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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 30 January 2017 23:28 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 E01DF129C59 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:28:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 RHjCuQtawpQu for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:28:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x232.google.com (mail-pf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::232]) (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 9B363129C5B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:28:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id e4so94694307pfg.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:28:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=s3EWiVlhkGtH1b3YyBMSw5E8FlSheGw28jqJ9rnZP6A=; b=UOEC0f1Qn1v657LHknhMes1A3hcvQR3XhAvsPlHvFUXplZk5JKW2t2rghtnZ1qRWud 4erQGgcKtpGal++8joBGarbbfc1B0/bRxtpq4CTLCfolugKPDOiGWYlulJ50SKKIMmlX lOB9bfSDCzij5I5PSMs5hrhyGkeZine0RkGuYcfqDEYWk4ZHz8x5Exk/l8PVqxPXopIA jYdAfVx38OOCHhaxP9y0UxDwobxJGdGUAcs+PyfUngChp5kE0cakHrcCJtg32iXjtw66 cIGclx5oSFGWlSydOZiEB7L9BJCvoYEHwUqaDD7N6AdP3DaBkh/rVJDSBDHyoWSUaLh5 Pu2w==
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:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=s3EWiVlhkGtH1b3YyBMSw5E8FlSheGw28jqJ9rnZP6A=; b=PKUJZzKGvbK5DoMWDILSyI1yARu6kIpax91PwLDDjeSE6rlBxl9kHs1YvEz+Hmehhf nLkwYCFaOU2/VAHJC4P5x0m0X9pwGXp+OJeUM7TuEgDD7sDF05vrD0sznLcpde3ikeG+ JMnzl/yuUsJN+IpL80bkP9qdQu8qWxF67KhItdixEhu2z/z7QBuUum77t9H/vY1WoEAP nfUfXuxhIjamFzWNAMT8y/sHrWsJA2YBR+LysurgBgpOVkQvyaJvX4uoh16tapDDBCF7 IHdo2w6Qp0NizIBbmqd2anjtLIizvBMEhyLNX0haTNeMJAILRf7Gh/hNjZsmh78QqTK7 UTOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIe0Dbgg/7lECL830xUcptFpDbcWE9cr94QHY2ZEFvb8/kJYEsGckEGHKAAlcbt7Q==
X-Received: by 10.98.206.6 with SMTP id y6mr25739367pfg.122.1485818929835; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:28:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76? ([2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m29sm35221938pfi.54.2017.01.30.15.28.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:28:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <20170130183846.21994.qmail@server322.com> <AB7E9EDD-C313-4821-8BEC-D0AF57D80DA2@nohats.ca> <2D08A4C9-969C-4EFD-8782-84728C458EA3@piuha.net> <A3CBB0CB-4F71-4C10-8F13-3BDBFCFF5314@piuha.net>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <8dc87024-0b82-f61e-d9f8-233d68516db7@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:28:47 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A3CBB0CB-4F71-4C10-8F13-3BDBFCFF5314@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wS8SKltWyADcXMCu8VixGkRoR5Q>
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 23:28:53 -0000

Thanks, Jari. That and Kathy's post are good as immediate reactions.

Beyond that, I think Mike St Johns nailed it: a formal statement
from ISOC, whose official advisor on standards-making is the IAB,
which is appointed by the IETF NomCom. ISOC has some formal standing
and lobbying experience. In fact, ISOC was partly created for this.

Meanwhile, dust off your copies of RFC 1984, 2804 and 7258. I think
we'll be needing them before long.

Regards
   Brian

On 31/01/2017 09:13, Jari Arkko wrote:
> FYI
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/blog/2017/01/barriers-to-entry/
> 
> Jari
>