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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 07 April 2016 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 D4B5312D5D7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 vd5IJW_jOx9C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B9D212D59A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1aoDvX-0007Sy-6r; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 13:41:07 -0400
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 13:41:02 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
Message-ID: <DAC6168972FB4273973AC87E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <57069A56.2020303@restena.lu>
References: <09ff01d1905c$f15d4e70$d417eb50$@olddog.co.uk> <5705C39E.30807@dcrocker.net> <0a5801d19086$79f40e30$6ddc2a90$@olddog.co.uk> <570677BC.9000900@dcrocker.net> <CAPt1N1=21nqO2ctfKgdDHK_xmJohsLCBAP4z8Tu_XrDH4DUPoA@mail.gmail.com> <BCF66170D3B05FCAAD0EAE51@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <57069A56.2020303@restena.lu>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jZRQ1ksFRsuuHLk1aNTnLSxtaMw>
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 17:41:13 -0000

Stafan,

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).  

     john


--On Thursday, April 07, 2016 14:35 -0300 Stefan Winter
<stefan.winter@restena.lu>; wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>>> 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)