Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 31 March 2017 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 CB93C126DED for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 PMfjU56V0MGt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FBC9124D37 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2395; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1490976552; x=1492186152; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=1Bod554/7WIAzbA2CFIuVgkCG1Kb1D2nIfkNcZUiltg=; b=WYSS6GPx/KO8nSG9l72jy2tza3lMyGn1qiG+A27c9E97S29AnAytNCE8 p4ii8XrZPbb7fJNbNggJsKHabmJeVBaNrzpCKKeZ68Kg9YxrKe5rJgfqp xRyThkY4Jwpbhn+g7kQY9VL6vmQd10tE8K/VXN0fMct98yEd3YU7AS6mO g=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DsAQBQft5Y/4kNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1SFTooSkVWTQYIPgg6GIgKDRj8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFFgEFI2Y?= =?us-ascii?q?LGCoCAlcGAQwIAQEQiXmtZ4ImilsBAQEBAQEBAQIBAQEBAQEBEg+IU4JqhDWDJ?= =?us-ascii?q?YJfBZBmjASDfIIMjEiBfYhiI4Y4k3EfOIEFJRYIGBWHOCKHYoIuAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,252,1486425600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="225384154"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 31 Mar 2017 16:09:11 +0000
Received: from [10.86.247.170] ([10.86.247.170]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2VG9AXB006532; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 16:09:11 GMT
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <149096990336.4276.3480662759931758139.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <87C934A6-A4A8-41A4-A849-B0EDE8D234FF@gmail.com> <m2a8811lvu.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <d83ffbdd-e3fe-7db5-fef0-fba4d5a52ab0@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:09:07 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m2a8811lvu.wl-randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Wxw5bCDAA7f0jcVaFX8M40SwLbmflwjji"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nmzOOdhfAp1wCB3b45jKSNplLzc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 16:09:14 -0000


On 3/31/17 10:55 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> so, i am curious.  do people
>   o think their imput is more important than that of we small people,
>   o can't read or follow instructions,
>   o or some other thing i do not understand?
>

I believe this is something that is worthy of discussion within the
community and not just something that should be bottled up in a mailbox,
for two reasons: first, while I have a view, I am willing to change it
based on discussion (that would be the precise opposite of your first
bullet point), and second, we currently have a document opened in a
working group where discussion of this point might migrate back to
that.  And so, it falls under your latter bullet.  Perhaps in future you
might assume that to be the case (it is, if nothing else, more polite,
and reduces such meta discussions).

Eliot