IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Registration details for IETF 108

Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> Tue, 02 June 2020 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.net>
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 A93123A101B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 y6JYsQbZ3H0L for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:26:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6412F3A103B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:26:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B474DAF3B59D; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:26:26 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (episteme.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XZMuoWDMbRrf; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:26:26 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [172.16.1.29] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9EA4DAF3B58E; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:26:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Pete Resnick" <resnick@episteme.net>
To: "Ted Hardie" <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@rtfm.com>, "Mehmet Ersue" <mersue@gmail.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 16:26:23 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5683)
Message-ID: <BBDF62D9-8BA9-4129-A45A-3BCA5EC2983E@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMCMog0PQo9JAKJ1JAcUy_2uBJ+GXCR3KM_J6bLhUeL6gg@mail.gmail.com>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed; markup=markdown
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RzW2neKzBO5NYxajSkT-djMwbCc>
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 21:26:34 -0000

On 2 Jun 2020, at 16:19, Ted Hardie wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:05 PM Pete Resnick 
> <[resnick@episteme.net](<mailto:resnick@episteme.net>)> wrote:
>
>>  Ted, would your opinion be different if the LLC chose to move from 
>>  zero to non-zero for sending email to mailing lists?
>
> 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.

> 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.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

v2.2.1 | Report a Bug | By Email