--On Monday, October 05, 2009 12:30 -0600 Cullen Jennings
<fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
Another piece of this question is whether PGP (or CACert)
key-signing activities, with signed private keys being taken
out of the country afterwards, would violate any law or
require a license. I had previously assumed that the answer
would be "no", but the answers you have given to this
question, the P2PSIP/CA one, and maybe others, leads me to
wonder a bit.
The PGP Key signing is a good question - I have no idea - it's
certainly something we have done in the past but if it is not
legal in the PRC, I could live with a meeting where we did not
do any PGP key signing. It detracts a bit from the meeting but
is not in what I consider the mediatory must have core of the
meeting. Of course this would mean that a group of people that
did not often travel out of the PRC would be missing a great
opportunity to sign with a group of people outside of China
which I view as one of the benefits of having a meeting in
Beijing.
I am suggesting only that this is another question --perhaps on
a par with some of your other ones and perhaps not-- where we
need to know the answer for planning purposes. We might not
need to know the answer in order to decide whether to hold a
meeting or not, but would certainly want to know before we
started scheduling. In principle, I believe that, if there are
other strong reasons for holding a meeting in a particular
place, we might be able to live without holding meetings of one
or two WGs (e.g., by forcing them into interim meetings at some
other time and place), so the issues are not all that different.
...
Answer seemed pretty solid that this topic was not one that
most people would consider a really bad idea to discuss in
PRC.
Too many negatives in that sentence for me to parse. Did you
mean "was one that ...bad idea to discuss" or "ok to discuss"?
Oops - sorry. I meant to try and say, that most the people I
had talked to advised me *not* to have any such discussion in
PRC.
Ack. Thanks. Again, just wanted to understand what you were
reporting.
...
For the record, I'm still generally in favor of a meeting in
Beijing. But I agree with Cullen that answers to these types
of questions should be extremely clear before a decision to
go is made and that, if any of the answers are sub-optimal,
that the IESG should make a formal decision, after reviewing
community input, etc., as to whether they believe that a
satisfactory meeting can be held in spite of them. And I
believe we should hold any potential meeting site to those
standards, i.e., that this is not about the PRC.
+1, and speaking of other countries, I also thing it is a very
reasonable requirement that "most of the participants can get
a visa in a reasonable time". Not sure what the values of most
and reasonable time are but I would say something like we only
meet in countries where 95% of the participants can get a visa
in under 4 months.
FWIW, I believe the PRC meets that requirement. It is not clear
that the US would if it were not the case that a significant
fraction of our participants are either US citizens, US
permanent residents, or qualify for some sort of visa waiver
program. If you looked only at how long it takes for someone
who needs a visa to get one, I believe the answer for China
would be well over 95% in under four months and that that answer
for the US would be, at best, unclear.
john
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf