IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] dmarc - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 110

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 11 December 2020 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FEC23A0D40; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:49:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id br44dBHmuLiQ; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:49:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x929.google.com (mail-ua1-x929.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::929]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D06453A0D39; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:49:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x929.google.com with SMTP id f16so3103876uav.12; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:49:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LEpLtxDIbHvaOawc93uU4ma4Yd0JThCsNoMS9TcgZrg=; b=iCwmvHGWbnNJ3FaP5Qx5aYZxGI4p8WFK2nimFTVpbO8QGinJn4Aeki4gDPTuw1Mnhx kktZ2YyP/G65zCJCzmSVWvtco/KHr/kFpqAYhE11QxUtVg5QJwrm2CGTztnKy/SsjD7G luuTjexYPOqqos4B2NJQZq//dDYtSk57ygUOPT5LpwCEj3u3+as67kUYJgxTkjdI6zyI DLS8NINnFk8O44SEvfj5tq8SjYcuS8Mee4hDZlHL1KcohzxAIwje+dnv7vXrC4zM0V07 TY10NEaBrvvJSDYvBNZeGnsIzVedQvFqNzAd6bc/wIv5A7D5ReCeFeBzt6nDcWXDJz1v ofYw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LEpLtxDIbHvaOawc93uU4ma4Yd0JThCsNoMS9TcgZrg=; b=P8BIoloUECSaXoz7nzUTA3/xENQadj2h/VXwvgX0y4w1A64XT+3y5lO2qKJOwIQwqY mFc9Tod8HhhorvUp3IqczyovdwaEnezN9FvmIR6WsZ5KUTM8G72uXCnVs9YqMZe637rC DVR4CZflak2qxSE0F9IY4KcVfsFOCLcHHy6xfHKX9TJYubKpf05/6J0qP10N/PzMV1ES NTQYQ6C8IAcq3kMEUp3y+SBPL8esW+F+gpUwtZVLdXPilIfQAxBvINzB/VPvRwI8Owi+ k8W3ydiDb4mAYW/BZsGDnrnPvOaZpx9J3HdYnwWHCmaC7FBzRqpcrUnszJ4CxiFr+xxK TZ6Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530oCIEguFkZ+0paZ4owtRP2pMK7gVEmyRAID6EfN4RJg5UTiZwy 8DCTmqtayr9iMzxyP9GBiWSfm5PRIzVWtKuhSMU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzvr5SqHIHUVrW9XA4mruv+PfRnzGzTKfu1PqZls+RnQzi4nq9/OiqfHetRD13/l8AY4ytWnJtbRFre27A4AyE=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:2997:: with SMTP id u23mr14656153uap.67.1607708983621; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:49:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160745190172.15620.17081247178872475062@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABuGu1okiT+3kD-WDfEvVf=ccKFL3eB0eH8XWO0NfmCe5SVfMQ@mail.gmail.com> <65714d6f-1074-4cb6-a939-6b8ef07e907a@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <65714d6f-1074-4cb6-a939-6b8ef07e907a@www.fastmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:49:31 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaRNrX6pY3OyGvzAF7-BWodTH09z3ALSEO-tRB5hbDiog@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Cc: Kurt Andersen <kboth@drkurt.com>, "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000defc2d05b633eacd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/P-uP3_4DdkFOJR_yNNL2ILVvrkY>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] dmarc - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 110
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 17:49:46 -0000

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 8:59 AM Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
wrote:

> Murray will correct me if I am wrong, but I have several comments:
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, at 12:37 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
>
> I'm wondering why we should wait for IETF110 rather than having an interim
> meeting sooner. Interim meetings are also likely to garner greater
> participation since they do not include participation fee. If there are
> topics worthy of F2F discussion, why wait? If there are not, then why
> charge people to join a pointless meeting?
>
> 1). All online IETFs this year had "free attendence" option. If people can
> afford to pay to attend, they should, as this supports RFC publication
> cost, cost of online meetings, etc. But people can attend for free if needs
> be.
> As far as I know this is going to be the case for IETF 110.
>

I concur.  The fee for virtual meetings is less than half that of the usual
in-person meetings since the IETF's costs are obviously lower, but we do
need to keep the lights on.  For people that can't afford to participate
otherwise, there is a fee waiver program available.

I suggest that this working group has enough of a work queue before it that
having both an interim meeting and a scheduled session at IETF 110 is
certainly worth considering.

-MSK, ART AD

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email