IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] Proposed charter and BoF request for IETF 106

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 16 October 2019 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68C77120116 for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 11:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 7CsqCoQtlbqe for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 11:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x733.google.com (mail-qk1-x733.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (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 7458E12010F for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 11:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x733.google.com with SMTP id e66so3201218qkf.13 for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 11:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=EZuG4/baNoh9oPL11s7vEyRGzv4c45PhqbJq2KDRy3k=; b=di5vhbuXKlewFRsBxuSv0tQibfYZiv5AxPWUZ8a7DBH6NABZh/mHt2lL6mGlKvucOV V2dt3AjnBxP4jzuYJP9eOEdAfB6de/I/BajoAmli6BqfUpNt9gRahgK/PJm6iuo0/XBS /eTlDtpFw+Kh8SU85qHy9H89NoPNH2ro9V8dz75ekhjIk/VtIHg/tD+LM8dsHF/xrY7I CCzAH2z3/gutvDYbiH3OFAGZXPU5bFalbULnojIZXb1RhEE0J6BcNLrxxd6UzZCDcw7v b786hcGccp+//m0y7FULcdVQGpy4FUpR83I9vJDVF31Ie0PURzCXjmJeUsalZwh0SFaJ sG4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=EZuG4/baNoh9oPL11s7vEyRGzv4c45PhqbJq2KDRy3k=; b=S0iuXvwxKDCmkayLEz51oGP7/eimWq8usF0s+7xeR1y9U1giMAIaHbrG+KJ0+LFPc5 ZS3gpgtP1ruBRpAaNWsuTInKsd7iHbqg1G/NFC/M5aCFlwlFZ5DxBVUt6WvcEG9Nv44G mIoA4omY1ObpzAo2S9H7OUj271WbnLKlbUHdJXI+zSnYLkNaJithwQwnCVljzkSQr0P8 wSED1NdA6suiFwYW83GlK7SvF3iB3NdwtDZ1Q/SGjoKlHdGyrZ1EsAbKi0xa7GYDtMT7 6tq+kmr9MBlkKhlq9NVIorKbJUWiho+6JNZdM4oJD4VXxeTqgddJaQRCQFNrNu3jlPNc FFWQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWEbha+n2bKD8GiEJa2PsPFd0KG4/v/HBI12+lsMB+ZdI/RyQYy v3ud/Npl2xIHgDheWiLderfJ8w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzWXV+nBBbqNYo0Y6vqFc0flVJu0oIp5dcnzUVxa6RSmMqoZB67QI35tIXT6B+SZD/S3P2UnA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:215b:: with SMTP id m27mr5118361qkm.328.1571251670278; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 11:47:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.100.13] (c-73-186-137-119.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [73.186.137.119]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b4sm12099409qkd.121.2019.10.16.11.47.49 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 11:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16G77)
In-Reply-To: <7330B585-68C9-4706-952F-E83A5604FC86@cable.comcast.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 14:47:49 -0400
Cc: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, "add@ietf.org" <add@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E81F4242-18D1-404D-B977-E425CD357E8B@fugue.com>
References: <CALaySJLxXVuHQNfTnaeKZ_R9xtBYWfbta+A1bWcE-ZQZwd3VZg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMkAFZW9mWjw92v+OR0Fa8ed+P80yc78eY07hCpsCNY6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOOq4FHVoxsyApzOc4VtTbMwZn7858-E+4kr21Z0r5wrA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgR_61TNnPy=ios+hQFs_tjfYNXu-sBpbDL-HBY+QsY40A@mail.gmail.com> <7330B585-68C9-4706-952F-E83A5604FC86@cable.comcast.com>
To: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/pzp275PD2_T6WZmOh19hJJgVl58>
Subject: Re: [Add] Proposed charter and BoF request for IETF 106
X-BeenThere: add@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications Doing DNS <add.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/add/>
List-Post: <mailto:add@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 18:47:53 -0000

On Oct 16, 2019, at 2:42 PM, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com> wrote:
> 
> But the WG may well agree on how to define it, how an operator may signal that such a policy config is in place, how this might be tested/validated, etc. Based on those policies, operating systems, apps or users can then determine how to act on that information, etc. (Or maybe I am just being optimistic.)

This sounds analogous to “do not track.”  Is there something about this that would lead to a different outcome?  If I know I am not acting as the user would prefer, would I not just say nothing?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email