Re: Registration details for IETF 108

Ted Hardie <> Tue, 02 June 2020 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E99C33A1037 for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:49:28 -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 MBrLZKbOIMCa for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A9FE3A1036 for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j189so5928111oih.10 for <>; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 14:49:27 -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=IaPlI4F9RgKr7Mx0U7F1O1nRUZ84Kx7kP14unfYIGWw=; b=kgznKEkTxjfveaLjsHK1HVOQ18dlIAEag4ADsXCSMqZzq8eczqwE0DzqCKNPq5ZTs3 4pTTT4ZbzXAWoou78q+HsJqwwe/fJrAPcAX1Z3h5vi9b95BMqfR16NpZUTRdAa6WHAUY nBxeUfHhYEozhp5f/IF8DCeSkkdrG5SLJHhtCzdFytuWOYWbqJoRBjItOkbtZPDo0rdp mH1GLACeIFIdY0xB/GHz8kpQOfbTIk3i/CJ3IOfo0y0pfUkUMiILN3TkyTVjmIJJ+7gu moJY6uI4KVE4HCqQ6Mci4un2DnN2/iOyrzCPURhfhTNynCO50GxCNAggBQcXjuOP4lPW fHbg==
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=IaPlI4F9RgKr7Mx0U7F1O1nRUZ84Kx7kP14unfYIGWw=; b=UVpCY+BcG13EzKGCdEoZ6pdjDFppOhGoie1sNMwERaTtaba9QtX/7BuLUFiu5oZ7Q9 vsQzM/Q7XNn5+qncD1uj4NiFkqsk+4KYEP/LqXd5BId/C7Wz4fjT2N3Lynvy8ucJTnGG MaQ8F38VLaLIDbsyxfG/fpGjVRDy9NnHRnI9Yib+hGkrjWSZecBznT7LadAS6H1BCaS4 Nsr8Uw0pdenHGfB0ZwbD5Uw4OLP31qtv2PSBmFq/SyGShJi4DrS1qvakvVAgjGfd+jex 17/03jOf7FGj7bjWafbNg/GTx/YJCZNWh1bzJh+adsVgEdJflwSBee6LkvmgwgCqR3If oZRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530AVFewHEqNpdH0//8T4sLlHCsEAlk9v/vlaaDq75hgTaQ9gkeJ LsI1oReeW9iD36M+0zglWyTW7U1G0zJW/kdGPkR/+Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyz2Qj2W7vp1jelx7b+0Le1UaTFKqpxLAgivrTwoEk/GJLXYBqTzcDGBHqdtWjQSx4ukhjRyBgqzEZ+A2/gD44=
X-Received: by 2002:a54:4795:: with SMTP id o21mr1930517oic.74.1591134566357; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 14:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <D3BA93CD3D2D101946F35024@PSB> <> <01d701d638ca$c096b5e0$41c421a0$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:48:58 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
To: Pete Resnick <>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <>, Eric Rescorla <>, Mehmet Ersue <>, ietf <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009e1e7c05a720e2a8"
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 21:49:29 -0000

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:26 PM Pete Resnick <> wrote:

> > I think you're asking a different question than the one Stephen and I
> > disagree about ("What do I think of this policy") rather than ("Who is
> > the stuckee for making this type of policy"?).
> No, I was asking about the stuckee. It sounded to me in your original
> message that since all meeting operation was in their remit, therefore
> pricing of remote-access to meetings was in their remit. I am asking,
> since email operation is in their remit, whether pricing for email
> access is in their remit.
> Then let me answer both questions at once, then:  If the IESG attempted to
impose such a silly fee, I would tell them they were out of bounds.  If the
LLC did, I would tell them not to be so silly*.

> I think my answer to Steven is pretty clear on the question you didn't
> > ask; let me know if you disagree.
> It wasn't to me. That's why I asked.
I hope that was clear,



*At one time the IETF worked on hashcash type anti-SPAM measures (Cullen's
work on computational puzzles in SIP springs to mind) and there is one
parallel universe at least where they succeeded enough that proof-of-work
ended up making sense for email anti-spam systems.  Attempting to use that
in such a parallel universe might be an operational enough decision to fall
to the LLC.  But using the fees such a process generated (if any) to fund
the IETF would still be wrong-headed, and I expect that universe's me would
say so.

> pr
> --
> Pete Resnick
> All connections to the world are tenuous at best