IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: limiting our set of cities

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 20 February 2020 11:38 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 7139A1200F7; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 03:38:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.501
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 Qgq7J1FOnEvE; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 03:38:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (minerva.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2a01:7e00::3d:b000]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12D6C120114; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 03:38:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (x59cc8baf.dyn.telefonica.de [89.204.139.175]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3E351F458; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:38:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 63E7D1A3B6D; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:38:20 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
cc: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: limiting our set of cities
In-reply-to: <3A21EC0B-F26C-4619-A3AE-A6552279BE7D@puck.nether.net>
References: <17764.1582194882@dooku> <3A21EC0B-F26C-4619-A3AE-A6552279BE7D@puck.nether.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> message dated "Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:48:46 -0500."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:38:20 +0100
Message-ID: <22207.1582198700@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tzX9uch-b4E01L4TrUQMKyJSrKk>
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 11:38:29 -0000

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
    > I know directly that Seoul posed some unique challenges when it came to
    > the meeting network last time. I enjoyed the venue but I think the
    > connection was not easy.

I agree that there are/were issues with various locations.
In this case, the issue was that we did not find a sponsor, and we had to pay
(a lot) for the link.

The short-list is not a carte blanche, "it was perfect", but rather, "there
are known, and resolvable issues"

    > I do want to see a return to Japan as I enjoy visiting but also know
    > it's a more expensive location.

I found it similar in price to Bangkok and Singapore.
There seemed to be more options at different prices, for instance.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email