Re: [79all] IETF Badge

Dave CROCKER <> Thu, 11 November 2010 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 832863A687C; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:19:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.556
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sd4RcTd249cP; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:19:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 899C73A683F; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:19:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oABFJavY012298 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:19:45 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 23:19:32 +0800
From: Dave CROCKER <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ole Jacobsen <>
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:19:46 -0800 (PST)
Cc:, Samuel Weiler <>,
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: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:19:18 -0000

On 11/11/2010 7:38 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> And having to display your badge = "dictate how we run our meetings" ???

Having a local organization dictate any procedure to the IETF is a matter of 

What if they dictated no breaks, or that we bring our own toilet paper or that 
we begin our meeting by having everyone stand up and do a brief set of 
exercises, or that we pledge allegiance to the national flag, or ...

Each of these is an existing "local custom" somewhere.

The underlying point is that some local customs are benign for the IETF and 
others are not and others are in a grey zone.  Certainly anything involving a 
change in habitual IETF security procedures can be expected to be a sensitive 

That does not automatically make checking badges bad or unacceptable, but it 
does warrant raising a flag.  As I recall, the challenge at the microphone 
included the observation that this was done without notice, for example.



   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking