Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 10 May 2012 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
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 A110321F861C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 May 2012 10:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.594
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 N4SvdqGnd39j for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 May 2012 10:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-f49.google.com (mail-qa0-f49.google.com [209.85.216.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B6A21F860B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 May 2012 10:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qabj40 with SMTP id j40so737444qab.15 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 May 2012 10:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=k6gwJb9i+rYWkZD7fzHbKixMQYUnC6E5yLsr5LOdVxw=; b=WwrD3QHNv724jVotgmJAaImCu2B3+UW3GlnAkTqytBAXdf4a88JwH5X1wiVuZUF8M7 Rpt2BiATH6nZtWkjcQQlFDo6jFUaFgcpluRA3oeOsM6xRQTLCcWYLIQEtqlEJEL0xUtr M8Moq/JASO2PPz2ukETVAEWTYHcREAZnEgq96xUsVgJEpYNEUx3kYTWxNaEC8d1zfj7s tfVqFPPZJr16PopGRTQp2FhlnZkfbEhq8FFnhWOSAHiDtyGrOSzRnywZl6Z5fILoIisk WDjIbM65pMmdAf3JtC1wr7ebMHlSKja8yG8gDCDLC5wbu0i2aCHa1Ht0gcNRi6tbP+c0 ZYRw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.107.198 with SMTP id c6mr3122649vcp.54.1336669209627; Thu, 10 May 2012 10:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.162.99 with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2012 10:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1205100210140.23269@egate.xpasc.com>
References: <97BB17A56A65B20E9FB38128@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <360B33DF-0603-4B86-B488-DDDBEDF2B10B@bbn.com> <64D096E2-78E1-4B4F-B227-42AB7B658FF6@cs.columbia.edu> <BE62B481-1FBD-4F82-92BA-EAC0D0519639@ietf.org> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1205061559060.10886@egate.xpasc.com> <92DE3992-7212-4DE4-A4FA-57AED9DFE827@ietf.org> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1205061851340.12673@egate.xpasc.com> <2A1B808B-217C-4B09-B2A7-E179B3CA8FC8@ietf.org> <4FAB5ED8.7070004@gondrom.org> <5D365E621E09E8B8DE2F4006@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <4FAB7567.7070402@gondrom.org> <12F34D6725B91B95351EB144@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <4FAB80F9.40207@gondrom.org> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1205100210140.23269@egate.xpasc.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 10:00:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMAY9A_KdaG6MJ+CbNLUZ3pWy06qE4A6N3-XV7Otd0jkPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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: Thu, 10 May 2012 17:00:12 -0000

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:17 AM, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> wrote:
> One of the ways we deal with SPAM and DOS attacks is to intentionally slow
> the process. Ted's proposal would be vastly improved with the provision
> that access, once authenticated, was delayed approximately the same
> amount of time as the current manual process. Propably with some
> form of the failed login approach ... maximum requests per week or
> other similar unit of time.
>

Just as a point of clarification, I did not actually make a proposal;
I asked whether the IESG had considered using making them available
outside the proceedings and other a different set of terms of use.  I
would be happy to make an actual proposal if the IESG decides it is
willing to consider that approach, but I'm not going to bother
drafting such a thing if they are firmly convinced that the
proceedings are the right way to go.

regards,

Ted