Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 31 May 2016 03:38 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 B788F12D0B7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 May 2016 20:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.126
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 sdi9f21BP61X for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 May 2016 20:38:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22a.google.com (mail-yw0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22a]) (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 AD02112B013 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 May 2016 20:38:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id c127so176893370ywb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 May 2016 20:38:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BX+AeBxovJu+rZNva9gSykuoo3ayzZLbm7UCdc4q/bQ=; b=FbU1ySahuC2XerMchvY1T1XYqZNU0CMH0YGFVmLpyrkdVeqrluu+KPcO4QZzfJQVf0 GHhKe3018tx6W98ys/8f2HxNcuWK9Mr2iYSmP86d2O1y8dd/1PGvl8kujGVQoh7XHaDu GVBJB0j9VH9kQZuZc3W3v9tJDJS8o6hfqcNX/aM45q4IgZim/qu3yDa42WHiNv1QT22+ 3+v5Es68QHMocY9RqmD4+7+BNfhJH/99O+UI3NWsDxkPsqY8nsYRXUogktp4LPmvqH8w 4bf6HyEa4sUk5rjOBA7r8dWawWvJ8LBD5Tst1PHpaA5xnoh+EqGvkFLrAPD+HRH4T0SC PPIA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BX+AeBxovJu+rZNva9gSykuoo3ayzZLbm7UCdc4q/bQ=; b=Ard18zn/ww3cZxfLkePGoFeaool+snd+QOp5J4f0mgF8b29mBwYXZCzwkzoir/sYF1 hFxKd6nzwGosnpdfYJjw2njccCTH7S32pyu1jLUbFQrHk73CAefIqvzITM0yA2Xi2svX T7DjwDDV3UihkD3o10YxXjLKA3pDip1U+8p37UCu9qgZZzum5cwpmkEpwZn69JiCRD1F MPEUI/Q+fybKh+5FykSR95uIyOolQeZ6OwJGozPo+N1zRPAYtBrIHNvtFgPV2otZ+wC4 8tci10160x33sMxC8fp55WNoZpgiT0N5nn4yPkCtMoRY7bDkTgES1DJju7oDivBuGd5v hdjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLTMeq4+Dpn9D/qTKPaShBYRYTpsa6TmKrwS70xBZiIA1S/yxVPSyt6S+NyEdesjCxhsiROF43wcRgk+R7l
X-Received: by 10.13.209.1 with SMTP id t1mr2925418ywd.323.1464665900763; Mon, 30 May 2016 20:38:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.198.210 with HTTP; Mon, 30 May 2016 20:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <745447335.3293403.1464665512147.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr2wyE8SVq_FBWvp5ipVNhqMDs0QnvyL7jJtbKKxCr3bGA@mail.gmail.com> <096736229B32B700FCB16703@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAKD1Yr1odQ-5v6t6HBXGWzOyUJOaMtxcFjVOwwfVqrJ35jz55g@mail.gmail.com> <745447335.3293403.1464665512147.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 12:38:01 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr1CKzfUiwQw894OSTHrOLXqVKrB5TQWdnp5CUhf+HuRRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114e5196bb729705341b1afd
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ZpGrscI5bioGSj4RDRGdIP75ti0>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 31 May 2016 03:38:24 -0000

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:31 PM, <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>; wrote:

> > But there's another problem, too: because the IETF is a technical
> organization
> > that publishes documents, everyone who participates in the IETF by
> definition
> > finds it acceptable to make technical statements, otherwise they
> wouldn't be
> > IETF participants. That's what they signed up for. They might not be
> willing
> > to make statements in other fields, because that's not what they signed
> up for.
> > We don't know until we ask them. We might want to do that before making
> > non-technical statements in the name of the organization.
>
> too late.
>
> See e.g RFC3271 ('ideology', 'noble goal'), RFC1984, RFC7258...
>
> The IETF is now a function of the Internet Society (ISOC), expressing
> the policies of the Internet Society within its technical domain.
>

But a statement around the legal rights of same-sex partners is not "within
its technical domain"? It's not within any technical domain, in fact...