Concerns about the NoteWell Data Evidence.
"TS Glassey" <tglassey@earthlink.net> Sun, 16 December 2007 14:05 UTC
Return-path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3u7k-0003vX-Tc; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:05:44 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3u7j-0003jq-DR; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:05:43 -0500
Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.68]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3u7j-0001cT-1l; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:05:43 -0500
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=hq+KXPYlEdI1S/00Zoge4jkAfmpbX7kgkuti+s/Fo2GcU/4UsfrMPgZQA6QxJp7i; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [24.23.176.93] (helo=tsg1) by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1J3u7i-0006oh-Bh; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:05:42 -0500
Message-ID: <002801c83fec$beb42d50$6401a8c0@tsg1>
From: TS Glassey <tglassey@earthlink.net>
To: ipr-wg@ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 06:04:57 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec7929925afb778b5ccb9f6272e3e79c6287350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 24.23.176.93
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
Cc:
Subject: Concerns about the NoteWell Data Evidence.
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Folks, Since NoteWell contains a key part of any vetting process or documents key communications with the IETF, I believe a modification of the existing NoteWell specification is needed to 'force a IETF Staff Member or WG Chair' to response to a "READ REQUEST" tagged email appropriately and not doing so would violate the scope of that Staff Member's job. In today's Digital Evidence world and with the new emerging standards for ESI, the world is changing, and in the interest of proving that the IETF is indeed "Open and Fair" and that all communications concerning management matters are properly received and reviewed, its important to be able to get a receipt acknowledgement when requested. Otherwise, unauthenticated email doesn't really represent the IETF well. I also suggest that ANY AND ALL official communications from the IETF including ANY that pertain to Disciplinary Actions especially, are all digitally signed under eSign and other electronic signature acts globally. Todd Glassey _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Concerns about the NoteWell Data Evidence. TS Glassey