Re: [Mtgvenue] Issue #21: unfiltered should be mandatory

It might be worthwhile to try to define "unfiltered". I, personally, have no problem with the hotel or anyone else preventing access to known purveyors of malware, which happens to coincide with porn etc, and might be describable in terms of reputation at common reputation services. Several have stated (and I agree) that VPNs need to be OK, and access to anything that would be business-relevant to an international business traveller. Trying to describe it as "illegal" intersects with the country's laws, which we might or might not approve of. In such cases, the point might be to not position meetings in places where we would be uncomfortable with ambient legal restrictions rather than a comment about the fact of filtering.

BCP 38 is an odd restriction. It is about outbound filtering at an upstream router - it prevents *me* from sending traffic with spoofed addresses. The point here isn't bad behavior on our part, but behavior on the network's part preventing access to content and services that are somewhere else.

> On Apr 19, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ted,
> 
> Let me then try to articulate two concrete criteria:
> 
> "MANDATORY: Within the bounds of BCP38, both the Facility and IETF
> hotels provide unfiltered access to the maximum extent permitted by law."
> 
> And then:
> 
> "IMPORTANT: Within the bounds of BCP38, the Facility and IETF Hotels
> provide unfiltered access.  (This criterion is present for the cases
> where laws may require ISPs to filter certain traffic)."[*]
> 
> Is the IAOC comfortable having to do the research on that?  Are others
> comfortable with that?  Wordsmithing?  Is this what people want?  Please
> comment.
> 
> Eliot
> [*] The text in ()s is there to explain why there are two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> Mtgvenue@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue