[Mtgvenue] Issue #21: unfiltered should be mandatory (was: Re: issue #3: Too many mandatory)
Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 18 April 2017 12:51 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 581E6127241 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 05:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 fx7PfcVoLcN6 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 05:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78F281205F0 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 05:51:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6878; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1492519888; x=1493729488; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=9IRN8KQZwLUDHnKuKoydDCoDFOkADfQOICmGqXe92zw=; b=Kz+b7o0qn/dCFKptuxBLXA2RZM9PgvHrimp2rEB66/Cl1mTP6fhxsKK5 7niL+pRpXGBT9wjOVXNccF9ERninZCj83mtiiTCQQoiS6zWMI0u+Dgrt/ GzUMZTDNniHLVh/a1EMu/hsgNoicuN/TfG9q6C7Ov8LE0TSu+HImAT+0e g=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CiAQAJC/ZY/xbLJq1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBiSWKFXOQb5AthTSCDweGHQKELBgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUWAQUjVhAPFCoCAlcGDQgBAYoVqkCCJiuKeAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQ4PiC8rikqCXwWWNIZug36CEIQjiDmCAIUxgzqGXZQOHziBBSYdCBgVhV+BTD6JQAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,219,1488844800"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="652249499"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Apr 2017 12:51:26 +0000
Received: from [10.61.218.94] ([10.61.218.94]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3ICpPhI022053; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:51:26 GMT
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
References: <37de22dc-04a4-f868-698e-cf03cd791957@cisco.com> <5CF8C201-00C4-4E07-BAB6-8CC5A30B54F5@cooperw.in>
Cc: "mtgvenue@ietf.org" <mtgvenue@ietf.org>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <7aba8a44-f1b8-b368-2b9a-91ad4bccfbcc@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:51:25 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5CF8C201-00C4-4E07-BAB6-8CC5A30B54F5@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tmahFpnlTUXpUKiAP0OFog1Sd7m1wSx0a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/pjCR-oUkqbPMWUk4KHfzVZLxHvc>
Subject: [Mtgvenue] Issue #21: unfiltered should be mandatory (was: Re: issue #3: Too many mandatory)
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:51:30 -0000
Editor hat firmly off. Please see below. On 4/6/17 5:37 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > The full text of this one is: > > The Facility directly provides, or permits and facilitates, the > delivery of a high performance, robust, unfiltered and unmodified IETF > Network. > > Personally I think this should be a mandatory criterion, i.e. we > should not select a venue that cannot provide this. If this needs to > reference the meeting network requirements document to provide the > objective criteria by which it will be judged, that would be fine, I > think. > I agree that this one should be Mandatory, and propose to make it so in the next version of the document. My logic is as follows: * It can generally be determined when a network is filtered, and so it's an easy criteria at least to provide an objective answer to. * As a matter of course, people working at the IETF have to communicate with both their companies and their customers in confidence, and they could be anywhere. In this sense, I don't think we can run a successful meeting without such unfettered access. * We tend to eat our own dog food, and as such need necessary network access to conduct experiments. It may strike people as odd as to why I wouldn't argue the same for the other network requirements. We had a discussion about this in Chicago, and there was some hope of using a network requirements doc from the NOC folk. Unfortunately that doc is not kept up to date. As such, while I think we might reasonably all agree that having a functioning network is quite important, it's actually quite hard to direct the IAOC to provide such a thing without the requirements reading as trivially true. If the requirement isn't observably true or false, we should probably not make it mandatory. Moreover, the NOC is really an organ of the IAOC, and referencing their document in order to have them tell us to direct them seems just a bit circular. Eliot
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Lou Berger
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Lou Berger
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Fred Baker
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Eliot Lear
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Lou Berger
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Lou Berger
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Eliot Lear
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Pete Resnick
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Pete Resnick
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Lou Berger
- [Mtgvenue] Issue #21: unfiltered should be mandat… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Issue #21: unfiltered should be ma… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Issue #21: unfiltered should be ma… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Issue #21: unfiltered should be ma… Jim Martin
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Issue #21: unfiltered should be ma… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Issue #21: unfiltered should be ma… Fred Baker
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Issue #21: unfiltered should be ma… Tobias Gondrom
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Issue #21: unfiltered should be ma… Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Issue #21: unfiltered should be ma… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Issue #21: unfiltered should be ma… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Issue #21: unfiltered should be ma… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Issue #21: unfiltered should be ma… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Issue #21: unfiltered should be ma… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Issue #21: unfiltered should be ma… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Issue #21: unfiltered should be ma… Fred Baker
- [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Eliot Lear
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Lou Berger
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Eliot Lear
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Lou Berger
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Dave Crocker
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Eliot Lear
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Dave Crocker
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Pete Resnick
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Ted Hardie
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Dave Crocker
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Ted Hardie
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Eliot Lear
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Dave Crocker
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Warren Kumari
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Ted Hardie
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Lou Berger
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Pete Resnick
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Ted Hardie
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Lou Berger
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Pete Resnick
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Dave Crocker
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Dave Crocker
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Dave Crocker
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Pete Resnick
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Dave Crocker
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Eliot Lear
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Eliot Lear
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory Fred Baker