Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards

"Leslie Daigle" <> Tue, 24 May 2016 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 872F312D8B1 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 08:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.791
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RUvFIImtJtaJ for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 08:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0569612D893 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 08:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAB832005E633; Tue, 24 May 2016 08:38:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;; bh=i Cu3+rWnW4ex0TrJ7+jcokZeGyY=; b=jEyr3TqRLJHZCpfTTy5RlrOiEtFtzYris DC8SSOLOFsWIYqwnzyaouUIua6mzdWXGv/dHpvVjxpjk5xtIS+FYEDEi7kN7odIv xPuf+jjCfNjjN01GfUQ27oYnbHkzGrWSQ3skiaJwZKGxP1LlAU9/GScdnMom8Lbr rFaG43WPT4=
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B0702005E632; Tue, 24 May 2016 08:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Leslie Daigle" <>
To: "Adam Roach" <>
Subject: Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:38:13 -0400
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:38:25 -0000


Thanks, a cogent summary, though I think it underplays a couple of key 

1/ the cost of backing out of Singapore at this date (this is the 
picture we’re trying to put together in a way that will be useful for 
public consumption)

2/ whether a broader range of people than have failed to unsubscribe 
from the IETF@ mailing list are on board with canceling (there are a few 
different conversations that are going on in the background and they are 
not all supportive of canceling).



Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
On 24 May 2016, at 10:19, Adam Roach wrote:

> On 5/24/16 08:20, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>> an IETF meeting that is 18 months away is actually an IETF meeting 
>> NOW for planning purposes.
> What I'm hearing (here and elsewhere in the thread) is that we have a 
> long-term policy issue that we should address with considerable 
> deliberation and at a pace that respects the gravity of the issue; and 
> that we have an extremely short term "go or no-go" decision that needs 
> to be made now, right now, immediately regarding IETF 100.
> While there have been a variety of positions put forth on the topic, I 
> think there's good evidence in this conversation that the final, 
> long-term policy that we'll form on this topic would probably, if 
> complete and in place today, rule out Singapore as a potential 
> destination. It's not a foregone conclusion, and I'm not trying to 
> claim anything like consensus. I'm just pointing out that it's a real 
> possibility.
> From that perspective, it seems that the snap judgement that needs to 
> be made right now can only safely be made by revectoring to a 
> different location. If the situation is as urgent as you portray it to 
> be, it sounds like there's not time for the more protracted course of 
> action you propose, unless going to Singapore is a foregone conclusion 
> and this is merely an exercise in justification.
> /a