Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Randal Atkinson <> Thu, 02 February 2017 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9722129667; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 07:39:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, 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 4saBRtGMpeps; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 07:39:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61E391293EE; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 07:39:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id w20so4702464qtb.1; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 07:39:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=xvzHxNkUXk6ra2ZnfdLPeCM4V1eOEE3r4lUQro5mSjA=; b=Zv4CxcJ0YnqB21pb5Bw/6tHj/RtqF+dT0Ed1vA18996TThU54k+yFEHSNXskKqJQ6E BPufPKcJ0lam+AvylmC3J9W2v73Qyhl6c7BYHSdaV/3XKSMzMFVwL/IHt+n8mX1hmgCm NDptdir29iiIYImic3hFmF8Dbr7H3O0sC3JZFLc5EaGRl6gAdpuuXs4QosW7N4IZFRpo WqYWAk+0MwubqfJ9lrEPreWM0Kfl1hKIIy1e9nUY93mM7hvGIbTY2FyHMfcw41Pu6aG+ 8b1RBe6LkKIJ8k4IwLDlHHdetElq0tFS4jq68K2y5KUADm2J4Tj5EyMKyprUazMYpNa0 8h9w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=xvzHxNkUXk6ra2ZnfdLPeCM4V1eOEE3r4lUQro5mSjA=; b=Y9OFzCvs/jYQXnlZz0tNgSLsKckL+r3/byyriIPZPIzpg0KI0rv5r47BlcHS6D4LOW OGpYFH4nPFXX7q8RDgw3WsVgr2vZ5sXU4ADLPjnef4iEidsc8kMOUaSPUKHIGduCbEkz n8x7CHqnlmQ+s7CZwA9DbJRqMoXC+kub/4E6P7/acwKyafORBy9X9H4bJekEcam8pBky xTAv1Az8eAPhunqg5i36AQDrHhQn5WamjufiESNS36cO4nCEXe9dJME2y2nRSaCbLTDc 5wHCutJMe5GCli+C6P8Mz+xUD4ETBEtnucWbR9aDW2DOqmHFx4S7b79/t+0pL6IiSdiJ HaHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJtBFWctku6fKObWRboJcQ9CYskqCqiegmyPP9jdcAsgoKJkSy3bZtAhg1+OQY5oQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id f33mr9098910qtc.158.1486049974071; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 07:39:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id f128sm3840138qkb.3.2017. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Feb 2017 07:39:33 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
From: Randal Atkinson <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:39:32 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
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, 02 Feb 2017 15:39:37 -0000

> On 31Jan2017, at 04:44, Naeem Khademi <> wrote:
> The next IETF in the US after Chicago, would be in July 2018 in SF. I don't think it's even possible
> to buy a flight ticket for that time as of now (most airlines wouldn't do such pre-sale). So, it's pretty
> much possible to relocate that meeting elsewhere with causing no loss to anyone's already-made plans.

The claim above that "most airlines won’t sell 6 months in advance" is false.  

Most airlines, including all or nearly all major full-service international airlines, start selling tickets 
at least 12 months before the departure date for the 1st flight on an itinerary.  

To my knowledge, there are some people who already have purchased tickets to go to IETF in SFO.  
This really ought not be surprising as the lowest-cost fares often sell-out earliest.  A number of
IETF people don’t work for big companies and are traveling on their own money.   Those people
would suffer greatly from a change in location less than 12 months out.

I am aware that some have suggested the IETF do more remote meetings.  I think that is worth

I certainly would support IETF making all future meetings more accessible remotely  — and I think 
that is a goal the IETF has been making progress on for some years now, using Jabber, VTC, 
and so forth.  Expanding the remote access capabilities and coverage for all future meetings 
(to the extent that is practical at a given point in time) only makes sense.