On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Cullen Jennings wrote:
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.
So do I. While it is certainly the IAOC's job to reserach possible venues
and select a meeting location, many of us have jobs which require knowing
the answers to some of the questions you've raised. For example...
I co-chair a working group which is responsible for a cryptographic
authentication protocol. If it is not legal to discuss and develop
cryptographic algorithms and protocols in the PRC, or to export the
results of such work, then my working group cannot usefully meet there,
regardless of what the IAOC decides about the IETF as a whole being
able to meet.
I also normally organize PGP key-signing sessions at IETF meetings.
If the operation of a CA or other cryptographic signing service requires a
license in the PRC, then we may not be able to hold such a session, or it
may require a special license.
I consider it entirely appropriate for me in my role as a working group
chair, or Cullen in his role as an AD, to ask that the IAOC obtain answers
to these questions from competent experts, such as legal counsel familiar
with PRC law.
Finally, I would note that I am all for appointing people to positions of
responsibility, putting appropriate checks and appeal and recall
mechanisms in place, and them letting them go about doing their jobs.
However, in this instance, the IAOC _asked_ for community input, so it
seems silly to object to someone providing such input on the grounds that
they are "doing the IAOC's job for it".
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf