IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108

Samuel Weiler <weiler@csail.mit.edu> Thu, 11 June 2020 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <weiler@csail.mit.edu>
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 878E73A08CA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.234
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.234 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 AuWBbQiGsG4d for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [204.107.128.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB5883A08C7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from celebrae2015mbp (c-24-63-251-193.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.63.251.193]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81E0746F85; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 21:04:26 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:04:25 -0400
From: Samuel Weiler <weiler@csail.mit.edu>
To: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108
In-Reply-To: <1632517.0ksbkUODB5@sk-desktop>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.20.2006111702270.535@celebrae2015mbp>
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <5A6C6F55-0FCD-4925-AB99-F8A5432ADA98@tzi.org> <alpine.OSX.2.20.2006111455350.20223@celebrae2015mbp> <1632517.0ksbkUODB5@sk-desktop>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (OSX 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ve-ojqstFIAqJws-4XZwdcJKjV8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 21:04:30 -0000

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> On Thursday, June 11, 2020 3:36:16 PM EDT Samuel Weiler wrote:
>> In any case, I think the Beijing debacle does not set precedent, since
>> that requirement was imposed by someone other than ourselves.  Badge
>> checking is not normal practice at a normal IETF meeting.  And the
>> Beijing meeting was not normal.
>
> The IETF held the meeting there knowing what the requirement would be, so no.
> The IETF made the choice.  Every location is different.  When the IETF decides
> to meet somewhere, then the IETF has determined that local conditions are
> acceptable.

We knew about the network access control requirement (as demonstrated 
by the experiment in Maastricht).  We did not know about the badge 
police.

-- Sam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email