Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal

sob@harvard.edu (Scott O. Bradner) Fri, 04 April 2008 00:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F3028C384; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
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 7692228C384; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.046
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.553, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 zZwQhUNFvIbS; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A0D28C2ED; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 31E33843A22; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:10:12 -0400 (EDT)
To: ietf@ietf.org, wgchairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
Message-Id: <20080404001012.31E33843A22@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:10:12 -0400
From: sob@harvard.edu
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-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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Ole guessed
> My understanding is that the blue sheet serves mainly as a record of 
> "who was in the room" which I think is largely used to plan room 
> capacities for the next meeting.

the "blue sheets" are required as part of the basic openness  
process in a standards organization - there is a need to know 
"who is in the room" (see RFC 2418 section 3.1 for the actual
requirement)

the blue sheets become part of the formal record of the standards
process and can be retrieved if needed (e.g. in a lawsuit) but are not
generally made available 

as pointed out by Mark Andrews - email addresses can be useful in 
determining the actual identity of the person who scrawled their 
name on the sheet - so it is an advantage to retain them

I'm trying to understand how the blue sheets contribute in any
significant way to the spam problem - someone whould have to be 
surreptitiously copying  them or quickly writing down the email 
addresses - both could happen but do not seem to be all that 
likely there are far more efficient ways to grab email addresses

so, my question is "is this a problem that needs solving"?

Scott
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf