Re: [79all] IETF Badge
2010-11-12 17:50:50
Mike,
I did not edit your email, it was included in its entirety below what
I wrote. I did not see the "original comment" which came in a
different msg, not the one I was rerplying to.
The question you ask has been answered many times already, but to
repeat:
The IAOC did not make a "Policy Decision" about badges for this
meeting. We have not made a policy decision about badge checking at
future meetings either.
I can well imagine a future situation, in , oh say, Paris, where an
attendee loses a laptop due to theft and there is an outcry about
"nobody checking entry", but perhaps we should just leave that to the
usual IETF way and burn that bridge when we get to it.
Have a good trip home.
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, Michael StJohns wrote:
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
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge, (continued)
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge, Ray Pelletier
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge, mstjohns
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge, Scott Brim
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge, Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge, Michael StJohns
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge,
Ole Jacobsen <=
- Message not available
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge, Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge, Xiangsong Cui
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge, Lou Berger
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge, Stephen Farrell
- RE: [79all] IETF Badge, Xiangsong Cui
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge, Lou Berger
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge, Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge, Lou Berger
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge, Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge, Lou Berger
|
|
|