Re: Registration details for IETF 108

Eric Rescorla <> Tue, 02 June 2020 12:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D383A08E6 for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 05:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s-mJLTG2VrPR for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 05:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21F0A3A08E5 for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 05:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c11so12471194ljn.2 for <>; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 05:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rSY8G9Rz+O+m1X3Iez2XFI0uQRUj38JFsrwkeBOOF9s=; b=jGjefSSpt1WNKuvXyOJrN4TGmrGB3mmIfaIoxwejoi6dkArYlBTnKQcmmwDdWiBma/ 1k4/uItvoi03Pk2og92/qoIBb3yDkQ4QNigxWtJBUgkPuk3CszCB0Pzy7opSRAfyDAYk +E8UagyE118f73qYNzbzqG8dKEE5hgIecuCMClMPa50Ga9nzTDkxajqQYIdDgFcbicU+ jp/phQt+WMLW1dKS6ub1D0XxWQD2c8+TMhH0NOtvqtNAnfRz2cEpVEXE2YpszzWAjj0q MSN4M5gzgRsDRcq4czkqHOqvKN5+qngVvgZ1TEN6otvFx14S9qmBi3hea255A2MvFvfY s2Mg==
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=rSY8G9Rz+O+m1X3Iez2XFI0uQRUj38JFsrwkeBOOF9s=; b=ibPuPfXUPoy5yCrqfy2yWzwI0gIJ8k1j75AU0vFeX3xX9B+qUxJR41K4l7USXMKfeo oDOfA2qwftV3W63heAUzTapd8RgqC0FtJnSjV1hM0K75/Gr5KKshnXndeeNQFzceZd7Z Xuiy/KtjmPNJxFlE50v6jvWAjZ9iLRJh4GHcpIp54gABPSH3mEKQP4moGuc1Ow8E1+zp keBgtC1vLHbE5+hE+BpCS7zA17AA3xpg+sOu7ZwNFf4+GeEDfm8CVv+Y7gj/q0gq7+mj +PXLaalN4d6AtU+7Ak4Nc8PgfMD+k7IodhQJNLZ9gdJdWTxmRRx68xBx3nna1qwEcu5S 7N2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5302qN0Oio5GtCriMmMw0j47rKNSl7gevTQx4rJNFzSR1xfwo/R6 aoNpChD2dRbhSOB4yyhbPff93VWCwLDEOhQDt0BZrw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzKAVRrUa3ueO2mQ1k3woLHmUMDxtGA3t5AlM47rC0SdJHUg/56yFr+81CR1L5wbW881oWvtfJU0TvCaAuevEY=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:3609:: with SMTP id d9mr12272444lja.409.1591102659206; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 05:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <D3BA93CD3D2D101946F35024@PSB> <> <01d701d638ca$c096b5e0$41c421a0$>
In-Reply-To: <01d701d638ca$c096b5e0$41c421a0$>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 05:57:02 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
To: Mehmet Ersue <>
Cc: Jay Daley <>, ietf <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cdc70e05a7197425"
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 12:57:55 -0000

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 3:45 AM Mehmet Ersue <> wrote:

> > 6.  We did not consult on this because there is not enough time for an
> effective consultation.  It would probably have been worse to have asked
> people their views and then said sorry we don’t have enough time to change
> anything.
> This is ridiculous as a reason. This is not the usual practice at the IETF
> I know.
> We do discuss openly and develop a consensus after understanding the
> reasons and consequences.
> If it is too late and there is no time to discuss the appropriate decision
> would be to defer such a new rule on fees.

This seems like entirely appropriate practice on short notice. I would note
that the LLC regularly makes decisions which involve a far larger change to
people's costs than the fees -- namely, where to site the meeting --
without consultation, so I while I think it would be good for the LLC to
get feedback on this topic, I don't think there's inherently an obligation
to put it to a community wide call for consensus.

Moreover, as Jason points out, the IETF has charged attendance fees for
some time, so one could view this as a decision to *reduce* fees, in light
of the virtual status.