Dear Russ,
please forgive me for adding one more comment on that after you judged
on rough consensus.
As you said this rough consensus is quite rough (if we may call it
rough consensus).
I would like to point out two things:
1. the statement (1) Rough consensus: an open and transparent
On 2012-05-10 03:18, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 5/9/12 6:40 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
I don't want participants to think that they can't bring up the issue
of violation without some sort of burden of proof.
Hmm.
I'm concerned about people bringing baseless accusations, as yet
another way
John,
sorry, maybe I did not articulate myself precisely enough. I did not
intend to say it would be published in real-time. What I wanted to
communicate is that we would collect that data only during daytime and
only with 2hours-granularity as it's only meeting attendance in which
room you
At 20:09 09-05-2012, Randy Bush wrote:
participants should not call for sanctions. they should point out to wg
chairs, or ADs FACTS about questinable activity, non-disclosure, ...
Yes.
and so forth. i hope that this is not a witch hunt. that it is not
creating courts and guillotines. we
--On Thursday, May 10, 2012 15:59 +0800 Tobias Gondrom
tobias.gond...@gondrom.org wrote:
John,
sorry, maybe I did not articulate myself precisely enough. I
did not intend to say it would be published in real-time. What
I wanted to communicate is that we would collect that data
only
On 10/05/12 16:35, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, May 10, 2012 15:59 +0800 Tobias Gondrom
tobias.gond...@gondrom.org wrote:
John,
sorry, maybe I did not articulate myself precisely enough. I
did not intend to say it would be published in real-time. What
I wanted to communicate is that
On 5/10/2012 1:48 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
What I dispute is that make available to those who are interested
necessarily leads to the need to broadcast the data (i.e. publish in the
proceedings).
What is the harm you are trying to guard against by requiring the request?
Or, to take a
On Thu, 10 May 2012, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
On 10/05/12 16:35, John C Klensin wrote:
But it seems to me that takes us back to Russ's summary in that
it is normal, and arguably necessary, for a standards body to
record --and make available to those who are interested-- the
identities of
On May 10, 2012, at 12:10 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 5/10/2012 1:48 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
What I dispute is that make available to those who are interested
necessarily leads to the need to broadcast the data (i.e. publish in the
proceedings).
What is the harm you are trying to guard
Doug,
you are right in the end I can not prevent someone else from publishing
this. Even today a party that subpoena'ed them might publish the data.
(Or a person might just take a photo of the blue sheet in the room and
publish that...)
Of course we can not control other people's actions,
+1
Agree with Yoav.
BR, Tobias
On 10/05/12 17:35, Yoav Nir wrote:
On May 10, 2012, at 12:10 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 5/10/2012 1:48 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
What I dispute is that make available to those who are interested
necessarily leads to the need to broadcast the data (i.e. publish
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Fair enough. I can't agree with SM though - as for appeals under RFC 2026,
the person bringing up an issue really has to provide a factual summary,
exactly to avoid witch hunts. It can be very short:
Hi, I noticed that US Patent 12345 was filed in March 2010, and
On 05/10/2012 11:17 AM, David Morris wrote:
I object to the quantum change in ease of access and persistence of the
information. I see way too much aggregation of personal information and
don't think open-ness is justification for increasing that potential.
+1
Always looking for automated solutions, perhaps the IETF I-D
submissions process should include a patent database query check using
document authors, document titles, abstract, keywords etc to find
possible exact or near filings made, and if any are found, it can
report immediately at the web
On 5/10/12 2:30 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
There are times when it is difficult to keep assuming that people are
acting in a responsible fashion given the high levels of
unpleasantness. The situation can be such that simple gentle paths
are ignored.
This is IMO perhaps more a reflection of
On 10/05/2012 11:55, Hector Santos wrote:
Always looking for automated solutions, perhaps the IETF I-D submissions
process should include a patent database query check using document
authors, document titles, abstract, keywords etc to find possible exact or
near filings made, and if any are
Peter Sylvester wrote:
On 05/10/2012 11:17 AM, David Morris wrote:
I object to the quantum change in ease of access and persistence of the
information. I see way too much aggregation of personal information and
don't think open-ness is justification for increasing that potential.
+1
BCP 79 says:
Reasonably and personally known: means something an individual
knows personally or, because of the job the individual holds,
would reasonably be expected to know. This wording is used to
indicate that an organization cannot purposely keep an individual
Russ Housley wrote:
BCP 79 says:
Reasonably and personally known: means something an individual
knows personally or, because of the job the individual holds,
would reasonably be expected to know. This wording is used to
indicate that an organization cannot
(top post)
Tobias,
Constructing and then attacking strawmen is not helpful.
As far as I know, no one has proposed making blue sheet
information --and hence precise location information for
identified individuals-- available to the public in real time
during the meetings. As one of, I assume,
On 5/10/12 5:04 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
Peter Sylvester wrote:
On 05/10/2012 11:17 AM, David Morris wrote:
I object to the quantum change in ease of access and persistence of the
information. I see way too much aggregation of personal information and
don't think open-ness is justification for
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:17 AM, David Morris d...@xpasc.com wrote:
One of the ways we deal with SPAM and DOS attacks is to intentionally slow
the process. Ted's proposal would be vastly improved with the provision
that access, once authenticated, was delayed approximately the same
amount of
At 03:55 10-05-2012, Hector Santos wrote:
http://hector.wildcatblog.com
The above URI is listed by uribl.com. Changes to mail.ietf.org will
not fix the problem as it doesn't change the behavior of message
filters on the recipient's side.
In case it is not clear, no action is requested
Melinda Shore wrote:
On 5/10/12 5:04 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
Peter Sylvester wrote:
On 05/10/2012 11:17 AM, David Morris wrote:
I object to the quantum change in ease of access and persistence of the
information. I see way too much aggregation of personal information and
don't think
On 5/10/12 9:32 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
There has never been a need to actively broadcast these massive amounts
of personally identifiable information (PII), and I haven't seen any
convincing rationale for doing it now.
To be honest, I don't want to receive more spam and My boss might
find out I
Russ Housley wrote:
BCP 79 says:
Reasonably and personally known: means something an individual
knows personally or, because of the job the individual holds,
would reasonably be expected to know. This wording is used to
indicate that an organization cannot
On May 10, 2012, at 8:42 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 5/10/12 9:32 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
There has never been a need to actively broadcast these massive amounts
of personally identifiable information (PII), and I haven't seen any
convincing rationale for doing it now.
To be honest, I don't
--On Thursday, May 10, 2012 09:42 -0800 Melinda Shore
melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/10/12 9:32 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
There has never been a need to actively broadcast these
massive amounts of personally identifiable information (PII),
and I haven't seen any convincing rationale for
John C Klensin wrote:
I hate the idea of the community getting embroiled in accusations and
counter-accusations but one advantage to a working IPR policy
(as well as general openness) of publishing the blue sheets is
the ability to notice and send reminder notes of the form of
hey, I think
On 5/10/2012 11:14 AM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
I don't know if a similar block exists, but the policy is the same for us.
Such a policy, if implemented, could easily lead to various people being
unable to participate in the process.
indeed.
more generally: patents and the
On May 10, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 5/10/12 9:32 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
There has never been a need to actively broadcast these massive amounts
of personally identifiable information (PII), and I haven't seen any
convincing rationale for doing it now.
To be honest, I don't
Warren Kumari wrote:
-- if you are active in the IETF (or even if you aren't), you email
address is already known to the spammers. Our lists, and list archives
are all public
If the blue sheets would _only_ contain PII that is _already_available_
in other places, then we should stop
We have identified space in Vancouver to hold the Bits and Bites event, and
we are now seeking sponsors for tables at the event. If your organization is
interested in face-to-face time with hundreds of IETF participants, please
contact Drew Dvorshak dvors...@isoc.org to sponsor a table.
Hi John,
At 11:31 10-05-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
participate in any way in an affected WG. I hate the idea of
the community getting embroiled in accusations and
counter-accusations but one advantage to a working IPR policy
(as well as general openness) of publishing the blue sheets is
I am
Total of 137 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 11 00:53:03 EDT 2012
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
8.03% | 11 | 7.81% |75340 | s...@resistor.net
5.84% |8 | 6.11% |58911 |
84th IETF Meeting
Vancouver, BC, Canada
July 29-August 3, 2012
Host: Google
Meeting venue: Hyatt Regency Vancouver http://Vancouver.hyatt.com
Register online at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/84/
1. Registration
2. Visas Letters of Invitation
3. Accommodations
4. Companion Program
1.
We have identified space in Vancouver to hold the Bits and Bites event, and
we are now seeking sponsors for tables at the event. If your organization is
interested in face-to-face time with hundreds of IETF participants, please
contact Drew Dvorshak dvors...@isoc.org to sponsor a table.
37 matches
Mail list logo
