Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com> Thu, 01 July 2010 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <mrex@sap.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 A481B28C11B for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.809
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.809 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.160, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 VB+U-8zT4H5V for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpde02.sap-ag.de (smtpde02.sap-ag.de [155.56.68.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2475F28C10D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sap.corp by smtpde02.sap-ag.de (26) with ESMTP id o61JcErw022281 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 1 Jul 2010 21:38:14 +0200 (MEST)
From: Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com>
Message-Id: <201007011938.o61JcD1J004807@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
Subject: Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks
To: ole@cisco.com
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:38:13 +0200
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.63.1007010835440.16481@pita.cisco.com> from "Ole Jacobsen" at Jul 1, 10 08:50:50 am
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Scanner: Virus Scanner virwal05
X-SAP: out
Cc: sm@resistor.net, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mrex@sap.com
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, 01 Jul 2010 19:38:28 -0000

Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> 
> > "I have been told that an IETF meeting does not have security guards 
> > at the door to verify who has a badge to determine whether the person 
> > is registered for the meeting.
> 
> > "The fashion in the IETF is to have an open network. There isn't any 
> > admission control and credentials are not required to enjoy the 
> > benefit of free and full Internet access. The IETF may run out of 
> > cookies; it never runs out of bandwidth."
> 
>  I would have to disagree. You were probably not even born when we 
>  had real terminal rooms with real terminals and computers and mean
>  looking security guards who very much did check badges.

I do remember the guarded terminal rooms in 1995-1998.  But
while the access to the room was guarded and badges were checked,
there was no monitoring or logging what you were doing at the
"terminals" (=PCs) or on your laptop that you attached to on
of the RJ-45 plugs.

Is there no more Terminal room on IETF these days with LAN access,
where access to the area is monitored but access to the network
is not de-anonymized?

The use of WLAN started out with a small group of early adopters
somewhere around 1996/1997.  IIRC someone working for Digital brought
along a small number of WLAN Adapters (pretty large, I believe PCMCIA-based)
and some folks taped it on the back of the lid of their laptops.


I'm not sure that the liability issues for open WLANs have been
correctly described here.  IANAL and I'm german, and the IETF
meeting is in the Netherlands.

If the meeting was in German and the IAOC wanted to obtain signed
voluntary(!) consent agreements from IETF particpants for collecting
personalized network traffic characteristics (e.g. DHCP leases),
before giving them network access credentials, then they would need
to ensure that these network access credentials can be individually
revoked at any time, because the consent agreement will be individually
revokable at any time, after which not more logging of that persons
traffic is permitted...

-Martin