Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On 13 nov 2010, at 01:21, Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com wrote: (I think the registration page says that you can send a substitute, but that's a different matter). No, a registration is NOT transferrable. Only refundable to 90%. otherwise I would have donated my paid fee to someone that needed it. Instead I asked for a refund. I.e. possibility to enter, get a badge etc is strictly personal. Patrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Andrew, Indeed, that is getting worse. For instance, I understand our Russian colleagues are going to have to violate their national laws if they want to come to Canada for next summer's IETF. Unless, of course, Canadians come to their senses and do something about bizarre and needless visa rules; but I don't predict that will happen. Please send me and/or the IAOC more information on this. I was not aware of it. We, of course, don't have any control over countries visa policies, but do try to take it into account when making venue decisions. Thanks, Bob ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Xiangsong, I suspect you may have misunderstood me. I'm endorsing the old practice of letting in (to meetings) any who wish *without* payment or badge. Sure they won't be able to go into the terminal room, but that isn't a significant issue. Them eating the snacks could possibly turn into an issue, but it hasn't to date. Lou On 11/14/2010 9:30 PM, Xiangsong Cui wrote: Hey, Don't misunderstand me, although I'm telling a fantastic idea. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, at least from an IETF perspective, but why not just let them drop in, i.e. attend the meeting without a badge? I didn't say attending without a badge, I just said some guest may attend IETF meeting wearing GUEST BADGE. Notice the applicant should explain why he/she should be issued the guest badge there in my message. I've always felt this served the community well and is not really different from our mailing list subscription policy. (I hope no one proposes to start charging for that, but if you take the current trend/discussion a few steps farther, that's where we may end up!) I didn't oppose charging for meeting, I just suggest we may allow a few guest to attend IETF meeting (without fee) and myself would like to pay the normal meeting fees. For example, if IETF chair (or WG chair) wants to invite somebody to give IETF community (or specific WG) some speaking during the meeting week (maybe like Thursday speaking or some others), should the invited guy also register and pay the money for the speaking? Maybe HE/SHE doesn't attend any other IETF meeting. So here I just said, there MAY be the possibility that Guest can attend the meeting, I didn't say there MUST some guys who can attend IETF without fee payment. Lou BTW There was one IETF, perhaps Columbus, where I attended just one day and I still paid the full amount. Although, it cost a bit less, back then. IMO contributors will do the right thing, and we should make it easy to be a lurker as they may turn into a direct or indirect contributor. You did contribute to IETF community, maybe some other friends paid full fee but didn't go to the meeting, they even didn't get any IETF service (network, beverage, etc.). All of you deserve my respect. Regards, Xiangsong ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Lou Berger wrote: Xiangsong, I suspect you may have misunderstood me. I'm endorsing the old practice of letting in (to meetings) any who wish *without* payment or badge. Sure they won't be able to go into the terminal room, but that isn't a significant issue. Them eating the snacks could possibly turn into an issue, but it hasn't to date. Lou I am sure this happens already to some extent and I don't think it's an issue (having a guest speaker, someone who wants to find out about a specific working group, whatever...). So long as this does not turn into a way to abuse the system, I don't think anyone is suggesting TSA style security at our meetings. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Humm, seeing that's what we just had, I'm not sure where you're coming from. BTW I don't think there was any real surprise in this, and it doesn't diminish from our local hosts' fabulous job. I thank them for their efforts and hospitality. Lou On 11/15/2010 2:44 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Lou Berger wrote: Xiangsong, I suspect you may have misunderstood me. I'm endorsing the old practice of letting in (to meetings) any who wish *without* payment or badge. Sure they won't be able to go into the terminal room, but that isn't a significant issue. Them eating the snacks could possibly turn into an issue, but it hasn't to date. Lou I am sure this happens already to some extent and I don't think it's an issue (having a guest speaker, someone who wants to find out about a specific working group, whatever...). So long as this does not turn into a way to abuse the system, I don't think anyone is suggesting TSA style security at our meetings. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Lou, I see. So you had to take off your shoes, leave water behind and be frisked and/or scanned at this meeting? I can't say I went to every meeting room, but I did not notice any of that going on. Also, when I say suggesting it's sort of meant to be a forward looking statement not some idea that what we had will be the new norm. I'd love to not have to write this down, but if I did it would be something along the lines of Entrance to IETF meetings is for registered attendeed, wear you badge at all times, you may be challenged if you don't do so. And maybe add specifics as was done in this case. I agree that this was a great meeting, thanks to the host and everyone else involved including the hotel staff! Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Lou Berger wrote: Humm, seeing that's what we just had, I'm not sure where you're coming from. BTW I don't think there was any real surprise in this, and it doesn't diminish from our local hosts' fabulous job. I thank them for their efforts and hospitality. Lou On 11/15/2010 2:44 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Lou Berger wrote: Xiangsong, I suspect you may have misunderstood me. I'm endorsing the old practice of letting in (to meetings) any who wish *without* payment or badge. Sure they won't be able to go into the terminal room, but that isn't a significant issue. Them eating the snacks could possibly turn into an issue, but it hasn't to date. Lou I am sure this happens already to some extent and I don't think it's an issue (having a guest speaker, someone who wants to find out about a specific working group, whatever...). So long as this does not turn into a way to abuse the system, I don't think anyone is suggesting TSA style security at our meetings. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Ole, I took your TSA reference as hyperbole referring to strict enforcement of a badge requirement. I apologize if I misunderstood. I don't think anyone would dispute that the level of badge enforcement and security was substantively different than any other IETF, and this is what I was referring to. I was also voicing support for the old badge enforcement policy for future meetings. (I also support less restrictions on the issuing of visas, at least for IETF attendees, but there's not much I/we can do about that either.) Lou On 11/15/2010 5:47 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Lou, I see. So you had to take off your shoes, leave water behind and be frisked and/or scanned at this meeting? I can't say I went to every meeting room, but I did not notice any of that going on. Also, when I say suggesting it's sort of meant to be a forward looking statement not some idea that what we had will be the new norm. I'd love to not have to write this down, but if I did it would be something along the lines of Entrance to IETF meetings is for registered attendeed, wear you badge at all times, you may be challenged if you don't do so. And maybe add specifics as was done in this case. I agree that this was a great meeting, thanks to the host and everyone else involved including the hotel staff! Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Lou Berger wrote: Humm, seeing that's what we just had, I'm not sure where you're coming from. BTW I don't think there was any real surprise in this, and it doesn't diminish from our local hosts' fabulous job. I thank them for their efforts and hospitality. Lou On 11/15/2010 2:44 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Lou Berger wrote: Xiangsong, I suspect you may have misunderstood me. I'm endorsing the old practice of letting in (to meetings) any who wish *without* payment or badge. Sure they won't be able to go into the terminal room, but that isn't a significant issue. Them eating the snacks could possibly turn into an issue, but it hasn't to date. Lou I am sure this happens already to some extent and I don't think it's an issue (having a guest speaker, someone who wants to find out about a specific working group, whatever...). So long as this does not turn into a way to abuse the system, I don't think anyone is suggesting TSA style security at our meetings. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 06:04:02PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: (I also support less restrictions on the issuing of visas, at least for IETF attendees, but there's not much I/we can do about that either.) Indeed, that is getting worse. For instance, I understand our Russian colleagues are going to have to violate their national laws if they want to come to Canada for next summer's IETF. Unless, of course, Canadians come to their senses and do something about bizarre and needless visa rules; but I don't predict that will happen. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On 11/12/2010 08:21 PM, Xiangsong Cui wrote: As to IETF registration and badge, I would like to suggest (maybe this is crazy), IETF should design another type participant, I mean Guest Participant, they are free and more limited than one day pass. For example, the Guest Participant can only attend one session (half day or 2 hours), for the given WG seesion. And, the amount of Guest Participant should be strictly limited. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, at least from an IETF perspective, but why not just let them drop in, i.e. attend the meeting without a badge? I've always felt this served the community well and is not really different from our mailing list subscription policy. (I hope no one proposes to start charging for that, but if you take the current trend/discussion a few steps farther, that's where we may end up!) Lou BTW There was one IETF, perhaps Columbus, where I attended just one day and I still paid the full amount. Although, it cost a bit less, back then. IMO contributors will do the right thing, and we should make it easy to be a lurker as they may turn into a direct or indirect contributor. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On 14/11/10 22:19, Lou Berger wrote: On 11/12/2010 08:21 PM, Xiangsong Cui wrote: As to IETF registration and badge, I would like to suggest (maybe this is crazy), IETF should design another type participant, I mean Guest Participant, they are free and more limited than one day pass. For example, the Guest Participant can only attend one session (half day or 2 hours), for the given WG seesion. And, the amount of Guest Participant should be strictly limited. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, at least from an IETF perspective, but why not just let them drop in, i.e. attend the meeting without a badge? +1 And separately, we should try make it cost less to attend. Ticket + meting-hotel + flight total seems to be getting more and more expensive (even though flights are mostly cheaper), leading to more discussions like this. I'm not saying its easy to make it cheaper, but I don't know that people have that as a goal. IMO they should. S. I've always felt this served the community well and is not really different from our mailing list subscription policy. (I hope no one proposes to start charging for that, but if you take the current trend/discussion a few steps farther, that's where we may end up!) Lou BTW There was one IETF, perhaps Columbus, where I attended just one day and I still paid the full amount. Although, it cost a bit less, back then. IMO contributors will do the right thing, and we should make it easy to be a lurker as they may turn into a direct or indirect contributor. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Hi Ole, folks, I missed it -- the IETF fee includes lunch now? The IETF meetings have often had badge police on the food. So .. were you referring to that, or anyone being allowed into the meetings? [Requirement to fill in Blue sheets is an entirely different topic to barring entry] all the best, Lawrence On 13 Nov 2010, at 00:19, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Oops, sorry you did ask more than one question. This one: What I asked was whether or not the decision to require a strict mapping of badge to person was an IAOC decision or the host/hotel/someone else? You sort of indicate that it was the local host and the (paraphrasing here) cultural artifact. But then go on to its no big thing Prior to the day pass experiment (and I would guess even during) companies would pass around badges for folks that wanted to attend - especially local first timers, but didn't need to be there for more than a day or a meeting. As far as I know we (IETF) have no policy on this. Answer (my own opinion): We may not have a policy that states you cannot pass around a badge to a number of people, but I think it violates the spirit of no free lunch particularly now that the meeting fees are a significant source of income to balanace the meeting expenses. Ditto (obviously) for day passes. Buying one and sending 5 people clearly defeats the purpose. (I think the registration page says that you can send a substitute, but that's a different matter). Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [79all] IETF Badge
Hey, Don't misunderstand me, although I'm telling a fantastic idea. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, at least from an IETF perspective, but why not just let them drop in, i.e. attend the meeting without a badge? I didn't say attending without a badge, I just said some guest may attend IETF meeting wearing GUEST BADGE. Notice the applicant should explain why he/she should be issued the guest badge there in my message. I've always felt this served the community well and is not really different from our mailing list subscription policy. (I hope no one proposes to start charging for that, but if you take the current trend/discussion a few steps farther, that's where we may end up!) I didn't oppose charging for meeting, I just suggest we may allow a few guest to attend IETF meeting (without fee) and myself would like to pay the normal meeting fees. For example, if IETF chair (or WG chair) wants to invite somebody to give IETF community (or specific WG) some speaking during the meeting week (maybe like Thursday speaking or some others), should the invited guy also register and pay the money for the speaking? Maybe HE/SHE doesn't attend any other IETF meeting. So here I just said, there MAY be the possibility that Guest can attend the meeting, I didn't say there MUST some guys who can attend IETF without fee payment. Lou BTW There was one IETF, perhaps Columbus, where I attended just one day and I still paid the full amount. Although, it cost a bit less, back then. IMO contributors will do the right thing, and we should make it easy to be a lurker as they may turn into a direct or indirect contributor. You did contribute to IETF community, maybe some other friends paid full fee but didn't go to the meeting, they even didn't get any IETF service (network, beverage, etc.). All of you deserve my respect. Regards, Xiangsong ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Lawrence, Free lunch is sort of a term of art. I was referring to access to the meeting. So far, it's mostly been based on the honor system, but is seems pretty clear to me that the one badge, one person principle should apply. Buying one registration and passing it around to a bunch of people would not seem to be in line with how we operate, and no, we probably don't have that all clearly written down. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Lawrence Conroy wrote: Hi Ole, folks, I missed it -- the IETF fee includes lunch now? The IETF meetings have often had badge police on the food. So .. were you referring to that, or anyone being allowed into the meetings? [Requirement to fill in Blue sheets is an entirely different topic to barring entry] all the best, Lawrence ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] [79all] IETF Badge
The host requiring us to wear badges can be read as the host being asked to ensure that individuals can be easily identified and thus held accountable for what they say. I'm not saying that's happened here. I accept Ray's explanation that the host noticed freeloaders and acted to address that problem. Eliot On 11/12/10 6:59 AM, Eric Burger wrote: As far as I know, anyone with an email and a credit card can come to an IETF meeting. Anyone without an email and an ability to pay the registration fee cannot come physically to an IETF meeting, but can still participate over the Internet. It is an incredible stretch to say checking badges at an IETF is a free speech issue. On Nov 12, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 11/12/10 12:37 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: Is there is an unspoken concern in this discussion as to whether the host wanted to take names based on what people were saying, in the case they said something objectionable? There might be many unspoken objections, e.g. that a certain kind of host might want to keep random locals out of what could be perceived as a free speech zone. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ IAOC mailing list i...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iaoc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
At 11:19 PM 11/11/2010, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Mike, (Why doesn't your email client display your name by the way?) Because It sent it via the annoying Comcast web client. I know you asked the question of Ray, but: Thanks for answering a question I didn't ask. And editing my email to remove the specific comment of Ray's to which I was reacting That comment is: - Original Message - From: Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org Yesterday, 3 people were stopped by security and upon examination it emerged that they were not paying attendees but rather using the credentials of other people. I'm going out on a limb here and surmise the 3 people were local attendees. What I asked was whether or not the decision to require a strict mapping of badge to person was an IAOC decision or the host/hotel/someone else? You sort of indicate that it was the local host and the (paraphrasing here) cultural artifact. But then go on to its no big thing Prior to the day pass experiment (and I would guess even during) companies would pass around badges for folks that wanted to attend - especially local first timers, but didn't need to be there for more than a day or a meeting. As far as I know we (IETF) have no policy on this. Is it the IAOC's intent to place guards at the entrance to future meetings who will require attendees to show a drivers license or other credential as well as a badge? If so, when was the decision made? If not, why was it appropriate for this meeting? (And I will accept our hosts/hotel required it - but then we need to have a longer discussion about the specific circumstances in which a host can change the model of how we hold an IETF.). For this meeting we had three post-site-selection controls imposed from without - the hotel can cancel the meeting clause which was resolved/removed prior to contract signature, the IETF network must be strictly controlled which was imposed after contract signature and resulted in a bit of extra work at Maastricht and the Host will ensure badges are worn to access all IETF spaces and events which was imposed concurrently with the actual meeting. [Breaking away from this - BOFs have typically been events where non-attendees are present and encouraged, for the one BOF I attended this time there was the same no badge/no access] Ole - it really isn't about whether or not someone get to enter an IETF room without an IETF badge, it's whether the IETF is in charge of that policy (and our own fate) and what to do when our policies conflict with a host/hotel/government. Prior to contract signature it may be possible to walk away. Post signature - well bait and switch. How do we push back? How do we qualify a site so that local policy impositions are either known in advanced and agreed to or negotiated away? Mike Whether or not the security concerns or free-loader concerns are real or imaginary, I strongly believe that the local organizers did what they believed to be the norm, the culture and perhaps even some notion of a requirement here, and that this would not cause any problem for the IETF (which I would claim is largely true) [If this clause isn't the very definition of apologist, I'm very confused about that definition] The issue came to our attention earlier this week (Tuesday?, I think those carpets in the elevators that tell me what day it is are really useful, especially by now) when it was raised by ONE person. Having multiple Milo Medins is obviously amusing, but I think we've sort of outgrown that by now (this is my 71st IETF by the way, you must be pushing 75 -- err, meetings). As for the apologist stuff, I think you're just hearing from us on the IAOC that none of us think this is a huge issue, and there seems to be a fair bit of support for that view, see Scott Bradner's note for example. Yes, let's move on. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, mstjo...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Ray - When did the community decide that this was a prohibited thing? Or that we were concerned enough with it to post security to make sure the badge matched the person? I can think of several IETFs where the badge name did not match the person including the Stanford IETF where there were a dozen or so Milo Medins. While I appreciate the hotel's and/or host's efforts on our behalf to secure our belongings, I believe its for us to decide our attendance policy - not them. And lest you wax poetic about paid attendees, I will note that the badges were paid for. Here's what I'm hearing - The host/hotel/some other organization imposed conditions without consulting the IAOC. We didn't have much choice. If that's the case - assign the blame to the host/hotel and move on. We as a community generally understand
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Mike, I did not edit your email, it was included in its entirety below what I wrote. I did not see the original comment which came in a different msg, not the one I was rerplying to. The question you ask has been answered many times already, but to repeat: The IAOC did not make a Policy Decision about badges for this meeting. We have not made a policy decision about badge checking at future meetings either. I can well imagine a future situation, in , oh say, Paris, where an attendee loses a laptop due to theft and there is an outcry about nobody checking entry, but perhaps we should just leave that to the usual IETF way and burn that bridge when we get to it. Have a good trip home. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, Michael StJohns wrote: At 11:19 PM 11/11/2010, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Mike, (Why doesn't your email client display your name by the way?) Because It sent it via the annoying Comcast web client. I know you asked the question of Ray, but: Thanks for answering a question I didn't ask. And editing my email to remove the specific comment of Ray's to which I was reacting That comment is: - Original Message - From: Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org Yesterday, 3 people were stopped by security and upon examination it emerged that they were not paying attendees but rather using the credentials of other people. I'm going out on a limb here and surmise the 3 people were local attendees. What I asked was whether or not the decision to require a strict mapping of badge to person was an IAOC decision or the host/hotel/someone else? You sort of indicate that it was the local host and the (paraphrasing here) cultural artifact. But then go on to its no big thing Prior to the day pass experiment (and I would guess even during) companies would pass around badges for folks that wanted to attend - especially local first timers, but didn't need to be there for more than a day or a meeting. As far as I know we (IETF) have no policy on this. Is it the IAOC's intent to place guards at the entrance to future meetings who will require attendees to show a drivers license or other credential as well as a badge? If so, when was the decision made? If not, why was it appropriate for this meeting? (And I will accept our hosts/hotel required it - but then we need to have a longer discussion about the specific circumstances in which a host can change the model of how we hold an IETF.). For this meeting we had three post-site-selection controls imposed from without - the hotel can cancel the meeting clause which was resolved/removed prior to contract signature, the IETF network must be strictly controlled which was imposed after contract signature and resulted in a bit of extra work at Maastricht and the Host will ensure badges are worn to access all IETF spaces and events which was imposed concurrently with the actual meeting. [Breaking away from this - BOFs have typically been events where non-attendees are present and encouraged, for the one BOF I attended this time there was the same no badge/no access] Ole - it really isn't about whether or not someone get to enter an IETF room without an IETF badge, it's whether the IETF is in charge of that policy (and our own fate) and what to do when our policies conflict with a host/hotel/government. Prior to contract signature it may be possible to walk away. Post signature - well bait and switch. How do we push back? How do we qualify a site so that local policy impositions are either known in advanced and agreed to or negotiated away? Mike Whether or not the security concerns or free-loader concerns are real or imaginary, I strongly believe that the local organizers did what they believed to be the norm, the culture and perhaps even some notion of a requirement here, and that this would not cause any problem for the IETF (which I would claim is largely true) [If this clause isn't the very definition of apologist, I'm very confused about that definition] The issue came to our attention earlier this week (Tuesday?, I think those carpets in the elevators that tell me what day it is are really useful, especially by now) when it was raised by ONE person. Having multiple Milo Medins is obviously amusing, but I think we've sort of outgrown that by now (this is my 71st IETF by the way, you must be pushing 75 -- err, meetings). As for the apologist stuff, I think you're just hearing from us on the IAOC that none of us think this is a huge issue, and there seems to be a fair bit of support for that view, see Scott Bradner's note for example. Yes, let's move on. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Oops, sorry you did ask more than one question. This one: What I asked was whether or not the decision to require a strict mapping of badge to person was an IAOC decision or the host/hotel/someone else? You sort of indicate that it was the local host and the (paraphrasing here) cultural artifact. But then go on to its no big thing Prior to the day pass experiment (and I would guess even during) companies would pass around badges for folks that wanted to attend - especially local first timers, but didn't need to be there for more than a day or a meeting. As far as I know we (IETF) have no policy on this. Answer (my own opinion): We may not have a policy that states you cannot pass around a badge to a number of people, but I think it violates the spirit of no free lunch particularly now that the meeting fees are a significant source of income to balanace the meeting expenses. Ditto (obviously) for day passes. Buying one and sending 5 people clearly defeats the purpose. (I think the registration page says that you can send a substitute, but that's a different matter). Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Prior to the day pass experiment (and I would guess even during) companies would pass around badges for folks that wanted to attend - especially local first timers, but didn't need to be there for more than a day or a meeting. As far as I know we (IETF) have no policy on this. Exact! I know some guys, they are surely the local first timers, they love internet and have huge interest in IETF. They (I guess) will not submit draft, will not give comments, they just want to understand IETF, want to know what is IETF, what is the function of IETF, how does IETF boost development of internet, and how IETF works. Yes, they can find these information/answers in internet, at IETF website, or by reading some guideline RFCs/drafts, but I think they just want a live experience, that's all. By the way, I don't know well, whether the Sunday aftertoon education is available for those who didn't register IETF meeting? Answer (my own opinion): We may not have a policy that states you cannot pass around a badge to a number of people, but I think it violates the spirit of no free lunch particularly now that the meeting fees are a significant source of income to balanace the meeting expenses. Ditto (obviously) for day passes. Buying one and sending 5 people clearly defeats the purpose. This is a difficult problem, imho, it's surely unfair to those who have paid meeting fees. But on the other hand, I think the internet is designed for free lunch in fact. I wonder, does the inventor of HTTP protocol feel unfair when billions of internet users use HTTP browsing? does the companies feel unfair when millions of internet users freely download their software (e.g. browser client)? does the open-sourse-software developers feel unfair when thounds of internet users run their products? They surely paid their great effort on all of these, and I guess they din't feel unfair, because they are continuing their work actively, or even more actively because they get positive feedback from the internet users. And here, I didn't feel unfair when I see some guys come to IETF meeting without paying fees while I paid hundreds of dollars. There are also many volunteers in IETF, I don't think they feel unfair when they contribute to IETF. As to IETF registration and badge, I would like to suggest (maybe this is crazy), IETF should design another type participant, I mean Guest Participant, they are free and more limited than one day pass. For example, the Guest Participant can only attend one session (half day or 2 hours), for the given WG seesion. And, the amount of Guest Participant should be strictly limited. This is a challenge to IETF, the first question is how can we select the Guest Participant? I think there may be a application portal at IETF website, or host website, so interester may go to there and the applicant should explain why he/she should be issued the guest badge there. The second question is who can make the decision? I think IESG/WG chair/host can do this, separately or together. In many session, there are many redundant seats in the room (most time the WG chairs know/forecast this well), I don't think it would harm IETF or WG session if some guest are seated there. There are of course many other problems, but I believe we can resolve them, and I believe this may advance IETF. Thanks and best regards, Xiangsong attachment: c00111037.vcf___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On Sunday, 7 November, the secretariat announced to the 79all list: Please note that you will need to wear your badge at all times during the meeting to gain access to the various meeting rooms. Onsite security will be here to verify that only registered attendees are allowed access to meeting sessions. At the IAOC open mike yesterday, I observed that the above announcement was made with no explanation, with no advance warning, and with no opportunity for community input. I also observed that it is a change in practice. I expressed concerns about process and transparency, not about whether we should have badge police -- let's leave that conversation for another day. The IAOC offered four explanations at the plenary: 1) There's an RFC that requires us to wear badges. 2) Badges have been checked occasionally in the past, usually in terminal rooms. 3) We've had past problems with equipment disappearing, and 4) The local host requires ... checking the people in the meeting areas who are registered for the meeting. (Point 4 verbatim from the transcript.) Having pondered the IAOC's answers, I find that I am still confused and I remain concerned about the process. Specific follow-up questions are below. The first two answers are not on point: we do not have badge police on working group rooms at a normal IETF meeting[1]. The third answer does not justify a last-minute, unexplained change in practice: if we were concerned about theft, we could have said that months ago, just as we announced the network authentication changes. We could even have asked the community how much it cares and whether this is an acceptable solution. Which brings us to answer four: the local host imposed a requirement on us. That seems notably at odds with answer three. Which is accurate? Was this an IAOC/IETF action that could have been explained in advance, or was this a unilateral requirement from the host? If it is the former, why did the IAOC think this was an acceptable change to make at the last minute, with no explanation and no consultation? If the latter, why is the IAOC allowing the host to dictate such details of our meeting operations, particularly without any form of explanation or advance warning? In either case, I call on both the IAOC and the local host to tell the guards to back off. Let's have a normal meeting (or what remains of it), as the IAOC assured us we would. -- Sam Weiler, paid IETF79 attendee [1] Indeed, I'm not sure we have ever had badge police on the meeting rooms (v. the terminal room). No specific example was offered last night, nor do I remember one from my experience in the IETF. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Sam, I am going to answer as another IETF 79 attendee primarily and also in my capacity as IAOC Meetings Committee Chair, based on the data I have so far. You said: Which brings us to answer four: the local host imposed a requirement on us. That seems notably at odds with answer three. Which is accurate? Was this an IAOC/IETF action that could have been explained in advance, or was this a unilateral requirement from the host? *** Ole: I don't see the items listed as being at odds with anything, they are simply reasons why it might be a good idea to have a badge policy, but: The action you are talking about came in the form of an announcement about local logistics. I cannot tell you at this stage if this was a hotel requirement, a host requirement (as part of their government approval to host this meeting) or a combination of both. In any case, I consider it a /minor/ annoyance if I happen leave my badge behind (happened to me once yesterday), and not something that would require IAOC policy discussions, community input, etc, etc. I prefer to leave this to the secrtariat and the local host as a matter of implementation detail. To be clear, we did not have a discussion in the IAOC about this in advance of the meeting. You seem to find the badge policy onerous, I find it in line with 97.38% of all other conferences I have attended. Access to IETF meeting rooms is intended for registered IETF attendees. An easy way to check that is to wear badge. Wearing badges has many other advantages as I am sure you will agree. If it is the former, why did the IAOC think this was an acceptable change to make at the last minute, with no explanation and no consultation? If the latter, why is the IAOC allowing the host to dictate such details of our meeting operations, particularly without any form of explanation or advance warning? *** Ole: See above. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On 11/11/10 5:25 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: The action you are talking about came in the form of an announcement about local logistics. I cannot tell you at this stage if this was a hotel requirement, a host requirement (as part of their government approval to host this meeting) or a combination of both. In any case, I consider it a /minor/ annoyance if I happen leave my badge behind (happened to me once yesterday), and not something that would require IAOC policy discussions, community input, etc, etc. Being required to carry one's badge is indeed a minor issue. Allowing the local host to dictate how we run our meetings is a major issue. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [79all] IETF Badge
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Samuel Weiler [weiler+i...@watson.org] At the IAOC open mike yesterday, I observed that the above announcement was made with no explanation, with no advance warning, and with no opportunity for community input. I also observed that it is a change in practice. ___ Is it a change in practice? My impression is that all IETF events require a badge for admission, although I suppose the practice may have been more lax than the policy. Dale ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On 11/11/2010 6:44 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: Is it a change in practice? My impression is that all IETF events require a badge for admission, although I suppose the practice may have been more lax than the policy. It is a change in practice. It is not a change in formal requirement. This has (always?) been an unenforced requirement.(*) (I'm offering a factual point, but not commenting on the issues being raised, other than to find myself thinking that these are interesting issues that warrant clarity and maybe clarification.) d/ (*) In some arenas, long-term failure to enforce a rule negates the rule. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On 11/11/10 7:01 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 11/11/2010 6:44 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: Is it a change in practice? My impression is that all IETF events require a badge for admission, although I suppose the practice may have been more lax than the policy. It is a change in practice. It is not a change in formal requirement. This has (always?) been an unenforced requirement.(*) another factual observation. badges were required for afterhours access in maastricht. and in several other venues vienna paris etc. different ietf venues have had various security needs which the meeting planners, the host, the facility, or some union of those have found necessary. We have had security guards watching terminal rooms for a rather long time and experienced varying levels of property loss in varying locations. the 25 imacs in the ietf 55 terminal room had a security guard watching them (and checking badges) the entire week. (I'm offering a factual point, but not commenting on the issues being raised, other than to find myself thinking that these are interesting issues that warrant clarity and maybe clarification.) d/ (*) In some arenas, long-term failure to enforce a rule negates the rule. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Being required to carry one's badge is indeed a minor issue. Allowing the local host to dictate how we run our meetings is a major issue. Peter And having to display your badge = dictate how we run our meetings ??? I've said this before and I will say it again: If we think the IETF is an international organization and we seek to spread the pain wrt to travel etc, then, yes, we will from time to time have to suffer local customs which may include riding trains, decifering non-English language and characters, eating foreign food and so on. For 20 - 30 seconds, try to imagine what it is like for someone from China travelling to Minneapolis to attend an IETF. Scary? You bet. Yet it's been going on for years. Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On 11/11/10 7:38 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Being required to carry one's badge is indeed a minor issue. Allowing the local host to dictate how we run our meetings is a major issue. Peter And having to display your badge = dictate how we run our meetings ??? The statement I heard at the plenary was that the local host told us that we needed to enforce badge checking. I'm not concerned about badge checking. I'm concerned about the precedent of allowing the local host to tell us how we run our meetings. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Thank you very much for the timely response. *** Ole: I don't see the items listed as being at odds with anything, they are simply reasons why it might be a good idea to have a badge policy, but: Why might it be a good idea? is not the question of the week. The question of the week is about process and transparency. And, apparently, whether we allow the local host (or hotel) to dictate how we run our meetings. I cannot tell you at this stage if this was a hotel requirement, a host requirement (as part of their government approval to host this meeting) or a combination of both. This is disappointing, if not distressing. I asked the IAOC about this in private mail on Tuesday morning -- at a normal meeting, surely three days would be enough time to discern who was responsible and get a clear public explanation. Instead, the confusion just keeps growing. Last night, we heard that it is a host requirement. Now we're apparently not sure if it's the host or the hotel. To be clear, we did not have a discussion in the IAOC about this in advance of the meeting. Thank you for being clear that this change did not originate with the IAOC. That helps scope the discussion. (And, contrary to my statement above, it does offer some clarity.) I consider it a /minor/ annoyance... I prefer to leave this to the secrtariat and the local host as a matter of implementation detail. I will take this as explanation for why you did not push back on the host (or hotel) earlier, rather than as an attempt to start a conversation about the reasonableness of such a change in general. You have now heard that others think this is a more serious matter. Given the absence of a credible explanation from the host (or hotel) and consultation with the community, will the IAOC, as I called for in my earlier message, please tell the host (or hotel) we want to have a normal meeting and tell the guards to back down? -- Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On 11/11/2010 12:01, Dave CROCKER wrote: It is a change in practice. It is not a change in formal requirement. This has (always?) been an unenforced requirement.(*) No, I've been refused entry to the terminal room at least once because I did not wear my badge. In some venues (Maastricht, Paris, and maybe others) a badge was needed to enter the building early in the morning or late in the evening. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Sam, I will take this as explanation for why you did not push back on the host (or hotel) earlier, rather than as an attempt to start a conversation about the reasonableness of such a change in general. My personal opinion on this: the requirement is that the meeting facilities (rooms, terminals, food, reception, etc) are accessible to the people who have registered and paid for them, and not accessible to people who have not registered. That requirement has been around forever. The implementation of this requirement is best left to the local organizers, they know the location, local habits, costs to enforce this, etc. As far as I can see, the requirement has been implemented here, so I'm happy. Henk ps. And this evening a newbie told me that he found it very handy that everybody was wearing a badge, as it allowed him to get the names of everybody he spoke to. -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [79all] IETF Badge
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre [stpe...@stpeter.im] The statement I heard at the plenary was that the local host told us that we needed to enforce badge checking. I'm not concerned about badge checking. I'm concerned about the precedent of allowing the local host to tell us how we run our meetings. There are 1,000 nuances to this, of course. But if the local host wants something that we aren't willing to acquiesce to, we have the right to not accept them as host , that is, to hold our meeting elsewhere and not take their sponsorship money. Personally, I don't see it as an injustice if the host insists on us enforcing a rule that we have always had but only sporadically enforced. OTOH, my impression is that the IETF is not blessed with an excessive number of potential hosts, so our leverage to dictate to hosts is limited. Dale ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On 11/11/2010 7:38 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: And having to display your badge = dictate how we run our meetings ??? Having a local organization dictate any procedure to the IETF is a matter of substance. What if they dictated no breaks, or that we bring our own toilet paper or that we begin our meeting by having everyone stand up and do a brief set of exercises, or that we pledge allegiance to the national flag, or ... Each of these is an existing local custom somewhere. The underlying point is that some local customs are benign for the IETF and others are not and others are in a grey zone. Certainly anything involving a change in habitual IETF security procedures can be expected to be a sensitive matter. That does not automatically make checking badges bad or unacceptable, but it does warrant raising a flag. As I recall, the challenge at the microphone included the observation that this was done without notice, for example. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On 11/11/2010 10:17 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: On 11/11/2010 12:01, Dave CROCKER wrote: It is a change in practice. It is not a change in formal requirement. This has (always?) been an unenforced requirement.(*) No, I've been refused entry to the terminal room at least once because I did not wear my badge. In some venues (Maastricht, Paris, and maybe others) a badge was needed to enter the building early in the morning or late in the evening. Security on the terminal room is long-standing. It has equipment in it. Meeting rooms are fundamentally different places and it is reasonable to apply a fundamentally different security model. It might also be reasonable to apply the same model, although the logic is likely to involve different reasons. The important point is that expanding the scope of a security mechanism from one kind of environment to another really is a change in policy. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On 11/11/10 11:22 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 11/11/2010 10:17 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: On 11/11/2010 12:01, Dave CROCKER wrote: It is a change in practice. It is not a change in formal requirement. This has (always?) been an unenforced requirement.(*) No, I've been refused entry to the terminal room at least once because I did not wear my badge. In some venues (Maastricht, Paris, and maybe others) a badge was needed to enter the building early in the morning or late in the evening. Security on the terminal room is long-standing. It has equipment in it. To be fair, so might the meeting rooms (audio equipment, projectors, etc.). Perhaps in this instance the hotel was concerned about theft of such equipment. However, we don't know why the policy was so strictly enforced this time, nor whether the IAOC or the Secretariat was asked to do so by the hotel or by the local host. And if people don't know the cause they begin to speculate. When might the IAOC be able to provide a definitive answer? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Is there is an unspoken concern in this discussion as to whether the host wanted to take names based on what people were saying, in the case they said something objectionable? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
I find it hard to believe you guys don't object to the badge checking in particular, but just to the idea that a host/hotel would dictate such a policy without notifying you in advance. The host/hotel apparently also decided to have hotel staff pouring our coffee and opening the doors for us, which has happened in the past but not frequently, afaicr. Yet I don't hear concern that the host/hotel dictated a new radical policy of coffee pouring without prior warning. Why? Because it doesn't really matter, in the grand scheme of life, and thus you don't care. Ergo, you must care about the badge checking in particular. So let's not pretend otherwise. Given the logistics and work required to put these types of events together, and all the minor and major details, does the badge-checking policy change really matter?? Personally I think this meeting has gone really smoothly. Look on the bright side: at least we didn't have to take trains. ;) -hadriel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On Nov 11, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Security on the terminal room is long-standing. It has equipment in it. To be fair, so might the meeting rooms (audio equipment, projectors, etc.). Perhaps in this instance the hotel was concerned about theft of such equipment. Equipment?? Considering the prices in the lobby bar, they were clearly protecting the coffee and tea! -hadriel p.s. I for one am glad they had strict badge checking - we're in the middle of a major city, and I don't want to worry about leaving my bag/laptop by my seat in a meeting room when I go up to the mic. (which in my case is too often) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
I agree here with Hadriel. If you don't have a badge because you didn't register and pay the fee then you don't belong here. If you lost or forgot your badge then I'm sure the secretariat would fix it and issue you a new one if you were registered. I didn't notice any oppressive security here- just smiling helpful people who insist on opening the meeting room doors for you. I seem to vaguely remember a long past IETF (maybe Washington DC) where in at least one WG we were asked to to wave our badges before the start of the session to show we were all legitimate attendees. So I don't think checking badges is totally new. Whether this was initiated by the hosts is in my view not relevant. The IETF rules state you need to pay the fees and register. If the host asks that those rules are enforced then so what. A prerequisite of any meeting is that you comply with the local regulations. If those regulations are not counter to IETF rules then there should be no issue. If they were then that's a different matter. Having some security checks on strangers protects to some extent the petty thefts of laptops that have become a frequent problem at meetings in large hotels. If the hosts were the primary driver for the checks (which seemed innoculous to me - but then I had me badge - but I doubt most of the (mainly) ladies on the doors were capable of putting most of us in an strong arm lock and marching us to exit door either) then they may have had very good and legit reasons such as compliance with insurance liability, fire regulations etc. Its also maybe more likely they were protecting against a bunch of free loaders feeding off the incredibly provisoned food at the breaks. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Andrew - Original Message - From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:hkap...@acmepacket.com] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:56 PM To: Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im Cc: Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net; Henk Uijterwaal h...@ripe.net; dcroc...@bbiw.net dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge On Nov 11, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Security on the terminal room is long-standing. It has equipment in it. To be fair, so might the meeting rooms (audio equipment, projectors, etc.). Perhaps in this instance the hotel was concerned about theft of such equipment. Equipment?? Considering the prices in the lobby bar, they were clearly protecting the coffee and tea! -hadriel p.s. I for one am glad they had strict badge checking - we're in the middle of a major city, and I don't want to worry about leaving my bag/laptop by my seat in a meeting room when I go up to the mic. (which in my case is too often) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf - This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Andrew Allen aallen at rim dot com wrote: Whether this was initiated by the hosts is in my view not relevant. The IETF rules state you need to pay the fees and register. If the host asks that those rules are enforced then so what. A prerequisite of any meeting is that you comply with the local regulations. If those regulations are not counter to IETF rules then there should be no issue. If they were then that's a different matter. Having some security checks on strangers protects to some extent the petty thefts of laptops that have become a frequent problem at meetings in large hotels. Eliot Lear's question seems pertinent here. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Doug Ewell wrote: Eliot Lear wrote: Is there is an unspoken concern in this discussion as to whether the host wanted to take names based on what people were saying, in the case they said something objectionable? Eliot Lear's question seems pertinent here. But you do realize that, it is often suggested that people in WG meetings and in the plenary state their name and affiliation before saying something, and that for a couple of years now, _all_ meetings use audio broadcast and are archived. Agreeably, stating your name and affiliation is considered a courtesy, and there is no IETF Police enforcing it, but people are regularly reminded of that courtesy. :) Protecting food and probably temporarily parked equipment while feeding, getting water or queuing for the mike seems like a concern, where the local host or hotel might be in a better position to perform risk management/assessment. So have the IAOC add a question to their questionary for meeting locations about the security concerns of the local host and hotel and their expected procedure to address them, so that this can be communicated ahead of the meeting, and be done with it (for this meeting) ? -Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Hi Sam, At 00:18 11-11-10, Samuel Weiler wrote: The IAOC offered four explanations at the plenary: 1) There's an RFC that requires us to wear badges. If that is FYI 17: You need to be wearing your badge in order to get into the terminal room. You could remind the IAOC that not all RFCs are standards. :-) 3) We've had past problems with equipment disappearing, and Yes. 4) The local host requires ... checking the people in the meeting areas who are registered for the meeting. (Point 4 verbatim from the transcript.) That is likely a side effect due to meeting location or due to language issues. The first two answers are not on point: we do not have badge police on working group rooms at a normal IETF meeting[1]. By badge police, I gather that you mean that admittance to a working group session is not regulated. Regards, -sm ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
ps. And this evening a newbie told me that he found it very handy that everybody was wearing a badge, as it allowed him to get the names of everybody he spoke to. Not only newbies. I have a virtual memory for names and it is always paged out. Therefore, I do like the name badges in general. jaap ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On 11/12/2010 00:04 GMT+08:00, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: To be fair, so might the meeting rooms Was it in Paris that laptops were being stolen from the meeting rooms? I recall wishing that room entry restrictions would be enforced. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Hi Ole, folks, That woke me up. I'm not a registered attendee of the Beijing meeting. BUT ... 1. The suggestion this is run like a RIPE meeting seems out of place -- I had thought this was the IETF. 2. In the 14 years I have been going to IETFs, there has been a badge police of varying competence on two main areas; food/refreshments and the terminal room. I have NOT seen badge police blocking access to IETF WG meetings. In the past it has been amusing watching Hotel staff trying to work out whether or not the people walking in towards the meetings were derelicts off the street or nerds -- notably @ Wardman Park Hotel and @ Philly. But restricting access to WG meetings? Nah. Do I think the introduction of badge police to control access to IETF WG meetings is a big deal? DAMN RIGHT. Is this really the case now? If so, I must have missed the discussion. all the best, Lawrence On 11 Nov 2010, at 14:58, Ole Jacobsen wrote: On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Samuel Weiler wrote: Thank you very much for the timely response. Why might it be a good idea? is not the question of the week. The question of the week is about process and transparency. And, apparently, whether we allow the local host (or hotel) to dictate how we run our meetings. *** Ole: See response from Henk and myself. I cannot tell you at this stage if this was a hotel requirement, a host requirement (as part of their government approval to host this meeting) or a combination of both. This is disappointing, if not distressing. I asked the IAOC about this in private mail on Tuesday morning -- at a normal meeting, surely three days would be enough time to discern who was responsible and get a clear public explanation. Instead, the confusion just keeps growing. Last night, we heard that it is a host requirement. Now we're apparently not sure if it's the host or the hotel. *** Ole: What's the confusion? See previous response. Why does it matter? Let's split the difference and call it a local requirement I will take this as explanation for why you did not push back on the host (or hotel) earlier, rather than as an attempt to start a conversation about the reasonableness of such a change in general. You have now heard that others think this is a more serious matter. *** Ole: Yes, I've counted one+one. Out of 1,338 registered attendees. Given the absence of a credible explanation from the host (or hotel) and consultation with the community, will the IAOC, as I called for in my earlier message, please tell the host (or hotel) we want to have a normal meeting and tell the guards to back down? *** Ole: Why would we do that exactly? What part of this meeting is not normal? -- Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On 11/12/2010 7:09 AM, Scott Brim wrote: Was it in Paris that laptops were being stolen from the meeting rooms? I recall wishing that room entry restrictions would be enforced. and munich and stockholm. the latter was from under the seat while the person was sitting there in the middle of a session... Any presumption of property safety in IETF meeting rooms is misplaced. Unfortunately, I do not, for one second, believe that checking badges at the door changes this particular security exposure. As much as our group tone and longevity encourages the view of collegial familiarity, in reality most of the 1200, or so, attendees are strangers to each other. In most of the world, trusting 1200 strangers to keep one's property safe is not especially rational. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
The average monthly wage in China is $153. So quite a few people are carrying equipment that costs several times what some of the hotel staff earn in a year. On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote: On 11/12/2010 7:09 AM, Scott Brim wrote: Was it in Paris that laptops were being stolen from the meeting rooms? I recall wishing that room entry restrictions would be enforced. and munich and stockholm. the latter was from under the seat while the person was sitting there in the middle of a session... Any presumption of property safety in IETF meeting rooms is misplaced. Unfortunately, I do not, for one second, believe that checking badges at the door changes this particular security exposure. As much as our group tone and longevity encourages the view of collegial familiarity, in reality most of the 1200, or so, attendees are strangers to each other. In most of the world, trusting 1200 strangers to keep one's property safe is not especially rational. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On Nov 11, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 11/11/10 11:22 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: To be fair, so might the meeting rooms (audio equipment, projectors, etc.). Perhaps in this instance the hotel was concerned about theft of such equipment. However, we don't know why the policy was so strictly enforced this time, nor whether the IAOC or the Secretariat was asked to do so by the hotel or by the local host. And if people don't know the cause they begin to speculate. When might the IAOC be able to provide a definitive answer? I spoke with the Host about the motivation behind the security people checking badges. They have hosted other (but smaller) conferences, and they have provided security at those meetings. They have had experience with people trying to enter the meetings who were not authorized participants in the meeting. Yesterday, 3 people were stopped by security and upon examination it emerged that they were not paying attendees but rather using the credentials of other people. They are also concerned about the theft of equipment throughout the meeting, not just the terminal room. They are very embarrassed by the theft of an AP from the Terminal Room. However, as every place else, the IETF arranges for security for the Terminal Room after hours, which was when the AP was taken. So it was not their responsibility. They are not there enforcing local law. Ray Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On 11/12/10 12:37 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: Is there is an unspoken concern in this discussion as to whether the host wanted to take names based on what people were saying, in the case they said something objectionable? There might be many unspoken objections, e.g. that a certain kind of host might want to keep random locals out of what could be perceived as a free speech zone. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Well speech at IETF isn't free - it comes at the cost of 650 USD (advance registration) or a bit more on the door. If random locals want to come and make some kind of statement at IETF then all they have to do is come and do an on the door registration (at a fee of course) and make their statement at the microphone. Alternatively they could do it for free from the jabber room! I hardly think the badge check is an effective stop to that. - Original Message - From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpe...@stpeter.im] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 07:57 PM To: Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com Cc: i...@ietf.org i...@ietf.org; Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com; Samuel Weiler weiler+i...@watson.org; ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge On 11/12/10 12:37 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: Is there is an unspoken concern in this discussion as to whether the host wanted to take names based on what people were saying, in the case they said something objectionable? There might be many unspoken objections, e.g. that a certain kind of host might want to keep random locals out of what could be perceived as a free speech zone. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ - This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On Nov 11, 2010, at 8:03 PM, Andrew Allen wrote: Well speech at IETF isn't free - it comes at the cost of 650 USD (advance registration) or a bit more on the door. If random locals want to come and make some kind of statement at IETF then all they have to do is come and do an on the door registration (at a fee of course) and make their statement at the microphone. For that purpose, a day pass would probably suffice. Regards Marshall Alternatively they could do it for free from the jabber room! I hardly think the badge check is an effective stop to that. - Original Message - From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpe...@stpeter.im] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 07:57 PM To: Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com Cc: i...@ietf.org i...@ietf.org; Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com; Samuel Weiler weiler+i...@watson.org; ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge On 11/12/10 12:37 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: Is there is an unspoken concern in this discussion as to whether the host wanted to take names based on what people were saying, in the case they said something objectionable? There might be many unspoken objections, e.g. that a certain kind of host might want to keep random locals out of what could be perceived as a free speech zone. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ - This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Hi, Hadriel's point below (the difference between important and unimportant decisions) is key to this discussion. We do not want the community to micro-manage unimportant details but definitely want the community to be involved in important decisions. Since the IOAC thought this was an unimportant detail, it is normal they did not involve the community. If this is not an unimportant detail but an important policy instead, people should explain why so that the IOAC understands the reasons and involves the community in the future. Cheers, Gonzalo On 12/11/2010 1:45 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: I find it hard to believe you guys don't object to the badge checking in particular, but just to the idea that a host/hotel would dictate such a policy without notifying you in advance. The host/hotel apparently also decided to have hotel staff pouring our coffee and opening the doors for us, which has happened in the past but not frequently, afaicr. Yet I don't hear concern that the host/hotel dictated a new radical policy of coffee pouring without prior warning. Why? Because it doesn't really matter, in the grand scheme of life, and thus you don't care. Ergo, you must care about the badge checking in particular. So let's not pretend otherwise. Given the logistics and work required to put these types of events together, and all the minor and major details, does the badge-checking policy change really matter?? Personally I think this meeting has gone really smoothly. Look on the bright side: at least we didn't have to take trains. ;) -hadriel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Hi Ray - When did the community decide that this was a prohibited thing? Or that we were concerned enough with it to post security to make sure the badge matched the person? I can think of several IETFs where the badge name did not match the person including the Stanford IETF where there were a dozen or so Milo Medins. While I appreciate the hotel's and/or host's efforts on our behalf to secure our belongings, I believe its for us to decide our attendance policy - not them. And lest you wax poetic about paid attendees, I will note that the badges were paid for. Here's what I'm hearing - The host/hotel/some other organization imposed conditions without consulting the IAOC. We didn't have much choice. If that's the case - assign the blame to the host/hotel and move on. We as a community generally understand re-routing in the face of network/operations issues. Especially, please avoid the apologist role for the outside forces. If the IAOC was consulted and approved this without passing it by the community, stand up straight and take your lickings and stop trying to pretend it's what we've always done. It's embarrassing. If there's a third case I missed please feel free to enlighten me. Mike - Original Message - From: Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org Yesterday, 3 people were stopped by security and upon examination it emerged that they were not paying attendees but rather using the credentials of other people. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 07:09:55PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote a message of 117 lines which said: The average monthly wage in China is $153. So quite a few people are carrying equipment that costs several times what some of the hotel staff earn in a year. Which means that security checks by hotel staff is a bad idea. After all, everyone involved in security knows that the real problems are on the internal side of the firewall... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On 11/12/2010 09:45 GMT+08:00, mstjo...@comcast.net wrote: I can think of several IETFs where the badge name did not match the person including the Stanford IETF where there were a dozen or so Milo Medins. and Cocoa Beach But everyone knew everyone else in those days. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
[79all] IETF Badge
Some history Back when the IETF decided to charge for meetings ($100/meeting sometime in the early 1990s) Steve Coya said that the IETF would never check badges to block people from meetings. That, I think, was to indicate that people who could not afford to pay could still attend. But that was a very long time ago, and a few hundred dollars per meeting ago I find it hard to get too bent out of shape that the IETF has joined the world that every other conference I have gone to in the last 20 years has been in, and I find it hard to get too bent out of shape about a change in this level of meeting implementation detail not being subject to a discussion on the IETF list (there have been many other, much more important, changes in meeting implementation which have not, and properly so, been discussed by the community - e.g. the many tools.ietf.org support tools, the additional remote participation abilities etc) I find it amusing that there is more traffic on this topic on the IETF discussion list than any issue that anyone in the world would see as an actual issue. This seems to be this year's cookie crises. To me, that means that this meeting is going rather well. Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
At 08:14 PM 11/11/2010, Scott O. Bradner wrote: This seems to be this year's cookie crises... speaking of cookies, I haven't found satisfactory ones yet (anywhere) ;-) BTW - otherwise, I've enjoyed the meeting and facilities here James ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
correction to history - it was Phill Gross not Steve Coya ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
At 9:34 PM -0500 11/11/10, Scott O. Bradner wrote: correction to history - it was Phill Gross not Steve Coya I recall Steve saying (at the opening plenary on Monday morning in Dallas I think) Don't crash my meeting! but can't recall if he said anything about checking badges or not. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- Everyone knows that dragons don't exist. But while this simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not suffice for the scientific mind. The School of Higher Neantical Nillity is in fact wholly unconcerned with what does exist. Indeed, the banality of existence has been so amply demonstrated, there is no need for us to discuss it any further here. The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all, one might say, nonexistent, but each nonexisted in an entirely different way ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On 11/12/10 8:55 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote: On Nov 11, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 11/11/10 11:22 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: To be fair, so might the meeting rooms (audio equipment, projectors, etc.). Perhaps in this instance the hotel was concerned about theft of such equipment. However, we don't know why the policy was so strictly enforced this time, nor whether the IAOC or the Secretariat was asked to do so by the hotel or by the local host. And if people don't know the cause they begin to speculate. When might the IAOC be able to provide a definitive answer? I spoke with the Host about the motivation behind the security people checking badges. They have hosted other (but smaller) conferences, and they have provided security at those meetings. They have had experience with people trying to enter the meetings who were not authorized participants in the meeting. Yesterday, 3 people were stopped by security and upon examination it emerged that they were not paying attendees but rather using the credentials of other people. They are also concerned about the theft of equipment throughout the meeting, not just the terminal room. They are very embarrassed by the theft of an AP from the Terminal Room. However, as every place else, the IETF arranges for security for the Terminal Room after hours, which was when the AP was taken. So it was not their responsibility. They are not there enforcing local law. Ray, thank you for following up. Now we can put the conspiracy theories to rest. Well, most of them. ;-) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
I think you will find the explanation here: http://www.dilbert.com/2010-11-10/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: iHi, ps. And this evening a newbie told me that he found it very handy that everybody was wearing a badge, as it allowed him to get the names of everybody he spoke to. Exactly, might have been me:) So reading through the thread I realize that it's not so much about wearing badges than the control but I thought I'd reply anyway for two things: 1) Yes I really appreciate that everyone is wearing badges; it really helps, also if you only know names and not the people, not only if you want to remember who just talked to you. 2) I caught up on Dilbert this morning and I sometimes have to wonder... well see yourself... ;-) http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2010-11-10/ Regards, Bjoern -- Bjoern A. Zeeb Welcome a new stage of life. ks Going to jail sucks -- bz All my daemons like it! http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/jails.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Mike, (Why doesn't your email client display your name by the way?) I know you asked the question of Ray, but: Whether or not the security concerns or free-loader concerns are real or imaginary, I strongly believe that the local organizers did what they believed to be the norm, the culture and perhaps even some notion of a requirement here, and that this would not cause any problem for the IETF (which I would claim is largely true) The issue came to our attention earlier this week (Tuesday?, I think those carpets in the elevators that tell me what day it is are really useful, especially by now) when it was raised by ONE person. Having multiple Milo Medins is obviously amusing, but I think we've sort of outgrown that by now (this is my 71st IETF by the way, you must be pushing 75 -- err, meetings). As for the apologist stuff, I think you're just hearing from us on the IAOC that none of us think this is a huge issue, and there seems to be a fair bit of support for that view, see Scott Bradner's note for example. Yes, let's move on. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, mstjo...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Ray - When did the community decide that this was a prohibited thing? Or that we were concerned enough with it to post security to make sure the badge matched the person? I can think of several IETFs where the badge name did not match the person including the Stanford IETF where there were a dozen or so Milo Medins. While I appreciate the hotel's and/or host's efforts on our behalf to secure our belongings, I believe its for us to decide our attendance policy - not them. And lest you wax poetic about paid attendees, I will note that the badges were paid for. Here's what I'm hearing - The host/hotel/some other organization imposed conditions without consulting the IAOC. We didn't have much choice. If that's the case - assign the blame to the host/hotel and move on. We as a community generally understand re-routing in the face of network/operations issues. Especially, please avoid the apologist role for the outside forces. If the IAOC was consulted and approved this without passing it by the community, stand up straight and take your lickings and stop trying to pretend it's what we've always done. It's embarrassing. If there's a third case I missed please feel free to enlighten me. Mike ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] [79all] IETF Badge
As far as I know, anyone with an email and a credit card can come to an IETF meeting. Anyone without an email and an ability to pay the registration fee cannot come physically to an IETF meeting, but can still participate over the Internet. It is an incredible stretch to say checking badges at an IETF is a free speech issue. On Nov 12, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 11/12/10 12:37 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: Is there is an unspoken concern in this discussion as to whether the host wanted to take names based on what people were saying, in the case they said something objectionable? There might be many unspoken objections, e.g. that a certain kind of host might want to keep random locals out of what could be perceived as a free speech zone. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ IAOC mailing list i...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iaoc smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
