Jay, > On Sep 23, 2024, at 9:16 AM, Jay Daley <exec-director@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Mike > > As Roman has noted, this is within the remit of the LLC not the IESG, as per RFC 8718, so I will try to answer what I can. > > RFC 8718 sets the policy around the Internet connection in the following mandatory criterion: > >> • It MUST be possible to provision Internet Access to the Facility and IETF Hotels that allows those attending in person to utilize the Internet for all their IETF, business, and day-to-day needs; in addition, there must be sufficient bandwidth and access for remote attendees. Provisions include, but are not limited to, native and unmodified IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, and global reachability; there may be no additional limitation that would materially impact their Internet use. To ensure availability, it MUST be possible to provision redundant paths to the Internet. > > Before I provide direct details, I should note that about 18 months ago at IETF 116 I presented an I-D to gendispatch recommending that the community revisit the clauses around Internet provision to tighten them up and help us assess situations like that of Australia/NZ where there is limited Internet filtering. The response from the community was that this did not need changing and that it intentionally gave the LLC a degree of latitude around this. > > The network provision that we expect to be provided at IETF 125 is as follows: > > - The Internet connection will be open to all traffic/clients, which specifically included VPNs and all IETF protocols such as MASQUE etc. > > - The Internet connection will filter some sites that the Chinese government considers highly illegal but this will not impact on the criterion above. To follow up on Ross’s response, what are the sites that are considered illegal? Bob > > - All devices will need credentials to access the Internet and these will be provided in the same (or technically identical) method as the Beijing meeting where a bowl of paper slips with credentials was made available and participants could take as many as they want as often as they want with no record made of who took what. > > - All participants, whatever their country of origin, will get the same access in the same way. > > We are still in the process of negotiating the various elements of IETF 125 and contracts are not signed as it would not have been appropriate for us to sign a contract before the IESG made its decision. However, the Internet provision will not be fully covered by contracts - the process here is that one of our local hosts applies to the government for a license to provide the network as specified above. If that license is granted then that is what we expect to get, but governments are sovereign and rarely sign contracts committing to such things and so I do not expect to get a contract to that effect. > > Let me know if you have any further questions. > > Jay > >> On 22 Sep 2024, at 00:00, Mike StJohns <mstjohns=40comcast.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Roman - one of the most egregious issues with our last visit to the PRC were additional conditions and restrictions imposed upon the conference and transitively on the attendees AFTER we had signed the meeting agreement documents. >> >> Do we have a specific list of conditions we have to meet? E.g. mandatory individual logins to the ietf network? No open ietf network? Hotel providing mandatory security to prevent non-registered locals from dropping by? No VPNs permitted? >> >> Do we have a signed agreement that we will have open access to the wider internet? >> >> AIRC the conditions came as a surprise and were imposed close to the meeting date without a lot of warning and with no real recourse. >> >> Does the IESG have a line in the sand with respect to restrictions it will allow? Could you publish those please? >> >> Thanks - Mike >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Sep 20, 2024, at 11:43, Christian Hopps <chopps@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Unless I'm misreading this, these seem like horrible results. I guess they pass some low bar we've apparently set, but aren't there *better* choices in Asia region that don't eliminate half the people that would normally attend in person (and 62% of NA attendees)? >>> >>> I would think that we'd at least try to maximize overall participation not just make sure it meets some bare minimum (49% reduction in total on-site participation is good, really?) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Chris. >>> >>> IETF Chair <chair@xxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>> The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is appreciative of all of the >>>> community input provided during the July 2024 survey [1] on convening a meeting >>>> in China for IETF 125 (March 2026). Based on this input, the IESG has decided >>>> that a venue in China would meet the requirements of Section 2, “Why We Meet”, >>>> of RFC8718. This assessment answers the question posed in step 4b of the IETF >>>> LLC’s venue identification and selection process [2]. >>>> >>>> More details about this decision and the survey can be found at [3]. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Roman >>>> (as IETF Chair for the IESG) >>>> >>>> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/Og9ESsfDWrhy5Ea8tso7HfaqY5A/ >>>> >>>> [2] https://www.ietf.org/meeting/planning/ >>>> >>>> [3] https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF_125_Decision_and_Survey_Summary.pdf >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> IETF-Announce mailing list -- ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-announce-leave@xxxxxxxx >>> >> > > -- > Jay Daley > IETF Executive Director > exec-director@xxxxxxxx >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
