Mike, > Going back to the IAOC, I would ask whether this requirement was known at the > time of the previous Beijing discussion? If so, why wasn't it brought up at > that point in time and as part of the discussion on venue acceptability. If > it was added later, when was it added, and why wasn't the requirement made > known to the broader IETF prior to announcing the solution? Finally, I know > this is a hypothetical, but would this requirement have tipped the IAOC > decision the other way had it been known at the same time of the previous > discussion? > > I don't mean to pick on either you or the IAOC - you both are doing a > reasonable job steering among the shoals of the needs of the various > constituencies - just consider this an inquiry into how the IETF should > decide on how to decide whether a venue is acceptable.
I don't remember exactly when this came up, probably after the previous Beijing discussion. It came up as part of the discussion with the host that in order to provide a non-filtered Internet connection as required in the MOU, they would need a mechanism to limit network access to only IETF meeting attendees. Since we were not there to provide a network to non-IETF attendees and doing simple admission control was common in venues like NANOG., I didn't think this was an unreasonable request, nor would it keep us from having a normal IETF meeting. I would also note the that there is a lot of variance in different IETF venues, such as voltage, food, local languages, etc., etc. I saw this as something in that class of differences, not as as something that would keep us from having a productive IETF meeting. The IEFF NOC volunteer team has been working closely with the local host team to develop something that is as light weight as possible and still meet their requirements. Hope this is helpful. Bob _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
