On Apr 4, 2008, at 1:16 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote:
All,
We are considering changing the meeting Blue Sheet by eliminating the
need to enter an email address to avoid spam concerns.
Is there any good reason to retain that info bit?
Ray
There may be reasons to contact participants after a
Colleagues,
The IAB discussed the IPR documents during its most recent call. It
unanimously decided that the IAB-stream is to be covered by the
incoming IPR document. It is our understanding that the iab-stream
documents IPR are then automatically covered by the outbounds rights
that
Apologies for cross-postings
Dear Colleague,
We would like to bring to your attention the
First International Workshop on Simulation and Modelling in Emergent
Computational Systems (SMECS-2008)
http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/%7Eicpp2008/
Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
IANAL, but I believe if we don't record the emails, it doesn't stop us from
honoring a subpoena and giving over the blue sheets with the data we do have.
I'm not saying if that's good or bad. But anyway I assume the IETF has legal
counsel which has been asked what, if
On 4 apr 2008, at 1:16, Ray Pelletier wrote:
We are considering changing the meeting Blue Sheet by eliminating the
need to enter an email address to avoid spam concerns.
Is there any good reason to retain that info bit?
If the email address is useful for uniqueness and legibility issues,
Ray Pelletier wrote:
All,
We are considering changing the meeting Blue Sheet by eliminating the
need to enter an email address to avoid spam concerns.
Is there any good reason to retain that info bit?
I think you should ask Jorge whether the disambiguation factor matters -
he's the lawyer,
After considering the comments so far, I think I disagree with having a
separate Trust chair.
The idea behind making the IAOC be the Trustees was, among other things,
to make sure that we didn't create yet another nexus of control in the
labyrinth of committees; I understood the legal
Ray Pelletier wrote:
12. The Trustees are the current members of the IAOC. When a member
leaves the IAOC for whatever reason, he or she ceases to be a Trustee.
When a new member joins the IAOC, he or she becomes a Trustee [ADD -
upon their acceptance in writing].
This is already covered in
it started w/ folsk scanning the pages of the early bound
copies of IETFF proceedings.
the sheets are no longer included in the proceedings
the process you describe has happend in recent memory at more than
one IETF.
at what scale? 100s of people? 10s?
Scott
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I am disturbed that the messy situation of X- headers,
created by RFC 2822's silence on the subject, has not
been fixed.
As far as 2822 and 2822upd are concerned header fields
not specified in 2822 or 2822upd resp. are covered by
optional-field in section 3.6.8. This
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am disturbed that the messy situation of X- headers,
created by RFC 2822's silence on the subject, has
not been fixed.
Me too.
I believe it would be appropriate to document that although
X- headers are widely used, they are not part of the
Olaf, with a cast on his right hand, says...
There may be reasons to contact participants after a meeting, being able to
tie
the name to an e-mail might be of value.
I don't know what blue sheets *you* have looked at, but on the ones I've seen
I'd
say that most of the scrawling looks like
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
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
On 4 apr 2008, at 16:37, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
And in addition, somebody could be in the room AND be aware of IPR and
NOT SIGN the blue sheet. There is nothing saying that people in the
room
have to sign a blue sheet. I, for one, have seen people pass around
blue
sheets without
- If there were a database with everyone on file .
- If each person were assigned a permanent identity code .
- If block l(i.e. disconnected) letters were required .
- If persons designated as having legible handwriting wrote everything but
the signature .
/Kim
- Original Message -
The registration database for each IETF meeting already contains email
addresses of all attendees, presumably a superset of the blue-sheet
signers.
More technologically-advanced conferences and trade-shows use RFID or
(a few years ago) mag stripes to avoid deciphering handwriting. The
Barry Leiba wrote:
Olaf, with a cast on his right hand, says...
There may be reasons to contact participants after a meeting, being able to
tie
the name to an e-mail might be of value.
I don't know what blue sheets *you* have looked at, but on the ones I've seen
I'd
say that most of
Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:10:12 -0400 (EDT),
Scott O. Bradner wrote:
Ole guessed
My understanding is that the blue sheet serves mainly as a record of
who was in the room which I think is largely used to plan room
capacities for the next meeting.
the
Tony Hansen wrote:
I like Olaf's suggestion of adding a level of indirection.
While yes, it's an appealing suggestion, it is probably not as useful as it
sounds.
1. A layer of indirection for a human mechanism is another opportunity for
human
error. A new, unfamiliar string is more
and signing the sheet is strictly voluntary to date
well, there are no guards with guns watching but someone who
decides to not sign is not being honest about their participation
Scott
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:08:41AM -0400, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
it started w/ folsk scanning the pages of the early bound
copies of IETFF proceedings.
the sheets are no longer included in the proceedings
right - the point is that this has been a problem
for years.
the
At Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:57:50 -0700,
Michael Thomas wrote:
Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:10:12 -0400 (EDT),
Scott O. Bradner wrote:
Ole guessed
My understanding is that the blue sheet serves mainly as a record of
who was in the room which I think is largely
Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Diving straight into armchairing myself, I'll just note that under EU
data privacy laws, it's illegal to collect personal info for which you
have no legitimate purpose - so if we never use those emails for
anything, we shouldn't collect them.
I've
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:50:08AM -0700, Bill Manning wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:08:41AM -0400, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
it started w/ folsk scanning the pages of the early bound
copies of IETFF proceedings.
the sheets are no longer included in the proceedings
right -
On 4 apr 2008, at 21:14, Theodore Tso wrote:
Do people seriously think (or fear) they are are getting scanned in
the room?
Let me observe that an electronic blue sheet system can trivially hide
one participant's information from all others, making the issue mostly
moot. (I guess we'll have
--On Friday, 04 April, 2008 08:26 +0200 Olaf Kolkman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There may be reasons to contact participants after a meeting,
being able to tie the name to an e-mail might be of value. If
folk think the spam concern is important (not me) the
engineering approach is a layer of
WIDE camps have done the RFID thing for several years now.
--bill
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:35:12AM -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
The registration database for each IETF meeting already contains email
addresses of all attendees, presumably a superset of the blue-sheet
signers.
I'm sorry. What problem are we trying to solve again?
I thought we were talking about simply removing email addresses from
the blue sheets, but it seems we're talking about something entirely
different.
Thanks,
-drc
On Apr 4, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Bill Manning wrote:
WIDE camps have done the
--On Friday, 04 April, 2008 11:56 -0400 Derek Atkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Diving straight into armchairing myself, I'll just note that
under EU data privacy laws, it's illegal to collect personal
info for which you have no legitimate purpose
I've used them.
So have I. At the IETF 71 IRTF ASRG session, a bunch of people who I
didn't know volunteered to do stuff, and without the addresses from
the blue (well, pink) sheets, it would have been a challenge to track
them all down.
I also get the impression that the fear of getting
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 03:14:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:50:08AM -0700, Bill Manning wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:08:41AM -0400, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
it started w/ folsk scanning the pages of the early bound
copies of IETFF proceedings.
the
i was just giving an amen to Hennings note that participant
identification in other venues has taken on a different
form than blue-sheets...
I don't see a problem to be solved - as long as folks realise
that attendance/participation in the IETF is not bound by
a scrawl on a sheet of paper.
--On Friday, 04 April, 2008 14:43 +0200 Frank Ellermann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I am disturbed that the messy situation of X- headers,
created by RFC 2822's silence on the subject, has not
been fixed.
As far as 2822 and 2822upd are concerned header fields
not
On 2008-04-04 22:57, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Ray Pelletier wrote:
12. The Trustees are the current members of the IAOC. When a member
leaves the IAOC for whatever reason, he or she ceases to be a Trustee.
When a new member joins the IAOC, he or she becomes a Trustee [ADD -
upon their
-1. I think that given the pressure of work on our
volunteer officials, we should allow load sharing
wherever it's feasible. We have running code here -
despite having the IAD's support and a volunteer
Secretary for the Trust, two successive IAOC chairs
have been overburdened.
Brian
On
On 2008-04-04 21:13, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
As for the reported use of the lists for spam, they need not be included in
the
proceedings.
email addresses were dropped from the proceedings years ago for
that reason.
Hadn't thought about it before, but I'm not seeing why attendee
lists are
John,
I think I agree with your suggested path.
On 2008-04-05 02:03, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
Can X-* headers really be registered under RFC 3864?
One X- header is provisionally registered under RFC 3864
(and is marked in the registry as 'deprecated').
On 2008-04-05 01:43, Frank Ellermann
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs '
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-09.txt as a BCP
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person
39 matches
Mail list logo
