Re: [79all] IETF Badge

SM <> Thu, 11 November 2010 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB2993A693B for <>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:20:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.385
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.385 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.214, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2mQ04KwTuw9E for <>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:20:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 013F83A692D for <>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5.Alpha0/8.14.5.Alpha0) with ESMTP id oABLKO2U004203 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:20:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1289510450; x=1289596850; bh=avNHYLbn8a2s67uAFpmhZaTpCVLvvkNkZiim0o7NT14=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=uzn2yqzPGuKYrmfb0bxrWsaj4llYz4MgYJF6k2ttTbuJMJTkj17ARvvIeOWb4aJ5z AqfDixAvg8k9v1m3YYcueAJpRYJLWnpg46KOthYTpMIwkYmVJ5psHhbhJj8ZjKo9KT Je0P5Q6XQ8Yghm9k7LhLWMZtVrfEaoVUKBySdZCQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1289510450; x=1289596850; bh=avNHYLbn8a2s67uAFpmhZaTpCVLvvkNkZiim0o7NT14=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=U8vF8DlT9xjuOfiz6GOHIhIbSC0pdTSZFvmXP1RB2ikiPRNcFb3IKVbktW6rpWPa1 bMZ74KKzxWdiwlwWEw/zZMFQV/yPBKeOe+tabIyHtexoz7ThiEvjL7LIOqLza+m0Fk UjqpcNnAeVaiEfX8hGiLpUd9/drvEypKPHdRZbOY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail;; c=simple; q=dns; b=dPhmg4nZAWmBY3urhjIGbHkFswczLyNt4YB1ti5DLF0L8XuAScbEAWZ3YmEtWFCMj 3ETJQhJD1t4bn0ojWIIrWZ3qVcVcdlEA5IEjjBVSLy3Aq07emLvm4Wms0Hf3jQT1sSj 3U9w2/AkZe45xpncL2G/Ughi08ZT42unkKcVrCc=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:13:18 -0800
To: Samuel Weiler <>
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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 21:20:28 -0000

Hi Sam,
At 00:18 11-11-10, Samuel Weiler wrote:
>The IAOC offered four explanations at the plenary:
>1) There's an RFC that requires us to wear badges.

If that is FYI 17:

   "You need to be wearing your badge in order to get into
    the terminal room."

You could remind the IAOC that not all RFCs are standards. :-)

>3) We've had past problems with equipment disappearing, and


>4) "The local host requires ... checking the people in the meeting
>areas who are registered for the meeting".  (Point 4 verbatim from
>the transcript.)

That is likely a side effect due to meeting location or due to language issues.

>The first two answers are not on point: we do not have badge police 
>on working group rooms at a normal IETF meeting[1].

By badge police, I gather that you mean that admittance to a working 
group session is not regulated.