Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

"Brian Ford (brford)" <> Fri, 03 February 2017 11:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26160129405; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 03:55:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.719
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DyiCO40lEWyJ; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 03:55:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 191EF128B44; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 03:55:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=6449; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1486122935; x=1487332535; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=FxY0slJXvRr62VqjL5jYhwRtKdNkeha8AOBRQp0bSm8=; b=JGy7fUopFgMrJH7mTZfhiY+Il8MkGsnExa+u5x5wuKMriiN7UXf/nuBf nc4PiPNQa3sxZDiB8netOqXW+m1zY3QPySmun9PciaS+E+zo+swi5C8Ms kpw8Ueh7+7H5bvBud/6RJRXKNTDXFR1L/ofV3oWlBJr57tIbttOjcDVYz k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,328,1477958400"; d="scan'208,217";a="380218660"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 03 Feb 2017 11:55:33 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v13BtX9b022523 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 3 Feb 2017 11:55:33 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 05:55:32 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 05:55:32 -0600
From: "Brian Ford (brford)" <>
To: Naeem Khademi <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Thread-Topic: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Thread-Index: AQHSemMdtz+BYbM/YUyZmAb3LjspL6FRbwdAgADps4mABL0G54AAHlEp
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 11:55:32 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A149FF2AB86648399422BDE77905EC7Dciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Randal Atkinson <>, IETF <>
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: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 11:55:37 -0000

Is it really necessary to punish the entire list with this garbage?

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 3, 2017, at 5:07 AM, Naeem Khademi <<>> wrote:

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Randal Atkinson <<>> wrote:

> On 31Jan2017, at 04:44, Naeem Khademi <<>> wrote:
> The next IETF in the US after Chicago, would be in July 2018 in SF. I don't think it's even possible
> to buy a flight ticket for that time as of now (most airlines wouldn't do such pre-sale). So, it's pretty
> much possible to relocate that meeting elsewhere with causing no loss to anyone's already-made plans.

The claim above that "most airlines won't sell 6 months in advance" is false.

Since you're quoting me (calling it "claim above"), I have a hard time finding the exact text you're referring to in my writing ;-). I stated that most airlines wouldn't do such a pre-sale for July 2018 (IETF @SF) which happens 16 months in the future, so I stay correct.


Most airlines, including all or nearly all major full-service international airlines, start selling tickets
at least 12 months before the departure date for the 1st flight on an itinerary.

To my knowledge, there are some people who already have purchased tickets to go to IETF in SFO.
This really ought not be surprising as the lowest-cost fares often sell-out earliest.  A number of
IETF people don't work for big companies and are traveling on their own money.   Those people
would suffer greatly from a change in location less than 12 months out.

I am aware that some have suggested the IETF do more remote meetings.  I think that is worth

I certainly would support IETF making all future meetings more accessible remotely  - and I think
that is a goal the IETF has been making progress on for some years now, using Jabber, VTC,
and so forth.  Expanding the remote access capabilities and coverage for all future meetings
(to the extent that is practical at a given point in time) only makes sense.



Recentattendees mailing list<>