Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108

Brian E Carpenter <> Fri, 05 June 2020 20:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C8CD3A0D41 for <>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 13:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 oMIpCkoKQu04 for <>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 13:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::533]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02CE73A0D3E for <>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 13:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 185so5700347pgb.10 for <>; Fri, 05 Jun 2020 13:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CuJkP3N8q4kVvZOLDtIa/nRTp2bJR/yx6Jr1CCtDZds=; b=RHsrJWYa88Rq+jwQIakzLlnrEp3tUedluumP3mP6Df8bSROAiuSuATn6uFUXC3ZOf+ AtGaUDpbpkH/EYCl0dhU4i9n6J4tUVyxlLwzStdy91+/CKN0hS4eR3LWkivxNirweh6R uK8hbJzQYcAn+fLD49E43v1JrlkI5ym0nvNrj4FC3WkcAbI2z5gKgIgCF5YqW3QKldZU cZVlDqDeTL5VjDc33Dckjf6mycs/iBJmXXRrpA0KIJfmmzzT2iyQpHfK+vFtdwjEgKVB jLB4/7jP4Qu9nuZqp2rR//j84Zz55QSa0jD/C6pthgHoE9TX4XsWEG6U07vTd4Seirbz wOdQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=CuJkP3N8q4kVvZOLDtIa/nRTp2bJR/yx6Jr1CCtDZds=; b=QpKdf3Ey2hG4cmez22jdyxP8/Gutmw2jIBCto+KVLPBNwlqsuL6B1uFZwENCJmVHKN BEQUMkPk2LXgSuXioWwT2TkXF87V0MX0HjZgaZUkn9pQ+IMZ28cRi+LQ+oA5UtTUeOF2 lBBPiKOuztRAQtZeCr6bbS3yAVBdE6ilh+pJNQOX990KDsIfJQeX+N5Aq3Js+vSs4WB6 utXNK0mMRI86i6Tt6aI5ICO/FqECum0Mbj3nGR0NBt1NFpZs+SaMpPYbYWLSQLWhQ1MO 05Ut7hUpsfjuQRP504M0DCteBi3mWKmurwvGGC5rp3dCl3fZYCJsTRZ62JQzkq1u0k65 K5GA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530o7L6trj7lGQc/guTABGhiN0kf1fPrx7LTusvTgo73KTywWCuS HUNy0mqW+2KANBsedQfE3AWZvgNcB4Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy14K4JGvLASvrPIRkFWCXQGP9VUDQlbpq2JtcNwt4/R4qHARX2jXbAV5CLRiPyxtpsE+5yTQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:8c15:: with SMTP id m21mr10965006pfd.182.1591389653043; Fri, 05 Jun 2020 13:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id c1sm421350pfo.197.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Jun 2020 13:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108
To: IETF <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 08:40:49 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 20:40:55 -0000


> (More generally, and not in reference to Bob's message in particular, I'm a little surprised at the degree to which the community wants to manage the LLC on this topic, given the oft-expressed concern during the IASA reform work that the community tended to try to involve itself in details that were really properly a staff question.)

I agree that we (the IETF as whole) must not take over the IAOC's micromanagement role. But what we've really been exploring here is mainly a matter of principle: paying for remote attendance. Obviously, the details are the LLC's province, but I think the matter of principle is a valid community concern.