Re: ALLDISPATCH at IETF 121

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Thu, 19 September 2024 12:38 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED02EC14F749; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 05:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.255
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.148, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gTSDUsjTUV7W; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 05:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF41C180B4A; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 05:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122330.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 48J3kI9B019333; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 13:38:12 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to; s=jan2016.eng; bh=HgDNRfJIcMuea388BkTWdd wEG8hqdCaLifrbaTd1x3U=; b=MOYHd9aHEJsZUz7bPxNX0lY1J/70UuebEzstfL wWKIlT8oCiz9fpQSYU55MCC0Nk09H3ORTFa6L2ATkohVdNgv1CdZETp/H2pzHPtz m9YwEP7Z/Ydut5hFxh3BOsXhv3vx0poxgllD0OENtNjPLMdW8YIPPHv1PpVz5Zzc mejNB9AMFMs0tdB21LZwZL9JGedZd/4nPdNOI/056QL2kaIU+yoyCIFs2ASEBAte Z8y2MFlseWfjC2/lewTvghQ7uxoGQ+VXgsCNj1cj64WHVRcMq0mgn595p1ABkdQz tz3TAUuehCkjiYoRnayu3cGZ33jxvHOoiazipOs5x7P9vAFA==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint5 (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [184.51.33.60] (may be forged)) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 41n4eu3g6b-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 19 Sep 2024 13:38:12 +0100 (BST)
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 48J7jGMo010088; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 05:38:11 -0700
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.50.206]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 41n8fc37hk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 19 Sep 2024 05:38:11 -0700
Received: from ustx2ex-dag4mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.50.203) by ustx2ex-dag4mb7.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.50.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 05:38:10 -0700
Received: from ustx2ex-dag4mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.50.203]) by ustx2ex-dag4mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.50.203]) with mapi id 15.02.1544.011; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 05:38:10 -0700
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: ALLDISPATCH at IETF 121
Thread-Topic: ALLDISPATCH at IETF 121
Thread-Index: AQHbCVXZtjOBuVwwykunpgOMx7KDILJeSpSAgADCGYCAADSCgA==
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 12:38:10 +0000
Message-ID: <2E65EAB2-EFEC-4379-B5BB-5010DAB2D41A@akamai.com>
References: <172661421485.196780.1988094080623715610@dt-datatracker-65695bf5bc-rgg8z> <20690.1726682131@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CAB75xn4Gcnd4Chk-GFVz4Uve02JCN+C1FugO8s0+RR9hB2LorQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn4Gcnd4Chk-GFVz4Uve02JCN+C1FugO8s0+RR9hB2LorQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.88.24082514
x-originating-ip: [172.27.118.139]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2E65EAB2EFEC4379B5BB5010DAB2D41Aakamaicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1051,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.60.29 definitions=2024-09-19_08,2024-09-19_01,2024-09-02_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=602 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2408220000 definitions=main-2409190082
X-Proofpoint-GUID: USy-ckHUNSOHvsQ7mGYUzhV6cjkdlsvf
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: USy-ckHUNSOHvsQ7mGYUzhV6cjkdlsvf
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1039,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.60.29 definitions=2024-09-06_09,2024-09-06_01,2024-09-02_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=450 clxscore=1011 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2408220000 definitions=main-2409190082
Message-ID-Hash: A2TN6CJIDDYGCOJVX4QXQYG5DRDC4C3T
X-Message-ID-Hash: A2TN6CJIDDYGCOJVX4QXQYG5DRDC4C3T
X-MailFrom: rsalz@akamai.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-wgchairs.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "wgchairs@ietf.org" <wgchairs@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "alldispatch@ietf.org" <alldispatch@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/d80WZTisdmGWcnseRZKfiZnOKHo>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:wgchairs-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:wgchairs-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:wgchairs-leave@ietf.org>

Do folks consider that the Vancouver IETF was a second instance of the experiment? Because there ended up being five sessions scheduled at the same time, which is less than the typical seven-eight sessions, but also not the expected zero. I understand the how/why the scheduling ended up that way, but I stlll have doubts about drawing any conflusion other than “can’t do it regularly.”