Re: [Mtgvenue] [Iasa20] Terminology issue in mtgvenue

"Livingood, Jason" <> Fri, 19 October 2018 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64B8130E10; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ooTAkk3AI8au; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5575130DF4; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 60729ed4-1a5ff7000000546c-63-5bca51f612fa
Received: from ( []) (using TLS with cipher AES256-SHA256 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (SMTP Gateway) with SMTP id 44.F0.21612.6F15ACB5; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 15:51:50 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 17:51:46 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::3aea:a7ff:fe36:8a94]) by ([fe80::3aea:a7ff:fe36:8a94%15]) with mapi id 15.01.1466.009; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 17:51:46 -0400
From: "Livingood, Jason" <>
To: Pete Resnick <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Iasa20] Terminology issue in mtgvenue
Thread-Index: AQHUZ/QXc7qoE3XtS06NT/slCjIe/qUnG/QA
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 21:51:46 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Forward
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrLKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsWSUDRnsu63wFPRBquWy1ksmb6RyWLp4T8s Frs/rGd1YPZ4cmsJs8eSJT+ZApiiGhhtSjKKUhNLXFLTUvOKU+24FDCATVJqWn5RqmtiUU5l UGpOaiJ2ZSCVKak5mWWpRfpYjdHHak5CF1PG/HWHmQoWyFc823OWvYFxh1wXIyeHhICJxLTu rWxdjFwcQgK7mCR+X+iEclqYJHZ3TmCBcE4zSpxde5QRpIVNwEzi7sIrzCC2iICPxLfzd8Fs ZgFtiRUrJrCC2MICxhLr2nYD1XMA1ZhIfH1uBlFuJHFlfwMLiM0ioCrxdMcJJhCbV8BF4uTl xWDjhQTsJbbeXA8W5xRwkNi34TMbiM0oICbx/dQaJohV4hK3nsxngvhAQGLJnvPMELaoxMvH /8BOEBXQl9g94TgjRFxOomdHK9g5zAKaEut36UOMsZJ4cGQ21EhFiSndD9khzhGUODnzCQtE q7jE4SM7WCcwSs5CsnkWwqRZSCbNQjJpFpJJCxhZVzHyWZrpGRqa6BmaWugZGRptYgQnonlX djBenu5xiFGAg1GJh/cZ16loIdbEsuLK3EOMEhzMSiK8iqUno4V4UxIrq1KL8uOLSnNSiw8x SnOwKInzFhsAVQukJ5akZqemFqQWwWSZODilGhj59c/8nf6H+4V9YfFp36ieJ9LTZapmbrLn qCzdyK994/Gyo36/Cpm+bngS5jD9h1d+1Ef+CyIfj6kaHTi2prTYddEFS8cPZRt/iz510bm6 eG+O9tXOxBm+C89oxceX/8h5JnLvyOuiZ463eb2/vyn67C9mumalaKFBt75oHOuCUtYfEyx2 FM5VYinOSDTUYi4qTgQAmCtxH0ADAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] [Iasa20] Terminology issue in mtgvenue
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 21:51:51 -0000

Thanks for this heads-up, Pete! We in the IASA2 WG will put this in our work queue. I will take a look as co-chair early next week and try to actively start up list discussion on the details.


On 10/19/18, 5:38 PM, "iasa20 on behalf of Pete Resnick" < on behalf of> wrote:

    IASA 2.0 folks:
    With my mtgvenue chair hat on: An issue has come up over in mtgvenue 
    that I think really needs to be resolved by iasa20, and in particular 
    not by the mtgvenue folks alone.
    The Venue Selection document, 
    refers to "IASA" throughout. When written, the document presumed that we 
    were working under IASA 1.0, and had references to RFC 4071. When our 
    documents got to AUTH48, we realized that it was going to come out right 
    on the heels of the IASA 2.0 docs and that it would be silly to publish 
    only to have to turn around and fix things. The initial suggestion in 
    mtgvenue was to pretty much do a global replace of "IASA" with "IETF 
    LLC" (with some other editorial changes). The document editor's version 
    with those edits is here: 
    <>. However, a 
    few folks (and in particular, folks who are active in iasa20) noted that 
    in fact "IASA" was correct, because under IASA 2.0, the LLC is under 
    IASA, and that using "LLC" might be incorrect in some instances. 
    Conversely, some folks thought that "LLC" was a clearer reference. As 
    that discussion has evolved, your faithful mtgvenue chair is no longer 
    sure that we've gotten this exactly right. On top of that, Alissa has 
    indicated that it's probably better to have iasa20 figure out what 
    terminology is appropriate to refer to the assorted entities, for the 
    sake of all documents, not just mtgvenue's.
    So, I would ask that the iasa20 WG review the above two documents and 
    let us know whether we've got it right or wrong, and generally let us 
    know which terminology should be used in which circumstances. I'm sure 
    mtgvenue folks will pipe up with their concerns, but guidance should 
    really be coming from a discussion in iasa20.
    BTW: Don't worry about the fact that the document is in AUTH48 or 
    whether it will need a new Last Call or whatever. Let's get the document 
    correct first, and then we'll figure out what process knobs, lights, and 
    buttons need to be operated.
    Pete Resnick
    All connections to the world are tenuous at best
    iasa20 mailing list