Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net> Mon, 23 April 2012 08:16 UTC

Return-Path: <kireeti@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D90621F8512 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 01:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2UGV5SWBbsbo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 01:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og125.obsmtp.com (exprod7og125.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E93B121F8532 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 01:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob125.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT5UPtOj3A24M36yQb5N9SbMpIM6AEP/K@postini.com; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 01:16:00 PDT
Received: from EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::c821:7c81:f21f:8bc7]) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::88f9:77fd:dfc:4d51%11]) with mapi; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 01:13:44 -0700
From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
To: "EXT - joelja@bogus.com" <joelja@bogus.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 01:13:49 -0700
Subject: Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets
Thread-Topic: Future Handling of Blue Sheets
Thread-Index: Ac0hKQAudjv+vQAGTvGXjVDJogy+oA==
Message-ID: <DF6814A1-B3D4-451F-9CAB-DCD6667204BC@juniper.net>
References: <2AC114D8-E97B-47A0-B7E0-9EF016DCB09F@ietf.org> <4F94D01F.3070102@gondrom.org> <DDB8050A-7A04-4A0F-A364-0E3E511DCB43@vigilsec.com> <4F94E4AB.5080706@gondrom.org> <4F94EB97.3080906@bogus.com> <4F94EC7E.6040101@raszuk.net> <4F94F007.6060005@bogus.com> <35A52857-6545-4CF7-A8F0-48B10382445E@checkpoint.com> <4F94FF14.2070103@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F94FF14.2070103@bogus.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:16:05 -0000

On Apr 23, 2012, at 0:05, "EXT - joelja@bogus.com" <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:

(quoting from RFC 2418)

> All working group sessions (including those held outside of the IETF
> meetings) shall be reported by making minutes available.  These
> minutes should include the agenda for the session, an account of the
> discussion including any decisions made, and a list of attendees.

RFCs are not gospel. They can, and, in this instance, should, be changed: either remove that last item, or stately explicitly that there is no expectation of privacy at IETF meetings.  (I have a sinking feeling I know which way that will go.)

Why shouldn't getting the list of a meeting's attendees require a subpoena?  The cost argument is bogus; equally, there are those who think going to a judge for permission to wiretap is a waste of time and money.

Put the money you save on NOT installing RFID kit into a fund for handling subpoenas (only half joking). 

Kireeti

PS: Yoav, regarding your remarks on street surveillance, from the IETF Note Well:

"A participant in any IETF activity acknowledges that written, audio and video records of meetings may be made and may be available to the public."

A camera over meeting room doorways is next.