Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok

Brian E Carpenter <> Wed, 16 May 2018 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243831275FD for <>; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 NzcZE1ty9EYU for <>; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E70EC1200C5 for <>; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j20-v6so949340pff.10 for <>; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rBe/Y3CVjVUt4Qr/Mz+uZkKIZzvgP7y1YUglVKv31Os=; b=Yl1Z6x6ZLTQ3qLsFZ64R8MdRr0uDQkX43wLDDI7JJf5pzFR8wN3r1uQNDwY69bYNcV +7paW8kEleX6jmY8BtYLwdoxDmG7MgByS0WNlqgiohSQ39Bhg2F+73gdHPVprVBbyumI l7Ip8AUzoRVXWbSGbjZItEUc+8em1DaeVmPXGyYG0TZGc8tEPeUnEgC0+Lstgs1MqAk9 pa7yzCX7thCvX16J8MZ29XFl6dXhKwHfILLbwgT6/o0Ypbe6J27Un1GxFOpz121PDuqD X31I4u5PQ02BW/MJu9pFgxAiii4ueW30MyRV6UyjBCHtYze7XSX+OEyAlCAlIhjmK+nX l+3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rBe/Y3CVjVUt4Qr/Mz+uZkKIZzvgP7y1YUglVKv31Os=; b=DdCxJS4J7nqfVEoJslGwwjpKSaT3QN4SjnYGSnwX8ydPcyRRUswOHtVEzAfrpB1JMy fSDrGMwcbD7lup21owM4EQW3wW5xZBJsxre0F0bcBdFuW0qGt4rPWq79ZfAxbiIVPcUD DlgW/ZQyij47NN3PMZu/WUNsmUX36kuo/z37qdMd0r/7H8zJYzcJpOAxNhjoNl4EFWtB yVW/2E5tBWyXcuisinVzSAQfPGdT5hXG4S1R/3rAln7tBG5wa9MXp8g4VNDFgsB2J1m3 Xz7WSznCzj1AYKd7Drq+HkvkPjhffo+7yF6a+cUQGnleAlAM6/zSV3n+K4mATetWlZFC suYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPweDdnqp/NymGQfH2yGJLDR4W3tySIA370jlM6PJJYQgPEU/5/Tf jQaF8fxEJ5+pwCqNlCBCfGXfeQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZrcZxtur4gq/OyX7OOEW703cQwPdy57oV57b+GA9zu/GRP9TvenS9XZuqTeD/8c1dbETmhdqA==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:4a02:: with SMTP id s2-v6mr1922511pgq.265.1526504475217; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id 65-v6sm6063199pgj.22.2018. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 May 2018 14:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Brian Carpenter <>
Subject: Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
To: ietf <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 09:01:15 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 21:01:18 -0000

On 17/05/2018 00:29, Stewart Bryant wrote:

> I am probably alone in thinking that the Hackathon is suplimentary to 
> the main purpose of the meeting, 

True, but very valuable if we're serious about "running code".

> and thus don't much care when they are

I do. If the hackathon is held before the relevant WG session, the
WG can get hot feedback on whether the latest spec is actually
implementable and whether any interop problems point to ambiguous
text. Also, minor fixes can be made and tested in odd moments
later in the week.

> held, but perhaps we could move them to the Friday/Saturday after the 
> standards sessions so people fatigued for the WG sessions. Those slots 
> could then double as a sort of forml-informal time for extended WG 
> discussions.

Why do we assume informal sessions are more valuable at the end of
the week? I've often found it annoying to have a Monday WG session,
because of the need for informal discussions *before* the meeting

On 17/05/2018 07:04, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
...> It is quite important to continue the official meeting through Friday
> however because if I am going to have discussions, I want them to be under
> Note Well.

I would like legal advice about that. What do we have to do to
be sure whether an informal, unscheduled meeting is part of the
IETF meeting or not?

I'm fairly sure that if I bump into Phill in the departure lounge
at Bangkok airport, it's not the IETF. But if I meet with him and
a few other participants in the venue at 11 a.m. on the Friday? doesn't really
seem to answer this:
"Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list, or other
 function, or that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF
 activity, group, or function, are not Contributions in the context
 of this document."
Is an informal, unscheduled discussion on Friday morning "an IETF
activity, group, or function"?