Re: [79all] IETF Badge

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 11 November 2010 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94EE63A6948 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:04:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LQnZKBKS5y0F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:04:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C083A68C4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:04:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-4316.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-4316.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.67.22]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3AACD40BB9; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:14:14 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4CDC141F.6070609@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:04:47 +0800
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1011090344110.46514@fledge.watson.org> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B2202288A0B@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <4CDBCD06.2020108@dcrocker.net> <4CDBFAE7.6030800@ripe.net> <4CDC0A4E.3040604@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4CDC0A4E.3040604@dcrocker.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms080902010803060601020303"
Cc: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>, Henk Uijterwaal <henk@ripe.net>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:04:21 -0000

On 11/11/10 11:22 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/11/2010 10:17 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
>> On 11/11/2010 12:01, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>
>>> It is a change in practice.  It is not a change in formal requirement.
>>> This has (always?) been an unenforced requirement.(*)
>>
>> No, I've been refused entry to the terminal room at least once because
>> I did
>> not wear my badge.  In some venues (Maastricht, Paris, and maybe others)
>> a badge was needed to enter the building early in the morning or late in
>> the evening.
> 
> 
> Security on the terminal room is long-standing.  It has equipment in it.

To be fair, so might the meeting rooms (audio equipment, projectors,
etc.). Perhaps in this instance the hotel was concerned about theft of
such equipment. However, we don't know why the policy was so strictly
enforced this time, nor whether the IAOC or the Secretariat was asked to
do so by the hotel or by the local host. And if people don't know the
cause they begin to speculate.

When might the IAOC be able to provide a definitive answer?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/