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

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Sun, 29 January 2017 01:54 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.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 8F250120725 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:54:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 RzGxJmXXaDtt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:54:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22b.google.com (mail-pg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22b]) (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 1885E1204D9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:54:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id 194so91513623pgd.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:54:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=h6GxE4jnJ91Nt26K4+mtMtq8MPvCTrD94o3nghc7xoQ=; b=Q0Z6gDSBNTLkm3IKOU8tExlUp9UtDx+roCmy+7KF+G1zfEFQi6ZbVqnjDAkA6rj4c9 S9uK62hH5prSZp7PfZgNFUui0cX3pu/2HgY/UGt2QBONLgnZ+p8iX92jAsLiljyKu4UB GdhhQ8pe6EmxblcX02zPZlv7g6K0UeW0UyXcBodhQ4qzH0CM8GsiWoEtPNzuHBACo16U 7VhdJOZLqWrRZoBtCn4aQ3keT+9AHzvLR81Tk1SG+xWmBaCBSWFBvZc9tlStBhJvvcy0 uEfYcGDvR1HLPdj5tI2sNeSMKPKbUe13ASCSYxNH+vAG+69cFQmLS1WF6/zb2w3R2Erv z88Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=h6GxE4jnJ91Nt26K4+mtMtq8MPvCTrD94o3nghc7xoQ=; b=gBHBpBjdF5P44Z+QvRaAsgXa1iiTGMS5Kz3NyhucbMlc5JSFlhbbbQBz5IbYS8d3WV FkFJVlg3kWGiTA3ITSqVJQu/rt7xCzyBZSq7OQC/euQtExGzqlFs3E6IQ4XnSVLmUrCX S/eENpqGd/b8tSnhKzbk7olnkSZ6wgtJB0gJAZKXC/G6dHTfHI1AuBY7/x5E1xlCyKMq goApU7KHh8pnbxYscpJE7du0151SlOnT/u2q3lZf/GFouq1JhzuBH/Hcw32K+Xlw5SS6 rusQIU5dupsVLe0/bUHNScS2KlztRPccFHlZ4i9xGWDZNJxBKE6ZSJu3RXeNh3jXr8Qe 7grw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKo4BWakTkmfnTCePv/7rfCEbjjTT1oS7FMNTxSJX5JYghlFiVnrx1fAYS6gE3yOw==
X-Received: by 10.99.155.18 with SMTP id r18mr16744672pgd.193.1485654856216; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:54:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local (216-67-71-61-radius.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [216.67.71.61]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x2sm21566489pfa.71.2017.01.28.17.54.15 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:54:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJ78ECZ5x8LsR53KhRFnbhi3gV7n8yzG07e1wbN-SG14Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwi5Lq0zJUT_yeuinik=KBkNhELJ4z1JoG4FXn_1KL7USw@mail.gmail.com> <20170128221445.3ib4vuqzlvetsv2f@emily-tablet> <alpine.LRH.2.20.1701281811210.9710@bofh.nohats.ca> <a28569d7-38af-67d3-bc69-7ce0b4adf13f@gmail.com>
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <026808a0-5f18-0ae2-cbbe-2447d7c1a32e@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:54:12 -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: <a28569d7-38af-67d3-bc69-7ce0b4adf13f@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PBrBvJgjWsGDs60IGhXlevHv2babT3Hej"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ZVWCWOgj1AzvSPZ-Rf9lthOCVUU>
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: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 01:54:18 -0000

On 1/28/17 3:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Which is *exactly* why getting to consensus on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process
> is the most urgent matter, and it's happening at mtgvenue@ietf.org right now.

Yes.  We're trying to close out the process document but we're aware
that conditions have changed and that that's likely to have an impact
on how the draft will be interpreted.  For better or worse, how we
move issues along in the IETF is by working on document text, and that's
what's needed here.  Unfortunately this discussion hasn't led to new
comments on the draft yet.  I do wish people would give it a read
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/?include_text=1)
and take comments to the mtgvenue list.

Thanks,

Melinda
(mtgvenue co-chair)