Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108

Lou Berger <> Mon, 08 June 2020 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6506B3A0AD7 for <>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 07:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6MALlF1vVVMG for <>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 07:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 946903A0817 for <>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 07:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB95E40A04 for <>; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 08:22:02 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from ([]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id iIf4jEU0C1EW3iIf4j3igT; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 08:22:02 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=UcJ/tpaN c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=dLZJa+xiwSxG16/P+YVxDGlgEgI=:19 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10:nop_ipv6 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10:nop_charset_1 a=nTHF0DUjJn0A:10:nop_rcvd_month_year a=Vy_oeq2dmq0A:10:endurance_base64_authed_username_1 a=nvvoE7rwLyicGF-i52gA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10:nop_charset_2 a=pHzHmUro8NiASowvMSCR:22 a=xoEH_sTeL_Rfw54TyV31:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=b/mT4335AHI1jo8pV6zn9gqfjr23x1CvlTGwLJ4ligo=; b=JqwBcK+/bGXHYhfQhO08nmG/HI 00n6iauCe2HdBsSeSX2oeBmpHQpS0RUf8NxXyMS1d4W7d3qY4MZNyrUrAtb+9BTfrMyc4GcQ35c2Y DyuvRX1Ek54s2kC/BAm/Ab3Z/;
Received: from [] (port=29417 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jiIf4-000DnJ-Jc for; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 08:22:02 -0600
Subject: Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108
To: IETF <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <FB3BDBCABF6F5FE86E54BF6D@PSB> <>
From: Lou Berger <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 10:22:01 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-L: Yes
X-Exim-ID: 1jiIf4-000DnJ-Jc
X-Source-Sender: ([IPv6:::1]) []:29417
X-Email-Count: 1
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Org: HG=bhcustomer;ORG=bluehost;
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 14:22:49 -0000


On 6/5/2020 11:01 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> (1) The IETF has had a practice (I'd claim a principle) that
>> people are allowed to observe sessions in real time, without
>> identifying themselves or paying a fee, since "observe" meant
>> audio-only and multicast.
> In this case, we may be running up against realities of history and
> what was feasible.  I was certainly not around at the time of the
> earliest IETFs (my first was 64), but are you really asserting that
> the IETF_always_  allowed anyone to go into any meeting without
> "joining" in some sense?

FWIW I think the principle went beyond just observation.  I remember 
Phil Gross saying, when he was IETF Chair, that the IETF didn't check 
badges at meeting room doors since it was more important to have good 
technical contribution than to block those who couldn't pay.  Of course, 
this didn't mean allowing anonymous contributions or that those that 
payed weren't subsidizing those who didn't.

I personally see having documented fee waivers as consistent with this 
early un-published principle on not checking badges.