Subject: [dmarc-ietf] dmarc - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 110

From: IETF Meeting Session Request Tool <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 10:25:01 -0800

A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Alexey Melnikov, a Chair of the dmarc working group.

---------------------------------------------------------
Working Group Name: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting &amp; Conformance
Area Name: Applications and Real-Time Area
Session Requester: Alexey Melnikov

Number of Sessions: 1
Length of Session(s):  1 Hour
Number of Attendees: 76
Conflicts to Avoid: 
 Chair Conflict: dnsop dprive cfrg kitten emailcore
 Technology Overlap: saag uta extra jmap cbor

People who must be present:
  Alexey Melnikov
  Murray Kucherawy
  Tim Wicinski
  Seth Blank

Resources Requested:

Special Requests:
  
---------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 16:37:01 -0800

I'm wondering why we should wait for IETF110 rather than having an interim
meeting sooner. Interim meetings are also likely to garner greater
participation since they do not include participation fee. If there are
topics worthy of F2F discussion, why wait? If there are not, then why
charge people to join a pointless meeting?

--Kurt

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 10:25 AM IETF Meeting Session Request Tool <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

---

From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 16:57:46 +0000

Hi Kurt,

Murray will correct me if I am wrong, but I have several comments:

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, at 12:37 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> I'm wondering why we should wait for IETF110 rather than having an interim meeting sooner. Interim meetings are also likely to garner greater participation since they do not include participation fee. If there are topics worthy of F2F discussion, why wait? If there are not, then why charge people to join a pointless meeting?
1). All online IETFs this year had "free attendence" option. If people can afford to pay to attend, they should, as this supports RFC publication cost, cost of online meetings, etc. But people can attend for free if needs be.
As far as I know this is going to be the case for IETF 110.

2). Chairs are considering interims and we will schedule them if/when needed. 

3). Chairs will discuss around February 1st whether we think we can have a productive meeting at IETF 110. We can cancel if there are no reasons to have online meeting during IETF 110 week.

Best Regards,
Alexey

> 
> --Kurt
> 
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 10:25 AM IETF Meeting Session Request Tool <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>>

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:49:31 -0800

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 8:59 AM Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> 1). All online IETFs this year had "free attendence" option. If people can
> afford to pay to attend, they should, as this supports RFC publication
> cost, cost of online meetings, etc. But people can attend for free if needs
> be.

I concur.  The fee for virtual meetings is less than half that of the usual
in-person meetings since the IETF's costs are obviously lower, but we do
need to keep the lights on.  For people that can't afford to participate
otherwise, there is a fee waiver program available.

I suggest that this working group has enough of a work queue before it that
having both an interim meeting and a scheduled session at IETF 110 is
certainly worth considering.

-MSK, ART AD

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:51:50 -0800

On 12/11/2020 9:49 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> I suggest that this working group has enough of a work queue before it 
> that having both an interim meeting and a scheduled session at IETF 
> 110 is certainly worth considering.

+1

Interims should be saved for times the wg has hit a wall in making 
progress and needs the greater communication efficiencies of real-time 
interaction.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
[email-masked]
408.329.0791

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross
[email-masked]

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:55:48 -0800

On 12/11/20 9:49 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
>
> I concur.  The fee for virtual meetings is less than half that of the 
> usual in-person meetings since the IETF's costs are obviously lower, 
> but we do need to keep the lights on. For people that can't afford to 
> participate otherwise, there is a fee waiver program available.
>
I know this is the wrong list, but what about people who could afford 
it, but don't want to afford it? It's not like I'm making money from 
participating and that it's just a cost of doing business. These 
discussions ran into the trillions of messages on the ietf list so i was 
never able to figure that part out.

Mike

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 10:04:02 -0800

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 9:56 AM Michael Thomas <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I know this is the wrong list, but what about people who could afford it,
> but don't want to afford it? It's not like I'm making money from

To answer your question, I'll offer this text which was on the fee waiver
page for IETF 109, but you're right that this is really off-topic here so
further discussion should be started on [email-masked].

"We understand that not everyone can afford the IETF 109 registration fee
for a variety of reasons, including issues with income, employment status
and employer support, and we do not want any of these to be a barrier to
participation. If you cannot afford the registration fee then please take
this fee waiver option to ensure that you can participate. We make an
unlimited number of fee waivers available and we do not ask you to explain
why you are taking the fee waiver option or make any check on eligibility
as we operate on a trust basis.

The information you provide will be confidential and will only be used for
the purpose of allocating fee waivers."

-MSK, ART AD