Re: [79all] IETF Badge

Michael StJohns <> Fri, 12 November 2010 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75D63A6A0B for <>; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:07:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aI5yby0sAju6 for <>; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:07:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57ECA3A68E0 for <>; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:07:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id WNyJ1f0081GhbT858P7ocE; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:07:48 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id WP7n1f0041EtFYL3TP7noi; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:07:48 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:07:46 -0500
To: Ole Jacobsen <>
From: Michael StJohns <>
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:07:23 -0000

At 11:19 PM 11/11/2010, Ole Jacobsen wrote:

>(Why doesn't your email client display your name by the way?)

Because It sent it via the annoying Comcast web client.

>I know you asked the question of Ray, but:

Thanks for answering a question I didn't ask. And editing my email to remove the specific comment of Ray's to which I was reacting 

That comment is:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ray Pelletier" <>
>Yesterday, 3 people were stopped by security and upon examination it emerged that they were not paying attendees but rather using the credentials of other people.
I'm going out on a limb here and surmise the 3 people were local attendees.

What I asked was whether or not the decision to require a strict mapping of badge to person was an IAOC decision or the host/hotel/someone else?   You sort of indicate that it was "the local host" and the (paraphrasing here) "cultural artifact".  But then go on to "its no big thing"

Prior to the day pass experiment (and I would guess even during) companies would pass around badges for folks that wanted to attend - especially local first timers, but didn't need to be there for more than a day or a meeting.  As far as I know we (IETF) have no policy on this.

Is it the IAOC's intent to place guards at the entrance to future meetings who will require attendees to show a drivers license or other credential as well as a badge?   If so, when was the decision made?  If not, why was it appropriate for this meeting?  (And I will accept "our hosts/hotel" required it - but then we need to have a longer discussion about the specific circumstances in which a host can change the model of how we hold an IETF.).

For this meeting we had three post-site-selection controls imposed from without - the "hotel can cancel the meeting" clause which was resolved/removed prior to contract signature, the "IETF network must be strictly controlled" which was imposed after contract signature and resulted in a bit of extra work at Maastricht and the "Host will ensure badges are worn to access all IETF spaces and events" which was imposed concurrently with the actual meeting.

[Breaking away from this - BOFs have typically been events where non-attendees are present and encouraged, for the one BOF I attended this time there was the same no badge/no access]

Ole - it really isn't about whether or not someone get to enter an IETF room without an IETF badge, it's whether the IETF is in charge of that policy (and our own fate) and what to do when our policies conflict with a host/hotel/government.  Prior to contract signature it may be possible to walk away.  Post signature - well bait and switch.  How do we push back? How do we qualify a site so that local policy impositions are either known in advanced and agreed to or negotiated away?   


>Whether or not the security concerns or free-loader concerns
>are real or imaginary, I strongly believe that the local organizers 
>did what they believed to be the norm, the culture and perhaps even
>some notion of a "requirement" here, and that this would not cause
>any problem for the IETF (which I would claim is largely true)

[If this clause isn't the very definition of apologist, I'm very confused about that definition]

>The issue came to our attention earlier this week (Tuesday?, I think 
>those carpets in the elevators that tell me what day it is are really
>useful, especially by now....) when it was raised by ONE person. 
>Having multiple Milo Medins is obviously amusing, but I think we've
>sort of outgrown that by now (this is my 71st IETF by the way, you
>must be pushing 75 -- err, meetings). 
>As for the apologist stuff, I think you're just hearing from us on 
>the IAOC that none of us think this is a huge issue, and there seems
>to be a fair bit of support for that view, see Scott Bradner's
>note for example.
>Yes, let's move on.
>Ole J. Jacobsen
>Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
>Cisco Systems
>Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
>E-mail:  URL:
>On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, wrote:
>> Hi Ray - 
>> When did the community decide that this was a prohibited thing? Or 
>> that we were concerned enough with it to post security to make sure 
>> the badge matched the person?
>> I can think of several IETFs where the badge name did not match the 
>> person including the Stanford IETF where there were a dozen or so 
>> "Milo Medin"s.
>> While I appreciate the hotel's and/or host's efforts on our behalf 
>> to secure our belongings, I believe its for us to decide our 
>> attendance policy - not them. And lest you wax poetic about paid 
>> attendees, I will note that the badges were paid for.
>> Here's what I'm hearing -
>> The host/hotel/some other organization imposed conditions without 
>> consulting the IAOC. We didn't have much choice. If that's the case
>> - assign the blame to the host/hotel and move on. We as a community 
>> generally understand re-routing in the face of network/operations 
>> issues. Especially, please avoid the apologist role for the 
>> outside forces.
>> If the IAOC was consulted and approved this without passing it by 
>> the community, stand up straight and take your lickings and stop 
>> trying to pretend it's what we've always done. It's embarrassing.
>> If there's a third case I missed please feel free to enlighten me. 
>> Mike