![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
One option however would be to seek 'partnerships' between vendors andI suspect that this would indeed be a question.
the IETF that span more than one meeting. Unless that impacted the
perceived 'neutrality' of the IETF and its standardisation processes.
To invoke a particularly apt cliche punchline: we are merely haggling about price.
One of the services that ISOC provides to the IETF is a layer of indirection for sponsors; they give money into a pool administered by ISOC (and get a seat on the ISOC AC in return), but the procedures make it pretty clear that they do not get any direct influence over the IETF standardization process that way.
As for whose name is on the sponsorship check, I don't care.
Among the issues Ray could want to calculate would be:
sounds like some good examples.
One option I do NOT want to consider (and which the 770 stand in the lobby kind of dented a little) is to add a tradeshow to the IETF meeting. The next steps in that progression have been travelled before - soon, the tradeshow has a standards adjunct, not the other way around.
Yes, this is an important danger to pay close attention to.
d/ --
Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.