Re: [106attendees] Power strips ?

Warren Kumari <> Fri, 22 November 2019 04:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 440021208E1 for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 20:56:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OklkkvD9Zwjo for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 20:56:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::836]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13B2D12002F for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 20:56:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 14so6461867qtf.5 for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 20:56:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YTI3Jid/2VPQJobnneIIZXmNupVtGFihUR5Wj6aO3vQ=; b=YHjTt41B2YDqAuOugW4deBxu0IykHZc5AUEzwcgpJJ6DzP8sJK8wgzvEIJhgJenOTU O7++vtrqyrkt5jQcC3+rRhKs6+rTO/x1H+oDES8fGYEAyIpXhzVoxWEeaaBYmeuWS3O7 OX+cLp5xUuk1oRi5bxgf7hoGufshoX4GgxeRKgaOYiyFDLLINt5/Ee9YCiJuySvcEgwC 8lTLYKXV5ayWBmY/0AlQD5bStv836jRqxzoYxBrEN9soo8NIlf6uV+czBeFgoFFJYPEY gH238kxXEs/7qFkIjyj9rdROVK3ZG/jW8qj0+fn9l6MQ3CzuMvqBYwfoL2AQEGjOv+c1 F3vQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YTI3Jid/2VPQJobnneIIZXmNupVtGFihUR5Wj6aO3vQ=; b=eGvRQsM+4n12H/WY6qvl2mRhLAZ9FFzmTKSPk4mHJXLLcfqA+0h7agaE1Z6h3bHWv9 SBNYId/haxb3UN83JtRWBnWPopsp+Yw287TN1c75fuBDD74sRivXBXwWg/dBfaGfhmw/ 7/7jdZUJJaXfo5s4WlprlByZT7LNvsVyxILC1ojwt6WVb3e/WZpEYEgZJQrk8hxcE6ry ma+Gbosz/Z1W/JnZ7JxLF+4Dn5MZ7Be8CZzjkw0U/uOfBW5oTn3tI2uCmeoTgVSB+5oB +GVwepm/xFcy3SB31dDYzCkJAM1FJ8w5ts0N1tFLnqO1TTf++J31UyQTg2Vq5qt2lpGG wFEg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUWyKDJuuaz1X33sGsi6HjVbcSujC1GvDuiYVvXw0dtAthErs5u rB2r30RJDXYwOFhMMlBdf1CxqFC1PxNE5/7E/TlT7g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqysBWR8vUOXVf5TpdakiAHYcNIgFfgIZ7k2lkDO91r04uDmc9TcmQNlHliMR/prgznS4/+pac4osIqeQidd7CY=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:36b8:: with SMTP id a53mr4180142qtc.279.1574398567901; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 20:56:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Warren Kumari <>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:55:29 +0800
Message-ID: <>
To: John Levine <>
Cc:, Barry Leiba <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [106attendees] Power strips ?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list of all 106 attendees for official communication <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 04:56:12 -0000

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:01 PM John Levine <> wrote:
> In article <> you write:
> >As I noted, ICANN does it, and it works.  We could find out from them
> >what sorts of costs and approvals are involved, but they don't seem to
> >have problems with their not being allowed.
> ICANN apparently sends so much stuff to their meetings that it fills
> several shipping containers.  We learned this several meetings ago
> when one of the containers got lost.

And by "lost" you mean "caught on fire!!!!" (actually, this wasn't the
ICANN container which caught alight, but it was affected by nearby
fire -- more info here:
). It's easy to forget that a: networks rely on physical thingies, and
b: logistics are hard and c: planning for all eventualities is also

If the same thing happened to the IETF network gear, we would be
scrambling to deal -- ICANN could "simply" buy their way out of the
issue, but the vast majority of IETF gear is donated, we don't have
N+1 of everything, nor an easy way to put down a credit-card and say
"another pile of your finest routers / switches / servers / wireless
please, good sir..."


>  A quick look at the ICANN budget
> suggests that even though they are roughly the same size as our meetings,
> typically 1000 people, they cost twice as much.  (This is the cost.  Their
> meeting revenue is deliberately zero so it's not comparable.)
> I'm pretty sure this is not a direction that the IETF would like to go.
> R's,
> John
> --
> 106attendees mailing list

I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.