Re: Registration details for IETF 108

Eric Rescorla <> Tue, 02 June 2020 13:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E7313A0917 for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 06:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.268
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.268 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OUfNB7igxrOR for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 06:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9295F3A0916 for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 06:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e4so12594934ljn.4 for <>; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 06:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LNnaixUPeQkyqIB7IIg7reVxlIo3uxbcpvR/wdYG6rA=; b=1MdTvWcsbgMpYwqYsLGYkvplu2xNwpxEdMaV8lofMqeUHaSrPeOIOOMwZORAOtQZB/ Uo4DWNqjy1NYewQCWQBGzz7ViMrpsfEbOfN8fz1AeR3fM+13oJ5WYGbva99965c7sr9n 6GZ0fUGkKKnXGwHlCBaDyNenOtdHk6XmkUNm4TSWmoDCpKbm3CrU2bNhxjUBmDSZvxj2 BgrJFv/EpIELK+iqFgqJ2gkjcvANNbeJSe4/w+VtnXbnbdErInwUEtR4e9wPObEnrrJk 6Dikr/RNxYKx7ImkUh6yRQh+4rYkc2lSIOKCSTcYVFxe/vkqbMq05yKltSX+wPWaXWZ4 xjkg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LNnaixUPeQkyqIB7IIg7reVxlIo3uxbcpvR/wdYG6rA=; b=pi1iwuU/SQWp478q9dgw4CCX+jxN79xiV1HR11jJmFjQvBu9frRgPpn74u+TQRE0S+ K7itPG9jjqyXE4RJsILk6S1BWGqvlR4SdI4GcsyrWEWU2BbJxIfK5LKEIB0tWvBX3eG5 Kix8fDIOhgagziqLFPzNLzElhut1IuajbsP8I9Yc0r46Si8s6cYN3ZhlK/qxachQDh9o fIV/kPoET5ttVjcNFYCFlVu4laL0kOXMfK1gl8x2MpgeM2o6azVs+zVQVNGFOq6mNDCu 28F+mZBvxDsCxguG4dmwHulQfj8EirE23pCPyHIgh2LJXwm6XA2lnmc6KqQJj+ov9xsG lPEQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533LAvcAgHKPXqeI4gUrIwrsFTDxmFHef77uEjzeMC7UlQk0dLtt k7BI11XTM5LrErW5k0SKzKQ7fkG81Ijvz6vyq76h5Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyZcKdMrLvLbwvtW2G5NXUvMGI6sFQUjuVjaoO0PikgGnBNzam4lJwpe/Moy3jrtOfId6aB7nzDUW9f6SyB4VQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:2c6:: with SMTP id f6mr12724312ljo.371.1591104512683; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 06:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <D3BA93CD3D2D101946F35024@PSB> <> <01d701d638ca$c096b5e0$41c421a0$> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 06:27:56 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
To: Nick Hilliard <>
Cc: Mehmet Ersue <>, ietf <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000047877e05a719e32e"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 13:28:41 -0000

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 6:16 AM Nick Hilliard <> wrote:

> Eric Rescorla wrote on 02/06/2020 13:57:
> > This seems like entirely appropriate practice on short notice.
> neither side's position seems unreasonable from their own point of view:
> the LLC needs to make executive decisions and sometimes these will be
> problematic. Conversely, the IETF community has an expectation that
> there's engagement about policy changes before they happen.

Hmm... This doesn't seem like the right framing to me in several respects:

First, I think everyone agrees that some kinds of policy changes would need
consultation. For instance, if the LLC were to decide that in perpetuity we
were not to havemeetings or that we were to have 6 a year, that would
clearly need consultation. On the other hand, I (would hope) that everyone
agrees that some changes could be made by executive  decision. For
instance, moving the refund date forward or back by a day would I hope not
require community consultation. So the question at hand is what kind of
decision this is.

Second, as you can see from the thread above, it's not correct that "the
iETF community" has an expectation they should have been consulted about
this in advance. Rather, part of the IETF community does and some of it
thinks this was fine.