Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Mon, 30 January 2017 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
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 25907129849; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:13:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 GhqNErvldon5; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:13:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E751297F0; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:13:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 1E020909B4E; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:13:37 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:13:37 -0500
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
Message-ID: <20170130001337.GQ10525@verdi>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJ78ECZ5x8LsR53KhRFnbhi3gV7n8yzG07e1wbN-SG14Q@mail.gmail.com> <8f5ef9ac-b62b-863a-0a0e-f5d2b329de09@nostrum.com> <20170129134410.GA14422@gsp.org> <682943191.3765569.1485705385710@mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <682943191.3765569.1485705385710@mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SnldLVXUs2NUm9V17ftaSsEHVKw>
Cc: "mtgvenue@ietf.org" <mtgvenue@ietf.org>, Dawit Bekele <bekele@isoc.org>, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <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: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 00:13:40 -0000

nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com> wrote:
> 
> It was brought up in the original message which started this conversation
> to think of remote hubs for the participants who cannot attend Chicago.
> I think that is an urgent topic.

   +1

> Have I missed messages regarding that?

   Probably not... :^(

   But "ietf@ietf.org" isn't a good list to discuss that. May I suggest
"vmeet@ietf.org".org". I can promise to reply to posts there; and I think Alia
would also respond.

   "ietf-hub-boston@ietf.org" is certainly active; but I don't think a
Boston hub would help folks who can't get into the US. :^(

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>