Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 07 April 2016 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 B77B412D6E4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 Pe8STeK7faTV for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54BEA12D0AC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u37Kpjqv010761 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:51:45 -0700
Subject: Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <20160407203811.54154.qmail@ary.lan>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <5706C85F.6050809@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:51:43 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160407203811.54154.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 07 Apr 2016 13:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/z6g7iSoOSATgr1Wci_7GB-tiYYY>
Cc: john-ietf@jck.com
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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, 07 Apr 2016 20:51:52 -0000

On 4/7/2016 1:38 PM, John Levine wrote:
> Unless the country is so small that there's only one plausible meeting
> hotel, that still doesn't strike me as a problem.


IETF meeting venue requirements are sufficiently unusual that, in fact, 
there often are /very/ few choices within many countries.

d/


-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net