I was a little puzzled to hear that Yokohama didn't meet the food
requirements, by the way. I ate more than half my meals from the
excellent nearby grocery store. Would like to go back there agian!
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On 4/7/2016 3:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
The two cases may be hard to distinguish from a distance, but
they are very different.
I'm going to suggest that, in practical terms for the IETF, it doesn't
matter.
It doesn't matter because none of the theory or formal issues can be
reliably and accurately applied for issues of social concern.
What matters is whatever the community decides it cares about at the time
we are looking at the area.
Here's my logic:
While some regions -- especially Asia -- have been challenging for
finding venues, we already have an extensive track-record of finding places
the community deems acceptable. Consequently, we have safe harbors to fall
back on, for each of the 3 regions we regularly visit.
So when a new country or city is being considered -- and by new, I
think I mean 'we have never been there', but perhaps we need to leave room
for reconsideration of previously-visited places? -- we float the general
countries and maybe cities to the community and wait for support and
objections.
Whatever criteria the community chooses to apply at that time are the
relevant criteria. No theory or modeling or documentation or even
consistency -- and especially no guessing and no errors by an anointed body
-- are required.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net