Re: Concerns about Singapore

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Sat, 09 April 2016 12:05 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 E469612D168 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 05:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 2gqMCpP4lZpu for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 05:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9650512D15A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 05:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1aordf-0007l4-Og; Sat, 09 Apr 2016 12:05:19 +0000
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 09:05:22 -0300
Message-ID: <m27fg77zst.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
In-Reply-To: <16925.1460122349@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <0D914666-C3D4-4CCE-AD5E-4E5B34EA1A73@piuha.net> <20160407182936.GA21340@pfrc.org> <CAB75xn780nNDjGa_Cc222J20-+1CCHt09Xp8KHzaK=n0xx51pg@mail.gmail.com> <5706B100.9040509@mnt.se> <CAB75xn6fmj84ROUtG5eUB3GerHx83hrEr3w5vSADY_g=BRg5FA@mail.gmail.com> <5706BA40.3060005@mnt.se> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1604072157240.31096@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A9B63A6D-3102-482F-8FFC-2E57A5FD8336@nic.cz> <16925.1460122349@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3anDO7rNiTjy6EvWsBhBi7wm1IE>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 12:05:23 -0000

> yes, we tried that.  My impression is that there were two changes we
> made, one was known in advance (closed network)

the ietf network in beijing was open as normal, thanks to the work of
many.  it had registration, as had maastricht.  and we have passwording
now.

> the other was unknown (badges being checked)

cf. rfid discussion in hiroshima.  checking badges has a varied history.
beijing was conservative.

randy