Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok

"Andrew G. Malis" <> Wed, 16 May 2018 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C08A12D948 for <>; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:20:44 -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 OameWz2r9tuj for <>; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB897126CBF for <>; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c203-v6so2082397oib.7 for <>; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/KbOg4Qpz6TfnMfYppL5nrBqhRSCOPN9QuMr61/PYDA=; b=gI00rKmjvqwk9SqujvHNwGP/2466UcoEqV3Eh4vf6xy3dbaDInXduuvn8dPJGgOoV9 i4xivdlcj7RNIFSCG0vFoKfr6ah7Nkzhp+mchpWilpqDRxw3TWl0E+YheThN8adbZb/o qRisR0Ei1dxzRp2OuCkW3sSqJk0BhKhU/zIVmiSbPS5WNm7UnzJvZZyMMai7d+w7qiKi nWTA7qmqrRNx/s1w7ugdC72RdXMDrOgUSP78iCs07zYSpUcK9iUidSZgpRResdpvnmIl BfJNQjWZe0VRZZd5+gLPUBZEaHNbPlr9lUxvJMynFZ0Z2qEqtm4sUSjvFkejebiuzB4W XzYw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/KbOg4Qpz6TfnMfYppL5nrBqhRSCOPN9QuMr61/PYDA=; b=NKVQVvxzguIfjL/0cjtndGncKBPO4q/ORS5lDDqNiUDDG4va5IkW/gGxa6IJ3obbjB ub/XiSyWcs39Ye338+WdqwPeh7MFFy57Vp61+RbUsk/x18WgxzW9rpDNzvxMHMi3hCEv h6A25jet7tb+qWDV7H3Rmrj3CBsuZ+V6GZgzMNcKl5+kD90HNMCqxZYAj9e/IFUWUWvA RraNplQ7/G8TItQTgRDrvKmGTZbNGxrUNQeQ+0ZK1muzUa2hOAfnEr6V8u+ZvO73xKCZ jLWbUTbKx5+pQ6AcoN7LWrVSnyixYzoiM8Kof112uBFX048VJk+6vf/fuokV45b6zokp +Qwg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPweG7XRq0H41J9Y6x3qUX9ghf6S4JKLMnILthE8lHETP7RuuDUBf YlIkt3q9EkTWopG+a7thFMIr6v0JPjtUQkMoxKA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZoH5x+4R7E224lM0u83s8XxqCoTFzeZz8B45yeSx2DdKHkrkjPlkft5M7FCxlnKTYyfSwTpBsKQkvB0pzzSplU=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:c314:: with SMTP id t20-v6mr1819265oif.15.1526505639029; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a9d:1f27:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 17:20:18 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <>, ietf <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005cc039056c594a7d"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 21:20:44 -0000

As always, anyone that wants to have a meeting not covered by the Note Well
can use a private meeting room or other space (such as a restaurant) not
being provided by the IETF. IMHO, any meeting or discussion in a space
being provided by the IETF, such as the IETF lounge or a session room, is
covered by the Note Well.


On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> It seems clear to me that if you don't meet in a meeting that is
> officially part of the IETF, then you aren't under the note well.   So if
> you meet Phillip in the airport, no Note Well.   On the other hand,
> informal sessions on Friday can be covered by the Note Well if they are
> announced as such, to as great an extent as any other meeting can.   IANAL,
> of course, but this seems straightforward.
> I've found Hackathons to be valuable, and the fact that they precede the
> IETF is very good.   I agree with you that earlier "informal" discussions
> are more important than later ones.   Having those covered under the note
> well when desired would also be good—I don't think that a conversation in
> the hallway is covered under the note well.   Like you I would be curious
> to know if the IETF lawyer has an opinion on this.
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
>> wrote:
>> On 17/05/2018 00:29, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>> > I am probably alone in thinking that the Hackathon is suplimentary to
>> > the main purpose of the meeting,
>> True, but very valuable if we're serious about "running code".
>> > and thus don't much care when they are
>> I do. If the hackathon is held before the relevant WG session, the
>> WG can get hot feedback on whether the latest spec is actually
>> implementable and whether any interop problems point to ambiguous
>> text. Also, minor fixes can be made and tested in odd moments
>> later in the week.
>> > held, but perhaps we could move them to the Friday/Saturday after the
>> > standards sessions so people fatigued for the WG sessions. Those slots
>> > could then double as a sort of forml-informal time for extended WG
>> > discussions.
>> Why do we assume informal sessions are more valuable at the end of
>> the week? I've often found it annoying to have a Monday WG session,
>> because of the need for informal discussions *before* the meeting
>> itself.
>> On 17/05/2018 07:04, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> .....> It is quite important to continue the official meeting through
>> Friday
>> > however because if I am going to have discussions, I want them to be
>> under
>> > Note Well.
>> I would like legal advice about that. What do we have to do to
>> be sure whether an informal, unscheduled meeting is part of the
>> IETF meeting or not?
>> I'm fairly sure that if I bump into Phill in the departure lounge
>> at Bangkok airport, it's not the IETF. But if I meet with him and
>> a few other participants in the venue at 11 a.m. on the Friday?
>> doesn't really
>> seem to answer this:
>> "Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list, or other
>>  function, or that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF
>>  activity, group, or function, are not Contributions in the context
>>  of this document."
>> Is an informal, unscheduled discussion on Friday morning "an IETF
>> activity, group, or function"?
>>     Brian