Re: [79all] IETF Badge

Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Thu, 11 November 2010 11:26 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170F63A6961; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 03:26:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RMUQzJA29eXd; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 03:26:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C9F93A696D; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 03:26:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-25f4.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-25f4.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.37.244]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oABBQH6S033583 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:26:20 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <4CDBD2D9.6080706@bogus.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:26:17 +0800
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1011090344110.46514@fledge.watson.org> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B2202288A0B@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <4CDBCD06.2020108@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4CDBCD06.2020108@dcrocker.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.2 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:26:22 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: "iaoc@ietf.org" <iaoc@ietf.org>, Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:26:14 -0000

On 11/11/10 7:01 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/11/2010 6:44 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
>> Is it a change in practice?  My impression is that all IETF events
>> require a badge for admission, although I suppose the practice may
>> have been more lax than the policy.
> 
> 
> It is a change in practice.  It is not a change in formal requirement.
> 
> This has (always?) been an unenforced requirement.(*)

another factual observation.

badges were required for afterhours access in maastricht. and in several
other venues vienna paris etc. different ietf venues have had various
security needs which the meeting planners, the host, the facility, or
some union of those have found necessary. We have had security guards
watching terminal rooms for a rather long time and experienced varying
levels of property loss in varying locations.

the 25 imacs in the ietf 55 terminal room had a security guard watching
them (and checking badges) the entire week.

> (I'm offering a factual point, but not commenting on the issues being
> raised, other than to find myself thinking that these are interesting
> issues that warrant clarity and maybe clarification.)
> d/
> 
> (*) In some arenas, long-term failure to enforce a rule negates the rule.
>