IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: limiting our set of cities

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 20 February 2020 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 38C3B120115 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 09:43:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=LAlKjaOK; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=SMbFTGb1
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 bzoFanxHbJPm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 09:43:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBC56120071 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 09:43:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id A64FBBCE1A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 17:43:00 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1582220580; bh=F4Oxh1u6a6dznwui4LcSx9Pb232b7VnYZE9vVb5eOFY=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=LAlKjaOKhIPguWS/prOEespzvha1uKVhJM9Z+Ti0cu8Sw94CjucXyw7rjHAjetyIX CUhhngipmP88oKXjldb2GLlTaRdnGK1FQk9mme8T0TSPw0thSenf5jf26qNRR3yhT6 1krAChPkHIhZDP/0V9bTBM2HdQfZzltT4sk7r3Uk=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F5vqnayNyYfq for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 17:42:59 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:42:59 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1582220579; bh=F4Oxh1u6a6dznwui4LcSx9Pb232b7VnYZE9vVb5eOFY=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=SMbFTGb1t41iXU/gessi3DTejlyQ2zjPvN24XooRizlNmKmknMrYf0uICS8vLQYlR ekbf5h1F3sSy1BkszgjBvNKcuYMh4W7AWMV0FqktU5vLMKOVAlbvnx4Jg5egVLDst4 45vBmDrepzCFR1lF1cKMF3pROl23ED8GHdd1rGvc=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: limiting our set of cities
Message-ID: <20200220174259.5452qtrckwgadyjl@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <13820272-7189-4803-A842-EA86FE051C10@live555.com> <9B420C95-9E85-4969-ADCA-8F3AAE026396@ietf.org> <17764.1582194882@dooku>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <17764.1582194882@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rPswjAzlUg0r99-W_6qOt9vd-aw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 17:43:33 -0000

Hi,

No hat, personal opinion only (I work for ISOC).

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:34:42AM +0100, Michael Richardson wrote:

> Can you tell the community if the LLC has any plans/thoughts to stop looking
> for new places to meet, rather to just establish a list of 10-15 cities where
> we have successfully met, and simply repeat?

There was a whole WG that went over this ground in detail not very
long ago, and it produced a procedure.  I think the procedure is being
worked, and in my opinion it would be better to let it run a little
while to see whether it produces good results, rather than trying to
optimize it right now.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email