Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Thu, 02 February 2017 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC4112943E; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 07:58:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ecs.soton.ac.uk
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 gRlCI3WCg6kq; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 07:58:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F87112941A; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 07:58:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v12FwQY5019646; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 15:58:26 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk v12FwQY5019646
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1486051106; bh=grgLkRHRSAcYL7qeFvkQOdZ5E+E=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=jKj7yabIRtfoBlGbCfA34DtA0jfZF8NpIjdh4yJAQQ/2S9ZWrKQYOAPAtX3HSBSLW yaZJxoaW+lWjDb41vEJaBcCE68IpqyTJCqXsvijoBwPagk5+w/R45UGaoMP/dUnPTQ Byjp25f7fncXdpazZV6LzSmzwGmt2wuNV+wk25V8=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id y11FwQ23562107846j ret-id none; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 15:58:26 +0000
Received: from [10.1.11.126] (firewall-lho-ext.management.janet.ac.uk [194.82.140.195]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v12FwNeB032451 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Feb 2017 15:58:23 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <7B01DE73-2908-4602-9D76-9056215033DA@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 15:58:23 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|e79af8b0b5b4f94b1e7da0aa197d5644y11FwQ03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|B2C50F36-F158-4BB4-BC5E-DE59166F1D5E@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> <955df2106aa2e12cefbd450be022e779.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <D36D49EE.35116%jefft0@remap.ucla.edu> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B05266663BF@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <CA+ruDECdMAC2PQqibqQijc-nLHUxOGw0h-ZYyh8FnZZaeZ8sTA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+ruDEBHyzk5cg5Vmq-anKJTxLkZpHrb9APwkfbDGn6FeFzR_w@mail.gmail.com> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B052BD4B85D@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <A0BBD037-851F-4F47-A7F2-44EFC73166AD@consulintel.es> <CAEjQQ5Wbxi0_fEVf3uh1_K=o02KK11jRgGhdpeiBhAojhtt76g@mail.gmail.com> <7B01DE73-2908-4602-9D76-9056215033DA@gmail.com> <B2C50F36-F158-4BB4-BC5E-DE59166F1D5E@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Randal Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=y11FwQ235621078400; tid=y11FwQ23562107846j; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=3:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: v12FwQY5019646
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1cQa17ClYUV3XfguCqPYu4gbALU>
Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" <recentattendees@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 15:58:37 -0000

Hi,

> On 2 Feb 2017, at 15:39, Randal Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 31Jan2017, at 04:44, Naeem Khademi <naeem.khademi@gmail.com>; wrote:
>> 
>> The next IETF in the US after Chicago, would be in July 2018 in SF. I don't think it's even possible
>> to buy a flight ticket for that time as of now (most airlines wouldn't do such pre-sale). So, it's pretty
>> much possible to relocate that meeting elsewhere with causing no loss to anyone's already-made plans.
> 
> The claim above that "most airlines won’t sell 6 months in advance" is false.  
> 
> Most airlines, including all or nearly all major full-service international airlines, start selling tickets 
> at least 12 months before the departure date for the 1st flight on an itinerary.  
> 
> To my knowledge, there are some people who already have purchased tickets to go to IETF in SFO.  
> This really ought not be surprising as the lowest-cost fares often sell-out earliest.  A number of
> IETF people don’t work for big companies and are traveling on their own money.   Those people
> would suffer greatly from a change in location less than 12 months out.
> 
> I am aware that some have suggested the IETF do more remote meetings.  I think that is worth
> exploring. 
> 
> I certainly would support IETF making all future meetings more accessible remotely  — and I think 
> that is a goal the IETF has been making progress on for some years now, using Jabber, VTC, 
> and so forth.  Expanding the remote access capabilities and coverage for all future meetings 
> (to the extent that is practical at a given point in time) only makes sense.

I just tried availability for flights from London to San Francisco for July 2018 IETF.  
None of BA, Virgin or United would offer tickets beyond January 2018. 
Perhaps it’s different for internal flights within the US?

I guess we simply can’t know how many people would be inconvenienced should 
the IETF announce that the July 2018 IETF is relocating to (say) Vancouver. In practice, 
there would be at least some moral obligation to refund those people if there’s no flexibility 
in the tickets.

Certainly being better placed to support remote participation will be increasingly 
important. The IETF has made great strides in recent years with MeetEcho, etc. But no 
doubt more can be done, and now we have an additional very good reason to do so.

Tim