Re: IETF 107 and Corona Virus?

John C Klensin <> Mon, 17 February 2020 01:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C0C120091; Sun, 16 Feb 2020 17:38:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g4C6FozqVsTg; Sun, 16 Feb 2020 17:38:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF866120024; Sun, 16 Feb 2020 17:38:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1j3VMI-00029c-Na; Sun, 16 Feb 2020 20:38:02 -0500
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 20:37:57 -0500
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Jay Daley <>, Ole Jacobsen <>
cc: IETF Discussion <>
Subject: Re: IETF 107 and Corona Virus?
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
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: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 01:38:05 -0000

--On Monday, 17 February, 2020 13:25 +1300 Jay Daley
<> wrote:

>> On 17/02/2020, at 10:06 AM, Ole Jacobsen <>
>> wrote:
>> My point: These blanket travel bans are NOT "government
>> imposed," but rather a matter of *corporate* policy in many
>> cases.
> I see, thank you for explaining that.  
> I hesitate to make policy on the fly and so all I will say for
> now is that if anyone find themselves in this position they
> should get in touch with us.  I will discuss with colleagues
> whether or not we need to amend the policy.


Thanks.  This is part of what I was trying to get at several
days ago.  With emphasis that it is only a guess, I am guessing
that complete travel bans, or even bans on people arriving from
a particular country, imposed by governments that have not
already imposed such bans are unlikely.  The things that are, I
think, far more likely to prevent someone who intended to attend
from doing so are:

* Company world-wide travel bans of the variety Ole was
referring to.  I note that there has already been a message on
the list from a Sprint employee about such a ban.  I'm aware of
a few others, Ole's notes point to what I assume are more, and
that number seems likely to rise.

* Government-imposed restrictions, not on travel, but on
post-travel activities or equivalent, such as 14 day quarantines
after arrival.  I think that, if Canada imposed a 14 day
quarantine on arrivals from certain cities or countries
(effectively requiring around March 7 for the IETF meeting) or
if a participant's country of residence required a 14 day
quarantine period on return after IETF, it is a fairly safe bet
that many companies would say "can't have you away from work for
three weeks, so you are not allowed to go".

I don't expect you to make policy on the fly about such things
and hope no one else does either, but these are the sorts of
things that are likely enough that establishing a policy and
making it clear -- rather than making case-by-case decisions and
hoping they will be perceived as fair-- seems to me to be quite