From nobody Thu Apr 1 17:05:12 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: admin-discuss@ietf.org Delivered-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C5AF3A28DB for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 17:05:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Administration LLC Board of Directors Chair To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.27.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: admin-discuss@ietf.org Message-ID: <161732191010.1463.9074402605775981010@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 17:05:10 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [admin-discuss] LLC Board Meeting Details - 8 April 2021 X-BeenThere: admin-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 00:05:10 -0000 IETF LLC Board of Directors meetings are conducted via web/teleconference. Members of the community are welcome to attend certain portions of these meetings as observers. Regular meetings are divided into four sections: 1. Open (to Observers) 2. Board + Support Staff Only 3. Board + Executive Director Only 4. Executive Session (Board-Only) The next meeting will be held on Thursday, 8 April 2021 at 12:00 PT (19:00 UTC). WebEx and Dial-in information is at the bottom of this message and also at . The agenda for the meeting can be found at . A calendar of upcoming public meetings can be downloaded or subscribed to at: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/ical/ietf.org_vmffrv4hq14aqpedenuv5v42hs%40group.calendar.google.com/public/basic.ics ------------------------------------------------------- JOIN WEBEX MEETING https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m5481867e37f4c98327c151d9a6a7cd78 Meeting number (access code): 178 797 1273 Meeting password: meetings JOIN BY PHONE 1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada) Access code: 178 797 1273 IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your concerns with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do not join the session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation. From nobody Thu Apr 1 18:47:59 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76B43A2C03 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 18:47:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 1gwjXN49mfzy for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 18:47:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [131.179.128.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC74B3A2C01 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 18:47:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D1B9160117 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 18:47:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id Fqczloojf_Ng for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 18:47:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189F916011D for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 18:47:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id EQtZ_oTqyjKJ for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 18:47:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.60] (cpe-76-91-255-77.socal.res.rr.com [76.91.255.77]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED3E21600CF for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 18:47:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Lixia Zhang Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 18:47:51 -0700 References: <161731435568.25509.1647220115077071240@ietfa.amsl.com> To: admin-discuss@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <161731435568.25509.1647220115077071240@ietfa.amsl.com> Message-Id: <16A1D067-80FE-44B2-9450-6B9344AA2223@cs.ucla.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [admin-discuss] Possible data breach of IETF t-shirt system X-BeenThere: admin-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 01:47:58 -0000 Jay, thanks for the report. wonder when we'd expect to receive the = T-shirt? Lixia > On Apr 1, 2021, at 2:59 PM, IETF Executive Director = wrote: >=20 > For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an April Fool's day prank. >=20 > We were informed yesterday of a fault in the IETF meeting t-shirt = system that allowed someone to retrieve the name, size and delivery = address of a third party using a simple URL rewrite. The system was = shut down and an investigation conducted to determine if any data had = been breached other than by the reporter. So far this investigation = shows no breach but efforts will continue until we have confirmed that = with a high degree of confidence. The affected system has been changed = to close the vulnerability and is back online. >=20 > I wish to extend our thanks to the reporter for alerting us directly = and confidentially. >=20 > Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. >=20 > Jay >=20 > --=20 > Jay Daley > IETF Executive Director > exec-director@ietf.org >=20 > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce From nobody Tue Apr 6 14:44:33 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5A93A320E; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 14:44:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 xHfR-Yk-wkoo; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 14:44:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jays-mbp.localdomain (unknown [158.140.230.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6CDAE3A3322; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 14:43:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Jay Daley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Message-Id: <3431E359-7CDE-43AE-9284-56A9C0AC3A1A@ietf.org> Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:43:06 +1200 Cc: admin-discuss@ietf.org To: manycouches@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) Archived-At: Subject: [admin-discuss] Follow up on consultation on planning for IETF 111 X-BeenThere: admin-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 21:44:28 -0000 The consultation on proposals regarding planning for IETF 111 finished = on 2 April. Several points were raised and are paraphrased and = addressed as follows: a. Consider what other events are taking place *globally* not locally This feedback is rejected as inappropriate given the highly local nature = of restrictions, such as travel bans, face mask regulations and so on. b. Make the criteria more specific because people might interpret them = differently This hasn=E2=80=99t been a problem so far and no evidence is provided = that it will, besides which the assessment document is not a consensus = opinion. c. Include X in this criteria In every case where this was raised, the language is general enough to = include X and intended to include X and it would be unwieldy to = enumerate every aspect of the criteria at the same level as X. d. Consider hybrid meetings This work has now started, but potentially targeting IETF 112 not IETF = 111 given the work required e. Delay the decision to the 10 weeks before the meeting not 14 weeks After speaking to the OP they have withdrawn this suggestion on the = basis that is looks unlikely anything substantial will change in the = intervening four weeks. On this basis I intend to stick with the proposed timetable and process: 1. Assessment Criteria We will use the same criteria [1] for assessing whether to go ahead with = an in-person IETF 111 meeting or switch to an online meeting as used for = IETF 109. These criteria were previously consulted on, amended as a = result of the consultation, and worked well when used for IETF 109 [2]. 2. Fee structure We will use the same fee structure as used for IETF 110 [3] including = unlimited fee waivers. 3. Decision timetable We will use the following assessment timetable: 05 Mar 2021 This consultation opens. 02 Apr 2021 Consultation closes. 09 Apr 2021 Response to consultation communicated and = assessment begins using the final criteria. 16 Apr 2021 Decision made and communicated. 03 May 2021 Registration opens. 26 Jul 2021 IETF 111 begins. Please let me know if you think I have missed anything or if you = otherwise disagree. Jay [1] = https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/109/assessment-framework-person-vs-onlin= e-ietf-109-meeting/ [2] = https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/7GHV8JuZuNgYjv-Dt9wrk_= CN5BE/ [3] = https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/ZU6cYhBTdxD63Ki2c4hUSs= VfkCw/ --=20 Jay Daley IETF Executive Director jay@ietf.org From nobody Tue Apr 6 21:42:47 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F2F3A3ED4; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 21:42:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 17SdN7WlUC-5; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 21:42:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FDAD3A3ED1; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 21:42:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.129] (unknown [186.19.8.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A46A28032A; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 04:42:35 +0000 (UTC) To: admin-discuss@ietf.org, IETF Administration LLC Board of Directors Chair Cc: gendispatch@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org References: <161660510071.20924.3099658409030112551@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Fernando Gont Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 01:42:21 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <161660510071.20924.3099658409030112551@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [admin-discuss] IETF LLC Statement on OFAC Compliance Questions X-BeenThere: admin-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 04:42:45 -0000 Hello, Jason, Your note on the IETF blog says: > That said, we think it unlikely that OFAC rules would meaningfully > inhibit participation in IETF activities by individuals from > sanctioned countries, or ever have in the past, as a general matter. and: > We have no data to suggest OFAC rules have ever prevented any > individual from participating in and contributing to the technical > work of the IETF. We predict this will remain true in the future. > OFAC rules thus do not appear to be a factor that will lead to a > negative impact on the diversity and inclusiveness of the IETF. May I ask what's the basis on which you've arrived to such conclusion? For instance, do we have a long list of participants or I-D/RFC authors that implicitly probe that OFAC compliance are not an issue? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nobody Wed Apr 7 06:46:44 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D08C13A192A; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 06:46:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.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 qStS9NjgQWN1; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 06:46:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00143702.pphosted.com (mx0a-00143702.pphosted.com [148.163.145.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09A553A1897; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 06:46:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0184892.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00143702.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 137DZctt030067; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:46:33 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=20190412; bh=pJ2kR9gp9rU1WfsYBU65KZAppsoez2pztOXM9ajNb/g=; b=3J9OfEbcljMktWiZWlZuCuGDIsHetq2HNUW+BnrGBe/7JTUvoYoiB74FH1ooZ7mdDGXE f/TllnmuXO8AaXtHoqnTq+dNjef6NHSQc5RVwMxDX10EIe8S9QOJ5GupGDo1N4timUC6 EVh/H1fX+HfKQoU9cI9I5+LoD5mIYVNGbsXzDOP7U7pyBlqpf94FJR1/uWG/XM3hNAlB DCTMGH1lYmd/bCzTnTNBgQxs1yzcyQ0bmEK0SR12Cd9J09lxoPF6sdPbR8ACUXNZSMHX Pn9Qi0JubbXJG77O3BSspgQiKkne/gphNwrvWHBgbAFDbMv6NSadN07x08RSqMx1oZaX HQ== Received: from pacdcex53.cable.comcast.com (dlppfpt-wc-1p.slb.comcast.com [96.99.226.136]) by mx0a-00143702.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 37rve5epp9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 07 Apr 2021 09:46:32 -0400 Received: from PACDCEX49.cable.comcast.com (24.40.2.148) by PACDCEX53.cable.comcast.com (24.40.2.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:46:30 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXEDGE01.cable.comcast.com (76.96.78.71) by PACDCEX49.cable.comcast.com (24.40.2.148) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:46:30 -0400 Received: from NAM10-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.58.105) by webmail.comcast.com (76.96.78.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:46:30 -0400 Received: from MN2PR11MB4287.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:189::17) by BL0PR11MB3315.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:6c::33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4020.16; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:46:29 +0000 Received: from MN2PR11MB4287.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c80d:3887:55ee:e89a]) by MN2PR11MB4287.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c80d:3887:55ee:e89a%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3999.032; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:46:29 +0000 From: "Livingood, Jason" To: Fernando Gont , "admin-discuss@ietf.org" , IETF Administration LLC Board of Directors Chair CC: "gendispatch@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [admin-discuss] IETF LLC Statement on OFAC Compliance Questions Thread-Index: AQHXK2h+5vvSB9sk1k663HsFiX4kuqqozvIA Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:46:28 +0000 Message-ID: <4F0D3310-8BC8-4AD7-8CF7-4CEC1A8FBB85@cable.comcast.com> References: <161660510071.20924.3099658409030112551@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.47.21031401 authentication-results: si6networks.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;si6networks.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cable.comcast.com; x-originating-ip: [2601:41:200:d70:1d8b:887c:108:8ceb] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 7761cd16-f651-40b3-6732-08d8f9cb8bbd x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BL0PR11MB3315: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:7219; x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: vPnh36VVFQxA6ci9xiqKxjw+eM+JoMED6UvJ5Ez5C3bUUgAeFTeisHnXxxrvZ6yHS06JfZ3qxQUNQQvtk/j6W2V+cw/VSprrT0AizB2ELWsOTnPRIuzCbc/lsyPwjxNJVc4RWwTb8hw4JY6FIewWY2PEl0XR4TiYfhJX9kB6dVb8S44uOevVHu2mpICl/9eltKpmEKuP+e11bO4Rply5UI94/y/YkUbMtbOl8j4szM63TaFc9t0Po2Fr1h6L+NQtOF6o0qpGxkvyPD03RA9U81aeaXLQ11J6cnJmmjZq24UqXQvRaWVyr1MnTT7qoQGOglvPTuIhvGpuTqEo3UBVw0RpDadEqHqGOx0/DLVE5EzluDG50R0QsJBxItXyS3R68aci9B8V0MkWynZdL4ouKShSbmwK5y03MlVKnRWZfVBRI4LKOCjh50l33qfcKlC7beuRIZ0AcDupMzkPHqTlutwv3D5Jd2OSVnWKABPucH+0mVnPyb8kedG9zdOnhjEbkM/VkDNvTTi4TF6UK3uVn5I6thio8EXgZ4WkROsb/l0Kia/NQa8UgDPG7crDkZIPQIA5YdL6APcsnHUoe5LXSTiu6Zp1JzntieNAh1WsP2BHXMkLIwhv/ZG3353l71LeY4EWsWLft6lMDXMpr4t0WIfH+nHWfzWXn2dq4WG2+DKh5epzjdUxmSTdFi4FJk/u x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:MN2PR11MB4287.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(376002)(396003)(39860400002)(346002)(136003)(366004)(8936002)(66946007)(478600001)(71200400001)(38100700001)(76116006)(66476007)(4326008)(66556008)(83380400001)(54906003)(8676002)(6512007)(2906002)(5660300002)(86362001)(186003)(6486002)(6506007)(53546011)(316002)(110136005)(64756008)(66446008)(2616005)(33656002)(45980500001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: =?utf-8?B?ditKcnJjREp1S0V0MlN2WjlERytYc1RldCsvaDY1WVgzSE9TTElpSURvMlFF?= =?utf-8?B?WjR3UGEvaWg5NlFKb01nZEp0QVg1U3AwaUFJY1QyVVhzQ0wyL0NwQ216OGdG?= =?utf-8?B?Y200LzNkSUFyUlBDa2k1ei95Ulkra1p3a3N4RC9sZmtMVHB0THBLS1lQU3Vn?= =?utf-8?B?VXJXeDUvaGhYdkFkY1lrQlZDdUR5UmgzTWc2VHIrRXkrSVZzM1hacU1oRkx3?= =?utf-8?B?S0g1TDgwVmxKYnZpOEZ0SFltVzlFV2ZQOTh5cXRvd0VUTlQ5K3F2dlFrNEYr?= =?utf-8?B?azQwTzkvTzBnY0syei9uU2FxZTNJM0pSQVh3NnlWL1ZJL0hLTzM3WmxDY0Iv?= =?utf-8?B?WVpidkphYjZRWCt3d2xyUitGbWdTam53ZkpSY29ZWUp4cXZLVG16Vkt0ZkQr?= =?utf-8?B?eEI4bmRmVmloRXZ6dlZFSHdQb1A1TENoVzRBa3RHdForeldSU1c3ODJwdzBW?= =?utf-8?B?TkpJdUNGV0FLVSsvRmtPUUN4SEZMODhHdGRYU0pSTFZYeXNmSU5Ubkd0TGox?= =?utf-8?B?SjVPVXhnSnQydERlYmF2VFJEc3VJQjJxWElFaXZ6N3JuTGJHVDVpVmJ3c0hj?= =?utf-8?B?QWd2RCtoZjdmbUtlL1JlOEZzdFR1UnBDNTViWDBwdVVlSkJpSEw2MGR0blBN?= =?utf-8?B?aW84QVZjN0NYRDJ3OGtxeVY1UDhJZk83aEM2WFUwU0F1SWVWaDQ0SWZXTUdu?= =?utf-8?B?dXFYVGpvZkxWR2tTM1ZNUkxWeE9vR0hOWFVyOTJrUlhwdUF1aEthUjlLcjMy?= =?utf-8?B?ekNBd0w1UksxSFZ6aXR4ZjVJSVZ4emR5ODNjblZQcE5qOG82c3VpcFpjeFBx?= =?utf-8?B?RWNzN3NXUllyZENrUStNS3JsTkRtRkdiQmFvYllCQVpTS2pzOW9VVzRieDBQ?= =?utf-8?B?THdFaFlzUEtoV2ZxZFMvNXdESlQ3QW1PRUc4VDUwWEx0RUdlanprMzRIWkhk?= =?utf-8?B?cS9GZ2xCWWV2Smo5MUxkbE5NTFdqZkdDNXNIeDArOG5xMWYrT3BvWmNseUNP?= =?utf-8?B?RWQ0bHY3UkdZSGphRG5DdkVzcHZtL2JSclA1SHhvbnhWZGVkeExUZ3dSQlVZ?= =?utf-8?B?V0xzc291dzBIeE1GZzQ2a1ZCQWZFOGZqSEtMWndyd0NsT0tXeExUZGxHRFlK?= =?utf-8?B?eXVXeGxRRlpRU2FkanR6b1hWaEJTRVlBek5zRzVFUWRqS3lNQ3Z2QjRRNzMz?= =?utf-8?B?cVVCVXZKK21KZmE4eGJwcHJXZXRmbENTcm50Nk1QOGRLWUl4Y3pvbGVRNFQx?= =?utf-8?B?V1pNZGpzVThzaVVRQk45eGJwL25qekk0Sm1acEdkT25EQm53R2IwZUFjMjU1?= =?utf-8?B?aERkUnpRNkJwaVAvNld0cWxERWhOZnd5QlM5NnFCL0RzbEFOaUdSdzVhSFI3?= =?utf-8?B?MVhsT3FXUThrcVNacUI2OGU5UGRhZXUxVWpRNStNSXh0Z011bXhsVXF5WTYx?= =?utf-8?B?elZtOXlGNk5aS1RucWRkempNcHNTaEgrNjRsLzcwVXNtRlJLYjZCT0NsVkVQ?= =?utf-8?B?enJLcHEzZHhsazVtWDVEOCtGVjhDYk81RU1KcVJsNFJvbmZxcXRqK2E0elhu?= =?utf-8?B?MTk1cGJVb3Y4em4xWW9ManVQam90TnZ3UlZSOXVxZFRERTI3anRYY1hKdW1R?= =?utf-8?B?cFpFbkJEWXJ3NFhoS0M3ZWlOYSt1SllyNEQrNUl2ZkxnL25rWitYanpwVVg1?= =?utf-8?B?SXl5eElxa25oSDZidGd0UHJBTFFLZjBtRmcxczN4V28wT0cwM3I5UTMydlI0?= =?utf-8?B?dEsxdHdQbVJwdUtZMGZTNlF4QWJrcXVJbzFQRDJENzExbnQ1RWswNytVSTBW?= =?utf-8?B?OUlrTHR1NXdVNU53Q0xIcC9xWFRxck40UmFJWW0va3VUbE9OT0FoZ2tyWjd5?= =?utf-8?Q?JfX+aIQsLXgEE?= x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=ZMrbrKtBOT6eOzbK9pxY+CsdyqkRrkWdQnlDECG+2QdB2o+3Eq5HwzPdDivdw7qVN1J/NeLlpjTSzlud8W7/TMVwEagKBKyVZYn2Fa+eg6HV8cc1t5hmKmdaSxwDbbQiZ3/l3L6kZ16PpjpM54T6pTrbK5eytChv+/5TKKfruLqNBzps+FIYKK3vAbCiYf8DAFlGvPG5CDxYCoyF564vxo8dXPAsKMeB/3lkCH++Am+7kYbxpj7lYBulslBr2OA6BFDKY+OwtNRwPb8aLNx2iyYmCFbYmlOJu80Gf0E4u6CBe2vwcXLsOwGt8BJ+QXo0oyyo37ZCiy1rHsVm/8vLXg== arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Ec/6mEwtnpNuxYGeGE+npyiYyPfDvQFeY1NS0j70HRs=; b=MCpEYjiywIj7A+jNAcIiV73O79jiRm5u7f83KqgcDRdNt0vG/88YVI7jxi3lOmn+bJpKDDWaZzK4gbx9pRPuo7RFajmCbbRfq1SFIua9AD60de4R5xn0cak6L+QVVGReWxdmN007OeX3uEVaR76saZbShuJwCpiXlt87Y4Pi47+HYxU5dxhEZhqultf381/mQstObn8EFWVNZ6S3WN/MIaYQFnwOUgnqMj5ZkhM3FLz4hb5Jyej/2T9x/DKBrzyvPkOJSbrNPrq7UIdepKfEsGtSwWR9R6208q4fUvd4Vb/7xbfBVe45rODzLXg3J6SMKTkMfcxzMEoXeAzZxRVZBA== arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cable.comcast.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cable.comcast.com; dkim=pass header.d=cable.comcast.com; arc=none x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-authas: Internal x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-authsource: MN2PR11MB4287.namprd11.prod.outlook.com x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-network-message-id: 7761cd16-f651-40b3-6732-08d8f9cb8bbd x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 Apr 2021 13:46:28.9629 (UTC) x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-fromentityheader: Hosted x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-id: 906aefe9-76a7-4f65-b82d-5ec20775d5aa x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-userprincipalname: KJiC0Nys8jx8NOMOZIpcTUZ8PO6IIu4Uxok0itES47HsnWxFUtsaWUjBEKA6HbgjmZUBk9dVxCLyu4TbcVPf5zE9sAQEyox9o+A8/tz5vfo= x-ms-exchange-transport-crosstenantheadersstamped: BL0PR11MB3315 x-originatororg: cable.comcast.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <93114DA53084724B825A58DC8EE06ADD@namprd11.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Forward AAETWB X-Proofpoint-GUID: Jiv7e2n-ePVKZAG4yGQFPNBY1Z-W5QiH X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: Jiv7e2n-ePVKZAG4yGQFPNBY1Z-W5QiH X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.369, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-07_08:2021-04-07, 2021-04-07 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe Archived-At: Subject: Re: [admin-discuss] IETF LLC Statement on OFAC Compliance Questions X-BeenThere: admin-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 13:46:39 -0000 T24gNC83LzIxLCAxMjo0MyBBTSwgImFkbWluLWRpc2N1c3Mgb24gYmVoYWxmIG9mIEZlcm5hbmRv IEdvbnQiIDxhZG1pbi1kaXNjdXNzLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgb24gYmVoYWxmIG9mIGZnb250 QHNpNm5ldHdvcmtzLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQoNCiAgICA+PiBXZSBoYXZlIG5vIGRhdGEgdG8gc3Vn Z2VzdCBPRkFDIHJ1bGVzIGhhdmUgZXZlciBwcmV2ZW50ZWQgYW55DQogICAgPj4gaW5kaXZpZHVh bCBmcm9tIHBhcnRpY2lwYXRpbmcgaW4gYW5kIGNvbnRyaWJ1dGluZyB0byB0aGUgdGVjaG5pY2Fs DQogICAgPj4gd29yayBvZiB0aGUgSUVURi4gV2UgcHJlZGljdCB0aGlzIHdpbGwgcmVtYWluIHRy dWUgaW4gdGhlIGZ1dHVyZS4NCiAgICA+PiBPRkFDIHJ1bGVzIHRodXMgZG8gbm90IGFwcGVhciB0 byBiZSBhIGZhY3RvciB0aGF0IHdpbGwgbGVhZCB0byBhDQogICAgPj4gbmVnYXRpdmUgaW1wYWN0 IG9uIHRoZSBkaXZlcnNpdHkgYW5kIGluY2x1c2l2ZW5lc3Mgb2YgdGhlIElFVEYuDQoNCiAgICA+ IE1heSBJIGFzayB3aGF0J3MgdGhlIGJhc2lzIG9uIHdoaWNoIHlvdSd2ZSBhcnJpdmVkIHRvIHN1 Y2ggY29uY2x1c2lvbj8NCiAgICA+IEZvciBpbnN0YW5jZSwgZG8gd2UgaGF2ZSBhIGxvbmcgbGlz dCBvZiBwYXJ0aWNpcGFudHMgb3IgSS1EL1JGQyBhdXRob3JzDQogICAgdGhhdCBpbXBsaWNpdGx5 IHByb2JlIHRoYXQgT0ZBQyBjb21wbGlhbmNlIGFyZSBub3QgYW4gaXNzdWU/DQoNCltKTF0gVGhl IGJhc2lzIHdhcyBzdHVkeWluZyB3aGV0aGVyIHRoZSBvcmdhbml6YXRpb24gaGFzIHJlY2VpdmVk IHJlcG9ydHMgZnJvbSBpbmRpdmlkdWFscyB0aGF0IE9GQUMgcnVsZXMgcHJldmVudGVkIHRoZWly IHBhcnRpY2lwYXRpb24sIGluY2x1ZGluZyBjb25zdWx0YXRpb24gd2l0aCB0aGUgU2VjcmV0YXJp YXQgYW5kIG91ciBsZWdhbCBjb3Vuc2VsLiBBcyBub3RlZCBiZWZvcmU6ICJPRkFDIHJ1bGVzIHRo dXMgZG8gbm90IGFwcGVhciB0byBiZSBhIGZhY3RvciB0aGF0IHdpbGwgbGVhZCB0byBhIG5lZ2F0 aXZlIGltcGFjdCBvbiB0aGUgZGl2ZXJzaXR5IGFuZCBpbmNsdXNpdmVuZXNzIG9mIHRoZSBJRVRG LiIgSW4geW91ciBlZmZvcnQgdG8gZG9jdW1lbnQgYW55dGhpbmcgdGhhdCBhY3R1YWxseSBvciBl dmVuIHBvdGVudGlhbGx5IGFmZmVjdHMgcGFydGljaXBhdGlvbiwgdGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gcmVhc29u IHRvIGJlbGl2ZSBPRkFDIHJ1bGVzIGFyZSBvbmUgb2YgdGhvc2UgdGhpbmdzIG9yIHdpbGwgYmUg b25lIGluIHRoZSBmdXR1cmUuDQoNCg0K From nobody Wed Apr 7 09:07:35 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CD6E3A1F38; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:07:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d0UQerTxcFGw; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:07:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92CDC3A1F37; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:07:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0050095.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 137FsxOM020828; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 17:07:28 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=l5C9s5BpP8kvCMA48YdebdekDLJU7ZQcj56PM3NcQ70=; b=ipEEVVtB4lOtHmbKsR6FIDFE/8ihHEehgD+ue4fdjma3pOH94kVq78Q8vmr1Jk4J01bo xApe06yvGiEhhTQZicwnl2ufjad8qUVd6O4WRpDGoigsVBXUh5Q5kZse0xHvwqCNhtzd /uDZWl2relnBJL52BZ4HDcu0jRXPnpfmIytHWUBaPyl2Zx58I/j5X7nN3esQOxpEOhDW V8nPRYDmhJo2sD8H0OnAj2hfC1FZLCJwhBdjioaV6ViNhxtb+L6//mB9yiENeokXZfDL G2BWy8adqdrbuwTNDAjNVxau88ZfMQVKz+ojMCbF9ynoia9nIbnN7HjEjIYdEZjbPqF2 yw== Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [184.51.33.19] (may be forged)) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 37rvkv6wca-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 07 Apr 2021 17:07:28 +0100 Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 137G5SVK024790; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 12:07:26 -0400 Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.30]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com with ESMTP id 37rvkm2fwn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 07 Apr 2021 12:07:26 -0400 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 12:07:25 -0400 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.012; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 12:07:25 -0400 From: "Salz, Rich" To: Jay Daley , "manycouches@ietf.org" CC: "admin-discuss@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Manycouches] Follow up on consultation on planning for IETF 111 Thread-Index: AQHXKy4xw3Q9Abywwk+tlCQdL+gmaaqpOdaA Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:07:25 +0000 Message-ID: <905A17E9-E962-48AA-A8AC-352C19DC0423@akamai.com> References: <3431E359-7CDE-43AE-9284-56A9C0AC3A1A@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <3431E359-7CDE-43AE-9284-56A9C0AC3A1A@ietf.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.48.21040401 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [172.27.118.139] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <873B596BF3C0134CB003663F43B945DF@akamai.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-07_08:2021-04-07, 2021-04-07 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104070110 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: Y5HLwQwMJ3bXbKRaqnhWkrxqVGxWsQQ_ X-Proofpoint-GUID: Y5HLwQwMJ3bXbKRaqnhWkrxqVGxWsQQ_ X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-07_08:2021-04-07, 2021-04-07 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=941 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104070110 X-Agari-Authentication-Results: mx.akamai.com; spf=${SPFResult} (sender IP is 184.51.33.19) smtp.mailfrom=rsalz@akamai.com smtp.helo=prod-mail-ppoint2 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [admin-discuss] [Manycouches] Follow up on consultation on planning for IETF 111 X-BeenThere: admin-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 16:07:34 -0000 PiAgICBQbGVhc2UgbGV0IG1lIGtub3cgaWYgeW91IHRoaW5rIEkgaGF2ZSBtaXNzZWQgYW55dGhp bmcgb3IgaWYgeW91IG90aGVyd2lzZSBkaXNhZ3JlZS4NCg0KSSdsbCBicmVhayB0aGUgcnVsZXMg YW5kIHNheSB0aGF0IHRoaXMgbG9va3MgdmVyeSBnb29kIHRvIG1lLiAgU29ycnksIG5vIGNvbXBs YWludHMuDQoNCg== From nobody Wed Apr 7 11:22:19 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 458483A2455; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 11:22:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 P6WgRD3uWPBF; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 11:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDA973A23F6; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 11:22:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1lUCob-000BNe-JM; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 14:22:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 14:22:04 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Jay Daley cc: manycouches@ietf.org, admin-discuss@ietf.org Message-ID: <51D8C896A46BBB1BFFCFEB37@PSB> In-Reply-To: <3431E359-7CDE-43AE-9284-56A9C0AC3A1A@ietf.org> References: <3431E359-7CDE-43AE-9284-56A9C0AC3A1A@ietf.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [admin-discuss] [Manycouches] Follow up on consultation on planning for IETF 111 X-BeenThere: admin-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 18:22:18 -0000 Jay, This looks entirely reasonable. Two small comments below (with most of the rest of your note elided to save space)... --On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 09:43 +1200 Jay Daley wrote: > The consultation on proposals regarding planning for IETF 111 > finished on 2 April. Several points were raised and are > paraphrased and addressed as follows: >... > d. Consider hybrid meetings > This work has now started, but potentially targeting IETF 112 > not IETF 111 given the work required Just to clarify, this means that, for IETF 111, the meeting will either be all-remote or. while remote participation will be allowed and encouraged (as it has been for decades), the expectation is that most participation will be f2f. Is that correct? >... > 1. Assessment Criteria > We will use the same criteria [1] for assessing whether to go > ahead with an in-person IETF 111 meeting or switch to an > online meeting as used for IETF 109. These criteria were > previously consulted on, amended as a result of the > consultation, and worked well when used for IETF 109 [2]. A reasonable person could quibble about how well they worked for IETF 109 and, IIR, some did. But I don't think there would be much or any disagreement had you said "worked well enough" or equivalent. >... > Please let me know if you think I have missed anything or if > you otherwise disagree. Given, as two examples, recent events and uncertainty about vaccine safety and availability in Europe and predictions of a fourth surge in the US, I think the outcome of the evaluation is quite predictable. That should not, of course, discourage you from continuing the process as outlined. john From nobody Wed Apr 7 12:36:49 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF7073A26A3; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 12:36:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 KYBbvhYXq3fK; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 12:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jays-mbp.localdomain (unknown [158.140.230.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D2363A269F; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 12:36:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Jay Daley Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_86A9C86F-EF16-4119-B8DE-264E60809C4E" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 07:36:35 +1200 In-Reply-To: <51D8C896A46BBB1BFFCFEB37@PSB> Cc: admin-discuss@ietf.org, manycouches@ietf.org To: John C Klensin References: <3431E359-7CDE-43AE-9284-56A9C0AC3A1A@ietf.org> <51D8C896A46BBB1BFFCFEB37@PSB> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [admin-discuss] [Manycouches] Follow up on consultation on planning for IETF 111 X-BeenThere: admin-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 19:36:45 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_86A9C86F-EF16-4119-B8DE-264E60809C4E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On 8/04/2021, at 6:22 AM, John C Klensin wrote: >=20 > Jay, >=20 > This looks entirely reasonable. Two small comments below (with > most of the rest of your note elided to save space)... >=20 > --On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 09:43 +1200 Jay Daley > wrote: >=20 >> The consultation on proposals regarding planning for IETF 111 >> finished on 2 April. Several points were raised and are >> paraphrased and addressed as follows: >> ...=20 >> d. Consider hybrid meetings >> This work has now started, but potentially targeting IETF 112 >> not IETF 111 given the work required >=20 > Just to clarify, this means that, for IETF 111, the meeting will > either be all-remote or. while remote participation will be > allowed and encouraged (as it has been for decades), the > expectation is that most participation will be f2f. Is that > correct? In order to consider a 'hybrid' meeting we will need to change the = assessment criteria to increase the threshold for those that can be = generalised as "If 20% or more cannot attend for X reason then we cannot = meet". I don=E2=80=99t know yet what the replacement for 20% will be, = nor what the community would find acceptable for X. For example, as it = currently stands nobody from the EU can travel to the US easily taking = us over the 20% threshold. If we say increased the 20% to 50% then = would people find it acceptable to hold a hybrid meeting under such = circumstances? Jay >=20 >> ... >> 1. Assessment Criteria >> We will use the same criteria [1] for assessing whether to go >> ahead with an in-person IETF 111 meeting or switch to an >> online meeting as used for IETF 109. These criteria were >> previously consulted on, amended as a result of the >> consultation, and worked well when used for IETF 109 [2]. >=20 > A reasonable person could quibble about how well they worked for > IETF 109 and, IIR, some did. But I don't think there would be > much or any disagreement had you said "worked well enough" or > equivalent. >=20 >> ... >> Please let me know if you think I have missed anything or if >> you otherwise disagree. >=20 > Given, as two examples, recent events and uncertainty about > vaccine safety and availability in Europe and predictions of a > fourth surge in the US, I think the outcome of the evaluation is > quite predictable. That should not, of course, discourage you > from continuing the process as outlined. >=20 > john >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Manycouches mailing list > Manycouches@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches >=20 --=20 Jay Daley IETF Executive Director jay@ietf.org --Apple-Mail=_86A9C86F-EF16-4119-B8DE-264E60809C4E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

On 8/04/2021, at 6:22 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> = wrote:

Jay,

This looks entirely = reasonable.   Two small comments below (with
most = of the rest of your note elided to save space)...

--On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 09:43 +1200 Jay Daley
<jay@ietf.org> wrote:

The consultation on = proposals regarding planning for IETF 111
finished on 2 = April.  Several points were raised and are
paraphrased = and addressed as follows:
...
d. =  Consider hybrid meetings
This work has now started, = but potentially targeting IETF 112
not IETF 111 given the = work required

Just to clarify, = this means that, for IETF 111, the meeting will
either be = all-remote or. while remote participation will be
allowed = and encouraged (as it has been for decades), the
expectation= is that most participation will be f2f.  Is that
correct?

In order to consider a 'hybrid' meeting we will = need to change the assessment criteria to increase the threshold for = those that can be generalised as "If 20% or more cannot attend for X = reason then we cannot meet".  I don=E2=80=99t know yet what the = replacement for 20% will be, nor what the community would find = acceptable for X.  For example, as it currently stands nobody from = the EU can travel to the US easily taking us over the 20% threshold. =  If we say increased the 20% to 50% then would people find it = acceptable to hold a hybrid meeting under such = circumstances?

Jay


...
1. Assessment Criteria
We will use the same = criteria [1] for assessing whether to go
ahead with an = in-person IETF 111 meeting or switch to an
online meeting = as used for IETF 109.  These criteria were
previously = consulted on, amended as a result of the
consultation, and = worked well when used for IETF 109 [2].

A reasonable person could quibble about how well they worked = for
IETF 109 and, IIR, some did.  But I don't think = there would be
much or any disagreement had you said = "worked well enough" or
equivalent.

...
Please = let me know if you think I have missed anything or if
you = otherwise disagree.

Given, as = two examples, recent events and uncertainty about
vaccine = safety and availability in Europe and predictions of a
fourth surge in the US, I think the outcome of the evaluation = is
quite predictable.  That should not, of course, = discourage you
from continuing the process as outlined.

  john

_______________________________________________
Manycouches mailing list
Manycouches@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches


-- 
Jay Daley
IETF = Executive Director
jay@ietf.org

= --Apple-Mail=_86A9C86F-EF16-4119-B8DE-264E60809C4E-- From nobody Wed Apr 7 18:07:33 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419CC3A317A; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 18:07:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 vBlZj-Sc52ll; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 18:07:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 978803A3145; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1lUJ8f-000DSW-4M; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 21:07:17 -0400 Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 21:07:11 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Jay Daley cc: admin-discuss@ietf.org, manycouches@ietf.org Message-ID: <48A49DC52712A1E9BC63110A@PSB> In-Reply-To: References: <3431E359-7CDE-43AE-9284-56A9C0AC3A1A@ietf.org> <51D8C896A46BBB1BFFCFEB37@PSB> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [admin-discuss] [Manycouches] Follow up on consultation on planning for IETF 111 X-BeenThere: admin-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 01:07:28 -0000 --On Thursday, April 8, 2021 07:36 +1200 Jay Daley wrote: > > >> On 8/04/2021, at 6:22 AM, John C Klensin >> wrote: >> >> Jay, >> >> This looks entirely reasonable. Two small comments below >> (with most of the rest of your note elided to save space)... >> >> --On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 09:43 +1200 Jay Daley >> wrote: >> >>> The consultation on proposals regarding planning for IETF 111 >>> finished on 2 April. Several points were raised and are >>> paraphrased and addressed as follows: >>> ... >>> d. Consider hybrid meetings >>> This work has now started, but potentially targeting IETF 112 >>> not IETF 111 given the work required >> >> Just to clarify, this means that, for IETF 111, the meeting >> will either be all-remote or. while remote participation will >> be allowed and encouraged (as it has been for decades), the >> expectation is that most participation will be f2f. Is that >> correct? > > In order to consider a 'hybrid' meeting we will need to change > the assessment criteria to increase the threshold for those > that can be generalised as "If 20% or more cannot attend for X > reason then we cannot meet". I don't know yet what the > replacement for 20% will be, nor what the community would find > acceptable for X. For example, as it currently stands nobody > from the EU can travel to the US easily taking us over the 20% > threshold. If we say increased the 20% to 50% then would > people find it acceptable to hold a hybrid meeting under such > circumstances? Sorry, did not mean to draw you back into a discussion about how we would decide to have a hybrid meeting -- I think that has been covered more than adequately for now and hope we can have that conversation at a more convenient time and, as you said, for IETF 112. I was just trying to understand your definition of "hybrid meeting" a little better and, in particular, what the difference is between your definition of a hybrid meeting and every meeting in at least a couple of decades prior to IETF 107. I note in particular that IETF 102 through IETF 106 each had more than 1/3 remote participants. Consequently, if we could magically go back to the middle of 2018 and magically apply perfect foresight and today's 80% criterion to them, all of those meetings would have been forced to be fully remote. Obviously (I hope) that not only is impossible but would have been stupid. I just want to be sure that we don't think about "hybrid meeting" in a way that would discard the precedents and experience of many years in which a significant number of participants were remote. Or, if we are going to move forward in a way that is ultimately equivalent to "some participants are more significant, important, or equal than others" that we be very explicit about that. john From nobody Fri Apr 9 05:25:14 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B47323A1F6D; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 05:25:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.648 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no 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 Ud5i_QF85tn6; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 05:25:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEEE13A1F6C; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 05:25:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 139CP3ck021055; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 14:25:03 +0200 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 64697206ED8; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 14:25:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54C6B203F64; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 14:25:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.14.11.68] ([10.14.11.68]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 139CP2qQ016526; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 14:25:03 +0200 To: Jay Daley , manycouches@ietf.org Cc: admin-discuss@ietf.org References: <3431E359-7CDE-43AE-9284-56A9C0AC3A1A@ietf.org> From: Alexandre Petrescu Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 14:25:02 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3431E359-7CDE-43AE-9284-56A9C0AC3A1A@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [admin-discuss] [Manycouches] Follow up on consultation on planning for IETF 111 X-BeenThere: admin-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 12:25:12 -0000 Hi, Le 06/04/2021 à 23:43, Jay Daley a écrit : > The consultation on proposals regarding planning for IETF 111 > finished on 2 April. Several points were raised and are paraphrased > and addressed as follows: > > a. Consider what other events are taking place *globally* not > locally This feedback is rejected as inappropriate given the highly > local nature of restrictions, such as travel bans, face mask > regulations and so on. > > b. Make the criteria more specific because people might interpret > them differently This hasn’t been a problem so far and no evidence is > provided that it will, besides which the assessment document is not a > consensus opinion. > > c. Include X in this criteria In every case where this was raised, > the language is general enough to include X and intended to include X > and it would be unwieldy to enumerate every aspect of the criteria at > the same level as X. > > d. Consider hybrid meetings This work has now started, but > potentially targeting IETF 112 not IETF 111 given the work required > > e. Delay the decision to the 10 weeks before the meeting not 14 > weeks After speaking to the OP they have withdrawn this suggestion on > the basis that is looks unlikely anything substantial will change in > the intervening four weeks. > > > On this basis I intend to stick with the proposed timetable and > process: > > 1. Assessment Criteria We will use the same criteria [1] for > assessing whether to go ahead with an in-person IETF 111 meeting or > switch to an online meeting as used for IETF 109. These criteria > were previously consulted on, amended as a result of the > consultation, and worked well when used for IETF 109 [2]. > > 2. Fee structure We will use the same fee structure as used for IETF > 110 [3] including unlimited fee waivers. > > 3. Decision timetable We will use the following assessment > timetable: > > 05 Mar 2021 This consultation opens. > > 02 Apr 2021 Consultation closes. > > 09 Apr 2021 Response to consultation communicated and assessment > begins using the final criteria. > > 16 Apr 2021 Decision made and communicated. > > 03 May 2021 Registration opens. > > 26 Jul 2021 IETF 111 begins. > > > Please let me know if you think I have missed anything or if you > otherwise disagree. I agree with the Assessment Criteria, Fee structure and happy to see the decision timetable. I think it is followed and I feel reassured a plan is followed. My comment is late on-purpose such that to not deviate the discussion. But I would like to say something here. There are hybrid meeting considerations - ok. The vaccination and sanitary seem to advance on a positive path towards returning to a more 'normal' - ok. However, I do not think it is that simple. When I was still subscribed to the IETF list there was a sort of a charter proposal about a possibility of a somehow different worldview, that would witness many fundamental changes. I think I will need to look at that again. Because some times, and recently more often, I think that - other than the hybrid meetings topic - the very core of the reason of why meeting is being shaken. That comment has many ramifications. Is it worth polluting the air for something that could be decided online? Is one disturbing the world less or more if one is using a PC or otherwise a plane seat to meet? Can trust be maintained and further built, if remote? How many people can actually constitute a 'core' that needs to meet about the Internet during even the most difficult times? And, above all, is the Internet itself a good thing or a less good thing in this picture? When pondering our ways forward these are almost mandatory considerations, IMHO. Some might call it Ethics and leave it to others to address. It is a possibility. Alex > > Jay > > [1] > https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/109/assessment-framework-person-vs-online-ietf-109-meeting/ > > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/7GHV8JuZuNgYjv-Dt9wrk_CN5BE/ > [3] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/ZU6cYhBTdxD63Ki2c4hUSsVfkCw/ > From nobody Fri Apr 9 05:33:08 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD473A1FA4; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 05:33:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.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 C1DmBGaC-hzw; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 05:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-00143702.pphosted.com (mx0b-00143702.pphosted.com [148.163.141.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5AF73A1FA5; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 05:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0184891.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00143702.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 139CVqIU001901; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 08:33:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=20190412; bh=zFrS7K1ugLnpVTO7Fnoy8DRNVcQn91gRaoGJh9vy3Ko=; b=qpUiHRaDKLuy84BpCXNSqXZayRx7Kry7pGKy3u4QgpWmFhuNmzBGCbh76o/vx8dqFJiA A40ARBszcUCBLT9ac9mc39T8cLq4t/LiyTtVMkdIJaC/5bF2v8RQpUNOHu4AW7BS8zS7 samU4yrlk1O0Cdhi2htI6YVHCBnPNG2xB7KQo+/3u4IxYFHUFe6v73Z5YvdzZ7voQ1Wk WWoI7vGeJXQX5hddQh21tdOqgoTM4u1tlBtiKvckbhzyERWYy6tp9DVUSQMoP0dCHBdP 1qJ0TSxktPwOIUwA3UOBSwsznkA2dNRyda+eAyS59re7Mg1nMFORqRF7Le85JTT4UvWB tQ== Received: from copdcexc37.cable.comcast.com (dlppfpt-po-1p.slb.comcast.com [96.99.226.137]) by mx0b-00143702.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 37tcy1anng-6 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 09 Apr 2021 08:32:59 -0400 Received: from copdcexc33.cable.comcast.com (147.191.125.132) by COPDCEXC37.cable.comcast.com (147.191.125.136) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2106.2; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 06:32:57 -0600 Received: from COPDCEXEDGE01.cable.comcast.com (96.114.158.213) by copdcexc33.cable.comcast.com (147.191.125.132) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2106.2 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 06:32:57 -0600 Received: from NAM10-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.55.107) by webmail.comcast.com (96.114.158.213) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 06:32:57 -0600 Received: from MN2PR11MB4287.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:189::17) by MN2PR11MB4077.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:13f::18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3999.28; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 12:32:56 +0000 Received: from MN2PR11MB4287.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c80d:3887:55ee:e89a]) by MN2PR11MB4287.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c80d:3887:55ee:e89a%5]) with mapi id 15.20.4020.021; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 12:32:56 +0000 From: "Livingood, Jason" To: Alexandre Petrescu , "manycouches@ietf.org" , "admin-discuss@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [admin-discuss] [Manycouches] Follow up on consultation on planning for IETF 111 Thread-Index: AQHXLTtxQc2rgVX3UkSvBs5KpJwSOKqr22mA Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 12:32:55 +0000 Message-ID: <80C5BA10-4D11-4B48-95F4-918ECC01579A@cable.comcast.com> References: <3431E359-7CDE-43AE-9284-56A9C0AC3A1A@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.47.21031401 authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cable.comcast.com; x-originating-ip: [2601:41:200:d70:454:740e:d306:b0a2] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b2ad4557-b573-4bc5-d946-08d8fb539a30 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4077: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8273; x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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 x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:MN2PR11MB4287.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(366004)(376002)(396003)(39860400002)(136003)(346002)(64756008)(38100700001)(53546011)(66556008)(66476007)(6506007)(66446008)(8936002)(478600001)(110136005)(8676002)(6486002)(5660300002)(316002)(33656002)(2906002)(71200400001)(86362001)(2616005)(76116006)(66946007)(83380400001)(186003)(6512007)(4744005)(45980500001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: =?utf-8?B?YkJQWkhmd0pDV0ZjRlFvdmJVU1NBb0RTRVZJaEJkdENab05IR3p1MndId3c1?= =?utf-8?B?aGFEZ3Q3YWx1VEdKemlQQWRDOVBCYUpMeUlCTGxvdmd3VDRxbVlqbDYvVTV0?= =?utf-8?B?aU5uUSs1MGdtajNFdVg5TTQ2aEJOdU5CQnNkbW4xT0tObG9OSm1OdWg4ZTJy?= =?utf-8?B?K1FJNzRnT3FpeGpka3pFWXM1Y0I1eE53Z3RrVXVxbWZKaUcwWEVhcHFnd2xO?= =?utf-8?B?QWh4R0FCQy8rVXB3NnJZbk5qSGFrdEl1OGVVSHFocEpZNDdhTWg1cU5FNG90?= =?utf-8?B?WUYybyt5M3BHaXQ5QzNYUmhLeDlsRWNwZGJzVXdZN2tSdE4zMllxd3lKMFQr?= =?utf-8?B?Vk9UV1pFeVdoQTNYenJ3RHVSMGoreTFkb1NYYnNHWC9yN01QaHhaNDlrUUgz?= =?utf-8?B?UWlkL0hLelV4ZUFtdkJhTTBrQ1JmbzVUU1ZaWjhFT1hVM3R3R0JNZmFqTk4x?= =?utf-8?B?T3l1RG8xMzc4MWNreXpHSmdOb0xncU1nRDVnZGF5dXF4VmlWeUZkRCtkRGJQ?= =?utf-8?B?MFN4SkdGWnNXTHpRUjRHSFdXM3p2V2VCalF1ZmYrb2RCTHhGTjc2OUF2QVkx?= =?utf-8?B?Nlhjb1dZbHdlV3BMc2w0OVJ4U0pSOVZEWERTeWdlL1hmTGJYTThyVFhCbUtn?= =?utf-8?B?Q3kxeWJWb3VGUzNmVnYvWDhNeXc4QUtqeUhBNDdrTGJKUys4TFIzbFlXYm9G?= =?utf-8?B?K3NIenpubmx0R1JRMW5RVXY4dU13YzcxM2VPQ05aQlY5VXp5emF2bDl4cWhm?= =?utf-8?B?ZHhqbjE1WkZVdHJRR2lVTzRWbFI1aW1QVFN1UmVvTGRzbG5hKzVpMkY3c2s0?= =?utf-8?B?RlFpZ043ekVoeGQ5M0xTUERGNW4rVUFWTFVGWk42NCtCQWhSdVBGMFZhZXk3?= =?utf-8?B?V1dLc2VQWXlFOGVnc2Q4eUp3cmxlaFVNVytLbDdEL1BMY2Z4bmpINWJpNWdn?= =?utf-8?B?dG1tSWk4NGVHMHhmQmJiSGl3d2VPMVBxTisxVDh4QisxRGVEWFJNU0dQVmJB?= =?utf-8?B?U0VCaEZzRUY5dDJuQTJKMTVsZGkxaXMrdEFLSnUvRmxHNkorcDF3alFBcXNW?= =?utf-8?B?Z3RrMHRvZ0FlOXNCMjZHSWEvcGZGZXFvNlNrTTNJNlBFZzZIQngvTFR6STVl?= =?utf-8?B?WUF3TlRjWEZhRmNRdkViTWRtbFVKS3FrblZNbHpibm1QZFF2aUx3VGo1NFJ4?= =?utf-8?B?OWZkTldabC9ZWlR5TWhFN2F1NlphSEJEeWsrVEU4eWdUMUwyalJMeTQwdjU2?= =?utf-8?B?SnM2SWFJMlRhcU5WTW43VFBxOGRqUUxtY1o4Mi8wOU5wQ0VqSkxPeDFjSzRz?= =?utf-8?B?ZDNtK0JaY2tpTFlHUEtOY2F1Zkw3WWtwS05LR3VCK1A0amdRTDdQb1Zucjhr?= =?utf-8?B?N1FXNGhsbW1LNFBJUi9qclpabVdkUTRqZG5NaWdJVTI5dkZBRlVBNVJFZy8z?= =?utf-8?B?Y2kwOWQ0bkJRUytWVTBvQjk1RzZka3lsWHVFSTFaRXdJV3Zma0s0aXFZOGsv?= =?utf-8?B?VC9XL0hpNGhYYnpkY3J6R1E3a0lCVmh5aWcxTm90dEN4YzZ5WGZGUHBlTXVZ?= =?utf-8?B?Ukh6WW9GWStPQzJNQWVlTzRCRU91QUt3c0RLUjFlWnFtUmpJRjZtZGhEbzZ6?= =?utf-8?B?ZHoxM3pDT2ZQSnJ5Yk1LRytXK1YyYjV5WDhVQ2ptQThRbUhiNW1lYkhsSDJ6?= =?utf-8?B?WWRpY21XUXdGSnFIWmVjTHNYMnBrM1BJaDk5K1JQVG4rV1d0ZFRkVE5LNC80?= =?utf-8?B?eHBWVmlCYS9DNkxGQTdrWWRFMjNpS2swUEV0dDBnUzQyeFU0Y2U2SVZSUGM1?= =?utf-8?B?Z3U3ZFFkNW5UK0R4dm9Ra1ZOUVFmZ1ZlaTBlZlFsN2tnSFc1RTFIOXNidmx2?= =?utf-8?Q?wWXVQJU3IPWFI?= x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=V9vsO13PduweEGBLpnujnuD89ZlbNDCDciE8w73nZi/TGrrcoUYs7cp4zddIlfbj+9R62tsO9RHoZP8w/Fp/JTUJFwoSn3eWVSz1mWl1CawUNP6GTtsVNOTYsKKcUwXc/WSH0Mzr0GvTs0I4lD62EQqIDMcqKqA2293a/0Pe5P2h4BX30dM2woN2oIUphEcbFDgOWtELACxkJqcTHcowQGIAkHfkTT+4xHHFLmLuAmQhK623b4ZZiw76NkwXa15Be5lQAfiqMF/1ZIKLwSJ134QOcoY1xggAVGCqKILaR3pvxPjySgANaA+DKphOHhP5p94JcvyXuwHx7GXLIz48YA== arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=uy8USn7QmlDpicIrcy+fraDWB2bzMG5Er3DtpZ4ljww=; b=VAhpVEmBfyWLNRYym5lfDjnOrfJH+qyBoYDDXSnVP0wfP0Ro6E8bdQhmIK/Jy0cUQr8KnogeEeasn+kq8jXzwB4xenVNwyEUeYizFKKU4F2fqM0IGw7D/rvU0B+uFx6jeFE7/DN/TB3rHyJtYHCykZVnJ5MYyLgs/MsE+kUCMoJiEEkX4D/wInaLF9fuywExCsib5fjAueCIvsUvMySSlkNWq6sszp2EiazCNzZS1C93m7FkqnwrQLFvk1QUtGvofhndxOHcisOegSNfzOBkwDY/a/g1NU1ePBdrZnBwvm81HiaWakOw1v2xZEYXMcvY48Ij5R1KAXFj1+V6lyT2Xg== arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cable.comcast.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cable.comcast.com; dkim=pass header.d=cable.comcast.com; arc=none x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-authas: Internal x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-authsource: MN2PR11MB4287.namprd11.prod.outlook.com x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-network-message-id: b2ad4557-b573-4bc5-d946-08d8fb539a30 x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Apr 2021 12:32:55.8946 (UTC) x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-fromentityheader: Hosted x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-id: 906aefe9-76a7-4f65-b82d-5ec20775d5aa x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-userprincipalname: URrIbuROM5/q4NgAq54rh0kNy4UUci8MA1hDK2zleZx8vBIDzunNPZyQ773Y/bKtWnDP17X7z6n37eOL/mip3lcY6MyQScsib1dMEqRJGnY= x-ms-exchange-transport-crosstenantheadersstamped: MN2PR11MB4077 x-originatororg: cable.comcast.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <848B7D1673EBE941BC0B8BACE1CED2AD@namprd11.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Forward AAETWO X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: BmvMu32GAhrbAGpKADCzhHT5vMKPCfYO X-Proofpoint-GUID: BmvMu32GAhrbAGpKADCzhHT5vMKPCfYO X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-09_05:2021-04-09, 2021-04-09 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe Archived-At: Subject: Re: [admin-discuss] [Manycouches] Follow up on consultation on planning for IETF 111 X-BeenThere: admin-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 12:33:06 -0000 WW91IGFzayBzb21lIGZhciByZWFjaGluZyAmIHRob3VnaHRmdWwgcXVlc3Rpb25zIGFuZCBJIGxv b2sgZm9yd2FyZCB0byBzZWVpbmcgd2hhdCBvdGhlcnMgdGhpbmsuIEluIHRoZSBtZWFudGltZSBv biBvbmUgbmFycm93IHBvaW50LCBzZWUgYmVsb3c6DQoNCk9uIDQvOS8yMSwgODoyNSBBTSwgImFk bWluLWRpc2N1c3Mgb24gYmVoYWxmIG9mIEFsZXhhbmRyZSBQZXRyZXNjdSIgPGFkbWluLWRpc2N1 c3MtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YgYWxleGFuZHJlLnBldHJlc2N1QGdtYWls LmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQo+ICBJcyBpdCB3b3J0aCBwb2xsdXRpbmcgdGhlIGFpciBmb3Igc29tZXRo aW5nIHRoYXQgY291bGQgYmUgZGVjaWRlZCBvbmxpbmU/DQoNClByZS1DT1ZJRCB0aGUgaXNzdWUg b2YgZW52aXJvbm1lbnRhbCBpbXBhY3Qgb2YgSUVURiBpbiBwZXJzb24gbWVldGluZ3Mgd2FzIHJh aXNlZC4gVGhlIExMQyBzdHVkaWVkIHRoaXMgYW5kIGNvbmZlcnJlZCB3aXRoIGFuIGVudmlyb25t ZW50YWwgaW1wYWN0IGV4cGVydCBhcyBJIHRoaW5rIEpheSByZWxhdGVkIHRvIHRoZSBjb21tdW5p dHkgYXQgdGhlIHRpbWUuIFdoZW4gbWVldGluZ3MgZG8gcmVzdW1lIHBhcnRseSBpbiBwZXJzb24s IHRoZSBnb29kIG5ld3MgaXMgdGhhdCBJIGJlbGlldmUgdGhlIElFVEYgbm93IGhhcyBhIGZyYW1l d29yayB0byBlc3RpbWF0ZSB0aGUgZW52aXJvbm1lbnRhbCBpbXBhY3QgYW5kIHRoZSB0aGlua2lu ZyBpcyB0byBwdXJjaGFzZSBjYXJib24gY3JlZGl0cyB0byBvZmYtc2V0IHRoaXMgaW1wYWN0LiBJ J20gc3VyZSBhcyB3ZSBiZWNvbWUgcmVhZHkgZm9yIGluIHBlcnNvbiBtZWV0aW5ncyBhZ2Fpbiwg SmF5IHdpbGwgc2hhcmUgbW9yZSBpbmZvIGFib3V0IHRoaXMgYW5kIHNlZWsgYWRkaXRpb25hbCBj b21tZW50IC0gYnV0IEkganVzdCB3YW50ZWQgdG8gbWVudGlvbiBpdCBzbyBmb2xrcyBkaWRuJ3Qg dGhpbmsgd2UgaGFkIGZvcmdvdHRlbiBhYm91dCBpdC4gOi0pDQoNCkphc29uDQoNCg== From nobody Mon Apr 12 14:28:55 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B15D3A0E59; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:28:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.632 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no 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 UPf8vKY9-KVo; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E8483A0E53; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 13CLScvr024641; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:28:38 +0200 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 94592207A99; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:28:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822082007F9; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:28:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.14.0.65] ([10.14.0.65]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 13CLSbJJ007173; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:28:37 +0200 To: "Livingood, Jason" , "manycouches@ietf.org" , "admin-discuss@ietf.org" References: <3431E359-7CDE-43AE-9284-56A9C0AC3A1A@ietf.org> <80C5BA10-4D11-4B48-95F4-918ECC01579A@cable.comcast.com> From: Alexandre Petrescu Message-ID: <4c8aa04c-ea96-35f2-4708-d5400922b886@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:28:37 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <80C5BA10-4D11-4B48-95F4-918ECC01579A@cable.comcast.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [admin-discuss] [Manycouches] Follow up on consultation on planning for IETF 111 X-BeenThere: admin-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 21:28:50 -0000 Thanks for the note, Le 09/04/2021 à 14:32, Livingood, Jason a écrit : > You ask some far reaching & thoughtful questions and I look forward > to seeing what others think. In the meantime on one narrow point, see > below: > > On 4/9/21, 8:25 AM, "admin-discuss on behalf of Alexandre Petrescu" > alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote: >> Is it worth polluting the air for something that could be decided >> online? > > Pre-COVID the issue of environmental impact of IETF in person > meetings was raised. The LLC studied this and conferred with an > environmental impact expert as I think Jay related to the community > at the time. When meetings do resume partly in person, the good news > is that I believe the IETF now has a framework to estimate the > environmental impact and the thinking is to purchase carbon credits > to off-set this impact. I think estimating the environmental impact of IETF in-person meetings (and online meetings) is a good first step. I am not sure what it means to purchase carbon credits. But I heard about google planting trees elsewhere to compensate for pollution here, a laudable practice, in general, but some times less desirable: I might not care about air quality there while what I breathe is here. Other than air polution there is also sound pollution of planes taking off and landing. That could be compensated by huge noise cancellation devices but these are no more than a speculation as of now. Alex I'm sure as we become ready for in person > meetings again, Jay will share more info about this and seek > additional comment - but I just wanted to mention it so folks didn't > think we had forgotten about it. :-) > > Jason > From nobody Thu Apr 15 13:04:34 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: admin-discuss@ietf.org Delivered-To: admin-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2288B3A2CE5; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 13:04:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Administration LLC Board of Directors Chair To: "IETF Announcement List" Cc: admin-discuss@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.28.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: admin-discuss@ietf.org Message-ID: <161851706806.21637.6532064690469605994@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 13:04:28 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [admin-discuss] Proposed Process to Conduct Assessment Activity of IETF Administrative Support Activity X-BeenThere: admin-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Discussion list for IETF LLC administrative issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 20:04:28 -0000 After three years of operation, the IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC) is preparing to conduct a complete assessment of the structure, processes, and operation of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA 2.0) and the IETF LLC. Before beginning this work, we are soliciting community feedback on the proposed timeline and process we will use to conduct the retrospective. Details are available at: https://www.ietf.org/blog/iasa2-three-year-review-process/ The assessment is required by BCP 101, which specifies the IETF Administrative Support Activity, including the IETF LLC. If you have any feedback, please provide by the end of the day on 26 April 2021 via the public discussion mailing list, admin-discuss@ietf.org. ++++++++++ How to Contact the IETF LLC ++++++++++ Executive Director: Exec-Director@ietf.org Sponsorship: sponsorship@ietf.org Board: LLC-Board@ietf.org ++++++++++ General IETF LLC Board Background ++++++++++ About the IETF LLC: https://www.ietf.org/about/administration/ Meeting minutes: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/llc-board/minutes/ Future meetings: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/llc-board/meeting-info/ Financial statements: https://www.ietf.org/about/administration/financial-statements/