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

Randy Bush <> Mon, 30 January 2017 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7337129474 for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:30:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JWh0yBQLumEg for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:30:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6820F12954B for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:30:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1cYEqL-0003Ll-Mb for; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:30:14 +0000
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:30:11 +0900
Message-ID: <>
From: Randy Bush <>
To: IETF <>
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
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: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:30:21 -0000

> let me spin jari's point a bit differently.
> if the outrageous actions out of washington are less than one a week, i
> for one will be surprised.  and i strongly encourage protest, funding
> the aclu, etc etc.  [ and i have been pushing back against stateside
> meetings for a looooong time ]
> but there will soon be violations of rights and sanity which are not so
> obvious to the general public, but will be in the internet community's
> domain.  the internet community will need all the energy and resources
> we can muster to deal with those directly on our turf.
> expect years of outrageous fascist hateful acts and plan your resource
> expenditures accordingly.

btw, i seem to have been unclear.  i do not agree with this position, i
just meant to clarify it.  pushing it to some commmittee/wg is a sign of
a lack of will.

but sadly, i do not think the ietf has the guts and the vision to even
do what an organization such as the iacr, crypto assn which has long
experience with real politik etc. has done, see

do not be the folk who sat in the planes which were driven into the
towers.  i would rather be with the folk on United 93.