Re: interop dates

Ted, we had already figured that out.  We were not expecting to use IETF 
facilities - if we had considered that it would only have been under the 
assumption that we paid for the space.  Dave and I were going to see what 
the IETF management said.  You solved the problem for us.
___________________
Patricia Egen Consulting
www.egenconsulting.com
423-875-2652



Ted Hardie <[email protected]> 
Sent by: [email protected]
04/20/2004 20:37

To
Lyndon Nerenberg <[email protected]>, [email protected]
cc

Subject
Re: interop dates







The IETF has no position on other groups meeting before or after
scheduled plenary meetings; that is the business of the people planning
to attend.  It does have various things to say about using the
IETF's meeting facilities (if you want the IETF to pay for the room,
or use the IETF network, and so on).  Naming it as an IETF
activity if it is not tends to raise hackles as well.  It is also 
notoriously
difficult to get the scheduling of an IETF meeting right, so
counting on the Calsch meeting being early in the week
in order to achieve overlap may be difficult.  The secretariat
will try to handle requests made by the chair, but there
are always a lot of eggs in air.

                                                 regards,
                                                                 Ted 
Hardie




At 4:44 PM -0700 04/20/2004, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>--On 2004-4-20 9:49 AM -0700 [email protected] wrote:
>
>>This is right before the IETF meeting in San Diego (1 - 6 August) so
>>it  could be tied to that, in which case doing it 30/31
>>(Friday/Saturday) would  be better. Ideally having it at the IETF
>>hotel would be good too. If the  calsch WG meeting could be scheduled
>>early in the week that might encourage  a larger attendance from
>>those at the interop who might stay over.
>
>Doesn't the IETF frown upon other group "co-locating" meetings with 
>IERTF meetings? ISTR another group trying this (an IMC IMAP interop 
>perhaps? It's been quite a few years now ...) and the IETF 
>objecting. You should probably check this with Ned just in case.
>
>--lyndon