Re: Registration details for IETF 108

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> Tue, 02 June 2020 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83EE53A0C97; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 09:40:56 -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 DJD4h1dszwiA; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 09:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE4E93A0C91; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 09:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z9so2733444ljh.13; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:40:54 -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=c1UtisbhVF8nXfQkSh31jg/1GNw3v00xk/1J17SB9pI=; b=Fn71hFRnB9R/12mo20I70Q+lo496LSn/PrkAU17yoXr/uGVwsxmaj98nK0yrOXdyHj Q2zUk+S866rMvfjghMzCI4AjltERyqACHH1+65Q7/yzPoNvJoSHU/5l5imcyow36fZWG j5UpIEtFX+ee6DPGlpItFqGvPU5YLoNOXb6uEqCcUkErQL/2h0YkT6WzEm7LDVsEM9tb EJ8dSRJs2YtJ+mCtkZlIrhtrFjcvV5yr+rBbZsL0qZdyMz059IySu9T2irlIpHdTC3cJ 9E4vKe0gixnjMN2LcJIL2fj6O0+5wsKMug8oS8tVLXKoC8VykvWrmOF4/NhsnOGlFF37 ty0w==
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=c1UtisbhVF8nXfQkSh31jg/1GNw3v00xk/1J17SB9pI=; b=LRD5ivjQStYhsHjpsHrLTUJrsOCFxmatqeTbxBoUlkrVaEAw40HY0pSOY/gHwMYgsj NZBDm2RZjbpi+2OJ/3O1kJ1YHsEdtF+qIAd3pZW+rzkLGc3IpXCVnfX1W2iC9JQqAAXf F6CNfJi0PwSZSuecbbysjUfMwfVfYnzpIhTWwy6wxz5npOAOmkBpz3x3CceWtEjlwb1+ 0nEO3vkpQ9JjZ5wAiefrtqpHXijXZiA03socDK2D2aLJ/vKMqhsKAqlCt61CLZB4Rz0e YBZQAMADND5CM/T1BjNeKYr24JFbfbeJyLloE0o8diEvWfWO4wH1UyntS4/C5nk557M7 lb4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531a6rU4XE2t1FACj4PoGTdlENV9T3nrtrtvhaD4QMqG4FACRH9e cS1iQi3oyN/O6i3aI1q/JX4hAroVJa+xTr10r4ASI4FQ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwEQG8Ks0hWEQ4NCQimH7d2/EobAY/fLvsxCLsOGTKH7mejkm8pI0m09kgY6zZMaYfyKyWp9O55bMtrHJqY8Ic=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9cc1:: with SMTP id g1mr6667ljj.191.1591116051448; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 11:40:24 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
To: Jay Daley <>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <>, IETF <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000b095505a71c9324"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 16:40:57 -0000

To the community, not just to Jay,

I'm current on the mail thread as of when I hit "reply all", but am
replying here because that's point in the discussion I had an opinion

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 5:50 PM Jay Daley <> wrote:

> On 2/06/2020, at 10:39 AM, Stephen Farrell <>
> wrote:
> Hiya,
> On 01/06/2020 23:14, Jay Daley wrote:
> Would it still apply when onsite meetings start to happen ?
> No decision has been made about that.
> Would it be sensible to promise/ensure that a community
> discussion that determines direction, within the bounds
> of practicality, precedes, rather than follows, that
> decision? FWIW, I think it would and it's important that
> that be the case. IOW, let's sort out our approach to
> this before the timeframe of IETF109.
> It would be excellent if that could happen.

Speaking only for myself, my IETF 107 wasn't actually canceled all at once,
but enough working group chairs and research group chairs canceled meetings
that I probably should have requested refunds then, instead of waiting for
the IESG's pronouncement. I might have still gone to Vancouver if the IESG
hadn't canceled the face-to-face meeting, but it would have been to show
support for the organization, not to get specific work done.

See the discussion about whether working groups have an incentive to meet
during IETF virtual meeting weeks for more details, but the community
really does have a lot of influence on the decision to resume in-person
meetings, whether anyone else thinks they do, or not.

So, I'm reading Stephan's point about IETF 109 as "if the community is
going to have an opinion about whether IETF 109 is virtual, we should
probably start that discussion, like, now". Did I misread that?

If I'm good so far, my questions are
on this mailing list, or elsewhere?
who's sending the first e-mail to start the discussion?