Re: Registration details for IETF 108

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 02 June 2020 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@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 E99C33A1037 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 MBrLZKbOIMCa for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22c.google.com (mail-oi1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22c]) (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 2A9FE3A1036 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id j189so5928111oih.10 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 14:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; 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; d=1e100.net; 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: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200531121457.0b249858@elandnews.com> <CABcZeBOzVHaSZa0A3eDz12RwNuCiHtiJL8wqvAhhLPN6YEQOkQ@mail.gmail.com> <3f9a0e50-c01b-01c6-ad52-95f370baeb8d@joelhalpern.com> <B71999A2-3EC6-4649-864F-674BA494B511@gmail.com> <616FD1DE-C25F-44CE-9FA3-CC00943FC98B@cable.comcast.com> <A9DBD8B0-01B3-4C68-91B3-BD1E99E226BA@gmail.com> <70d1493c-4c00-f32e-8996-72d0a8369571@comcast.net> <D3BA93CD3D2D101946F35024@PSB> <9F71F116-D7B2-4ECE-9000-957A0C497404@ietf.org> <01d701d638ca$c096b5e0$41c421a0$@gmail.com> <CABcZeBOLAw_9s-gobFYB=5THu_Q70UmDLn_ZhVXhNRHN_nu_0w@mail.gmail.com> <607b7682-0a75-62b6-fd0e-5e2e1171a68b@cs.tcd.ie> <CA+9kkMBEqhn115ToB0SwOGavmXze4DdJdL941J4LeVMRrPngpQ@mail.gmail.com> <e1b804ae-4c2e-fdf3-8804-47820d35facf@cs.tcd.ie> <243C90DE-DFED-4A86-8337-7FB2E30B5842@episteme.net> <CA+9kkMCMog0PQo9JAKJ1JAcUy_2uBJ+GXCR3KM_J6bLhUeL6gg@mail.gmail.com> <BBDF62D9-8BA9-4129-A45A-3BCA5EC2983E@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <BBDF62D9-8BA9-4129-A45A-3BCA5EC2983E@episteme.net>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:48:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMD5xO39BCw9SwvCTGsUYM7c9gjrzQ090_M9r7Oyd7-OWA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
To: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Mehmet Ersue <mersue@gmail.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009e1e7c05a720e2a8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QAKr4d2fkdK9IWcVrO9DGA5v12o>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 21:49:29 -0000

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:26 PM Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> 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,

regards,

Ted

*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 https://www.episteme.net/
> All connections to the world are tenuous at best
>