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

SM <> Tue, 02 November 2010 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71DCC3A6A0A for <>; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.372
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bYfj6UzB9b6j for <>; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A32493A69D8 for <>; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5.Alpha0/8.14.5.Alpha0) with ESMTP id oA2IwZ5F006324 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1288724329; x=1288810729; bh=VaL9lLPIHCHOomk0k7N0LLHT6qiJR5rwpv3Om+/6I30=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=0ii+xcRh5yH/CgMvg07FVY8EQ7ySsephynBt9BYFYc+YvPZ0fP542mcrY5lUyaqP0 p3L+0vsj2BGPyZ6m3a7Gb6dsmEFpYnr2CTgqlZiGLbjHQngqi/74nhxADaScjMI0N1 sHPAIF49VzpNM318I7R7qhxKkR0ZVA0zOSoI8R8w=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1288724329; x=1288810729; bh=VaL9lLPIHCHOomk0k7N0LLHT6qiJR5rwpv3Om+/6I30=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=hiK48EF6GfQof4NXmhno/TF0K8pOS1JeDK+u0I62n8OWbkgswxsvdWRE4aGX39Wu1 gUd9a6JfMwwqeGJh/DwO6nBccmN8apkj5Mrlim9RlvBaQV0YckhnqUHUUefXU71Xpz C90Qq2fIYf4RzWJMRDC/a2FxosZeL3RjftXtGFDU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail;; c=simple; q=dns; b=Hj6I3OVdB8C83kB0EXRfQiKZAaagofuh7OQDZqWpsI+kVkjzcAw8Tat6o/pAb3Jri OpeF6JP3zO5DvIvRsvNpuDp4uh+YERHi/pvc3F8k7aN7GzQ/7kuRQvcfTBACx8BjI6K bkOKcE4FVN3xOh5Az0+CWey2P2eWDPc8qaGjnFQ=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 11:54:55 -0700
From: SM <>
In-Reply-To: <p06240894c8f5dde043db@[]>
References: <p06240800c8ecfbb84168@[]> <p0624088ac8f4ef10b46d@[]> <> <p06240894c8f5dde043db@[]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: Paul Hoffman <>
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 18:58:52 -0000

At 08:36 02-11-10, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>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"?

I meant who are the people who created a list which includes this draft.

>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".

That sounds fine unless we go down the path where the "following" is 
used as a measure of whether there is interest in a proposal.

At 09:15 02-11-10, Fred Baker wrote:
>Something else the slides note - there could be some pain in various 
>forms regarding personal lists. There might be; I'm not sure why 
>anyone would want to know what drafts I was tracking (it's not like 
>we have drafts about specialized delivery of pornography or etc), 
>but I could imagine someone trying to do corporate intelligence by 
>tracking who is tracking what drafts. A simple solution would be to 
>keep our private lists on our private


At 09:23 02-11-10, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>No, I think that's turned around.  I think it's as wrong to assume that
>personal configuration information is public by default.  With the
>possibility to create personal configuration information which resides
>on the server (something we haven't really had a lot of on the IETF
>servers up till now) the assumption should be that that individual
>configuration information is private unless the person chooses to make
>it public.

If the information is labeled as "personal configuration", it keeps 
out the privacy discussion.

>This following isn't an exact parallel, but with email, we have a
>situation where list email is public, and the whole purpose of list
>emails are to reach people publicly; while emails sent to individual
>persons outside of a list are not (and should not be) automatically
>assumed to be public.  Thus information is only automatically public
>when it's explicitly intended to be so.

I, probably incorrectly, drew a parallel between the current mailing 
lists setup and this feature.

>With the possibility to individually configure services provided by
>the IETF servers, we should (I think) respect that people don't
>necessarily want others to know what they configure.  If they want


At 10:18 02-11-10, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>This is definitely a possibility for the tool. If people don't want 
>to use the tool's list-making (such as if SM and Doug's proposal is 
>accepted and someone has the concern you give above), the tool could 
>have a mode of "give me your list and your preferences in an HTTP 
>request and I'll give you a display like the one I would have done 
>if you kept the list with me". I don't know how we could handle 
>making an Atom feed or mail stream for those folks.

You could remind people that this tool is about letting "people keep 
track of changes in Internet Drafts".  Shared (public) lists could 
then be about tagging drafts by field of interest, e.g WG, drafts on 
v6 transition, etc. and sharing the list for reasons stated on Page 14.