days the affiliations were academic > because that's who the "internet" was at the time. Now, > IETF participation is overwhelmingly from vendors (equipment > manufacturers). I think to change that would mean changing > the incentives to participate in the IETF, which doesn't make > that much sense to me. > > Seriously: there's a need for operator participation. It's > a bit less clear that there's a need for academics. > > Melinda From lars@netapp.com Sat May 25 01:50:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E3321F8F41 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 01:50:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.444 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XsnGwtzhTDfc for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 01:50:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.netapp.com (mx1.netapp.com [216.240.18.38]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86EAE21F9425 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 01:50:21 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,739,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="260126889" Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx1-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 25 May 2013 01:50:22 -0700 Received: from vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.77.34]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id r4P8oKVe014904; Sat, 25 May 2013 01:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.208]) by vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Sat, 25 May 2013 01:50:20 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Humberto Galiza Thread-Topic: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America Thread-Index: AQHOWKLHs1sfrBEE9USHzDa876uwkJkVKwEAgAAb2wCAABZsgIAAFaeAgAAYsYCAAAopgIAAeBGA Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 08:50:19 +0000 Message-ID: <25C5B748-E3B1-43C3-BEDD-AA75770FE20C@netapp.com> References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.115] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <5456FB58876E1540B4667E9006DAF14F@hq.netapp.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "j@braga.net.br" , Juliao Braga , "ericas@irtf.org" , "info@isoc.org.br" , S Moonesamy Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 08:50:25 -0000 Hi, On May 25, 2013, at 3:40, Humberto Galiza wrote: > In my point of view the main reason why Brazilian people (from academia) = don't get involved with IETF is related to the fact that IETF and it's proc= ess are not evaluated in view of Brazil's academic council (cnpq). Drafts, = BCPs or even RFCs writings or IETF meetings doesn't mean anything in the to= they 'academic production'. >=20 > Its like an egg-and-chicken problem: if they don't publish papers on 'rec= ognized conferences' they cant earn resources ($$) to research. In my opini= on the fight here is: how ISOC/IETF people can help us to talk with Brazili= an Research Council to recognize the IETF process as an academic initiative= . I'm not sure the IETF would count as an academic initiative, but the IRTF m= ight have a better chance. We've been discussing what we can do for the IRT= F, because recognition issues exist even in the US and the UK, for example. One specific thing we're investigating together with the RFC Editor is what= we can do to have RFCs count as academic publications. Brian Carpenter and= Craig Partridge have written a very eloquent argument why this is so [1], = and we're now trying various things in order to push for acceptance of RFCs= . This includes getting DOIs assigned, others are trying to get ResearchGat= e to count them as pubs, and more. See the recent thread on irtf-discuss o= n "RFCs accepted journal articles". (We're making this argument for RFCs pu= blished on any stream, by the way, not just the IRTF Stream RFCs.) If there are other things we should do - esp. if it helps the recognition o= f RFCs as scholarly articles in emerging regions - please let me/us know! Lars (IRTF Chair) [1] http://www.sigcomm.org/sites/default/files/ccr/papers/2010/January/1672= 308-1672315.pdf= From lars@netapp.com Sat May 25 01:55:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F24E21F86C0 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 01:55:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.458 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.458 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.141, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cnQp+ol3Tstl for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 01:55:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.netapp.com (mx1.netapp.com [216.240.18.38]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E3B521F8503 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 01:55:09 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,739,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="260127431" Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx1-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 25 May 2013 01:55:10 -0700 Received: from vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com (exchsmtp.hq.netapp.com [10.106.76.239]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id r4P8t9UO018994; Sat, 25 May 2013 01:55:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.208]) by vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.239]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Sat, 25 May 2013 01:55:09 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Melinda Shore Thread-Topic: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America Thread-Index: AQHOWKLHs1sfrBEE9USHzDa876uwkJkVKwEAgAAb2wCAABZsgIAAFaeAgAAYsYCAAAopgIAABuoAgAADLoCAAAlGAIAAZgsA Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 08:55:08 +0000 Message-ID: <1CD54A74-EE9B-4D7E-80BE-0B51CAF915B4@netapp.com> References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> <51A01C62.2080708@nomountain.net> <51A026D4.5040204@nomountain.net> In-Reply-To: <51A026D4.5040204@nomountain.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.115] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <8C6E1894EAA5084D908C6E478877892F@hq.netapp.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Humberto Galiza , "" Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 08:55:14 -0000 Hi, On May 25, 2013, at 4:49, Melinda Shore wrot= e: > Seriously: there's a need for operator participation. It's > a bit less clear that there's a need for academics. I humbly disagree. Just as you want the people who understand the day-to-da= y practicalities of running the net, you do want folks who can abstract out= an understand networking at a conceptual and architectural level. Plus, professors are multiplicators, and if they are aware of the IETF, the= ir students will be aware when they enter their professional careers. I thi= nk you'd be surprised about the number of IETF participants that are still = attending now because they got exposed to the IETF through professors such = as Henning Schulzrinne, Jon Crowcroft, Carsten Bormann, Colin Perkins, Oliv= ier Bonaventure, Joe Touch, etc. etc. Lars= From sm@elandsys.com Sat May 25 02:20:20 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0B3321F8FE9; Sat, 25 May 2013 02:20:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.432 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fLgeNFbS+hqu; Sat, 25 May 2013 02:20:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4249321F8FDF; Sat, 25 May 2013 02:20:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.152.207]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4P9JfN9019788 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 25 May 2013 02:19:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1369473597; bh=EkQ3JLogRone3Ynkpnf9q1KlQ5c1OJxSx15Hh0KyvRg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=OOLxJLjxPgdUs7pNBroVkkPGalC1y3sXEM/r942F30xaQgOYgNLHwMcM2CZIjBEiu 6TQ50l5dmu37jGlH0l/PdHyroB+J0ElhVykK75Bz9TQUrvrRG2JUjxHH0kTAY1IDSQ prKsPU/RBR1+UmWrfR/6OMr7BQn5r9FWfEWrL4MQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1369473597; i=@elandsys.com; bh=EkQ3JLogRone3Ynkpnf9q1KlQ5c1OJxSx15Hh0KyvRg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=tHHsiFmdDo1670yw42U9NjYjLYLnX6cGD/+Z0YnWUW5f+jmz0uFPSp42G5eZ6N3FN VxrzK2nSi4cBx3UEhkhnYWZGcMMDHnLNRkVytxEY39gWHwno429yoESMeHDOcTvWhA TXt0eRwFWTnCulqDh4qkjk/gatdwAz/Emrz20xcA= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130525021551.0bbda308@elandsys.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 02:18:55 -0700 To: Humberto Galiza From: S Moonesamy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: j@braga.net.br, Juliao Braga , ericas@irtf.org, info@isoc.org.br, irtf-chair@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 09:20:20 -0000 Hi Humberto, At 18:40 24-05-2013, Humberto Galiza wrote: >In my point of view the main reason why Brazilian people (from >academia) don't get involved with IETF is related to the fact that >IETF and it's process are not evaluated in view of Brazil's academic >council (cnpq). Drafts, BCPs or even RFCs writings or IETF meetings >doesn't mean anything in the to they 'academic production'. > >Its like an egg-and-chicken problem: if they don't publish papers on >'recognized conferences' they cant earn resources ($$) to research. >In my opinion the fight here is: how ISOC/IETF people can help us to >talk with Brazilian Research Council to recognize the IETF process >as an academic initiative. > >I think that Brazillian ISOC chapter had tried to speak with >SBC/CNPQ before...but anyway any help would be great. There is a message from the RFC Series Editor making RFCs more broadly acceptable in the academic world ( http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2013-May/005587.html ). If someone comes to an IETF meeting with the objective of having his/her paper published on "recognized conferences" it is unlikely that the paper will be published as an RFC. I won't go as far as saying that the IETF does not need academics. I know a few people from universities who write and review drafts. The drafts are usually implemented; people will use them to write code. Stephen Farrell asked a question about Internet protocols ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ericas/current/msg00003.html ). Can SBC/CNPQ help with that? Regards, S. Moonesamy From asjl@lpnz.org Sat May 25 02:48:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45D321F93A6 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 02:48:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MxTUG+EmO7Mp for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 02:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-x22f.google.com (mail-pb0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA3621F937B for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 02:48:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id rr4so5131106pbb.20 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 02:48:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lpnz.org; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=qs7FMaeMx+rOzllFCkQ84TYMjB5EJCV6pcC4vNqaygA=; b=qopH+fsdUzp7GpV9/FNRYBUCRfruIaEKCO3BFAMq8tTIiWusHq35H45GEnsvlhwDkJ jbGNiMEqQBcHiFV0Z4hJD000kz+LwNFe74dWc3YGsc9ri48SwvWXcOYx/Fb6ALivzsYm I7GJPKrhy6KGgOdkilbUnk17Y4ZV7jm4pHwo8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=qs7FMaeMx+rOzllFCkQ84TYMjB5EJCV6pcC4vNqaygA=; b=ekTRMrf0zj2FlxZXaABB5GpU/nTvJuHo8fanQeQHA2G/ekIO6KNUfIc9+nHSrHuSX5 SY1G9fo55RC/j1tdE6qFkRtTrGBdGgrVTrgOp1Gb+EAs3ppYueiMNDKyQO/9ZAClIB/9 7uP5M/wJBmZsDb1wIz2769GzyEHSbU9yWd1HLyEljkd6RSfQ8ZKh9gGJWWNkTW/0xvpX 0hni1GfD1Sx0ZhykZbQsRLk66uk+lZ6AyzveVnDH9yH9VrDThPjlzvXXjalJ3wvtsucO bDNq9i6Ay3tnNDaKx1QXEAQ++xuVS/5fQYOgkHdz3WnxkgQwtP1eBXGHjrcq9FTVXVlD ZH5g== X-Received: by 10.66.145.67 with SMTP id ss3mr22046019pab.18.1369475287783; Sat, 25 May 2013 02:48:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.71.229 with HTTP; Sat, 25 May 2013 02:47:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130525021551.0bbda308@elandsys.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130525021551.0bbda308@elandsys.com> From: Andy Linton Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 21:47:47 +1200 Message-ID: To: S Moonesamy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkFI0yrTojRYCq3n+kamlltvNbtwbjkCjUXvL5kRubXzQVZTPF7Uxu1BHeXQaIVzCmvnGpI X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 25 May 2013 03:03:53 -0700 Cc: j@braga.net.br, ericas@irtf.org, info@isoc.org.br, irtf-chair@irtf.org, Juliao Braga , Humberto Galiza Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 09:59:25 -0000 On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 9:18 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Humberto, > > At 18:40 24-05-2013, Humberto Galiza wrote: >> >> In my point of view the main reason why Brazilian people (from academia) >> don't get involved with IETF is related to the fact that IETF and it's >> process are not evaluated in view of Brazil's academic council (cnpq). >> Drafts, BCPs or even RFCs writings or IETF meetings doesn't mean anything in >> the to they 'academic production'. >> >> Its like an egg-and-chicken problem: if they don't publish papers on >> 'recognized conferences' they cant earn resources ($$) to research. In my >> opinion the fight here is: how ISOC/IETF people can help us to talk with >> Brazilian Research Council to recognize the IETF process as an academic >> initiative. This is an issue in New Zealand as well. Academic funding comes from "Performance-Based Research Fundi" (PBRF) and when we have people talking about the "least publishable unit of research" I think it shows up a broken system. From stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Sat May 25 03:13:03 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29D0321F9540 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 03:13:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.572 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rx0xqwyR+pHa for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 03:12:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C56321F92FB for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 03:12:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DAA9BEA0; Sat, 25 May 2013 11:12:29 +0100 (IST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ae5Nijf7TOJ3; Sat, 25 May 2013 11:12:24 +0100 (IST) Received: from [10.87.48.5] (unknown [86.45.60.137]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A481CBE57; Sat, 25 May 2013 11:12:12 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <51A08E73.2050204@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 11:12:03 +0100 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Melinda Shore References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> <51A01C62.2080708@nomountain.net> In-Reply-To: <51A01C62.2080708@nomountain.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ericas@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 10:13:03 -0000 On 05/25/2013 03:05 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 5/24/13 5:40 PM, Humberto Galiza wrote: >> In my point of view the main reason why Brazilian people (from >> academia) don't get involved with IETF is related to the fact that >> IETF and it's process are not evaluated in view of Brazil's academic >> council (cnpq). Drafts, BCPs or even RFCs writings or IETF meetings >> doesn't mean anything in the to they 'academic production'. That's the same more or less everywhere I think. Certainly here too. I think people have been aware of it for a long time, but with no particularly good ideas emerging as to how to do something about it. ("It" being that IETF work is no longer seen as good academic stuff, and our publications don't count for tenure etc.) Personally, I always treat RFCs as if they were 1st class journal publications and say that on CVs, and where relevant on funding applications, etc. However, mostly that gets entirely ignored or people disagree with me. Sigh. I still think its worth the argument though:-) > Right - it's not research. Mostly. However, IMO doing work in the IETF enables much better research. I have met many academics that don't really have much clue as to how things work or what'd be useful. Many of 'em happily run ns2 and not much else but are apparently experts in networking. > I would *love* to see more input > from Brazilian operators (telcos and ISPs). We don't currently > get enough operator review of our documents and it's one area > in which you could both help the IETF and have an impact > (visibility). Also true. > > Maybe it's just me but I am not convinced that computer > science researchers in academic careers have that much of > a role to play in protocol standards. I disagree here. Good academics bring at least two things that we need more of - better knowledge of the state of the art and more objectivity. Lots of excellent IETF participants have both already, but there are also many participants who could do better in these respects. If you think about the late-surprise problem, I reckon that had we more good academic participants, at least some of that would be avoided. Cheers, S. > > Melinda > From humbertogaliza@gmail.com Sat May 25 06:01:13 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E2E21F871C for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 06:01:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LdPAs6ioCXkU for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 06:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f42.google.com (mail-oa0-f42.google.com [209.85.219.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2DA21F871D for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 06:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id i10so7320026oag.15 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 06:01:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=q8o89hx7b0AE9DpQFl2JbDrsj2he8VmqAMIbL4x6Idg=; b=n24A+L0Ytfzg589Bmd9VtUWZWu/NBwzY6VERL6v+8qRlBeA7aDBo9eNAA3lJhjLyjx eR0a14D8VqYzWyPjX6V+C9sa2v5NXFvOdfmVzdQpJmcmJx/rF62ojgcZE7roeKWGrvny Kyl8P0GxTA0RxzL+HcEe30uXhFxjZaCOgJAfusbwprOHih0OLQ9/Wsor1JyJHRJaPb12 LOMSRF9ciSMfSHANLKGAWWTsxlSbVlRWXMPLHp+s+mbnzmZ/Breq4jMRtDgDabhXDjpB LIPXY7nDmPU+5AvDoRv8JC4rzq+d0XOuHhfi8hisN6VWkxdBBDvKGEBseil/oPXa/tdU krtA== X-Received: by 10.60.84.143 with SMTP id z15mr4432306oey.30.1369486868213; Sat, 25 May 2013 06:01:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.1.73 with HTTP; Sat, 25 May 2013 06:00:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51A026D4.5040204@nomountain.net> References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> <51A01C62.2080708@nomountain.net> <51A026D4.5040204@nomountain.net> From: Humberto Galiza Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 10:00:47 -0300 Message-ID: To: Melinda Shore Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: ericas@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 13:01:14 -0000 Hi Melinda, Perhaps what I said about academic engagement at IETF were misunderstood. In my case, my first "real" contact with IETF was in early 2009, when I was looking for something to work in my final undergrad course. I found some stuffs in IRTF talking about Internet growing problem statement and a 'new approach' of IP functions splitting that they called LISP. When I talked about this with my advisor he was very excited about this subject, and we started to study this subject. As a result of this study: 1) I had the opportunity of attending my first IETF meeting as an ISOC Fellow and understand a bit more about all the process, and tried to give my contribution in the LISP project; 2) We got a paper published in a Brazilian Computer Networks Society Workshop (2010); 3) My advisor encouraged more pupils to get involved with IETF standardization process (for example: there is another guy from my university that recently defended his master thesis about LISP mobility). These people (including me) never wrote a RFC (or even a simple draft - I hope to write one day), but for our community (academic community / regional operators community) it was very important because we could disseminate a specific thing about a protocol that is being discussed at IETF WG and disseminate the IETF itself. Until this, I had read some RFCs/BCP (since I=B4m a network operator too) but I have no idea about how it was discussed, who was discussing about it, and where to find these people. I=B4m completely sure that IETF is not an academic forum, but I=B4m sure that these academic people could help the standardization process, and help themselves working on specific problems at IETF and publishing about it. Cheers, Humberto Galiza 2013/5/24 Melinda Shore : > On 5/24/13 6:16 PM, Humberto Galiza wrote: >> I agree with you: it=B4s not research, but you should agree with me that >> many people that are engaged and producing standards are from academia >> (see the past meetings attendee list), so I think these people play an >> important role in the process. > > I attended for many years from a university, but only for a > few of those in a pure research role even though the email > address and institutional affiliation stayed the same. From > having participated in the IETF for many, many years, it's > my feeling that there are very few academics, in large part > because the IETF really just does not do research. If you > look back to the early days the affiliations were academic > because that's who the "internet" was at the time. Now, > IETF participation is overwhelmingly from vendors (equipment > manufacturers). I think to change that would mean changing > the incentives to participate in the IETF, which doesn't make > that much sense to me. > > Seriously: there's a need for operator participation. It's > a bit less clear that there's a need for academics. > > Melinda > > -- > Melinda Shore > No Mountain Software > melinda.shore@nomountain.net > > "Software longa, hardware brevis." From sm@elandsys.com Sat May 25 10:22:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4F921F8A6B for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 10:22:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.443 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.156, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 49XTEzP4N4PZ for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 10:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF4521F8A54 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 10:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.135.172]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4PHLt3E005892 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 25 May 2013 10:22:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1369502534; bh=dJy2tBmBiyXkxhdZz2jMNUgHGg3nEpcUdqsO81W2pew=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=4WswZLT93EzCRscFIcxe7nKVgGyOPAaFN0IBTkD0nBqTUfT2vOLTBQ5YQy6ya9dLE G66xEweVSwEVbEecIqCk6yy5GUIbrh5fcIkeu5tAbzGHIomZpJa4aOZtoL35O07ccY FXo0jtAOA82ecciienZAhaKjYYniAyAl6BL87FqA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1369502534; i=@elandsys.com; bh=dJy2tBmBiyXkxhdZz2jMNUgHGg3nEpcUdqsO81W2pew=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=N4Vz69ClWw4/0NTB64QcobWj1F1aMH2LJAdz3v1gS4mYOrT4JUC76ZmYvTBVsA2vN vy+S3UlM/199is4OD5fXDTksEUxbOqUZBXTM7vpwktbkiHX7zscvJfk8G4mPvutPv9 E4WzbAvYqZZzmxoUOd98MaZnSRe05mWxpVt+rue4= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130525085016.0b2e40b0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 10:21:34 -0700 To: Humberto Galiza From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> <51A01C62.2080708@nomountain.net> <51A026D4.5040204@nomountain.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ericas@irtf.org Subject: [ericas] Bringing value to the IETF (was: IETF Meeting in South America) X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 17:22:21 -0000 Hi Humberto, At 06:00 25-05-2013, Humberto Galiza wrote: >As a result of this study: 1) I had the opportunity of attending my >first IETF meeting as an ISOC Fellow and understand a bit more about >all the process, and tried to give my contribution in the LISP >project; 2) We got a paper published in a Brazilian Computer Networks >Society Workshop (2010); 3) My advisor encouraged more pupils to get >involved with IETF standardization process (for example: there is >another guy from my university that recently defended his master >thesis about LISP mobility). These people (including me) never wrote a >RFC (or even a simple draft - I hope to write one day), but for our >community (academic community / regional operators community) it was >very important because we could disseminate a specific thing about a >protocol that is being discussed at IETF WG and disseminate the IETF >itself. The mailing list archive for the LISP WG is at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/maillist.html What the IETF will see is that there isn't anybody from Brazil participating in the LISP WG. It may be very important for Brazil to disseminate the IETF. That unfortunately does not bring much value to the IETF. I understand that it is difficult for people from emerging regions to identify how they can bring value to the IETF. Antonio Moreiras mentioned the following: "Probably it will be a great opportunity for a lot of people to participate for the first time, and come to know the process, and become involved." A significant number of IETF participants will read that as: Probably it will be a great opportunity for a lot of people from Argentina to attend an IETF meeting for the first time, and come to know the process, and become involved. The IETF held a meeting in Taiwan. There aren't a lot of people from Taiwan who have become involved since then. The IETF held a meeting in Dublin. There aren't a lot of people from Ireland who have become involved since then. Regards, S. Moonesamy From sm@elandsys.com Sat May 25 10:23:30 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF6A521F852A for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 10:23:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.151, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UGP6rg6HWgRA for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 10:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5733721F8A6B for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 10:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.135.172]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4PHLt3C005892 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 25 May 2013 10:22:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1369502530; bh=Ef2+9fgKomvuDqR8/XGnjW6QA23IQ4DbIFHuECGz+T0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=tkVW698vLjnkEIGrx0/kxXquSQkf3VPSYfQfrotGGSO7+nMBYS6RScVIrsOY9cLGN 5QL1rxS4DUj+8z6BXSY+2dtEUWgdJFlrydhNoeYO+qUy1wwoK8KOVHDbkEPDLSCb+2 U7vk+zjSR/BNGxfT3cjNgdoZ83hvSqjaLyE2rsBE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1369502530; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Ef2+9fgKomvuDqR8/XGnjW6QA23IQ4DbIFHuECGz+T0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=DdoQHaD6d8lX+pCMzaNLt7pK+XjiwfIEXBoTIUOEpNCO6iZZhdRhyvfu9v9SBQ6gZ JnNIhy8u05O4OuhbWYBzpGOKvZaKJc2QWYffZOU/r8IMo6ynk3nhKgGM9HDwT9iJZW 8FLPm2KGPTORel2TckGLvHj85BR6KmTWJy2cWJeA= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130525075157.0b2ddf50@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 08:47:55 -0700 To: Stephen Farrell , Melinda Shore , Andy Linton From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <51A08E73.2050204@cs.tcd.ie> References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> <51A01C62.2080708@nomountain.net> <51A08E73.2050204@cs.tcd.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ericas@irtf.org Subject: [ericas] Academic participants (was: IETF Meeting in South America) X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 17:23:31 -0000 At 03:12 25-05-2013, Stephen Farrell wrote: >Mostly. However, IMO doing work in the IETF enables much better >research. I have met many academics that don't really have >much clue as to how things work or what'd be useful. Many of >'em happily run ns2 and not much else but are apparently >experts in networking. A friend and I have been trying to get a local university to deploy IPv6. The people at the university are teaching people about IPv6 and yet they do not have any interest in working with the technology. >I disagree here. Good academics bring at least two things >that we need more of - better knowledge of the state of the >art and more objectivity. Lots of excellent IETF participants >have both already, but there are also many participants >who could do better in these respects. Lars Eggert mentioned that "you do want folks who can abstract out and understand networking at a conceptual and architectural level". It is difficult to get that type of expertise from people working for companies which sell products or from people who use these products in their networks. The quality of drafts from non-academic organizations is sometimes awful. Having a large number of vendors participating in the IETF makes it difficult to get objective opinions about drafts which are intended to be RFCs. Andy mentioned that the funding system is broken. I would say that it is broken even more in emerging regions where it creates more future experts in networking who's only interest is getting their names on "units of research". Regards, S. Moonesamy From humbertogaliza@gmail.com Sat May 25 11:23:26 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C484621F8976 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 11:23:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XqxRcMpHtkHE for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 11:23:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f48.google.com (mail-oa0-f48.google.com [209.85.219.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A43B21F8825 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 11:23:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id i4so7299398oah.7 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 11:23:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=O4HiVVxpJmcjTPsl7V2l0Sh9SJV5EY62pMpEQegbwJU=; b=deJAD3ywlp9OC4/cbDfy87Ai8sl3Bbc2yWyvVT3DB0GTIPY6HIFw2ulU3qpMwRuFbh 3odIajdKjn72i/xAa/zIwgMTgBhXSwglt97TKqhDo6jaShknHnkH5aUixOoBi4GWwY/U lW3uiej4/leDK2aXbXGsWVS5twwMXf3oxSMxUy1ia0mkkUk1JHihCMdM+IV/B8e2Ipub QuobBAoGlOnYQbwf/6jX29Lhufg+7iIeF6gRBJf35uf/tOUlL2uU8Nkc7nmbFOab5Px3 dp5wr1PL8YoZXa6FHl8wn1USLbDWlvHSpBhSfiBUthx2Pnu22gOn6hA65SiUo9xpCoCx 4x1Q== X-Received: by 10.182.144.232 with SMTP id sp8mr15080994obb.80.1369506202101; Sat, 25 May 2013 11:23:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.1.73 with HTTP; Sat, 25 May 2013 11:23:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130525085016.0b2e40b0@elandnews.com> References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> <51A01C62.2080708@nomountain.net> <51A026D4.5040204@nomountain.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130525085016.0b2e40b0@elandnews.com> From: Humberto Galiza Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 15:23:02 -0300 Message-ID: To: S Moonesamy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: ericas Subject: Re: [ericas] Bringing value to the IETF (was: IETF Meeting in South America) X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 18:23:26 -0000 Hi SM, IMO, there is just one way to disseminate IETF in Brazil (although I believe that=B4s apply to all emerging countries): getting key people from these countries working to disseminate it. Whose are these people? Answer: mostly, people from universities - lectures and researchers. Why? Because mostly (pure)network operators from these countries (at least from Brazil) are just 'pieces of system', they usually have a lack of knowledge and don=B4t want to discuss protocols, best practices and so on; or they have a heavy diary workload and they just want to get their job done. I think this behavior is in part-fault of industry / vendors, because most of them that have any kind of operation on emerging countries don=B4t stimulate their local engineers / or even their customers (a.k.a network operators) to get involved with IETF process. If there is anybody in this mail list from big vendors like Juniper, Cisco, Extreme, and others, please let me know what you have done to stimulate your engineers from emerging countries to get involved with IETF. I=B4m pretty sure that following this way we can be more effective bringing value to IETF in a short time. Cheers, Ps: I=B4m still in the LISP-wg mail list, but I=B4m not working on it anymo= re. Humberto Galiza 2013/5/25 S Moonesamy : > Hi Humberto, > At 06:00 25-05-2013, Humberto Galiza wrote: >> >> As a result of this study: 1) I had the opportunity of attending my >> first IETF meeting as an ISOC Fellow and understand a bit more about >> all the process, and tried to give my contribution in the LISP >> project; 2) We got a paper published in a Brazilian Computer Networks >> Society Workshop (2010); 3) My advisor encouraged more pupils to get >> involved with IETF standardization process (for example: there is >> another guy from my university that recently defended his master >> thesis about LISP mobility). These people (including me) never wrote a >> RFC (or even a simple draft - I hope to write one day), but for our >> community (academic community / regional operators community) it was >> very important because we could disseminate a specific thing about a >> protocol that is being discussed at IETF WG and disseminate the IETF >> itself. > > > The mailing list archive for the LISP WG is at > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/maillist.html What the > IETF will see is that there isn't anybody from Brazil participating in th= e > LISP WG. It may be very important for Brazil to disseminate the IETF. T= hat > unfortunately does not bring much value to the IETF. > > I understand that it is difficult for people from emerging regions to > identify how they can bring value to the IETF. Antonio Moreiras mentione= d > the following: > > "Probably it will be a great opportunity for a lot of people to > participate for the first time, and come to know the process, > and become involved." > > A significant number of IETF participants will read that as: > > Probably it will be a great opportunity for a lot of people from > Argentina to attend an IETF meeting for the first time, and come > to know the process, and become involved. > > The IETF held a meeting in Taiwan. There aren't a lot of people from Tai= wan > who have become involved since then. The IETF held a meeting in Dublin. > There aren't a lot of people from Ireland who have become involved since > then. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy From sm@elandsys.com Sat May 25 12:32:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD5721F8930 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 12:32:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.453 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.453 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.146, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sHgoi7-OzouZ for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 12:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8FDB21F8916 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 12:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.135.172]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4PJWU38005017 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 25 May 2013 12:32:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1369510363; bh=pdhhNOQnCbT0ye5oVxr6/4RKX03aweCD62DHf1LH6lA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=pPoOACo3tM2j3UHfrviO5o61g13dFnYQOIwgrlsGA6smVJlFrVrAiasS/nd8m0P+X llHH9fccLXP0JWr22zbgZcN+kdWXDlqzG9CY9xd8hsqZ64B+QwQgCthBP1CbiPEeTY yocb3D3JOqGok0P1XsPPAzeH+xf9zaoh4C4DV1po= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1369510363; i=@elandsys.com; bh=pdhhNOQnCbT0ye5oVxr6/4RKX03aweCD62DHf1LH6lA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=PGmN7JIqs+mavHFU9bf39niLtUX4PH279i6utommvOf4+xrJPMeCyrt9D4vFAUYFb zc3V/ozr+C6Si8+sS8IkCycmihgdyTXuZ1byMUMGbOC0XLcCnQho5lb/5HnTsN37Bw 51QUOkvRPyZS+1MscsuIksueEsFqqAPxPPd4ug5c= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130525120541.0b2e49a8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 12:27:57 -0700 To: Humberto Galiza From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> <51A01C62.2080708@nomountain.net> <51A026D4.5040204@nomountain.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130525085016.0b2e40b0@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: ericas@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] Bringing value to the IETF (was: IETF Meeting in South America) X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 19:32:49 -0000 Hi Humberto, At 11:23 25-05-2013, Humberto Galiza wrote: >IMO, there is just one way to disseminate IETF in Brazil (although I >believe that=B4s apply to all emerging countries): getting key people >from these countries working to disseminate it. Whose are these >people? Answer: mostly, people from universities - lectures and The problem with the "universities - lectures and=20 researchers" approach is that we get back to the=20 egg-and-chicken problem. In my opinion it will=20 take a lot of time to solve that, assume that it can be solved. >researchers. Why? Because mostly (pure)network operators from these >countries (at least from Brazil) are just 'pieces of system', they >usually have a lack of knowledge and don=B4t want to discuss protocols, >best practices and so on; or they have a heavy diary workload and they >just want to get their job done. What I understand from the above is that there=20 isn't any motivation for network operators from=20 Brazil to participate in the IETF as they just want to get their job done. >I think this behavior is in part-fault of industry / vendors, because >most of them that have any kind of operation on emerging countries >don=B4t stimulate their local engineers / or even their customers (a.k.a >network operators) to get involved with IETF process. If there is I agree. >I=B4m pretty sure that following this way we can be more effective >bringing value to IETF in a short time. I would suggest something different. If you=20 participate in the IETF it brings value to the=20 IETF. If you have the time let's talk and see=20 what could be done to make it easier for you to participate in the IETF. Regards, S. Moonesamy=20 From arturo.servin@gmail.com Sat May 25 13:06:03 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C4721F8AD1 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 13:06:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.433 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hxL5Qch5MXEM for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 13:05:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ye0-f179.google.com (mail-ye0-f179.google.com [209.85.213.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F1A21F87E0 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 13:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ye0-f179.google.com with SMTP id l3so553881yen.24 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 13:05:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2Mt3Vu0torDzUpoemMYCMRjFaR+drKS+Iyh7OZznGqI=; b=jDt2R5qM2BqU4T3pUpfSv9l1GcC8p9K2h2YszL+gYgh1IOZ7zquRok3ffU5iMAnQXv NRPdNaM1iggNjTu+rvsQFLf+f7t3UmrOlLWdywKETTKDSOx1ILV4V4aX1jlAWJBlbh0M ud3Oqs00K4bYtmNovx2McJygtVIXh/p4eGE7bdHhyb4pJYNwqAu4XgAPLO3BStJQsGSd joa8QJNqYJpwN+NNFY1o7kwlioNjArelGk0CihXQ38XBC5TxecKtee5JoOaVhQ6nQ9ym IidcrY6ff3FxHsSVJcdVk1PhdWU6PTfFRXoLodbFDyaQWWvy99joTum1I4/JxxtcLP4e +4uw== X-Received: by 10.236.81.132 with SMTP id m4mr12415659yhe.7.1369512350667; Sat, 25 May 2013 13:05:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Arturos-MacBook-Pro.local ([2800:af:ba31:30e:e88a:1c94:4732:dc3b]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p31sm31219997yhm.10.2013.05.25.13.05.47 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 25 May 2013 13:05:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51A11999.4060106@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 17:05:45 -0300 From: Arturo Servin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ericas@irtf.org References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> <51A01C62.2080708@nomountain.net> <51A026D4.5040204@nomountain.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130525085016.0b2e40b0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130525085016.0b2e40b0@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ericas] Bringing value to the IETF X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 20:06:04 -0000 This is probably true, but difficult to really probe or deny. On 5/25/13 2:21 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > The IETF held a meeting in Taiwan. There aren't a lot of people from > Taiwan who have become involved since then. The IETF held a meeting in > Dublin. There aren't a lot of people from Ireland who have become > involved since then. /as From juliao@braga.eti.br Sat May 25 13:22:46 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECD2921F882A for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 13:22:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.528 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UQamivwZ-ttk for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 13:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f171.google.com (mail-vc0-f171.google.com [209.85.220.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D99D721F8AD1 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 13:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id m17so3899466vca.16 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 13:22:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=oKICN8m52uzyufBfItYftod+7bxnu4vhYRB25xHtjf8=; b=XwSJJVT+LKiwjDiy3H4YjwkYHUGs+1iIYSrahJJEoRGi4HTvqphQ35Nc45m+XtBegt 2m1bRppgHZNaWUOSlOI1dV4ZannchAmIT3KjXiX0IxUg5Iwk55uIBf9o4bLexn5YoeEd F0GpVu3wd4HLGR18cqdpAO2+UVkRvTQQXtjZ1kq5aqaYQocXJmuglioKUP3q20QFMRQC Pek9O4Bx1/niOd6TeRurjpbsdS+tSzTYBDQCm9l1eoJwwNm/wbmXub+P6QFMYbXgnKCh yXX9qzJLTXblG4qNHZx0VHct5RE20NmYJ9Ris1MuBjp/zoEPGO+3fKMAexf4F8/fZiRm GAgA== X-Received: by 10.58.85.134 with SMTP id h6mr11912874vez.18.1369513356946; Sat, 25 May 2013 13:22:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1294:1295:1295::167? ([2001:1294:1295:1295::167]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s14sm14041734vdg.6.2013.05.25.13.22.34 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 25 May 2013 13:22:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51A11D88.4010901@braga.eti.br> Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 17:22:32 -0300 From: Juliao Braga User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ericas@irtf.org References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> <51A01C62.2080708@nomountain.net> <51A026D4.5040204@nomountain.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130525085016.0b2e40b0@elandnews.com> <51A11999.4060106@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <51A11999.4060106@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmUXyleuvYID9q7FNlPYP8RObc/GCFlr1Qor9ihsNEb3U8xzfbVUfhACPXoHhPY4ycqePmw Subject: Re: [ericas] Bringing value to the IETF X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 20:22:47 -0000 If true (I think it is) then any initiative of the IETF regarding emerging countries should be permanent. Em 25/05/2013 17:05, Arturo Servin escreveu: > > This is probably true, but difficult to really probe or deny. > > > On 5/25/13 2:21 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: >> The IETF held a meeting in Taiwan. There aren't a lot of people from >> Taiwan who have become involved since then. The IETF held a meeting in >> Dublin. There aren't a lot of people from Ireland who have become >> involved since then. > > /as > From arturo.servin@gmail.com Sat May 25 13:40:42 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30C121F8AEA for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 13:40:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s4K0MaRD8XSc for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 13:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-x236.google.com (mail-yh0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F6F321F8AD1 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 13:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f54.google.com with SMTP id b12so566402yha.41 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 13:40:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uA2FzSbcCsucXv4V0S7XZ8WVFZSNv8AHzvEjdJDYrRU=; b=M05SO0ToMorFGaeMrWkS4sqdIzH1J9UGaOSRqD6RtpxyKmgE7fhOJ7RTZM1k810PlB UZTl3KWS/EiNNbmTeIIBBj5H/HAaSUYjzMr0RESUm5YvJEr279hJFrf7ApQJB9ev+8dU KtDj7fyrWXdn+tfiq8fOr9JZ6/PwaaOshgWDpiy4tc1FGwnNZjab/7uO7rRiS/GxLX/p U4bN6+vnV0d8sD1MOrwJyPGMUMnAFBZKTYh/4VkNQ9dqQSzfVkVk7yjsiEXD4a8uVPHt D2sGGXpEmeHh8GJnig3IhYZe6U/Et9HI5c08duwMsx8/dkyL4lS6ix8+2KgXSj0JAiM9 iRNQ== X-Received: by 10.236.148.162 with SMTP id v22mr12049626yhj.131.1369514440977; Sat, 25 May 2013 13:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Arturos-MacBook-Pro.local (r186-49-3-14.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy. [186.49.3.14]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a24sm31286033yho.24.2013.05.25.13.40.39 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 25 May 2013 13:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51A121C5.508@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 17:40:37 -0300 From: Arturo Servin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ericas@irtf.org References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> <51A01C62.2080708@nomountain.net> <51A026D4.5040204@nomountain.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130525085016.0b2e40b0@elandnews.com> <51A11999.4060106@gmail.com> <51A11D88.4010901@braga.eti.br> In-Reply-To: <51A11D88.4010901@braga.eti.br> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ericas] Bringing value to the IETF X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 20:40:42 -0000 I would said that specially for emerging economies but not only for those. We also need other types of diversity. /as On 5/25/13 5:22 PM, Juliao Braga wrote: > If true (I think it is) then any initiative of the IETF regarding > emerging countries should be permanent. > > Em 25/05/2013 17:05, Arturo Servin escreveu: >> >> This is probably true, but difficult to really probe or deny. >> >> >> On 5/25/13 2:21 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: >>> The IETF held a meeting in Taiwan. There aren't a lot of people from >>> Taiwan who have become involved since then. The IETF held a meeting in >>> Dublin. There aren't a lot of people from Ireland who have become >>> involved since then. >> >> /as >> From sm@elandsys.com Sun May 26 04:12:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F174A21F85B8 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:12:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.457 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.457 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.142, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s-QAtYVPZWj9 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43FB21F856D for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.135.172]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4QBCXEp013427 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 26 May 2013 04:12:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1369566767; bh=ZNrpiNLTxx+D6jOpBUiISPvZSuv7cxzOZHLdPPOAQKk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=d1d11WgH3upS4psstObUQzmq3HK3JyO6Vis3juKV6mfWCPeMldrHoI+HRBkJSXwwt P/H0Ee04oeIBrsqLehUKbk4eVO/jAb9GzingubxVDp+PCBq7rweUQiQWK02NvGzCm3 y+ZeFTA9k9Sw4L03vDsVzRrpnFTUOL4Fi+P96NpE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1369566767; i=@elandsys.com; bh=ZNrpiNLTxx+D6jOpBUiISPvZSuv7cxzOZHLdPPOAQKk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=rcNjAk3LxPgEkBMUIeW/BLdKrYBMvnO42/N0QwJGB8gnjXdDANK9krnehqC2x5MkZ oXZWfYPuNRm+gNl0HvCD6iTt7QSlarqQCTEZw3TdVXUSCbTPoLSmtj4ZH1VivDxjuK jwwyy9055bHrVmniAswyO71ZyW5C9vA4jvR64Opo= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130526003220.0be7c070@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 04:11:04 -0700 To: ericas@irtf.org From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B8F50B9@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.c om> References: <20130523155412.29158.24895.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <519E7E83.9000809@gmail.com> <519E94AC.3060500@gmail.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B8F50B9@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: "Fred Baker \(fred\)" Subject: [ericas] Political aspect (was: IETF Meeting in South America) X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 11:12:52 -0000 At 16:06 23-05-2013, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >We now have roughly 1/3 of our attendees and authors from Asia, 1/3 >from Europe, and 1/3 from North America. We have a few people from >South America, of which you are one, and the only time we have >people from Africa is when ISOC pays for them to come. We try to >position meetings in those continents once a year, it doesn't quite >work for reasons that require an adult beverage to discuss, but we >do try. And we get a lot of commentary from folks that would like >the IETF to be a development organization. > >There is a political aspect. The ITU pays the air fare for people >from developing countries, and friends vote for friends. This is >relevant in WSIS/WCIT/WTF, where the ITU periodically offers itself >as the SDO of the future. I won't go into that further, but it is >the elephant in the room, and there, I have said it. I looked at the registration list for the last IETF meeting for participants from Africa: Benin 2 Democratic Rep. of Congo 1 Republic of Congo 1 Gambia 6 Nigeria 11 Sudan 1 None of those 22 individuals have posted any message to the IETF mailing lists I read. I doubt that they have posted any message to the other IETF mailing lists or that they will do that after attending an IETF meeting. It's fairly well-known within the IETF that people from Africa do not participate. There are a few people from South America who do participate. The ITU has a budget of over 300 million Swiss Francs. It can afford to pay the air fare for people from developing countries. If the IETF is turned into a development organization for emerging regions it will be able to hold meetings in emerging regions and pay for participants from emerging regions to attend its meetings. More attention will be given to people from emerging regions who are influential. This means choosing political people instead of technical people. A person from South America asked how to comment about a ITU document which is about IPv6 security. The answer was that the only way to comment was to forward the comments through a (ITU) sector member. If you are from an emerging region you probably know how difficult it is to contact the ITU representative in your country. It is difficult to know whether the comments you provided will be forwarded to the ITU. I don't think that the ITU is bad or that the IETF is perfect. Regards, S. Moonesamy From stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Sun May 26 04:23:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEFD121F9008 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:23:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.885 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.286, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KDXbqfLKxOWH for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D8921F8FBA for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:23:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86595BE7D; Sun, 26 May 2013 12:23:07 +0100 (IST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MDiJTcmBWyn5; Sun, 26 May 2013 12:23:06 +0100 (IST) Received: from [10.87.48.5] (unknown [86.46.20.69]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D03A9BE79; Sun, 26 May 2013 12:23:06 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <51A1F090.1070004@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 12:22:56 +0100 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <20130523155412.29158.24895.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <519E7E83.9000809@gmail.com> <519E94AC.3060500@gmail.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B8F50B9@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130526003220.0be7c070@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130526003220.0be7c070@resistor.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ericas@irtf.org, "Fred Baker \(fred\)" Subject: Re: [ericas] Political aspect X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 11:23:35 -0000 On 05/26/2013 12:11 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > > > A person from South America asked how to comment about a ITU document > which is about IPv6 security. The answer was that the only way to > comment was to forward the comments through a (ITU) sector member. Just to clarify. Scott (the IETF's ITU liaison) and the relevant ADs (Sean and I in this case since it was a security thing) are happy to pass back good comments as appropriate. Formally, from the ITU-T point of view, those are ISOC comments since ISOC are a sector member. In reality, they're comments from folks on IETF lists. And like all such, they should and mostly do get handled according to how technically sound they are. However, most liaisons seem to me to be enormously boring and largely unimportant, so I'd much rather we got normal technical contributions on IETF lists about current and proposed IETF protocols and that folks do not spend loads of time liaising. S. From sm@elandsys.com Sun May 26 10:43:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB9E21F8E4E for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 10:43:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.461 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.138, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zNG0WlFh1qlc for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 10:43:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EBEF21F8EBB for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 10:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.145.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4QHhAhN016637 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 26 May 2013 10:43:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1369590202; bh=7wsGYEj1wwz9AhJ2e/D9/0tuoMIXLI0IZo9G9pTOUnU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=rps7i3aYtrMbJEfGLx/CcBu9OyHBd/X6du3PE0H3yucaQeuTD2yb2pb4gSMZl/xQl 1KCL2X/Ifl/q2WnGBi9D/k0O30HXXLpC9VMgZe43aD1bBdpwvwRHZDECJ9gMTRGbm0 7UmWX5/wVV7wMpRAaavWHHYU0xOAgy/BOnT8hwLM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1369590202; i=@elandsys.com; bh=7wsGYEj1wwz9AhJ2e/D9/0tuoMIXLI0IZo9G9pTOUnU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=AWemCHNh+SLYa8o/yBJni8ovCLgFSPN7FsRli7gngcGl5n+/LFQcxopFGu3AYTnPY fK475BBRFguGDSDZzCMRVhuZFvbgBFS7d/3e/JhXqZlzWIZ9MoOVWc+ff2VjISJvRH oGul4xCQCfLuerzaSK5TS9qivb+64nuLhIfF/XqY= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130526074232.0c842958@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:24:09 -0700 To: Humberto Galiza From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> <51A01C62.2080708@nomountain.net> <51A026D4.5040204@nomountain.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130525085016.0b2e40b0@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Danton Nunes , ericas@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] Bringing value to the IETF (was: IETF Meeting in South America) X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 17:43:37 -0000 Hi Humberto, At 11:23 25-05-2013, Humberto Galiza wrote: >I=B4m pretty sure that following this way we can be more effective >bringing value to IETF in a short time. There was a short discussion in 2009 about when=20 the IETF would hold a meeting in Brazil. It was=20 mentioned that meetings follow the "center of=20 gravity", i.e. if there participation from Brazil=20 there will be a meeting there. As an example, there is an IETF working group=20 discussing about the standardization of=20 SPF. There was a proposal in Brazil related to=20 SPF (=20 ftp://ftp.registro.br/pub/gter/gter34/03-SPFrev.pdf=20 ). Nobody within the IETF working group is aware=20 of that proposal. The working group would=20 probably know about the proposal if it was being=20 discussed in North America or Europe. In my opinion this highlights how the language=20 barrier and the usual IETF approach can be a=20 disadvantage to participation from Brazil. The=20 IETF could put in more effort in finding out how=20 to reach out to people from Brazil; for example,=20 by looking into what you suggested. Regards, S. Moonesamy=20 From juliao@braga.eti.br Sun May 26 10:56:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B5F221F8E4E for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 10:56:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t5XxYlE2irfZ for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 10:56:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-x235.google.com (mail-vb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB74B21F8895 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 10:56:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id p13so2910404vbe.12 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 10:56:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=bLWWtTR9YObpO/S24b7oMk8K7hE+TaAk4+lmNzeHajE=; b=TrGxd7L5bfetr9mAt9AhYLIVU1jxgxlezmkUjKUqCvPDEpYauBNgsY/CW5wDDN7q+r 5JzEOwvSAqcxRGsNnjVTHo3J4ynE8Fzt46m06zK77tevq8eBLv6ukW9BqCDerGfjul5Q MLlJaXjsCh3o5Wn3gZ2K99RUClKqhwu7RQzVMQCT2hCpfkX0pSiu4sGnWUtkzxHmGZ9g zdx138OqZ0kSHDmpskAiEJ1Ch7ZnFRuG/NJqj6Oi/I8/hppHqiOcQW7CkCkQfuqH3PVm JWc5HqexA15eYuso6nXim0DYEQ6ZM5bAf1eRoxxcPIQ+wHoOPWvlqwA35JT/jN/zgLJP BxSg== X-Received: by 10.52.111.202 with SMTP id ik10mr11439595vdb.41.1369591013289; Sun, 26 May 2013 10:56:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1294:1295:1295::167? ([2001:1294:1295:1295::167]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u6sm17086694ven.3.2013.05.26.10.56.50 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 26 May 2013 10:56:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51A24CE0.1040602@braga.eti.br> Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 14:56:48 -0300 From: Juliao Braga User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf@ietf.org References: <20130523155412.29158.24895.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <737D9439-A200-47C3-BE8B-6E6074CBD1F5@gmail.com> <51A23B7F.3050702@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <51A23B7F.3050702@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl3fR1HeMgRjalIyFQEbnCsdwUX+LaQKqVmuoN3GZ2NWbuxG5rBkJVEDpvANy5YksFrpQiO Cc: ericas@irtf.org Subject: Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 17:56:55 -0000 This is the main question with one pragmatic solution proposal in brief, and well justified! Juliao Em 26/05/2013 13:42, Dave Crocker escreveu: > If we are serious about wanting more participation from > under-represented regions, then let's attack that issue seriously and > substantively, rather than with an expensive marketing show. From juliao@braga.eti.br Sun May 26 17:40:15 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ericas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88BE521F8EBB for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 17:40:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.537 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rsryz1r1ySJp for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 17:40:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gh0-f176.google.com (mail-gh0-f176.google.com [209.85.160.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42F5E21F8EAF for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 17:40:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-gh0-f176.google.com with SMTP id z17so1834626ghb.35 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 17:40:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=XsIe8VuKvjG0h1Ij2GFlmus8lKig0/MxcLtscRecE8c=; b=GWu7zfdBNygS/t9Rij051OH12G0X2tgkpe2UvNmrUfk+4dpRz9u+uAO4kKsE80QHsC +Z3Pp/lINXyWMXsUQwup3GhojvqsnQmXJxxcU36HVimQtF8el/9/3rrIzKN99rB9QlIr Q7wqc0mZ2ew9xGJwm5xMWBDpsnd3HTYmSC0HhQajdyt6M/FU8wjSQCtY919eNyasmQf5 SSe1asYDBwRGkVbsq+w5LviFzW2bLAgdn+iZILdpVPwbC6S60Nngt4PUr+kwiBuseVnQ fz7uTCQjqj8MwclLM7DsDQheFYJDntpSebeCEk8rcboRpukKBcD81KZFVFdk5qInJHbr oFWQ== X-Received: by 10.236.104.162 with SMTP id i22mr13864287yhg.113.1369615210741; Sun, 26 May 2013 17:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1294:1295:1295::167? ([2001:1294:1295:1295::167]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s45sm37481581yhk.22.2013.05.26.17.40.07 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 26 May 2013 17:40:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51A2AB65.8010204@braga.eti.br> Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 21:40:05 -0300 From: Juliao Braga User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ericas@irtf.org References: <519FA104.5020902@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524112639.0dc47308@elandnews.com> <519FD460.9050208@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524143626.0cf072e8@elandnews.com> <519FF959.5070306@braga.eti.br> <6.2.5.6.2.20130524165022.0d0c7430@elandnews.com> <382C10FC-ECC4-4A9E-8FFA-9CD50472338E@gmail.com> <51A01C62.2080708@nomountain.net> <51A026D4.5040204@nomountain.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130525085016.0b2e40b0@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130526074232.0c842958@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130526074232.0c842958@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnq0UTsdTJivfwUrRuAqXnTq0TZyJ/4mxwmpLQFKdEjSzaMFjcHiqPkbqEzeHd1RSGnzjYQ Cc: Danton Nunes Subject: Re: [ericas] Bringing value to the IETF X-BeenThere: ericas@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for \"Emerging Regions Internet Challenges And Solutions\" \(ERICAS\) " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 00:40:15 -0000 SM, As far as I am aware Danton is preparing to present a document in WG. But you're right about what you said. Juliao Em 26/05/2013 13:24, S Moonesamy escreveu: > As an example, there is an IETF working group discussing about the > standardization of SPF. There was a proposal in Brazil related to SPF ( > ftp://ftp.registro.br/pub/gter/gter34/03-SPFrev.pdf ). Nobody within > the IETF working group is aware of that proposal. The working group > would probably know about the proposal if it was being discussed in > North America or Europe.