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

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

At 5:23 PM +0100 11/2/10, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 2010-11-02 16:04 SM said:
>> 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 <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/iddtspec-0.pdf>.
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> 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.  Otherwise,
>> you'll have to define who should have access to the information.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>When you bookmark web pages in your web browser the information is
>private, unless you explicitly publish the information.  When you
>subscribe to a feed, that information resides in your feed reader
>(or in the Google Reader) and it's not public unless you make it
>so.
>
>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
>people to know, they are free to make the information public, but
>we shouldn't force the information to be public.  That would most
>likely make these services less valuable than they could be to a lot
>of people, and that seems less than optimal to me.

My thinking in the early draft was that "making a list" was akin to "bookmarking a lot of drafts". That is, this is what many people do today anyhow, and the IETF can make this easier. Does the fact that it is the IETF making this easier cause the information to have to be exposed to everyone?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium