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

Emily Shepherd <emily@emilyshepherd.me> Mon, 30 January 2017 22:09 UTC

Return-Path: <emily@emilyshepherd.me>
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 52E75129BF8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:09:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 VRKogCekj3YZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:09:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.emilyshepherd.me (emilyshepherd.me [139.162.172.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36264129BDE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:09:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.emilyshepherd.me (Postfix, from userid 114) id A6190218D4; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:09:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from emily-tablet (unknown [IPv6:2a01:7e01:e001:42:383c:8b64:1f56:379c]) by mail.emilyshepherd.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4E1F82100A; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:09:28 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:08:21 +0000
From: Emily Shepherd <emily@emilyshepherd.me>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
Message-ID: <20170130220821.akllinyu3jho5oix@emily-tablet>
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> <CAMm+Lwj9GnLFOjBfvkUhiHdW-V7yft7gfDNhwquKZmfuL_7d+A@mail.gmail.com> <20170130203952.5x43fojisedrvjrs@emily-tablet> <CAMm+LwgkUQMZKxMMqW5jew8HMr5X=DzH0xJiNRBhyKYcHxsnfw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aztxnjnec2epcs7p"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwgkUQMZKxMMqW5jew8HMr5X=DzH0xJiNRBhyKYcHxsnfw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0.1 (2016-04-01)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/cgFAmojW6i-_x009kfz1SOlCdSQ>
Cc: Dave Burstein <daveb@dslprime.com>, ietf <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: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:09:33 -0000

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:04:59PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>​What I tell people is that the opinion of the IETF as an 
>institution isn't
>very relevant as the IETF does not actually have any formal powers or means
>of enforcing them.​ If control over the IETF was to pass to a cabal led by
>the SCO countries who decided to put backdoors into all the crypto
>protocols, then development of Internet standards would simply shift
>elsewhere.

Yes, exactly! :) This, this response is perfect.

My point is that we don't need anything further than this. There is no 
reason for the IETF to have any stance on this other than that.

Many Thanks,

Emily

-- 
Emily Shepherd
Computer Science Graduate, MEng (Hons)
W: https://emilyshepherd.me/
M: +44(0)7575 721 231