Re: A distinction along Pete's dimensions

Dave Crocker <> Thu, 07 April 2016 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A26DA12D613 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 16:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RH7xLfjgVfsI for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 16:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C1B712D1ED for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 16:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u37NIlc9028023 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 7 Apr 2016 16:18:47 -0700
Subject: Re: A distinction along Pete's dimensions
To: John C Klensin <>, " Discussion" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 16:18:45 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Thu, 07 Apr 2016 16:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 23:18:49 -0000

On 4/7/2016 3:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> The two cases may be hard to distinguish from a distance, but
> they are very different.

I'm going to suggest that, in practical terms for the IETF, it doesn't 

It doesn't matter because none of the theory or formal issues can be 
reliably and accurately applied for issues of social concern.

What matters is whatever the community decides it cares about at the 
time we are looking at the area.

Here's my logic:

    While some regions -- especially Asia -- have been challenging for 
finding venues, we already have an extensive track-record of finding 
places the community deems acceptable.  Consequently, we have safe 
harbors to fall back on, for each of the 3 regions we regularly visit.

    So when a new country or city is being considered -- and by new, I 
think I mean 'we have never been there', but perhaps we need to leave 
room for reconsideration of previously-visited places? -- we float the 
general countries and maybe cities to the community and wait for support 
and objections.

Whatever criteria the community chooses to apply at that time are the 
relevant criteria.  No theory or modeling or documentation or even 
consistency -- and especially no guessing and no errors by an anointed 
body -- are required.



   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking