IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Wed, 23 September 2009 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 900CD3A69FE for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.512
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2-KtGGZiYGGI for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from QMTA01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A713A697F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from OMTA03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.27]) by QMTA01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id kBxD1c0040bG4ec51Jog60; Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:48:40 +0000
Received: from Mike-PC2.comcast.net ([69.143.200.159]) by OMTA03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id kJof1c00J3Sqkn13PJog6G; Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:48:40 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:48:36 -0400
To: Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0909231036480.7191@pita.cisco.com>
References: <4568491E-A8CA-4089-84C7-2D555F929204@americafree.tv> <517bf110909180906u56cf3791x889d1b29f0699d7f@mail.gmail.com> <20090919183355.B7DEE5C9CD2@kilo.networkresonance.com> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0909191503410.2409@pita.cisco.com> <20090921133416.BAEBA5CA327@kilo.networkresonance.com> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0909210646400.14924@pita.cisco.com> <20090923134756.75A145CADA7@kilo.networkresonance.com> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0909230945140.7191@pita.cisco.com> <20090923173849.218105CB1C4@kilo.networkresonance.com> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0909231036480.7191@pita.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <20090923184733.96A713A697F@core3.amsl.com>
Cc: IETF-Discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:47:34 -0000

At 02:17 PM 9/23/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>BUT I am at a loss 
>to understand why such a statement would be a required part of our 
>technical discussion. 


And I'm at a loss to understand why censoring such a statement (or ejecting an individual who says it, or terminating the IETF meeting in which is was said) should be a required part of an IETF meeting?

This isn't a China issue per se - this is about what we expect from and for ourselves in the context of the IETF.  We have a way of interacting that - while not pretty - mostly works.  It's unclear to me why we should accept restrictions on that way of interacting that are imposed from without.  If your answer is - "because there's some benefit to the IETF" - I would then ask what else should we be willing to give up for other benefits and where should we draw the line?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email