Re: Concerns about Singapore

Michael StJohns <> Sun, 10 April 2016 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F8212D12A for <>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.696
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.696 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, 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 UybjhcPNvV2A for <>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BC0512D121 for <>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by comcast with SMTP id pMS9aU8jonIc7pMS9aXQsB; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 20:59:29 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=q20140121; t=1460321969; bh=8vPZSYcRpLkV3HRu4F9tr8sfgjaxDqS8dLrEIkylS+Y=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=lACpT6pCO3gebfvStWDKU9lGerjKUYp1pocHJaaywq/z34kmCE+XaDotVp2rc+QO5 UHEEhMWriAm6aoZq2cOvQwSGe0oautwtJgh0/+vof22TpCuJtnP+eJJrBa17qvxpW4 T81vJdH0xlAGuDjJmcg3fF9g6Ziz9UPoTM9cyjRBSFI3UawqkZgODRMuaq4Z1esTcU LFCcZTHUhFu8mgabK85i81FR79bLMefOAOK4hWv8qX38+xA3tPq3Fg6JEey6W8zFom U2IdcThNYZ3IGjzA8UHBLD4tk625VnaKBAFiTHhKe2OziK8SnSk0olx9GqqRlu3TEK iz2pTJ9KkD5LA==
Received: from [] ([]) by with comcast id gkzU1s00P3Em2Kp01kzVFU; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 20:59:29 +0000
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
To: Brian E Carpenter <>, Randy Bush <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Michael StJohns <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:59:14 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
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: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 20:59:31 -0000

On 4/10/2016 4:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 11/04/2016 02:48, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> On 4/10/2016 10:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>>>> it was clean unfettered Internet.  some local folk stuck their necks out
>>>>> very far to accomplish this.  it was definitely different than one got
>>>>> outside of the ietf meeting network.  this has been a condition placed
>>>>> on hosts and beijing was no exception.
>>>> This surprises me - "this has been a condition placed on hosts...".
> In the case of Beijing it was very clear from the earliest discussions,
> going back to 2005 and before, to my personal knowledge.
> ...

This is where close reading of the chain is useful - specifically the 
meaning of "this".  What I was referring to was the "condition placed on 
the hosts" (apparently by the government) that the IETF regulate access 
to its network by implementing a per user login system, rather than 
"condition placed on the hosts" by the IETF that we get to see the real 
Internet as a requirement for going there. The former is unique in 
AFAICT.  The latter is basically business as usual for us.
>> I repeat - "where" have the local hosts/laws specified conditions that resulted in the IETF network content access being
>> markedly different than that accessible to the random local citizen?
> Why is that relevant? The criterion is: can the IETF do its work properly?
> Of which a sub-criterion is: will there be clean unfettered Internet at
> the meeting site?

It's not relevant to that question exactly - this goes all the way back 
to the beginning of this chain with respect to the meaning of "open" vs 
"closed" network and from who's viewpoint you're considering the 
question.   The original poster said Beijing was a closed network, Randy 
said it was an open network.  From any one sitting inside the IETF 
looking out, it certainly was as open as what we normally get.  For 
anyone sitting outside, in country,  and unable to come in, it certainly 
was as closed as any corporate or VPN or government network as I've ever 

 From MCR's original comment, I believe he was viewing the network as 
closed using the above criteria.

Later, Mike

> How RFC 4084 applies in the local coffee shops is another matter.
>     Brian