Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108

Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com> Thu, 11 June 2020 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <olejacobsen@me.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 79E5E3A0907 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=me.com
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 ivnTydi6RWA2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mr85p00im-zteg06021601.me.com (mr85p00im-zteg06021601.me.com [17.58.23.187]) (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 15D9D3A0906 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=me.com; s=1a1hai; t=1591909760; bh=zfOCDVURHHNrfBsXxIbY7CP+phfhuEOOarpqys+lVJU=; h=Content-Type:Subject:From:Date:Message-Id:To; b=ubUFGeUIxS+4T1ykGESzbNSCZBHHMNz9g7SlI5gQSuT/Lj4u3HfQWkRu2zkjGwtqJ 2laiQbEB7mk77EKhX0WIbbkTeE4Gz3EXWwVv5D75uMqjM+jQCQ/YGob2KiaBVWVPgs E7DyHO9W4nEoM/YVT18Ixq3Xzey7R46t5NH1jbRP91cNKnwixxm4IrPaWZ83MgUfJq pd1CKLOqJV+c566qagYYdVJMfpeiRVgTRiZf183NsubTUl8PVRQT7PPuAbIjdN+PFr kD2HhWEnchllmk/dcdxRG+W/bdn0veemNKi6Yid+o6WyU2xuuAAqQ4S6ZEfQcHtNY/ Yw8dBrEhXFAeA==
Received: from [192.168.1.133] (157-131-170-137.fiber.dynamic.sonic.net [157.131.170.137]) by mr85p00im-zteg06021601.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76ADD400346; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 21:09:20 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108
From: Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.20.2006111702270.535@celebrae2015mbp>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:09:19 -0700
Cc: Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com>, Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CA7EAD36-5028-4A41-9FA0-42304BA9FFDC@me.com>
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <5A6C6F55-0FCD-4925-AB99-F8A5432ADA98@tzi.org> <alpine.OSX.2.20.2006111455350.20223@celebrae2015mbp> <1632517.0ksbkUODB5@sk-desktop> <alpine.OSX.2.20.2006111702270.535@celebrae2015mbp>
To: Samuel Weiler <weiler@csail.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-06-11_23:2020-06-11, 2020-06-11 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=2 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=807 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-2004280000 definitions=main-2006110164
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NPTKpDrm_gzL1sdpYxhpeqFAyn4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 21:09:26 -0000

Right, but we learned an important lesson: Access to the meeting *area* is useful
not just for attendees, but also for their companions. Thus was born the now official
Companion Program which is not a free ticket to the meetings, but does (for a modest fee)
give access to the meeting area and even the opening reception.

Ole

> On 11 Jun 2020, at 14:04, Samuel Weiler <weiler@csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 
>> On Thursday, June 11, 2020 3:36:16 PM EDT Samuel Weiler wrote:
>>> In any case, I think the Beijing debacle does not set precedent, since
>>> that requirement was imposed by someone other than ourselves.  Badge
>>> checking is not normal practice at a normal IETF meeting.  And the
>>> Beijing meeting was not normal.
>> 
>> The IETF held the meeting there knowing what the requirement would be, so no.
>> The IETF made the choice.  Every location is different.  When the IETF decides
>> to meet somewhere, then the IETF has determined that local conditions are
>> acceptable.
> 
> We knew about the network access control requirement (as demonstrated by the experiment in Maastricht).  We did not know about the badge police.
> 
> -- Sam
> 

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415-550-9433
Cell:   +1 415-370-4628
Web: protocoljournal.org
E-mail: olejacobsen@me.com
E-mail: ole@protocoljournal.org
Skype: organdemo