Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled

Alexandre Petrescu <> Sun, 15 March 2020 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEADD3A1D43 for <>; Sun, 15 Mar 2020 15:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.669
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id grZVjOCy0jCg for <>; Sun, 15 Mar 2020 15:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E15153A1D45 for <>; Sun, 15 Mar 2020 15:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 02FMIgha028636 for <>; Sun, 15 Mar 2020 23:18:42 +0100
Received: from (localhost []) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 07A95202F4F for <>; Sun, 15 Mar 2020 23:18:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1A6E201CE3 for <>; Sun, 15 Mar 2020 23:18:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 02FMIdl5021227 for <>; Sun, 15 Mar 2020 23:18:40 +0100
Subject: Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 23:18:39 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: fr
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: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 22:18:47 -0000

Le 15/03/2020 à 13:24, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
> According to a documentary displayed yesterday in the TV, it looks like there are (up to now) 2 models to combat the propagation of the virus:
> 1) Chinese model, which is the same adopted in Italy and now Spain, quarantining everyone via an "alarm state" law. You can go to work only if needed, do shopping for food, but not go out of home for visiting friends, sports or fun. Only food shops can remain open, and a few other exceptions (pharmacies, banks).
> 2) The S. Korean model, which is testing lots of people and quarantine only for those that don't pass the test.
> It looks like the S. Korean model is working, so either there are different tests, which are not reading the same, or something else.

Jordi, let me update some thing and then I go to bed.

In France, things change as we speak.  It might be that tomorrow we get 
even more closure (e.g. today 80% transport, but tomorrow might be 0).  
That would amount to what other EU capitals measures in place, like 
close metro.  The issue in France was today about Elections.  Democracy 
is a fundamental issue.  Emergency state of affairs means some strong 
measures, some might not accept, and it might mean enforcement.  This is 

At my work place, I can tell that there were at least three 
announcements even today, which is a Sunday, in plus than what we had 
end of last week.  Their stance is towards more and more telling 
employees clearly to stay at home (rather than just recommending as a 
good practice), except the critical persons (critical work).  I need to 
mention my work place, because it is for my work place that I 
participate to IETF.

That tells me that among the models you mention above, it might be that 
we in France might head towards a model that you say China, Italy and 
Spain.  It might be that we wasted precious days.

Or it might not.


> Maybe someone from S. Korea can tell?
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> El 15/3/20 11:06, "ietf en nombre de Rich Kulawiec" < en nombre de> escribió:
>      On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:07:12AM -0500, Mary B wrote:
>      > Just one comment on your item #1 in your proposal.   Your body does not
>      > immediately develop the antibodies upon exposure, so you can be a carrier
>      > well before you'll test positive. You'd also selfishly be adding to the
>      > burden on the system for testing.
>      This is absolutely correct.  Hospitals here are trying to clear
>      out as many non-critical cases as possible, to postpone any
>      surgical procedures that they can, to stockpile supplies, to give
>      staff as much rest as they can, etc.  They are expecting the worst
>      and anything that we can all do to decrease the need for care
>      across the entire population will help.
>      ---rsk
> **********************************************
> 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.