Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107

Brian E Carpenter <> Fri, 13 March 2020 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3B863A0B48 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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 8L73judtUG9G for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:27:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F3CD3A0B6D for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 23so5848037pfj.1 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=U25iFPsbw2U4C4ZFGoW1b7YNIGGD86tcCDYZvFb08QA=; b=cJLz2rOF/aCnOKEfXItCkMAB/+kFm+KkkEnqRhrUaK0ofPFg7RSln4yuNOhqPxIUiH Um5F9FFERO+LFCvMqpd/fMXXctLET8ylNLdmN7dqqO2PAlIqvixe8JU8p6IIQyHLsk7v Of1P7szDSvpZldFDbtnMSQSIi6oQnMOavLbq/auPmhuy0mYhVV0EI5JcjdS6dCqqLtZN Y8QoaCoKkAbx7wJzVePQbQRJP5jCvjIrvp/8ADxTlDi08vlT6sBUaaWVMQ9CRw4HkaVj B9WSto24iZE3nlVZBGca5t8bLR2pCYVTcYcH4qjLcKdNRAnu98gjSmsgFkgUlAcrSTVU 4TGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=U25iFPsbw2U4C4ZFGoW1b7YNIGGD86tcCDYZvFb08QA=; b=PGm48tdmaR8rdG+3KQ82Ys+t/9Xx/Fl6R8fDFlruOVLKFSyRx0n2IzIahCsZ5rgcqB y7pt55vFa6B+BY0R7iEmdrAGIcFFhbD3SKS7cc1WvKaFhxpuRok5TBjE6jrN0iBmCvKo zgdTIclyAWI8LOnejisksb/WYE0KbnMlj9NZyNlV6QkxYoVxdy2HGmyUqF9ru36UKFPN rEChQubLVGIes4nm/sEGkrG75d0M/9u8Ktol9e1MfKn+bwA3RwRVHMKvAc+ZRMP8Fl/j P7Zy+5eWazy8hBneu/c/v4siFWaaNqWMaF/lCT1ADk8bWbSjFW58pPDYyFc3dkgg9hcC MsTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ25rKLIlwJuYiY6wmfZocPBzn2+VIKOpGZ891Sh9QGrcC0fgiH1 rl+o871Wqgwo/bcZMWxI0uaEYIG7
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vuUuHcCfFqyIJ3Ae/x8bPsiFYb45KSAOEIDw4Fx?= =?utf-8?q?i0XSo058otwO5sePqjA2BgeULh48Bki/iQ=3D=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:8643:: with SMTP id x64mr14058680pgd.108.1584127655426; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id e184sm6308115pfh.219.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107
References: <> <C9E8B3DAE355FAD80C21236C@PSB>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 08:27:27 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C9E8B3DAE355FAD80C21236C@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:27:45 -0000

I agree that having a contingency plan for this would be wise and
if we make it reasonably future-proof it would not be wasted effort
if IETF108 takes place normally. Could we possibly discuss it over
on eligibility-discuss, where presumably the people interested are
already to be found?

   Brian Carpenter

On 14-Mar-20 03:45, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Friday, March 13, 2020 09:43 -0400 Barry Leiba
> <> wrote:
>> The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 meeting raises the
>> issue of how that meeting affects NomCom (Nominating
>> Committee) eligibility. This is especially important because a
>> new NomCom will be formed between now and IETF 108, giving us
>> all a fairly short time to figure out what to do.
> Barry,
> Forking the thread in the hope of not cluttering up your NomCom
> eligibility discussion, but...
> We seem to be making strong assumptions that we will be able to
> hold IETF 108 as planned, with f2f meetings in Madrid in late
> July.  I suggest that the IESG (and the rest of us) think about
> that and so sooner rather than later.  Our implicit assumption
> is that things will settle down enough that IETF 108 can be held
> normally and that we do not need to worry about a "new normal".
> The infectious disease specialists and epidemiologists among my
> colleagues is this novel coronavirus really is new in several
> ways and, consequently, that we really cannot predict how
> quickly the period of maximal spread and risks will wind down by
> July.  That may be likely, but it is by no means certain.  
> So, it seems to me that we should be sorting out possible issues
> and making contingency plans about the conditions under which
> IETF 108 would need to be virtual too, including both things
> tied to the first or second meeting of the year and to how we do
> things.   The circumstances that came upon us in the last six
> weeks gave us little choice other than making quick decisions.
> I personally think that, on balance, the IESG made reasonable
> decisions and handled things about as well as they could be
> handled, including the short-notice cancellation/ virtual
> conversion and reformed agenda.  But we'd best not have that
> "whoops, big surprise" situation followed by a scramble again,
> if only because of the damage that the loss of the cross-area
> review that has occurred at f2f meetings since the IETF started
> could do to the quality of our work.  
> So, let us -- soon, even if not in the next two weeks -- ask
> ourselves such questions as to how the Nomcom will function if
> it cannot meet f2f at IETF 108 (or 109), whether the possible
> need for the Nomcom to do much more of its work remotely might
> affect whatever advice is given to the ISOC President/CEO about
> candidates for Nomcom Chair, and so on.   And then let's repeat
> that with a review of all of the other issues tied to the
> "second meeting" and how IETF 108 could be made maximally
> effective if we were forced to hold it virtually... including,
> of course, how that decision would be made and by whom.  
> We could still view that as short-term with longer-term analysis
> and solutions to follow.  But July isn't that far away and, if
> things don't get better, we should not have to deal with any
> plausibly-foreseeable situations by being surprised and
> improvising.
> best,
>    john
> .