Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse

Stefan Winter <> Thu, 07 April 2016 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B7E212D1A3 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O-tPwx1QKx65 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C16D612D586 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from viper.local (unknown [IPv6:2001:a18:1:40::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F275BB744; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 19:35:21 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
To: John C Klensin <>, Ted Lemon <>, Dave Crocker <>
References: <09ff01d1905c$f15d4e70$d417eb50$> <> <0a5801d19086$79f40e30$6ddc2a90$> <> <> <>
From: Stefan Winter <>
Openpgp: id=AD3091F3AB24E05F4F722C03C0DE6A358A39DC66
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 14:35:18 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Drnp6mFdCtDoL1EAMXSUDEW46q1LepaBc"
Archived-At: <>
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, 07 Apr 2016 17:35:38 -0000


>> Dave, how would it complicate the negotiation process to
>> simply say "we are considering the following cities for future
>> IETFs: does anybody know of an issue that they want to raise
>> with any of these?"   We don't have to say when, or how
>> definite.   It's hard to see how this would cause
>> problems--can you explain?
> Exactly.  Singapore may be a special case because it is a
> "city=country" one but, other than Luxembourg, there are
> relatively few others of those that are likely candidates for
> discussion.

Not that it adds particularly much to the discussion at hand, but would
you please note that the country of Luxembourg has 2,586.4 km^2 /
998 sq mi surface, while the city of Luxembourg is just one out of
multiple cities in the country.

If you are looking for area surface matches between a country and its
(only) city, you may rather want to look in the general direction of the
country Monacco and its city Monte Carlo (different name, same thing -
how's that for a special case!).

(Now waiting for someone from Monacco to correct me about my ignorance
of throwing both into one bowl)


Stefan Winter

>    I'm not suggesting supplying padding, but I assume
> that there are multiple places that might be considered in any
> of those regions (and even countries between them) and
> identifying a list of them and asking the question Ted suggests
> should not be an issue.
> I also can't imagine why doing that would get in the way of
> negotiations, at least unless the process has turned into "let's
> go to Timbuktu, now let's start negotiating with hotels there".
> Independent of other issues with that city, I'd suggest that, if
> the model comes down to that, we'd be in bad trouble for other
> reasons, so I assume it hasn't.   It would be better if cities
> were eliminated before a call for proposals was issued but, even
> if one were issued that included several cities, I don't see
> huge problems if some candidate venues were eliminated because
> we decided their cities or countries were off-limits: it would
> really be no different from a solicitation and contracting
> standpoint than eliminating one because our preliminary
> investigations concluded that adequate connectivity was
> impossible for that city.
>> ...
>     john