Re: Registration details for IETF 108

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 02 June 2020 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 406F63A092A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 08:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.451
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=iecc.com header.b=PuX8UaKD; dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=taugh.com header.b=QUhxrRwr
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 7C3EC6-MMl0n for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 08:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50BD83A091E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 08:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 78597 invoked by uid 100); 2 Jun 2020 15:21:19 -0000
Date: 2 Jun 2020 15:21:19 -0000
Message-ID: <rb5qpf$2aq4$1@gal.iecc.com>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cleverness; s=132fe.5ed66e6f.k2006; i=news@user.iecc.com; bh=S8y61cO37MOReWkR8cRISyELzYZmybB8xKr91BbMjjM=; b=PuX8UaKDVqRtfwpQfCpvtwvVkj0Yoe4ho0CCDW88f/XdSMdJqQWyBwc4ekt/hUeBt6SdGF1/zX6wqufDzMyWrVCHXfOoQyrRgUgcVpI7sjuam/lqq0OZbzTR7rhtdqvC6cIoMoRzYu5iAWpevPkqxR5WtbTDoiaJ/hdQStl18vTnGpdhTzd1FoEVgF6kfOD9f5ZAiM3c/2BO8NfoozWk6ET6DLe3PSlxIgdK2/JX9DKHgkoJUEsFHWgpzd16C6aP
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cleverness; s=132fe.5ed66e6f.k2006; olt=news@user.iecc.com; bh=S8y61cO37MOReWkR8cRISyELzYZmybB8xKr91BbMjjM=; b=QUhxrRwrr/5rcgrfaI/UXDa49TVEdqmIkonSqIQRWobqp/TZ6vq837F3OAAEPDst6geZeea8wzsb3iemcGpA4XHKQk/HG4QvkxRghQC95d9e7Bxp+58ZQHcVxGtVXQKS8QMGIumV8yD34gLoKcfMcYfQCEySgFlYmCAfYEtqrJ3c54TUzZGSlrmFV2H3SouqNP/uaST8ROG7W/eSVyTrXvf/cFSrMEw3Lg9Evjke97g1bqIXh0aQsByiyEyv+SMM
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
Organization: Taughannock Networks
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <9F71F116-D7B2-4ECE-9000-957A0C497404@ietf.org> <01d701d638ca$c096b5e0$41c421a0$@gmail.com> <CABcZeBOLAw_9s-gobFYB=5THu_Q70UmDLn_ZhVXhNRHN_nu_0w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <9F71F116-D7B2-4ECE-9000-957A0C497404@ietf.org> <01d701d638ca$c096b5e0$41c421a0$@gmail.com> <CABcZeBOLAw_9s-gobFYB=5THu_Q70UmDLn_ZhVXhNRHN_nu_0w@mail.gmail.com>
Cleverness: some
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: johnl@iecc.com (John Levine)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/LBCUIhsiFWChZKz7qKPWmWXfYOU>
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 15:21:24 -0000

In article <CABcZeBOLAw_9s-gobFYB=5THu_Q70UmDLn_ZhVXhNRHN_nu_0w@mail.gmail.com>om>,
Eric Rescorla  <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>This seems like entirely appropriate practice on short notice. I would note
>that the LLC regularly makes decisions which involve a far larger change to
>people's costs than the fees -- namely, where to site the meeting --
>without consultation, so I while I think it would be good for the LLC to
>get feedback on this topic, I don't think there's inherently an obligation
>to put it to a community wide call for consensus.

Agreed. The IETF works within financial constraints, and a large part
of the LLC's job is to balance what we want to do with the resources
we have. Unilaterally making 108 free for everyone would blow a large
hole in our budget (there are still expenses even without a physical
meeting) and we can't just decree it.

R's,
John
-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly