At 11:19 PM 11/11/2010, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Mike,
(Why doesn't your email client display your name by the way?)
Because It sent it via the annoying Comcast web client.
I know you asked the question of Ray, but:
Thanks for answering a question I didn't ask. And editing my email to remove
the specific comment of Ray's to which I was reacting
That comment is:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Pelletier" <rpelletier(_at_)isoc(_dot_)org>
Yesterday, 3 people were stopped by security and upon examination it emerged
that they were not paying attendees but rather using the credentials of other
people.
I'm going out on a limb here and surmise the 3 people were local attendees.
What I asked was whether or not the decision to require a strict mapping of
badge to person was an IAOC decision or the host/hotel/someone else? You sort
of indicate that it was "the local host" and the (paraphrasing here) "cultural
artifact". But then go on to "its no big thing"
Prior to the day pass experiment (and I would guess even during) companies
would pass around badges for folks that wanted to attend - especially local
first timers, but didn't need to be there for more than a day or a meeting. As
far as I know we (IETF) have no policy on this.
Is it the IAOC's intent to place guards at the entrance to future meetings who
will require attendees to show a drivers license or other credential as well as
a badge? If so, when was the decision made? If not, why was it appropriate
for this meeting? (And I will accept "our hosts/hotel" required it - but then
we need to have a longer discussion about the specific circumstances in which a
host can change the model of how we hold an IETF.).
For this meeting we had three post-site-selection controls imposed from without
- the "hotel can cancel the meeting" clause which was resolved/removed prior to
contract signature, the "IETF network must be strictly controlled" which was
imposed after contract signature and resulted in a bit of extra work at
Maastricht and the "Host will ensure badges are worn to access all IETF spaces
and events" which was imposed concurrently with the actual meeting.
[Breaking away from this - BOFs have typically been events where non-attendees
are present and encouraged, for the one BOF I attended this time there was the
same no badge/no access]
Ole - it really isn't about whether or not someone get to enter an IETF room
without an IETF badge, it's whether the IETF is in charge of that policy (and
our own fate) and what to do when our policies conflict with a
host/hotel/government. Prior to contract signature it may be possible to walk
away. Post signature - well bait and switch. How do we push back? How do we
qualify a site so that local policy impositions are either known in advanced
and agreed to or negotiated away?
Mike
Whether or not the security concerns or free-loader concerns
are real or imaginary, I strongly believe that the local organizers
did what they believed to be the norm, the culture and perhaps even
some notion of a "requirement" here, and that this would not cause
any problem for the IETF (which I would claim is largely true)
[If this clause isn't the very definition of apologist, I'm very confused about
that definition]
The issue came to our attention earlier this week (Tuesday?, I think
those carpets in the elevators that tell me what day it is are really
useful, especially by now....) when it was raised by ONE person.
Having multiple Milo Medins is obviously amusing, but I think we've
sort of outgrown that by now (this is my 71st IETF by the way, you
must be pushing 75 -- err, meetings).
As for the apologist stuff, I think you're just hearing from us on
the IAOC that none of us think this is a huge issue, and there seems
to be a fair bit of support for that view, see Scott Bradner's
note for example.
Yes, let's move on.
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: ole(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net wrote:
Hi Ray -
When did the community decide that this was a prohibited thing? Or
that we were concerned enough with it to post security to make sure
the badge matched the person?
I can think of several IETFs where the badge name did not match the
person including the Stanford IETF where there were a dozen or so
"Milo Medin"s.
While I appreciate the hotel's and/or host's efforts on our behalf
to secure our belongings, I believe its for us to decide our
attendance policy - not them. And lest you wax poetic about paid
attendees, I will note that the badges were paid for.
Here's what I'm hearing -
The host/hotel/some other organization imposed conditions without
consulting the IAOC. We didn't have much choice. If that's the case
- assign the blame to the host/hotel and move on. We as a community
generally understand re-routing in the face of network/operations
issues. Especially, please avoid the apologist role for the
outside forces.
If the IAOC was consulted and approved this without passing it by
the community, stand up straight and take your lickings and stop
trying to pretend it's what we've always done. It's embarrassing.
If there's a third case I missed please feel free to enlighten me.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf