At 08:26 01-07-10, Fred Baker wrote:
While it is new in IETF meetings, it is far from unusual in WiFi
networks to find some form of authentication. This happens at coffee
shops, college campuses, corporate campuses, and people's
apartments. I think I would need some more data before I concluded
this was unreasonable.
I didn't conclude that it was unreasonable for reasons that are not
mentioned above.
At 08:41 01-07-10, Dave CROCKER wrote:
attendance includes many local folk. Once upon a time, IETF
meetings constituted an extremely collegial environment among folks
who knew each other. Today, attendance is much more diverse.
Yes.
At 08:50 01-07-10, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I would have to disagree. You were probably not even born when we
had real terminal rooms with real terminals and computers and mean
looking security guards who very much did check badges. As stewards
No comment.
of the IETF meeting resources, I would say that it is perfectly
reasonable for the IAOC (or the local host) to control access to
<insert resource> to only meeting participants. There is no principal
difference between cookies and network here as far as I am concerned.
And as others have pointed out, access control to WiFi networks is
the norm rather than the exception, even when they are "free".
Two points:
1. Resources are finite
2. There can be abuse
Having an open IETF network should not be read as an encouragement
for abuse or to make abusive use of the resources. Some people may
read it as an encouragement to do that. As long as that number is
insignificant, it's not a problem. These people should not read this
as meaning that they will get away with abuse.
In my initial message I mentioned that "the person enjoyed the same
privileges as those who have paid". Strictly speaking, that's a side
effect of not enforcing access control. My message should also not
be read as an encouragement not to pay to attend the meeting. The
IETF might not be sustainable without the revenue from attendance fees.
At 12:05 01-07-10, Russ Housley wrote:
Not totally right. The person with a badge can get one or more slips
with anonymous registration ID/passwords. The badge-holder can then
share the slip with accompanying persons (such as spouse or kids or <
let's not go there ;-) > ).
The paragraph about that in the announcement did not go unnoticed.
At 12:38 01-07-10, Martin Rex wrote:
Is there no more Terminal room on IETF these days with LAN access,
where access to the area is monitored but access to the network
is not de-anonymized?
There were such access at some point. The IAOC may be able to
confirm whether it will still be available.
At 16:19 01-07-10, Michael StJohns wrote:
I agree with the above statement, but its really beside the
point. The issue is not that the IETF and IETF attendees are
required to obey the laws of the venue, but rather whether or not
the IETF chooses to hold a meeting in a venue where the law is
sufficiently ... restrictive, draconian, capricious, ?? ...
to require the IETF to change its model of operation.
There was a long discussion about that because the venue was
selected. My previous message was not to focus on that.
This was specific to the "hotel gets to cancel the meeting on a
whim" issue, but seems somewhat applicable to this topic. We're
instituting a new set of mechanisms , specific to this venue, not
driven by changes requested or suggested by the IETF. So we're not
doing this as "run it in a fashon as we always have".
Yes.
I would expect this (per user login) to fade away after Beijing -
unless and until the IAOC and IETF agrees that its necessary for the
longer term. And I don't believe that discussion has been had.
Yes.
With respect to this - it's too late to change the venue - and we're
at the whim of the venue governments and regulations so we're pretty
much stuck. I'm hoping that further restrictions or changes will
not be imposed, but don't know that I'm confident that will be the case.
That's the reason why I didn't consider it as reasonable to argue
about this change. This does not mean that I would consider it as
unreasonable if you or someone else was to raise such an argument.
Going back to the IAOC, I would ask whether this requirement was
known at the time of the previous Beijing discussion? If so, why
wasn't it brought up at that point in time and as part of the
discussion on venue acceptability. If it was added later, when was
it added, and why wasn't the requirement made known to the broader
IETF prior to announcing the solution? Finally, I know this is a
hypothetical, but would this requirement have tipped the IAOC
decision the other way had it been known at the same time of the
previous discussion?
These questions came to mind. I preferred not to ask them.
I don't mean to pick on either you or the IAOC - you both are doing
a reasonable job steering among the shoals of the needs of the
various constituencies - just consider this an inquiry into how the
IETF should decide on how to decide whether a venue is acceptable.
Agreed.
At 20:27 01-07-10, Health wrote:
ietf internet access is only for ietfers for free.
What is your definition of "ietfers"?
My initial message was more about social distance. I don't know
whether the admission control requirement is a sign that the gap
cannot be bridged.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
