Re: Concerns about Singapore

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Sun, 10 April 2016 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
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 EA74E12D5CD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 07:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] 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 gDCiZOXhtZ3C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 07:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E522312B028 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 07:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1apGcb-0003Gb-3X; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:45:53 +0000
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:45:50 -0500
Message-ID: <m21t6d7c9t.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
In-Reply-To: <570A6458.3050206@comcast.net>
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>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NOjXXTuT4cpyp8fnyqtiB15O7P0>
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 14:45:58 -0000

>> 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

rndy