IETF-100 maybe it's mostly been said? (Was: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100)

Stephen Farrell <> Thu, 26 May 2016 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FB6B12D1AB for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.727
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.727 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-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 1r2a-e4T3Epx for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D06112D0C8 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C03BE7B for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 21:32:01 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HSUxu93_OJd1 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 21:32:00 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E80CBE75 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 21:31:59 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1464294720; bh=CMwKdabeSEAdv3OFDfrCjqUVQ9b5Hi+sTYnBg4oAxsM=; h=Subject:References:To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=PGHQTVhldtzKv+o6+IlfNmhxx4FGiNXIoYZ5K1WL+ie1X4sv2R157QjuLzRN7/jmV +EKgS4DDGo3bobha/+JkDdHlJdTDpSr6VvKyvX2zmaPK7Wslp+mgjPtEGA9nRQ3lBJ 0zuRIOQs33nXjO4C/LPAGNcw45iK7ffMUBVLwWoQ=
Subject: IETF-100 maybe it's mostly been said? (Was: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <>
From: Stephen Farrell <>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 21:31:59 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms000904040501010705010408"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 20:32:04 -0000

Not really addressing Margaret, but us all...

On 26/05/16 21:21, Margaret Cullen wrote:
> What about the IAOC writing to the IETF list and/or recent attendees
> when they are considering going to a new country, asking if anyone
> has any feedback on the idea?  And then considering that feedback
> _before_ making a final decision, signing a contract, etc?

So we seem to be at the point where this mega-thread is so long
that people haven't seen the start of it. Exactly the above was
agreed to be done, and was done, some time back. (Sorry I don't
have the URL to hand now.)

Perhaps we ought all take this as a signal that the signal to
repetition ratio for this thread has reached a point where we
might all step back from the keyboards for a day or two and see
what additional information the IAOC can come back with in about
that time frame?

I really don't see new points arising in the meantime that are
so pressing that they can't wait, and for all the urgency of
getting a decision about IETF-100, I don't think a day or two's
breathing space for the IAOC will make a substantive difference
to the eventual outcome. It might also give us all a while to
ponder the difficult dilemma more thoroughly and even more
thoughtfully, but a bit more calmly perhaps.


PS: I'm not on the IAOC so I just guessed a day or two might help
them. I'd be fine if it were a day or four or five. A break like
that from this thread would help me though even if it didn't help
the IAOC;-)