Re: limiting our set of cities

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Thu, 20 February 2020 10:48 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.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 B65811200BA; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 02:48:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 3SlQVHbM7ssR; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 02:48:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [204.42.254.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7F8B12001A; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 02:48:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.155] (c-68-32-79-179.hsd1.mi.comcast.net [68.32.79.179]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E7B8540238; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:48:48 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: limiting our set of cities
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <17764.1582194882@dooku>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:48:46 -0500
Cc: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <3A21EC0B-F26C-4619-A3AE-A6552279BE7D@puck.nether.net>
References: <17764.1582194882@dooku>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17D50)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HkwaJoxRUgfSm7wzIq21JR4OnKM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:48:51 -0000

I know directly that Seoul posed some unique challenges when it came to the meeting network last time. I enjoyed the venue but I think the connection was not easy. 

I do want to see a return to Japan as I enjoy visiting but also know it's a more expensive location. 

Sent from my iCar

> On Feb 20, 2020, at 5:35 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> Christian Huitema made a good case already for the Asia list being not just
> Bangkok/Singapore, but also including Tokyo/Yokohama and Seoul.
> That's four for Asia.