Re: Registration details for IETF 108

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 13 June 2020 02:44 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 7B13D3A00E0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 19:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 2F2KYdYRSd3t for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 19:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F29EE3A00D2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 19:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id x11so4495074plv.9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 19:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rWmt0fk2nxyaUlUS5fKQi9qHIn6lcWamI8c4bzq7vyE=; b=XKp/jkWsYxQjj5lGqC0fqxHn2OzouAj/lszIRrzaAZhcDvHKfz5KSqeQn6ABuKcAms xj9eqqDowJr9qkaH8/GgmNoZNYlU4rNCSTsorxx67GEgPUqyobQW4wjCPfrvPK7Zr/14 qCnD5j06hpF6OT8hicpuUYiD0JKM8HkjDfU9BY81PJKm5DQkeedYBbUfGCIhAIysiK39 1oPBXTec9IIb18FnOb7BXyTRTC0eosQ6o44r28mtscS75DxfLuDZoQ2qysbKJQGryGjp qPe6i/FftyTUAaeqwXZ3xWN8o91v/p78tzceS6q1g6UuR3tP9TuqxwdOYcg3eVp/O9NV CbPA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rWmt0fk2nxyaUlUS5fKQi9qHIn6lcWamI8c4bzq7vyE=; b=S8oesiccBrBRLzCdfTHJdQhCAqi9qOrhX4J2O9yKDRWUGtFIEB1ypJuDhmesKBlimH wxh9RPDHOcL26z3wcMuvBFreQmGqDLkhUh8jc0pQXfUbl7nlCs+cgpDjmz8Cee1AuQwb /Y1ZFsh2E673pcODNd/FXrD0se9usXhJLU9xYzy7IImrb1+oz+kF1GEhouRnI+dyQf/c vysIT+6jjH15aQzgm3Hwfrv/HrtQbzgd8DSVlwdRskyksl0BbwD/WnlRVkOHReQ1Q2Lk FaNqAlVAZCFGIkJdZWrRhxK08BgM3Ecxa4kOPKFwxC79/YpGFElJJWiv9fJiDZnxdw09 JXEw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ryNKiEkf6CkRAvkknl0kiu+C272tyFgSwy6g4MUE8RR20hg0M 7/TsR9mvQ3umBjEouw0WXUWPLFLKRZI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxVXQC5N6ihS+k93dah8gM3o5gS+NYyYQ+DA3S90A4LHC+0toMZRfMNWwKsgod5ry1EGMen1g==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ed53:: with SMTP id y19mr4391717plb.318.1592016240999; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 19:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.92]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d5sm7627288pfd.124.2020.06.12.19.43.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Jun 2020 19:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen=40me.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <002d01d6410e$704cb070$50e61150$@acm.org> <5A62B7C7-A28B-4FB7-99AE-E8A7E16E1662@me.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2df9e6df-48ea-c9bd-470c-2ccfc9b40217@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 14:43:55 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5A62B7C7-A28B-4FB7-99AE-E8A7E16E1662@me.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/K8PxcM2ULkZYmq4LjfhWnYulKk8>
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: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 02:44:04 -0000

>> Why don't we focus on what are the unique IETF technical requirements
>> that would drive a system choice? 

As I understand it, that -- exactly that -- drove the choice to work with Meetecho.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 13-Jun-20 11:14, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> Larry,
> 
> The history of the relationship between the IETF and “The Meetecho Guys” goes back a decade or more. They have been working closely with the NOC and others to tailor the system to our needs.
> 
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor & Publisher
> The Internet Protocol Journal
> Cell: +1 415 370-4628
> T-Mobile: +1 415 889-9821
> Docomo: +81 90 3337 9311‬
> http://protocoljournal.org
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 12 Jun 2020, at 16:09, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> "I believe IETF chose for good reason" doesn't sound open or transparent.
>>
>> Why don't we focus on what are the unique IETF technical requirements
>> that would drive a system choice?  Are they listed in the
>> conference-tech-lab's
>> list of things to consider?  Something that the system chosen uniquely
>> meets?  Those considerations are important to capture, and would
>> then become part of the RFP. Surely if they can run a conference
>> using any of the listed systems, they could run one using meetecho too.
>>
>> I'd think we'd want to contract with SOMEONE to actually manage
>> logistics, rather than roll our own, in a hurry.
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 3:05 PM
>>> To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>rg>; 'Jay Daley' <jay@ietf.org>
>>> Cc: 'IETF Rinse Repeat' <ietf@ietf.org>
>>> Subject: RE: Registration details for IETF 108
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --On Friday, June 12, 2020 13:37 -0700 Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> For moving IETF online, I'd suggest hiring some group that  does it
>>>> for a living
>>>>
>>>> https://www.diplomacy.edu/conference-tech-lab
>>>>
>>>> in consultation with IETF in an open transparent manner, of course.
>>>
>>> Larry, that path leads to a rathole-rich environment with very smart and
>>> well-fed rats. Among other things, I note that Diplo's list does not
>> include
>>> Meetecho, which I believe IETF chose for good reasons and with the
>>> limitations of other systems for our purposes in mind and then, more
>>> important, assorted people (including Ray and the Secretariat) worked
>>> closely with the developers to further adapt to our needs.
>>>
>>> Moreover, unless something has changed that you or Jay know about but I
>>> don't, prior experience with Meetecho strongly suggests that, if we
>> discover
>>> deficiencies that we would like to have corrected before IETF 108 and give
>>> them reasonable notice, the chances of getting those changes made are
>>> quite good.
>>> Having tried, in non-IETF contexts, to work with the providers of three or
>>> four of the systems Diplo lists to get bugs or unfortunate features fixed,
>> a
>>> year or two might be plausible, but not six weeks.... unless , of course,
>> one is
>>> a government making demands and/or threats.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that Jay has, to his credit even if he has not gotten it
>> right
>>> every time, been struggling to avoid such ratholes..  If nothing else, even
>> if
>>> Diplo were a perfect match, there almost certainly is not enough time to
>>> work out a contract with them, have them understand our needs, adjust fees
>>> as needed, and then go into a meeting that is now only six weeks away
>>> without creating unacceptable risk.
>>>
>>> So, at minimum, can we postpone that particular discussion until we get
>>> through IETF 108 and can start assessing what we learned and what to do
>>> next?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>   john
>>
>>