Re: Registration details for IETF 108

Ted Hardie <> Tue, 02 June 2020 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D53183A0FD9 for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GInJGXLFqru2 for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20FBC3A0E88 for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m2so3967otr.12 for <>; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 13:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=32cCwDb2MyG2V7PVFRjMMv8jZFg7oSYpMGidDWskKQw=; b=cw8jWhxWKaaZ8xR9qkMX2sk7s32hVfPlZlA9I4Il/gi42lzbobL+N9yFUwo/ur0I/n J2Xbyybz7njZcb9U2Z/RTO+hwYYNvzmBdfgdj9q9pU6TziRBv+4rLxvadZZx0wNTX6y/ yzsazY6m9OlSqAV53IhdVkrJ28Gq6q0muOB43aDTbqjefwaF5OM4gSaE/h1dg+8vTVRJ oJUWEGibxBnSRjPjJkbl0qLZQgXdWXg2AAhkRtVzJnkE2x55bar7z3n7ZgxRCNRFTl2M y0rWqY+ifWr7JS4eZZL2z+0auPl0opHbj8fSkMMVFpQouhucmKB26iVdLqb8ryH1iZiZ 2IUA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=32cCwDb2MyG2V7PVFRjMMv8jZFg7oSYpMGidDWskKQw=; b=dmx7lo038f7D+p6J5gjWkGNc/88pJ3qNBwCo70N8KNnP7n5gGop9vPaML2ksCGwCsL SjeUtdRA5JtfjQi7lpEP/niTCL0PBhs1iV7RAu2ipS3J0FAH8WoYEit8Em5N2ppdC5DK pUixAAOGnOmcltAOz0i5vxaglMRVmfwOBZV4fRdxHAfqqkUn1HfG/Gbu6i6CRTGrvZaz vrgjPTe2lHP2Tw7ACFkmRKvu+vNKrrUbbBpZSMPoAGaFefsInaBMzNXooHMtBtxSL2O8 /XHYZ6x0ytyZfE1Qp7XXiDU244BqOaCKNKPXklFcKSznw8EUlqDiWlIVoHalUZNaHs/f S9XA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5303zTV5SojTXaV+cPF0Ynj6B5hY1GOLJ3qgkcvm0dvooroaWuN2 mBOZCvBIYWuwD7j9UyNv3EigctZ9n3eyD3Yn0ws=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwVxyQuPNzN9aSC2DAkO7v4slbj0cZu1wcp8gLX/KFJulUsXcmqL/hC18uuv+0ntcaDWsf7Kqdt/herb3ePgTE=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:664e:: with SMTP id q14mr830006otm.49.1591130708157; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 13:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <D3BA93CD3D2D101946F35024@PSB> <> <01d701d638ca$c096b5e0$41c421a0$> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:44:41 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
To: Stephen Farrell <>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <>, Mehmet Ersue <>, ietf <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a6a7fd05a71ffc90"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 20:45:11 -0000


On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 7:13 AM Stephen Farrell <>

> Hiya,
> On 02/06/2020 13:57, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > Moreover, as Jason points out, the IETF has charged attendance fees for
> > some time, so one could view this as a decision to *reduce* fees, in
> light
> > of the virtual status.
> While I think having the discussion in the context of
> IETF109 and future meetings is ok, I don't think the
> above is even close to correct. A change from zero to
> non-zero cost is a policy change and not IMO within
> the LLC's power to decide, except in an emergency case
> as seems to still be the case for IETF108.
I think "policy change" might be true, thought I think we disagree on the
level of that change. I am sure we disagree, though, with the implication
that it is outside the purview of the IETF LLC to make that change.

To illustrate what I mean, I'd like to look first at two different
changes.  The IETF requiring registration to use the facilities for remote
participation was a policy change for the standards process, because it
formalized the understanding that those participants are part of the
standards making bits when they're engaged in the meeting (thus subject to
note well and our other policies).  I think it was an appropriate change,
because the facilities permitted contributions, rather than simply allowing
folks to listen in (as multicast audio had before).  Because it is at its
core a standards process issue, having the IESG in the thick of that
decision made sense.  That's their remit.

On the far side of that were the changes that the IAOC brought in in 2018
when Andrew was chair, to change the timing of "early bird" and "standard"
registrations.  There is no change in the status of those registrations as
a result, just a change in when you pay to get different discounts.  The
IAOC put forward a draft policy and requested community feedback on it,
then implemented the change.  That was their remit--how and when to collect
the fees.

The IETF LLC, as the successor the IAOC in the IASA seat, has a similar
remit.  It has to set both the per meeting fee and the timing of
collection.  You appear to be arguing that moving from zero to any number
for a particular class of participants effectively excludes some of those
participants from the standards process and because that would be a
standards process change, that would pull it from their bailiwick.  But
zero isn't a magic number here.  Had they moved it to $1, would those
people be excluded?  Had they moved it to €2, would those people be
excluded here?   How about 10 of the lowest denomination currency for the
home country of the participant?  The reality is that it's a balance
between finding the number that enables the standards process to run
effectively and the number that enables the organization to continue to
house the standards process.  It's always been that balance and there are a
host of choices (e.g. the currency in which to accept registrations) which
effect it.  And it has been the IASA folks (currently, the LLC) who have to
make the choices of where to put the balance.

That doesn't mean that there isn't a public process for feedback and input;
just like the changes that Andrew put forward in 2018, there should be
public discussion of a draft plan.  I'm sure any implementation of the plan
will also get analyzed post-facto and changes made in light of the lessons
learned.  But it is, at least at the moment, the LLC who are supposed to
take that feedback and learn those lessons.  They are the stuckees for this
type of decision, and they are charged with making it with the health of
the whole organization in mind.  We gave that body those responsibilities,
and this decision goes along with that.

That's my take on it any case,


Ted Hardie

> Cheers,
> S.