Re: Registration details for IETF 108

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 01 June 2020 04:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A7363A0CA0 for <>; Sun, 31 May 2020 21:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 y5VOwVvMUpPu for <>; Sun, 31 May 2020 21:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::536]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7D6C3A0C9F for <>; Sun, 31 May 2020 21:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j21so2892843pgb.7 for <>; Sun, 31 May 2020 21:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LRU8LTSffqX8uoxtIhtkDvdDWtG4Jj8nQH0yl+h+0u0=; b=ciwpk1ECi7IDKMVCNGLtuVI1FCGbRhZ2icOB5goGmiDicWzZL5eC9RUJrXDm7QcQsx lFoBeXExK+JkMtIqGaQt94cJS9S0k0McFipAb6zFDAWUPmcaNcuglx7xJmHb6fWCh/VA o2w8IRo5M33+RAcj47z4mUvn396YHUjoUqTlpYfHAx6gR+2tBbnahGT4tqpIR9CuMkR3 Z7RpXWKd44YaEn/lKAZcx88yIYTaYC2Spp2Alfk0LKSESQXIBKVdyTfE7Oq0nU4kx5r5 NGKV6jxTUTxQ0ghXzqLI9FQHOuqC0XEKJb6TpXltpCClOrvQ8rzLqBnIkukhClUaBjri 0Dxg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LRU8LTSffqX8uoxtIhtkDvdDWtG4Jj8nQH0yl+h+0u0=; b=fbQFsQ9nXgFY6KXxtKE55g8i8KVZcifAYnZ7gaDSC2GWP6uqS0UMZ3j/tqgj6z9OwF MWxbrr6RmLgUxEX3Ti2yYPAfzkPTGxOnclOEmbWeSrF/Z1OCNbrvPklgEy+V43B/ZMS6 kxWejQ2JlYcs2Bm/Q8c/m2Gbe43AY/NGNatb2Tw8zuWFYXguak4cCogJrMypzseJtOZu aiA/WVRjYE8Fak7ChZcAwa6uIYDEy4hWdVuJpfFVyJ0cw+4B/hWk9Q1FlTmN4f4m8orb s816XCckvbYfXjPv1bAjX5+QAf0FZiN1TA4UgSHwL44ZfKYD3FJeS81BqQuwAEMnjuI9 4C3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5305WtabnbbI6Moc2uzxQ7Aq6OiRktvGHgfsFfd/Q1rkuD0MzmIi KapxfAsnesMW0D21pgUgA06nVXcZQb0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzq1chPugFgDowrlAo2ixbjtSM4iC+wSfdAKJ2P5mUMRVTCKWV86KF2+Xnt/3zgsF/EGdaDxQ==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8483:: with SMTP id u3mr19360686pfn.223.1590986172919; Sun, 31 May 2020 21:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id 2sm12795133pfd.163.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 31 May 2020 21:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
To: Alissa Cooper <>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:36:08 +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: quoted-printable
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: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 04:36:16 -0000

On 01-Jun-20 15:00, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Hi,
>> On May 31, 2020, at 10:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
>> On 01-Jun-20 11:57, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>> On 31/05/2020 23:33, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>> What troubles me is the lack of a debate in the community before this
>>>> was announced with about a week's notice.
>>> +1
>>> The lack of any community debate is very disappointing.
>>> It doesn't matter if this is not intended as a precedent,
>>> it will set a precedent.
>> I wanted to add two things.
>> 1. There's no complaint about the IETF LLC as far as I'm concerned.
>> They're doing their job.
>> 2. The announcement message about IETF 108 being on-line:
>> IMO really should have pre-announced and justified the intention
>> to apply a fee, and that the decision is for one meeting only, so
>> that we can have a community debate about long-term policy on this.
> We didn’t know on May 14 whether there would be a registration fee or what it would be, and we felt it was important to stick to the timeline that we had shared with the community as far as announcing the decision about conversion to an online meeting.

Well understood that decisions had to be made in a hurry; but letting everybody
know as much as possible, as soon as possible, has shown its advantages a
lot during this pandemic (along with the disadvantages of hiding information).

On the substance (and partly in response to SM) I know that participants
have had to cover IETF meeting costs since 1992, and presumably longer,
so I don't find this shocking. But for the longer term, we do need to
think about how this interacts with the goal of "any interested person
can participate in the work, know what is being decided, and make his
or her voice heard" [RFC3935].