Re: [datatracker-rqmts] Privacy of lists

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 05 November 2010 08:17 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: datatracker-rqmts@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: datatracker-rqmts@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70DC13A6907 for <datatracker-rqmts@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 01:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.023
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.023 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.576, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hm-EoQfFMsjj for <datatracker-rqmts@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 01:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E099F3A6904 for <datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 01:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.5.Alpha0/8.14.5.Alpha0) with ESMTP id oA58H8sG027077 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 5 Nov 2010 01:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1288945079; x=1289031479; bh=JwtlXsEnvS+JzrQJyIuILrbKNmkCZ3YzrZS1cE7pOHY=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=Pu3JtHGw4PYwvZOZJhhZ6diRZ+1+82DmhbPcLlaOHHwfhNeYlqI9kyiKcs+aNpKiH it9lLDv0NSNOC6zfFxlI2sTKSAfPNcCeMp2iWuMPjumUI4uoSgNzNDtBPX24USmjOo Je3COad4QxPIiJ874fi/DtK5ejMTXi8LZ8FvpwnU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1288945079; x=1289031479; bh=JwtlXsEnvS+JzrQJyIuILrbKNmkCZ3YzrZS1cE7pOHY=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=iCYhL273WqxtdN+QwaKu1Di5Qf3jLE/faiD8AkrDGfI/P8S3WwZOOzGAy5P+AwnfA e7+jMfUHdbWZkx7u8hKmgXc5CoJ3ZHmSR2p4OPxsDV3wH1bPwCqhIBkji7LMSm32Q8 4W+9nx8rq/fdw5ieygXCoPiXE0VEloxXkEdYIclA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=Vq2EBqM/hR7E/YS8mTXBVtc6LocDl4Tv5ex9xeB6HU9Cc/qRN0feh8P8+JxN57H7v OcIck47bMTw98S0oAr1K6URDyihPG0GmhDLkWJGXdbdURB7zRfhsUOJtJju5dG2VloB X7L3cl5Z5ZFY6TqxF/yIHF49x6BwKqXvJL/pZUQ=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20101105005037.0a436570@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 01:16:36 -0700
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <p0624080ac8f7387faf99@[10.20.30.150]>
References: <p06240800c8ecfbb84168@[10.20.30.249]> <p0624088ac8f4ef10b46d@[10.20.30.249]> <6.2.5.6.2.20101102074555.099f1830@resistor.net> <p06240894c8f5dde043db@[10.20.30.150]> <6.2.5.6.2.20101102110842.0a10f7c0@resistor.net> <p0624080ac8f7387faf99@[10.20.30.150]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [datatracker-rqmts] Privacy of lists
X-BeenThere: datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <datatracker-rqmts.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/datatracker-rqmts>, <mailto:datatracker-rqmts-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/datatracker-rqmts>
List-Post: <mailto:datatracker-rqmts@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:datatracker-rqmts-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/datatracker-rqmts>, <mailto:datatracker-rqmts-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 08:17:50 -0000

Hi Paul,
At 09:09 03-11-10, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>Attempt at summarizing: you want people who use the new tool to have 
>to be authenticated, and anyone can see which of the authenticated 
>people created a list that refers to a draft. Yes?

No.  If we go by the arguments put forward by Henrik, this is a 
non-issue.  If these lists works along the same lines as IETF mailing 
list, these lists would have to be open.

>If we don't go down that path (such as I explicitly say in this 
>draft that it cannot be used for such measurements), do you still 
>want the requirement above?

No, I prefer not to use it for such measurements to keep matters simple.

Regards,
-sm