Re: [79all] IETF Badge

"Andrew Allen" <aallen@rim.com> Thu, 11 November 2010 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <aallen@rim.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 619CB3A6983 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:26:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wzx-K+NAgyBN for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:26:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mhs03ykf.rim.net (mhs03ykf.rim.net [216.9.243.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A47F3A6892 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:26:34 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 0a401fcb-b7b44ae0000061f8-01-4cdc3577b642
Received: from XCH138CNC.rim.net ( [10.65.20.127]) by mhs03ykf.rim.net (RIM Mail) with SMTP id 3E.AC.25080.7753CDC4; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:27:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from XCH02DFW.rim.net ([10.150.100.31]) by XCH138CNC.rim.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:27:03 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:26:30 -0600
Message-ID: <BDBFB6CE314EDF4CB80404CACAEFF5DE06AE1E87@XCH02DFW.rim.net>
In-Reply-To: <B8E060F2-17C1-478D-B0AD-5598588B0D4D@acmepacket.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [79all] IETF Badge
Thread-Index: AcuBydPEUuGc+XnmQW+GvZc3kbwtOQABCP2Q
From: "Andrew Allen" <aallen@rim.com>
To: <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>, <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Nov 2010 18:27:03.0984 (UTC) FILETIME=[09EB1B00:01CB81CE]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAgAAAZEWokwV
Cc: dhc2@dcrocker.net, henk@ripe.net, dcrocker@bbiw.net, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:26:35 -0000

I agree here with Hadriel. 

If you don't have a badge because you didn't register and pay the fee then you don't belong here. If you lost or forgot your badge then I'm sure the secretariat would fix it and issue you a new one if you were registered.

I didn't notice any oppressive security here- just smiling helpful people who insist on opening the meeting room doors for you.

I seem to vaguely remember a long past IETF (maybe Washington DC) where in at least one WG we were asked to to wave our badges before the start of the session to show we were all legitimate attendees. So I don't think checking badges is totally new. 

Whether this was initiated by the hosts is in my view not relevant. The IETF rules state you need to pay the fees and register. If the host asks that those rules are enforced then so what. A prerequisite of any meeting is that you comply with the local regulations. If those regulations are not counter to IETF rules then there should be no issue. If they were then that's a different matter.  Having some security checks on strangers protects to some extent the petty thefts of laptops that have become a frequent problem at meetings in large hotels.

If the hosts were the primary driver for the checks (which seemed innoculous to me - but then I had me badge - but I doubt most of the (mainly) ladies on the doors were capable of putting most of us in an strong arm lock and marching us to exit door either) then they may have had very good and legit reasons such as compliance with insurance liability, fire regulations etc.

Its also maybe more likely they were protecting against a bunch of free loaders feeding off the incredibly provisoned food at the breaks.

I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

Andrew

----- Original Message -----
From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:HKaplan@acmepacket.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:56 PM
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Cc: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>et>; Henk Uijterwaal <henk@ripe.net>et>; dcrocker@bbiw.net <dcrocker@bbiw.net>et>; ietf@ietf.org <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge


On Nov 11, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

>> Security on the terminal room is long-standing.  It has equipment in it.
> 
> To be fair, so might the meeting rooms (audio equipment, projectors,
> etc.). Perhaps in this instance the hotel was concerned about theft of
> such equipment. 

Equipment??  Considering the prices in the lobby bar, they were clearly protecting the coffee and tea!

-hadriel
p.s. I for one am glad they had strict badge checking - we're in the middle of a major city, and I don't want to worry about leaving my bag/laptop by my seat in a meeting room when I go up to the mic. (which in my case is too often)

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.