Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 10 March 2020 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 E2A493A0BBC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 13:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.405
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.405 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.274, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 MrFedTzE_Ka6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 13:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 A44793A0B5E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 13:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.17.121.48] (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 02AK5jd1004707 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:05:46 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1583870746; bh=xpF9sZ0d3Ch8A0wX7QZOV5GigMwHVChUiWlDVwije7s=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Lk0RR6ddE2OsSG8U9AoA7OEiVmr9CXti1tNmnD1CwEUnz+Ea7aKfLt7q/Tjtts9NI iQ0USlhn9Vg/XKeuP+LiJgfKcMPzhYOhhRKH/OKYuMaYl1c2zPNsVWJfWrp4uUuRKK Bys4ygmsN5ZhxeKu+1kRE70KsFRTQCj3fEHqqlCg=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be [172.17.121.48]
Subject: Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <158386742797.16091.1025684270011519738@ietfa.amsl.com> <52EE5E3F-E83A-4F81-8F48-6B94AB0A5C7D@akamai.com> <4B6380B9-CBBB-4275-BDA6-F086D66D6DBA@cooperw.in> <A893CAF9-B9B3-4E1A-9D09-0EEEE996E635@akamai.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <14c51773-4607-bfaa-ec0e-8d0202319188@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:05:39 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A893CAF9-B9B3-4E1A-9D09-0EEEE996E635@akamai.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/BQ9LTOfh2bxNLUo8gOO3_hyArCs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:05:59 -0000

On 3/10/2020 2:42 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Could the LLC have cancelled the meeting?


Yes. Jay laid out the LLC criteria for cancellation in a message sent on 
February 12:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/TA9rALRWCqB2Y1AX9XjSWeX31-w/

He reiterated them on Feburary 24:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/legMcsx2H_OEVLVtyESt_O-7qmY/

I know that the LLC has been monitoring the associated guidelines 
extremely closely.


>    How separate were the tracks?


Completely and entirely.


> The IESG didn't consider health concerns at all?


It would have been inappropriate for us to do so. Operational issues are 
the responsibility of the LLC, and therefore outside the purview of the 
IESG. See RFC 8711, section 4.3 for more information.

/a