Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Tue, 24 April 2012 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B29CC21F875D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LTIAj0+vkHKq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B3B21F8755 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta23.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.90]) by qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 1rEU1j0031wfjNsA4soJRm; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:48:18 +0000
Received: from Mike-PC3.comcast.net ([68.83.222.237]) by omta23.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 1soH1j00K57vnMg8jsoJBW; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:48:18 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:48:13 -0400
To: ietf@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1204240652570.9465@egate.xpasc.com>
References: <2AC114D8-E97B-47A0-B7E0-9EF016DCB09F@ietf.org> <4F94D01F.3070102@gondrom.org> <DDB8050A-7A04-4A0F-A364-0E3E511DCB43@vigilsec.com> <4F94E4AB.5080706@gondrom.org> <4F94EB97.3080906@bogus.com> <4F94EC7E.6040101@raszuk.net> <4F94F007.6060005@bogus.com> <35A52857-6545-4CF7-A8F0-48B10382445E@checkpoint.com> <4F94FF14.2070103@bogus.com> <DF6814A1-B3D4-451F-9CAB-DCD6667204BC@juniper.net> <4F95A7F2.7070500@dcrocker.net> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1204240652570.9465@egate.xpasc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <20120424164819.30B3B21F8755@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 24 Apr 2012 16:48:19 -0000

At 10:30 AM 4/24/2012, David Morris wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>> However as much as I appreciate the benefits of privacy and the detriments of
>> eroding it, I think there is an odd conceptual confusion taking place here:
>> This is an entirely public event.  It makes no sense to participate in a
>> formal portion of that event and expect privacy.
>
>The IETF meetings are actually not totally public. You must purchase a
>'ticket' to attend. We would not allow someone to walk in off the street
>and photograph the functions, or even sit in a meeting and take notes.


Actually, with the exception of the Beijing meeting where the hotel - not us - posted guards to keep non-badge holders out (and apparently to check id against badges), we don't actually enforce this much.  I can think of a number of recent IETFs where "guests" have sat in for a short while in various conversations and WG meetings without being officially registered.  

Even if we did enforce the badging requirement - the payment of the registration fee does not make this a non-public meeting.  ANYONE can attend.