Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled

S Moonesamy <> Thu, 12 March 2020 10:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89FAE3A089F for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 03:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id drHj8Mi2TaRD for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 03:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F10C3A087F for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 03:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 02CA5gZM015540 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 03:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1584007554; x=1584093954;; bh=V3XeieFC5g2foG89ncVdSpcJNQuvpCexO+HN0Jcnud4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=av1zOKSbQGBB8rcfS0Syh7hFhx6sLUdom2UNMKUiSUXvq5ezV7oTiq1giftsFwkPJ CrPYiNa1qEyUdagi3uiHqgFNirrMskeWqOP+oeShYs4309NwOmbnvpvL74vMGWlYip fzuzWeL0/pUCjZ0hzcTkfxjXI9Rw9l6nn/kL9dR4=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 03:04:35 -0700
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:06:07 -0000

Hi Jordi,
At 01:28 AM 12-03-2020, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>The problem is that you're pointing to someone that, even if elected 
>democratically, is creating troubles for the full planet, ignoring 
>evident things like global warming ...

A government took a decision.  There is also a decision by another 
government which restricts travel.  You and I discuss could whether 
government X or government Y is right or wrong.  It is highly 
unlikely that it would have any impact on the travel restrictions.

>And the second problem is that asking for a decision "now" for 
>something that will take place in almost 5 months from now, don't 
>looks to me like smart.

I did not ask the IETF LLC for any decision.  There are X months to 
do consider the risks.  Another alternative is to wait X months and 
then operate in crisis mode.

>I still think that the decision must be only based in the decisions 
>of the local host government, of course, unless the full world 
>prohibits traveling there.
>Let's suppose we are already at the end of June and we need to take 
>a decision. Let's suppose the Covid19 spread has gone lower in 
>Spain. If US is the only country that prohibits people going to 
>Spain, we must keep the meeting. US people decided what president 
>they want, and this is a consequence of that.
>It is the same if the situation is reversed and Spain (or any other 
>country) government, decides to disallow travel to country x.

I suggest reading the policy about IETF meetings.

S. Moonesamy