Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 22 May 2016 04:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E39FC12D501 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DNcOty6P7f-w for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x231.google.com (mail-oi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B82412D1A9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x231.google.com with SMTP id k23so27607444oih.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=aqPXyEusP7eWzg4RLuVZ6RXHXxSlj/b1E/prve3xLzk=; b=jqE1PeuQKWqAPXQdqiTR3e2UAEoMrFOLjLH0HpXOC/HuRJqw4FD5uYt2wc0fqzXsI5 wZff3SveAxvmhg4uoXJ9INzKnwpN3TbMBsQXM00Lvkxu+KU/gmP7t41PXwe8gd3pRn3Y FhbP4MOHqWfLhomRdtxOn8JpjthrwkDH56aoQMem7W5NV88Dm+35hwKZOFiIWexStpML NDVLDiHUNNHPMawPRb2p85/UCvNQyCG/EUr59LqbJNo61n/han8y75U8PX00dJZo7a/T 4YMWPQjYmSO3+eVSV1t4kGAkOHzsgJaeMoxY+NjeFJP1SbbsFd80WradNalbL5uXm11n NcxQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aqPXyEusP7eWzg4RLuVZ6RXHXxSlj/b1E/prve3xLzk=; b=HtPClKTvo5+uKo19LH2vEffyzu3s6PiIKhfC9/mD1So/KZSiUFPbwOvyvhtoCCaYaD Nb9/Uhp9nobTcjwQnvEdYq64hC4KZ+XMVAMerVJBsOtVKcQAsSnxlGPnc9pAuqV3Y1PW TBSS5JTOTGSHs0S+uxb97LfzYoRGL3mtHomdnimGCWjZUky/zOU7oXoce6Vb3sSMWOSA sKRBVRdaVSbHWQHQSSrayVQ776PNRmLr9k6eoaqwXp1Ra8vfahrnpcUDii05/BpDEfTb hrF41pfgLewzrWocB/KFFgJ0rq4lQrblHepPJh25nbsnmkuD4cqX6/59W/6EZmnuFrsS NtUA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIxUNthQFMOjuvRAdvFAcw3+nfBXHWqpjAGGfZHKS0QbmJ9rwoo/QpBPp4u2/AXBlXyN+qFjg0lHrT4AQ==
X-Received: by 10.202.48.139 with SMTP id w133mr1379259oiw.61.1463891699712; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:34:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.195.137 with HTTP; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1m3ZCmvfYPxkKB7fg8TtSWqg1A0FikknFJ8+DqhJpjxPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160517181436.24852.58610.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3945cc1f-3e99-0fcb-e983-ed2e46fa871c@nostrum.com> <CA+9kkMAWFQDrT6WqTGz=6LcDiBkg+iuLEuSzeSqfZA4-J-tvZg@mail.gmail.com> <C5B9F952-FEFC-4B73-9AC6-E050F59A74CB@consulintel.es> <5740A90E.2030200@gmail.com> <34CC7DDE-3341-4BF8-8238-B32176EDC72A@consulintel.es> <55BAE36899C13FA1D0565FAF@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <2ceffd31-c78f-f6f7-116e-85498b4413f1@gmail.com> <2768F29AB5526E6C2A19CE3D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <4C4EC346-A749-4F75-957F-9E4DE31A7771@consulintel.es> <CAPt1N1m3ZCmvfYPxkKB7fg8TtSWqg1A0FikknFJ8+DqhJpjxPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 00:34:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMC8hf9mK_HPKcLNKJvijGuifFKfcvqj158QOEYXK1Q=aw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ceffec04b24053366d825
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1j-uZQlFxonqV-mPLEkj60C2QxI>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 22 May 2016 04:35:03 -0000

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 6:12 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
> jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
>
>> I don’t agree it makes a difference if it is a stare-rule of and
>> environmental thing, also because as we need to contract the venue 2-3
>> years in advance, both situations can change in that period of time.
>>
>
> +1
>
> That is not a distinction we make now: at present, there are locations we
> avoid at least in part because they are not as safe as the locations to
> which we presently go.
>

I believe we do distinguish this now, and that we should continue to do
so.  There are classes of activity (visa issuance, to take an obvious
example) which are reserved to the state, and we have to treat those
differently.

You might feel safer in one area of Paris than another, to take the example
given above, but the  *Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans
l'espace public *will effect you equally in both.

Ted Hardie