IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mtgvenue] Priority order:

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Mon, 30 January 2017 16:16 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8898F129539 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:16:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.721 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 AOoJM8w5OCT1 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:16:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00C12129536 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:16:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2081; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1485793015; x=1487002615; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=zYcF87ZrtdCWyMFy/LW57nwhHm6UIDawxXoklhuUz4s=; b=PmGfqREfTPKSUwvgFn+ssHkNtxPDmNU6qN5zxv+0YSdvV156DcVK5F9T n+s0Puu7FvOOZza2GREbnRC/XEttvZhmlTiHC5n46enZxH7Z2y7lkOruh 9WzkF6yI54AwVMDn+yY0WefMCJXd/zuEh5C32NAjseP/413CQYCZZAY/Y s=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A3AwCxZY9Y/xbLJq1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBhF6ENIoJcpBzH5UyggyGIgKCXRgBAgEBAQEBAQFiKIRqAQUjZgsYKgICVwYBDAgBAYldqmuCJYp2AQEBAQEBAQECAQEBAQEBARIPiFAIgmKHT4JfBZtUg2+CA4QPh3qBYYhXhj+DVo8pHziBGxMIFRU7hjo/iGcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,312,1477958400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="652089954"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Jan 2017 16:16:52 +0000
Received: from [10.61.104.16] (dhcp-10-61-104-16.cisco.com [10.61.104.16]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0UGGqA0016241; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:16:52 GMT
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, mtgvenue@ietf.org
References: <9139334c-9c5e-814d-4299-c6f5950039b8@cs.tcd.ie> <2dcdf5d1-4e93-7476-79ba-0369e41af1c0@cisco.com> <8cfa8a35-b805-a9f3-6570-a8c71a44c5d3@dcrocker.net>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <cc1f5181-5106-c866-61e4-8c455dc54cf2@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:16:50 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8cfa8a35-b805-a9f3-6570-a8c71a44c5d3@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CtxgfIiKG0wncADrdmQeUkjj7n2tJORBi"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/VlSY7Nz2IU7eTdFmxLTPP4GVfmA>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Priority order:
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <mtgvenue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mtgvenue/>
List-Post: <mailto:mtgvenue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:16:56 -0000


On 1/30/17 4:40 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 1/30/2017 1:17 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> My nit is slightly different.  I'd suggest the list be ordered from
>> mandatory downward.
>
>
> Why?  First, there are very few entries that aren't mandatory. 
> Second, priority ordering will have no effect.

It makes clear what's most important at a gross level.  I was actually
surprised this wasn't the case and had initially presumed this was due
to going back and forth on some of the criteria.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email