Re: [79all] IETF Badge

Ole Jacobsen <> Thu, 11 November 2010 09:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F2F3A68B9; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:25:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.557
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KZ9Sh4PUt05o; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:25:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C2693A67FA; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:25:46 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAP9E20yrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACiQHGkO4I+DQGYeYMLgj8EhFqBKoQJSw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,181,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="290546594"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2010 09:26:15 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oAB9QFCL023865; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:26:15 GMT
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:25:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Ole Jacobsen <>
To: Samuel Weiler <>
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:25:47 -0000


I am going to answer as another IETF 79 attendee primarily and also in
my capacity as IAOC Meetings Committee Chair, based on the data I have
so far.

You said:

"Which brings us to answer four: the local host imposed a requirement
on us.

That seems notably at odds with answer three.  Which is accurate? Was 
this an IAOC/IETF action that could have been explained in advance, or 
was this a unilateral requirement from the host?"

*** Ole: I don't see the items listed as being "at odds" with anything,
they are simply reasons why it might be a good idea to have a badge policy,

The "action" you are talking about came in the form of an announcement 
about local logistics. I cannot tell you at this stage if this was a 
hotel requirement, a host requirement (as part of their government 
approval to host this meeting) or a combination of both. In any case, 
I consider it a /minor/ annoyance if I happen leave my badge behind 
(happened to me once yesterday), and not something that would require 
IAOC policy discussions, community input, etc, etc. I prefer to leave 
this to the secrtariat and the local host as a matter of implementation
detail. To be clear, we did not have a discussion in the IAOC about this
in advance of the meeting. You seem to find the badge policy onerous,
I find it in line with 97.38% of all other conferences I have attended.
Access to IETF meeting rooms is intended for registered IETF attendees.
An easy way to check that is to wear badge. Wearing badges has many other
advantages as I am sure you will agree.

"If it is the former, why did the IAOC think this was an acceptable 
change to make at the last minute, with no explanation and no 
consultation?  If the latter, why is the IAOC allowing the host to 
dictate such details of our meeting operations, particularly without 
any form of explanation or advance warning?"

*** Ole: See above.


Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail:  URL: