Re: [79all] IETF Badge

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Fri, 12 November 2010 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 775CB3A691B for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:06:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.556
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 s+CdIN30cy1q for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:06:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4357C3A68B6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:06:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-73e4.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-73e4.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.115.228]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F8A940BB9; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:16:13 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4CDCAF43.5060101@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:06:43 +0800
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org>
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1011090344110.46514@fledge.watson.org> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B2202288A0B@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <4CDBCD06.2020108@dcrocker.net> <4CDBFAE7.6030800@ripe.net> <4CDC0A4E.3040604@dcrocker.net> <4CDC141F.6070609@stpeter.im> <E9C32F7A-8A85-44E9-AA4F-055B3C284C2D@isoc.org>
In-Reply-To: <E9C32F7A-8A85-44E9-AA4F-055B3C284C2D@isoc.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms080805020307010304060604"
Cc: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>, Henk Uijterwaal <henk@ripe.net>, dcrocker@bbiw.net, 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: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 03:06:17 -0000

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/