RE: Registration details for IETF 108

Larry Masinter <> Mon, 01 June 2020 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4179A3A0AA6 for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 11:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mlxDv29X7DCd for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 11:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::635]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D135D3A0AA7 for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 11:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id bh7so259409plb.11 for <>; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 11:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=M3qgOJPOnCoPIYHcgnl6X2xftdVf+ncVTiLjLF5VFKY=; b=MoyoYJQEKwpknsjNcQaj/L3NvRGWJqjKWS5aw71LP2Dto5mEdBS8+ZqwZnqzv+M/Mg MYeq90SFX98nEB78OLVg5KaCX4IsxxAOSQ2zGRsursp1//j3Mb5ayyTFqZkfJzyK/r23 GCRvzcHY7jAkBeW+ObKW199yq6zpI4/7BWt1nfeuHL3ExUEYxgrBxavx181KXhwp/Aaf 1umca4LzHbhdLuGh4ZaU2EIgD2X8zff2mG5bsy6IJELlB2S0sTrX36ia0+SARReyX+/3 OS0ggVBGU9HqbdPHNIRCsXhoL5m1Cnpm4pRK1SM5XrVKdOmDMJyJwsHXtgOIVXh8q1L5 h/YA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=M3qgOJPOnCoPIYHcgnl6X2xftdVf+ncVTiLjLF5VFKY=; b=k1hSEgnsjapFdyQMJtRMJh7MPuHmgLpYKnqcDVQUuoeQmerFXH7ZfZaC7P7iN1jXbJ ML77lt2CrkAvF5EOHWIsDnzR5PwT85RI8nkdurLYlsECwJ/J8fksfS0HYhG5lVu7KPJd 0or3p9e2hKmcYV8T996TFS2fqZ3uk8rW4xfUw8e8RtpU0N4lbevhPxMOSaB7JR9DPzHU OIkCrPTc6tV5f1ImurbAnQjLh4KP4qwwVQ0dCr7D7DE5AB38QrJRXP2lPs6+Wtm1zeYn WobIYWDgkN3oRZrBFCRHRAXG23vVR/rLFfhrT/761KeP/YZNuhjQkAX6AoXQJ50C+4o9 mwyQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533K0y1P4QXo9D3NrexvhifnXRSQN9GrIJFbauNuvzudzS27lCQ2 ZFFYq0hS+Iz5NXOlPOvl0T4FSxZYUKg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJym4Rrae+D5rGUqzT5H7FalMAKf7uc0u791UafWypVct8zlHbMR/3CWH+xZTOKQDuhkPGs8uw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:4ecb:: with SMTP id v11mr661132pjl.75.1591035290869; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 11:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TVPC ( []) by with ESMTPSA id i10sm91164pfa.166.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Jun 2020 11:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Larry Masinter <>
From: Larry Masinter <>
X-Google-Original-From: "Larry Masinter" <>
To: "'John Scudder'" <>, "'Vittorio Bertola'" <>
Cc: "'IETF Best Practices'" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <D6AF5131729C554EA66DD64D@PSB> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: Registration details for IETF 108
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 11:14:49 -0700
Message-ID: <00c101d63840$8a7d05c0$9f771140$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C2_01D63805.DE1EA2F0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIi94OafgxU9aBVwZLcOLw3dFWcqwFCS3JyAaNK0/AB/Gv/qwHfMyboAXfHSW4CLdi8RafXWGxg
Content-Language: en-us
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, 01 Jun 2020 18:14:53 -0000

It’s pretty difficult to bring  an in-person surrogate to disrupt an in-person meeting,

But I think the concern of sponsored disruption of online-only meetings

might be mitigated by requiring payment information.


My understanding is that IETF mailing lists have at times been plagued by disruptions
from pseudonym sock puppets. That wouldn’t be the risk here, I’m just

pointing out the cause for concern.



From: ietf <> On Behalf Of John Scudder
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 10:19 AM
To: Vittorio Bertola <>
Cc: IETF Best Practices <>
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108


On Jun 1, 2020, at 1:12 PM, Vittorio Bertola < <> > wrote:


I was seriously disconcerted when I realized that people that were replying to me from an anonymous Gmail address, with no signature except their given name, were in fact high ranking officers of some of the biggest companies around. Perhaps this is not perceived as a problem since most people here seem to have known each other for ages, but for people that do not know who is who, this approach is intransparent - a weird form of security by obscurity. It is another barrier to meaningful participation by outsiders.


It isn’t just you. I’ve been around awhile, but nobody can know everyone in an organization that regularly draws more than 1,000 in-person attendees, so this affects us all. For my own part, even though it would be more convenient for me to use a gmail or other address for IETF work, I don’t, exactly because I want to be transparent about who’s paying me to do this work. But, while I wish others would be equally transparent, we have no rule about it, and it would probably be difficult to enforce in any case. So we muddle through.


Your point about the practice being a barrier to participation is interesting, though.