Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Thu, 11 June 2020 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.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 5E4AD3A0D00 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=swW7TK8a; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=kvQpxlCW
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 LJg4OdE27mAf for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A03333A0CF3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABDB7F8028D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:20:02 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1591906802; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=or3gl69wuhiH+yw9ulJDrcp69JrDUulGrduWkiU5R+I=; b=swW7TK8am7is0htHrPmqkUlqLpG4gy87raxJF0dxKRmIGG+JsLSyAonmsDTlKAZg4DJlZ vMjHR0yVNtoH9EkCw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1591906802; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=or3gl69wuhiH+yw9ulJDrcp69JrDUulGrduWkiU5R+I=; b=kvQpxlCWE0RrzPlsWHMh1b3r2odSICh7gHh2Ixkf1nqtl+tG12PyLhq0/+tweYuWgRRMo J5084hFlC3JRSKWxRpqHKejAM8CJtk2fdSPXaenrsMAPf8gYY8Cs+aBIWeyxwfsmTMVuPoY W9uAgKYWi/317tWR2biCctT222AtVpx9f4maBDczPAhoB8acEX0pn0MrVVg9KTQe0GOxhAu d8KWec0iChpn23Ml+dwTziIKMNLaIYDjfhAI39TJgzNBAXq9apEBtRYrHH1N/arFuu34n+3 sJtjeZxA51ZBtjg17XAAc3n/5+WzJyPQkZ3N8xNiwxE7nQHhuFfAenk8H9fg==
Received: from sk-desktop.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B284F800F6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:20:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:20:02 -0400
Message-ID: <1632517.0ksbkUODB5@sk-desktop>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.20.2006111455350.20223@celebrae2015mbp>
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <5A6C6F55-0FCD-4925-AB99-F8A5432ADA98@tzi.org> <alpine.OSX.2.20.2006111455350.20223@celebrae2015mbp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Vh0P2KNtu6fF9haKQ6sD8DhpkUU>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 20:20:09 -0000

On Thursday, June 11, 2020 3:36:16 PM EDT Samuel Weiler wrote:
> In any case, I think the Beijing debacle does not set precedent, since
> that requirement was imposed by someone other than ourselves.  Badge
> checking is not normal practice at a normal IETF meeting.  And the
> Beijing meeting was not normal.

The IETF held the meeting there knowing what the requirement would be, so no.  
The IETF made the choice.  Every location is different.  When the IETF decides 
to meet somewhere, then the IETF has determined that local conditions are 
acceptable.

Scott K