Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 07 April 2016 16:34 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 C124212D1D7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 xk0n4AeJgHxx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6A8D12D11D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1aoCt0-00078J-S6; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 12:34:26 -0400
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 12:34:21 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
Message-ID: <BCF66170D3B05FCAAD0EAE51@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=21nqO2ctfKgdDHK_xmJohsLCBAP4z8Tu_XrDH4DUPoA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <09ff01d1905c$f15d4e70$d417eb50$@olddog.co.uk> <5705C39E.30807@dcrocker.net> <0a5801d19086$79f40e30$6ddc2a90$@olddog.co.uk> <570677BC.9000900@dcrocker.net> <CAPt1N1=21nqO2ctfKgdDHK_xmJohsLCBAP4z8Tu_XrDH4DUPoA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/E3h5gsbZijPCW3_c6I1Ba6jG9-M>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 16:34:46 -0000
--On Thursday, April 07, 2016 12:23 -0300 Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote: > Dave, how would it complicate the negotiation process to > simply say "we are considering the following cities for future > IETFs: does anybody know of an issue that they want to raise > with any of these?" We don't have to say when, or how > definite. It's hard to see how this would cause > problems--can you explain? Exactly. Singapore may be a special case because it is a "city=country" one but, other than Luxembourg, there are relatively few others of those that are likely candidates for discussion. I'm not suggesting supplying padding, but I assume that there are multiple places that might be considered in any of those regions (and even countries between them) and identifying a list of them and asking the question Ted suggests should not be an issue. I also can't imagine why doing that would get in the way of negotiations, at least unless the process has turned into "let's go to Timbuktu, now let's start negotiating with hotels there". Independent of other issues with that city, I'd suggest that, if the model comes down to that, we'd be in bad trouble for other reasons, so I assume it hasn't. It would be better if cities were eliminated before a call for proposals was issued but, even if one were issued that included several cities, I don't see huge problems if some candidate venues were eliminated because we decided their cities or countries were off-limits: it would really be no different from a solicitation and contracting standpoint than eliminating one because our preliminary investigations concluded that adequate connectivity was impossible for that city. >... john
- "We did not know" is not a good excuse Adrian Farrel
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse Dave Crocker
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse Melinda Shore
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse Harish Pillay
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse Melinda Shore
- RE: "We did not know" is not a good excuse Adrian Farrel
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse Harish Pillay
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse Melinda Shore
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse Harish Pillay
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse John C Klensin
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse lloyd.wood
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse Dave Crocker
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse Ted Lemon
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse Stewart Bryant
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse John C Klensin
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse Dave Crocker
- RE: "We did not know" is not a good excuse Adrian Farrel
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse Stefan Winter
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse John C Klensin
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse Stewart Bryant
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse John Levine
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse Dave Crocker
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse HANSEN, TONY L
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse John C Klensin
- Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse Lee Howard