Re: Badges and blue sheets

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Fri, 12 November 2010 01:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C2B3A68C2 for <>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:39:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.227
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.227 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jSHbcCbZUeLv for <>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:38:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6DBD3A6A9A for <>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:38:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; s=MDaemon; t=1289525703; x=1290130503; q=dns/txt; h=DomainKey-Signature: Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; bh=fax9VZKk7HRfaVVllj/Tc4Jr2 oEHEBgND9Hje+kcRYU=; b=LUtUtXu4hSzCDHdMDLT/bgjCE7gXApZ6EetcWsbKP dd8zKgIQJial2I/lmOI6I4Z/Uik54x61EFz6Ng13MIvvCc6ctFJ88mjg1Vjee0x/ RsnLjZunC+RZTktgAonvCRjU5o0Qui4tCFtmS/N6CPvIWCmqSDa+Y27H/x2dngAZ xY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon;; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=cpNfM9qrBvzouBhEsucYX4Sr4iinleUjFiUp1AUfu240gN/JnMhZWVU/RTtY YiGsL0xcx0ED7Brz7gVJuQUj3UPvT+PKvUOA6i6JBLrvNqLcqlyhj2qgY 3rJRqG0uG65GWWYywktkyktD8DLLRgVM+FDQV6pcjD0lg/h9ak0gHc=;
X-MDAV-Processed:, Fri, 12 Nov 2010 02:35:01 +0100
Received: from [] by (MDaemon PRO v10.0.0) with ESMTP id md50003756502.msg for <>; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 02:34:58 +0100
X-Spam-Processed:, Fri, 12 Nov 2010 02:34:58 +0100 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source)
X-MDPtrLookup-Result: pass (ip= (
X-MDHeloLookup-Result: pass smtp.helo=[] (ip= (
X-HashCash: 1:20:101112:md50003756502::zK/fWd2LJ7vz/SC4:00005pse
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:39:09 +0800
Subject: Re: Badges and blue sheets
To: IETF discussion list <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: Badges and blue sheets
Thread-Index: AcuCCmZuRFeKnVo0TE+wOfGyPO89QQ==
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 01:39:03 -0000

I've no problem with the badge being checked, and I think, at least in my
case, it has been done in a very non-intrusive way. It increase the security
for our personal staff and IETF/hosts properties, so that's good and it also
helps to avoid people not paying to enter for free.

However, I'm more concerned about something related. I've been observing
since several meetings ago that some people that show as "non-paid" have got
their badges (or at least I see them in the meetings), and I think some of
them appear in many consecutive meetings.

I understand that a small number of people is part of the host team, or
future host, NOC, etc., and I see they appear as "Comp" and/or Host.

Not sure if Comp stands for Complementary? If that's the case, I think it
needs to be MORE obvious if is just complementary for an unknown (to most of
us I guess) reason or is all part of the host/next host/NOC.

I will use a more clear rations, such as "NOC", "host", "n. host" and I
think the community needs to understand, for the rest of the cases, what it
means complementary and why is that done (not sure if there is an RFC that
states "special complementary cases").

Why I'm asking this is that observing the 15$ increase in the cost of IETF,
vs. the number of "comp" folks (across certain number of meetings), we could
have saved that attendance cost increase.

Note that I'm not saying "comp" should not be done, but we need a more clear
rational/explanation about that, not only for cost reasons but also for
making sure that when we see someone in the meeting rooms that hasn't paid,
we can make sure that is not someone "faking" the system and attending at
our expenses.


> From: Brian E Carpenter <>
> Organization: University of Auckland
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:09:46 +1300
> To: IETF discussion list <>
> Cc: <>
> Subject: Badges and blue sheets
> On 2010-11-12 12:32, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
> ...
>> Do I think the introduction of badge police to control access to IETF
>>  WG meetings is a big deal?
> I think that freeriders attending our meetings without paying their
> share of costs would be a big deal.
> I think that patent trolls attending our meetings without identifying
> themselves and signing the blue sheets would be a big deal.
> I am very happy to have my badge checked and I would be even happier
> if the blue sheets could be automated.
>     Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list

The IPv6 Portal:

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.