Re: [79all] IETF Badge

Ole Jacobsen <> Fri, 12 November 2010 04:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4B673A692F for <>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:19:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.555
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mWg9jOTj9Qyv for <>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:19:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E478B3A67B8 for <>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:19:06 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApcFAHpP3EyrRN+K/2dsb2JhbACUUY17caNygj4NAZhNgwuCPwSEWoEqhAlL
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,186,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="618542369"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 12 Nov 2010 04:19:38 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oAC4Jc3n022889; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 04:19:38 GMT
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:19:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Ole Jacobsen <>
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 04:19:09 -0000


(Why doesn't your email client display your name by the way?)

I know you asked the question of Ray, but:

Whether or not the security concerns or free-loader concerns
are real or imaginary, I strongly believe that the local organizers 
did what they believed to be the norm, the culture and perhaps even
some notion of a "requirement" here, and that this would not cause
any problem for the IETF (which I would claim is largely true)

The issue came to our attention earlier this week (Tuesday?, I think 
those carpets in the elevators that tell me what day it is are really
useful, especially by now....) when it was raised by ONE person. 

Having multiple Milo Medins is obviously amusing, but I think we've
sort of outgrown that by now (this is my 71st IETF by the way, you
must be pushing 75 -- err, meetings). 

As for the apologist stuff, I think you're just hearing from us on 
the IAOC that none of us think this is a huge issue, and there seems
to be a fair bit of support for that view, see Scott Bradner's
note for example.

Yes, let's move on.


Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail:  URL:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, wrote:

> Hi Ray - 
> When did the community decide that this was a prohibited thing? Or 
> that we were concerned enough with it to post security to make sure 
> the badge matched the person?
> I can think of several IETFs where the badge name did not match the 
> person including the Stanford IETF where there were a dozen or so 
> "Milo Medin"s.
> While I appreciate the hotel's and/or host's efforts on our behalf 
> to secure our belongings, I believe its for us to decide our 
> attendance policy - not them. And lest you wax poetic about paid 
> attendees, I will note that the badges were paid for.
> Here's what I'm hearing -
> The host/hotel/some other organization imposed conditions without 
> consulting the IAOC. We didn't have much choice. If that's the case
> - assign the blame to the host/hotel and move on. We as a community 
> generally understand re-routing in the face of network/operations 
> issues. Especially, please avoid the apologist role for the 
> outside forces.
> If the IAOC was consulted and approved this without passing it by 
> the community, stand up straight and take your lickings and stop 
> trying to pretend it's what we've always done. It's embarrassing.
> If there's a third case I missed please feel free to enlighten me. 
> Mike