Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 25 May 2016 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 C5F6012D1AB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 12:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=TYjAtSO5; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=taRK3z4K
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 Hqab6B6tKp2B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 12:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B3EC12DC04 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 12:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.226.213.151]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4PJdEv5015689 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 25 May 2016 12:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1464205166; x=1464291566; bh=RqI4e1UcrnuImyivOvrZ+Lw9K1F+Ff7vs4TjjzX1alc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=TYjAtSO5NUcUvwxWvN6T+OJ+MT8UdGo4IRYM+UrsaYcRSX9CI0GvbKOXzx1wMbQBe 7bAL3Gl1YnXRNQkXkYUpJRMZXhvm1voVZUfF1cNIOarChZlsYbVotw1zwkLl5Ca6zY jLzRLm1nOIlyG48g1PCQDofYVi8h8kI8ZTxAKgvY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1464205166; x=1464291566; i=@elandsys.com; bh=RqI4e1UcrnuImyivOvrZ+Lw9K1F+Ff7vs4TjjzX1alc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=taRK3z4KG8iWIElcmTcbI5Dro5VRknYSjTmkaRU+fgHs3qqUqEcY4cEWKAAt2kEf7 eQM1JrlnUX8txjulyGKZM0mf6vCfeIg02vOXfo98WL3ZGfgMPK8CVJEtrhjSbagRzm eGHPA+T/r3P4JqFcC//wkp52l+4ThNhYnG2RHIVM=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20160525122957.10b75be0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 12:38:25 -0700
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
In-Reply-To: <a7dc09df-02be-d2ac-f691-413f974acc7c@nostrum.com>
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <bd1f61ef-3be2-1a16-804c-68548df0b789@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605242300120.194@rabdullah.local> <da508fd5-307c-c61e-5b72-185238414a9c@gmail.com> <1936013436.371962.1464185835726.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20160525075248.0e9c5268@resistor.net> <a7dc09df-02be-d2ac-f691-413f974acc7c@nostrum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HUL4LDHVdgWi4Rbjwg4B8fNxAbE>
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: Wed, 25 May 2016 19:39:30 -0000

Hi Adam,
At 11:56 25-05-2016, Adam Roach wrote:
>Yes. I would offer up the DPRK as an existence proof of a place that 
>the IAOC should unequivocally exclude from consideration. With that 
>extreme example as an anchor, the question is where the line between 
>"acceptable" and "unacceptable" is drawn.
>
>It would be ridiculous to hold this conversation with an assumed 
>principle that every country on the face of the planet is an 
>acceptable destination.

There is a meeting survey at 
https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/Venue-Preference-Survey-2014.pdf  The 
country mentioned above is not listed as a venue preference.  There 
was a survey in 2010 ( 
https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/Meetings-Venue-Preference-Survey-Aug2010.pdf 
).  A comment on Page 36 is related to this thread.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy