I too support publication of this document as a Standards Track RFC,
in light of the salient message traffic of late.
Steve
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Wed Jul 29 19:41:58 2009, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
I agree completely with Richard Stallman's responses to an earlier
email. I
repeat the relevant parts of that earlier exchange below. This
reflects a
basic policy that should be adopted by IETF.
I'm not in favour of software patents, and wh
All;
Spotify & Peerialism to Speak on P2P at IETF 75 in Stockholm
Thursday 30 July 1200 - 1300 CEST (UTC+2)
Audio: http://feed.verilan.com/ietf/p2p.m3u (turned on just prior
to event)
Presentations, when available:
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/75/p2p-presentations
Spotify (http://
Dear all,
I also support the publication of the ID as a standards track ID.
The mechanism described in the document is important and also
used, for example, in DTLS/SCTP.
Best regards
Michael
On Jul 30, 2009, at 8:59 AM, Stephen Kent wrote:
I too support publication of this document as a Stand
+1.
I likewise will be unable to attend. But I think it is valuable and
important. I do question whether perhaps it should be an IRTF effort
rather than an IETF effort, but I think there is value in it and would
support it being looked into.
It seems to me that there are several aspects t
I also support publication of this document as a Standards Track RFC. A
substantial number of existing protocols (including TLS, EAP-TLS, PEAP,
EAP-TTLSv0, DTLS/SRTP and EAP FAST) already utilize the technology in this
document, which has proven quite useful.
Some technical comments on the document. Overall, I noticed that two
important capabilities are not currently supported:
1. Support for identity privacy. Currently the specification does
not support this, which could be a concern, particularly in Europe.
Privacy implies the negotiatio
Pete,
You characterized an AD or wg chair as having a management style of
"facilitator".
I'd be quite interested in your definition of that style and of any other
management style labels that you can /quickly/ generate. I'm not looking for a
protracted, formal discourse, just some labels and
Yes, folks. This was a mis-post. I very much apologize for it.
And yes, even worse it says something about nomcom. But no, it does not
disclose any actual nomcom information, other than some of my personal thoughts
about a way to discuss some issues. It certainly says nothing about IETF pers
[Sorry for the possible duplicate; my posting from last night hasn't
appeared yet.]
During the plenary yesterday, it came out that the IETF has retained
the working group attendance sheets ("blue sheets") from previous
meetings, and those are occasionally the subject of subpoenas.
In the inte
the reason that the blue sheets were created was as part of maintaining
a full record of the open standards process - the question of room size
was never considered
the basic idea is discussed in section 8 of RFC 2026
Each of the organizations involved in the development and approval of
In
Samuel Weiler allegedly wrote on 07/30/2009 16:03 GMT+02:00:
[Sorry for the possible duplicate; my posting from last night hasn't
appeared yet.]
During the plenary yesterday, it came out that the IETF has retained the
working group attendance sheets ("blue sheets") from previous meetings,
and th
Unless the sobpeonas pose a substantial burden to the secretariat, I
would prefer that we do not throw away history. These are public
meetings, after all.
Eliot
On 7/30/09 4:03 PM, Samuel Weiler wrote:
> [Sorry for the possible duplicate; my posting from last night hasn't
> appeared yet.]
>
> Du
On 7/30/09 at 3:03 PM +0100, Samuel Weiler wrote:
What harms would come from destroying those old records and/or not
collecting such details in the future? And how widespread is the
support for destroying them?
Repeating something I just mentioned to Sam in the hallway (and
IANAL, even thou
Going even further, I would like to see the list of attendees for each
working group made visible online, so those of us who aren't there can
determine who was there. I realize that might well be a burden, of course.
Eliot
On 7/30/09 4:24 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Unless the sobpeonas pose a subst
I think it was pretty clearly explained that there is much benefit to
retaining the records. Listening to the comments in the plenary I
would indeed say that you were ALMOST alone in thinking otherwise.
As for the "legal risk", it was also explained that the IETF itself
or, rather, the IETF Tru
The discussion about blue sheets begs the question: does the IETF (or
the Trust) have a privacy policy? I did a quick look for one but I
didn't see one posted anywhere. If there's a legal entity collecting
personal information (which there obviously is), it should have a
privacy policy.
A
I too support publication of this document as a Standards Track RFC,
in light of the salient message traffic of late.
+1
Ned
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Alissa Cooper wrote:
The discussion about blue sheets begs the question: does the IETF (or the
Trust) have a privacy policy? I did a quick look for one but I didn't see one
posted anywhere. If there's a legal entity collecting personal information
(which there obviously
The fact that this came up in the context of subpoenas argues in the
other direction. That meeting attendance is subject to subpoena was
probably not evident (or disclosed) to most attendees. What kinds of
legal process does the Trust respond to? Do requests have to have
court backing, or w
During the plenary this evening, it came out that the IETF has
retained the working group attendance sheets ("blue sheets") from
previous meetings, and those are occasionally the subject of
subpoenas.
In the interest of minimizing IETF overhead and reducing legal risks
to individual participa
Larry and all,
I agree with your conclusion here Larry! Well done! But what
will determine what precisely will be that standard, if any, and
if not standard is determined as a result or otherwise, how will
full interoperability be accomplished?
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> I agree completely with
[Sorry for the possible duplicate; my posting from last night hasn't
appeared yet.]
During the plenary yesterday, it came out that the IETF has retained
the working group attendance sheets ("blue sheets") from previous
meetings, and those are occasionally the subject of subpoenas.
In the int
I also support publication of this document as a Standards Track RFC. A
substantial number of existing protocols (including TLS, EAP-TLS, PEAP,
EAP-TTLSv0, DTLS/SRTP and EAP FAST) already utilize the technology in this
document, which has proven quite useful.
___
On Jul 30, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
The fact that this came up in the context of subpoenas argues in the
other direction. That meeting attendance is subject to subpoena was
probably not evident (or disclosed) to most attendees. What kinds of
legal process does the Trust resp
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:11:39AM -0400, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> the reason that the blue sheets were created was as part of maintaining
> a full record of the open standards process - the question of room size
> was never considered
>
> the basic idea is discussed in section 8 of RFC 2026
>
>
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 04:25:11PM +0200, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 7/30/09 at 3:03 PM +0100, Samuel Weiler wrote:
>
> >What harms would come from destroying those old records and/or not
> >collecting such details in the future? And how widespread is the
> >support for destroying them?
>
> Repe
Eliot Lear writes:
> Unless the sobpeonas pose a substantial burden to the secretariat, I
> would prefer that we do not throw away history. These are public
> meetings, after all.
Perhaps there are different definitions of "public", but I wouldn't call
anything that required registration, payme
Hi Simon,
On 7/30/09 8:50 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Perhaps there are different definitions of "public", but I wouldn't call
> anything that required registration, payment, and legal obligations
> (NOTE WELL) to be called a "public meeting".
>
Yeah, I think we have different definitions. A
Bill - sez
Pointing this out for completeness sake, it is not currently
required to sign said sheets to participate in WG sessions.
no one is lording over you but it is expected that all people in
the room will sign
Scott
___
Ietf mailin
On 2009-07-31 02:25, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 7/30/09 at 3:03 PM +0100, Samuel Weiler wrote:
>
>> What harms would come from destroying those old records and/or not
>> collecting such details in the future? And how widespread is the
>> support for destroying them?
>
> Repeating something I just
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think that we *care* about IPR disclosures and that we *hate* the idea
of people observing IETF activity and concealing relevant patents. So having
a record of WG attendance is important; having a record of mailing list
membership would be the same
Hi Brian,
One can sit in a WG meeting for years, and never incur a disclosure
obligation under BCP78, correct? Just sitting there and not
saying/writing/contributing a thing does not trigger a disclosure
obligation. Same goes for merely being subscribed to a mailing list. This
is a major differ
Stephan Wenger wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> One can sit in a WG meeting for years, and never incur a disclosure
> obligation under BCP78, correct? Just sitting there and not
> saying/writing/contributing a thing does not trigger a disclosure
> obligation. Same goes for merely being subscribed to a mai
On 2009-07-31 11:09, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> One can sit in a WG meeting for years, and never incur a disclosure
> obligation under BCP78, correct? Just sitting there and not
> saying/writing/contributing a thing does not trigger a disclosure
> obligation. Same goes for merely bein
On 2009-07-31 11:23, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> Stephan Wenger wrote:
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> One can sit in a WG meeting for years, and never incur a disclosure
>> obligation under BCP78, correct? Just sitting there and not
>> saying/writing/contributing a thing does not trigger a disclosure
>> obli
My immediate guess would be that if it were shown that you hummed against a
certain draft then yes, you would be under disclosure obligation under
BCP78.
My personal theory on the meaning of "participate" in BCP78 is that when you
influence in any way the decision making process related to a draf
On 7/30/09 4:29 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" wrote:
> [...]
>
>>
>> That said, I'm in favor of keeping the blue sheets based on principles of
>> record retention. But their IPR impact, I believe, is rather limited.
>
> If A asserts that B said something, and B denies having been present
> at th
Total of 112 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jul 31 00:53:01 EDT 2009
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
4.46% |5 | 3.53% |25118 | nsla...@tumbolia.org
3.57% |4 | 4.39% |31276 | bernard_ab..
At 07:03 30-07-2009, Samuel Weiler wrote:
During the plenary yesterday, it came out that the IETF has retained
the working group attendance sheets ("blue sheets") from previous
meetings, and those are occasionally the subject of subpoenas.
In the interest of minimizing IETF overhead and reduci
40 matches
Mail list logo
