Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment

Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org> Wed, 11 June 2025 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <jay@staff.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietf@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D78A933E9D90 for <ietf@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 15:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=staff-ietf-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kk-zizPWaxIb for <ietf@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 15:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62b.google.com (mail-pl1-x62b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9093933E9D8B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 15:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62b.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2360ff7ac1bso2941735ad.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 15:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=staff-ietf-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1749682742; x=1750287542; darn=ietf.org; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=UDQ23LSXiN+0TggaKWtSvqDlQW2/AO9z61+DSvwHjYM=; b=u/q/RQZXNAWdLw7d/keviscavPHTcXVWTSOKD+TmPtsllqt6pLOW+/+wgwwNtpx5e9 0iHJuCSFaCfZTLXTzKsAfuW1urL979M1ZocpXoszyi9TIYJZe28lrVNl9hhR9lX/UZ74 +4QcfZZJ4DbTz4Qk8rbsuaA6DidOuAAXcXKVnWEEHjyHkD7QE9KHoBwxvCSiWH/ikopj jLCOlXi9Z7RsVxjl4yJO3PeLqJ4uMnHDNDdldHFP348TwSIf9k21kqyLf8AGxvkvwyzi POCS6J4mdx/TVLBLrK+fBy/HeawaeLiiWaNYeBo6eZYTQU/8QZzLhmfYsrUT+o0Eoa4F bpSA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1749682742; x=1750287542; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=UDQ23LSXiN+0TggaKWtSvqDlQW2/AO9z61+DSvwHjYM=; b=udQB5onPhJtC9pJxjkU/g49sGZFSUgpUz3nuDK0EGdsMnLHCeLHwdB5DhLd1Cx6Fng p8IGg1iziZRGt+cpPuwWTJ46Qyrd6Q4KhZZYV+MeoZwLGsc8u8HwOGyg2ca41/7pBPP4 NuSMQH594/zMxOE1XMUResh8b/vb0pFeff3kU168jZJFdRoK8RUooxWYDFYI6NMFp35b PhexA4miARDkk1PwccymnOBIV9Xco4KkaqqRtyGiklmwx8rr1WXMBWVELdmEQdA0yv06 BmuuWYosGAyNKv7SqvYNxubrYPXYAU9psM8P/a8MewpNYK6JFl8hKSLNRqK0yrwtWqCX jRrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzNI941GWNfCtMIInlxMLCM1d82f1Q2zKzfMMgUZm4C6pulsASs o7qu3L8NOFquCveucG9qdZ5zxxOEkNYBE+mqbf8h6965Ri8wB2b9hUWueUM1576Ze+qUyrYRu+r 97zx4Pa/ocg==
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvB+lJsALe4zdlDy0cPEKI4eKwXnCPxIcL8uEzSW4LtVY7J4sUUb122zR029W/ PKf1AFJC5TVFUH/ebbgZnx0I2rKzyhtpwsxYREGirx+g9xn5pZgzpuDANYJD3rNszaGw3cmxloi QtXRmKNkMJVeF7YBH6SWlokBbihujO1+UKa7veEydR8rkA9++x6ZtBVpaMYqyVpRQLm8cetKc5W 5iycQIbiP3epv5dFt1y69hfjro92B7j8gTTMs1Vju0gyZpEtVRCsf2ZrKl2J6IL3sbTQRNnvbOz if48ukonWP2Kv9UvGkR+GtbcKhHm0GSei0k0XQTRp8/nj7YNRF+5H9S83TDhBQfeznQr0wcFS4L RIPIfod7hOxFURvM4OMyhkIjLYBgNuaVc7tvs90yTHWXECYLnOrOCt9jrdi4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE2fHLQKa7GaLRevptmNfgcloJz7FmB/Mb9h26rVt5g5HWTVQPtcfiiW4wCLdZERzj245TqKg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d586:b0:22c:3609:97ed with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-23641b19979mr62313025ad.30.1749682741624; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 15:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (203-96-138-119.dsl-dynamic.connections.net.nz. [203.96.138.119]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-2364e6d9d04sm1012245ad.98.2025.06.11.15.58.59 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Jun 2025 15:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.600.51.1.1\))
Subject: Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment
From: Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMA__=wsDz1w=y5OaG1-aD5TvsMDiPSG+Z-60MYQwrO2GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 10:58:46 +1200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6C4A07E0-299A-48E5-91B2-8AB8E96B0908@ietf.org>
References: <0E13A03E-3B81-4C9C-976E-B8C68810B486@ietf.org> <CA+9kkMBoDhQq4GROSYQ0AjJ3Um-7XsL6D8s+R+rRDkX8fv-NnA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMA__=wsDz1w=y5OaG1-aD5TvsMDiPSG+Z-60MYQwrO2GQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.600.51.1.1)
Message-ID-Hash: NSFPELQZ4ED6VKU5DKHIU6RU2HZ5AUJ5
X-Message-ID-Hash: NSFPELQZ4ED6VKU5DKHIU6RU2HZ5AUJ5
X-MailFrom: jay@staff.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ietf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xRjDgv_2XH3z1Z8AC5VeqhPeC9g>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ietf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Ted

This response is sent on behalf of the IETF LLC Board.

> On 23 May 2025, at 20:12, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Jay, Roman, and members of the IETF LLC board,
> 
> In the statement below, you say:  
> 
>> It also considered the viability of the meeting and concluded that there will be sufficient participation for the meeting to be financially viable and to meet the threshold set by the IESG for a technically viable meeting [3].
>> 
> The citation is to the IESG response for the community discussion for Shenzhen, not for a decision by the IESG about San Francisco.  In that process the LLC was asked to “explicitly confirm with the IESG that the core objective from RFC8718 of ‘Why we meet’ will be met”.
> 
> Is this reference meant to indicate that the IETF LLC used the data from the previous consultation to make this decision?  Or did the IETF LLC explicitly confirm with the IESG that the core objective from RFC8718 will be met?  
> 
> Roman, if the latter, I would appreciate a citation from the IESG and a summary similar to that in section E of https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF_125_Decision_and_Survey_Summary_version_2024-10-08.pdf .  I believe it is very important that the community understand the IESG's conclusion here, in addition to the IETF LLC's, as the IESG is charged with the standards process and part of the risk here is to the standards process.
> 
> Jay, if the former, I would like to understand why the IESG was not asked a similar question, given the community objections raised.
> 
> My thanks for your attention, and I look forward to your responses,

The IETF LLC introduced a new step in the venue selection process that asked the IESG to assess if a meeting will be technically viable, in response to community concerns about a meeting in China. This process was followed for that meeting’s venue planning.  In their decision, the IESG effectively set a lower bound on participation by core contributors necessary for a productive meeting.   

As part of the venue assessment process, the IETF LLC Board signs off on estimates of onsite participation for every meeting and the corresponding meeting space requirements and accommodation guarantees, taking on the risk of over/under usage each time it does so.  The IETF LLC Board, as part of its broader review of the IETF 127 San Francisco meeting, concluded that participation would be above the lower bound set by the IESG and therefore the new step of asking the IESG was not required.  

kind regards
Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
exec-director@ietf.org