IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-privacy] New Webiquette RFC

kate_9023+rfc@systemli.org Sun, 17 April 2022 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <kate_9023+rfc@systemli.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43D823A0EFA for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=systemli.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VSOyLyVd8JYr for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.systemli.org (mail1.systemli.org [IPv6:2a11:7980:3::36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36A313A0EF7 for <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E2JbELDQNN5IvU5SNe2FmJaj"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=systemli.org; s=default; t=1650226674; bh=cnpQlAiIdaOiufbV2KCmUxP7Fi05hXak0agiokLDVLI=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=sBdvX2PlrDa8bsSklIRp24DSwUiuQ+Ys1OlU5naQVJJoZlObjhj/lML7RZ7QxSG0w lgDMgPumvoL5mTFej1dY9vHDj7JI4Ek2p8icDhpYRVEIhWQ0bSCaiJ6d5/DnVy8Lee hvyrsTfMwwoOt+FBt93BC5XTwDOT8/m0OtCgqk6/XahN6QpGKGcwAynj6rL9gGmsSS /IFFoYcsOnfxSwd21NR5lzE44ACAm4/hTFtOZd89o1Ncqmt4RN/pGNf6h5BgLHEFsB C0yh/Kkze6gv13xORXr+VutG+xKCE6d7zsBz9DoExMu0PWO4rlajVZXN7S7Uw13Tne 5FMdr7GRgdI9A==
Message-ID: <4fdd08f6-f8f4-cc2b-0ef9-edc76153acf6@systemli.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2022 22:17:53 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
References: <9bb455e8-8dbb-9813-bc8e-6367c80b6063@systemli.org> <e27ce6c6-33aa-1acf-81c5-6ba430b4627d@systemli.org> <740b6d5e-840a-af74-276b-8b4e6719ef96@huitema.net> <4c4ca96c-bf09-b9aa-5734-7faaca9db07e@cs.tcd.ie>
From: kate_9023+rfc@systemli.org
In-Reply-To: <4c4ca96c-bf09-b9aa-5734-7faaca9db07e@cs.tcd.ie>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-privacy/Uf6VRyjakCSad4fvc9z6jLq1qXI>
Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] New Webiquette RFC
X-BeenThere: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Privacy Discussion List <ietf-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2022 20:18:05 -0000

Thank you. I have oriented myself on this RFC:

    [RFC1855]  Hambridge, S., "Netiquette Guidelines", FYI 28, RFC 1855,
               DOI 10.17487/RFC1855, October 1995,
               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1855>.


On 17.04.22 22:12, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Perhaps if the author wishes the draft to proceed they will
> be happy to self-identify, or perhaps not. I'd not worry
> too much about the general problem 'till that's clear.
>
> The text of the draft itself seems innocuous enough. While
> I'm not clear what useful purpose might be served by having
> such text in an RFC, I'd be willing to be convinced but so
> far remain to be convinced.
>
> Process-wise, I'd say unless this were modified to address
> some IETF-specific issues (such as netiquette in developing
> protocols) it'd likely be better targeted to the IAB or
> ISE streams. (That's no reason to not discuss it here
> though.)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email