RE: Registration details for IETF 108

John C Klensin <> Fri, 12 June 2020 22:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D1993A0D84; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1IvbyD1ZSE64; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F1A23A0D6E; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1jjrnf-0009vc-IL; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 18:05:23 -0400
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 18:05:16 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Larry Masinter <>, 'Jay Daley' <>
cc: 'IETF Rinse Repeat' <>
Subject: RE: Registration details for IETF 108
Message-ID: <602817EB7E0004CD1FD5CCC5@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <00b801d640f9$5afe7bf0$10fb73d0$>
References: <> <> <01d701d638ca$c096b5e0$41c421a0$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <1UWAyqDxFn.1IOJoXgqe8i@pc8xp> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <00b801d640f9$5afe7bf0$10fb73d0$>
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: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 22:05:28 -0000

--On Friday, June 12, 2020 13:37 -0700 Larry Masinter
<> wrote:

> For moving IETF online, I'd suggest hiring some group that
> does it  for a living
> in consultation with IETF in an open transparent manner, of
> course.

Larry, that path leads to a rathole-rich environment with very
smart and well-fed rats. Among other things, I note that Diplo's
list does not include Meetecho, which I believe IETF chose for
good reasons and with the limitations of other systems for our
purposes in mind and then, more important, assorted people
(including Ray and the Secretariat) worked closely with the
developers to further adapt to our needs.

Moreover, unless something has changed that you or Jay know
about but I don't, prior experience with Meetecho strongly
suggests that, if we discover deficiencies that we would like to
have corrected before IETF 108 and give them reasonable notice,
the chances of getting those changes made are quite good.
Having tried, in non-IETF contexts, to work with the providers
of three or four of the systems Diplo lists to get bugs or
unfortunate features fixed, a year or two might be plausible,
but not six weeks... unless , of course, one is a government
making demands and/or threats.

It seems to me that Jay has, to his credit even if he has not
gotten it right every time, been struggling to avoid such
ratholes.  If nothing else, even if Diplo were a perfect match,
there almost certainly is not enough time to work out a contract
with them, have them understand our needs, adjust fees as
needed, and then go into a meeting that is now only six weeks
away without creating unacceptable risk.

So, at minimum, can we postpone that particular discussion until
we get through IETF 108 and can start assessing what we learned
and what to do next?