Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards

Adam Roach <> Tue, 24 May 2016 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 213A412D805 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 07:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Otf5G1EZzj-m for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 07:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E80712D7FA for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 07:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u4OEJoIQ020927 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 24 May 2016 09:19:52 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be Orochi.local
Subject: Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards
To: Leslie Daigle <>, Alissa Cooper <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Adam Roach <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 09:19:50 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 14:19:59 -0000

On 5/24/16 08:20, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> an IETF meeting that is 18 months away is actually an IETF meeting NOW 
> for planning purposes.

What I'm hearing (here and elsewhere in the thread) is that we have a 
long-term policy issue that we should address with considerable 
deliberation and at a pace that respects the gravity of the issue; and 
that we have an extremely short term "go or no-go" decision that needs 
to be made now, right now, immediately regarding IETF 100.

While there have been a variety of positions put forth on the topic, I 
think there's good evidence in this conversation that the final, 
long-term policy that we'll form on this topic would probably, if 
complete and in place today, rule out Singapore as a potential 
destination. It's not a foregone conclusion, and I'm not trying to claim 
anything like consensus. I'm just pointing out that it's a real possibility.

 From that perspective, it seems that the snap judgement that needs to 
be made right now can only safely be made by revectoring to a different 
location. If the situation is as urgent as you portray it to be, it 
sounds like there's not time for the more protracted course of action 
you propose, unless going to Singapore is a foregone conclusion and this 
is merely an exercise in justification.