> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Eric Rescorla > > At Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:22:42 +1100, > Mark Andrews wrote: > > It's is the only unique token on the blue sheets. This > > assumes no shared email accounts which is a pretty reasonable > > assumption in this case. > > I'm not getting why this is important. It's not like we're using it > to key a hash table. As Ole observes, the blue sheets are used primarily > for counting attendance, and I hear, occasionally as proof that someone > was > actually present. In both of these cases, I think we can probably > tolerate this amount of ambiguity.
I think he means if the sheet is truly used for proof of presence and IPR awareness then it's not good enough to allow name collisions. But I don't see how blue sheets would hold any strength anyway for that purpose, because (1) signing doesn't mean I was there the whole time, and (2) doesn't mean I had stopped reading emails and was paying attention. And I was not aware that signing them implies any such thing, either - is this announced when they're handed out?? I'm all for removing emails and making blue-sheet-signing go faster, fwiw. -hadriel _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
