On Jul 5, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
A few months ago I drew up a strawman proposal for a public-facing IETF
privacy policy (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cooper-privacy-policy-00.txt).
I've submitted an update based on feedback received:
On 2010-07-07 12:59, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Do some people not come to IETF meetings because of the current null
privacy policy?
Do some people not come because attendance is a matter of public record?
Do they say less than they would have if we had a
typical non-null policy?
do people not
On July 08, 2010 12:42 AM joel jaeggli wrote:
On 2010-07-07 12:53, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Sam,
I view this more or less as standard boilerplate, something you find
in a lot of online places. I think it is reasonable to expect that
if you register for a meeting your personal info (e-mail
On 07/07/2010 06:57 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
In the meantime, BGP and HTTP, to name just two of the protocols without which
the internet and the web wouldn't exist, still don't have standard status.
What do we want to spend our time on? Create more text that people will end up
(Wearing no hats)
On 08/07/2010 10:59, Yoav Nir wrote:
On July 08, 2010 12:42 AM joel jaeggli wrote:
the fact that you signed up for the meeting is publicly available so that
we don't sell mailing lists to spammers seems sort of irrelevant.
The attendee list does not contain email adresses,
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:59:12AM +0300, Yoav Nir wrote:
Without a privacy policy, it's hard to say whether that is
acceptable or not.
I keep seeing arguments of this sort in the current thread, and it
seems to me to be backwards. Surely it is not the privacy _policy_
that determines
On 2010-07-08 01:59, Yoav Nir wrote:
I personally don't care if the whole world knows I've been to an IETF
meeting, but the decision to publish the list on the website has
privacy consequences. Without a privacy policy, it's hard to say
whether that is acceptable or not.
Or you could just
Paul of course I've read them, though the PVP document is uniquely
dense and gave me a headache. Security by ID Obscurity.
My assertion still stands. In the absence of any linkage in the PVP to
the E164 numbering authorities and or databases any assertion about
verification and
On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:59:12AM +0300, Yoav Nir wrote:
Without a privacy policy, it's hard to say whether that is
acceptable or not.
I keep seeing arguments of this sort in the current thread, and it
seems to me to be backwards.
I tend to agree with Andrew and Marshall.
However, from our own JEDI's (so-labelled Jefsey's disciples) experience I
would suggest some kind of ietf privacy netiquette. It could be equivalen
to architectural quotes like dumb network, end to end, protocol on the
wire, rough consensus, etc. It
+1 for a privacy policy. As to the question of this particular one, I'm going
to profess some level of ignorance. I suggested starting from Google, Cisco,
and/or ISOC's privacy policies and editing from there, and someone said I
should pick a more appropriate starting point. What would be
+1 on all counts.
Now looking forward to a debate over the ASCII art... ;-)
On 7/8/10 1:07 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
+1 for a privacy policy. As to the question of this particular one,
I'm going to profess some level of ignorance. I suggested starting
from Google, Cisco, and/or ISOC's privacy
On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:05 AM, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote:
However, from our own JEDI's (so-labelled Jefsey's disciples) experience I
would suggest some kind of ietf privacy netiquette. It could be equivalen
to architectural quotes like dumb network, end to end, protocol on the
On Jul 7, 2010, at 10:11 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Do some people not come because attendance is a matter of public record?
Frankly, if people are not attending for that reason and that reason alone, I
have some questions. I would have to assume it is the only forum in the world
in which they
On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:25 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
Walking into an ITU meeting, I have to show a passport and have a permanent
photographic record taken. If I want to participate in RIPE's general
meeting, I have to register, and I can expect to find myself in RIPE's
attendee list. That is true
On 2010-07-08 12:25, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 7, 2010, at 10:11 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Do some people not come because attendance is a matter of public
record?
Frankly, if people are not attending for that reason and that reason
alone, I have some questions. I would have to assume it is
On Jul 8, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:25 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
Walking into an ITU meeting, I have to show a passport and have a permanent
photographic record taken. If I want to participate in RIPE's general
meeting, I have to register, and I can expect
On Jul 8, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
Boy, would they dispute that. ITU has claimed that the IETF is not an open
organization because a government cannot join it. Most membership
organizations, RIPE, being an example, have a definition of how someone can
become a member (members of
On Jul 8, 2010, at 1:18 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On Jul 8, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
Boy, would they dispute that. ITU has claimed that the IETF is not an open
organization because a government cannot join it. Most membership
organizations, RIPE, being an example, have a
Alissa,
No hats on, these are my personal views.
I have now read the draft. My overall comment is that I am not convinced if
this is needed and am sympathetic to the views expressed on the mailing list
that this is solving a problem the IETF doesn't have.
Comments below.
Bob
General
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Larry Smith wrote:
Appears to me this conversation/thread is leaning toward open being
used synonymous to anonymous
Not to me ... open means any can participate ... doesn't mean
that other participants can't know who they are.
People come with experience and resumes
I would have to assume it is the only forum in the world in which they
expect that level of anonymity
aside from payment possibly uncloaking you, i am not aware of an ops
meeting that checks id or even considers the issue interesting.
randy
___
Ietf
On Jul 3, 2010, at 7:33 AM, Alan Johnston wrote:
Many of us have worked hard on this approach over many years, and you have
been involved in this at every step of the way, in both SIPPING and DISPATCH.
For you to just try to block even the formation of a working group to
address this at
jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote:
However, from our own JEDI's (so-labelled Jefsey's disciples) experience I
would suggest some kind of ietf privacy netiquette. It could be equivalen
to architectural quotes like dumb network, end to end, protocol on the
wire, rough consensus, etc. It
Total of 138 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jul 9 00:53:03 EDT 2010
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
5.80% |8 | 11.18% | 115067 | rich...@shockey.us
5.80% |8 | 4.38% |45048 |
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Transport Mapping for Syslog '
draft-ietf-syslog-dtls-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Security Issues in Network Event Logging
Working Group.
The IESG contact
78th IETF Meeting
Maastricht, Netherlands
July 25-30, 2010
1. Registration Cut-off Dates
2. Social Event
===
1) Registration Cut-off Dates
You can register on line at: http://www.ietf.org/meeting/78/index.html
Please note the following
A modified charter has been submitted for the Common Authentication
Technology Next Generation (kitten) working group in the Security Area of
the IETF. The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The modified
charter is provided below for informational purposes only. Please send
your
28 matches
Mail list logo
