Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 25 May 2016 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 E245912D918 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 11:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] 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 nxff0xWXiZqJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 11:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E07F712D915 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 11:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u4PIugjh029175 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 25 May 2016 13:56:43 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110] claimed to be Svantevit.local
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com, ietf@ietf.org
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <bd1f61ef-3be2-1a16-804c-68548df0b789@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605242300120.194@rabdullah.local> <da508fd5-307c-c61e-5b72-185238414a9c@gmail.com> <1936013436.371962.1464185835726.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20160525075248.0e9c5268@resistor.net>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <a7dc09df-02be-d2ac-f691-413f974acc7c@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:56:42 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20160525075248.0e9c5268@resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XjlGLMBtFg40PCbPgkQtr_v3Cro>
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: Wed, 25 May 2016 18:56:52 -0000

On 5/25/16 1:39 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Is it judicious for the IAOC to take a position against a country?

Yes. I would offer up the DPRK as an existence proof of a place that the 
IAOC should unequivocally exclude from consideration. With that extreme 
example as an anchor, the question is where the line between 
"acceptable" and "unacceptable" is drawn.

It would be ridiculous to hold this conversation with an assumed 
principle that every country on the face of the planet is an acceptable 
destination.

/a