Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?

Stephen Farrell <> Wed, 01 February 2017 13:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48DB4129E42; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 05:44:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uu_ljDZXdImU; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 05:44:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25438129E37; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 05:44:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99652BE56; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:44:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jHGz8GT3NCGH; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:44:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 057F1BE51; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:44:23 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1485956663; bh=OaRmjcNTJRgDtiJyTXaQcYJbWPOU98Rvv4tr7cCWrgg=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=3fMS7gBPHWk1XiR8qBTvoIkj2KmEXEI2aTsI4Wpj/YcjR4s9Ws2+4oP4RxJM2H7TB cKjW+8J+akO1B1dBBVJ6wZOSPNSnR3pQTGUBSA/bQebmOV8q8dW6WnymP8IrH/cvog H5czBgJ+zJbKRqGxKvGezOTRl0qzqbQbQyXQD9/s=
Subject: Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: S Moonesamy <>,,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Stephen Farrell <>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:44:23 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms080600040703060400090700"
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: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 13:44:28 -0000


On 01/02/17 13:12, S Moonesamy wrote:
> I scanned the list quickly and I only found two IESG members, the IETF
> Chair and you, commenting on the issue.  Do the other IESG members have
> an opinion about the topic?  I'll Cc them to find out.

I can help you there. The IESG and IAB (and I'm told the IAOC
and meetings ctte) have been actively discussing all of this.
I'm on one thread between IAB and IESG that has 84 messages in
total (though a good few of those are duplicates in my crappy
foldering scheme;-). And I think this topic may be on the agenda
for an upcoming IAB call and it is on the agenda for an IESG
call tomorrow. If something concrete results from those calls
it'll likely take at least a few days to be visible to the
community. Or maybe we'll need a bit longer. (That's another
reason why it was good that Jari/Andrew/Leslie posted that
blog, and yes they'd gotten some feedback from I* folks
before doing so.)

So while of course I* folks may respond to you if they've
stuff to say, I don't think there's much need for a slew of
"yeah we're aware of that" mails. But it is the case that quite
a few IESG/IAB folks have been actively engaged on this.