Re: [datatracker-rqmts] New Requirement

Royer Software and Services <> Mon, 15 November 2010 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B24B3A6D14 for <>; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:17:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.328
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JepkIh0JWiuB for <>; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:17:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B449B3A6D20 for <>; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:17:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gxk27 with SMTP id 27so3665803gxk.31 for <>; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:18:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=K0zcMF1pxjq2sYngblCDfbopdr4wSNOSNq5Cp9x5M/k=; b=R96Lk7sW2D5jgmmDJlD0HbvzcVXf70uGdhtgbQh4WvG9a1tBUR9ehP6BblIOFrWAQl ZlI4t+QZoWO++A53vpnWDQrGjEqilSeGltxTe1rokNunuHP550OjkXdSHQI5Uwc0yi6A xpAlcoqfN39rOBxS6bo9KvVCZnxMWvMEFypgI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=O8tkZeitG3VinfTIkQ8A58/JdHSVgljXMXFAZJWGeQA7V9u6RmiGDmMK1BvpiD8nYF LbPimLnJZSFY9NynZWgmPYVFLvgUEViA04fnRmjKOE0jLpD41Z3+o+HLvigTNmfWXEsl vj9Q1Gaw5UtgMGXL66F6/oPN9uurbBugpCs3U=
Received: by with SMTP id t9mr4503094ane.151.1289852291301; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:18:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPS id g18sm4135069anh.18.2010. (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:18:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:18:01 -0700
From: Royer Software and Services <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <069201cb84a5$f3600e60$da202b20$> <> <p06240823c9073a421353@[]>
In-Reply-To: <p06240823c9073a421353@[]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [datatracker-rqmts] New Requirement
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:17:32 -0000

I am not trying to be a pain. I just don't see the need for private. And 
the explanation
given in that post does not convince me that anyone could reach any 
dangerous, invasive,
disruptive, or anything else conclusions by knowing that some people are 
looking at something.

Adding private seems like a lot of access control issues that  can 
break, have some misconfiguration,
or software bug, that would not reveal the same information. With the 
terabytes of data posted on the net (daily?),
it would be easier for an employer to just look at the employees 
activities than to write a tool to
see what drafts there employee is looking at. (re: the example in the 
current draft).

I have read the draft. Who could tell what it meant that  someone is 
looking at stuff?

My point is, what's private mean here?

Would it be private that the draft changed? That some status changed? 
That someone is looking
for keyword 'oops'? What would be private? The drafts are not private. 
The status of a draft
is not private.

The name of the ISE is not private. The names of the IESB members is not 
private. They are
going to review the drafts anyway. So, that is not private.

The title of the draft  is :

     Requirements for Draft Tracking by the IETF Community in the 

Not 'Requirement of the IAB, IETF, IESB, ISE, ...'

So that argument posted does not seem on point - in my opinion.

If it is needed, then it is needed. I have just not seen anyone post a 
that convinces me that it is needed.

I have no plans to pound on this issue. I am trying to understand it.