IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: China

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Fri, 08 April 2016 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 AD9F512D1AE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.531 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, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ecs.soton.ac.uk
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 4L9A7VN_ecOv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A93712D1A4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u38FYmMY001022; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 16:34:49 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk u38FYmMY001022
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1460129689; bh=/Sxr3cSlwn2mnPJKtmlW4d8nSFc=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=IGBYxXtkwzu0kzPr38oUSLn/KJcNJRkqOSBJoKFv+cNmqzB7bDPHBrLAEGrC49D1f W89p3aJGhaCuLnLxpkTTqAtLAAd4mmoiAjeHm6LWbv5wxbGXmdfdhWyxnYXrazjH03 qBnDpXfpJLCLAk/BfSr0CfwM1FZCzohlvzqCggkY=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id s37GYm0691506569DE ret-id none; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 16:34:49 +0100
Received: from [10.220.17.43] (int-200-49-217-75.movi.com.ar [200.49.217.75] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u38FYg37022067; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 16:34:43 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: China
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13E238)
In-Reply-To: <3CE7670A-DBE4-4B47-BB02-DDD202B99480@sobco.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 16:34:41 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|1732d6f3eb6217487ddc48b4e7c8e5ces37GYm03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|3548A1F1-F0CF-4609-B307-385E2BAEF897@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <0D914666-C3D4-4CCE-AD5E-4E5B34EA1A73@piuha.net> <20160407182936.GA21340@pfrc.org> <CAB75xn780nNDjGa_Cc222J20-+1CCHt09Xp8KHzaK=n0xx51pg@mail.gmail.com> <5706B100.9040509@mnt.se> <CAB75xn6fmj84ROUtG5eUB3GerHx83hrEr3w5vSADY_g=BRg5FA@mail.gmail.com> <5706BA40.3060005@mnt.se> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1604072157240.31096@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A9B63A6D-3102-482F-8FFC-2E57A5FD8336@nic.cz> <CC16B445-2B74-4182-BC58-F9D4BFFA1CCF@chopps.org> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1604080420470.36488@rabdullah.local> <31709.1460126336@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <3CE7670A-DBE4-4B47-BB02-DDD202B99480@sobco.com> <3548A1F1-F0CF-4609-B307-385E2BAEF897@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=s37GYm069150656900; tid=s37GYm0691506569DE; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=3:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: u38FYmMY001022
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xFR3290ZzaRYllkwuFqlmLViZ34>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 15:34:54 -0000

On 8 Apr 2016, at 16:14, Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
> 
> some on the IAOC wanted to go back to SD for IETF 100 but the facilities were not available 
> at the right time

Ah, I was expecting the plenary drumroll to reveal just this - IETF100 at San Diego. 

A shame it couldn't happen, but perhaps an indicator we do need to keep planning 3-4 years out.

And for the right venue, we should be able to slide the dates forwards/back a week or two. 

Tim

> 
> Scott
> 
>> On Apr 8, 2016, at 10:38 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com> wrote:
>>> I am sorry to hear that. Our "open and inclusive process" comprises
>>> many participants from China who have traditionally faced harsh and
>>> unpredictable visa problems in North America. In fairness to them, we
>>> held that meeting in Beijing. Note that we did so following an
>>> extensive discussion on the IETF mailing list and after negotiating
>>> the removal of a rather ominous hotel clause, as well as an unfiltered
>>> network in the meeting venue.
>> 
>> Yes, and we did this openly, and I don't feel we did the same thing here.
>> And there were still surprises, I'm told.
>> 
>> I was very surprised at the announcement for 100.
>> I kinda thought we should go back to San Diego as for IETF 1.
>> (well. Maybe IETF101 should be same as IETF 1... maybe IETF 100 should be
>> same as IETF 0, and be entirely virtual...)
>> 
>> (I didn't go because I generally have funds for two IETFs a year,
>> and given the hassle, and my concerns about what I would eat, it was simpler
>> to skip.  I skipped BA for a combination of economic, but primarily family reasons)
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>> 
>> 
>> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email