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
Dave:
This is a significant improvement from my perspective. We need a
mechanism to implement it. The mechanism does not need to be heavy
weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
allowing the community to support or challenge them.
Russ
Folks,
On 11/11/2010
On 11/11/10 2:47 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Test language: (*)
(Full) Internet Standard:
The Internet community achieves rough consensus -- on using
the multiple, independent implementations of a specification
and
3.3. [Full] Internet Standard (IS)
This is
Sure I can ftp. But usually I search for the draft I want using my browser,
and it would be clumsier to have to shift to ftp instead of clicking.
It is easier to retrieve them from any of the mirror sites
that download them via my browser in CR-LF format.
Only the official site gives me in Unix
On 11 Nov 2010, at 08:33, Yaakov Stein wrote:
Sure I can ftp. But usually I search for the draft I want using my browser,
and it would be clumsier to have to shift to ftp instead of clicking.
It is easier to retrieve them from any of the mirror sites
that download them via my browser in
Russ,
Dave:
This is a significant improvement from my perspective. We need a
mechanism to implement it. The mechanism does not need to be heavy
weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
allowing the community to support or challenge them.
Russ
Thank you for the
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
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
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
On 11/11/2010 4:23 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
This is a significant improvement from my perspective. We need a
mechanism to implement it. The mechanism does not need to be heavy
weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
allowing the community to support or challenge
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
This is a significant improvement from my perspective. We need a
mechanism to implement it. The mechanism does not need to be heavy
weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
allowing the community to support or challenge them.
If I understand both your
On 11/11/2010 7:10 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
I think it would be sufficient to say something like: The following
implementations represent a significant Internet deployment and they are
based on the specification in RFCn:
-a
-b
-c
- ...
wfm.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg
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
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
I think it would be sufficient to say something like: The following
implementations represent a significant Internet deployment and they are
based on the specification in RFCn:
-a
-b
-c
- ...
wfm.
and seems very reasonable to me as well...
Spencer
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
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,
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.
Dave CROCKER wrote:
A hallway conversation with Russ added an item that simply had not
occurred to me:
There might be multiple implementations that rely on on undocumented
modifications of the spec. This means that an additional, interoperable
implementation cannot be made purely
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
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
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
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
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
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
On 11/12/2010 2:17 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
The result of the mess is that most browsers these days have given
up entirely the concept of SSL/TLS interoperability and use a heuristic
of reconnect fallbacks_at_the_application_level_, i.e. try a protocol
feature, run into one of those interop
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
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
Dave CROCKER wrote:
I -- since I'm the editor of the doc, I get wording blame -- took it as
a given that widespread use required interoperability. And I wish
I could say that you were the first to notice the potential hole is our
existing language. (In fact, it took some iterations before
On 2010-11-12 12:32, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
...
Do I think the introduction of badge police to control access to IETF
WG meetings is a big deal?
I think that freeriders attending our meetings without paying their
share of costs would be a big deal.
I think that patent trolls attending our
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
welcome friends of remote partizipating and to all IETF members in bejing
whats new in the remote partizipants / multiconferencing world ?
Google aquired marratech a few years ago [ 1 ] , cisco aquired webex , [ 2 ]
paltalk aquired camfrog [ 3 ]
Adobe unveils Connect 8 Web and
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
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
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
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
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
I've no problem with the badge being checked, and I think, at least in my
case, it has been done in a very non-intrusive way. It increase the security
for our personal staff and IETF/hosts properties, so that's good and it also
helps to avoid people not paying to enter for free.
However, I'm more
On Nov 11, 2010, at 7:27 PM, Marc Manthey wrote:
welcome friends of remote partizipating and to all IETF members in bejing
whats new in the remote partizipants / multiconferencing world ?
Google aquired marratech a few years ago [ 1 ] , cisco aquired webex , [ 2
] paltalk aquired
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
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
On Nov 11, 2010, at 8:39 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I've no problem with the badge being checked, and I think, at least in my
case, it has been done in a very non-intrusive way. It increase the security
for our personal staff and IETF/hosts properties, so that's good and it also
helps
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.
Hi Marshall,
Yes, not an issue for me, and I think is right to provide complementary
tickets to voluntaries, HOST, NOC and future host. May be I'm omitting some.
What I think needs to be made clear is that the attendees list makes a
distinction in between those categories and (if that's the
Russ,
Dave:
This is a significant improvement from my perspective. We need a
mechanism to implement it. The mechanism does not need to be heavy
weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
allowing the community to support or challenge them.
Russ
Thank you
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
Hi, Ned,
Russ,
Dave:
This is a significant improvement from my perspective. We need a
mechanism to implement it. The mechanism does not need to be heavy
weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
allowing the community to support or challenge them.
Russ
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
correction to history - it was Phill Gross not Steve Coya
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
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.
--
Personally I am ok with the badge checking (as form of access control to a
non-public resource (meeting, terminal rooms)) but I can understand some of
related questions regarding who modifies ietf operation.
Regarding freeriders: agree that would be a big deal. But I am not aware of any
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
And for the most part, we have had decent success with self certification in
SIP and VPIM, as two examples.
On Nov 12, 2010, at 12:25 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I think it would be sufficient to say something like: The following
implementations represent a significant Internet deployment and
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
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
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
Hi Henk,
I don't agree. If there is people essential to the meeting but can't pay,
as we all pay for that, we have the right to know.
This is an open organization right ? I will be VERY concerned if we don't
have this information being made public immediately. It sounds really really
strange to
Total of 136 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Nov 12 00:53:02 EST 2010
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
10.29% | 14 | 7.94% |69976 | d...@dcrocker.net
4.41% |6 | 9.42% |83012 |
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
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Cloud Data Management Interface (CDMI) Media Types'
draft-cdmi-mediatypes-02.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on
69 matches
Mail list logo
