Re: [79all] IETF Badge

Ole Jacobsen <> Fri, 12 November 2010 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331D83A677E for <>; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:49:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.557
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2WeaGZMk2e+p for <>; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:49:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC123A6B2E for <>; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:49:50 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAO9h3UyrRN+J/2dsb2JhbACiUXGjTII+DQGYY4MLgj8EhFqBKoQISw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,190,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="216358306"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 12 Nov 2010 23:50:14 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oACNoEZ4019933; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:50:14 GMT
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:49:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Ole Jacobsen <>
To: Michael StJohns <>
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:49:57 -0000


I did not edit your email, it was included in its entirety below what 
I wrote. I did not see the "original comment" which came in a 
different msg, not the one I was rerplying to.

The question you ask has been answered many times already, but to 

The IAOC did not make a "Policy Decision" about badges for this 
meeting. We have not made a policy decision about badge checking at
future meetings either.

I can well imagine a future situation, in , oh say, Paris, where an 
attendee loses a laptop due to theft and there is an outcry about
"nobody checking entry", but perhaps we should just leave that to the 
usual IETF way and burn that bridge when we get to it.

Have a good trip home.


Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail:  URL:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, Michael StJohns wrote:

> At 11:19 PM 11/11/2010, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> >Mike,
> >
> >(Why doesn't your email client display your name by the way?)
> Because It sent it via the annoying Comcast web client.
> >I know you asked the question of Ray, but:
> Thanks for answering a question I didn't ask. And editing my email 
> to remove the specific comment of Ray's to which I was reacting
> That comment is:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Ray Pelletier" <>
> >
> >Yesterday, 3 people were stopped by security and upon examination 
> >it emerged that they were not paying attendees but rather using the 
> >credentials of other people.
> >
> I'm going out on a limb here and surmise the 3 people were local attendees.
> What I asked was whether or not the decision to require a strict 
> mapping of badge to person was an IAOC decision or the 
> host/hotel/someone else?  You sort of indicate that it was "the 
> local host" and the (paraphrasing here) "cultural artifact".  But 
> then go on to "its no big thing"
> Prior to the day pass experiment (and I would guess even during) 
> companies would pass around badges for folks that wanted to attend - 
> especially local first timers, but didn't need to be there for more 
> than a day or a meeting.  As far as I know we (IETF) have no policy 
> on this.
> Is it the IAOC's intent to place guards at the entrance to future 
> meetings who will require attendees to show a drivers license or 
> other credential as well as a badge?  If so, when was the decision 
> made?  If not, why was it appropriate for this meeting?  (And I will 
> accept "our hosts/hotel" required it - but then we need to have a 
> longer discussion about the specific circumstances in which a host 
> can change the model of how we hold an IETF.).
> For this meeting we had three post-site-selection controls imposed 
> from without - the "hotel can cancel the meeting" clause which was 
> resolved/removed prior to contract signature, the "IETF network must 
> be strictly controlled" which was imposed after contract signature 
> and resulted in a bit of extra work at Maastricht and the "Host will 
> ensure badges are worn to access all IETF spaces and events" which 
> was imposed concurrently with the actual meeting.
> [Breaking away from this - BOFs have typically been events where 
> non-attendees are present and encouraged, for the one BOF I attended 
> this time there was the same no badge/no access]
> Ole - it really isn't about whether or not someone get to enter an 
> IETF room without an IETF badge, it's whether the IETF is in charge 
> of that policy (and our own fate) and what to do when our policies 
> conflict with a host/hotel/government.  Prior to contract signature 
> it may be possible to walk away.  Post signature - well bait and 
> switch.  How do we push back? How do we qualify a site so that local 
> policy impositions are either known in advanced and agreed to or 
> negotiated away?
> Mike
> >Whether or not the security concerns or free-loader concerns
> >are real or imaginary, I strongly believe that the local organizers 
> >did what they believed to be the norm, the culture and perhaps even
> >some notion of a "requirement" here, and that this would not cause
> >any problem for the IETF (which I would claim is largely true)
> [If this clause isn't the very definition of apologist, I'm very 
> confused about that definition]
> >The issue came to our attention earlier this week (Tuesday?, I think 
> >those carpets in the elevators that tell me what day it is are really
> >useful, especially by now....) when it was raised by ONE person. 
> >
> >Having multiple Milo Medins is obviously amusing, but I think we've
> >sort of outgrown that by now (this is my 71st IETF by the way, you
> >must be pushing 75 -- err, meetings). 
> >
> >As for the apologist stuff, I think you're just hearing from us on 
> >the IAOC that none of us think this is a huge issue, and there seems
> >to be a fair bit of support for that view, see Scott Bradner's
> >note for example.
> >
> >Yes, let's move on.
> >
> >Ole
> >
> >Ole J. Jacobsen
> >Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
> >Cisco Systems
> >Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
> >E-mail:  URL:
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Ray - 
> >> 
> >> When did the community decide that this was a prohibited thing? Or 
> >> that we were concerned enough with it to post security to make sure 
> >> the badge matched the person?
> >> 
> >> I can think of several IETFs where the badge name did not match the 
> >> person including the Stanford IETF where there were a dozen or so 
> >> "Milo Medin"s.
> >> 
> >> While I appreciate the hotel's and/or host's efforts on our behalf 
> >> to secure our belongings, I believe its for us to decide our 
> >> attendance policy - not them. And lest you wax poetic about paid 
> >> attendees, I will note that the badges were paid for.
> >> 
> >> Here's what I'm hearing -
> >> 
> >> The host/hotel/some other organization imposed conditions without 
> >> consulting the IAOC. We didn't have much choice. If that's the case
> >> - assign the blame to the host/hotel and move on. We as a community 
> >> generally understand re-routing in the face of network/operations 
> >> issues. Especially, please avoid the apologist role for the 
> >> outside forces.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> If the IAOC was consulted and approved this without passing it by 
> >> the community, stand up straight and take your lickings and stop 
> >> trying to pretend it's what we've always done. It's embarrassing.
> >> 
> >> If there's a third case I missed please feel free to enlighten me. 
> >> 
> >> Mike 
> >>