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

Melinda Shore <> Fri, 27 January 2017 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D1931296ED for <>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:08:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aD8XtIDIV-SK for <>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:08:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EB7B129602 for <>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:08:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y143so75502991pfb.0 for <>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:08:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=N1ggFNIO7ucJwHeyEwVNQ/ezosYifuGaDYIUpSdHgf0=; b=nYVx2iq0paOlHcxclZUHBICkw5C8lADPAB9uFULeMo/3YFzsDWYIqhpnxca0IIDCrS YMuZFXhrsUWeTXakWGv3BGrfTtFHX18lcuxbahkVTyApHhyi5LGj8ntMQzbKJTWx0J1t KIKRB/IaJuarNwFMfVBviSKW1eN0T7TemkZBxaSa3Js8TGThkgSaYTx5VLV5mRuYbz2u ZxwUTmH62scy62ZLlaC5EdpmIM2ZdicnXmIODliH9qtaZEOVC2y/s3qo+ReGRBOU2fsb J4Z967SxWBpFKNyVi2bwezDhvBSqAmWOueow/Qrt+tWT82tNxNAJocSwBArmj2pOrjnL fGyA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=N1ggFNIO7ucJwHeyEwVNQ/ezosYifuGaDYIUpSdHgf0=; b=Y9S0Kw/xfvklIzhPZdz9kc19CMhiA0dHnT8SgVg3YbCxvCA3TxtvBBNNeQW67q0h2I Kd2rNDQ591HY9FrYCYqFZuh657tby2gjdKYIf1V8X5iO8YvZn4QfU/Ko6SnFeIxPYz14 pnPKvyjUMFU86VL164ob8HB576WZ7KJxr5/ylXJRSbHo/DBuA46ov9uAV3y3Vz91tlK8 1jHtypYhaMYrgtO/8hMfX2dTjyjY4coJVHg916fqSad4TW9VicFLfS43XA1I8WY9Z2m+ 6kZZfUKffLhjlxIUiZ0OZ9EuvCHl6FfW3e15wRcxPDOq2YEHwy/wcleaCDcqKSrAXNdL ud1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIarDGnJda9gOJ63vXQv+llxb6dLpjZIWUkmMXD48E78fDtvB6UNUulCudQXeSi6A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id w16mr14721909plk.73.1485547679177; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:07:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id t133sm13365014pgc.24.2017. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:07:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
References: <> <>
From: Melinda Shore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:07:56 -0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sLdeIuQE1H2fKLFh6nqD2TXjbMxAS1nj8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:08:01 -0000

On 1/27/17 10:43 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I note that there is a WG, MTGVENUE, that is working on criteria for
> meeting venues.  It seems to me that discussing the overall question
> of specific exclusions at a venue for individuals on the basis of some
> set of class properties (whether it be nationality, religion, choices
> in emotional relationships, or whatever) would be appropriate in that
> WG.  Moreover, since the WG hasn't finished its work perhaps the WG
> list would be better to explore the issue than the IETF list.

Indeed, and the question of whether what's currently in the draft
on that question is sufficient is currently under discussion.  Note
that the goal is to provide guidance from the IETF to the IAOC on
questions like this.