Re: Thoughts from IETF-92

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 31 March 2015 11:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6CF01A905B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 04:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.758
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=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 JevHKiOS4m2f for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 04:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E543D1A9075 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 04:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (c-50-169-68-91.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [50.169.68.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 06DD28A035 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:43:18 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 07:43:17 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Thoughts from IETF-92
Message-ID: <20150331114317.GG11335@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <7A5C678D-4897-4B9E-908F-14D7C389C48B@ietf.org> <D13F4955.22F18%richard@shockey.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D13F4955.22F18%richard@shockey.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7y5DCOTUATgY81tZObVU6TIdJRY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:43:22 -0000

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 06:55:32PM -0400, Richard Shockey wrote:
> 2. We need to be more accommodating to public policy folks and National
> Regulatory Authorities.   Maybe ISOC needs to work on that. Some of us
> have tried we get nowhere.

I'll note ISOC already does in fact do that (see Fred's message
elsewhere in this thread).  But also,

> RAI had three distinct sessions dealing with highly sensitive public
> policy problems with SIP. DISPATCH w/CNIT, the MODERN bof and STIR. Guess
> who shows up.
> 
> https://consumersunion.org/end-robocalls
> 
> Needless to say they were met with open arms if not some polite bemusement
> and they collected a pile of contacts etc including mine.

from what I observed, that interaction looked like a successful one.
That is, we had some public policy people who came to the mic and
asked some questions about how everything worked, when they could
expect something, and so on, and they got besieged by people who know
the topic and want to help them.  Why do you think that event was
evidence of failure to help?  It looked like helping to me.

Best regards,

A (for myself)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com