Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment
Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Fri, 23 May 2025 16:32 UTC
Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietf@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 864352C57760 for <ietf@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 23 May 2025 09:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.893
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.893 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JNtUMVtWChhJ for <ietf@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 23 May 2025 09:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-f171.google.com (mail-qk1-f171.google.com [209.85.222.171]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B47832C5772E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 May 2025 09:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-f171.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7c5ba363f1aso969685a.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 May 2025 09:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1748017962; x=1748622762; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=LeTY1Eq0BBlvoO724uSDaLl/PxYqFCmDHdYtLkDCsJI=; b=V5O/vP7mXWLUwDbSCqyzmWgqhFRVy2xqakqU62P7kgQUoly0VxQ7MSfwpC3ILwAtum a9TaCGMfMTfswmh9QtaByXUsDGy8HyVGJTrlbXRwj69fIqVXeY1FzV4DfjAQuSR158E1 zpCzCZI1K9zDagCsj1cv5DNTYT+RR0sY7rMCC5BlxyfMqnXWVyXtCGpegDHTE8FDsZ+4 LMUgYV3T6o51fgl8Gy7ncMdUUx14xgomg1O/xuZkLMvpRBnW55H0xqYHk6h3lzfHyAZD X8xr9bzO5BzMElQjf80pKdldlmix1o/UWIuNN+meK6HdlfkdblcDeZxGlkrBpDaj/x0m USJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz07r2EJ/uF9W4kthfTeRSjCTraHmqzVu0MN/SGMBILaHgfF02Q TLqkzYJQtK2dJuC/boB/h3P9CrL/t290OPoeb+PCgcW/oRxNHn6ZxmvnXrZ7clr2FJH/Q8PtP22 zsoZ0FYiVmx74/qOJoliRgHGDDst+DmRmFxMA
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnct0WhGjWS4T3fplaw2BBceHgbM85IQ8N5RwANYeNUhbPsO1xP3kv9nbo0H6jbw bSuVl1+P6PqjaqOxMUoLr7MSWiBGDFmm5BwEECcATV6aM1f6C+is6O4f0bZ+iFW76TUL0rMklyn 4FUa2F5CmqqzHIpMKsMfvjCc23hyj6fsqpVQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHR8beJp9a3e3GbuNg+Vuwv12pNaSxZJWGG0AGvxGf32XNbPwCHkwYYCD8EtLcwU7/eXCuqbnCR1iIvpIivdPM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:234e:b0:6f4:c423:67b4 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6fa9d00782emr2420466d6.10.1748017962085; Fri, 23 May 2025 09:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0E13A03E-3B81-4C9C-976E-B8C68810B486@ietf.org> <CA+9kkMBoDhQq4GROSYQ0AjJ3Um-7XsL6D8s+R+rRDkX8fv-NnA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMA__=wsDz1w=y5OaG1-aD5TvsMDiPSG+Z-60MYQwrO2GQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMA__=wsDz1w=y5OaG1-aD5TvsMDiPSG+Z-60MYQwrO2GQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 12:32:29 -0400
X-Gm-Features: AX0GCFvMJBXPXjuc2wObhRBcricUmeYGYiuPzSQIgv2EH7g_aazeowGNJ9hK7RI
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwioKr-4mgp9Xu8H6dj-6XksJABDB+9qi=RL=ZEJYYqVew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b0f1a70635d0257e"
Message-ID-Hash: EPNLW4YHC77J4GANMFWCTSFKFNG2W5UV
X-Message-ID-Hash: EPNLW4YHC77J4GANMFWCTSFKFNG2W5UV
X-MailFrom: hallam@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ietf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HcUHtVo78GiszMeEslH5UHrEnt4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ietf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-leave@ietf.org>
I support this decision. Cancelling the hotel would be a serious problem given the history. We don't know what the situation is going to be in Nov 2026, If we cancel because of the uncertainty, we bear the cost. If we are cancelled, we don't. Point to bear in mind here is that if push comes to shove and it is utterly impractical to hold an IETF standards meeting, we can hold a different type of meeting. Given the location, there would be absolutely no problem getting 1000+ engineers to come down to an Internet conference in San Francisco. I am not saying keep the meeting because I am in the least bit optimistic about the situation in the host country, rather I am saying keep the meeting because I am even more pessimistic than most others here. On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 5:50 AM Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > This was sent to ietf-announce, rather than IETF, but it should have been > a public message. > > Ted > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> > Date: Fri, May 23, 2025 at 9:12 AM > Subject: Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment > To: IETF Executive Director <exec-director@ietf.org>, Roman Danyliw < > rdd@cert.org> > Cc: <ietf-announce@ietf.org> > > > Dear Jay, Roman, and members of the IETF LLC board, > > In the statement below, you say: > > It also considered the viability of the meeting and concluded that there > will be sufficient participation for the meeting to be financially viable > and to meet the threshold set by the IESG for a technically viable meeting > [3]. > > The citation is to the IESG response for the community discussion for > Shenzhen, not for a decision by the IESG about San Francisco. In that > process the LLC was asked to “explicitly confirm with the IESG that the > core objective from RFC8718 of ‘Why we meet’ will be met”. > > Is this reference meant to indicate that the IETF LLC used the data from > the previous consultation to make this decision? Or did the IETF LLC > explicitly confirm with the IESG that the core objective from RFC8718 will > be met? > > Roman, if the latter, I would appreciate a citation from the IESG and a > summary similar to that in section E of > https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF_125_Decision_and_Survey_Summary_version_2024-10-08.pdf > . I believe it is very important that the community understand the IESG's > conclusion here, in addition to the IETF LLC's, as the IESG is charged with > the standards process and part of the risk here is to the standards process. > > Jay, if the former, I would like to understand why the IESG was not asked > a similar question, given the community objections raised. > > My thanks for your attention, and I look forward to your responses, > > regards, > > Ted Hardie > > On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 8:39 PM IETF Executive Director < > exec-director@ietf.org> wrote: > >> At its annual onsite retreat held in Amsterdam 6-7 May 2025, the IETF >> Administration LLC Board reviewed its decision to hold IETF 127, 14-20 >> November 2026, in San Francisco, USA. This follows on from a series of >> events with the most recent being the board meeting on 16 April 2025 where >> the board considered the responses to its call for feedback [1] and >> received direct feedback from a number of IETF participants. We received a >> lot of constructive and diverse responses and we understand the various >> concerns raised. >> >> The board has reached a final decision that IETF 127 will go ahead in San >> Francisco as planned. >> >> In reaching this decision, the board reassessed this meeting with regards >> to the requirements of BCP 226 [2] and concluded that it remains consistent >> with the criteria in the BCP. It also considered the viability of the >> meeting and concluded that there will be sufficient participation for the >> meeting to be financially viable and to meet the threshold set by the IESG >> for a technically viable meeting [3]. >> >> The board sincerely thanks all of those that have provided feedback on >> this complex issue. >> >> [1] >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/STQXuEgpsJp8JJ0SRh1OghDb2XY/ >> [2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp226 >> [3] >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/Vmsojml9ghvSFbxNrDB9EU5KwNg/ >> >> -- >> Jay Daley >> IETF Executive Director >> exec-director@ietf.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IETF-Announce mailing list -- ietf-announce@ietf.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-announce-leave@ietf.org >> >
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment Eliot Lear
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment Jeffrey Walton
- Fwd: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Fwd: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment S Moonesamy
- Re: Fwd: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment Jay Daley
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment Jay Daley
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment Rob Sayre
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment IETF Executive Director
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment John C Klensin
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment Corinne Cath
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment Jay Daley
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment John Levine
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment Jay Daley
- Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment Ted Hardie