Re: IETF-100 maybe it's mostly been said? (Was: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> Thu, 26 May 2016 21:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E8412DB48 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 14:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 fNH3ddIvecWL for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 14:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 430EB12D9C3 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 14:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x189so89132035ywe.3 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 14:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=yt939R6IP3pb9Qk8Pb1oo/WBcv4XEcOGowrkC52l98w=; b=EwfcQ9yvMJLcdNFvJgjQiEZPJcivheyy+siIQnE01/2mym7lV0umfhbaebe79ldGos iIa55Ynv3A496Ke46Fy93XT8ZfnZzCqjjMlqmP3FROhrFGjOmsTswfA5Goe1o3aafAVg eb4qzEc9rhO6XiFmp/YP1HYgNM+YuG6bG7A/TwBMvJHrosKU08yKlwaWx0OwLUWul+F0 9uRev3BUHNjB92YxruR5+ja60s6oTiXwGxIRSVxK1vsQxWmCvMm5JlX2kQW0Rt8eQVIM 4ldeGvR0NjHSD5Hr+qMzrSWa81mQfQxDWp88ScDwhfir1yCcPH/xsQBBPvMvSZzd7Uc6 DeEA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=yt939R6IP3pb9Qk8Pb1oo/WBcv4XEcOGowrkC52l98w=; b=WbkRdzyEuuZc2udIfWTacfqTziUTi+bcO8FQRhjYNP2KTvDxSf3N7g7tKcbTOi2gqk nbIv9Km2HhmT/EJzlfGrNp4JDkFFJRTQRReIm3b9nGYmgIXQecMXCUfzSuEHzYf/cpFw IuNbKtMc24cULdaQ2vNDFddE7RtYFc7ByH5N9Z0BdCMjnuZw0Qn6pXfg4IweOhArz3Mx zP89YdAuaxKfKg+Okrh7+hWLm3JMm4av+f8sXCu9Dkz7Mryb1lXBqGBk95fzWOOX/HLS 3OeebJ/YimRZLb4t+iaBkRqJDurXovt1kjgynV5JCldv/mbEF2iCXKpxudc7juhjUow2 zprQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLSHjeZ3/SwPSRF7heyuShstcUK/ZyAy1dxGVMqUu/cDLF6fWZvdL+jPGllM3nGxzCBHB6ZWEY8AP6CbA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id v17mr6672887ywc.219.1464298501364; Thu, 26 May 2016 14:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 26 May 2016 14:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:35:01 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: IETF-100 maybe it's mostly been said? (Was: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100)
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c07b4a004e8c20533c590e6
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <>
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: Thu, 26 May 2016 21:35:06 -0000

Just to agree with Stephen,

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Stephen Farrell <>

> Not really addressing Margaret, but us all...
> On 26/05/16 21:21, Margaret Cullen wrote:
> > What about the IAOC writing to the IETF list and/or recent attendees
> > when they are considering going to a new country, asking if anyone
> > has any feedback on the idea?  And then considering that feedback
> > _before_ making a final decision, signing a contract, etc?
> So we seem to be at the point where this mega-thread is so long
> that people haven't seen the start of it. Exactly the above was
> agreed to be done, and was done, some time back. (Sorry I don't
> have the URL to hand now.)
> Perhaps we ought all take this as a signal that the signal to
> repetition ratio for this thread has reached a point where we
> might all step back from the keyboards for a day or two and see
> what additional information the IAOC can come back with in about
> that time frame?
> I really don't see new points arising in the meantime that are
> so pressing that they can't wait, and for all the urgency of
> getting a decision about IETF-100, I don't think a day or two's
> breathing space for the IAOC will make a substantive difference
> to the eventual outcome. It might also give us all a while to
> ponder the difficult dilemma more thoroughly and even more
> thoughtfully, but a bit more calmly perhaps.

I'd say more broadly that we've seen enough e-mail in various threads on
this topic that if someone DOES want to introduce a new consideration, it's
like finding a needle in a haystack for other people to notice. That's not
to say there's nothing new that should be considered, only that if you have
a new topic you'd like to the community to keep in mind, you might want to
wait a bit to introduce it, just so it doesn't get lost in the flood.

For what it's worth, the IESG spent more than an hour on this week's
informal telechat discussing the feedback that we've seen on IETF 100, so I
can promise you that what people have already said is not being ignored.

I hope that's helpful.