Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Wed, 05 April 2017 10:33 UTC

Return-Path: <rsk@gsp.org>
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 A76531293D6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 03:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4YzcBmwRehMu for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 03:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC8611201F8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 03:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.15.1/8.14.9) with SMTP id v35AXnYf027081 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:33:49 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:33:49 -0400
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
Message-ID: <20170405103349.GA3151@gsp.org>
References: <9fee9874-1306-07a2-a84a-4e09381a5336@cisco.com> <E67FDB14-9895-48E0-A334-167172D322DB@nohats.ca> <20170403152624.GA11714@gsp.org> <93404c29-78ba-ff9b-9170-f5f2a5389a31@gmail.com> <E068F01A-B720-4E7A-A60F-AA5BDA22D535@consulintel.es> <20170404181505.GA4004@localhost> <CAAQiQRcvu-BfBA_NEqZwXsHEn6ujpa2=w7P5Vu2f6GLXjKqkcA@mail.gmail.com> <20170404202446.GB4004@localhost> <20170404211526.GA25253@gsp.org> <20170404221912.GD4004@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170404221912.GD4004@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/FmqPFujKE2bNTDBEnWlSb9Fp8z0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 10:33:53 -0000

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 05:19:13PM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> *That* would be a huge deal.  I don't quite believe it likely to happen
> though: it would require lots of new hardware and staffing to do
> anything useful with every visitor's devices and password [...]

It would.  But it would require neither new hardware nor staffing to
do something useful with *some* visitors' devices and passwords and to
merely engage in security theater with the rest.  It appears that
this policy is intended to be comprehensive in order to avoid subsequent
court challenges based on the selection of certain groups of people.

> [...] _and_ keep entry bandwidth as high as today (_and_ keep tourism
> and business travel to the U.S. from collapsing).

It's not at all clear that either of these are policy objectives.

---rsk