Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb at cs.columbia.edu>]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:12:59 -0500
Matt Crawford <crawdad at fnal.gov> wrote:

> On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> > We are therefore asking for input from the community by two means -
> > by commenting on the IETF discussion list, ...
> 
> I'm trying to imagine the thought police remaining calm during a  
> plenary such as the one at Danvers. I can't quite picture it.
> 
Speaking of Danvers -- what is the situation -- theory and practice --
regarding encrypted transmissions to/from such a meeting?  I think that
a high percentage of IETF attendees are using various sorts of VPNs
and/or encrypted tunnels for email retrieval, remote login, etc.  Note
that I'm assuming they don't care much if we discuss cryptographic
technology (i.e., they're happy for the Security Area to meet).  I'm
just talking ordinary, day-to-day activities for many participants.

N.B. It is extremely unlikely that I'd attend a meeting in that slot,
regardless of where it was; my current $DAYJOB doesn't give me the
luxury of attending most IETF meetings.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb