Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input (off-topic)

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 24 May 2016 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 71EAF12D101 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 12:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=egC2GM2y; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=BdSVGDpq
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 QcQ8SlOV4teE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 12:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFDD712D0AB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 12:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.226.213.151]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4OJaCNn006307 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 May 2016 12:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1464118583; x=1464204983; bh=kXi1/K3Mzc0NrxCQbQl2Ksqg/D3PcafkVvc+OXcI3gs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=egC2GM2y0XFWSmiAISdExuUL+a1IxHVMB7Ym80f/wNHPDB9yNw1gIIyzXRMwJ+wu5 zW/7Rx6hiGujxaKmBIovawNI/auxfCzy+aTwipMRCK0aAnFki+/WhcZ+3/R0KEtFAQ BbddyUVFbqKdiNhz2/NlQHjb2IWwdygjjmwU1v30=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1464118583; x=1464204983; i=@elandsys.com; bh=kXi1/K3Mzc0NrxCQbQl2Ksqg/D3PcafkVvc+OXcI3gs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=BdSVGDpqm+ECM+JnBcxq9Wa6mP9qtNmYzqeS9dXqDxBFQv7i8AR6V8USpgkqAQRp6 dwTomNDhMt2tnHq7+sOBMSKAJSLEDxJOClqODQohhSpjhR2cS9O45TifW5fLaAa1SW 516slSo5fagdofv+BxtNUFYYlmvLgdcVSObJhJOM=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20160524122508.10392d10@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 12:35:09 -0700
To: Sandoche Balakrichenan <sandoche.balakrichenan@afnic.fr>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input (off-topic)
In-Reply-To: <57445A20.2060005@afnic.fr>
References: <D3662363.190A96%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <CAP8yD=spam0tQdfD-ssA6y_n-cuugHtrHKwTYieSruo8SMg_VQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHkmkwtEtDk4sPv3GjkrSFqOdRV3HBA5i2_uZu3X2D4RxSF4wA@mail.gmail.com> <2e95fd51-23b8-39e7-d4ca-a9fc9d49559c@gmail.com> <CAHkmkwsf3YfFfR7jUHYnaw6dCrasMOazjbXPJRRhZS28k8HV0w@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1605241405210.28372@uplift.swm.pp.se> <714DDDE2-562D-488A-AAAA-F8DE3C2CA97D@consulintel.es> <FE76F502-617E-4190-BFF5-649EC9CFECAC@consulintel.es> <57445A20.2060005@afnic.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/X3WrUpDFM0VPqRE_uekY_VpNfXk>
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: Tue, 24 May 2016 19:36:34 -0000

Hi Sandoche,

I labeled my reply as off-topic as it is not directly related to the topic.

At 06:41 24-05-2016, Sandoche Balakrichenan wrote:
>But i would like to post a real issue here.

[snip]

>Hence, my suggestion is that IETF should take the visa issue also into
>account when considering a venue.

Please see Slide 25 at 
https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IAOC-Overview-IETF86-Final.pdf  I 
don't know how the visa issue is handled in practice as I am not an 
IAOC member.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy