Re: If [removed] are blocked by the [removed], should the IETF respond?

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 27 January 2017 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 6C1F61299AA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:51:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=4OlQuFbv; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=r8M/5LEQ
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 nl0xpdQAetH2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:51:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 559F01299A8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:51:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0RLpKFS002499 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:51:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1485553885; x=1485640285; bh=+e5XTy9UxNws7JABjvmFfZrDqfhN+NlxxnKZOBWu82E=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=4OlQuFbvcXAGqBdvxs6HcSHNm6O+ZDxnEE9di9FkEQbI+ryLm8CyTyr8CSfMakKFX vo3MJEvK1yBtyoTxNhUjpuzKRZtKJtZcGsK0A0VTj2mR9YpVxTOagApdIZ1p0ONDtu jQDPsybsSXhnqnRsod9Ys8XPjCdk+tLYz3epuA7g=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1485553885; x=1485640285; i=@elandsys.com; bh=+e5XTy9UxNws7JABjvmFfZrDqfhN+NlxxnKZOBWu82E=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=r8M/5LEQc/Dsenrd+IZs7PFaY8vUU6VK8HusFS7YFSCAM/VMhTLP4VQDbmox3n7ED d5uKmIZaynhoLRhVkRmQJkIH+jAcuaAecpPSNXN7IjomVqxrb3HUhs8LgPpoJ1U0FG kucfkNDKkAttyXAKkf9+K+VAsbtvDpfzUsIUCZhg=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20170127134416.0b16e098@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:51:09 -0800
To: Dave Burstein <daveb@dslprime.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: If [removed] are blocked by the [removed], should the IETF respond?
In-Reply-To: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.g mail.com>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XJ_mJqd3MDsdoljly7WIXpu1SFE>
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: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 21:51:28 -0000

Hi Dave,
At 11:29 27-01-2017, Dave Burstein wrote:
>Instead, let's keep the discussion here to how we should respond to 
>a major nation refusing visas to so many of our members.

There is a thread at 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mtgvenue/current/msg00695.html 
which is related to the above.  The appropriate venue to discuss 
about the topic is https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue

Regards,
S. Moonesamy