On Oct 5, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
At its base, your exercise seems to be an effort at doing the
IAOC's job for it.
It's their job to research venue details and make choices and to
logistics for productive IETF meetings. The IETF as a body is not
become experts in the details of holding a meeting in China.
Well it sounds like we both agree that it is the IAOC job to make
sure they have answers to the questions I am raising before making
I asked about legalities of discussing crypto a few years ago when
this China meeting was raised to IESG. I did not get an answer. I
asked about it around the time of the Stockholm meeting and got no
answer. I am asking publicly on the IETF list when the topic
finally got brought to a public list. I think it is a reasonable
So do I. While it is certainly the IAOC's job to reserach possible
venues and select a meeting location, many of us have jobs which
require knowing the answers to some of the questions you've raised.
I co-chair a working group which is responsible for a cryptographic
authentication protocol. If it is not legal to discuss and develop
cryptographic algorithms and protocols in the PRC, or to export the
results of such work, then my working group cannot usefully meet
regardless of what the IAOC decides about the IETF as a whole being
able to meet.
I also normally organize PGP key-signing sessions at IETF meetings.
If the operation of a CA or other cryptographic signing service
requires a license in the PRC, then we may not be able to hold such
a session, or it may require a special license.
I consider it entirely appropriate for me in my role as a working
group chair, or Cullen in his role as an AD, to ask that the IAOC
obtain answers to these questions from competent experts, such as
legal counsel familiar with PRC law.
Finally, I would note that I am all for appointing people to
positions of responsibility, putting appropriate checks and appeal
and recall mechanisms in place, and them letting them go about doing
their jobs. However, in this instance, the IAOC _asked_ for
community input, so it seems silly to object to someone providing
such input on the grounds that they are "doing the IAOC's job for it".
I would just note that no one on the IAOC has objected to this. I, for
one, find all of this discussion useful and enlightening.
IAOC mailing list
Ietf mailing list