Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108

John C Klensin <> Thu, 11 June 2020 11:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD3E03A03FF; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 04:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HGGGokXu9euJ; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 04:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE6C03A03F3; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 04:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1jjLfD-0005LZ-M3; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 07:46:31 -0400
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 07:46:24 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Corinne Cath <>, Stephen Farrell <>
cc: ietf <>,
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Registration open for IETF 108
Message-ID: <46DB233DBEB02D75160A5152@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <5FCC8656386268B41681E1DE@PSB> <> <> < om> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
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: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:46:38 -0000


What you left out is that you, and other students of your
generation, are the future of the IETF -- without you and as
various of us age out, the IETF does not have a future.   Will
you come back later if we lock you out now and you move on to
other things and become less involved?   I certainly don't know;
you may not know with any reliability either.  Will watching on
YouTube a few days or weeks after the meeting be something you
would do and would it be equally useful? Certainly I don't know
and the LLC doesn't know either.

But all of those are at least questions that a community
discussion would bring out.  Like Stephen, I don't think I have
all of the answers or even a firm position on how things should
ultimately work out and would appreciate it if people would not
assume what outcomes I'm in favor of or opposed to.  But I do
believe the decisions have enough likely impact on the standards
process, the diversity of those who participate, and possibly
even the future of the IETF thatI don't believe they should be
made without careful community discussion or, if there is really
an emergency, what the emergency is.  I also believe that our
existing rules and procedures require such a discussion and that
skipping over it is a Really Big Deal.


--On Thursday, June 11, 2020 12:44 +0200 Corinne Cath
<> wrote:

> Hi all,
> Just wanted to add a quick data points to this conversation:
> as a PhD student, 200$ is a fifth of the total research +
> travel budget I get from my university per year.
> In comparison to other universities, I am given a royal
> research budget. But giving up 1/5 to attend an online IETF
> meeting makes a big dent. Doubly-so because I (and I assume
> other graduate students) had not planned for such expenses,
> given online participation is usually free of cost. If I am
> not randomly assigned a waiver, I will probably not be able to
> attend.
> Now I am not under any illusion that my personal attendance
> (or lack there off) matters much - however, I know my case
> (i.e. graduate student on a limited budget) is not unique. And
> many others like me will struggle to participate in this
> meeting because of the unexpected costs. This is not even
> including what the online fee means for some of my colleagues
> working in academia or for civil society in the Global South.
> I agree with Stephen that this step might be hard to avoid,
> but that it would benefit from robust community debate
> beforehand. I also agree with Melinda that this is a real move
> away from the openness from which the IETF derives its
> legitimacy. And while the recordings will be available to all
> post-meeting, this is not a substitute for open attendance.
> Kind regards,
> Corinne