Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Naeem Khademi <naeem.khademi@gmail.com> Fri, 03 February 2017 10:06 UTC

Return-Path: <naeem.khademi@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 860F2129415; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 02:06:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 aZPlxVfK514u; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 02:05:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x230.google.com (mail-io0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230]) (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 3C8DC128AB0; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 02:05:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x230.google.com with SMTP id j13so13870050iod.3; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 02:05:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yLKtyn6mtaSjw9I6sNW9DaosZHhncnbTtCfCTeCSzuA=; b=ipon+crCX4t3CW1HttWN8desgwPbg7VaIiFSw9iejQRzxc3vUQH4WQ+QTu8TQTHVdg H5KKdm8mYkI9amzwOpcrHoFxkGy+BAiSFK8B5Jo9IFx61QA2nnaV3KwDhqj57/Jvas/d BxS4qbfuxRN5UvkIeZX/MHuZjvRXsRxIo/1oR2S96JZ12BHXUjUT06rF5Mz9iUlXvOc2 MuxPbwYnfaDRNWMfqnLwtNup2/tM/20ZacssvvwKqDa9G5XZisHXIVg1YzvFnRHikVYE YPe6eyNXUgfllfwye9itFUDM8qm2zbx26szGSmVTlNUgATKHaOmVvS83TNngK1lrr3aW llHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yLKtyn6mtaSjw9I6sNW9DaosZHhncnbTtCfCTeCSzuA=; b=YP+cPwv53O17U5vK9eo9gJWr8M0T61sBOg/t0+ivDUT1NDjV9IlcUMAi4hEh26aDY4 5ymObB8NiixCK6Z+ckt27ecJ+ruhWvviaXSL+5NQlZLoIkx+9Kcdf/xojFivud6xhdaU ikk/IRUA7u+Lg0YXutWoWCcpIT/EzuRHuIApIrtvF0DBEaKL9x8OExw1u+YnP5ul3tx4 OXrtiCrtVgJxalLl4vBAfSbXT2TVWGhN+aWzMYTKcCzp7dh/mujTCrhIdUybqZqAahyJ A1ve3VwojE3dWkfDmcGdyrXkqZY45RN37I4lfT883SE4FIWQp9Rr7Kfb52wIbuRE0+1f m1dQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKDmAHT+foZjexlBb9ZlALuxGeiOOlp1lYanSAKb99etB3kicT+5T1k/RDuykL3QYplO7fx1Q/2NiMKYA==
X-Received: by 10.107.148.141 with SMTP id w135mr10967433iod.229.1486116358392; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 02:05:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.178.210 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 02:05:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7B01DE73-2908-4602-9D76-9056215033DA@gmail.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> <955df2106aa2e12cefbd450be022e779.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <D36D49EE.35116%jefft0@remap.ucla.edu> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B05266663BF@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <CA+ruDECdMAC2PQqibqQijc-nLHUxOGw0h-ZYyh8FnZZaeZ8sTA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+ruDEBHyzk5cg5Vmq-anKJTxLkZpHrb9APwkfbDGn6FeFzR_w@mail.gmail.com> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B052BD4B85D@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <A0BBD037-851F-4F47-A7F2-44EFC73166AD@consulintel.es> <CAEjQQ5Wbxi0_fEVf3uh1_K=o02KK11jRgGhdpeiBhAojhtt76g@mail.gmail.com> <7B01DE73-2908-4602-9D76-9056215033DA@gmail.com>
From: Naeem Khademi <naeem.khademi@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 11:05:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEjQQ5Wn7ig+Cgh68SXdK5AYO478BpN-doNx5m-5K_ocuxWz9g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: Randal Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f9fe2a3133c05479d6d06
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SKsTbQnTr7XR8-VlkHrTHqwWc6w>
Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" <recentattendees@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 10:06:00 -0000

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Randal Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On 31Jan2017, at 04:44, Naeem Khademi <naeem.khademi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The next IETF in the US after Chicago, would be in July 2018 in SF. I
> don't think it's even possible
> > to buy a flight ticket for that time as of now (most airlines wouldn't
> do such pre-sale). So, it's pretty
> > much possible to relocate that meeting elsewhere with causing no loss to
> anyone's already-made plans.
>
> The claim above that "most airlines won’t sell 6 months in advance" is
> false.
>

Since you're quoting me (calling it "claim above"), I have a hard time
finding the exact text you're referring to in my writing ;-). I stated that
most airlines wouldn't do such a pre-sale for July 2018 (IETF @SF) which
happens 16 months in the future, so I stay correct.

Regards,
Naeem


> Most airlines, including all or nearly all major full-service
> international airlines, start selling tickets
> at least 12 months before the departure date for the 1st flight on an
> itinerary.
>
> To my knowledge, there are some people who already have purchased tickets
> to go to IETF in SFO.
> This really ought not be surprising as the lowest-cost fares often
> sell-out earliest.  A number of
> IETF people don’t work for big companies and are traveling on their own
> money.   Those people
> would suffer greatly from a change in location less than 12 months out.
>
> I am aware that some have suggested the IETF do more remote meetings.  I
> think that is worth
> exploring.
>
> I certainly would support IETF making all future meetings more accessible
> remotely  — and I think
> that is a goal the IETF has been making progress on for some years now,
> using Jabber, VTC,
> and so forth.  Expanding the remote access capabilities and coverage for
> all future meetings
> (to the extent that is practical at a given point in time) only makes
> sense.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ran
>
>