> On 28 Jul 2022, at 14:16, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think that what we really want is some assurance that the rules *WHATEVER > THEY ARE* will not become *MORE* stringent between booking the travel and > doing the travel. > This was my major concern for Vienna, and the reason I sought a direct flight > as I also wanted to rule out third countries changing their rules. > > There are multiple ways to do this! > Getting some exemption that allows us some lower level of inspection likely > won't work. > > The simplest is to find out what the likely Step Up (to more restrictive) > response is likely to be, and publish *THAT* by some date. Perhaps four > weeks in advance. > If we can plan on what a higher level of inspection likely does work. Unfortunately we have absolutely no way of finding this out or even of taking an educated guess. The rules that countries are putting in place are string tied to the unique circumstances each country feels it is in at the time they make those rules. I doubt anyone can even guess when any rules might change, let alone the makeup of new rules. Sorry to be unhelpful here, but the best we can do is watch and alert you as things change. Jay > > It could be that the resulting situation (such a compulsary contact tracking > by an app in a language that we can't speak) is intolerable, and we will then > make our individual decision to attend remotely. > > (Maybe some will decide to travel to Bali instead, which is a close timezone...) > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director exec-director@xxxxxxxx
