Re: IETF 107 and Corona Virus?

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> Thu, 13 February 2020 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 086AF1200B8 for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:17:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 1kjm2mLrqyyP for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:17:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 506DD120096 for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:17:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id o15so8447782ljg.6 for <>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:17:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TezxJYyGoYElMD2glA21M21ITKCXIkAlbab0KvxHj24=; b=HUHWj1mfiA9ST5M6Bj0qWRsMPC/JqD8dRfU2Dp83LpJ86vtozwAmJRta29+pQFwNYt WnmmUtXK5Ci96wzvv0mYT5uKKapaeG3BZjgKvHcjKOJzkGjDe2uBo7BL6nxXe76U6zm4 Po+O3Wdp0Xn1G8D5dPpopVRKkNyiLtctxUKap04e0UgbTe/Vm2kI6VkGYg1QIYcL1qQG +uX3Mjj+GxQgm7xwhHtoRiSp5pv5SIKbmN0J8Ia5BPt/oaUSeMRwyrLjpYp570TfAF/j 81XFAWIBKuGDFFiSqe/tKYlf1VpoVlUNoTJxla7Ns0pzwScX2jRvX0OcjzqSmo220Ygr GgJQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TezxJYyGoYElMD2glA21M21ITKCXIkAlbab0KvxHj24=; b=rUCU9vK5mDtBAcuCU6E+94vPfbvloXnzkWcz/N/97/lGZEENOjv3tX9pXXq8LqtFfv gmI5fwop+VEpUAoHVHCOMnFb8qpqNobxIiUn4He/zuauO3VWEvtfNjnRje5BePv9xG5L 0zJ/edTPkx2npOzg/H4ptlFNXjyiehJYIQlBVkM5ZsFdZpDclopnevYMn+VBKaxFqVOl 0qOeEt60XQJeyqzggi+zVtHp/4Y7656L+eSR4ba3M+Ohpb+0eQ+WwFq6qyzBeln1qaTW ACe3ewoxKBM8TCmB7dPUdxLbQ98UZ7TLeeZGs8w5rwIo83GvH5CRlTnoCFCyPcSI2p9a WgXQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU5NyjwG3BmzBn2U4hWLBoMHS2mUc+9JuuZ64D/Zy95rPrBssUe ALb/l+HhZQNrS9LmmQDCZvcKAOroJW4ag9+7RBs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwQkEbKi9MwiyfCFISpuCjYdyt0G77el6vl35zVYMGRDz8B/zGjipyD1lxAQz6o0CPmktclnTPA2VQ2B8qSk/o=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9c85:: with SMTP id x5mr8006lji.50.1581632274350; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:17:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:17:27 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: IETF 107 and Corona Virus?
To: Kathleen Moriarty <>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <>, IETF <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e0c5dc059e7c7525"
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, 13 Feb 2020 22:17:59 -0000

Well, *I* just learned something ... inline.

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:37 PM Kathleen Moriarty <> wrote:

> Hi Carsten,
> There's one consideration you left out -
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:18 PM Carsten Bormann <> wrote:
>> On 2020-02-13, at 15:55, Kathleen Moriarty <
>>> wrote:
>> >
>> > That said, my travel is mostly booked and I am planning to attend, but
>> will watch to see what happens with any IETF pandemic planning.
>> Which is what is probably true for most of us.
>> We already know that companies’ and countries’ policies will place some
>> limitations on the meeting (which actually is having some limited impact on
>> planning for the meeting).  With the knowledge we have today (2020-02-13),
>> we can assume that we will have a productive meeting, not the least because
>> we have good remote attendance possibilities for those who can’t (or choose
>> not to) make it.
>> On a health/responsibility level (and, again with the knowledge of
>> today), there simply is no reason to cancel the meeting.  It is still way
>> more likely for an IETF attendee to have a traffic accident than to be
>> impacted by COVID-19.
> Individuals from an entire nation likely cannot attend what is meant to be
> a global meeting. This deserves some thought.

I agree with Kathleen that we're talking about things that deserve thought
in this thread, and I went to grab the mailinfo page for, which the IESG set up to
give people a place think about these very topics, post-2016-Zika virus.

The description for that page is "Manycouches -- List is a design team list
to identify issues that would arise should an IETF meeting ever be held
with O(1000) 'remote' participants."

What I learned, was that the discussion on that list, which had wound down
in 2017 because things seemed less urgent, was restarted by Wes and Ted
about a year ago, and has continued, including people who are on this very

I have no idea how prepared the IETF is now, for a sudden shift to a
meeting with 1000 people remotely, but I do know we're not starting from
zero here. Maybe that's a good plenary question in Vancouver.

If remote participation is reasonable (and we say that it is, and that was
my experience when I bailed on IETF 102 for personal reasons), I think if
an entire nation is forced to participate remotely that's unfortunate, but
if remote participation doesn't turn out to be reasonable, that's worse.

IMO, of course.