Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Tue, 11 April 2017 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
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 E96AC1201F8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 Fdk1VtzJPisq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5144E126C22 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 26908909B0B; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 19:24:08 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 19:24:08 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
Message-ID: <20170411232408.GE48535@verdi>
References: <93404c29-78ba-ff9b-9170-f5f2a5389a31@gmail.com> <E068F01A-B720-4E7A-A60F-AA5BDA22D535@consulintel.es> <20170404181505.GA4004@localhost> <CAAQiQRcvu-BfBA_NEqZwXsHEn6ujpa2=w7P5Vu2f6GLXjKqkcA@mail.gmail.com> <20170404202446.GB4004@localhost> <20170404211526.GA25253@gsp.org> <003F08E0-D80E-40F7-AB15-6588B7B140CF@tzi.org> <20170410180555.GA20454@gsp.org> <AF3B5F0A-EEA7-402D-B61E-EDE6CE2AE16C@tzi.org> <8546635c-f838-e7f7-a5ec-3a855a14c0f9@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8546635c-f838-e7f7-a5ec-3a855a14c0f9@dcrocker.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/FcwSm1Y-X7SStNlRnhrOpXDmuTM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 23:24:11 -0000

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> 
> It is fast looking as if the ability to sustain a large and very 
> well-attended network of interconnected remote hubs might become a 
> necessity rather than merely an appealing alternative...

   +1

   (and this will require some formal process for mike queuing at
the "interconnected remote hubs".)

   IMHO, what's lacking is _only_ the will to make it happen. ;^)

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>