Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 13 April 2017 00:01 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 38BB9128C84; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.403
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 BIoxUeQGrT8T; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43F8F12871F; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5985BEE3; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:00:54 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7pvVEepV95u3; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:00:53 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.244.2.100] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 57109BED4; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:00:53 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1492041653; bh=v6Qm63emn2SsZnhRBEaWLlLJT2opskGKdFptWC92Cio=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=IkdvwE0ZZg6wJzWTJjp1Mi2QL9vw+bOvNkR57cgfdnCe+11/YLOBS3d7VgUmQyUIW QYewwe4e3h3/JSnZoviknkFvIBcNELBTVWbwwgtu5wtvNldqQMAZ6JY7V01Rzx6qpx evjdzho0Q54v7nknf/KzMLz4ppdj0BBMAT5nts3U=
Subject: Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
To: ietf@ietf.org, iaoc@ietf.org, IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
References: <149204035801.15694.8437554373033456064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <16010f27-e86b-b17d-4a13-62645e0bdc89@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:00:52 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <149204035801.15694.8437554373033456064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="AJfRf5fb9MbC5mPCln3mGkTiMJHwUOQlE"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/v9rUCxXHaMqnEuIvjGcyeMyI5Ko>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 13 Apr 2017 00:01:00 -0000
Hi Leslie, Thanks for the update. One query... On 13/04/17 00:39, IAOC Chair wrote: > The general comments on meeting in the US played along the same lines > as has been shared on the IETF discussion list: people are variously > for moving all meetings out of the US, or adamantly against, or > somewhere in between, each position supported by good reasons. I have seen mail to the list that argued for not meeting in the US within our current planing horizon. Some of that was adamant. (For clarity: I'd agree with the position that we ought not risk meeting in the US for a few years, incl. that we ought, if possible, move ietf-102 on the basis that the we don't have a predictable situation with the US at the moment and that we ought not plan to meet in any place that's currently that unpredictable.) I do not recall the opposite on the list, i.e. someone adamantly arguing that we ought continue to meet in the US. There were some mails that I'd say maybe weakly argued for continued US meetings in the relevant timeframe. But nothing approaching adamant. Is that my bias in reading the list traffic or did I miss some mail, or is it possible that the (public) list traffic and (relatively private) survey responses are less similar that your mail implies? That last wouldn't be surprising, but I'd hope that in that case some of the people who filled in the survey who adamantly said we ought continue to meet in the US would be willing to justify that on the list. If none were, then I think the IAOC ought consider that as a relevant input in their decision making. (Not as a winning argument, but as a relevant thing.) Thanks, S.
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Vinayak Hegde
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … John C Klensin
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Michael Richardson
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Eliot Lear
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Randy Bush
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Leslie Daigle
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Yoav Nir
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Aaron Falk
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Dave Taht
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Michael StJohns
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … John C Klensin
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Joel Halpern Direct
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … tom p.
- RE: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Eric Gray
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Stephen Farrell
- RE: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Eric Gray
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Khaled Omar
- Fw: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Khaled Omar
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Khaled Omar
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Khaled Omar
- Re: Fw: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, … Khaled Omar
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Yoav Nir
- Re: Fw: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, … Matthew Kerwin
- Fw: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Khaled Omar
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Melinda Shore
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Khaled Omar
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Randy Bush
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Stephen Farrell
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Stephen Farrell
- Fwd: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and… Leslie Daigle
- Re: [IAOC] Update on feedback on US-based meeting… Leslie Daigle