RE: Future Handling of Blue Sheets
This creates a distinguished identity, so if two Fei Zhangs attended in Paris (only case I found in the attendee list), this would distinguish which of them attended a particular meeting. It would not, however, tie them to an identity on the mailing list, or to the Fei Zhang who attends the Vancouver meeting, so I'm not sure what purpose it serves. Yoav -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim Chown Sent: 16 June 2012 13:54 To: Joel jaeggli Cc: IETF Chair; IETF; ietf-boun...@ietf.org Subject: Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets If the purpose is simply differentiation of people with the same names, could we not ask people to enter the last four digits of their IETF registration number, which would presumably be unique, while being easy to remember? The number could even be on your badge to always be easy to look up. Unless there's some reason to keep registration numbers private? That would also allow poorly handwritten names to more readily be checked/corrected by OCR when the sheets are scanned. Tim On 16 Jun 2012, at 04:50, Joel jaeggli wrote: On 6/15/12 14:42 , edj@gmail.com wrote: I presume it is the same data that people input into the Organization field when they register for the meeting. I do change mine based on what capacity I'm attending a particular meeting in. That goes for email address on existing blue sheets as well... The nice people who send me a check every two weeks don't generally fund my attendance. Regards, Ed J. -Original Message- From: Eric Burger eburge...@standardstrack.com Sender: ietf-boun...@ietf.org Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:37:50 To: IETF Chairch...@ietf.org Cc: IETFietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets Do we have guidelines as to what is an organization affiliation? On Jun 14, 2012, at 5:26 PM, IETF Chair wrote: Two things have occurred since the message below as sent to the IETF mail list. First, we got a lawyer in Europe to do some investigation, and the inclusion of the email address on the blue sheet will lead to trouble with the European privacy laws. Second, Ted Hardie suggested that we could require a password to access the scanned blue sheet. Based on the European privacy law information, the use of email will result in a major burden. If the email address is used, then we must provide a way for people to ask for their email address to be remove at any time in the future, even if we got prior approval to include it. Therefore, I suggest that we collect organization affiliation to discriminate between multiple people with the same name instead of email address. Based on Ted's suggestion, I checked with the Secretariat about using a datatracker login to download the scanned blue sheet. This is fairly easy to do, once the community tracking tools are deployed. However, with the removal of the email addresses from the blue sheets, it is unclear that there is any further need for password protection of these images. Therefore, I suggest that we proceed without password protection for the blue sheet images. Here is a summary of the suggested way forward: - Stop collecting email addresses on blue sheets; - Collect organization affiliation to discriminate between multiple people with the same name; - Scan the blue sheets and include the images in the proceedings for the WG session; - Add indication to top of the blue sheet so people know it will be part of the proceedings; and - Discard paper blue sheets after scanning. Russ On May 6, 2012, at 12:46 PM, IETF Chair wrote: We have heard from many community participants, and consensus is quite rough on this topic. The IESG discussed this thread and reached two conclusions: (1) Rough consensus: an open and transparent standards process is more important to the IETF than privacy of blue sheet information. (2) Rough consensus: inclusion of email addresses is a good way to distinguish participants with the same or similar names. Based on these conclusions, the plan is to handle blue sheets as follows: - Continue to collect email addresses on blue sheets; - Scan the blue sheet and include the image in the proceedings for the WG session; - Add indication to top of the blue sheet so people know it will be part of the proceedings; and - Discard paper blue sheets after scanning. On behalf of the IESG, Russ Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets
The registration number links to a registration that includes an email address, should that need to be looked up for some reason later. Holding minimal information for the purpose, and keeping that information as non-identifiable to the holder as possible, would be nice properties? Tim On 17 Jun 2012, at 08:36, Yoav Nir wrote: This creates a distinguished identity, so if two Fei Zhangs attended in Paris (only case I found in the attendee list), this would distinguish which of them attended a particular meeting. It would not, however, tie them to an identity on the mailing list, or to the Fei Zhang who attends the Vancouver meeting, so I'm not sure what purpose it serves. Yoav -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim Chown Sent: 16 June 2012 13:54 To: Joel jaeggli Cc: IETF Chair; IETF; ietf-boun...@ietf.org Subject: Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets If the purpose is simply differentiation of people with the same names, could we not ask people to enter the last four digits of their IETF registration number, which would presumably be unique, while being easy to remember? The number could even be on your badge to always be easy to look up. Unless there's some reason to keep registration numbers private? That would also allow poorly handwritten names to more readily be checked/corrected by OCR when the sheets are scanned. Tim On 16 Jun 2012, at 04:50, Joel jaeggli wrote: On 6/15/12 14:42 , edj@gmail.com wrote: I presume it is the same data that people input into the Organization field when they register for the meeting. I do change mine based on what capacity I'm attending a particular meeting in. That goes for email address on existing blue sheets as well... The nice people who send me a check every two weeks don't generally fund my attendance. Regards, Ed J. -Original Message- From: Eric Burger eburge...@standardstrack.com Sender: ietf-boun...@ietf.org Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:37:50 To: IETF Chairch...@ietf.org Cc: IETFietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets Do we have guidelines as to what is an organization affiliation? On Jun 14, 2012, at 5:26 PM, IETF Chair wrote: Two things have occurred since the message below as sent to the IETF mail list. First, we got a lawyer in Europe to do some investigation, and the inclusion of the email address on the blue sheet will lead to trouble with the European privacy laws. Second, Ted Hardie suggested that we could require a password to access the scanned blue sheet. Based on the European privacy law information, the use of email will result in a major burden. If the email address is used, then we must provide a way for people to ask for their email address to be remove at any time in the future, even if we got prior approval to include it. Therefore, I suggest that we collect organization affiliation to discriminate between multiple people with the same name instead of email address. Based on Ted's suggestion, I checked with the Secretariat about using a datatracker login to download the scanned blue sheet. This is fairly easy to do, once the community tracking tools are deployed. However, with the removal of the email addresses from the blue sheets, it is unclear that there is any further need for password protection of these images. Therefore, I suggest that we proceed without password protection for the blue sheet images. Here is a summary of the suggested way forward: - Stop collecting email addresses on blue sheets; - Collect organization affiliation to discriminate between multiple people with the same name; - Scan the blue sheets and include the images in the proceedings for the WG session; - Add indication to top of the blue sheet so people know it will be part of the proceedings; and - Discard paper blue sheets after scanning. Russ On May 6, 2012, at 12:46 PM, IETF Chair wrote: We have heard from many community participants, and consensus is quite rough on this topic. The IESG discussed this thread and reached two conclusions: (1) Rough consensus: an open and transparent standards process is more important to the IETF than privacy of blue sheet information. (2) Rough consensus: inclusion of email addresses is a good way to distinguish participants with the same or similar names. Based on these conclusions, the plan is to handle blue sheets as follows: - Continue to collect email addresses on blue sheets; - Scan the blue sheet and include the image in the proceedings for the WG session; - Add indication to top of the blue sheet so people know it will be part of the proceedings; and - Discard paper blue sheets after scanning. On behalf of the IESG, Russ Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
Re: registries and designated experts
Hello Thomas, others, On 2012/06/13 21:48, Thomas Narten wrote: Maybe an IESG statement on this respect can help here. Is the existing text in RFC 5226 not sufficient? It contains extensive text about the purpose and role of designated experts, and was revised substantially the last time around to try and find a good middle ground between being overly prescriptive and giving experts a blank check to do what they want. Nothing in the discussion I've seen so far in this thread seems at odds with or beyond what is already in RFC 5226 (but I may be biased). I have quickly looked through RFC 5226, and found Section 5.3 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-5.3) which answers in part the specific issue that this thread started with, but not in the direction that we would need this time. What that section says is that if the IETF/IESG thinks they need to register something in a registry, but the procedures for that registry are written too restrictive, then the procedures can be bypassed (but they should be fixed as soon as possible). This time, the situation was somewhat reversed: The expert approved the registration, and this fact was then used as a claim that IETF Last Call comments on the item registered were no longer appropriate. I'm with Ned in that I don't think that IETF consensus should be involved in any but the most important registrations and most blatant registration mistakes, because there are many registrations that don't need standardization. But I really hope that we all agree that registrations can't preempt IETF Last Call comments or consensus. I didn't find anything about this aspect of registrations and expert reviews in RFC 5226, but maybe I didn't look hard enough? Regards,Martin.
Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02.txt (Publishing the Tao of the IETF as a Web Page) to Informational RFC
I suggest to have both webpage and RFC AB On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Publishing the Tao of the IETF as a Web Page' draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02.txt as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-07-13. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Discussion of the Tao of the IETF during 2012 made it clear that many people want the document published only as a web page, not as an RFC that needs to be periodically updated. This document specifies how the Tao will be published as a web page. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
Re: registries and designated experts
Martin, On 06/17/2012 01:55 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote: This time, the situation was somewhat reversed: The expert approved the registration, and this fact was then used as a claim that IETF Last Call comments on the item registered were no longer appropriate. I'm sorry, but that's just not accurate. The specific comment (of yours) was to the effect that two registrations should become one. I believe its fair to say that that is something one could have expected to be raised on the uri-review list, given the comments typically sent to that list, and the comments we got there on our I-D, and so I brought that up when you (who often comment on that list), only raised this during IETF LC. At no point did I claim that IETF LC comments were no longer appropriate, and indeed I've been responding al all IETF LC comments on their merits, including this one of yours. But, yes, I do think that your specific issue (essentially, not doing one of the registrations) would have been better raised earlier on uri-review, and as the one asking for the registrations it does feel like having to jump through the same bureaucratic hoops a second time. However, perhaps there is a generic issue in that its not clear whether one is doing paperwork or getting substantive technical review when one requests a registration, at least to the uri-review list. I'm not sure how many other *-review lists might have the same situation. That could be clarified I guess. If that list is just to check the paperwork, then I'd guess that pretty much all technical comment ought be re-directed elsewhere. If that list is for substantive technical review, then seeing frequent contributors to that list first bringing up issues at IETF LC would seem noteworthy. (I'm not saying such issues ought be ignored, but they maybe ought be treated as we would the case of a WG participant making comments on a topic only after WGLC.) S
Comments for I-D of Publishing the Tao of the IETF as a Web Page
The abstract mentions 'many people', because many people may mean 4 to 10 people. The annonced I-D lacks the method of discussion in the community (discussing such change), the draft mentions the input from any community individual to be accepted by editor and then approved by IESG, but does not mention the methodology of discussion between community members nor between editor and members, also no announcements of such updates mentioned in draft. suggest amend in abstract the word 'many' to the word 'some', or mention like in the introduction the desire of community. suggest to add to the draft that a discussion group to discuss inputs/suggestions before the editors undertakes changes. The draft to specify the discussion ( may be either on-List or during the IETF meetings). I prefer to mention; the face-to-face IETF meeting discussion in this procedure issue. suggest to add the announcement for last call of Tao changes by the IESG, suggest replace in section2 line 7 The editor of the Tao decides which proposed changes should be submitted to the IESG for the next version of the Tao. replace with The editor of the Tao decides which proposed changes should be submitted to the IESG for the next version of the Tao after the community discussed the changes. suggest A time period of updates to be made, and input from the community to be collected, and editor to submit to IESG. It will be helpful also to AB == On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Publishing the Tao of the IETF as a Web Page' draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02.txt as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-07-13. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Discussion of the Tao of the IETF during 2012 made it clear that many people want the document published only as a web page, not as an RFC that needs to be periodically updated. This document specifies how the Tao will be published as a web page. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
Re: Comments for I-D of Publishing the Tao of the IETF as a Web Page
The abstract mentions 'many people', because many people may mean 4 to 10 people. The annonced I-D lacks the method of discussion in the community (discussing such change), the draft mentions the input from any community individual to be accepted by editor and then approved by IESG, but does not mention the methodology of discussion between community members nor between editor and members, also no announcements of such updates mentioned in draft. On this, as well as on the rest of the comments in the same message: The IETF already has a process for discussion, review, and consensus, and this document neither changes any of it nor, I think, needs to repeat it. Barry
