Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok

Ted Lemon <> Wed, 16 May 2018 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BD0126CBF for <>; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] 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 ofEvZY6m19LN for <>; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3D28120454 for <>; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j186-v6so5659029ita.5 for <>; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AntcVUkHY9SRYTgll+CLntZCK05+mffIkjXnw5QHsMI=; b=Gde8Qw4hRX7HW0XLr+BNBXAshm6DmfqcVUVlyNy+gRzb9MEGvJ6SUIprwNns+NcYIl oedRmdb7g1dyX28fDbnd9pj31wl3EA/WRicrhwtabSz9DDfnNJxX87WTlJDZdkiNTmEs 0gEcAhjsSW22/khnoav9F7Xb5OWxNZhZYSCsQ5U7lOfCzJZegQKDLGhcY6l5l10bzeW5 lviEnam0lMaZAHPIL5jLy276T4CQf4rgIhyp4qdi6ornsjJHQFhU9SISGVjopA4dXJY0 xMftc08bvnlWOhGY/whUIgo8GlsnrvQaIdQ8V51LA4Qi7W3xfl9DycUVjGYrVCkSWea9 6a6A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AntcVUkHY9SRYTgll+CLntZCK05+mffIkjXnw5QHsMI=; b=Op9lLmAWZoIoKcm4q5QQ7a3wF9+ed8SdpgfB/dWPGX04sCyf+Wf7jV8aBINuaIlRTr 9mDlG8TbIrxFqvRVNBRG8dYFHP1h+8Ra3zHdj/2R1CGw7JGBmLuFZ7ndpRB7zEtLv5LX U4lZM+eqtswmGLgTzOOVlQGsoaEfgFv1dx4Z2aLWLouaX8Fa5Oc38jAsDzo5DEnrMMp5 HBgIwN3E7nM4OxDG2cVUgFdcWlHfY0AGnUf+I+gYZDnwt5g9cxyLy/bTcaC8vCycv3Ab 4GpAdM4SJ7+V80VfTNRaEWLGz+sCQ7weID3Gd9yfklBhR872LJobR77q0g9ES4DuWEUw zfhA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwcCA7omKjrihOiGSGwJSBE7cKkLFMk8CyiLLR8MxTkooqfmfkjs 0UDE3/AQMrSCYmlF9CIycHlYfJZ2DMVyKvuE3ODRxw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZos9lm62ErnyoX4+ml4Lrlou03Wknc3Ypepn+c6UlP058Rz9ha9u6IMIcD520RmOHgnyK+iihacTIIewr95B6g=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:88e3:: with SMTP id s96-v6mr3066214ioi.45.1526504869842; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4f:8cd8:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 17:07:09 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Cc: ietf <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000840257056c591c9d"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 21:07:53 -0000

It seems clear to me that if you don't meet in a meeting that is officially
part of the IETF, then you aren't under the note well.   So if you meet
Phillip in the airport, no Note Well.   On the other hand, informal
sessions on Friday can be covered by the Note Well if they are announced as
such, to as great an extent as any other meeting can.   IANAL, of course,
but this seems straightforward.

I've found Hackathons to be valuable, and the fact that they precede the
IETF is very good.   I agree with you that earlier "informal" discussions
are more important than later ones.   Having those covered under the note
well when desired would also be good—I don't think that a conversation in
the hallway is covered under the note well.   Like you I would be curious
to know if the IETF lawyer has an opinion on this.

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:

> On 17/05/2018 00:29, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> > I am probably alone in thinking that the Hackathon is suplimentary to
> > the main purpose of the meeting,
> True, but very valuable if we're serious about "running code".
> > and thus don't much care when they are
> I do. If the hackathon is held before the relevant WG session, the
> WG can get hot feedback on whether the latest spec is actually
> implementable and whether any interop problems point to ambiguous
> text. Also, minor fixes can be made and tested in odd moments
> later in the week.
> > held, but perhaps we could move them to the Friday/Saturday after the
> > standards sessions so people fatigued for the WG sessions. Those slots
> > could then double as a sort of forml-informal time for extended WG
> > discussions.
> Why do we assume informal sessions are more valuable at the end of
> the week? I've often found it annoying to have a Monday WG session,
> because of the need for informal discussions *before* the meeting
> itself.
> On 17/05/2018 07:04, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> ....> It is quite important to continue the official meeting through Friday
> > however because if I am going to have discussions, I want them to be
> under
> > Note Well.
> I would like legal advice about that. What do we have to do to
> be sure whether an informal, unscheduled meeting is part of the
> IETF meeting or not?
> I'm fairly sure that if I bump into Phill in the departure lounge
> at Bangkok airport, it's not the IETF. But if I meet with him and
> a few other participants in the venue at 11 a.m. on the Friday?
> doesn't really
> seem to answer this:
> "Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list, or other
>  function, or that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF
>  activity, group, or function, are not Contributions in the context
>  of this document."
> Is an informal, unscheduled discussion on Friday morning "an IETF
> activity, group, or function"?
>     Brian