Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Fri, 13 March 2020 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E36F23A0E84 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.647
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vguNzY6hXiie for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA25B3A0E8B for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k18so10854002oib.3 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
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=BbDgTUCgVu0ZNy+DFYdY89s96MF9gkLxj3r4GmqctYw=; b=dnMqdN6gXWCGoG7IgKX9gFIj2azTO2h0j/hpCkgYiGcyMlocVq9Ej/7z56wPJ7DgRd gmWR4rKQTp/IFddENvJ+1TB5HeXTXSsbcaWcZB4wchF8abqoxgvUE8XIv6k9XH9sx4pe 9XKXnH4FWyvy0fWuyJEFJJMT606Ah0UpeOU95jsv2izT4SkcBx6pvLbqfdCSK96OTHFP CclUlaxk0KTqol54D5Qm1owS/SlVMk5AoL6EkbZE1bzUBcH2yPnEv2033dhJ2SAHHx/P 5081rK4bBG+FhXnNIzY4lvTHkstOPW7t1oaheg3Gra0y51jsCA5x8B45gNLNbavwuadD 5iLg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1OVaYf/cSD/L9sV6XdWAqkrzoo9A0xErK4WozfBbiTCvC2NC4v zZ4p9EdT2zyaD4nke7GZoipebn4hCFoJSJh3b3E=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vtHaapQXh0SHjtVIlBMVmvFZogb62S8J4KynJJd?= =?utf-8?q?WarX7UxKwZnJ37cwCAMyaKeZlL+AGRUwIvu/gQL3c2vIXIk=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:c45:: with SMTP id i5mr1237313oiy.111.1584131530993; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <C9E8B3DAE355FAD80C21236C@PSB> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:31:59 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002eb73e05a0c25d65"
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, 13 Mar 2020 20:32:15 -0000

We definitely need to have contingency planning. I am a security guy. We
contingency plan.

Even if things do return to normal tomorrow (they won't) we are now in a
changed world because we have more information. Eight weeks ago almost
nobody believed that a 1918 scale pandemic was likely. Today we are in the
middle of one.

Since the 1970s we have been busy integrating the global supply chain.
Those efforts have brought most of the world peace and prosperity. The
prosperity has been unevenly shared and wars have still occurred. But the
scope for war between the European powers has been limited by the fact than
none of them is capable of manufacturing a full fighter jet, bomber, tank
on their own. The scope for war between the US and China has been limited
by the fact that the US economy depends on cheap Chinese goods and the
Chinese economy depends on access to the US market.

The creation of these inter-connections is not just a fortuitous outcome of
Laissez-faire economics, they have been deliberately forged through
government policy.

And now all of a sudden the supply chains have snapped and we are suddenly
cut adrift. And we have to work out how to make the million or so
ventilators the US will be needing in a few weeks with no access to Chinese
parts with an administration that shows no intention of announcing the
mobilization needed to do so.

We don't yet know what the long term effects of this crisis are going to be
but they are likely to be much more profound and long lasting than 9/11. We
have suddenly seen the fragility of the modern economy and that is not
something many of us can unsee.

Don't assume that everyone who is currently focused on IETF work is going
to be available.

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 3:28 PM Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:

> I agree that having a contingency plan for this would be wise and
> if we make it reasonably future-proof it would not be wasted effort
> if IETF108 takes place normally. Could we possibly discuss it over
> on eligibility-discuss, where presumably the people interested are
> already to be found?
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
> On 14-Mar-20 03:45, John C Klensin wrote:
> > --On Friday, March 13, 2020 09:43 -0400 Barry Leiba
> > <> wrote:
> >
> >> The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 meeting raises the
> >> issue of how that meeting affects NomCom (Nominating
> >> Committee) eligibility. This is especially important because a
> >> new NomCom will be formed between now and IETF 108, giving us
> >> all a fairly short time to figure out what to do.
> >
> > Barry,
> >
> > Forking the thread in the hope of not cluttering up your NomCom
> > eligibility discussion, but...
> >
> > We seem to be making strong assumptions that we will be able to
> > hold IETF 108 as planned, with f2f meetings in Madrid in late
> > July.  I suggest that the IESG (and the rest of us) think about
> > that and so sooner rather than later.  Our implicit assumption
> > is that things will settle down enough that IETF 108 can be held
> > normally and that we do not need to worry about a "new normal".
> > The infectious disease specialists and epidemiologists among my
> > colleagues is this novel coronavirus really is new in several
> > ways and, consequently, that we really cannot predict how
> > quickly the period of maximal spread and risks will wind down by
> > July.  That may be likely, but it is by no means certain.
> >
> > So, it seems to me that we should be sorting out possible issues
> > and making contingency plans about the conditions under which
> > IETF 108 would need to be virtual too, including both things
> > tied to the first or second meeting of the year and to how we do
> > things.   The circumstances that came upon us in the last six
> > weeks gave us little choice other than making quick decisions.
> > I personally think that, on balance, the IESG made reasonable
> > decisions and handled things about as well as they could be
> > handled, including the short-notice cancellation/ virtual
> > conversion and reformed agenda.  But we'd best not have that
> > "whoops, big surprise" situation followed by a scramble again,
> > if only because of the damage that the loss of the cross-area
> > review that has occurred at f2f meetings since the IETF started
> > could do to the quality of our work.
> >
> > So, let us -- soon, even if not in the next two weeks -- ask
> > ourselves such questions as to how the Nomcom will function if
> > it cannot meet f2f at IETF 108 (or 109), whether the possible
> > need for the Nomcom to do much more of its work remotely might
> > affect whatever advice is given to the ISOC President/CEO about
> > candidates for Nomcom Chair, and so on.   And then let's repeat
> > that with a review of all of the other issues tied to the
> > "second meeting" and how IETF 108 could be made maximally
> > effective if we were forced to hold it virtually... including,
> > of course, how that decision would be made and by whom.
> >
> > We could still view that as short-term with longer-term analysis
> > and solutions to follow.  But July isn't that far away and, if
> > things don't get better, we should not have to deal with any
> > plausibly-foreseeable situations by being surprised and
> > improvising.
> >
> > best,
> >    john
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > .
> >