Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv> Thu, 01 July 2010 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <tme@americafree.tv>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0932A3A6824 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.379
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.269, BAYES_05=-1.11, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oqY46KGiE+e7 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.americafree.tv (rossini.americafree.tv [63.105.122.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C40ED3A659A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (rossini.americafree.tv [63.105.122.34]) by mail.americafree.tv (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FAD57C726E7; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 13:01:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <3DC3D97D-BDCA-4731-AB0C-7802F45110C4@americafree.tv>
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv>
To: Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.63.1007010835440.16481@pita.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Subject: Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:01:34 -0400
References: <CFB08C07-DE90-47BE-ADFF-FC72162BBFA1@daedelus.com> <4C2BBD51.2060605@ietf.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20100701070804.0c26b8a0@resistor.net> <Pine.GSO.4.63.1007010835440.16481@pita.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: SM <sm@resistor.net>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 17:01:25 -0000

On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:

>
> You wrote:
>
> "It is clear to people unfamiliar with the IETF that IETF meeting
> participants means people who have registered for the IETF meeting."
>
> Correct.

... and their accompanying persons (who can also get a slip).

Regards
Marshall

>
> "I have been told that an IETF meeting does not have security guards
> at the door to verify who has a badge to determine whether the person
> is registered for the meeting. If someone walks into an IETF meeting,
> the person can enjoy the cookie for free and even provide a
> contribution at the mic. The person enjoys the same privileges as
> people who have paid for meeting attendance fee."
>
> This is also true, but it is clearly not DESIGNED to let anyone
> participate for free in our meetings. I'd call this a "side-effect"
> that, if abused, would be remedied with exactly the kind of guards
> and badge checkers you envision. Participation in our PROCESS is open
> and can be achieved through mailing lists. Participation in our
> meetings has a real cost associated with it regardless of how it is
> funded. You are well aware of the fellowship program for example.
>
> "The fashion in the IETF is to have an open network. There isn't any
> admission control and credentials are not required to enjoy the
> benefit of free and full Internet access. The IETF may run out of
> cookies; it never runs out of bandwidth."
>
> I would have to disagree. You were probably not even born when we
> had real terminal rooms with real terminals and computers and mean
> looking security guards who very much did check badges. As stewards
> of the IETF meeting resources, I would say that it is perfectly
> reasonable for the IAOC (or the local host) to control access to
> <insert resource> to only meeting participants. There is no principal
> difference between cookies and network here as far as I am concerned.
> And as others have pointed out, access control to WiFi networks is
> the norm rather than the exception, even when they are "free".
>
> Cheers,
>
> 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: ole@cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>