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

Paul Hoffman <> Tue, 02 November 2010 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074703A69DA for <>; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 08:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.983
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.764, 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 1V0GfBm-Isik for <>; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 08:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (Hoffman.Proper.COM []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D686D3A69D7 for <>; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 08:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA2Fmq71080396 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 2 Nov 2010 08:48:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240894c8f5dde043db@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <p06240800c8ecfbb84168@[]> <p0624088ac8f4ef10b46d@[]> <>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 08:36:32 -0700
To: SM <>
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 15:48:52 -0000

At 8:04 AM -0700 11/2/10, SM wrote:
>Hi Paul,
>At 15:28 01-11-10, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>Greetings again. I have uploaded the proposed slides for the BoF to the IETF site; see <>.
>On Page 12:
> "Lots of reasons why someone would not
>  someone else to know which drafts they are
>  following"
>Did you forget a word in there?

Yes; "want". Will fix.

>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?

When you say "who else", do you mean "which other lists include this draft" or "which people who created a list which includes this draft"?

>  Otherwise, you'll have to define who should have access to the information.

Correct: there was an implicit definition (that I can make explicit) of "the person who created the list, whomever that person gives access to, and no one else".

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium