Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 05 April 2017 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E332C127076 for <>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sh-T6dFA58JI for <>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 494771250B8 for <>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21AE203AF for <>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:47:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FBA2636BB for <>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:23:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: IETF Discussion <>
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <20170404181505.GA4004@localhost> <> <20170404202446.GB4004@localhost> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:23:14 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:23:17 -0000

Andrew G. Malis <> wrote:
    > At least once, I was questioned extensively when going from the US to
    > a meeting in Canada. I had to show evidence of the meeting and my
    > itinerary and convince them that I wasn’t entering Canada to take work
    > away from a Canadian. That said, I still support holding meetings in
    > Canada.

IETF98 was among the only times I was *NOT* asked questions like that when
entering the US.   I did enter at Midway.   That none of are asked such
questions when entering europe always surprises me.

I'm not sure what "extensively" means; if that means you were taken aside, or
not.  I've been through that at the US border.

"Chair of work group" would always be a bad thing to say, since it has the
word "work" in it.  Never talk about customers.  The IETF is a meeting of

(Once because it was 5am, and I was just really loud since I was really still

But, in all cases I felt confident that I would be treated with respect,
(even by the border guard who didn't seem to believe that e-tickets were

I did *not* feel that way while preparing to travel to IETF98.
My fears were not realized; but as Eliot has said, it's *exactly* the
uncertainty that is a problem.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-