Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Mon, 23 May 2016 11:01 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@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 6436812D53E; Mon, 23 May 2016 04:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 qB_1A5dLNtLG; Mon, 23 May 2016 04:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22b.google.com (mail-wm0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22b]) (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 D08EE12D09B; Mon, 23 May 2016 04:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id n129so67037300wmn.1; Mon, 23 May 2016 04:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=m6XtqscphniyftCkQGFIvXip0uw2iRJwKI7VewYvJxo=; b=hecKesVrkQIZE1OJ2W4vKMWznMZIEtq/WwvBUh1NUmrSe0cXiHGmyFnOTv1lexh4NC XU67u4sxMJVsHo9zEkgE69Ch5hVd4mqS1O9Xi0db5iPjFWcQlI5eHSIe1ryRF9sJXL1J d0UaSADr2ZA2exfnQOZ+kedc1tMss/et26pqRg0C3MquT5FwQuh94OEnHu1usWl8B1ur 3ELELaIDyeZQSJQ+Hj5v1q9sr5Phw2PIKmV7QcKlVHaATdXDM4uZ9+va41R/fBHqftaH ympS3jMy+Xu0e5DS7r3CUyYjAJ4U6n1z2AuebEtIPBZ8lqRaFsF+a1wHDaVwknY4REFb JyTw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=m6XtqscphniyftCkQGFIvXip0uw2iRJwKI7VewYvJxo=; b=F7EPQ+mL1+ME/BfaZW2G47CIupjka6yUsqKwGy3qGeqZWa4B+w0QkCp6A88Pw0TSZe e4yLnZM7/F/HoiFJ5b2ectFDOVghnvtppiNQ4qOqBdY2jqjLXdyHtT3UzdCL/tPGhh9e A2YG0Nc1ywxmvKRx8dA0w4BBOpJLm0deLRrb+LQqBmEBABlOo7TcW2vrLuQICd9bxFmA Utby7ZPcB8Pw6+Ej2Ut+GmLA48KnJTVum6q2r/ZGbQbtA45hS8ZVoo+LdIb0j9vyeMBO G7YFxhO9WLOSrEqvKYlbDiW8+yKRkzzgefgJL0v4tUmKj9lvUsMoK9z4tJxkUwBfyiSI lhVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWeVDl+2+BVY+fDNgv+GSM1LQKavR/U4mVOn7ra/6sSJrfVIeNCZksukYNJdGlZ0w==
X-Received: by 10.194.42.69 with SMTP id m5mr16501053wjl.89.1464001285325; Mon, 23 May 2016 04:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.24.248.195] (dyn32-131.checkpoint.com. [194.29.32.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o8sm30230962wjs.19.2016.05.23.04.01.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 23 May 2016 04:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FFC6228D-AF76-4A2E-8F3C-42CF66E54F61"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMC=oQKuZcbg9zZ_s6Eykaxb=vgwSLQWwTYX+pMbf-gGKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 14:01:20 +0300
Message-Id: <10B11E52-D3D4-4503-96D5-5085A8647467@gmail.com>
References: <20160517181436.24852.58610.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3945cc1f-3e99-0fcb-e983-ed2e46fa871c@nostrum.com> <CA+9kkMAWFQDrT6WqTGz=6LcDiBkg+iuLEuSzeSqfZA4-J-tvZg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMGpKFiA78iQDFa5xaM0r0q_3LfLO_JKxaWJ9CBUTeaLg@mail.gmail.com> <C5B9F952-FEFC-4B73-9AC6-E050F59A74CB@consulintel.es> <CA+9kkMCQBdZOebSo9WwEd14+Bgh64Tpd+8BfF+uzbDRSV-gFxw@mail.gmail.com> <88c09ff2-51d0-d419-1253-ddd8e6049397@cisco.com> <CA+9kkMBi3pR+N3E21j=gNAKNNndX8NvpnwEJcNAYpJGpx6A6mw@mail.gmail.com> <093f7f6f-4d4a-334e-e476-a0b562bd9fd7@cisco.com> <CA+9kkMDBXFPb-6JNn0jC4F3xO2cwjaYbB=dSY5t8d=DT=_hz5g@mail.gmail.com> <54444d63-33a1-bf9d-66e7-83a4d1e92921@cisco.com> <CA+9kkMC=oQKuZcbg9zZ_s6Eykaxb=vgwSLQWwTYX+pMbf-gGKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MolHAIfDO7KhsjVDhMxu8ZaCO7Y>
Cc: venue-selection@ietf.org, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 23 May 2016 11:01:28 -0000

Ted,

> One issue that your and others' analyses seems to imply is that the 1-1-1-* formulation is not sufficient.  If it were, finding a small number of venues that suited us and shuttling among them would generate the fairness required.  If the pure 1-1-1-* were sufficient, knowing one venue worked (as a strawman, Yokohama) would mean would not have to investigate other places.

I only wish that was true.  While we try to go back to venues that have worked well, they are often not available on the dates when we want to meet.  If we want to meet in Asia on a regular basis, we need more than a single venue.  Further, if we only had one venue in, for example, Asia, our ability to negotiate reasonable prices for attendees would be seriously compromised.

Bob