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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 07 April 2016 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 A9E7612D0B8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 5T30fEPE_3lA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x230.google.com (mail-lb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::230]) (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 E208B12D19A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-x230.google.com with SMTP id bk9so24988170lbc.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 08:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=emkljwQEwAs9MNQIuxKjZcuZpjDh3xuojuk8YSy6YtI=; b=2E6LaidVbGKUpnHNqSP/8mQRgZ/GCkykAu96Dd4TImdATcTfwUQUpo+QbbzdVk78b1 H3fN6/J/0LDqY8lgpnBbf1wjpYha+4z5xcCqi8WCwBTt63z0xlG5Lnkqy8zdNgJwt3q0 pnSsv+fok7mNp3MdQjcC8N3h6zXC1Qsuj1Y/K2By67+ybQc78FqyBL7irdw7oClayrQk NAwazcFcNsH0sYZ0+MoxEICf+QpM13AOUxF1skvVCuKK3BlcPgTKJfgWmPXtoPwqCFrd VGpIKBvqfg+D4Lq2jAvO5ulw5FeNgGZcnYs39wXgL1AeM9FDIilO7MG9D05L2MoKrOcn 76xg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=emkljwQEwAs9MNQIuxKjZcuZpjDh3xuojuk8YSy6YtI=; b=PCFal5rlPMwyVUTggx3Z6nGv1vv6b9grRJKE8nMagkULwM/EFhDbS0dU7PTFWLJEnp VCypChdp4Kvn8JWj909j58H8WfXicL+tbFFO5VEL2TmNQPPTC4t1zDDykg+41tGDHLlA UMd/bJbnnrSJcOdfrydXaNICCGxB3zRrvZ8mZVWU9iLX1edK6YwgnYyRB77R+nlfMrc6 OB1sbww6RYyN3whsJDT/oxQGGVRSs0hsdpme0fjSkDxjKsT0gkiDxKqKOdpNm3ZaNKQl 0uKR5TMtTJXX7UVJSX8QcDDmGxmxCopNoZmLnnlkZmgntm/9Ri7YOIwu2bfS14SLXqjw d5kg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLh68b3Pz9T8+S7jOcteshSCy6LZRd5Dz8AFVQueBhTQzhAaCLtPuMs8moR4MXBb4Bo9fN98rjk1OpGLw==
X-Received: by 10.112.13.8 with SMTP id d8mr1624563lbc.110.1460042657917; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 08:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.40.136 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:67c:370:136:ec62:80b3:91d7:df8a]
In-Reply-To: <570677BC.9000900@dcrocker.net>
References: <09ff01d1905c$f15d4e70$d417eb50$@olddog.co.uk> <5705C39E.30807@dcrocker.net> <0a5801d19086$79f40e30$6ddc2a90$@olddog.co.uk> <570677BC.9000900@dcrocker.net>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:23:38 -0300
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=21nqO2ctfKgdDHK_xmJohsLCBAP4z8Tu_XrDH4DUPoA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3b44efb8443052fe6abb8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/g2Kj7meBU7Vaq2QtI1Tj-qysZo0>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 07 Apr 2016 15:39:10 -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?

I'm not objecting to just making an exhaustive list; I just am not
convinced that it would really make any difference, particularly since
things change.   E.g., I suspect that the IETF that was scheduled for
Charlotte, NC, is no longer in the offing... :}