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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 29 January 2017 00:04 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 DA107128AC9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:04:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 5DpycktcgybO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:04:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x230.google.com (mail-pg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::230]) (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 B637F126D73 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:04:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x230.google.com with SMTP id 194so91085362pgd.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:04:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qkj9i4eTodNYGh3RkMFsl1gwQ9Sn+p+TAVuBKaL1w4k=; b=ZPIFdrKj3rSv5YjZ0KNVeWNjoMPepSqsgAXdKDOwbQHq12gKBR0qJJinpWzp368p5c HpjeEbpvecU7f4PeLYrrcHzNu9TLUtLlCIjzmznmdrmymdZ0K1ntJLJ4dlx8HivhlaCw Cvp+1b4qsz+2bXhFMtQOfhvtLPP0TK5oXI/8Fr2WDbsm5D+xieA/IVvRmweMkv8S5e6H rBm+cB89uISPlobly4Lmy27kqJImXT+dLnekN/FkY5SxWGlhwe8TfNp20tB/2zhSTe4d s27MPnBMAK5TQHVWNtFwfQdrk53UIxO+n+onXv36Vaml5DGFRJjeKHH6YKsVbmbgHvIc WXgw==
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:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qkj9i4eTodNYGh3RkMFsl1gwQ9Sn+p+TAVuBKaL1w4k=; b=U6bQYGTpGHyJjcHSNUpTipNl5AfMGCavhaoIwQ4yQ2K62pQ5bdyiMeH0yVOZg7cKp8 tX0QaimXciRwN/O6ZEyNGLjijH3LGB4zh6t8kGtGhyApXgh3P4/yqU/6zzETKrwNmYoa VlSrAR9aNwiUye/PGh5ykOAL1t/mvVLg+QWbHxeRZMVRy+guE0vhBFMJu1SGgFLLdBCV 1ULUMdEWqh8UsolPvN9KYexyqihkp23puI+6UEsejkeAi0wEORd1rjGgP9cOmfgKoxpa AZsjJrxL4ZopnpILdj82bRSVDkzhujXbxfpfz+MsdaGb6yw1SJ/jyB6DWBumBLGgezPX 4o8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXINvKC2/SnqIe8HZZNhcXsaAnNBg1CK5gE42SiUp6IxUd5Lr7XtQlZywNrkeOrA5A==
X-Received: by 10.84.174.197 with SMTP id r63mr22377698plb.14.1485648276143; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:04:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] ([118.148.113.195]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i21sm21309840pfi.94.2017.01.28.16.04.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:04:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, 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>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <a28569d7-38af-67d3-bc69-7ce0b4adf13f@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 13:03:49 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1701281811210.9710@bofh.nohats.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/bSYbrZBrzFt-w683Jop_SJaos_0>
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 00:04:38 -0000

On 29/01/2017 12:29, Paul Wouters wrote:
...
> And while most will agree there is nothing to be done for Chicago,
> I think it would be prudent for the IAOC to look into alternatives for
> IETF-102 next year which is currently scheduled to be in San Francisco,
> as well as take this new information into consideration when deciding
> venues for 2019-2020.

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.

    Brian