Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerninga future meeting of the IETF
all in all, Since IETF only focus on and discuss technical issues, has the issue of politics or human right been discussed in the past IETF meeting? if the answer is "NO", there should have none probles of hold a meeting in China. Yao - Original Message - From: "Dave CROCKER" To: "IETF Discussion" Cc: "IAOC IAOC" Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:21 AM Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerninga future meeting of the IETF > > > Olaf Kolkman wrote: >> Do you have evidence that those items could not be discussed or do you >> suspect that those items could not have been discussed? > > When discussed as other than a technical matter, "privacy" is typically > viewed > as a human rights topic. > > Discussion of human rights issues is prohibited by the contract. > > > But we all really need to be more careful about discussing this contracted > constraint. To add to some of the latest comments posted: > > This is not about "engaging" China and Chinese people in the IETF. They are, > and > have been for many years, fully engaged in the IETF, with some IETF technical > work of particular importance to China. Again: Chinese participants are > already fully engaged in the IETF and have been for a long time. > > If our ability to hold a meeting in a particular venue is a test of the > hosting > country's engagement in IETF work, then this represents yet one more reason > we > should routinize our meetings, holding them in a fixed set of places. We > should > seek to avoid having this been an opportunity for the IETF to give offense or > suffer a bad meeting, or for a country to be offended. Having this sort of > political concern be a factor in what really ought to be mundane meeting > logistics administration strikes me a strategically distracting. (And, like > others, I think it both arrogant and silly to think that the IETF can > influence > anyone else's culture; we have enough problems with our own...) > > Rather, I will again suggest that the question needs to be about the match > between the /particular/ details of IETF operational culture, versus > /particular/ rules at a venue. Not in terms of principles but in terms of > behavior. > > I have enjoyed the meetings I have attended in China and was impressed with > both > the expertise of local participants and the hosting details. But Asian > organizations, like APNIC, industry trade associations like 3gPP, and frankly > every other group I've been around, have meeting styles that are nothing like > the range displayed in the IETF. > > Imagine that the rule in question were that all attendees had to wear either > a > coat and tie, or a skirt, and that violation of that rule would cause > individuals to be excluded, with broad enough violation terminating the > meeting. > Imagine further that various folk assured us that individual violations of > that rule wouldn't cause a problem. Would we agree to such a constraint? I > doubt it. Yet it's really a very mild effort to ensure a reasonable business > tone for a meeting. > > But it doesn't match the realities of an IETF meeting. > > I find it hard to believe that the discussion about net neutrality that we > had > at the last plenary would be acceptable according to the rules of the > contract > now in question. And I find it hard to imagine that having that plenary in > Beijing would not have elicited far stronger and more pointed and > specifically > problematic comments from the floor. Again: We are an indelicate group. > Let's > not pretend otherwise and let's not pretend that decades of consistent > behavior > will magically change for a meeting in a particular venue. > > And we should be careful at arm-waving dismissals of the concerns. The > constraints in the contract are real and meaningful and, as noted, they are > unlike anything the IETF has had to agree to in more than 20 years of > meetings. > It does not matter whether any of us individually approves or disapproves of > the rules. Equally, it does not matter whether other groups have agreed to > the > rules and had successful meetings. > > What should matter is whether agreeing to the rules makes sense, given the > realities of IETF meeting behavior. > > As for the survey, it only queries whether folks will attend, given the > constraint. Or rather, it only queries whether folks /say/ they will attend. > Whether they actually do attend will not be known. Survey questions like this > measure attitude, not behavior. > > Better, there are various other, important questions it doesn't ask. So > let's > be very careful about what we claim is learned from the survey. > > Also, let's be careful about our expectations, should the meeting be held in > Beijing, with the constraints being agreed to. It is quite likely that > problems > that ensue will not be as visible or as massive as some folk have put forw
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Personally, I have three specific concerns with a meeting in China: (1) The law and associated hotel rule Marshall quoted could be violated by what may appear to IETF participants as technical discussion. For example, the manipulation/censorship of Internet traffic by or under orders of the Chinese government is well known. If this were to be mentioned or discussed during the IETF, perhaps in the context of encryption, tunneling, web proxy, DNS, or some other technical area, we could run be violating the law and hence the rule. (2) This is a very personal concern, but my experience with China is that it is among the worst places to try and avoid tobacco smoke. (3) Similarly to (2), my experience in Bejing has been that the air is exceptionally polluted. Hence, I'd be concerned for those IETF members who would find this makes participation difficult. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
SECDIR review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This document provides a set of observations on whether the SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport (RFC 1652) should be advanced from Draft Standard to Standard. It matches the document against the criteria of RFC 2026, and poses questions to the IESG about the acceptability of the document for a full Standard, along three axes: 1. Proposed changes 2. Any other changes necessary (none listed) 3. Downward references I do not believe that this document raises any security concerns beyond those of the underlying document (RFC 1652). All of the proposed changes are simple updates to current references (e.g., adding RFC 5321 in addition to RFC 821). None of the proposed changes or downward references are related to the security of the protocol. --Richard ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Sorry - over generalizing here - but I think fairly.Change "PRC" to "this hotel under the terms of the contract as presented in the initial contract" and add "without violating the terms of the contract to the end of the statement" and consider what I said again. A plain text reading of those terms would - I believe - ban these types of discussions. But I'll mostly stand by my original comments given that the contract terms as presented to us, were presented to the hotel by the government and are there to enforce a government requirement. If the terms were simply those imposed by this site, and we could get other terms at other locations in the country - let's do that. But those terms are imposed on the host by the hotel at the behest of the government and are apparently not negotiable regardless of which site in the country we choose. At 01:36 PM 9/20/2009, Olaf Kolkman wrote: >On Sep 20, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > >> >>Some 15 years ago, the IETF had a plenary session on the NSA's >>CLIPPER chip initiative. That was a hot topic of the time and was a >>great example of open discussion. >> >>That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC. >> >>We've had various discussions on P2P systems and their ability to >>evade government restrictions. >> >>That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC. >> >>We've had discussions on E164 and whether or not the owner of >>E164.ARPA could allocate a country code for Taiwan. >> >>That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC. > > > >Mike, > >Do you have evidence that those items could not be discussed or do you >suspect that those items could not have been discussed? > > >--Olaf > > > > > > > >Olaf M. KolkmanNLnet Labs > Science Park 140, >http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam > > > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Steve, No, ignoring extreme situations and unless a promise of no Internet access censorship for the IETF meeting can be obtained, it is a choice between endorsing censorship or opposing it. Networks censored on a political, religious, and cultural basis do not "Bring People Together". Your message below is fundamentally inconsistent. You claim that the IETF is so insignificant that if it doesn't meet in China, the IETF will become irrelevant. Yet you claim that the IETF is so significant that if it holds a meeting in China and there are troubles, this will strike a severe blow against China's aspirations. You can't have it both way. Donald On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: > The choice is between engaging and not engaging. Engaging is better. Not > engaging isn't constructive. The Internet and the IETF are all about > engaging, expanding, communicating and being open. Much of this dialog has > been worried about possible extreme situations. Let's focus on the center. > More than a billion people live in China and their use of the Internet is > expanding rapidly. They are building much of the technology and > contributing technically. It's to everyone's advantage to have comfortable, > constructive interaction. Our first slogan was "Networks Bring People > Together." > > If you prefer to focus on the negatives, here's my analysis: > > If we don't go to China, we have charted a downhill course and the rest of > the world will come together without us. The IETF will lose relevance. > > If we do go to China and something bad happens, the consequences will be > much worse for China than for the IETF. The work of the IETF will suffer a > bit, but we'll recover quickly enough. However, China's quest for > engagement with the rest of the world will be hurt more seriously. > > Bottom line: We should go to China with a positive attitude. We're robust > enough to deal with any consequences. If we don't go to China, however, we > have weakened ourselves. > > Steve ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Olaf Kolkman wrote: Do you have evidence that those items could not be discussed or do you suspect that those items could not have been discussed? When discussed as other than a technical matter, "privacy" is typically viewed as a human rights topic. Discussion of human rights issues is prohibited by the contract. But we all really need to be more careful about discussing this contracted constraint. To add to some of the latest comments posted: This is not about "engaging" China and Chinese people in the IETF. They are, and have been for many years, fully engaged in the IETF, with some IETF technical work of particular importance to China. Again: Chinese participants are already fully engaged in the IETF and have been for a long time. If our ability to hold a meeting in a particular venue is a test of the hosting country's engagement in IETF work, then this represents yet one more reason we should routinize our meetings, holding them in a fixed set of places. We should seek to avoid having this been an opportunity for the IETF to give offense or suffer a bad meeting, or for a country to be offended. Having this sort of political concern be a factor in what really ought to be mundane meeting logistics administration strikes me a strategically distracting. (And, like others, I think it both arrogant and silly to think that the IETF can influence anyone else's culture; we have enough problems with our own...) Rather, I will again suggest that the question needs to be about the match between the /particular/ details of IETF operational culture, versus /particular/ rules at a venue. Not in terms of principles but in terms of behavior. I have enjoyed the meetings I have attended in China and was impressed with both the expertise of local participants and the hosting details. But Asian organizations, like APNIC, industry trade associations like 3gPP, and frankly every other group I've been around, have meeting styles that are nothing like the range displayed in the IETF. Imagine that the rule in question were that all attendees had to wear either a coat and tie, or a skirt, and that violation of that rule would cause individuals to be excluded, with broad enough violation terminating the meeting. Imagine further that various folk assured us that individual violations of that rule wouldn't cause a problem. Would we agree to such a constraint? I doubt it. Yet it's really a very mild effort to ensure a reasonable business tone for a meeting. But it doesn't match the realities of an IETF meeting. I find it hard to believe that the discussion about net neutrality that we had at the last plenary would be acceptable according to the rules of the contract now in question. And I find it hard to imagine that having that plenary in Beijing would not have elicited far stronger and more pointed and specifically problematic comments from the floor. Again: We are an indelicate group. Let's not pretend otherwise and let's not pretend that decades of consistent behavior will magically change for a meeting in a particular venue. And we should be careful at arm-waving dismissals of the concerns. The constraints in the contract are real and meaningful and, as noted, they are unlike anything the IETF has had to agree to in more than 20 years of meetings. It does not matter whether any of us individually approves or disapproves of the rules. Equally, it does not matter whether other groups have agreed to the rules and had successful meetings. What should matter is whether agreeing to the rules makes sense, given the realities of IETF meeting behavior. As for the survey, it only queries whether folks will attend, given the constraint. Or rather, it only queries whether folks /say/ they will attend. Whether they actually do attend will not be known. Survey questions like this measure attitude, not behavior. Better, there are various other, important questions it doesn't ask. So let's be very careful about what we claim is learned from the survey. Also, let's be careful about our expectations, should the meeting be held in Beijing, with the constraints being agreed to. It is quite likely that problems that ensue will not be as visible or as massive as some folk have put forward as the strawman alternative. In other words, when thinking about likely outcomes, don't assume it will be all black or all white. Systemic hassles are usually pursued more subtly than that. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Roni wrote: Furthermore I believe that even though people are allowed to have their opinions about a specific country politics or values the IETF is not the place to bring them forward regardless of the meeting location. The IETF is a technical body and not the UN. Yes. It really will not be a productive use of email space to comment on each other's countries as if we had studied the culture and socio-political situation in any more depth than the mass media in our own countries shows us. Surely individuals are free to make their own choices about attending or staying away. If sufficient individuals stated their intention to stay away (for whatever reason), that would give the IAOC pause for thought because the success of the meeting is dependent on attendance. But otherwise we should just make up our own minds and act on our own principles. Adrian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning afuture meeting of the IETF
On Sep 20, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: I'd be happy to have a WG meeting in the PRC - on topics other than those common to the security area, but I remain concerned about prior restraint for the IETF as a whole as a price of holding a meeting there. I wonder if we could ask. Is that too simple? We have plenty of minutes of previous meetings, slidesets, and I-Ds/RFCs. We even have audio recordings. There have been loads of Chinese nationals at the meetings who could comment. Can we find out in advance whether the material is even close to being an issue to the Chinese government? My guess is that it would not be and that clearing the air in this way would be welcomed. Thanks, Adrian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Tim, The government of China is NOT the host of the meeting. Beyond normal courtesy as you cross the border (unless you want to be detained), I wouldn't expect you to act in any particular way towards government officials. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, Tim Bray wrote: > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Marshall Eubanks > wrote: > > > Politeness and respect towards the Host, yes, of > > course. Censorship of technical discussions, pre or otherwise, no. > > Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that. It is an incontrovertible fact > that there are many people who feel the PRC government is corrupt > and authoritarian, sends its armed forces to shoot down peaceful > protesters, brutally oppresses national minorities, invades some > neighbors and threatens to invade others, kidnaps and locks up > people for expressing their opinions; is essentially barbarous and > thus has forfeited any right to respect from civilized people. To > be fair, you can find people who have a gripe with any government in > the world, although China's is unusually controversial. In any > case, respect for any particular governing body really can't be > imposed as a precondition of attending any meeting anywhere. > > -Tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sep 20, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Tim Bray wrote: On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Politeness and respect towards the Host, yes, of course. Censorship of technical discussions, pre or otherwise, no. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that. It is an incontrovertible fact that there are many people who feel the PRC government is corrupt and authoritarian, sends its armed forces to shoot down peaceful protesters, brutally oppresses national minorities, invades some neighbors and threatens to invade others, kidnaps and locks up people for expressing their opinions; is essentially barbarous and thus has forfeited any right to respect from civilized people. To be fair, you can find people who have a gripe with any government in the world, although China's is unusually controversial. In any case, respect for any particular governing body really can't be imposed as a precondition of attending any meeting anywhere. I was speaking purely for myself, and about our hosts. I believe that, if I accept someone's hospitality, that implies that I should show them politeness and respect while I am their guest. That is not the same as saying that I will agree with them, or even that I will hold my tongue, but I do try and be polite. Regards Marshall -Tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > Politeness and respect towards the Host, yes, of > course. Censorship of technical discussions, pre or otherwise, no. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that. It is an incontrovertible fact that there are many people who feel the PRC government is corrupt and authoritarian, sends its armed forces to shoot down peaceful protesters, brutally oppresses national minorities, invades some neighbors and threatens to invade others, kidnaps and locks up people for expressing their opinions; is essentially barbarous and thus has forfeited any right to respect from civilized people. To be fair, you can find people who have a gripe with any government in the world, although China's is unusually controversial. In any case, respect for any particular governing body really can't be imposed as a precondition of attending any meeting anywhere. -Tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
You said: "There was a message posted by Ole Jacobsen [2]. I read "host" in terms of premises and not in terms of country. It discloses the rules. The question is whether people attending a meeting can live with the "warning". Would you: (i) tone down your comments as there are people, irrespective of country, that find the IETF norm unbusiness-like. (ii) self-censor to avoid any interpretation that may be considered as infringing the rules. (iii) explore the limits of what is considered as acceptable." For clarification, "host" means the organization in China that is organizing the meeting, finding local sponsors etc, etc. The most recent host was .SE in Stockholm for IETF 75, the next host is WIDE for IETF 76 in Hiroshima. As for (i) and (ii), I would say "we should not have to". Beyond some cultural sensitivity which it's always good to observe, I don't think self-censorship is what is needed or requested. Regarding (iii), I would obviously not recommend such action, and apart from our usual desire to run experiments, I don't really see what purpose this would serve. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Dear Michael; What follows is purely my opinion. On Sep 20, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: Steve - Some 15 years ago, the IETF had a plenary session on the NSA's CLIPPER chip initiative. That was a hot topic of the time and was a great example of open discussion. That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC. I do not agree with this and the following assertions about what cannot be discussed in our technical meetings. These were all technical discussions and, while they may have political or other implications, is there any Internet technology for which that is not the case ? The basic engineering design of the Internet has fairly profound political implications. I have not censored my technical discussions in the past for political reasons and do not intend to do so in the future. I would be opposed to any meeting location that required such technical censorship. Politeness and respect towards the Host, yes, of course. Censorship of technical discussions, pre or otherwise, no. I do not feel that we will be technically censored in any Chinese IETF meeting and would certainly not have supported going forward with this, even to this extent, if I did feel that way. I recognize that this is ultimately a judgement call, and others may differ, but that is my opinion. Regards Marshall We've had various discussions on P2P systems and their ability to evade government restrictions. That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC. We've had discussions on E164 and whether or not the owner of E164.ARPA could allocate a country code for Taiwan. That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC. I'm not sure what the hot topics will be at the time of a PRC meeting and whether or not they might be offensive to the PRC government - there may be none or they may be non-offensive. The question I'd like us to consider: Is it in the best interests of the IETF to pre-censor ourselves as the price of holding a meeting in a specific venue? I don't know the answer to that question. If the answer is yes - let's do it... but it feels like we're losing something that's critical to the IETF. At 12:53 PM 9/20/2009, Steve Crocker wrote: I don't think the IETF, either as a whole, in any of its working groups, or as individuals, need feel inhibited about having the same sorts of discussions in Beijing that it would have anywhere else. Run the experiment and get some data. Survey attendees afterwards and find out what everyone felt. (My prediction: There will be more discussion about the usual problems of not enough cookies, location of restaurants, connectivity, etc.) Steve On Sep 20, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: Hi Steve - To paraphrase, you believe we should accept constraints upon the topics that can be raised at the meeting (stick to the center) as the cost of doing business in China. And the reason for that is to maintain the relevance of the IETF? I'm finding this argument not well constructed. I agree that engagement is good, but the IETF is about individuals and we engage better at a personal level than IETF to country. That can be accomplished at any venue - and possibly better at a venue without excessive constraints on discussion. I'd be happy to have a WG meeting in the PRC - on topics other than those common to the security area, but I remain concerned about prior restraint for the IETF as a whole as a price of holding a meeting there. At 03:55 PM 9/19/2009, Steve Crocker wrote: The choice is between engaging and not engaging. Engaging is better. Not engaging isn't constructive. The Internet and the IETF are all about engaging, expanding, communicating and being open. Much of this dialog has been worried about possible extreme situations. Let's focus on the center. More than a billion people live in China and their use of the Internet is expanding rapidly. They are building much of the technology and contributing technically. It's to everyone's advantage to have comfortable, constructive interaction. Our first slogan was "Networks Bring People Together." If you prefer to focus on the negatives, here's my analysis: If we don't go to China, we have charted a downhill course and the rest of the world will come together without us. The IETF will lose relevance. This construction is black and white and somewhat irrelevant. The IETF not meeting at this time in China is unlikely to make the rest of the world "come together without us". Nor will us going to the meeting be the sole reason for the world coming together with us. If we do go to China and something bad happens, the consequences will be much worse for China than for the IETF. The work of the IETF will suffer a bit, but we'll recover quickly enough. However, China's quest for engagement with the rest of the world will be hurt more seriously. There's bad and there's BAD. I'm mostly concerned not about
FW: Last Call: draft-ietf-rohc-ipsec-extensions-hcoipsec (IPsec Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec (ROHCoIPsec)) to Proposed Standard
All, Sorry for my belated response. This last workweek didn't allow me time to respond on the date requested. Comments: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-rohc-ipsec-extensions-hcoipsec-05.txt - 2.2. Security Association Database (SAD) "The ROHC Data Item includes the ROHC channel parameters for the SA. These channel parameters (i.e., MAX_CID, PROFILES, MRRU) are enumerated above in Section 2.1." I think that the "INTEGRITY ALGORITHM" should also be included here: "The ROHC Data Item includes the ROHC channel parameters for the SA. These channel parameters (i.e., MAX_CID, PROFILES, MRRU, INTEGRITY ALGORITHM) are enumerated above in Section 2.1." Bob Stangarone -Original Message- From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:48 AM To: IETF-Announce Cc: r...@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-rohc-ipsec-extensions-hcoipsec (IPsec Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec (ROHCoIPsec)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Robust Header Compression WG (rohc) to consider the following document: - 'IPsec Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec (ROHCoIPsec) ' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-09-17. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rohc-ipsec-extensions-hcoipse c-05.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=1640 9&rfc_flag=0 ___ IETF-Announce mailing list ietf-annou...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
At 12:55 19-09-2009, Steve Crocker wrote: The choice is between engaging and not engaging. Engaging is better. Not engaging isn't constructive. The Internet and the IETF are all about engaging, expanding, communicating and being open. Much of this dialog has been worried about possible extreme situations. Let's focus on the center. More than a billion people live in China and their use of the Internet is expanding rapidly. They are building much of the technology and contributing technically. It's to everyone's advantage to have comfortable, constructive interaction. Our first slogan was "Networks Bring People Together." As far as I am aware, the IETF engages participants from all countries, including China. There is on-going work within the IETF on technologies that will be useful to the people living in China. Participants from China do contribute to the IETF. I have not seen participants shun because they are from China or proposals shun because they are made by a participant from China or any other country. The IETF does not run the Internet. The IETF is not about politics. Some countries may not agree with the contents of RFC 1984 or RFC 2804. The "IETF does not take a moral position when there is no clear consensus around a single position". The choice is not about engaging or not engaging. The IAOC requested community guidance about a rule implemented in the Hotel agreement [1]. I do have some side questions but I prefer not to ask them for now. I suggest that the IAOC does not base its decision on the results of a survey as the results are not the "sense of the room". I'll mention that this is a very delicate issue for unstated reasons. There were some comments that referred to a region in the Far East. That is to be expected as there is a diversity of views. It does not affect the technical choices of the IETF. There was a message posted by Ole Jacobsen [2]. I read "host" in terms of premises and not in terms of country. It discloses the rules. The question is whether people attending a meeting can live with the "warning". Would you: (i) tone down your comments as there are people, irrespective of country, that find the IETF norm unbusiness-like. (ii) self-censor to avoid any interpretation that may be considered as infringing the rules. (iii) explore the limits of what is considered as acceptable. The choice of a location for a meeting is not about making a political statement. If we focus on the center only, it is going to be interpreted as a political statement. Whatever decision is taken, it won't look good. There are some IETF participants that have business interests in China [4]. To them, it is a question of whether attending the IETF meeting can have a negative impact on their ability to conduct business. Some people have commented on a negotiation of the conditions. The outcome was obvious [3]. The world does not work as the IETF does. There was a (non-IETF related) meeting that got pulled off because some government (not China) thought that it could be used as a bargaining chip to influence the decision of the organizer on another matter. An IETF meeting in Beijing will be successful both in terms of participation and revenue. You can run IPSec sessions from AS 4808. You may receive bogus DNS answers. A secdir review may be similar to the message [5] posted by Ekr. The lawyers have not chipped in yet. Regards, -sm 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg06549.html 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58524.html 3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58562.html 4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58551.html 5. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58547.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Robert Elz wrote: > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:29:44 -0700 (PDT) > From: Ole Jacobsen > Message-ID: > > | Whether or not we should meet in China based on principles of > | free speech and such is, I think, something we need to come to > | at least a rough consensus on. > > Actually, no, we don't, and shouldn't. If we were to start down > that road we'd need to start analysing the policies of countries on > all kinds of sensitive issues, such as religious freedom, the right > to "bear arms", compulsory military service provisions, whether > or not abortion is permitted, adherence to the Kyoto pact on > climate control, > Going down the path of banning meetings in various locations due to ideological issues could rapidly create a dilemma that Berkeley, California found itself in. The Berkeley city council banned purchasing fuel for the city vehicles from various suppliers due to human rights issues, among others. They at some point found out that they had banned all possible suppliers, and therefor could not purchase fuel. They had to compromise on their stance in order to keep the community running. > > kre > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin Principal Engineer Corporate Standardization (US) SISA ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
FW: [rohc] Last Call: draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec (IKEv2 Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec (ROHCoIPsec)) to Proposed Standard
All, Sorry for my belated response. This last workweek didn't allow me time to respond on the date requested. Comments: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-09.txt - 2.1.2. ROHC Attribute Types, Integrity Algorithm for Verification of Decompressed Headers "Upon receipt of the ROHC_INTEG attribute(s), the responder must select exactly one of proposed algorithms and send the selected algorithm back to the initiator." I believe the intent here is to converge on exactly one ICV algorithm. It should be noted that the chosen value (i.e. exactly ONE ROHC_INTEG attribute) is included in the N(ROHC_SUPPORTED) Notify message returned by the Responder to the Initiator. It would be pointless to include more than one, as the signaling of ROHC Channel Parameters is only a two message exchange, and this is the second of two messages. - 4. IANA Considerations, ROHC Attribute Types" registry Would it be prudent to allocate some space in this registry for "Private Use" values? Not sure how much we might need, or what they would be used for. Bob Stangarone -Original Message- From: rohc-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:rohc-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:47 AM To: IETF-Announce Cc: r...@ietf.org Subject: [rohc] Last Call: draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec (IKEv2 Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec (ROHCoIPsec)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Robust Header Compression WG (rohc) to consider the following document: - 'IKEv2 Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec (ROHCoIPsec) ' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-09-17. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipse c-09.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=1520 6&rfc_flag=0 ___ Rohc mailing list r...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On 20 Sep 2009 17:07:06 - John Levine wrote: >>I think it should be considered that if such restrictions are acceptable >>for on venue, once the precedent is set, it may well be requested again. > >Quite possibly, and I expect that should it happen, we'll debate the >merits again. > >No venue is perfect, and any large country is going to have political >issues. People from several countries cannot get US visas, simply >because of where they live, not anything they've done, but we seem >willing to meet in the US anyway. China is a large and sophisticated >country, nothing we do is going to change that, and politically >motivated boycotts far larger than anything the IETF could do have >invariably been ineffective and often counterproductive. Whatever >small influence we might exert is going to be far greater if we meet >and interact with the people who run the Chinese Internet. > I didn't for a moment consider that an IETF decision not to go would have any impact on the policies of the Chinese government. I agree with you that it would not. The question that was posed, as I understand it, was about the acceptability of the restrictions to the IETF. If such restrictions are acceptable, then they should be acceptable anywhere. I don't think China should get a free pass because it's China. Scott K ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
FW: [rohc] Last Call: draft-ietf-rohc-hcoipsec (Integration of Robust Header Compression (ROHC) over IPsec Security Associations) to Informational RFC
All, Sorry for my belated response. This last workweek didn't allow me time to respond on the date requested. Comments: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-rohc-hcoipsec-11.txt - No comments other than to say "well done". Bob Stangarone -Original Message- From: rohc-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:rohc-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:47 AM To: IETF-Announce Cc: r...@ietf.org Subject: [rohc] Last Call: draft-ietf-rohc-hcoipsec (Integration of Robust Header Compression (ROHC) over IPsec Security Associations) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Robust Header Compression WG (rohc) to consider the following document: - 'Integration of Robust Header Compression (ROHC) over IPsec Security Associations ' as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-09-17. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rohc-hcoipsec-11.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=1400 2&rfc_flag=0 ___ Rohc mailing list r...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Mike, "That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC." That's YOUR interpretation. Obviously the IAOC, or at least speaking for myself only, do not believe this is true. If we have to change the "normal content" of an IETF meeting in order to meet in a given location, then I fully agree that we should not meet in such a place. As I've said many times already, there is a state law in place and the hotel has reminded us of this by inserting the clause (which the HOST not the IETF/IAOC or ISOC) will be signing. We can certainly agree that the language is broad and that it seems to give a lot of power to the hotel, but that's likely because this is generic language that is inserted into the contract to protect the business interests of the hotel (I'm not defending it, just an observation). The language in question is not intended to curb our speech, or make us worry about what we can say in the course of doing normal IETF business. I am sure it wasn't even designed with a group like the IETF in mind. I know that you can choose to read it that way and I understand your right to object to the language on principle, but I have to tell you in all honesty that unless someone decides to score a political point by doing something really "stupid" there is nothing to worry about. I further predict that IF such a stupid act were to take place, there would be plenty of warning, negotiation and so on rather than swift action. Please try to keep in mind that (various organizations in) China has been wanting to host an IETF meeting since 1997. One organization has finally been given government approval to do so. This is a Big Deal for them. Do you really think the Chinese government is looking for an excuse to make an example of a bunch of geeks meeting in a hotel and embarrass the local host in the process? I don't think so. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sep 20, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: Some 15 years ago, the IETF had a plenary session on the NSA's CLIPPER chip initiative. That was a hot topic of the time and was a great example of open discussion. That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC. We've had various discussions on P2P systems and their ability to evade government restrictions. That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC. We've had discussions on E164 and whether or not the owner of E164.ARPA could allocate a country code for Taiwan. That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC. Mike, Do you have evidence that those items could not be discussed or do you suspect that those items could not have been discussed? --Olaf Olaf M. KolkmanNLnet Labs Science Park 140, http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Steve - Some 15 years ago, the IETF had a plenary session on the NSA's CLIPPER chip initiative. That was a hot topic of the time and was a great example of open discussion. That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC. We've had various discussions on P2P systems and their ability to evade government restrictions. That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC. We've had discussions on E164 and whether or not the owner of E164.ARPA could allocate a country code for Taiwan. That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC. I'm not sure what the hot topics will be at the time of a PRC meeting and whether or not they might be offensive to the PRC government - there may be none or they may be non-offensive. The question I'd like us to consider: Is it in the best interests of the IETF to pre-censor ourselves as the price of holding a meeting in a specific venue? I don't know the answer to that question. If the answer is yes - let's do it... but it feels like we're losing something that's critical to the IETF. At 12:53 PM 9/20/2009, Steve Crocker wrote: >I don't think the IETF, either as a whole, in any of its working >groups, or as individuals, need feel inhibited about having the same >sorts of discussions in Beijing that it would have anywhere else. > >Run the experiment and get some data. Survey attendees afterwards and >find out what everyone felt. (My prediction: There will be more >discussion about the usual problems of not enough cookies, location of >restaurants, connectivity, etc.) > >Steve > > > > >On Sep 20, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > >>Hi Steve - >> >>To paraphrase, you believe we should accept constraints upon the >>topics that can be raised at the meeting (stick to the center) as >>the cost of doing business in China. And the reason for that is to >>maintain the relevance of the IETF? >> >>I'm finding this argument not well constructed. >> >>I agree that engagement is good, but the IETF is about individuals >>and we engage better at a personal level than IETF to country. >>That can be accomplished at any venue - and possibly better at a >>venue without excessive constraints on discussion. >> >>I'd be happy to have a WG meeting in the PRC - on topics other than >>those common to the security area, but I remain concerned about >>prior restraint for the IETF as a whole as a price of holding a >>meeting there. >> >> >>At 03:55 PM 9/19/2009, Steve Crocker wrote: >>>The choice is between engaging and not engaging. Engaging is better. >>>Not engaging isn't constructive. The Internet and the IETF are all >>>about engaging, expanding, communicating and being open. Much of >>>this >>>dialog has been worried about possible extreme situations. Let's >>>focus on the center. More than a billion people live in China and >>>their use of the Internet is expanding rapidly. They are building >>>much of the technology and contributing technically. It's to >>>everyone's advantage to have comfortable, constructive interaction. >>>Our first slogan was "Networks Bring People Together." >>> >>>If you prefer to focus on the negatives, here's my analysis: >>> >>>If we don't go to China, we have charted a downhill course and the >>>rest of the world will come together without us. The IETF will lose >>>relevance. >> >>This construction is black and white and somewhat irrelevant. The >>IETF not meeting at this time in China is unlikely to make the rest >>of the world "come together without us". Nor will us going to the >>meeting be the sole reason for the world coming together with us. >> >>>If we do go to China and something bad happens, the consequences will >>>be much worse for China than for the IETF. The work of the IETF will >>>suffer a bit, but we'll recover quickly enough. However, China's >>>quest for engagement with the rest of the world will be hurt more >>>seriously. >> >>There's bad and there's BAD. I'm mostly concerned not about the >>whole IETF being kicked out of the hotel/PRC, but in individuals >>being sequestered or removed for speech that in any other IETF venue >>would be relevant and on-topic for the technical discussion. That >>(fear of) prior restraint has a strong possibility of adversely >>affecting the IETF by limiting discussion and constraining the free >>flow of ideas. And that - free flow of ideas- not "engagement" - is >>the strength of the IETF. >> >> >> >>>Bottom line: We should go to China with a positive attitude. We're >>>robust enough to deal with any consequences. If we don't go to >>>China, >>>however, we have weakened ourselves. >> >>Bottom line - we should be the IETF and find venues that will accept >>us for ourselves. >> >>___ >> >> >>Hmm.. I was going to stop there, but let's ask the meta question: >>What is the maximum set of constraints you think we should accept on >>the IETF as the price of holding a meeting? Fo
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
>I think it should be considered that if such restrictions are acceptable >for on venue, once the precedent is set, it may well be requested again. Quite possibly, and I expect that should it happen, we'll debate the merits again. No venue is perfect, and any large country is going to have political issues. People from several countries cannot get US visas, simply because of where they live, not anything they've done, but we seem willing to meet in the US anyway. China is a large and sophisticated country, nothing we do is going to change that, and politically motivated boycotts far larger than anything the IETF could do have invariably been ineffective and often counterproductive. Whatever small influence we might exert is going to be far greater if we meet and interact with the people who run the Chinese Internet. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
I don't think the IETF, either as a whole, in any of its working groups, or as individuals, need feel inhibited about having the same sorts of discussions in Beijing that it would have anywhere else. Run the experiment and get some data. Survey attendees afterwards and find out what everyone felt. (My prediction: There will be more discussion about the usual problems of not enough cookies, location of restaurants, connectivity, etc.) Steve On Sep 20, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: Hi Steve - To paraphrase, you believe we should accept constraints upon the topics that can be raised at the meeting (stick to the center) as the cost of doing business in China. And the reason for that is to maintain the relevance of the IETF? I'm finding this argument not well constructed. I agree that engagement is good, but the IETF is about individuals and we engage better at a personal level than IETF to country. That can be accomplished at any venue - and possibly better at a venue without excessive constraints on discussion. I'd be happy to have a WG meeting in the PRC - on topics other than those common to the security area, but I remain concerned about prior restraint for the IETF as a whole as a price of holding a meeting there. At 03:55 PM 9/19/2009, Steve Crocker wrote: The choice is between engaging and not engaging. Engaging is better. Not engaging isn't constructive. The Internet and the IETF are all about engaging, expanding, communicating and being open. Much of this dialog has been worried about possible extreme situations. Let's focus on the center. More than a billion people live in China and their use of the Internet is expanding rapidly. They are building much of the technology and contributing technically. It's to everyone's advantage to have comfortable, constructive interaction. Our first slogan was "Networks Bring People Together." If you prefer to focus on the negatives, here's my analysis: If we don't go to China, we have charted a downhill course and the rest of the world will come together without us. The IETF will lose relevance. This construction is black and white and somewhat irrelevant. The IETF not meeting at this time in China is unlikely to make the rest of the world "come together without us". Nor will us going to the meeting be the sole reason for the world coming together with us. If we do go to China and something bad happens, the consequences will be much worse for China than for the IETF. The work of the IETF will suffer a bit, but we'll recover quickly enough. However, China's quest for engagement with the rest of the world will be hurt more seriously. There's bad and there's BAD. I'm mostly concerned not about the whole IETF being kicked out of the hotel/PRC, but in individuals being sequestered or removed for speech that in any other IETF venue would be relevant and on-topic for the technical discussion. That (fear of) prior restraint has a strong possibility of adversely affecting the IETF by limiting discussion and constraining the free flow of ideas. And that - free flow of ideas- not "engagement" - is the strength of the IETF. Bottom line: We should go to China with a positive attitude. We're robust enough to deal with any consequences. If we don't go to China, however, we have weakened ourselves. Bottom line - we should be the IETF and find venues that will accept us for ourselves. ___ Hmm.. I was going to stop there, but let's ask the meta question: What is the maximum set of constraints you think we should accept on the IETF as the price of holding a meeting? For example, would it be acceptable to go somewhere where a class of IETF participant were treated as 2nd class citizens and possibly segregated? Would it be acceptable to go somewhere where ALL presentations had to be vetted and approved by the local government? Etc? Its all about slippery slopes - if we accept constraints other than those we impose upon ourselves, we weaken ourselves. Mike Steve ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning afuture mee ting of the IETF
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 04:19:31PM +0300, Soininen, Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > Hi, > > I think Steve has captured the core of the issue in this mail. I think his > reasoning is the exact reason why we should go to Beijing with a positive > attitude and have a great meetin in Beijing! > > Cheers, > Jonne. Exactly. I have been to an APAN meeting in Xian. It was superbly organised, the hosts and everyone we met were very friendly. The discussions were very good, some of which were about differences in technology adoption and development between Europe and China, for example. I'd have no hesitation to return for another event any time. Over the years I have personally found that every country I visit expands my understanding and knowledge. People who don't travel perhaps tend to remain more insular. Taking the IETF to China has to be a good thing. BTW getting a visa for China as a UK citizen was very easy, just a simple visit to the London embassy and a 2-hour turnaround on the paperwork. Entering China, at Beijing, was also very painless, perhaps in part due to the investments for the Olympics. Tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
> From: Steve Crocker > The Internet and the IETF are all about engaging, expanding, > communicating and being open. ... More than a billion people live in > China and their use of the Internet is expanding rapidly. ... > Our first slogan was "Networks Bring People Together." The likelihood that having the IETF actually meet in China will have _any_ real impact on a country so large, I find very improbable. The things we produce? Yes. Having a meeting there? Somehow I don't think so. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hi Steve - To paraphrase, you believe we should accept constraints upon the topics that can be raised at the meeting (stick to the center) as the cost of doing business in China. And the reason for that is to maintain the relevance of the IETF? I'm finding this argument not well constructed. I agree that engagement is good, but the IETF is about individuals and we engage better at a personal level than IETF to country. That can be accomplished at any venue - and possibly better at a venue without excessive constraints on discussion. I'd be happy to have a WG meeting in the PRC - on topics other than those common to the security area, but I remain concerned about prior restraint for the IETF as a whole as a price of holding a meeting there. At 03:55 PM 9/19/2009, Steve Crocker wrote: >The choice is between engaging and not engaging. Engaging is better. >Not engaging isn't constructive. The Internet and the IETF are all >about engaging, expanding, communicating and being open. Much of this >dialog has been worried about possible extreme situations. Let's >focus on the center. More than a billion people live in China and >their use of the Internet is expanding rapidly. They are building >much of the technology and contributing technically. It's to >everyone's advantage to have comfortable, constructive interaction. >Our first slogan was "Networks Bring People Together." > >If you prefer to focus on the negatives, here's my analysis: > >If we don't go to China, we have charted a downhill course and the >rest of the world will come together without us. The IETF will lose >relevance. This construction is black and white and somewhat irrelevant. The IETF not meeting at this time in China is unlikely to make the rest of the world "come together without us". Nor will us going to the meeting be the sole reason for the world coming together with us. >If we do go to China and something bad happens, the consequences will >be much worse for China than for the IETF. The work of the IETF will >suffer a bit, but we'll recover quickly enough. However, China's >quest for engagement with the rest of the world will be hurt more >seriously. There's bad and there's BAD. I'm mostly concerned not about the whole IETF being kicked out of the hotel/PRC, but in individuals being sequestered or removed for speech that in any other IETF venue would be relevant and on-topic for the technical discussion. That (fear of) prior restraint has a strong possibility of adversely affecting the IETF by limiting discussion and constraining the free flow of ideas. And that - free flow of ideas- not "engagement" - is the strength of the IETF. >Bottom line: We should go to China with a positive attitude. We're >robust enough to deal with any consequences. If we don't go to China, >however, we have weakened ourselves. Bottom line - we should be the IETF and find venues that will accept us for ourselves. ___ Hmm.. I was going to stop there, but let's ask the meta question: What is the maximum set of constraints you think we should accept on the IETF as the price of holding a meeting? For example, would it be acceptable to go somewhere where a class of IETF participant were treated as 2nd class citizens and possibly segregated? Would it be acceptable to go somewhere where ALL presentations had to be vetted and approved by the local government? Etc? Its all about slippery slopes - if we accept constraints other than those we impose upon ourselves, we weaken ourselves. Mike >Steve > >___ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:13:10 +0200 Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >Pete Resnick wrote: > >> Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Host (and the IAOC if faced with >> similar text in a contract they need to sign) should simply cross off >> the portion, say that they don't agree to the condition, sign the rest >> of it, and see what comes back. Call it "negotiation". > >We already asked if this condition could be removed and the answer was >a sound no with no room for discussion. > I think it should be considered that if such restrictions are acceptable for on venue, once the precedent is set, it may well be requested again. Scott K ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hi, I also fully agree with Steve. I wrote similar thoughts in the survey. Regards, Wassim H. From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Simon Perreault [simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca] Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 21:18 To: Steve Crocker Cc: IAOC IAOC; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF On Saturday 19 September 2009 15:55:55 Steve Crocker wrote: > The choice is between engaging and not engaging. Engaging is better. > Not engaging isn't constructive. Thank you. I wanted to say this, but could not find the right words. I fully agree with Steve Crocker. In the long run, exposure to and participation in the IETF might even prove beneficial to the Chinese. Thanks, Simon -- DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server--> http://numb.viagenie.ca vCard 4.0 --> http://www.vcarddav.org ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Pete Resnick wrote: Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Host (and the IAOC if faced with similar text in a contract they need to sign) should simply cross off the portion, say that they don't agree to the condition, sign the rest of it, and see what comes back. Call it "negotiation". We already asked if this condition could be removed and the answer was a sound no with no room for discussion. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning afuture mee ting of the IETF
Hi, I think Steve has captured the core of the issue in this mail. I think his reasoning is the exact reason why we should go to Beijing with a positive attitude and have a great meetin in Beijing! Cheers, Jonne. --- original message --- From: "ext Steve Crocker" Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning afuture meeting of the IETF Date: 19th September 2009 Time: 10:56:24 pm The choice is between engaging and not engaging. Engaging is better. Not engaging isn't constructive. The Internet and the IETF are all about engaging, expanding, communicating and being open. Much of this dialog has been worried about possible extreme situations. Let's focus on the center. More than a billion people live in China and their use of the Internet is expanding rapidly. They are building much of the technology and contributing technically. It's to everyone's advantage to have comfortable, constructive interaction. Our first slogan was "Networks Bring People Together." If you prefer to focus on the negatives, here's my analysis: If we don't go to China, we have charted a downhill course and the rest of the world will come together without us. The IETF will lose relevance. If we do go to China and something bad happens, the consequences will be much worse for China than for the IETF. The work of the IETF will suffer a bit, but we'll recover quickly enough. However, China's quest for engagement with the rest of the world will be hurt more seriously. Bottom line: We should go to China with a positive attitude. We're robust enough to deal with any consequences. If we don't go to China, however, we have weakened ourselves. Steve ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
