Subject: [Manycouches] Vienna - FFP2 or at least 2 in FFP2?

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 17:43:44 +0100

https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/113/covid-related-requirements/

> C. Face masks are required when indoors
> 
> Participants must wear FFP2 or N95 face masks when indoors and
> outside of their guest room. Surgical and cloth masks are not
> acceptable, nor are neck gaiters or balaclavas. FFP2 masks are
> readily available at local shops, and we will also have masks
> available onsite.

I some times wear FFP2 and other times FFP3.

Am I allowed to wear FFP3 in Vienna IETF?

Maybe it should say 'must wear at least FFP2 or N95, and FFP3 is also 
allowed'
and say
'wearing surgeon's masks, and wearing manufactured tissue mask, is not 
allowed - neither one nor another'.

Alex

---

From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 18:19:36 +0100 (CET)

> Il 17/01/2022 17:43 Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]> ha scritto:
> 
>  

I think you are asking for certainties that cannot be provided. Even if someone had a clear answer now, that answer might change tomorrow, or one minute before you step into the meeting venue after travelling there, because of reasons and authorities that are outside of the IETF's control.

The only possible answer to all your questions is: if you are not willing to take risks or bear with uncertainties, do not even consider attending in person.

-- 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
[email-masked] 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 19:22:52 +0100

Le 17/01/2022 à 18:19, Vittorio Bertola a écrit :
> 
> 
>> Il 17/01/2022 17:43 Alexandre Petrescu
>> <[email-masked]> ha scritto:
>> 
>> 
> I think you are asking for certainties that cannot be provided. Even
> if someone had a clear answer now, that answer might change tomorrow,
> or one minute before you step into the meeting venue after travelling
> there, because of reasons and authorities that are outside of the
> IETF's control.
> 
> The only possible answer to all your questions is: if you are not
> willing to take risks or bear with uncertainties, do not even
> consider attending in person.

I think one does not understand me.

I agree with you that certainties can not be provided.  I agree that 
things change as we speak and it is hard to plan.

However, I think that the protocol can be largely improved.  Current 
knowledge about covid is relatively in advance of the current covid 
protocol of IETF.  The IETF covid protocol is not even an IETF protocol, 
but it is an Austrian protocol.  That protocol is behind and they 
prepare a large change too.

What might be considered as uknowns by some are well knowns by others.

I will try to write separate emails, maybe each thing is different.

For this topic, I want to tell this: FFP3 are likely to protect more 
than FFP2.  FFP3 and FFP2 existed before covid.  PRobably there wont be 
an FFP4.

The IETF covid text should be formulated accordingly.

I will formulate another email about masks.

One is free to disregard my emails.

Alex

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 14:13:36 -0500

--On Monday, January 17, 2022 18:19 +0100 Vittorio Bertola
<vittorio.bertola=[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> I think you are asking for certainties that cannot be
> provided. Even if someone had a clear answer now, that answer
> might change tomorrow, or one minute before you step into the
> meeting venue after travelling there, because of reasons and
> authorities that are outside of the IETF's control.
> 
> The only possible answer to all your questions is: if you are
> not willing to take risks or bear with uncertainties, do not
> even consider attending in person.

Vittorio and others have said essentially the above several
times (each) to, AFAICT, no effect.  In addition, to partially
borrow a comment from Éric Vyncke's "No Objection" comment on
the charter, while many of us may be interested, I doubt that
the IETF as a whole has significant expertise in matters of
immunology, epidemiology, or public health (much less
COVID-specific expertise).   Even if we had such knowledge it is
of only marginal value unless various political actors can be
counted on to act both rationally and predictably.  There is
also an area in which I think we have even less expertise:
accurately predicting the future events or policies over which
we have no control and doing so early enough to make a
difference.

Both the existing and new charters are very clear that this WG
is supposed to be about  "high-level principles, not detailed
operational plans".   At this stage, discussions of the
arrangements and procedures for Vienna are certainly the latter.
If if it is desired, can we create a separate mailing list for
discussions of national and international COVID statistics,
issues, technologies, predictions, etc., but start treating
starting threads on those subject on this list as sufficiently
outside the IETF's expertise and that provision of the charter
to be disruptive?  Also, I wonder if it would be appropriate to
create a list for discussion of activities in Vienna (by
definition, none of them high-level principles), possibly by
opening IETF113-attendees early and letting people subscribe
without committing themselves to attend?

Some of us really would like to concentrate on those high-level
principles and these other discussions are creating noise that
impedes the effort.  

   thanks,
     john

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 21:20:37 +0100

Le 17/01/2022 à 20:13, John C Klensin a écrit :
>> ... I think you are asking for certainties that cannot be provided.
>> Even if someone had a clear answer now, that answer might change
>> tomorrow, or one minute before you step into the meeting venue
>> after travelling there, because of reasons and authorities that are
>> outside of the IETF's control.
>> 
> Vittorio and others have said essentially the above several times
> (each) to, AFAICT, no effect.  In addition, to partially borrow a
> comment from Éric Vyncke's "No Objection" comment on the charter,
> while many of us may be interested, I doubt that the IETF as a whole
> has significant expertise in matters of immunology, epidemiology, or
> public health (much less COVID-specific expertise).   Even if we had
> such knowledge it is of only marginal value unless various political
> actors can be counted on to act both rationally and predictably.
> There is also an area in which I think we have even less expertise: 
> accurately predicting the future events or policies over which we
> have no control and doing so early enough to make a difference.
> 
> Both the existing and new charters are very clear that this WG is
> supposed to be about  "high-level principles, not detailed 
> operational plans".   At this stage, discussions of the arrangements
> and procedures for Vienna are certainly the latter. If if it is
> desired, can we create a separate mailing list for discussions of
> national and international COVID statistics, issues, technologies,
> predictions, etc., but start treating starting threads on those
> subject on this list as sufficiently outside the IETF's expertise and
> that provision of the charter to be disruptive?  Also, I wonder if it
> would be appropriate to create a list for discussion of activities in
> Vienna (by definition, none of them high-level principles), possibly
> by opening IETF113-attendees early and letting people subscribe 

I agree with the suggestion.

An IETF list for covid related topics could be beneficial of reducing
the covid noise on other IETF lists, like in WGs.  There are other
similar specific lists at IETF that dont have WGs, like the
ietf-runners, and others.

Also, an IETF list on which people could plan whether or not or how to
attend an in-person meeting, before being already registered (the
attendees list), can be helpful.

I would subscribe to such a list and move away from here (shmoo).

Alex

> thanks, john
> _______________________________________________ Manycouches mailing
> list [email-masked] 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 06:47:43 +0100

> without committing themselves to attend?

I think an early opened ietf113-attendees list would suffice for
all those discussion for now (see below) - we can think of creating yet another
list later when we've figured out how to make it more useful.

Maybe repeat the ask on [email-masked], i am all for it.

> principles and these other discussions are creating noise that

One of the high level principles that ties this all together is
that we should within the community try to establish better ways
to disseminate the relevant information required to enable better
(hybrid) meetings including all the aspects of travel logistics.

Right now the only mechanisms we have is to hope for LLC to
listen to complaints and/or attendees helping other attendees
on the ietf attendees list.

There is for example no mandatory to be maintained FAQ that could
in a structured and current (updated) way reflect all the nitty
gritty that today attendees have to search long through  mailing lists.
Including stuff like masks or the like.

Not sure if giving recommendations for such better documentation/
review processes for such information would be in charter of
manycouches.

Cheers
    Toerless

>    thanks,
>      john
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Manycouches mailing list
> [email-masked]

-- 
---
[email-masked]

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 08:48:42 +0200

-- 
Sent from a mobile device; please excuse typos.

> On Jan 18, 2022, at 07:48, Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 07:59:36 +0100

> https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/113/covid-related-requirements/

I think it would have been more respectful to the affected IETF community
members,  if the text would have included some explicit statement
(including justification) that IETF113 is knowingly relocated to a place
that excludes a large percentage of candidate in-person participants,
because they can not reasonably meet the vaccination requirements. An
apology in the text would not be wrong either.

In comparison: If we would have any other inclusiveness discussion, an answer
like "oh, this is inclusive of 70%" would ever suffice.

Cheers
   Toerless

-- 
---
[email-masked]

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 09:13:02 +0200

Hi,

Jay (who is on vacation) can comment on details, but my recollection is that when the decision for Vienna was made, Austria accepted a broader range of vaccines than they do now. (I think Austria changed their rules on Dec 27.)

We actually tried our best to identify a location that would allow for broad attendance (among other requirements). And then that location changed its rules. We can certainly mention this on the page, but I disagree that there is anything that the LLC or the secretariat need to apologize for.

Thanks,
Lars

> On Jan 18, 2022, at 09:00, Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 08:31:12 +0100

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 09:13:02AM +0200, Lars Eggert wrote:
> We actually tried our best to identify a location that would allow for broad attendance (among other requirements). And then that location changed its rules. We can certainly mention this on the page.

That would be good. Thank you.

>, but I disagree that there is anything that the LLC or the secretariat need to apologize for.

I think it is worth an apology if members of the community are disadvanted.
But to me apologizing does not mean that one has made a mistake, it can also just
acknowledges the situation and shows respect to those affected. I for once think
the team has done the best that was possible under the circumstances in the selection
of the venue.

On the other hand, it seems to be common practice that executives of US based companies
are never allowed to apologize by their lawyers for fear of this often being judged
to be an admission of guilt in at least a civil lawsuits. 

So go figure when or why apologies are appropriate ;-))

Cheers
    Toerless

-- 
---
[email-masked]

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 10:59:43 +0100

Le 18/01/2022 à 06:47, Toerless Eckert a écrit :
>> arrangements and procedures for Vienna are certainly the latter. If
>> if it is desired, can we create a separate mailing list for 
>> discussions of national and international COVID statistics, issues,
>> technologies, predictions, etc., but start treating starting
>> threads on those subject on this list as sufficiently outside the
>> IETF's expertise and that provision of the charter to be
>> disruptive?  Also, I wonder if it would be appropriate to create a
>> list for discussion of activities in Vienna (by definition, none of
>> them high-level principles), possibly by opening IETF113-attendees
>> early and letting people subscribe without committing themselves to
>> attend?
> 
> I think an early opened ietf113-attendees

But one might subsccribe without being an attendee?  I mean one might
like to become an attendee but might then decide to not attend.

One might register to IETF, hotel and flight and still have to cancel in
the day of departure because of a positive test.

Maybe a 'ietf-covid' list?

> list would suffice for all those discussion for now (see below) - we
>  can think of creating yet another list later when we've figured out
>  how to make it more useful.
> 

For my part, I also thought about ietf@ietf.  However there is an
enormous other number of topics on that list.  And I already tried to
discuss covid there in 2020 only to be told it should be discussed
elsewhere.

I have unsubcribed from ietf@ietf.  I might get back to it, but I will
certainly not discuss covid there, there is too much risk.

> One of the high level principles that ties this all together is that
>  we should within the community try to establish better ways to 
> disseminate the relevant information required to enable better 

I agree.

> Right now the only mechanisms we have is to hope for LLC to listen to
> complaints and/or attendees helping other attendees on the ietf 
> attendees list.> There is for example no mandatory to be maintained 
> FAQ that could in a structured and current (updated) way reflect all 
> the nitty gritty that today attendees have to search long through 
> mailing lists. Including stuff like masks or the like.
> 

FAQ might be an idea.

But at this point the FAQs about covid are not very frequent - there is
no time enough to accommodate many people to complex concepts, and the
answers are not very long lived, are not definitive.

However, the interpretation of scientific articles as read by engineers
can be very helpful.

Alex

> Cheers Toerless

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 11:03:55 +0100

it has been updated but it is wrong at times (e.g. now it says sinovac 
vaccine accepted, but EMA does not yet accept it; EMA says novavax is 
accepted but the site does not list it).

I do not trust the way this information is put there.

I think there is a disconnect...

Le 18/01/2022 à 07:48, Lars Eggert a écrit :
> <https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/113/covid-related-requirements/>
> 
> --

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 11:07:56 +0100

Le 18/01/2022 à 08:13, Lars Eggert a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> Jay (who is on vacation) can comment on details, but my recollection 
> is that when the decision for Vienna was made, Austria accepted a 
> broader range of vaccines than they do now. (I think Austria changed 
> their rules on Dec 27.)

I think this is wrong, I mean it is a little bit not right.

Austria follows the EMA advice on the list of vaccines, I think (?)

That list started with 4 vaccines and keeps growing.  They are now 5.
Maybe there will be more.

> We actually tried our best to identify a location that would allow 
> for broad attendance (among other requirements). And then that 
> location changed its rules. We can certainly mention this on the 
> page, but I disagree that there is anything that the LLC or the 
> secretariat need to apologize for.

I can agree to that.

But I think that the organization should use a more formal advice from
trained people, or from well intended people about this.  Just URLs from
here and there is not good enough.

It is the idea of a 'scientific panel', a 'covid officer (person in
office)' or something like that.

Alex

> Thanks, Lars

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 11:16:09 +0100

Le 18/01/2022 à 11:07, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>> Jay (who is on vacation) can comment on details, but my
>> recollection is that when the decision for Vienna was made, Austria
>> accepted a broader range of vaccines than they do now. (I think
>> Austria changed their rules on Dec 27.)
> 

If something Austria had better than other countries with respect to
vaccines, it might be that Austria accepted 4 vaccines rather than 3 in
America, at a given point in time in year 2021.

The list was the following: accepted in Austria (EMA) Pfizer, AZ,
Moderna, J&J.  Accepted in USA: Pfizer, Moderna, J&J.  Remark, IIRC, the
lack of presence of AZ in USA.  That would mean that at a given point in
time Austria would accept more people (more kinds of vaccines) than in USA.

Since then the vaccine acceptance evolved in Europe in a few ways: AZ
changed the name of the vaccine (not sure the composition change),
Novavax got approved in EU, and consideration in EU is further given to
more vaccine brands.

Worldwide, there are more vaccine names produced in more countries.

That is the situation.

Alex

> That list started with 4 vaccines and keeps growing.  They are now
> 5. Maybe there will be more.
> 
> But I think that the organization should use a more formal advice
> from trained people, or from well intended people about this.  Just
> URLs from here and there is not good enough.
>

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:34:13 +0200

Hi,

On 2022-1-18, at 12:03, Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:
> it has been updated but it is wrong at times (e.g. now it says sinovac vaccine accepted, but EMA does not yet accept it; EMA says novavax is accepted but the site does not list it).

the IETF FAQ says "Please note that Covishield, Sinopharm and Sinovac are valid for entry into Austria, but the 2-G+ system to enter hotels, restaurants, etc, only recognizes BioNtech/Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Moderna."

This is EXACTLY the same information as given on the official Austrian web page at https://www.austria.info/en/service-and-facts/coronavirus-information/entry-regulations, which is also linked from the FAQ.

There may well be differences between the EMA information and the official Austrian information, but since the meeting is held in Austria, the latter is the relevant one.

> I do not trust the way this information is put there.

It is of course up to you individually to decide if you want to trust the provided information. But I would ask that you refrain from making claims about "wrong information" when that is factually incorrect.

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 12:45:39 +0100

Le 18/01/2022 à 12:34, Lars Eggert a écrit :
>> it has been updated but it is wrong at times (e.g. now it says
>> sinovac vaccine accepted, but EMA does not yet accept it; EMA says
>> novavax is accepted but the site does not list it).
> 
> the IETF FAQ says "Please note that Covishield, Sinopharm and Sinovac
> are valid for entry into Austria, but the 2-G+ system to enter
> hotels, restaurants, etc, only recognizes BioNtech/Pfizer,
> AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Moderna."
> 
> This is EXACTLY the same information as given on the official
> Austrian web page at
> https://www.austria.info/en/service-and-facts/coronavirus-information/entry-regulations,
> which is also linked from the FAQ.

Sorry, I disagree.  It is not precisely the same information.

The IETF FAQ does not list Novavax which _is_ recognized by the pointed 
URL; this URL says "During your stay, only BioNtech / Pfizer, 
AstraZeneca (but NOT Covishield), Johnson & Johnson, Moderna and 
Nuvaxovid (Novavax) are recognised." (remark Novavax.)

> There may well be differences between the EMA information and the
> official Austrian information, but since the meeting is held in
> Austria, the latter is the relevant one.
> 
> It is of course up to you individually to decide if you want to trust
> the provided information. But I would ask that you refrain from
> making claims about "wrong information" when that is factually
> incorrect.

Lars, thank you for the message.

Generally I agree with you.

I will refrain from making strong statements such as 'wrong information' 
when applicable.

I will make just point out to things that I think might be errors.  For 
example that 270 days number is an error.  I gave other details in 
another separate email on that topic.

Sorry if there are misunderstandings,

Alex

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:03:08 +0200

Hi,

On 2022-1-18, at 13:45, Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The IETF FAQ does not list Novavax which _is_ recognized by the pointed URL; this URL says "During your stay, only BioNtech / Pfizer, AstraZeneca (but NOT Covishield), Johnson & Johnson, Moderna and Nuvaxovid (Novavax) are recognised." (remark Novavax.)

you are correct that there is a discrepancy, in that the IETF FAQ is currently missing Covaxin from the list of vaccines that are OK for entering Austria. We will get that updated.

(Neither the IETF FAQ not the Austrian page list Novavax/Nuvaxovid, however?)

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:03:11 +0200

Hi (again),

> I think this is wrong, I mean it is a little bit not right.

it is not.

> Austria follows the EMA advice on the list of vaccines, I think (?)

Austria is publishing their own rules, possibly based on EMA advice, as are all other EU countries. The current Austrian regulations are on https://www.austria.info/en/service-and-facts/coronavirus-information/entry-regulations, which is linked from the IETF FAQ (and summarized there). Those are the rules that matter, as we plan to meet in Austria.

> here and there is not good enough.

I take offense at your insinuation that the secretariat or LLC Board are somehow sloppy, careless, or otherwise incautious when it comes to organizing IETF 113. Vienna was carefully chosen according to a detailed set of requirements worked out in consultation with the community, and the staff is working incredibly hard at making sure we will have a safe and productive meeting that fulfills Austria's strict requirements. A large part of this is constant contact with Austrian officials. As for URLs in the FAQ, all but two go to the applicable information published by the Austrian government or the City of Vienna (the remaining two link to Wikipedia, for definitions of FFP2 and N95).

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:49:24 +0100

Hi, Lars,

Le 18/01/2022 à 13:03, Lars Eggert a écrit :
>>> recollection is that when the decision for Vienna was made, 
>>> Austria accepted a broader range of vaccines than they do now. (I
>>> think Austria changed their rules on Dec 27.)
>> 
> Austria is publishing their own rules, possibly based on EMA advice,
>  as are all other EU countries. The current Austrian regulations are
>  on 
which is linked from the IETF FAQ (and summarized there). Those are
> the rules that matter, as we plan to meet in Austria.

Yes.

However, they, as other similar places, are hurrying to create protocols
without consultation at large.  Then problems arise at implementation.
Then better protocols come out.

It is not the only place where what is normally an authority actually
stumbles like a baby.  The fault is because of the magnitude of the
problem, not because of badly intended people.

> I take offense at your insinuation that the secretariat or LLC Board
>  are somehow sloppy, careless, or otherwise incautious when it comes
>  to organizing IETF 113.

Sorry about that, no offense.

However, since the topic is opened, I take advantage to complain about
the following: this Charter under discussion clearly says 'covid' and
clearly says 'principles to LLC'.

In that sense, why is the covid topic out of scope for email
discussions?  And why are suggestions (admitedly only mine, not WG
consensus) discarded at a moment's notice?

Why have I the feeling (admitedly just my feeling, not WG consensus)
that all drafts that have been discussed here are actually pushed hard
for approval and no comment (admitedly just from me) are integrated in
the drafts?

I do not complain about LLC, that I simply dont know precisely.

I personally do not need to push or develop consensus in shmoo WG.

What I need is the temporary information about covid to be understood in
a same manner as I understand the technical topic at IETF.  That could
be an advantage for me, personally.  In that sense, an email list (not a
WG email list) at IETF and with IETFers might be advantageous for me.

If this can not happen - a non-WG non-BoF 10-year email list at IETF
about covid - then it is not a big problem, I can stop.

> Vienna was carefully chosen according to a detailed set of 
> requirements worked out in consultation with the community,

I dont doubt there were polls.  However, I do remember important doubts
expressed prior to selecting Vienna.  The doubts were about in-person
components, be it Vienna or elsewhere.  Given that, I think the
community was not listened to.

> and the staff is working incredibly hard at making sure we will have
>  a safe and productive meeting that fulfills Austria's strict 
> requirements. A large part of this is constant contact with Austrian
>  officials. As for URLs in the FAQ, all but two go to the applicable
>  information published by the Austrian government or the City of 
> Vienna (the remaining two link to Wikipedia, for definitions of FFP2
>  and N95).

Recognition to staff work, from me, please transmit.

I think this work is about making a protocol.  One might call it
differently (a process, a meeting req, etc).  But it is a 'covid
protocol' to meet in-person.  That can be improved.

The way the 'covid protocol of the in-person meeting' could be improved
by using traditional WG method: consensus, implementation, I-Ds.  Maybe
that _is_ possible, maybe not.

If that is not possible, then all one can do is talk about 'covid' when
talking how to plan to go to meeting, etc.  That can be done in a
separate email list.  But it can not be the 'attendees' list because one
gets on the 'attendees' list only at the moment when one has already
registered to the meeting.  One _could_ register to the attendees list
as an online-only participant, but at that point one is not interested
in the 'covid' parts which are only  for the in-person components.
Also, the attendees list discusses many other things than just covid;
they discuss lost&found, restaurants, meetecho topics, tshirts, etc.

Also, the ethics dimension of this is  new.  Normal advice is this: if
one does not like the in-person components because of some flu risk then
no problem, please attend online.  In normal times that is ok.  But in
covid times, it is different, again because of the dimension of the
problem.  It might be that one might not want to participate into a
meeting (be it online) which has an in-person part because that might
help spread the virus.  By ricochet, that same virus which was avoided
by not going to Vienna and staying home online might arrive back to one
at home in the same room from where s/he participated online.  This is a
new dimension that might be just in my mind (the broken record), but
that is how I see it.

This 'ricochet' effect can be quantified by answering the question of
how long it takes for the virus to go from Vienna to where I live.
There is data about this.

Alex

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:40:05 +0000

>    Maybe a 'ietf-covid' list?

113-attendees will soon be active and this discussion will shift there. I am not sure a general list makes sense here, because the rules are going to be so specific to a location and date (e.g., a meeting).

JL

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:00:51 +0000

I agree that it is challenging & frustrating when national and local government health guidance shifts, often suddenly and without notice, in response to a shifting virus. We are all collectively doing our best to manage this change and provide the most up to date and accurate guidance.

These are unprecedented times of uncertainty. Everyone from the NOC team to the Secretariat, the IESG, LLC staff & board, and many others are doing their best to work out the details as the health situation & rules shift -- and have the best interests of the IETF community in mind as they do so.

The Secretariat already has the COVID information page for the 113th meeting https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/113/covid-related-requirements/ and at last week's IETF LLC board meeting they explained they plan to launch an extensive FAQ on this as well, which would be regularly updated as things change or more information becomes available. Finally, they have been asked to activate the 113-attendees list early given that this discussion is highly specific to the COVID requirements/practices for that meeting (prior to registration, which is delayed due to conversion to a new VAT vendor - I believe the target for registration may be 24 January, subject to change).

    separate email list.

It is perhaps easy for us all to digress into a debate over what is the right or best mailing list - but we are quite close to 113 and have much detail to discuss together. ;-) As someone personally who has a rather pragmatic or practical orientation, I certainly appreciate being able to have a discussion of the immediate issues with 113 on a 113-specific list. Perhaps then, based on what we as a community learn & observe from this experience, we can all decide how to proceed in the future and whether there are more generalized issues that necessitate a new mailing list or new WG or whatever. Maybe this will be the case, or maybe not. But in the meantime there are a lot of immediate and practical issues that we all need to work together to sort out as we prepare for 113.

JL

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 23:28:58 +0100

Le 18/01/2022 à 16:00, Livingood, Jason a écrit :
[...]

> It is perhaps easy for us all to digress into a debate over what is 
> the right or best mailing list - but we are quite close to 113 and 
> have much detail to discuss together. ;-) As someone personally who 
> has a rather pragmatic or practical orientation, I certainly 
> appreciate being able to have a discussion of the immediate issues 
> with 113 on a 113-specific list.

But, we said this covid issue is not a 113-only issue right?

Second, the 113-kind of lists are attendee lists.  One might want to
discuss these covid issues before deciding whether or not one is an
attendee of 113 (be it online or in-person attendee).

Typically, one gets on a 113-attendees list after one has already
registered to participate to the meeting (online or virtual), and
presumably paid.  No?

It's the same like with the PCR tests: one should plan for an action for
both cases of result of the test: if negative do this, if positive do that.

> Perhaps then, based on what we as a community learn & observe from 
> this experience, we can all decide how to proceed in the future and 
> whether there are more generalized issues that necessitate a new 
> mailing list or new WG or whatever. Maybe this will be the case, or 
> maybe not. But in the meantime there are a lot of immediate and 
> practical issues that we all need to work together to sort out as we 
> prepare for 113.

I do not disagree.

I think you mean an email list called something like
'ietf-113-covid-aspects-preparation'?

If yes, I would gladly join.

Alex