Re: [datatracker-rqmts] Slides for the face-to-face BoF next week

Paul Hoffman <> Tue, 02 November 2010 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14313A69EC for <>; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.747
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.528, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jGSLHuPuHHLq for <>; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (Hoffman.Proper.COM []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49CA43A69DE for <>; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA2H47Rc084965 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:04:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0624089bc8f5f4748ec1@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <p06240800c8ecfbb84168@[]> <p0624088ac8f4ef10b46d@[]> <> <p06240894c8f5dde043db@[]> <>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:04:06 -0700
To: Royer Software and Services <>,
From: Paul Hoffman <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [datatracker-rqmts] Slides for the face-to-face BoF next week
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:04:06 -0000

At 10:44 AM -0600 11/2/10, Royer Software and Services wrote:
>On 11/2/2010 9:36 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>At 8:04 AM -0700 11/2/10, SM wrote:
>>That page is about "Lists should be able to be private".  Do you really want to get into a discussion about privacy?  As the work of the IETF is supposed to be open, I suggest letting anyone who is "subscribed" to a draft see who else is following it.
>>That seems a tad radical to me. How do others feel about this?
>Who cares who watches?  And who cares who watches the watchers?
>I have seen well meaning people have meetings and make agreements about drafts, then forget and
>just assume that the idea was part of the consensus on the list.

This as nothing to do with the content of drafts; it is about watching which drafts change over time.

>I would opt for everything as open as possible. The less secrets the IETF has the healthier it will remain
>as there will be no dark corners that other can assume contain hidden agreements or ideas.

I'm deeply confused here. As described in the draft, a list is a personal preference of what to see. There is no "agreement" or "idea" involved. Which part of the draft are you talking about?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium