IETF
mtgvenue
mtgvenue@jabber.ietf.org
Thursday, April 7, 2016< ^ >
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

GMT+0
[19:14:51] Meetecho joins the room
[19:15:24] Fearghas McKay joins the room
[19:16:58] Dave Crocker joins the room
[19:19:34] Nicolas Cortes joins the room
[19:19:46] Jonathan Lennox joins the room
[19:21:05] hildjj joins the room
[19:21:23] <hildjj> meetecho: fred says he's going to present from up on stage.
[19:21:40] Tony Hansen joins the room
[19:21:46] <Meetecho> hildjj: ack, tnx
[19:21:48] Naoki Matsuhira joins the room
[19:21:56] Karen Moreland joins the room
[19:22:38] Stewart Bryant joins the room
[19:23:23] John Klensin joins the room
[19:23:41] Ben Campbell joins the room
[19:23:52] Mat Ford joins the room
[19:23:54] aaron joins the room
[19:24:16] Sean Turner joins the room
[19:24:22] <Tony Hansen> can the camera be moved?
[19:24:35] Thomas Eichinger joins the room
[19:25:06] Benson Schliesser joins the room
[19:25:26] <Dave Crocker> @Tony: you want the camera to be in a different room?
[19:25:51] S M joins the room
[19:27:08] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[19:27:11] Adam Roach joins the room
[19:27:56] <aaron> @tony: preface AV requests with "meetecho" and magic will happen
[19:28:25] Jordi Palet joins the room
[19:29:00] Lou Berger joins the room
[19:29:59] Barry Leiba joins the room
[19:30:09] Alejandro Acosta joins the room
[19:30:34] nllz joins the room
[19:31:06] DanYork joins the room
[19:31:29] aaron leaves the room
[19:32:33] Roni Even joins the room
[19:34:58] Roni Even_1894 joins the room
[19:35:41] <nllz> With this logic it's not probable we'll ever have an IETF in Africa.
[19:36:19] <Barry Leiba> We weren't going to have one in China either, but then we got enough of a participant base, and a sponsor, and there we went.
[19:37:33] Roni Even leaves the room
[19:37:40] Wes George joins the room
[19:37:57] <nllz> China is a country, not a continent.
[19:38:20] <Dave Crocker> When the decision to go to China was made, there was a very clear vector of increasing participation happening.
[19:38:49] <Wes George> also, China had some initial concerns about free speech, and we had to threaten to not have the meeting there in order to break through that
[19:38:49] <Barry Leiba> Dave: indeed.  And that could happen with Africa.
[19:39:11] Harish Chowdhary joins the room
[19:39:18] <Stewart Bryant> I agree with Fred F2F is key prerequisite to better remote participation
[19:39:25] akatlas joins the room
[19:39:27] Steve Olshansky joins the room
[19:39:27] <nllz> +1
[19:39:51] aaron joins the room
[19:39:58] Yoshiro Yoneya joins the room
[19:40:04] Alexa Morris joins the room
[19:40:06] Kyle Rose joins the room
[19:40:12] resnick joins the room
[19:40:12] Karen O'Donoghue joins the room
[19:40:15] tale joins the room
[19:40:18] John Levine joins the room
[19:40:29] <Harish Chowdhary> What about the possibility in INDIA
[19:40:36] <hildjj> The way this has worked in other meetings is people that want things relayed to the mic preface their remarks with "MIC:"
[19:40:38] georg joins the room
[19:40:48] <nllz> That was my idea too
[19:40:50] <hildjj> and the scribe doesn't relay anything other than those.
[19:40:58] <Andrew Sullivan> not for the mic (I'm in the room): I think the remote participation angle here is a distraction right now.  We're not going to be able to support remote-only any time soon
[19:41:03] <nllz> Am in the room too
[19:41:27] <Andrew Sullivan> and therefore, we don't need to deal with that case yet.  Because we're too far from transparent for the _current_problem
[19:41:42] <hildjj> (note: thanks for Lou for trying to ensure people here are getting a voice.)
[19:41:51] Jari Arkko joins the room
[19:42:02] <Barry Leiba> Yes, Lou, thanks for your concern about that and for acting on it.
[19:42:05] <Andrew Sullivan> as we have seen with the IAOC's mistake (full disclosure: I was part of the group that made that mistake, for which I unreservedly apologise)
[19:43:28] kivinen joins the room
[19:43:32] <nllz> Is 'host' defined? Does that mean company / org providing logistical support on the ground?
[19:43:32] <John Klensin> I didn't realize I was that influential... nor do I remember either the conversation or the city.
[19:43:51] <Andrew Sullivan> @John: presumably, it's Cambridge, MA
[19:43:59] <aaron> @John: It was probably Cassblanca.  I hear there is gambling there.
[19:44:42] Lou Berger joins the room
[19:44:43] Alejandro Acosta leaves the room: Replaced by new connection
[19:44:44] Alejandro Acosta joins the room
[19:46:17] <Wes George> I don't have a citation at hand, but host is primarily defined by the cost of the sponsorship
[19:46:30] <Andrew Sullivan> yes, host is mostly defined that way
[19:46:31] <Wes George> because hosts are not necessarily local, the level of local support varies
[19:47:13] <John Klensin> @Andrew:  Nope.  Possibly Manchester, however :-(
[19:47:33] <Alejandro Acosta> not for the mic..., I think internet nation-wide should be also unfiltered and unmodified.., not only in the hotel or venue. Last month in Marrakech most networks have VoIP blocked
[19:47:46] Lou Berger leaves the room
[19:47:52] <Dave Crocker> +1 on mic: convention and explicity stating who is 'speaking'.
[19:47:58] <Andrew Sullivan> Not for the mic: We're about 50% through this BoF and I think it'd be really good to get a lot of community input here — we seem to be spending a lot of time on the document which, I hope, we can still assume the assembled have read.
[19:48:36] <Jonathan Lennox> Where was the venue with the hotels across the city from the venue?
[19:48:51] <Andrew Sullivan> Some people felt Maastricht was that way
[19:48:55] <nllz> @Alejando - pls define unfiltered and unmodified.
[19:48:58] Mohit Batra joins the room
[19:49:16] timc joins the room
[19:49:18] Karen O'Donoghue leaves the room
[19:49:25] cmorgan joins the room
[19:49:38] Benson Schliesser leaves the room
[19:49:49] <Roni Even_1894> That was Vienna
[19:49:50] <timc> @andrew indeed
[19:50:22] <akatlas> I thought Vienna worked well
[19:50:30] <timc> vienna was horrible
[19:50:38] <akatlas> perspective, I guess.
[19:50:40] Benson Schliesser joins the room
[19:50:42] <resnick> :-)
[19:50:46] <timc> yeah :P
[19:50:47] <Alejandro Acosta> @nllz.., that's exact the same text in the current draft..., but I think it can be read that all/almost all service work in Internet, not only email + http.., vpn, VoIP and much more must work
[19:50:57] SM joins the room
[19:51:01] <Barry Leiba> CONstantly… three days a week!
[19:51:18] <timc> amazed that disabled access is only desirable
[19:51:24] <SM> Alejandro, there is a BCP :-)
[19:51:24] <Barry Leiba> Me too.
[19:51:26] <Andrew Sullivan> So, this is part of the problem I see in these things: there's a lot of feeling about what "works", and I think that Fred's draft tries to write down objective(ish) criteria by which we can get thrse things
[19:51:37] spiffnolee@gmail.com joins the room
[19:51:53] spiffnolee@gmail.com leaves the room
[19:51:57] Karen O'Donoghue joins the room
[19:52:03] <timc> yes andrew, but terms like 'close' and 'near' are a bit vague… 1km through a rgh area for say a woman alone… not nice
[19:52:20] <Andrew Sullivan> but I think some things would be super helpful (at least to me in my IAOC role), and that is to say what things have the wrong setting (desirable vs. mandatory, vs wrong)
[19:52:34] <Andrew Sullivan> what terms are too vague and need additional specification
[19:52:39] <akatlas> What about weighting rather than absolute priorities?
[19:52:49] <Andrew Sullivan> what things are missing
[19:52:51] <Wes George> fair, but even more objective critiera have to be open to interpretation - do we turn down something because it's 1km away, but .9km is ok? etc
[19:52:59] <Andrew Sullivan> how things ought to be weighed
[19:53:00] <timc> hmm summary lost diasabilities altogether
[19:53:08] <Andrew Sullivan> I don't expect an algorithm
[19:53:23] Stewart Bryant_2315 joins the room
[19:53:33] <akatlas> sure - how things ought to be weighed is the question - but characterizing that a bit is more useful than absolutes - b/c the absolutes are over-constrained
[19:53:38] <timc> @wes yeah thats the tricky thing… and somepeople like being away from the main hotel
[19:53:43] <John Klensin> Another part, which I've suspected from multiple conversation, is that we've ended up with a badly overconstrained system.  The next step is to say "not all criteria can be met, therefore everything is a tradeoff (aka "balance") that we get to make in secret.   Again, if there is a remedy, it starts with a lot more transparency
[19:53:45] <Andrew Sullivan> what Alia said
[19:53:55] Tony Hansen leaves the room
[19:53:58] Stewart Bryant leaves the room
[19:53:59] Tony Hansen joins the room
[19:54:20] <Andrew Sullivan> I _also_ agree that stating what things people think are unreasonably closed right now would help
[19:54:23] <timc> well, the #1 thing thats bad is (lack of) transparency… if we had that then 100 wouldnt have happened
[19:54:24] <Andrew Sullivan> I have my own list
[19:54:25] <Jari Arkko> (not for mic) Alia: the real issue is that requirements may be clear, but it is often difficult to assess conformance in soft topics. i.e., difficult to draw the line between fulfilling or not fullfilling a criteria. not talking about the current Singapore case, but this has been a constant issue of evaluation in several places.
[19:54:47] <Jari Arkko> (not for mic) which might point to more transparency helping
[19:54:56] <Jonathan Lennox> Yokohama was one roof, wasn't it? You had to find the path from the hotel to conference center, and going outside was easier, but it was possible.
[19:54:59] <Lou Berger> John K: what do you think needs to be added to the draft
[19:55:24] <nllz> Am also not clear why Yokohama wouldn't qualify again.
[19:55:26] <Barry Leiba> Jonathan: save with Québec and others.
[19:55:33] Stewart Bryant joins the room
[19:55:35] <Barry Leiba> same
[19:55:47] <Andrew Sullivan> I am not actually that worked up about "rules".  I think the point of our model is that people are supposed to be able to exercise judgement
[19:55:50] <akatlas> @Jari: (not for mic):  absolutely - there are the judgement aspects of soft conformance and then the tradeoffs among them.
[19:56:03] <Andrew Sullivan> and I think what is needed is clearer guidance about what ought to inform that judgement
[19:56:07] <timc> one issue is the 1/3 rooms on site isnt 1/3 as organisers (rightly) get rooms there so for the hoi polloi its well under 1/3
[19:56:08] Stewart Bryant_2315 leaves the room
[19:56:42] <John Klensin> @Lou I'm going to have to study it more carefully than time has permitted, but I want the community a _lot_ more involved, with the suggestions on the IETF list about "do you see issues with these cities" being the prow of that particular ship.
[19:56:57] <nllz> One point for the equation might be the relation between the in hotel room costs and the general costs of accommodation near to the venue. In Yokohama there was quite a lot of cheap space very close to hotel.
[19:57:04] <Dave Crocker> What is being proposed in the draft seems to be at the limit of practical use.  Making the model more complex, such as with 'weighting', is likely to ensure that the model is unworkable.
[19:57:29] <Lou Berger> John K: a reasonable idea, specific language would be appreciated
[19:57:33] <timc> 23 mins left…
[19:57:35] <Andrew Sullivan> @Dave: I think that we shouldn't have a formal model, I agree.
[19:58:10] <Andrew Sullivan> I think we do need something like a pretty good understanding of the goal that the "one roof" policy is trying achieve (for instance)
[19:58:29] <akatlas> @Dave: right - not a formal model but instead of listing as strict priorities only - providing some fuzziness that represents the value of each based on feedback
[19:58:32] <Wes George> I think that it might be useful to go queue up on this stuff
[19:58:37] <Andrew Sullivan> I believe that Yokohama met that goal easily, and yet it wasn't strictly "one roof".  That seems helpful
[19:58:40] <Wes George> give fred the hint to get onto the discussion
[19:58:45] <Dave Crocker> The purpose of mandatory vs. desirable is to avoid over-constraint.  Something is mandatory when we believe we cannot have an acceptable meeting when the criterion is not met.  A desirable criterion is one that we feel strongly is a good thing to try to satisfy but the absence of that will not prevent an acceptable meeting.
[19:58:57] <Lou Berger> happy to channel...
[19:58:59] <Barry Leiba> Andrew, I think it was "one roof", though not, technically one building.
[19:59:01] <akatlas> @Wes:  true - and many of us are in the room.   but even the mandatory are over-constrained
[19:59:04] <John Klensin> @lou, I'll try to propose language more specific than I have already on the IETF list, but continue to also believe that we've got a cultural problem, not just a "set of criteria" one.  Happy to discuss that with you sometime.
[19:59:08] <timc> who is the scribe? :)
[19:59:27] <Jonathan Lennox> Personally I'd define "one roof" as "can get from hotel room to meeting room without going outside".
[19:59:30] <Barry Leiba> I think the point of "one roof" is that the meetings are "very close" to the sleeping rooms, and that weather doesn't affect getting to the meeting rooms.
[19:59:31] <Lou Berger> John K - great!  drop me mail on when
[19:59:40] Kyle Rose leaves the room
[19:59:54] <Jonathan Lennox> Barry: +1. No need to bring jackets/outerwear to sessions.
[20:00:09] <Dave Crocker> Andrew:  the model of relying on people's judgement is what got us 100.
[20:00:17] <timc> 'one roof' is about allowing those who feel unable to travel to a 'near' hotel to attend… if the main venue fills up, some people may not attend, and we're suopposed to be inclusive.
[20:00:32] <Jari Arkko> with respect, I personally would weigh one roof slightly lower than visa, etc. issues
[20:00:59] <Andrew Sullivan> I do rather agree with John about the transparency issue.  I was so red-faced last night because when Singapore was first floated I said to myself, "Hmm, wait a minute, isn't there an issue?"  But it went by and I didn't have to make a decision, and when it came back I'd forgotten my worry, and I screwed up.  If we'd had an open discussion along the lines of, "Here are some possibilities," surely collectively we'd have caught it
[20:01:02] <Wes George> i think they probably need to be polling on the importance of each of these criteria yearly at least
[20:01:07] <Andrew Sullivan> that's why we don't do protocol design in a closed room
[20:01:22] <John Klensin> @Jari, so would I, but I think "one roof" is the wrong model.  Another longer conversation.
[20:01:56] <Barry Leiba> I understand why the IAOC can't tell us about the hotels we're negotiating with, but why can't the IAOC say, "We're having a look at Singapore"?
[20:02:09] <Barry Leiba> That, in itself, would allow the sort of issue that Ted raised to come up.
[20:02:14] <Andrew Sullivan> I don't have an answer to that, Barry, and I agree
[20:02:47] <Dave Crocker> @Alia, I want to stress that I think it essential that the core set of requirements be a) simple to state and understand, b) felt to be absolutely essential, with no flexibility, and c) achievable in a sufficient range of venues.  Any flexibility for this core set invites problems in the process and the result.
[20:02:57] <timc> @andrew on the venue, a meeting committee member told me yesterday they didn't know that singapore was the venue… at what point do you find out, or were they not paying attention?
[20:03:28] <Andrew Sullivan> The IAOC votes on a motion to instruct ISOC to negotiate the contract.  I voted on that.  I screwed up.
[20:03:44] Adam Roach leaves the room
[20:04:00] <akatlas> @Barry:  (speculating) because in a particular city, there may be only a small handful of options (or just one) - and since folks looking at the venues, maybe there's a perception of leaking the specific venue.
[20:04:10] <Andrew Sullivan> Signapore did rather come through as a backup when an alternative proposal (which IIRC did come from the meeting committee) was not acceptable to the IAOC
[20:04:16] <timc> so the meeting committee (as opposed to ioac) don't know?
[20:04:18] <akatlas> @Dave:  I'm rarely in favor of no flexibility
[20:04:21] <Andrew Sullivan> I don't know whether it came from the meeting committee
[20:04:41] <Jari Arkko> Alia, Andrew, agree that additional transparency would be useful. Or lets say that additional crowdsourcing would be useful.
[20:04:43] <Andrew Sullivan> What I know is that I had a resolution before me and, despite what I had known but forgotten, I voted for it.
[20:04:45] <Roni Even_1894> on lodging for overflow hotel, must have public transportation unlike Orlando
[20:04:48] <John Klensin> Barry, I htink the discussion has confused "we are about to start negotiating with Hotel X in City Y" or even "we have picked City Y and are about to solicit hotels and start negotiating" and "hey, we are looking at a list of cities, does anyone know of issues with city A, B, C, D,... that we might not have thought ot".   Veyr different stages in the proces.  
[20:04:50] <Lou Berger> the recommendation came from the committee
[20:05:05] <timc> ok, np, i naively perhaps assumed the meeting committee knew all the venues being negtioated with
[20:05:11] Tony Hansen leaves the room
[20:05:13] Tony Hansen joins the room
[20:05:13] <Barry Leiba> Klensin: exactly.  I meant the latter.
[20:05:14] <Lou Berger> they did
[20:05:18] <timc> oh, and now Lou says otherwise /confused.. nevermind.
[20:05:29] <Andrew Sullivan> Lou's on said committee.  I'm not
[20:05:35] <Dave Crocker> @timc, I'm on the meetings commitee and we have very, very extensive discussions that led to selection of Singapore.  I can't even guess how another member could not have known about it.
[20:05:50] <Lou Berger> @timc : right the recommendation came from the committee, the approval is IAOC
[20:06:00] <timc> ok, thanks
[20:06:04] <Lou Berger> +1 to dave
[20:06:09] <Andrew Sullivan> But the buck stops at the IAOC.  I will say that it's notable that the meetings committee is made entirely by the IAOC
[20:06:31] <timc> (on the plus side, Buenos Aires has been awesome :))
[20:06:35] Adam Roach joins the room
[20:06:37] <Andrew Sullivan> i.e. the IAOC just picks it.  I don't recall any community feedback or so on, though I might have missed it
[20:06:50] <Lou Berger> keep in mind that BA decision was made ~3 years ago
[20:07:04] <Adam Roach> Interestingly, that's exactly what I was thinking
[20:07:04] nllz leaves the room
[20:07:20] <Barry Leiba> Adam: which is?
[20:07:20] <Andrew Sullivan> On that 3 year thing: note that the document currently says that the targets are picked 4 years in advance
[20:07:27] <Andrew Sullivan> is that ok with you all?  Does that seem reasonable?
[20:07:34] <Lou Berger> thats the start of the process
[20:07:36] <timc> oh so current iaoc or committee might be facing 'feedback' based on prior ioac/cttee decisions… interesting!
[20:07:39] <Andrew Sullivan> should we be contracting 3 years in advance?
[20:07:41] <Andrew Sullivan> and so on?
[20:08:01] <timc> 13 mins
[20:08:02] <Dave Crocker> @john, et al, we need to be careful about the assumption that committing to a city does not have to affect the hotel negotiation:  we typically can fit into only one or two venues in a city.  On the other hand, over the course of today as people have been suggesting it, I'm thinking that very early query to the communityh about very general feelings about a range of possible cities is probably workable.
[20:08:09] <Lou Berger> read the timeline in the draft for full details
[20:08:14] <Andrew Sullivan> we are picking a venue on a date that is settled before anyone appointed by the nomcom can be sure to be around still
[20:09:55] <timc> organising here not good.. just 10 mins for feedback :/
[20:10:09] <Andrew Sullivan> I also haven't heard very much about fixed-location rotation vs. picking new places
[20:10:17] sureshk joins the room
[20:10:20] <John Klensin> @Dave That is just my point.  I'm not contemplating asking the community about committing to a city.  I'm suggesting, and I think others have suggested, something much closer to your second possibility.  "We might consider this one, anyone have issues we should know about?"
[20:10:22] <timc> for those remote,4 at mic inc.jari
[20:10:42] <timc> @John yes agreed, or even,these three...
[20:11:19] <Dave Crocker> 3-4 year process: we used to have very short windows, trying to get venues very close to the meeting date.  That guarantees very poor choices and higher prices.  The 3-4 year window is felt to be a reasonable balance.
[20:11:30] <resnick> Are the mic lines cut now? I wasn’t listening carefully enough.
[20:11:37] <timc> yes they are :(
[20:12:03] <resnick> s’ok.
[20:12:04] <Andrew Sullivan> @Dave yep.  I agree.  But it's a trade and I don't know that we ever revisited that decision to evaluate it and its trade-offs
[20:12:19] <Dave Crocker> I think it's closed.
[20:12:33] <Andrew Sullivan> we've been running that mode for a while.  Does it work?  What are the downsides (or are there any?)  And so on
[20:12:38] <Adam Roach> resnick: You can get in line for 6lo, though. They'll be in here soon.
[20:12:41] <Andrew Sullivan> now's the opportunity to evaluate all that
[20:13:24] <Dave Crocker> @andrew, it took years to get to the current model.  No, I don't think its been 'revisited' but then I think revisiting first needs a counter-proposal that can be evaluated.
[20:14:32] Sean Turner leaves the room
[20:14:48] Alejandro Acosta leaves the room: Replaced by new connection
[20:14:48] Alejandro Acosta joins the room
[20:15:38] <John Klensin> The comment that Ole is making is also key.  The requirement for ever-increasing numbers of meeting rooms may have as much to do with no pushback on that and entitlements than actual need.
[20:15:42] <Dave Crocker> I don't understand Ole's claim that our meetings (and therefore logistics) are changing.  We've been at relatively stable attendance size for quite a few years and maybe more than a decade.
[20:15:53] Tony Hansen leaves the room
[20:16:27] <Andrew Sullivan> I didn't mean "revisited" in the sense of proposing something else, but just, "We made this change consciously, the effects have worked through the system; how's it working?"  I don't see value in avoiding that discussion now.
[20:16:32] DanYork leaves the room
[20:16:46] timc leaves the room
[20:16:52] Tony Hansen joins the room
[20:17:08] Karen O'Donoghue leaves the room
[20:18:04] Karen O'Donoghue joins the room
[20:18:31] <Lou Berger> John K. send the proposed addition and we can discuss on list (as co-author)
[20:18:37] <Dave Crocker> @Andrew, the problems we had with a short window were consistently profound.  I joined the IAOC about the time the 3-4 yr. window was started and my subjective assessment is that the result has been profoundly better.
[20:18:41] timc joins the room
[20:19:10] Jonathan Lennox leaves the room
[20:19:20] Jonathan Lennox joins the room
[20:19:27] Jonathan Lennox leaves the room
[20:19:39] <John Klensin> @Dave: at least anecdotally and from observation at the meetings I've been at in recent years, the demand for small meeting rooms (and WG or Plenary spaces) has increased significantly from some years back.
[20:19:47] <Andrew Sullivan> @Dave: I generally agree with you.  I think it'd be good to lay that out in the document
[20:20:19] <timc> yes
[20:20:30] Yoshiro Yoneya leaves the room
[20:21:16] Wes George leaves the room
[20:21:27] <Dave Crocker> @andrew: wfm.
[20:22:10] <Dave Crocker> @john: maybe.  that would be worth documenting by AMS, since they tend to be careful with the details.../
[20:22:18] Karen O'Donoghue leaves the room
[20:23:39] Roni Even_1894 leaves the room
[20:25:14] Barry Leiba leaves the room
[20:25:23] <Dave Crocker> //hand is raised.
[20:25:47] Karen O'Donoghue joins the room
[20:25:54] Thomas Eichinger leaves the room
[20:26:02] Karen O'Donoghue leaves the room
[20:26:46] Adam Roach leaves the room
[20:26:46] timc leaves the room
[20:27:16] resnick ponders
[20:27:34] <Dave Crocker> @pete, how'd you do that?
[20:27:53] <resnick> Start the entry with “/me”.
[20:27:54] Jordi Palet leaves the room
[20:28:09] Dave Crocker dave appreciates
[20:28:18] <Lou Berger> Pete - did you notice draft has mandatory vs desired
[20:28:34] Barry Leiba joins the room
[20:28:35] Ben Campbell leaves the room
[20:28:36] tale leaves the room
[20:28:40] aaron leaves the room
[20:28:50] kivinen leaves the room
[20:29:04] Meetecho leaves the room
[20:29:07] DanYork joins the room
[20:29:11] <resnick> @lou: There’s something different in kind between some of the things on the “mandatory” list and some of the things I think of as “no-go”. It’s a category mistake to lump them together.
[20:29:19] georg leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[20:29:20] <John Klensin> @Alia: +1
[20:29:20] georg joins the room
[20:29:34] <Lou Berger> humm, will come over
[20:29:42] <resnick> ack
[20:29:42] Lou Berger leaves the room
[20:29:43] SM leaves the room
[20:29:46] Naoki Matsuhira leaves the room
[20:29:48] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[20:29:51] Barry Leiba leaves the room
[20:29:55] <John Klensin> @Pete: yes, but I think there may be anotuer useful nuiance.  Let's talk.
[20:29:58] Mohit Batra leaves the room
[20:29:59] akatlas joins the room
[20:29:59] Nicolas Cortes leaves the room
[20:29:59] Harish Chowdhary leaves the room
[20:29:59] John Klensin leaves the room
[20:29:59] Tony Hansen leaves the room
[20:29:59] Stewart Bryant leaves the room
[20:29:59] Dave Crocker leaves the room
[20:30:00] Alejandro Acosta leaves the room
[20:30:00] Alexa Morris leaves the room
[20:30:08] Jonathan Lennox joins the room
[20:30:10] S M leaves the room
[20:30:14] Mat Ford leaves the room
[20:30:14] Fearghas McKay leaves the room
[20:30:14] Karen Moreland leaves the room
[20:30:18] timc joins the room
[20:30:25] Jonathan Lennox leaves the room
[20:30:29] cmorgan leaves the room
[20:30:33] dcrocker joins the room
[20:30:35] cmorgan joins the room
[20:30:36] Barry Leiba joins the room
[20:30:38] Steve Olshansky leaves the room
[20:30:49] akatlas leaves the room
[20:31:06] cmorgan leaves the room
[20:31:07] dcrocker leaves the room
[20:31:31] resnick leaves the room
[20:31:37] akatlas leaves the room
[20:31:46] hildjj leaves the room
[20:31:47] John Levine leaves the room
[20:32:16] Jari Arkko leaves the room
[20:32:22] Benson Schliesser leaves the room
[20:34:45] Barry Leiba leaves the room
[20:35:44] Adam Roach joins the room
[20:36:45] georg leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[20:37:07] hildjj joins the room
[20:37:52] Ben Campbell joins the room
[20:37:52] tale joins the room
[20:40:43] cmorgan joins the room
[20:40:48] timc leaves the room
[20:40:58] cmorgan leaves the room
[20:41:20] Wes George joins the room
[20:42:46] hildjj leaves the room
[20:42:47] sureshk leaves the room
[20:43:10] sureshk joins the room
[20:44:23] Wes George leaves the room
[20:46:17] Ben Campbell leaves the room
[20:47:58] Adam Roach leaves the room
[20:51:54] Benson Schliesser joins the room
[20:54:41] Adam Roach joins the room
[20:58:25] sureshk leaves the room
[21:00:01] Adam Roach leaves the room
[21:22:15] resnick joins the room
[21:28:31] Jari Arkko joins the room
[21:42:05] Benson Schliesser leaves the room
[21:55:17] Jari Arkko leaves the room
[21:56:12] akatlas joins the room
[21:57:42] akatlas leaves the room
[21:58:03] akatlas joins the room
[22:00:56] Benson Schliesser joins the room
[22:01:17] DanYork leaves the room
[22:04:09] Benson Schliesser leaves the room
[22:28:50] resnick leaves the room
[22:32:39] akatlas joins the room
[22:33:22] akatlas leaves the room
[22:33:52] akatlas leaves the room
[22:41:13] tale leaves the room
Powered by ejabberd - robust, scalable and extensible XMPP server Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!