Re: [79all] IETF Badge

Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Thu, 11 November 2010 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
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 BD5F33A683F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:22:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.562
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 BpPSb-EBetU3 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:22:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5279D3A69B8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:22:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.1.87.158] ([124.193.12.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oABFMxfg012544 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:23:08 -0800
Message-ID: <4CDC0A4E.3040604@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 23:22:54 +0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Henk Uijterwaal <henk@ripe.net>
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>
In-Reply-To: <4CDBFAE7.6030800@ripe.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:23:09 -0800 (PST)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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, 11 Nov 2010 15:22:44 -0000

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
> not wear my badge.  In some venues (Maastricht, Paris, and maybe others)
> a badge was needed to enter the building early in the morning or late in
> the evening.


Security on the terminal room is long-standing.  It has equipment in it.

Meeting rooms are fundamentally different places and it is reasonable to apply a 
fundamentally different security model.

It might also be reasonable to apply the same model, although the logic is 
likely to involve different reasons.

The important point is that expanding the scope of a security mechanism from one 
kind of environment to another really is a change in policy.

d/


-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net