Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 25 May 2016 13:39 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 6FCA512DBDA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 06:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] 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 e62l-Az3JJSP for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 06:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D814C12DC58 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 06:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1b5Yxf-0001ku-Cd; Wed, 25 May 2016 09:34:59 -0400
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 09:34:54 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Subject: Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards
Message-ID: <B866C10F1FB2CA402A7769C1@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605241228030.97977@rabdullah.local>
References: <58598992-449C-4E2B-867D-12D04236AB3A@thinkingcat.com> <D7078B9A-AF4B-4D40-A8D7-CD7C42DE3218@cooperw.in> <D95B9AE8-5B5A-4882-A371-3C5825179FC8@thinkingcat.com> <cbbc3530-fe39-a9f3-084a-0458c9961f5b@nostrum.com> <1A202503-3128-4726-8E35-9AB76028D765@thinkingcat.com> <ff65ada9-8285-101a-9b0c-f9dc26eb4cdb@nostrum.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605241228030.97977@rabdullah.local>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NWsiLDJ41zA1zqHWQSAviWQUTyI>
Cc: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, IETF discussion 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: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:39:53 -0000
--On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 12:38 -0700 Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com> wrote: >... > Suppose we could predict# that some number of attendees from > China would be denied* entry into the US or Canada or > Argentina at an upcoming meeting. Should we conclude that > holding the meeting in those locations is unacceptable and > seek a relocation? > * By "denied" I mean no response received about visa > application, visa denied, visa approved months after meeting > took place, etc. In one IETF meeting, 77 people from China > applied for letters of invitation and visas, 27 were able to > receive the visas in time to attend. > ># Predicting is hard, but we know that there are almost always > visa problems for the Chinese when we meet in the US or Canada. > Sometime it is much worse than other times. Ole, Since we seem to be waxing philosophical here, three complementary rhetorical questions: (1) The easiest place for Chinese citizens to attend a meeting, with a guarantee of no visa problems, is (obviously) China. A corollary to our question above is that we should be holding additional meetings in China (some "somewhere in Asia that might be relatively friendly to Chinese passport holders"). How would you balance that reason for planning more meetings in China against the disadvantages of doing so, disadvantages that include uncertainty about visas for others (see below), air quality issues, questions about availability of open networks (at least for attendees staying in other than the official hotel and possibly for the general population), etc.? Note that inverting that question turns into exactly your question above about very large numbers of US and Canadian attendees versus visa issues. (2) Very often, I suggest including in the situation of Chinese passport holders trying to get visas for the US or Canada (and especially its variability), delays, hassles, and other barriers exist on a tit-for-tat basis, i.e., "you make it unpleasant[1] for our citizens to visit your country; we will make it unpleasant for yours to visit ours". Your observation "sometime it is much worse than other times" is almost certainly a symptom of such behavior. It is often nearly impossible to figure out who really started such escalations and possibly not helpful even if it can be figured out. Do you adjust the weighting factor if the countries involved are doing it to each other? [2] (3) China and the US are now granting 10 year visas, which presumably implies that, even if the (reciprocal) processes don't get more pleasant, the frequency with which one needs to go through them should be vastly reduced. I assume that getting such a visa requires evidence of likelihood of frequent travel. Does that imply that we should hold more meetings in China so that the visa authorities can be told, in invitation letters, how often people will be coming back? More meetings in the US or Canada, with the invitation letters specifying all such meetings and the invitation of the applicant to them? john [1] "Unpleasant" including high fees, requirements to schedule f2f interviews, long lead times, general discourtesy, demands for unreasonable levels of documentation, and general "you need to prove your innocence beyond any plausible doubt" behavior. [2] For the record, I've been timed out on an application for a Chinese visa after getting several of them before and after. I have every reason to believe that the main reasons was someone's (or some institution's) idea of reciprocity. But timeouts for US passport-holders trying to go to China are not a theoretical issue (fwiw, I've also been timed out by Brazil -- nothing unique about China or the US-China relationship).
- A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, o… Leslie Daigle
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… Randy Presuhn
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… Alissa Cooper
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… Stephen Farrell
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… Ted Hardie
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… Stephen Farrell
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… Jari Arkko
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… Leslie Daigle
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… Adam Roach
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… Adam Roach
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… Leslie Daigle
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… Michael Richardson
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… Ben Campbell
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… George Michaelson
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… Randy Bush
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… John C Klensin
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… Michael Richardson
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… Sandoche Balakrichenan
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapor… Michal Krsek