Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

Michael StJohns <> Thu, 26 May 2016 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D6BF12D13A for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.126
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.126 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_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J7bMLkqic1aK for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B15AA12D0FF for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by comcast with SMTP id 5zkhbyvmHbFYY5zpubf5Dp; Thu, 26 May 2016 18:16:46 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=q20140121; t=1464286606; bh=bh4sWkw2qhLBPjrkxC9CqO25qyPKbHNLfZxjou/aweU=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=E45NxsFrXyC5bceKczyXqrnbewlAiCeNqquH9GkaAqXSJjuKxXnpS6GvcUQl64x75 pvU6rJIVxPvxvLqhZq/OYpy27epywGEDti5W0nqt2T2j6G5RcS9DUZ563pstWb/zof 3tVF/nVAJ3OEbvP8eXkcN4ikcVXz7O+Y2M4T2FwuMw/JQQGCf2UZpV0duWjO/oVYbw 0O5185SpwaFndM66v05X9m6+hdJwL6N0pmP2/exzo+kdKF5HWyBPcrBlC1zIa37kbB FIBZvc7FbgMMdK8UPbjOr682Asz1gKr3IEbC2Qzs8SNBcHZJLZuh7fj4nV0KAtGDVS QU4H6sFwRZgMw==
Received: from [IPv6:2601:148:c000:1951:ce8:defc:364c:54f3] ([IPv6:2601:148:c000:1951:ce8:defc:364c:54f3]) by with comcast id z6Gl1s00C3g7ZFv016Gl7e; Thu, 26 May 2016 18:16:45 +0000
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Michael StJohns <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:17:18 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 18:16:48 -0000

On 5/26/2016 3:29 AM, Sandoche Balakrichenan wrote:
> On 25/05/16 22:44, Melinda Shore wrote:
>> On 5/25/16 12:36 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>> It's probably easier to enumerate who's excluded than who's included:
>> No, it's still not really working.
>> Would we, for example, be willing to meet in a place that
>> criminalizes Muslims or Jews or Hindus?  I sincerely hope not,
>> and I don't think that we would.
> If this is the case for the president, jsut imagine for the common
> people attending the IETF.
I was standing in line at Dulles Airport  TSA PreCheck about a 18 months 
ago when I noticed some discussion happening between the TSA guy and a 
United concierge who was escorting a VIP. Apparently, TSA *really* does 
random full checks and TSA *really* makes everyone go through them.  In 
this case, I caught our former Secretary of State Madeline Albright 
looking nonplussed and then just smiling and moving over to the "full 
monty" line.

To be honest, I prefer that occasionally even the most privileged of us 
have to occasionally deal with what the rest of us have to deal with - I 
consider it a strength and a reminder to those in power that there are 
somethings to which we are all required to submit.