Re: [93attendees] Network experiment during the meeting

Stephen Botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com> Wed, 15 July 2015 16:57 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 93attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 93attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFECC1B31D0 for <93attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pFPF3aHGjXW6 for <93attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x233.google.com (mail-ig0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E6AC1B31C5 for <93attendees@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iggf3 with SMTP id f3so40965785igg.1 for <93attendees@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=KvdxAG9oHxz0E1HmXVr9T62YUQ/XFC2EDIYb33F4a/I=; b=i2OFphRvX8z8FLD4XkWJ7uKp3Xf2T9owlwQg/P6clGjjdi9H2hNQblXm380IYkUEFk 0idcQi9OUh8US0H17mjHI/QReyi6TOTbfXFSF3/9wKmrWyHnq43avsR/ox0sPlaVyW75 EUOIQvvNzfR8BbsU/qa6qXnTadaT+alTMZPsEKNe1oh4YyvVEqm/7EIv5r+UxaX5uIIL L+dWoZpyfFXBdJmpb/V8KcTmn9r8QRYYt3EKyJoogMcwmB7DEd7Vqcspy4PUx1M7wtHG wfmOjuDylrs8XZFpivE+GF/y47pH6E1mSgK+bLXiYMI4iVmPZITZraYgxSsyiDrAdfHK tcdQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.137.87 with SMTP id l84mr6216619iod.119.1436979395986; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.100.130 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150715154753.GS1862@cisco.com>
References: <55A41BEB.3090102@hs-augsburg.de> <55A52719.1000208@gmail.com> <CAO_Rpc+-fQBU+MuOR03VHDgw3HcbOWPcThUR3nR2Vnj9CcM63w@mail.gmail.com> <C2443FFD-988C-4B31-ADB3-3AEAD994387A@isoc.org> <CAO_RpcKCYBxOW9eYLUCD2qiPuAQE3-tj8hwe_AXVJYUr+Y4h=g@mail.gmail.com> <D1CBF04C.50692%evyncke@cisco.com> <20150715121528.GA7114@puck.nether.net> <55A6629E.8050700@dcrocker.net> <20150715135804.GP1862@cisco.com> <55A671D6.9020707@dcrocker.net> <20150715154753.GS1862@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:56:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMC7SJ6RGjdnV91PNtA-o6B_VXG0hfhpx54nvvqet002rHtzKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>
To: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ec47c728b66051aecd6ec
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/93attendees/i5GRpn7G7HhWC27k_VnHUBWfULI>
Cc: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>, dcrocker@bbiw.net, "93attendees@ietf.org" <93attendees@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [93attendees] Network experiment during the meeting
X-BeenThere: 93attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list of IETF 93 attendees that have opted in on this list. " <93attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/93attendees>, <mailto:93attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/93attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:93attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:93attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/93attendees>, <mailto:93attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:57:04 -0000

>>>
I think the note well is trying to do its best to idemnify the IETF
and its participants against lawsuits claiming infringing on trade secret
or claims of novelty for things mentioned in public at the IETF.
>>>
There is *nothing* in the Note Well (nor in the RFCs it references) about
indemnification.

Stephen