Re: IETF 107 and Corona Virus?

Mary B <> Thu, 13 February 2020 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DB4F120125 for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 07:31:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 G7uWONIrd-VH for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 07:31:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD039120121 for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 07:31:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id s85so5285352ill.11 for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 07:31:00 -0800 (PST)
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=Hq6TJ9LT9StUU0tRTwnxfgm0uPhUKrQWl2lsnj1iH8c=; b=tLMVlJQ1pK4CyKmvK23UAVuSZLaOhnVxE05h9RPiaRvLHDtglNJyBN2E25cwe8PBQk Olm9f35cK3LUftULDDW33ozqgvXKHiDN90/C0SKIyaHwOFro1FdFxfG12Byp16qe01Ab aXxVLm+pHDDz6ieJjRSkld5V2H2nASI7gAktNyuqUFfaF1XcEORQhzxC66ZyDEjIBy1m UPjO5gUBy2fEoVwtX9BJgZaEdbo3cYTyxFa2JoCx3TIlUY114Pnk4z90Ee/IfYp/rmhV WrMZVHw85e+AskOfsWblOT42ooMS3mapoILJFAepk+v5k8ll0lzuS0N0dl5NQJqRu7Ja /Gbg==
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=Hq6TJ9LT9StUU0tRTwnxfgm0uPhUKrQWl2lsnj1iH8c=; b=OvC2Sh1hnPmjYwwf1IGeQcX5oIE6PlmqrZnXlyvysqQcZ5dxGiCQiGOsMLP/Sk0SP+ XMEu2QwkMk07XvmIttq8BGarrQMrLIr13TVuHcBbOYVwvLdouT+Z5QRZhnPruLsYEj0h mt5B9d7/fLI7m7dgqLUPX6BUyeUnC/iQ511/mzIxmd4W2yhvms1zr3/RAwtJwDCK09Mk IW7vEiFWcOp70H93vtIqIjtR1/8wu7NewJHjqSfL9pdxvR7XF60L1LGnmNlhQ4Pi0u8e MKOqGHvQn5Eqj8kPCcOFweKg+xsEO6AAWnWl+83mAgviQudOoGTmWoYP85X1vEU6choN BcUA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW19AnZXUgwvqpeQ87APvnKRtANRUQKazUlSpGsC5GTgrpeBuE3 MH6VY2E9iRCGuy2/tIsNoJ+6YhWZ4odFka8H+icZQ4mYpeg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyP5ImATMFkrQLrzDpQtAOgfKJlgRAsmLiZhHLLsHMHOPK0SC5tkt3X/sewI08MWY3XPyn7scwj8c9IPtAZoF0=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:c747:: with SMTP id y7mr15429415ilp.60.1581607859967; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 07:30:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Mary B <>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:30:48 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: IETF 107 and Corona Virus?
Cc: "<>" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aadd1f059e76c6fc"
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: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:31:03 -0000

I agree with Jordi for the most part.  I do think there is some risk that
someone could still get in the country with the current measures in place.
But, I think the risk is nominal. The US is already asking everyone that
enters if they've been in China in the past 14 days.    If you read why
they cancelled MWC, it was to protect the citizens of Barcelona and not the
attendees.  If Vancouver/Canada is still willing to let IETF have the
meeting, then I think we should have it.   Has there been any discussion
with the Canadian government or city of Vancouver on this topic?

Personally, I think there's a lot of fear mongering going on (and yes, I
know this virus is different than others and is spreading more easily since
people are contagious when they are asymptomatic).  My son is at ASU (and
his brother is visiting him right now).  I've told them to use common sense
and wash hands, use hand sanitizer and get to the hospital if they develop
any of the early symptoms.

I think it's possible airlines might eliminate change fees for flights in
cases like this. But, we'll see.

And, to put this into context, the biggest killer in the US right now (I
don't know other countries) is heart disease.  If we really cared about
people's health, we wouldn't be providing cookies and sugary sodas at
breaks.  conditions affecting
heart disease:
"Unhealthy eating patterns. Most Americans, including children, eat too
much sodium (salt), which increases blood pressure. Replacing foods high in
sodium with fresh fruits and vegetables can help lower blood pressure. But
only 1 in 10 adults is getting enough fruits and vegetables each day. Diet
high in trans-fat, saturated fat, and added sugar increases the risk factor
for heart disease."

And, for the IETF demographics, for the vast majority influenza & pneumonia
aren't even in the list of top 10 reasons for death (2017 stats) (and not
all pneumonia is caused by the flu but we know pneumonia is the leading
cause of death in flu cases)

As someone else pointed, it should be up to each individual to make their
own decision based on risk and anyone can participate remotely.


On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:51 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=> wrote:

> And then will you cover the expenses (flights, hotels) of people that has
> booked it already, because I don't think the IETF has an insurance to cover
> for it.
> In the case of the Mobile Congress, they said the cost is over 450 million
> euros for the cancellation, plus claims that may come. It is a totally
> different level and it only make sense because big companies decided not to
> participate.
> But in the case of IETF we are individuals, not companies and the size of
> the meeting, and consequently the risks are totally different. Clearly the
> Canada government will not allow anyone with risk of infecting others to
> come into the country, so the IETF is already covered by that.
> There is no such reason to cancel it. It will be only needed if our
> meeting is in China.
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> El 13/2/20 15:35, "ietf en nombre de Alexandre Petrescu" <
> en nombre de> escribió:
>     I think it should be cancelled.
>     It is not a good perspective to cancel something that is dear, but
> under
>     exceptional circumstances there might be need of exceptional measures.
>     Alex
>     Le 13/02/2020 à 07:48, Andrew Alston a écrit :
>     > Hi All,
>     >
>     > I am just wondering if there are any thoughts on the status of the
> IETF 107 meeting in light of the corona virus.
>     >
>     > Particularly in light of the fact that for safety reasons mobile
> world congress has been cancelled and we're seeing other events being
> cancelled in light of this as well.  Should it be considered a safe and
> responsible move to go ahead with this meeting or should we be looking at
> an entirely virtual meeting in light of the situation?
>     >
>     > Andrew
>     >
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> The IPv6 Company
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.