IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Thu, 13 April 2017 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
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 780AE1287A5; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 A27ozQwVn28A; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 652B5128768; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1cyTe2-0007RU-Pj; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:33:59 +0000
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:33:56 +0900
Message-ID: <m2lgr5yttn.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, iaoc@ietf.org, IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
In-Reply-To: <16010f27-e86b-b17d-4a13-62645e0bdc89@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <149204035801.15694.8437554373033456064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <16010f27-e86b-b17d-4a13-62645e0bdc89@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wloJmcVaWliXr49kPHUK95WJKBE>
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 01:34:02 -0000

> 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.)

to me, the lack of predictibility on the draconian index is the main
issue.  and for the uk as well as the states,  both seem to have a well
developed and practiced ability to do very damaging things on very, or
no, notice.

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email