Re: Concerns about Singapore

Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com> Sun, 10 April 2016 14:41 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 2623912B005 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 07:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.617
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.617 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 LSMtLPwIT_RK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 07:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mr11p00im-asmtp002.me.com (mr11p00im-asmtp002.me.com [17.110.69.253]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30F9C126D74 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 07:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.10.8] (173-11-110-134-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.11.110.134]) by mr11p00im-asmtp002.me.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.36.0 64bit (built Sep 8 2015)) with ESMTPSA id <0O5F00EVVA4KH320@mr11p00im-asmtp002.me.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:41:08 +0000 (GMT)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-04-10_08:,, signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1510270003 definitions=main-1604100219
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 07:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com>
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
In-reply-to: <570A6458.3050206@comcast.net>
Message-id: <alpine.OSX.2.01.1604100736080.45987@rabdullah.local>
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: Alpine 2.01 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RFVJID-y2tMs1prRZK663L6SkNM>
Cc: IETF Disgust List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com>
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 14:41:10 -0000

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016, Michael StJohns wrote:
> 
> This surprises me - "this has been a condition placed on hosts...". 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".
> 
> Mike
> 

The IETF has a meeting network requirements document that specifies a 
number of parameters which includes no blocking. Markedly different in
terms of content may not apply in most places, reasonable bandwidth 
most certainly does, as does port restrictions (usually by stupid 
configuration by clueless operators). And if you've ever stayed in 
some random hotel you will know what I mean.

Ole