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

John C Klensin <> Thu, 07 April 2016 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4B5312D5D7 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vd5IJW_jOx9C for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B9D212D59A for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) 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 <>
To: Stefan Winter <>, Ted Lemon <>, Dave Crocker <>
Subject: Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <09ff01d1905c$f15d4e70$d417eb50$> <> <0a5801d19086$79f40e30$6ddc2a90$> <> <> <> <>
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-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
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 17:41:13 -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).  


--On Thursday, April 07, 2016 14:35 -0300 Stefan Winter
<>; 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)