Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse

<> Thu, 07 April 2016 08:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BCDD12D5A9 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 01:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PZHHnORGQO3W for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 01:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFD1F12D5B3 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 01:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s2048; t=1460017399; bh=IeE2S86z+vFLdqmsUDObizbWQjlM1AUo1JfRxOv0olM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=N3GhsacUlWrD1+4ST85LcVx4TNihW33Hk2W5uf3QrRQ5rT7PgGXq70/xDXxBYHtldroQrb+0mffM9O8LNK3Dr5sMC2UuwF77dNgSDwqTHa2a2Go7RQdH+mHs4YebwEq1kvaPVJQDj6LmYY5OhEZb6iQpvK4k8uM3VH4bBzPQRCqGY6aZPFSigx9tUZWpntY6f007Zs8+is4TFiFSa1mH6aw4TvjbpubNw2iTxUUJRxDiZkKCsI5sDuULwgeluIIlY4cqg8rwezw9Ai8OoLfxkF+/5SZHC+lzk++iB4zUmadl/AfwaEysbiRbPjzJH3ckulCLlOInP0Q7ORU0+3kbcQ==
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 07 Apr 2016 08:23:19 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 07 Apr 2016 08:20:22 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 07 Apr 2016 08:20:22 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 07 Apr 2016 08:20:21 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 07 Apr 2016 08:20:21 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-4
X-YMail-OSG: sm_opA8VM1kHnhSZFNooKKEKgL68cRxpn7QRDqhaJSDgOvxxkECNFD30AmSAq__ iIkLVSaG1xk5PoppqhCx4r6aNE1ooaFlNKzs5dHzLAFY9svgA9FyJ9LUvQVfluzMp8ALnrNImgey 5VS5ohS7zEtDiGRtFczrhIOq_25aZTvOqn4Z_JHmRTgGcu9f_7hW1jAfvqhlL49FZXrrUi2aUOkT lMw7E72ZoAwXAP7E1PHjMcyjINJT_RYAT3mOCbSkOMVxKgdSwSM6Uaeidech3V63o7UMhc2L3VcT JnezGGKzFjFtAYs_Eg.Yse_bVIMQ7s5gqLK3Z8HthVfecxuCsLFnIdllbLk_rU_srcLQLJuxKMbB h9BlF8B0aaYnKsSg_Eo1fQ6VlrE85gfigAX0_ZBm_J1lTtn4X9boqVLslyiXYyrZ.WHwpahObOaK g76tLjutRXw9gxR0ZlE.uxrf6UGpdwyA2p0djdrPTaOrjzETEe8.GrHhhuxS8sQaKrkEnahrr4dJ 57ipIRtT84j7mf8w3xvELFFWNIxt_zmF5X_c6KZogQgg_b7Di
Received: by; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 08:20:21 +0000
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:20:20 +0000 (UTC)
From: <>
To: Melinda Shore <>, "" <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 08:23:21 -0000

> The situation in Singapore goes well beyond being vaguely 
> homophobic, to actively criminalizing the families of some 
> IETF participants.

And e.g. Papua New Guinea is the same. If you have a work
trip there, don't take your family there. Not least because
it's rather more violent than Singapore. But do go to
Singapore for the shopping. If members of your family have
a tendency towards shoplifting, I suspect shopping in
Singapore may be a bad idea for them. (While the
shopping in Port Moresby is _terrible_. Really limited
selections. And you need armed guards. And, oh, the
food. Locals have a sweet tooth. The diabetic and
gluten-intolerant members of your family will have

Really, just don't take your family on work trips.
It's simply more trouble than it's worth. Either
they're bored, thrown in jail for shoplifting because
they're bored, or complaining incessantly that Minnesota
is too cold once they run out of boring interconnected
malls to shoplift from. (While in Port Moresby, the knives
come out early, and the shoplifter never gets bored. Or
reaches jail. Or a hospital. Which is perhaps just as

On a related note, nuclear weapons exist to endanger
the lives of most IETF participants. And their families.
I believe that the IETF should be actively boycotting
all countries with nuclear weapons. 

Singapore, to my knowledge, does not have a nuclear
arsenal and hasn't invaded any other countries to
endanger families' lives recently, so I'm okay with

I really want to know exactly what the IETF's declared
stances are on nuclear weapons, on armed proliferation, and
on state belligerency on the international stage by
warriors that endanger families.

The IETF should be showing we care by boycotting those
countries that do not meet our exacting standards in this
regard. They won't get our money or suffer our complaints
about their poor hotel and wifi service, and their revenue
and funding of their military-industrial complexes will
suffer greatly while their hotel services fail to improve
at all as a result of not receiving the enlightened
supportive criticism that comes from our high expectations.

Jari, can we get a workgroup set up with a list of RFC
position statements as target deliverables to get this
started? (Also, if we can get something out repudiating
IS-IS's existence as a routing protocol and denying that
we endorse it or its spread, that would no doubt be
well-received by everyone who has never heard of or
used IS-IS, and quite a few who have.)


Lloyd Wood