Re: Concerns about Singapore

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Sun, 10 April 2016 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
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 BDF1B12D5CD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 07:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.696
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.696 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
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 35QfqlQL8XPH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 07:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:41]) (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 739E212D5A0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 07:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.97]) by comcast with SMTP id pGeYaamYVO4QFpGera49rS; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:48:13 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1460299693; bh=cVYnyahunTZ20j6Gub5jKMWMqhLS5n5U8k+FJgE1eGs=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=SLDiNoQ8nJHtN7mrqGUStL7bE6mDXsN7Pk3Lo3KBVVnGCP3plzSf7EIcnf3RA03PJ KF2Vas9T1iiXALjCh890mHSWgpGndtnwOC+aUj2qahOIvMoSN/y6LWOVT8eEnlNygJ aAg6/sD+1ZQZ686WZOE0wJitfsuiVh3WTQy9svkuVWjexycaQHq1AKwvwyDimkAKwk 0QcJSDqEWk0ptErDLlsl5ucA9S/W4aUkILNK9hPtgE/ZKBAvDBSmkrVXgsEqwmoKNo dr25NzmgTP24xOmzv0DkpEJ6WPrCZw5TR4T7VKAWrM3RCFoRj6BA4XONHYP8SWNPCy o+yAPp1iiC+Sw==
Received: from [192.168.1.113] ([69.255.115.150]) by resomta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id geoD1s00D3Em2Kp01eoDi8; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:48:13 +0000
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
References: <0D914666-C3D4-4CCE-AD5E-4E5B34EA1A73@piuha.net> <20160407182936.GA21340@pfrc.org> <CAB75xn780nNDjGa_Cc222J20-+1CCHt09Xp8KHzaK=n0xx51pg@mail.gmail.com> <5706B100.9040509@mnt.se> <CAB75xn6fmj84ROUtG5eUB3GerHx83hrEr3w5vSADY_g=BRg5FA@mail.gmail.com> <5706BA40.3060005@mnt.se> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1604072157240.31096@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A9B63A6D-3102-482F-8FFC-2E57A5FD8336@nic.cz> <16925.1460122349@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <m27fg77zst.wl%randy@psg.com> <57097077.7040703@comcast.net> <m2fuuu75ls.wl%randy@psg.com> <87wpo5a8im.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <m260vp7eke.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A6458.3050206@comcast.net> <m21t6d7c9t.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <570A67B4.3010206@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:48:20 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m21t6d7c9t.wl%randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KZB8bwfBxHVT4DMthnsVFlxcPaA>
Cc: IETF Disgust List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:48:15 -0000

On 4/10/2016 10:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> it was clean unfettered Internet.  some local folk stuck their necks out
>>> very far to accomplish this.  it was definitely different than one got
>>> outside of the ietf meeting network.  this has been a condition placed
>>> on hosts and beijing was no exception.
>> This surprises me - "this has been a condition placed on hosts...".
> it was even in the hour of embarrassing babble fred used to prevent
> people from talking about real problems at the bof
>
>> Could you enlighten us as to which [and I'll try to be precise here]
>> other IETFs had a condition where the content accessible by the IETF
>> network was markedly different from the content of say the network at
>> a local Starbuck's equivalent wifi hot spot just down the street from
>> the IETF and where that was mandated by the hosts and/or local laws?
>> I mean besides Beijing?  Key words "markedly different" and "content
>> accessible".
> we don't specify it's 'different'.  among other silly distractions, it
> would require a 'different from precisely what and in what ways?'
>
> we simply specifiy open and unfettered

I repeat - "where" have the local hosts/laws specified conditions that 
resulted in the IETF network content access being markedly different 
than that accessible to the random local citizen?


>
> rndy