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
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
, 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
] [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
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
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
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
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
-
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
--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
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.
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
--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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
] 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
-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
43 matches
Mail list logo
