Re: How about the IETF 107 T-Shirts ?

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Thu, 12 March 2020 03:38 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.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 B4EF83A09CE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 4m4Zkpn2WMh9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42c.google.com (mail-wr1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E26E3A09C5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id n15so5499419wrw.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=mF7XN43TkcczSqz4ZobAjKf9ysEpn9ZofO/A0F1/tzY=; b=ca1+P0azzqDojqpDardQtSSwixWhSgPPvLh+Knqh6rTUigd6NrbHW5T1hX6llLJ/9S UnTOTSudTrMWX9ktkYFPJKho5wByXvwbymJrMdmlw2bumwmFkU5xiYRrcHfh2LABLodl 03Ie3zHywRDw3K0rN3GfU34SRbvHnaU3egLFAM91Dhev1TOHCimv9eomvEWGEXIcPxx4 3+N/ejbwwwZdAYjvWmo3KNuwrMFcB3g4RsaW3WlP3ePt2MTUBOHMeHBdYvtVeSL8trnC Xjz8Z2txnbq+TLHWcV6fzrvPPbVOvqAxW2+IsEBJzgRZVja8w0szKKqpVKLvgz5V3ywF ig3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=mF7XN43TkcczSqz4ZobAjKf9ysEpn9ZofO/A0F1/tzY=; b=acyPp0KU2MXgFw9248Iz8Atk+Oi4nvlZlDa2IYNSMcLehM4a0Eye7fmSwvFn3ho5cE BqCt4OEorxxce3SUK23IRdZcupfCCEhPb3AJDebFEzhQwATAkA+0WKsXv0cJEQKhWV7O v00ixDGJXpqhFYsJJ39DvB2woVcuxsw2/MnQ09HO2tzMEl3B2srsG40oBmAZHxeK7HSX c0zQ/giZAw9QFRQVkbqs2OrAjC8Uteu4/gq4TPCXjwchoWSmID+hG4ib9Baxi29fib3B StwfKbznI6rrpt10yM8ar5V/KhWKAcLGyWfCBjHD9dHkCZpAeJ9xilYPkJqSBF8TWjPb HsHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1DAJSueq+u6MtZx+WBSRInH7sw2ZCJfj9+wueOd+BeQFbNLGy+ ljDJ1MoPPk8uO9uBfhuJDoc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vvEqM55CLinixK2Ws4CI7L+NAKuV9fV/H0D3eWa?= =?utf-8?q?BJSBjeShl67lwepTfe1P7bvQ/beXjv9d9Q=3D=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5691:: with SMTP id f17mr7848183wrv.74.1583984328673; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:701a:5d88:fa3d:da4? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:701a:5d88:fa3d:da4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w19sm10195169wmc.22.2020.03.11.20.38.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <B67E354A-ECFE-4D1C-B57F-EFDA31FAFDF8@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_83C690EF-C5EE-4652-8101-13AF6DAFFC0A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: How about the IETF 107 T-Shirts ?
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:38:42 -0700
In-Reply-To: <683C37B9DE3459340AF79371@PSB>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
References: <20200311224912.GJ13518@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CAMm+LwixhVoxPtz+ZGgoV6tV6GR_KqEPZMdLRpy2qFdhfWXtDQ@mail.gmail.c om> <683C37B9DE3459340AF79371@PSB>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ZVyjX_lQtsGRZ-OV7K3MKgSDM1Y>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 03:38:52 -0000

John,

> On Mar 11, 2020, at 7:20 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 18:54 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
> <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:
> 
>> Keep them for Madrid which will now be IETF 107.
>> 
>> Of course, now that I have pointed that out, a virtual IETF
>> may well be inescapable even if it is only a proforma virtual
>> plenary.
>> 
>> That would address John's point about seating the new IESG.
> 
> Just my opinion, but I don't think you can have it both ways.
> If the new IESG (and so on) are seated this month, as I think we
> are all expecting it will be, then that is IETF 107, no matter
> how virtual.

I published the tentative agenda for 6MAN w.g. earlier today, I called it the:

  Virtual Vancouver IETF 107 Meeting

Bob