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

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Mon, 30 January 2017 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
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 1CE7F129A5E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:24:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 kYnZn_hBkzaI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:24:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x235.google.com (mail-pg0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 735BF12954B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:24:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x235.google.com with SMTP id 14so103013803pgg.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:24:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=ROlm2UpzZLI5blmCcH+WSbcZT/2Kugl6dpi0TpXjRwc=; b=Cl8QwKpVTSVOKblKNwKQtqfZpAkbmY1wCkICFOLt+OQz9K0Ly5/bLnSOE+YcoHs9dn DIt+eZNybjppKvzacPlrXuDkG1AfRDUM/OQv++AyVNRblJZq3lTa5XAVETxOVs5mljjP bYvChXqm/Hn8iEia6lJ9OPYgcl6jkAJ1QJ+FnrwCklNlmlWuRGe0mwfbSNkrm55BR86F M/jNxTu3VgppDwaEmkJHNMwZfWLe+JbyqqAt6dFgOBamzOAGIHQQriNw2DuhUQySIYxQ 53JC9t5pz2oBoagFYIeiRnDCBCnbJl365tZrW0ZyUiba3vOzXUuZDCq3ctJh3Ql+RcLl BUuw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=ROlm2UpzZLI5blmCcH+WSbcZT/2Kugl6dpi0TpXjRwc=; b=Wk7ZbXjsFSZwJ1Zdjr5VzNs9DuZdGEz9w/yh427dN9BwgTXNKzIv6Emo7ECBHUKsi6 fbOTYuiRa28Zyacmo070LviAFU9kpcHlXvySEw+gV+jFrCOZ1s+s87JFgCcvV+jMjaFP dg58UWEiL3AjTHPPrxVxWnP+A8PrpUUpW29ivzm+zPOuBDlpzgqpSeuE4sjiliPPvVa5 MbAdM2Q0/xKn31MAGMDwWmhCXaCdwLcNt2je+BwHI6CGxlFWaJb9SOeAYLICOQQDYvJg iUSFYsFJhfGSE3ZcD8LbADpXCRkjK12jDtOTosnzVTKNu5fowCWBwKiVUYlgyS01WLPu 3yhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJjZ996Utis6IvR8eN2Nb3+RGbr2fveUjAKFx171llq7TOSVw3N+1QwMTwb83XCPA==
X-Received: by 10.99.101.131 with SMTP id z125mr25239840pgb.218.1485800640757; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:24:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local (216-67-10-189-radius.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [216.67.10.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j78sm34393049pfk.39.2017.01.30.10.23.59 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:24:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJ78ECZ5x8LsR53KhRFnbhi3gV7n8yzG07e1wbN-SG14Q@mail.gmail.com> <8f5ef9ac-b62b-863a-0a0e-f5d2b329de09@nostrum.com> <20170129134410.GA14422@gsp.org> <4D233FE8-6E84-446F-A8ED-604E4F7EAB99@piuha.net> <m2lgtseuhu.wl-randy@psg.com> <m28tpsecj0.wl-randy@psg.com> <ddd07b90-60c6-20fb-f972-9036c0c06bbb@gmail.com> <3758f87a-7dcb-c11f-d215-2da15ca8fd1d@comcast.net>
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ed2538dd-e094-1712-b7d8-9e0e28dcd06a@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:23:56 -0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3758f87a-7dcb-c11f-d215-2da15ca8fd1d@comcast.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wwg3bCcgnR0Hauj4Q2Mw9JjafWr8InTLA"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jyra0WmpImYnYAstapuVA-048L8>
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 18:24:03 -0000

On 1/30/17 8:14 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> I would like to
> suggest that we (the IAB and IESG and IETF Chair) request the ISOC draft
> a message along the lines of what the ACM and IACR and others have
> already written.  This would include such details as the affect on the
> IETF's meetings and the ISOC's outreach program and would ask them to
> incorporate suggestions from the IETF community on content (but leaving
> the wording to ISOC).  I'd also suggest they provide a signature page
> where IETF community members may endorse the ISOC message.

> I would further suggest that a faster but not perfect note is better
> than the alternative.

Yes, I agree with both paragraphs.  I'll add that I very much
trust the IETF leadership to come up with the right text on this.

Melinda