Fwd: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietf@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E4DF2C3B3A9 for <ietf@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 23 May 2025 02:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t1QcuDXnW4Ik for <ietf@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 23 May 2025 02:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x536.google.com (mail-ed1-x536.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::536]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 726AB2C3B39B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 May 2025 02:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x536.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-600210e4219so1500047a12.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 May 2025 02:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1747993680; x=1748598480; darn=ietf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DYP9ImjyialhQWFXVWIMV/bwV+/gdq2SAinBV7BDokc=; b=CFjxrKf0774P8ctcQqvaKoOaXSJ1VhzxupEmec70ixnpONRmhXa19HigWNEbmKj5oS wHTSzGRYuRqlLNKZn0/0h2eii9BKNNA4ACDqNmw42nazcVAl7iDPRjqKOG+Gs+t+83mW SVQa4zjl/O73LcZhT56P/WcuXIO87Os/9sP08IAz0+v/m7niVSsyt0FbGrhtD5yADYyW byBUN6vs1Uby96yUzNW3Q749i/CCUIPP7Ru+pkHrThOOnkoWhbIGMCYo+H2ULCdTZa4H YtkMCt5ZYPRJafuc6NeFwGLe6O+0sG9erNWGuoMaU2vQMr+MbE7e5Ijnkt3x2fqUpDLA x7Xw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1747993680; x=1748598480; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DYP9ImjyialhQWFXVWIMV/bwV+/gdq2SAinBV7BDokc=; b=A4/DYDBmBg3FydqeSIcKynOxawVmm+dtaFS6aMvq5RTPdS9DQdsBxgbPqkgL0zqw56 F7JJ2hIZMSyyi3W5OJT5m5VSPEPKhjkgNNAgXchpGlAjvdIGNI8PEE5IRUsI/X8y+Ujz BLQzcDbRZT2WUb1lQzReOTMAgu7+F7PDTUwBXWq5ls8awL+qpTVGJ7H/x5Z1EgMKPKZN D/g0B8Pz8kHFV51IltUIIGwND69a9t3NpnjaLWuhDm8UIkwz+ONaIgw+MiOymnTu8dnm ac7OyvCPKAEhc/yKQuDoiON3lO56XThGDmq8tvGNPocNG0dEZe70Ukce/75wFNNK62Me P7UQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyWFMtmQf86MHfaEvN+iTkIU5US05JlAnIlDulSEpbaQS00Geoj 5qtwzeHW3diaBLIkYGa9w1en+jkzr6xLtqh2ih6SQcZ+zcWlLmWXMtCzV/N49QzxCQjrnLLCrp0 AGpKKKECCv4f/vlC5CyuNWjCyJg+AEegm9g==
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuLOfPA8QUd0rN9OCy4Nnr8ge4Nba774eR3Xlpx4dwDyr84Dd3JIxfTy9ypyPc nDebtdFNXIDCh9RuxAFo6O3zXJlMBP01RBB5KeUyroPw/quKNezjr3EAxpJhkhRIycD1hoIaAiM uiCURcArg2x3Fam/laywlgpP/3t+P8mw6QJA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHIEAxGZBsehNAmgafPj/w3alkPDe+6Hr0SrTvZkLfcQwqC3os3C0/ttdoyxgQlv2Ct97/ZZ+td2vvjIqn7nmI=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:72c3:b0:ad5:1b14:15f4 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-ad64e91ff19mr211754666b.25.1747993680429; Fri, 23 May 2025 02:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0E13A03E-3B81-4C9C-976E-B8C68810B486@ietf.org> <CA+9kkMBoDhQq4GROSYQ0AjJ3Um-7XsL6D8s+R+rRDkX8fv-NnA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMBoDhQq4GROSYQ0AjJ3Um-7XsL6D8s+R+rRDkX8fv-NnA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 10:47:33 +0100
X-Gm-Features: AX0GCFtfu2nv37c7S1mw6WSIMmcdSds-SDhVq5Bb2DKZJF9QEsrdGvwnuSx-2FQ
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMA__=wsDz1w=y5OaG1-aD5TvsMDiPSG+Z-60MYQwrO2GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006447340635ca7e94"
Message-ID-Hash: X6B4SMEC5HPVLIZATK3ZFRGH6QSJJY3W
X-Message-ID-Hash: X6B4SMEC5HPVLIZATK3ZFRGH6QSJJY3W
X-MailFrom: ted.ietf@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ietf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sis9iCORrKODAHrWfo_B0-A-mK0>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ietf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-leave@ietf.org>

This was sent to ietf-announce, rather than IETF, but it should have been a
public message.

Ted

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, May 23, 2025 at 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment
To: IETF Executive Director <exec-director@ietf.org>, Roman Danyliw <
rdd@cert.org>
Cc: <ietf-announce@ietf.org>


Dear Jay, Roman, and members of the IETF LLC board,

In the statement below, you say:

It also considered the viability of the meeting and concluded that there
will be sufficient participation for the meeting to be financially viable
and to meet the threshold set by the IESG for a technically viable meeting
[3].

The citation is to the IESG response for the community discussion for
Shenzhen, not for a decision by the IESG about San Francisco.  In that
process the LLC was asked to “explicitly confirm with the IESG that the
core objective from RFC8718 of ‘Why we meet’ will be met”.

Is this reference meant to indicate that the IETF LLC used the data from
the previous consultation to make this decision?  Or did the IETF LLC
explicitly confirm with the IESG that the core objective from RFC8718 will
be met?

Roman, if the latter, I would appreciate a citation from the IESG and a
summary similar to that in section E of
https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF_125_Decision_and_Survey_Summary_version_2024-10-08.pdf
.  I believe it is very important that the community understand the IESG's
conclusion here, in addition to the IETF LLC's, as the IESG is charged with
the standards process and part of the risk here is to the standards process.

Jay, if the former, I would like to understand why the IESG was not asked a
similar question, given the community objections raised.

My thanks for your attention, and I look forward to your responses,

regards,

Ted Hardie

On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 8:39 PM IETF Executive Director <
exec-director@ietf.org> wrote:

> At its annual onsite retreat held in Amsterdam 6-7 May 2025, the IETF
> Administration LLC Board reviewed its decision to hold IETF 127, 14-20
> November 2026, in San Francisco, USA.  This follows on from a series of
> events with the most recent being the board meeting on 16 April 2025 where
> the board considered the responses to its call for feedback [1] and
> received direct feedback from a number of IETF participants. We received a
> lot of constructive and diverse responses and we understand the various
> concerns raised.
>
> The board has reached a final decision that IETF 127 will go ahead in San
> Francisco as planned.
>
> In reaching this decision, the board reassessed this meeting with regards
> to the requirements of BCP 226 [2] and concluded that it remains consistent
> with the criteria in the BCP.  It also considered the viability of the
> meeting and concluded that there will be sufficient participation for the
> meeting to be financially viable and to meet the threshold set by the IESG
> for a technically viable meeting [3].
>
> The board sincerely thanks all of those that have provided feedback on
> this complex issue.
>
> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/STQXuEgpsJp8JJ0SRh1OghDb2XY/
> [2]  https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp226
> [3]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/Vmsojml9ghvSFbxNrDB9EU5KwNg/
>
> --
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> exec-director@ietf.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list -- ietf-announce@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-announce-leave@ietf.org
>