Re: Registration details for IETF 108

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Mon, 01 June 2020 06:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DEEF3A0D77 for <>; Sun, 31 May 2020 23:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8vy7T6BY9UKT for <>; Sun, 31 May 2020 23:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:495::5]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A87883A0D74 for <>; Sun, 31 May 2020 23:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; s=MDaemon; t=1590994510; x=1591599310;; q=dns/txt; h=User-Agent:Date: Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:References:In-Reply-To: Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; bh=QoW7gw6a yBBlKwWN9yHYuaL6ISgd81RSxoEh0PxqA3M=; b=PdmHJth6cWmi/6d1eFF3W1cB +ZwRZd15nHDrrN5KeCXKPIWIjyoebli6hYXuDxkz/zju2s9tjJdMP2iqKbXoiAVk SA+nPeT+euaaHmy9CmLnn3GZxXSvl36HyhhnnShI0afUP3cKX7o9IPmHYaqe4Dkh u1nGet78WSdMUFcMeY0=
X-MDAV-Result: clean
X-MDAV-Processed:, Mon, 01 Jun 2020 08:55:10 +0200
X-Spam-Processed:, Mon, 01 Jun 2020 08:55:10 +0200
Received: from [] by (MDaemon PRO v16.5.2) with ESMTPA id md50000189993.msg for <>; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 08:55:10 +0200
X-MDRemoteIP: 2001:470:1f09:495:d547:7a0d:6390:20cd
X-MDHelo: []
X-MDArrival-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 08:55:10 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.37.20051002
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 08:55:06 +0200
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
To: <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: Registration details for IETF 108
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
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: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 06:55:13 -0000

I think one of those additional questions is:

Are authors of documents being presented, able to participate at no cost, at least in the relevant WGs?

I fully understand that our consensus decisions are taken in the list but meetings provide a better venue for discussing the documents, as some times, discussion only happens with the presentation. I'm not saying this is right, however, is the reality.


El 1/6/20 0:34, "ietf en nombre de Brian E Carpenter" < en nombre de> escribió:

    On 01-Jun-20 09:44, Melinda Shore wrote:
    > On 5/31/20 1:13 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
    >> I don't think the characterization of this as "pay-to-play" is accurate. You
    >> are certainly free to participate in mailing lists, github, etc.
    > I'm somewhat troubled by this, as well, tbh.  

    What troubles me is the lack of a debate in the community before this
    was announced with about a week's notice.

    For my own part, I have no idea whether I would have to pay this out
    of my own pocket or not, and determining that would take more rounds of
    email than can happen before registration opens. Since this isn't a
    travel-related fee, the procedures many of us are used to for meeting
    fees don't apply. I'm very much aware that this is the new normal,
    but it's going to take a while for employers' approval procedures to
    catch up. How many people will be excluded for that reason?

    It probably doesn't matter in my case since the announced timezone
    for the meeting rules it out anyway, but as a matter of principle,
    we haven't had a debate about the principle, and that seems wrong.
    For example, 

    1) Is listen-only attendance charged the same fee as listen-and-speak?
    If so, is that right or wrong?

    2) Why is there a late fee? It's not as if extra cookies have to
    be bought at the last minute.

    And I'm sure there are other questions.


    > To the extent that
    > the IETF has gradually and effectively moved to having decisions
    > made in meetings it would be unfortunate indeed to exclude
    > people based on financial circumstances.  I'd like to see the
    > decision-making situation fixed but given the history of that
    > discussion I think we are where we are, and free remote participation
    > provides at least some mitigation.  I also tend to think that
    > saying that meeting participation isn't necessary because {mailing
    > lists,Github,whatever} is incompatible with the insistence that
    > the IETF continue to meet because it's not really possible to
    > progress work without real-time discussion.  I'll also note that
    > for as long as there's been a remote participation option available
    > it's been free.  We're now in the odd position of having all-remote
    > meetings absorb what used to be "remote participants" into the
    > group of "participants," with some consequential side-effects
    > (although arguably there are no such things as side-effects, just
    > effects).
    > I do think this decision has some unintended consequences.
    > Scholarships or other subsidy might provide some mitigation
    > but would potentially be messy/awkward.  The organization
    > is long overdue for some navel-gazing about working methods.
    > It's unreasonable to expect perfect consistency but I think
    > things have gotten a little more incoherent than they should
    > be.
    > Melinda

IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.