On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
At its base, your exercise seems to be an effort at doing the IAOC's
job for it.
It's their job to research venue details and make choices and to
ensure the
logistics for productive IETF meetings. The IETF as a body is not
likely to
become experts in the details of holding a meeting in China.
Well it sounds like we both agree that it is the IAOC job to make sure
they have answers to the questions I am raising before making a
decision.
I asked about legalities of discussing crypto a few years ago when
this China meeting was raised to IESG. I did not get an answer. I
asked about it around the time of the Stockholm meeting and got no
answer. I am asking publicly on the IETF list when the topic finally
got brought to a public list. I think it is a reasonable question.
I'm not asking about if someone stands up at a plenary and asked some
questions that is totally tangental to the IETF. I am asking about the
legality of discussions we regularly have to produce the type of
things that we have put in RFCs. If the IAOC was telling me, "yep, we
contacted these lawyers in PRC and here is what they told us, we think
we can run a normal IETF discussion in PRC" then I'd feel like they
looked at this and it is all fine. I do understand the IAOC is a
thankless job where arm chair experts complain about everything you do
on the IETF list. (I'm sort of familiar with a job that is similar to
that).
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf