Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards

Ole Jacobsen <> Wed, 25 May 2016 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACFC912D6F3 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 07:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.127
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, 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 4lODJfX293UM for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 07:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9D1112D7B2 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 07:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from by (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 64bit (built Sep 8 2015)) id <> for; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:09:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 64bit (built Sep 8 2015)) with ESMTPSA id <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:09:43 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 07:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ole Jacobsen <>
To: John C Klensin <>
Subject: Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards
In-reply-to: <>
Message-id: <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605250702070.2005@rabdullah.local>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605241228030.97977@rabdullah.local> <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=4d515a; t=1464185383; bh=VTyiBoAULSP+UrYHuULDsFUBv3K7/0vdeI/6ct4/7Cc=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-id:MIME-version:Content-type; b=NK5Ckok238BwepQZjYIhZymoNFtmvjCC4Et7+htCgvLxd4rbby34dl09Ock0dM/i8 c/pakxG9i1S5SN3L6PwHIdMmkX4ivxw7dAzhfMM/GttKOCKPywcbQSzwEdpaNWviUT 4LVqWc5Dsg1gRrimIqhAnDp4ry+Hxxje3Ej+bSf/GNyK04GRZpcAhximJVRBTCscbJ tR1BB3CDEmI4RPd5DclQn9ZYWuDybf5bZq5KOdYmGV0hxPw4S4ABonZSNm01T8d0iq ZQ+ZNxEBa2dUWzXOzdAY5DlNjIHd3DbNUgC411Vmborh/o8LRlQ/yZ+H4YmFLI7iBq AV9NmT52JfVsQ==
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Leslie Daigle <>, IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:11:07 -0000

On Wed, 25 May 2016, John C Klensin wrote:

> Ole,
> Since we seem to be waxing philosophical here, three complementary 
> rhetorical questions:
> (1) The easiest place for Chinese citizens to attend a meeting, with 
> a guarantee of no visa problems, is (obviously) China.  A corollary 
> to our question above is that we should be holding additional 
> meetings in China (some "somewhere in Asia that might be relatively 
> friendly to Chinese passport holders").  How would you balance that 
> reason for planning more meetings in China against the disadvantages 
> of doing so, disadvantages that include uncertainty about visas for 
> others (see below), air quality issues, questions about availability 
> of open networks (at least for attendees staying in other than the 
> official hotel and possibly for the general population), etc.?  
> Note that inverting that question turns into exactly your question 
> above about very large numbers of US and Canadian attendees versus 
> visa issues.

As you know, last time we went to China it was only after a long 
debate, and as such I would expect us to have a similar debate
if it happened again for all the reasons you list. Since all of those
issues (including in-bound visas) affect every non-local attendee,
I would expect the community to come to a go or no-go decision based
in part by the perceived number of people negatively affected.

I don't have any comments on your other points.

>      john
> [1] "Unpleasant" including high fees, requirements to schedule
> f2f interviews, long lead times, general discourtesy, demands
> for unreasonable levels of documentation, and general "you need
> to prove your innocence beyond any plausible doubt" behavior. 
> [2] For the record, I've been timed out on an application for a
> Chinese visa after getting several of them before and after.  I
> have every reason to believe that the main reasons was someone's
> (or some institution's) idea of reciprocity.   But timeouts for
> US passport-holders trying to go to China are not a theoretical
> issue (fwiw, I've also been timed out by Brazil -- nothing
> unique about China or the US-China relationship).