Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
Sorry, missed this. Inline: On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, TS Glassey wrote: Dean - - Original Message - From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:28 PM Subject: RE: Blue Sheet Change Proposal Speaking as president of the LPF; not a lawyer but a knowledgeable layman. I think you are correct that the patent issue is a red herring. No its not. The patentee has the _right_ (not the obligation) to keep patent application contents secret. Sure but not when they submit that IP to others to get their 'contributed work product' added into that IP. So in response to your commentary, No Dean they do not because that would constitute an act of fraud by the party Submaringing the Patent in that they are 'extorting through an apparent agreement as to joint ownership of the IP' to that newly developed IP. But further since the patent filing itself is now public there is no concern for public disclosure. I'm not following you here. I can see that someone could conduct the fraud/extortion as you describe (indeed, someone already has), but I don't follow why that has any bearing on whether they use blue sheets to identify attendance at a meeting. The blue sheet doesn't prove or disprove a fraud/extortion charge. Failure to keep the secret merely causes them to lose the _right_ to trade secret status. Yes but the public disclosure of an IP issue starts certain clocks running and this is a the real issue. What that means is that the IETF cannot process anything with Trade-Secret Status. Err, what clocks do mean? Seriously, the only clock I can think of is the patent clock, which starts on the filing date and has nothing to do with when there was public disclosure, unless the public disclosure is that someone _else_ previously invented and published the technology. The public disclosure that I (self just for example) invented a technology I'm patenting has no bearing on any clock I can think of. Though its probably not a good idea to do that before one gets to the patent office, since under the new rules, someone else could beat you to the patent office with your own invention. That's not a clock, but a race to file. But the second after the filing is made, one can disclose as widely as the please. Its only the patent office that will not make any disclosures for 18 months; The patent office only keeps the secret to protect the filer's right to a trade secret if the patent is quickly rejected or withdrawn. But I agree the IETF cannot process anything with trade secret status. I just disagree this has anything to do with clocks. Trade secrets never expire, by the way. The reason the IETF cannot process trade secrets is that the secret must be disclosed in the draft, and then being disclosed, it is no longer secret. The IETF has no NDA and cannot accept drafts under NDA. Everything submitted to the IETF is publicly disclosed thereby ending the possibility of trade secret status, unless perhaps it was improperly submitted to the IETF. (BTW, the possibility of unauthorized disclosure is yet another reason for the IETF to get written, signed transfers, as you advocated previously.) They might want that status in the event the patent application is rejected. But that wouldnt have anything to do with the issue of whether the failure to disclose IP ownership defrauds the other participants in an IP effort of their rights to the derivative's and fruit of their own labor. Agreed. But one can't defraud via the IETF using a trade secret. Such misconduct is only possible with an undisclosed patent. My point is, there is no justification in not disclosing the patent; since anything proposed to the IETF cannot be a trade secret. They lose the trade secret right if the patent is granted, when the patent application is published 18 months after filing, or if they disclose the information publicly, or if someone _independently_ rediscovers the secret. Obviously, if they are trying to standardize the patent, they can't have trade-secret status anyway: the secret is publicly disclosed in the draft text. So the issue of disclosure is moot. I have no opinion on whether blue sheet changes are a good idea or a bad idea for other reasons. Generally, though, my experience and view is that truth and disclosure is always a good thing for the public interest. --Dean On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote: Regarding the legal issues - if the sessions are broadcast over the Internet, and freely downloadable (w/o specifying or tracking who was downloading them), how can you be certain that someone was NOT aware of certain IPR? Also, if someone was in the room, how can you be certain they WERE aware of certain IPR? The only thing that the IETF can say is that every contribution to the IETF is considered
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
Dean - - Original Message - From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:28 PM Subject: RE: Blue Sheet Change Proposal Speaking as president of the LPF; not a lawyer but a knowledgeable layman. I think you are correct that the patent issue is a red herring. No its not. The patentee has the _right_ (not the obligation) to keep patent application contents secret. Sure but not when they submit that IP to others to get their 'contributed work product' added into that IP. So in response to your commentary, No Dean they do not because that would constitute an act of fraud by the party Submaringing the Patent in that they are 'extorting through an apparent agreement as to joint ownership of the IP' to that newly developed IP. But further since the patent filing itself is now public there is no concern for public disclosure. Failure to keep the secret merely causes them to lose the _right_ to trade secret status. Yes but the public disclosure of an IP issue starts certain clocks running and this is a the real issue. What that means is that the IETF cannot process anything with Trade-Secret Status. They might want that status in the event the patent application is rejected. But that wouldnt have anything to do with the issue of whether the failure to disclose IP ownership defrauds the other participants in an IP effort of their rights to the derivative's and fruit of their own labor. They lose the trade secret right if the patent is granted, when the patent application is published 18 months after filing, or if they disclose the information publicly, or if someone _independently_ rediscovers the secret. Obviously, if they are trying to standardize the patent, they can't have trade-secret status anyway: the secret is publicly disclosed in the draft text. So the issue of disclosure is moot. I have no opinion on whether blue sheet changes are a good idea or a bad idea for other reasons. Generally, though, my experience and view is that truth and disclosure is always a good thing for the public interest. --Dean On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote: Regarding the legal issues - if the sessions are broadcast over the Internet, and freely downloadable (w/o specifying or tracking who was downloading them), how can you be certain that someone was NOT aware of certain IPR? Also, if someone was in the room, how can you be certain they WERE aware of certain IPR? The only thing that the IETF can say is that every contribution to the IETF is considered to be publically disclosed, and this is indeed what the Note Well says. It seems to me that the IPR concerns are a red herring. - Wes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Burger Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 8:07 PM To: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal Two purposes for Blue Sheets: 1. Redundant data entry: Quite often, the name is illegible, while the e-mail is legible. We don't care about the e-mail address, what we really care about is who was there. IMHO, this is the important use for capturing the e-mail address. 2. Legal issues: When the inevitable patent dispute happens, we WILL get served to report who was in the room when a particular subject was discussed. Other standards bodies have had this problem, if we haven't had it, it means our time is near :-( On 4/3/08 4:22 PM, Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf 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. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo
RE: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
Speaking as president of the LPF; not a lawyer but a knowledgeable layman. I think you are correct that the patent issue is a red herring. The patentee has the _right_ (not the obligation) to keep patent application contents secret. Failure to keep the secret merely causes them to lose the _right_ to trade secret status. They might want that status in the event the patent application is rejected. They lose the trade secret right if the patent is granted, when the patent application is published 18 months after filing, or if they disclose the information publicly, or if someone _independently_ rediscovers the secret. Obviously, if they are trying to standardize the patent, they can't have trade-secret status anyway: the secret is publicly disclosed in the draft text. So the issue of disclosure is moot. I have no opinion on whether blue sheet changes are a good idea or a bad idea for other reasons. Generally, though, my experience and view is that truth and disclosure is always a good thing for the public interest. --Dean On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote: Regarding the legal issues - if the sessions are broadcast over the Internet, and freely downloadable (w/o specifying or tracking who was downloading them), how can you be certain that someone was NOT aware of certain IPR? Also, if someone was in the room, how can you be certain they WERE aware of certain IPR? The only thing that the IETF can say is that every contribution to the IETF is considered to be publically disclosed, and this is indeed what the Note Well says. It seems to me that the IPR concerns are a red herring. - Wes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Burger Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 8:07 PM To: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal Two purposes for Blue Sheets: 1. Redundant data entry: Quite often, the name is illegible, while the e-mail is legible. We don't care about the e-mail address, what we really care about is who was there. IMHO, this is the important use for capturing the e-mail address. 2. Legal issues: When the inevitable patent dispute happens, we WILL get served to report who was in the room when a particular subject was discussed. Other standards bodies have had this problem, if we haven't had it, it means our time is near :-( On 4/3/08 4:22 PM, Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf 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. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
Regarding the legal issues - if the sessions are broadcast over the Internet, and freely downloadable (w/o specifying or tracking who was downloading them), how can you be certain that someone was NOT aware of certain IPR? Also, if someone was in the room, how can you be certain they WERE aware of certain IPR? The only thing that the IETF can say is that every contribution to the IETF is considered to be publically disclosed, and this is indeed what the Note Well says. It seems to me that the IPR concerns are a red herring. - Wes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Burger Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 8:07 PM To: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal Two purposes for Blue Sheets: 1. Redundant data entry: Quite often, the name is illegible, while the e-mail is legible. We don't care about the e-mail address, what we really care about is who was there. IMHO, this is the important use for capturing the e-mail address. 2. Legal issues: When the inevitable patent dispute happens, we WILL get served to report who was in the room when a particular subject was discussed. Other standards bodies have had this problem, if we haven't had it, it means our time is near :-( On 4/3/08 4:22 PM, Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf 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. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
Exactly .. I don't see the problem. I've not seen any evidence of abuse. IMHO if the procedure is not broken why are we trying to fix it? Why is the IETF so continuingly dragged about in these, frankly trivial, process issues? I won't repeat what others have said about the presence or absence of the problem, but I'm not convinced either. john ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
Isn't the Ark of the Covenant also there? In the interest of adding some actual content as well, I'll remark that I really don't much care whether addresses are collected or not. For my own part, I'm with the others who've observed that trying to hide your address as a counter-spam measure is about as effective as sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la-la-la. And for that matter, those who think otherwise can easily use a disposable email address if they wish (surely they must have one if they care about such things) or even falsify or omit their email address (horrors!). --John On Apr 4, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: I thought that people might like to see where the Blue Sheets are currently stored by the IETF Trust once the Secretariat is done with them : http://www.americafree.tv/IETF_Trust/index.html I feel fairly certain that addresses are not being scanned there. Regards Marshall On Apr 4, 2008, at 5:19 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --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 - so if we never use those emails for anything, we shouldn't collect them. I've used them. One time when I chaired a BOF I collected the email addresses to personally ask if they wanted to be involved in the mailing list. (It was done this way because the list was not set up prior to the meeting). So, having email addresses was very important to inform everyone in the room of the list address. Yes. And, as a sometime BOF or WG chair, I've often asked the secretariat for copies of the blue sheets (and gotten them) to check names of spellings against the minutes, to write people asking for clarification about what they said, and to get my own sense of the profile and pattern of those participating in the meetings compared to those who were participating on the list. Some of those uses require email addresses, some don't. But the activity is, IMO, legitimate and useful enough that I'm reluctant to give up the email addresses unless someone demonstrates that there is a real problem that needs solving. I won't repeat what others have said about the presence or absence of the problem, but I'm not convinced either. john ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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 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 indirection: print a registration ID on the badges, and have folk fill in that I-D on the blue sheet, together with their names off course. --Olaf - Due to a mishap my right hand is in cast and I can only type short messages using my left hand. Apologies for the snappy tone that may be caused by that. Olaf Kolkman [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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 anything, should be recorded to protect the IETF and its members, and that they said we don't need to keep emails which is why this topic is being discussed by us rather than being moot? Sorry. Meant to be more clear. It wasn't the mere formality, but the practical benefit of the email address, in being able to actually contact attendees. As for the reported use of the lists for spam, they need not be included in the proceedings. Hadn't thought about it before, but I'm not seeing why attendee lists are particularly useful for the Proceedings. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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, then why not replace it with an attendee number? If this is printed on the badge it's readily available when signing the blue sheets, and four or less digits take less time to write down and should be easier to decipher than an alphanumeric string. ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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, unlike all the armchair occupants around here. I don't see any other reason to retain them. 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'm all in favour of making things simpler if we can. (The hypothetical subpoena could, in theory, lead to me standing in a courtroom looking at a blue sheet copy and being asked is this your handwriting, and having to stammer maybe. :-) Harald ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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 you dipped your cast in ink and tried to write your email address with it. And that you're actually left-handed, as well. In other words, most of them are pretty illegible, benefitting neither spammers nor those trying to make legitimate contact. I think it ain't broke. But, really, je m'en fiche, either way. Barry ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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 whole time, and (2) doesn't mean I had stopped reading emails and was paying attention. 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 signing. Cheers Suresh ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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 signing. Not disagreeing with your previous point, but your observation doesn't prove it: the people in question could have signed earlier. ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
- 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 - From: Barry Leiba [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Working Group Chairs [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 7:19 AM Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal 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 you dipped your cast in ink and tried to write your email address with it. And that you're actually left-handed, as well. In other words, most of them are pretty illegible, benefitting neither spammers nor those trying to make legitimate contact. I think it ain't broke. But, really, je m'en fiche, either way. Barry ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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 per-card cost is modest and since there are a lot of repeat attendees, we all just need our IETF frequent flyer card. We used something like that for speaker identification at the microphone at ACM Multimedia 2004; the microphone had a BlueTooth-enabled RFID reader that transmitted the code to a data gathering host, which then displayed name and affiliation on a screen. The range of the card was a few inches. Henning On Apr 4, 2008, at 11:01 AM, Mr Kim Sanders wrote: - 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 ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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 the scrawling looks like you dipped your cast in ink and tried to write your email address with it. And that you're actually left-handed, as well. I think the illegibility factor really started in earnest after people began hearing stories about people sucking off large masses of email addresses from the blue sheets and sending spam. Thinking back to the blue sheets from 7-10 years ago, they used to be quite legible. I like Olaf's suggestion of adding a level of indirection. Tony Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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 blue sheets are required as part of the basic openness process in a standards organization - there is a need to know who is in the room (see RFC 2418 section 3.1 for the actual requirement) the blue sheets become part of the formal record of the standards process and can be retrieved if needed (e.g. in a lawsuit) but are not generally made available as pointed out by Mark Andrews - email addresses can be useful in determining the actual identity of the person who scrawled their name on the sheet - so it is an advantage to retain them I'm trying to understand how the blue sheets contribute in any significant way to the spam problem - someone whould have to be surreptitiously copying them or quickly writing down the email addresses - both could happen but do not seem to be all that likely there are far more efficient ways to grab email addresses so, my question is is this a problem that needs solving? The only reason I've heard is that some claim that people don't write their names on the blue sheets out of concern over spam. This doesn't seem very reasonable to me... if you post on any public list -- like this one -- your likelihood for harvest is far, far higher. Let's face it, in 2008 trying to have private email addresses as a spam defense strategy is oh so 1998. Mike ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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 likely not to be recorded properly. If we really want to be able to use the identification information, this will make it less likely, not more. 2. Folks can find anything to be afraid of. If there is a valid concern -- and skimming published versions of the lists does seem like a valid concern -- then we should make sure the system is designed properly, to protect against real threats of information misuse. The goal of an indirect identifier is to ensure that the address is retained in a safe place and not circulated. We can accomplish that just as well by not circulating the sign-up sheets, and instead making them available only for specific, authorized uses. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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 used to plan room capacities for the next meeting. the blue sheets are required as part of the basic openness process in a standards organization - there is a need to know who is in the room (see RFC 2418 section 3.1 for the actual requirement) the blue sheets become part of the formal record of the standards process and can be retrieved if needed (e.g. in a lawsuit) but are not generally made available as pointed out by Mark Andrews - email addresses can be useful in determining the actual identity of the person who scrawled their name on the sheet - so it is an advantage to retain them I'm trying to understand how the blue sheets contribute in any significant way to the spam problem - someone whould have to be surreptitiously copying them or quickly writing down the email addresses - both could happen but do not seem to be all that likely there are far more efficient ways to grab email addresses so, my question is is this a problem that needs solving? The only reason I've heard is that some claim that people don't write their names on the blue sheets out of concern over spam. This doesn't seem very reasonable to me... if you post on any public list -- like this one -- your likelihood for harvest is far, far higher. Let's face it, in 2008 trying to have private email addresses as a spam defense strategy is oh so 1998. Oh, I agree. My only argument here would be that if people actually do this in significant numbers that accomodating them might be easier than educating them. -Ekr ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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 used them. One time when I chaired a BOF I collected the email addresses to personally ask if they wanted to be involved in the mailing list. (It was done this way because the list was not set up prior to the meeting). So, having email addresses was very important to inform everyone in the room of the list address. Maybe this is considered SPAM, but I don't think so. -derek -- Derek Atkins 617-623-3745 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ihtfp.com Computer and Internet Security Consultant ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
--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 indirection: print a registration ID on the badges, and have folk fill in that I-D on the blue sheet, together with their names off course. Or distribute sheets of bar-coded sticky labels in the registration packet and let people either fill in a name and number or affix a sticker. The latter might also improve the speed at which the things went around the room and would ensure that neither email nor names could be captured by anyone other than the secretariat. But these sorts of methods are worth the trouble only if we are convinced that there is a problem. If there is not, we are wasting a tremendous amount of time discussing solutions to it. john ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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. More technologically-advanced conferences and trade-shows use RFID or (a few years ago) mag stripes to avoid deciphering handwriting. The per-card cost is modest and since there are a lot of repeat attendees, we all just need our IETF frequent flyer card. We used something like that for speaker identification at the microphone at ACM Multimedia 2004; the microphone had a BlueTooth-enabled RFID reader that transmitted the code to a data gathering host, which then displayed name and affiliation on a screen. The range of the card was a few inches. Henning On Apr 4, 2008, at 11:01 AM, Mr Kim Sanders wrote: - 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 ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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 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. More technologically-advanced conferences and trade-shows use RFID or (a few years ago) mag stripes to avoid deciphering handwriting. The per-card cost is modest and since there are a lot of repeat attendees, we all just need our IETF frequent flyer card. We used something like that for speaker identification at the microphone at ACM Multimedia 2004; the microphone had a BlueTooth-enabled RFID reader that transmitted the code to a data gathering host, which then displayed name and affiliation on a screen. The range of the card was a few inches. Henning On Apr 4, 2008, at 11:01 AM, Mr Kim Sanders wrote: - 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 ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
--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 - so if we never use those emails for anything, we shouldn't collect them. I've used them. One time when I chaired a BOF I collected the email addresses to personally ask if they wanted to be involved in the mailing list. (It was done this way because the list was not set up prior to the meeting). So, having email addresses was very important to inform everyone in the room of the list address. Yes. And, as a sometime BOF or WG chair, I've often asked the secretariat for copies of the blue sheets (and gotten them) to check names of spellings against the minutes, to write people asking for clarification about what they said, and to get my own sense of the profile and pattern of those participating in the meetings compared to those who were participating on the list. Some of those uses require email addresses, some don't. But the activity is, IMO, legitimate and useful enough that I'm reluctant to give up the email addresses unless someone demonstrates that there is a real problem that needs solving. I won't repeat what others have said about the presence or absence of the problem, but I'm not convinced either. john ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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 spammed is some combination of anecdotal and ancient, since it's rather unlikely that anyone is stealing them in the meeting rooms. Regards, John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies, Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor More Wiener schnitzel, please, said Tom, revealingly. ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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. --bill On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 02:18:27PM -0700, David Conrad wrote: 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 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. More technologically-advanced conferences and trade-shows use RFID or (a few years ago) mag stripes to avoid deciphering handwriting. The per-card cost is modest and since there are a lot of repeat attendees, we all just need our IETF frequent flyer card. We used something like that for speaker identification at the microphone at ACM Multimedia 2004; the microphone had a BlueTooth-enabled RFID reader that transmitted the code to a data gathering host, which then displayed name and affiliation on a screen. The range of the card was a few inches. Henning On Apr 4, 2008, at 11:01 AM, Mr Kim Sanders wrote: - 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 ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Attendee lists in proceedings [Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal]
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 particularly useful for the Proceedings. Because an open standards process probably shouldn't be conducted anonymously as far as the general public is concerned? Brian ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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 ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf 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. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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. There may be other procedural aspects such as measuring consensus, but it seems to me that this can all be done without the need to record e-mail addresses. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, 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 ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
That assumes that every attendee is representing a company, which is certainly not always true. Regards Marshall On Apr 3, 2008, at 7:22 PM, Alain Durand wrote: Could you replace it by the name of the company the attendee work for? - Alain. On 4/3/08 7:16 PM, Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
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 blue sheets are required as part of the basic openness process in a standards organization - there is a need to know who is in the room (see RFC 2418 section 3.1 for the actual requirement) the blue sheets become part of the formal record of the standards process and can be retrieved if needed (e.g. in a lawsuit) but are not generally made available as pointed out by Mark Andrews - email addresses can be useful in determining the actual identity of the person who scrawled their name on the sheet - so it is an advantage to retain them I'm trying to understand how the blue sheets contribute in any significant way to the spam problem - someone whould have to be surreptitiously copying them or quickly writing down the email addresses - both could happen but do not seem to be all that likely there are far more efficient ways to grab email addresses so, my question is is this a problem that needs solving? Scott ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
At Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:22:42 +1100, Mark Andrews 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 ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf 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. -Ekr ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
I thought it was for the same reasons that Scott suggested, to tell who was in the room and the emails served the purpose for handling consensus calls on the list, and ensuring any 'nasty' IPR supprises as well. John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ext Scott O. Bradner Sent: 04 April, 2008 03:10 To: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal 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 blue sheets are required as part of the basic openness process in a standards organization - there is a need to know who is in the room (see RFC 2418 section 3.1 for the actual requirement) the blue sheets become part of the formal record of the standards process and can be retrieved if needed (e.g. in a lawsuit) but are not generally made available as pointed out by Mark Andrews - email addresses can be useful in determining the actual identity of the person who scrawled their name on the sheet - so it is an advantage to retain them I'm trying to understand how the blue sheets contribute in any significant way to the spam problem - someone whould have to be surreptitiously copying them or quickly writing down the email addresses - both could happen but do not seem to be all that likely there are far more efficient ways to grab email addresses so, my question is is this a problem that needs solving? Scott ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:14 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: I would say not. If people want to harvest our email addresses, they are readily available from IETF mail archives, which have the advantage of actually being machine readable. I do not see that any change is required in the blue sheets. Regards Marshall I agree with you though I don't care one way or the other. It does seem worth mentioning that for people who believe that emails addresses are being harvested off the blue sheets, they could probably use an email address that they don't read. Yours Truly, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
On Apr 3, 2008, at 8:10 PM, 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 blue sheets are required as part of the basic openness process in a standards organization - there is a need to know who is in the room (see RFC 2418 section 3.1 for the actual requirement) the blue sheets become part of the formal record of the standards process and can be retrieved if needed (e.g. in a lawsuit) but are not generally made available as pointed out by Mark Andrews - email addresses can be useful in determining the actual identity of the person who scrawled their name on the sheet - so it is an advantage to retain them I'm trying to understand how the blue sheets contribute in any significant way to the spam problem - someone whould have to be surreptitiously copying them or quickly writing down the email addresses - both could happen but do not seem to be all that likely there are far more efficient ways to grab email addresses so, my question is is this a problem that needs solving? I would say not. If people want to harvest our email addresses, they are readily available from IETF mail archives, which have the advantage of actually being machine readable. I do not see that any change is required in the blue sheets. Regards Marshall Scott ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
that would test something but I'm not sure you could isolate the spam-fear factor Scott --- Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:44:47 -0700 From: Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott O. Bradner) Cc: ietf@ietf.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII 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 blue sheets are required as part of the basic openness process in a standards organization - there is a need to know who is in the room (see RFC 2418 section 3.1 for the actual requirement) the blue sheets become part of the formal record of the standards process and can be retrieved if needed (e.g. in a lawsuit) but are not generally made available as pointed out by Mark Andrews - email addresses can be useful in determining the actual identity of the person who scrawled their name on the sheet - so it is an advantage to retain them I'm trying to understand how the blue sheets contribute in any significant way to the spam problem - someone whould have to be surreptitiously copying them or quickly writing down the email addresses - both could happen but do not seem to be all that likely there are far more efficient ways to grab email addresses so, my question is is this a problem that needs solving? The only reason I've heard is that some claim that people don't write their names on the blue sheets out of concern over spam. This actually seems like something we could test pretty easily by counting room entries and blue sheet entries and comparing the totals... -Ekr ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
At Thu, 3 Apr 2008 19:42:53 -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote: That assumes that every attendee is representing a company, which is certainly not always true. IETF badges already ask for company afiliation, so at least we'd be being consistant in our silliness. I still have fond memories of the gentleman at the Oslo IETF who asked me, apparently in all seriousness, what On Sabatical sold. On the gripping hand, I tend to agree that this is a problem we don't need to solve. ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
Could you replace it by the name of the company the attendee work for? - Alain. On 4/3/08 7:16 PM, Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Ray Pelletier wrote: Is there any good reason to retain that info bit? No. I have no objection to the change, though I'd make it in the interest of streamlining the blue sheet process rather than to avoid spam. The faster one can deal with the blue sheet, the less likely it is to be ignored. Addressing the is this a problem: I have at points stumbled across the typed-in contents of blue sheets on the web. -- Sam ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
-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
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
Eric Burger wrote: 2. Legal issues: When the inevitable patent dispute happens, we WILL get served to report who was in the room when a particular subject was discussed. This is sufficient reason, for me, to keep recording unique contact information, namely the email address. The concern over spam strikes me as wholly misplaced for this data in this context. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
Surely there must be easier ways to get email addresses. John Sent from my Nokia N96. -original message- Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal 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 ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Eric Burger wrote: 2. Legal issues: When the inevitable patent dispute happens, we WILL get served to report who was in the room when a particular subject was discussed. This is sufficient reason, for me, to keep recording unique contact information, namely the email address. 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 anything, should be recorded to protect the IETF and its members, and that they said we don't need to keep emails which is why this topic is being discussed by us rather than being moot? -hadriel ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
