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

"John Levine" <> Thu, 07 April 2016 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E36412D10C for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U7Wkzm-XryRF for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE38D12D0AC for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 89311 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2016 20:49:43 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 7 Apr 2016 20:49:43 -0000
Date: 7 Apr 2016 20:38:11 -0000
Message-ID: <20160407203811.54154.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <>
Subject: Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
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 20:49:45 -0000

>My apologies... bad example.   I was, however, thinking less of
>the city area to country area ratio than about the "probably
>only one plausible city in the country to hold an IETF-sized
>meeting" issue.    I should have been more clear about that or
>chosen a better example (or, more likely, both).  

Unless the country is so small that there's only one plausible meeting
hotel, that still doesn't strike me as a problem.

So if they said they were thinking about the Bahamas, that could be a
problem, anywhere else, not so much.