Hi Jay,
In my message of June 12, 2025, I asked the following clarifying question to the LLC's initial response:
For clarity, do you believe the new lower bound to be that set by IETF
113, which is cited in the IESG's decision or the predicted attendance
for China? If I am interpreting things correctly, the onsite attendance
for IETF 113 was 22% and this occurred as the pandemic lockdowns were
just beginning to be eased. (from appendix D of the IESG decision). The
predicted attendance for the China meeting is 51% (from appendix E).
I do not see a response to that question in the note you sent; can you provide that information? Or was the response given elsewhere? I believe that a specific answer here is needed to understand this part of your response:
Based on this, the LLC Board assessed this support would continue well
in excess of the lower water mark set by the IESG in their decision
about IETF 125 and therefore an unambiguous decision.
I believe the community deserves a more exact answer of where, exactly, the low water mark has been set.
Your note gives as one reason for this decision:
• Strong historical support in the venue – the past meeting in San
Francisco was reasonably attended and financially well-supported through
sponsorship (i.e., one of the few meetings around that time to not
operate at a loss.
I believe Leslie Daigle made the point at the plenary in Madrid that this assumed a continuity of experience that is not supported by most observations of the current state of play in the US. I am surprised to see it in your response.
Ted Hardie
Wearing no hats
On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 12:29 AM Jay Daley <exec-director@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Ted
In addition to your original question, there were some more questions posed during the plenary session in Madrid. In the answer below the Board tries to answer them in the form of an FAQ and hopes thereby to clarify the process they use when deciding about meeting locations.
1. How is this IETF 127 venue review different from the last time that a meeting in San Francisco was moved (IETF 102 in 2018)
The decision in 2018 was made at a time before the publication of BCP 226 (RFC 8178, RFC 8719 and RFC 9137), which sets out clear policy for the IETF LLC on meeting criteria. The LLC Board reassessed this meeting with regards to the requirements of BCP 226 and concluded that it remains consistent with the criteria in the BCP.
2. How did the LLC Board apply RFC 9137?
RFC 9137 Considerations for Cancellation of IETF Meeting, says in Section 3.1:
> The IETF LLC is responsible for assessing the suitability of a venue for an IETF meeting and is responsible for any reassessment in response to a major event that leaves the prior conclusion in doubt. If such an event occurs more than fourteen weeks before the start of the schedule meeting, it is deemed a non-emergency situation.
The decision by the LLC Board to reconsider its decision was made in response to a reconsideration request from multiple community participants who were of the opinion that the change in border policy within the US constitutes a major event that leaves the prior conclusion in doubt.
However, while there are multiple reports of individuals that have been detained or refused entry, the relatively small number as a proportion of travellers and the specific circumstances of these incidents do not reach the level of a major event. It is therefore the assessment of the LLC Board that RFC 9137 does not apply as there has not been a major event that would trigger it.
3. How did the LLC Board use the decision by the IESG on IETF 125 Shenzhen as part of this reassessment?
The LLC Board is required to assess the viability of an IETF meeting by looking at multiple aspects including financial and technical. For IETF 125, there were two concerns raised, one of which was that the number of ‘core’ participants would be too low for a technically viable meeting, due to specific concerns about corporate travel policies and device security restrictions. This was a sufficiently complex set of concerns that the IETF LLC asked the IESG to determine if a meeting would be technically viable.
When reassessing the likely onsite attendance at IETF 127 San Francisco, the LLC Board noted:
• Strong historical support in the venue – the past meeting in San Francisco was reasonably attended and financially well-supported through sponsorship (i.e., one of the few meetings around that time to not operate at a loss.
• Community feedback on entry issues into the US was additional community feedback highlighting return issues back into the US after attending a meeting outside of the US.
• In addition to the concerns raised about holding a meeting in San Francisco, there was also feedback to convene there as planned.
Based on this, the LLC Board assessed this support would continue well in excess of the lower water mark set by the IESG in their decision about IETF 125 and therefore an unambiguous decision. The LLC considers the IESG’s assessment for IETF 125 to be limited, made at a point in time about the execution of the standards process, and not the totality of considerations on the participation threshold that ensures venue viability. If the LLC faced similar ambiguity as it did for the IETF 125, it would consult the IESG again. For this reason, the Venue identification and selection process was updated with an explicit Step 4b [3]
4. Why is the LLC Board not ‘listening to the community’?
It is clear from the feedback received that the community is strongly divided on this. The LLC Board has received as many representations from those who want the meeting to go ahead in San Francisco, as it has from those who want it moved.
5. What does the LLC Board say to those who are unwilling to travel to San Francisco?
BCP 226 explicitly recognizes that there may be times when “onerous entry regulations inhibit, discourage, or prevent participants from attending meetings” but that “meeting locations are to be distributed such that onerous entry regulations are not always experienced by the same attendees”.
IETF participants from some countries, primarily in Africa and Asia and as judged by the support requests and feedback that the meetings team receives, regularly report experiencing onerous visa processes and difficult treatment at borders.
6. Why is the LLC Board not ‘taking a stance against the change in border policy’?
The IETF is not a political organisation, it is an engineering one and while individuals are free to make their own political choices, it is not for the LLC Board to make them for them. BCP 226 is explicit on this:
> IETF meeting Venues are not selected or declined with the explicit purposes of:
> Politics:
> Endorsing or condemning particular countries, political paradigms, laws, regulations, or policies.
If the community wants to change this, then it can do so through a community consensus document.
Kind regards
Jay, on behalf of the IETF LLC Board
--
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
exec-director@xxxxxxxx
