Re: [111attendees] test

Diego Dujovne <> Fri, 23 July 2021 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED1E3A085E for <>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 6QskDMgTPS8U for <>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 733603A0854 for <>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y18so2336669oiv.3 for <>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=16H4IU2JUJ0Sn95zBdLmdJqMLKAvJeecEDzc6RUo0YE=; b=GBtZUHJYcZ70+6Q9w51bIWb5fZOEI7cXIs9/slQyMuqYWmkWm7TUvC4l1c1Zo74Rmf L4V7pgKdzAFmNmPF3X0X/xxC/xYRz05ok3ISm3ik2DgSe0lneKOCmJZDxHIWUsMLngTr 78tl4Z3fXroBkXl5FBSUGA4NZ9lMkFs7kvX+0aLIkU0WGpw0oYpiOOHeEMoQ+P93pzb0 P4IOGbifjGhHbsmqfDkFCy6ERVxLyhE7jdrusZc/gvKvqu+UCae4gn9Ecygf95KfdVA+ nOjBW3z4xU/cPtiMiKzLuT/Sun+okucRcRki7vap7/S4DcfgmNU20z68Q6fqyNBSab8Y kKsw==
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=16H4IU2JUJ0Sn95zBdLmdJqMLKAvJeecEDzc6RUo0YE=; b=IMYQqOFH2lrUraaxVaXoJ1bf1B0GPdNa0CWIgLAVmyDIAenTpxXEmD+REUbUFPc7i6 hroAtixupUgfT0eiQaBcS1gkMlwv6hqpgT1OF53B+aAqvCvVOevaTfh3wY7O1fgkqedt zxFecA7SL9mTg3nQEIj0Ge7kP0a2stcn8s2f/QMDQty3QbzwM+uZGurYYkz6Ekf6sFJU 4z+mloM6sDJPKDByJDlDSL/QKRFZrMuwo/pcEeRfhgyoplkV5dPyGss74AnYV5+4VSXg gztBa0T4saxge4kBcX1TPtIK+3iRZo06T8ujCGpi5hENh7TLL4hQBn0hA2gKNaloIGQ9 4VoQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531YY9DW5zKQeP+gU5aDQiul1Wrcg2C8005L3gVfw+GH2cr/TAO3 DvoDRz61LJAH68XHiS9NcTykzfH8fi2h8Zvvdms=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwxXMHRqSkysrezIQCcCe/dPMvthIhufsTLsy+ehMeB5Mn6pQhdmeT6ZQtBGajKYDbPDcoyuTlNz3ZI0y0PQfg=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:241a:: with SMTP id n26mr3526464oic.35.1627056148180; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Diego Dujovne <>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:02:16 -0300
Message-ID: <>
To: Robert Moskowitz <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bdf3c205c7cc8720"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [111attendees] test
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 111 attendees <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:02:41 -0000

Just wondering what would be to have different simultaneous
locations for the same IETF.
If travelling abroad is either difficult
because of quarantine requirements, or too risky,
maybe travelling to another city or cities inside borders could
be a solution. I think an arrangement with exclusive use of a co-work
or meeting sites with remote connections during IETF is something
between a single-site IETF and everybody at home.
This may help to solve remote working issues and
reduce travel expenses.
My two cents.


On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 12:49 PM Robert Moskowitz <>

> And is the IETF schedule time shift a pain.
> I tell my family, I am 'working' from 3pm - 9pm next week.  Do not
> disturb; I will squeeze dinner in there somehow.
> Oh, but all the other groups are still having their meetings 9am - 5pm,
> and I have to attend them.  So a 12 hour day.  We do such things away in
> hotels at the conferences, but at home, the families don't get it.
> 2 advantages of F2F:  Face-to-face.  Dedicated attention to work.
> With some time to 'play' in the lobby and elsewhere!
> On 7/23/21 11:30 AM, David Brown wrote:
> Even corporately, for someone like myself, where my IETF participation is
> just a small part of my job. It isn't too difficult to justify the small
> charge for online participation. Once travel is factored in, the in-person
> participation becomes much more difficult to justify. This is the main
> reason that I've only been able to participate, so far, online. I've
> appreciated how much better that works for me, with these ones where
> everyone is on line.
> Online is challenging when there is a drastic timezone difference. With
> on-site travel, it is easier to adapt, since everything around you is in
> the new timezone. It doesn't work so well with remote participation.
> David
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 9:08 AM Marie-Jose Montpetit <
>> wrote:
>> Another aspect that needs some thoughts is cost.
>> In person participation even if you live in an Airbnb, a 2* hotel or with
>> friends and not at the 5* IETF hotels (even at reduced rates) is a major
>> monetary investment. If we want go get more people involved this has to be
>> in the equation. I am IRTF of course but to get more academic participation
>> the economics are part of it.
>> But there is more: participants without corporate accounts (see costs
>> above), with family or teaching obligations or with other issues have
>> always participated remotely. So we can just extend it?
>> And while I really want to start seeing you guys again we need to be
>> realistic.
>> mjm
>> Marie-Jose Montpetit, Ing. Ph.D.
>> On Jul 23, 2021, at 10:53 AM, Carsten Bormann <> wrote:
>> Hi Ted,
>> You approach this from the angle we have been using for a decade now:
>> remote participation as a backpack on a local meeting.  As you say, that
>> doesn’t work too well.
>> Covid-19 gives us a unique chance to actually have the majority of the
>> IETF participants (and not just the weird ones :-) be online.
>> Re failures: I would prefer not to have them, instead of worrying how the
>> characteristics of the meeting will change when we do have them.  (I
>> remember the plenary when the power in the hotel failed…  IIRC, we just
>> stopped the meeting for half an hour; but I’m sure there were productive
>> discussions between the people in the room during this time, and that is
>> fine.)
>> Hybrid meetings failed in the past because there was no collective
>> discipline to operate in this way.
>> (The backpack thing.  Remote people are weird, and we’ll make “best
>> effort” (i.e., not much at all) to accommodate them.  That, again, is
>> changing.)
>> All that said, I don’t mind *some* advantages for people who actually
>> travel; but I’m sure those advantages will be on the hallways and not in
>> the meetings.
>> Grüße, Carsten
>> --
>> 111attendees mailing list
>> --
>> 111attendees mailing list
> --
> 111attendees mailing list