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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf