Re: Fees after IETF 108 [Registration details for IETF 108]

Ted Hardie <> Wed, 03 June 2020 03:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF05B3A123A for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 20:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aiYyLYDpCZ2S for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 20:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C71E3A1239 for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 20:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b3so512974oib.13 for <>; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 20:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2OFpOFPlqGLnWCsFsrESLEBgJGfB7SztH6afcnWqHy8=; b=XKs49p6a9Kh2P1JIERAP32O5WWx64LrxMPUD9+G3qx/yPxM12byFMCMk5KXYEMBMiU 1V48Kkc70mfZ9JPWaFuoGrU0WE4G/B2Aobx697RFSmvcUal0If318C0J5ElDOWGLiBve hLC1kXfq5FTzIHsRQq/DjLY+QOi5nT/V2/6KeRmciLZKLpioiKHY3RW/Rdn6HIt+O7jf 5mVF71qQNPVVOTEpscilLCsJxamIljKVYjlQUDttiJl8nfg6J2CUnPO+cg0xyhDngTNG s+KlSYB4v02bJddCMPW6eYlqK4Mcpt5fjW48LhLkiJyyyMGYNnHfcJyd5GMuojaXPLhP Gr2g==
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=2OFpOFPlqGLnWCsFsrESLEBgJGfB7SztH6afcnWqHy8=; b=uI1Yf13Am8yonhAvzlnD3WVMh0f7GP1em+rAkaGChtY0BeTAseJ2saiDRY8YU0sXp/ /RoJD9RYsaU08PFrTebVkYGP9eqvRtPaViVdg3xNOYjBwjnIKPNVI5ynXuGCoppV1zq0 x+Y64zHsUx2Li/COt6F0R448uNW5iRj7JLLL/aZ7hWrYQiS9EnBz4O/a6FKW+w1fyOJE 8bPJ1SYO4dcz3Cv8V9jHJphTy6QZ9WOfG+4ksa11e3hJ8pzitEX2lJB079DPslTe/4Jf p7WBQ/AgqY3PbqC3ClOVMifk3BCHR1QhiqFoChqHmMT9hncot4L8J+0ZdZctQdkkYBXr ebRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532fYoTm7SZNkJElQSy68/MiOX2zwZyvrjM/N/W/M7C4NrMuZo+5 E6sMla4VmTMTyJKHE77EGT9TyY+Svr38oNAhsqo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxPm4Z3TFSXBlFm5vva7dQ4rei2Z9UDMKSURwD6qdLX1M6dH8XIdnQ8b/2vopaaY7mHWj6H2rn0TpYM7MwdvKM=
X-Received: by 2002:a54:4795:: with SMTP id o21mr2555542oic.74.1591155047126; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 20:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <D3BA93CD3D2D101946F35024@PSB> <> <01d701d638ca$c096b5e0$41c421a0$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 20:30:20 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Fees after IETF 108 [Registration details for IETF 108]
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Cc: IETF <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005ddc0d05a725a74c"
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: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 03:30:51 -0000

HI Brian,

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 3:57 PM Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:

> On 03-Jun-20 10:11, Ted Hardie wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:56 PM Stephen Farrell <
> <>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >     On 02/06/2020 22:41, Ted Hardie wrote:
> >     > And you are convincing me that attempting to settle it on the IETF
> list
> >     > will require somebody to judge consensus, since there look to be a
> minimum
> >     > of two people with the time and keyboards available to disagree.
> We
> >     > apparently, however, disagree on who that should be.
> >
> >     Perhaps not! If you do agree that consensus calling is
> >     required that seems to imply the LLC is not the one to
> >     do that. We have a bunch of 14 victims already setup
> >     to do just that:-)
> >
> >
> > I think the LLC can call consensus on a matter within their remit (just
> as the IAOC evaluated the feedback on the registration date change policy
> that I referenced many messages ago).  So, I think they are the victims set
> up to do that in this case.
> It's a change to the openness of the standards process, unprecedented
> since we first started multicasting the audio for free back in the early
> 1990s. BCP101 defines the LLC's scope:

This isn't one thing.  It's a modification of the working methods of the
IETF to deal with a crisis (and there's many more aspects of the methods
which are changing).  It's an effort to provide administrative support for
both a specific meeting and the IETF long term.  And it is an effort to
manage the fairness of impact.  For many of us, the lack of airfare, hotel,
and reduced costs for this makes this a very cheap option compared to other
years.  For others it will go up, but they will be on even keel with
others.  For those who truly can't afford it, donations have made up 100
registration fees, and I'm sure the LLC would be happy for more donations
to help those in need.

> "The IETF LLC is established to provide administrative support to the
> IETF. It has no authority over the standards development activities of the
> IETF."
> There's no doubt that the IETF Executive Director *sets* the fees,

As I said in my note to Stephen just now, I meant that the LLC Board, as
the relevant community leadership, would call consensus on this.  I thought
that was implied by the references to "they" and "them", but my apologies
for not being explicit.

> but IMHO that isn't the point at issue. In this text:
> "The IETF Executive Director sets those meeting fees, in consultation with
> other IETF LLC staff and the IETF community, with approval by the IETF LLC
> Board."
> I don't see any indication of how the ExecD knows the result of consulting
> the community when there is disagreement. The mechanism we have for that is
> the IESG determining the rough consensus.

As I said, I think any of our leadership is expected to be able to manage a
consensus call, and I don't see why the LLC board shouldn't do it.  They
are responsible for setting the fees; they use community guidance in RFCs,
consultations with the IESG, and public feedback.    They are also
community selected leaders, just like the IESG.  Putting the IESG back in
that particular role is a step backward in the division of labor we've set
out, and I don't see that its either warranted or appropriate.


Ted Hardie

I can see nothing in BCP101 that gives the ExecD the power to determine IETF
> consensus, although it does require the LLC to respect IETF consensus.
> Those are two different things.
> Maybe this is a tiny gap in RFC8711, where Ted and (Stephen + I) have
> different interpretations.
> Regards
>    Brian
> > Since you referenced the magic number 14, I conclude we still disagree.
> >
> > I think we do agree that there should be public discussion.  I think we
> do agree that the LLC and IESG should talk to each other about the
> implications of different strategies to both the ongoing work of the IETF
> and its financial future.  I think we do agree that any conclusion would be
> revisited in the light of evidence of how it ends up working.
> >
> > But our disagreement on on who the stuckee is remains.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >
> >     Cheers,
> >     S.
> >