Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards

"Ben Campbell" <> Wed, 25 May 2016 03:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A2112D5C1 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 20:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u5DsFDLoTAv6 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 20:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E6E212D58C for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 20:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u4P3cpdR091366 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 24 May 2016 22:38:51 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
From: "Ben Campbell" <>
To: "Adam Roach" <>
Subject: Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 22:38:49 -0500
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Leslie Daigle <>, IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 03:38:58 -0000

On 24 May 2016, at 9:19, Adam Roach wrote:

> On 5/24/16 08:20, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>> an IETF meeting that is 18 months away is actually an IETF meeting 
>> NOW for planning purposes.
> What I'm hearing (here and elsewhere in the thread) is that we have a 
> long-term policy issue that we should address with considerable 
> deliberation and at a pace that respects the gravity of the issue; and 
> that we have an extremely short term "go or no-go" decision that needs 
> to be made now, right now, immediately regarding IETF 100.
> While there have been a variety of positions put forth on the topic, I 
> think there's good evidence in this conversation that the final, 
> long-term policy that we'll form on this topic would probably, if 
> complete and in place today, rule out Singapore as a potential 
> destination. It's not a foregone conclusion, and I'm not trying to 
> claim anything like consensus. I'm just pointing out that it's a real 
> possibility.
> From that perspective, it seems that the snap judgement that needs to 
> be made right now can only safely be made by revectoring to a 
> different location. If the situation is as urgent as you portray it to 
> be, it sounds like there's not time for the more protracted course of 
> action you propose, unless going to Singapore is a foregone conclusion 
> and this is merely an exercise in justification.

I mostly agree with Adam.

I agree that we need to separate the two issues. And by that, I mean 
separate them broadly.

I absolutely agree we need to fix the policy, and that such a fix would 
involve a long-term discussion. It will take time to get things right. 
But I think we also need to take a step back from the IETF100 issue when 
we have the policy discussion. While the IETF100 discussion will be 
instructive, it seems to me that we are in crisis mode. History shows us 
that crises rarely result in good policy.

So let's deal with IETF100 now, with what we do (or will hopefully soon) 
know. I think the fact the crisis is happening suggests in the abstract 
that we should revector this one meeting without worrying too much about 
setting precedents. That may or may not still make sense in the face of 
more concrete information about our options.