Re: Blue sheet harvest

Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU> Fri, 04 April 2008 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 516BF28C46C; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E893D28C476; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id spXWS-X1C0Q8; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4B8E28C3AB; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m34Io8Y2025909 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from bmanning@localhost) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id m34Io8mG025908; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:50:08 -0700
From: Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
To: "Scott O. Bradner" <>
Subject: Re: Blue sheet harvest
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Cc:,, bmanning@ISI.EDU
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:08:41AM -0400, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> < it started w/ folsk scanning the pages of the early bound
> < copies of IETFF proceedings.
> the sheets are no longer included in the proceedings

	right - the point is that this has been a problem 
	for years.

> > the process you describe has happend in recent memory at more than
> > one IETF.  
> at what scale?  100s of people? 10s?

	since i don't tend to read other peoples email,
	i can only answer for myself.  

	perhaps a survey might be in order - or, consider
	that it is not a problem (for you) so its not a
	significant problem for anyone else.

> Scott

	that said, i see no real reason to collect the email
	address.  and signing the sheet is strictly voluntary...
	to date.


Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

IETF mailing list