IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF privacy policy - update

David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> Thu, 08 July 2010 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <dwm@xpasc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153603A68B8 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.953
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.646, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
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 Oit4a8XD+f9V for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.xpasc.com (mail.xpasc.com [68.164.244.189]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59FF93A681F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bslepgate.xpasc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bslepgate.xpasc.com (Postfix-out) with ESMTP id 0322C101838 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Propel-Return-Path: <dwm@xpasc.com>
Received: from mail.xpasc.com ([10.1.2.88]) by [127.0.0.1] ([127.0.0.1]) (port 7027) (Abaca EPG outproxy filter 3.1.2.exported $Rev: 9262 $) id iz6Ura78m8T0; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:08:55 -0700
Received: from xpasc.com (egate.xpasc.com [10.1.2.49]) by bslepgate.xpasc.com (Postfix-out) with ESMTP id B0A34101837 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:08:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from egate.xpasc.com (egate.xpasc.com [10.1.2.49]) by xpasc.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o68M8sQO012859 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:08:54 -0700
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:08:54 -0700
From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF privacy policy - update
In-Reply-To: <201007081533.13371.lesmith@ecsis.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007081506150.30137@egate.xpasc.com>
References: <7022DEA1-7FC0-4D77-88CE-FA3788720B43@cdt.org> <C15D7183-17F1-4157-BA2E-BC04990087DA@arsc.edu> <4AD683B8-A80B-4900-B28B-59CDFB18A736@cisco.com> <201007081533.13371.lesmith@ecsis.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Propel-ID: iz6Ura78m8T0
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 22:08:51 -0000

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Larry Smith wrote:

> Appears to me this conversation/thread is leaning toward "open" being
> used synonymous to "anonymous"....

Not to me ... open means any can participate ... doesn't mean
that other participants can't know who they are.

People come with experience and resumes which document that
experience. If I don't know who is speaking, their credibility
(to me) is limited.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email