Mike: > Going back to the IAOC, I would ask whether this requirement > was known at the time of the previous Beijing discussion? If so, > why wasn't it brought up at that point in time and as part of the > discussion on venue acceptability. If it was added later, when > was it added, and why wasn't the requirement made known to the > broader IETF prior to announcing the solution? Finally, I know > this is a hypothetical, but would this requirement have tipped > the IAOC decision the other way had it been known at the same > time of the previous discussion? > > I don't mean to pick on either you or the IAOC - you both are doing > a reasonable job steering among the shoals of the needs of the > various constituencies - just consider this an inquiry into how the > IETF should decide on how to decide whether a venue is acceptable.
In short, no, this was not known at the time the previous discussion took place. I could have raised this sooner, but I chose to wait until a proposed solution was in hand so that everyone could understand the impact. Raising it earlier would have prompted questions that could not be answered without a strawman for the solution. In my view, the host is working diligently to ensure that the IETF meeting participants have unfiltered access to the open Internet. Russ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
