Re: Concerns about Singapore

<chopps@chopps.org> Sun, 10 April 2016 13:38 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 1CF9B12D592 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 06:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 PpufqOVMATXP for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 06:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33EE912D570 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 06:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tops.chopps.org (24-247-68-31.dhcp.trcy.mi.charter.com [24.247.68.31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C73E61176; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:38:42 +0000 (UTC)
References: <0D914666-C3D4-4CCE-AD5E-4E5B34EA1A73@piuha.net> <20160407182936.GA21340@pfrc.org> <CAB75xn780nNDjGa_Cc222J20-+1CCHt09Xp8KHzaK=n0xx51pg@mail.gmail.com> <5706B100.9040509@mnt.se> <CAB75xn6fmj84ROUtG5eUB3GerHx83hrEr3w5vSADY_g=BRg5FA@mail.gmail.com> <5706BA40.3060005@mnt.se> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1604072157240.31096@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A9B63A6D-3102-482F-8FFC-2E57A5FD8336@nic.cz> <16925.1460122349@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <m27fg77zst.wl%randy@psg.com> <57097077.7040703@comcast.net> <m2fuuu75ls.wl%randy@psg.com>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.16; emacs 24.5.1
From: <chopps@chopps.org>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
In-reply-to: <m2fuuu75ls.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:38:41 -0400
Message-ID: <87wpo5a8im.fsf@tops.chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/lHl6CCkCSASbYG85T-5RTNtZrfg>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:38:44 -0000

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> writes:

>> Calling the Beijing meeting network open isn't really correct - we had
>> a reverse VPN to the Internet as it exists outside of the PRC.
>
> false.  and i was the noc guy working it.

I'm curious how it was different. I was certainly was under the
impression that IETF was treated differently than the general populous,
making some/most people OK with the meeting being held there.

Thanks,
Chris.