Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Tue, 09 June 2020 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
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 5AB163A0D35 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 12:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
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 2YdLjkmIZXMG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 12:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D80E13A0D63 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 12:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-15v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.111]) by resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id ijpajH85VKcgOijwCj9RkJ; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 19:29:32 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=20190202a; t=1591730972; bh=OLaTY2oNFLlkkLoljufVmXvH0edNlL7CNNHBuU/5oQ4=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=COgRXRMPewgf6eIvOeKokgrTgY+WjJr9y3cGvsdjIHzAM4UcqdGtNbss7TRW0+pfa gfahjp2gsvrufGv+zBseixzz4ZB2aNh16RvoO8CdSx1O5Zr/2PkZkFNIYBRoPWlQqC 7yd7Dlfsj+ZHMSnlLr6Ryo/EDtoOUQIFZ/mMDntnC1MhyVhRv2S94/7yimxffIVTv0 sOagk08wO4AM10ZAClXwkJt6wJwJn4z5dxIN3sXSeB7auQ8obYROerqeRclS2e8inG vFtMNbQ0IleX2IHzhzfrmwkBdJdENL8bXzl8rI8wS9Qr91dSGuLzocpvSFIuHZUgcT HAUwR0n7ZSHpw==
Received: from [192.168.1.115] ([71.163.188.115]) by resomta-ch2-15v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPSA id ijvlj8bAAzoy1ijvmjrTST; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 19:29:25 +0000
X-Xfinity-VAAS: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudehgedgudegtdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucevohhmtggrshhtqdftvghsihdpqfgfvfdppffquffrtefokffrnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtsegrtderredtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefoihgthhgrvghlucfuthflohhhnhhsuceomhhsthhjohhhnhhssegtohhmtggrshhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeuvdefgfehgefhfffgleegueekleehhfejkeeggedvveetffdtkedukeefueduheenucfkphepjedurdduieefrddukeekrdduudehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehhvghloheplgduledvrdduieekrddurdduudehngdpihhnvghtpeejuddrudeifedrudekkedrudduhedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmshhtjhhohhhnshestghomhgtrghsthdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopehivghtfhesihgvthhfrdhorhhg
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=0.00;st=legit
Subject: Re: Specific Questions about Registration details for IETF 108
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <3B19A920-9D33-4E3D-8B8B-8134A5E55316@gmail.com> <86D7C39D-9778-4408-B7CA-CB74E9572B1B@ietf.org> <511A3EE0-976B-40FF-813A-58CC115E760A@gmail.com> <20200605153042.nospgcd7nku4luag@crankycanuck.ca> <FB3BDBCABF6F5FE86E54BF6D@PSB> <20200606030147.jx4cyox7j5wn7a24@crankycanuck.ca> <3aa1a619-904d-d699-52b3-32590b4093b9@labn.net> <ED0D140CAE95FA7851E7389C@PSB> <5A6C6F55-0FCD-4925-AB99-F8A5432ADA98@tzi.org>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <edb5827b-9450-3121-d4c6-e2cecba14d69@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:29:03 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5A6C6F55-0FCD-4925-AB99-F8A5432ADA98@tzi.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------62CA8F300CC8633AC47FE778"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wb0U2B5UW-kZyT456gg4Ae-w8Ic>
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: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 19:29:42 -0000

On 6/9/2020 2:23 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> We of course blew that principle off when we had a few meetings
>> in which where badge checks at meeting room doors and we tried
>> experiments about badge readers at microphones.  And, IIR, we
>> instituted the former with a lot less discussion and fuss than
>> the current changes have caused.
> Badge readers always were optional (I never managed to properly operate one).
>
> Badge checks were a one-time thing needed for a meeting in a country that made this a prerequisite for Internet access.  I think we accepted that regression as the one-time thing it was because Internet access is something very unusual in that country and we were very happy to be able to meet there.

To be clear here (and I believe this is correct) - we - the IETF - did 
not impose the badge checks.   AFAICT they were hired without knowledge 
or consent of the IETF and just appeared.   In one case, possession of 
the badge was not sufficient for entry - the badge checkers refused 
entry when the badge did not match the (local) person.

And I would argue that "we were very happy to be able to meet there" was 
not a universally held emotion.