Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse

John C Klensin <> Thu, 07 April 2016 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C124212D1D7 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xk0n4AeJgHxx for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6A8D12D11D for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) 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 <>
To: Ted Lemon <>, Dave Crocker <>
Subject: Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <09ff01d1905c$f15d4e70$d417eb50$> <> <0a5801d19086$79f40e30$6ddc2a90$> <> <>
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-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
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: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 16:34:46 -0000

--On Thursday, April 07, 2016 12:23 -0300 Ted Lemon
<>; 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.