Re: IETF privacy policy - update

Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Wed, 07 July 2010 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <iljitsch@muada.com>
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 958293A67EB for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 07:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 OO09Ur1a4lxV for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 07:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sequoia.muada.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:1af8:2:5::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 718273A67E7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 07:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:720:410:100f:223:32ff:fec4:ba94] ([IPv6:2001:720:410:100f:223:32ff:fec4:ba94]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id o67EfijF004451 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:41:45 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com)
Subject: Re: IETF privacy policy - update
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <51D591B3-1954-47A6-A40A-7DCE6DDD5CF0@cdt.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:42:05 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A68985E3-A34B-47AB-A6A2-E6718E505652@muada.com>
References: <7022DEA1-7FC0-4D77-88CE-FA3788720B43@cdt.org> <8FBEA0C7-9B80-4860-AFAE-FB5A19E660EF@muada.com> <4C33A406.1090801@bogus.com> <BBDFC939-2109-41BB-B4E1-BE2CEE43B8CA@muada.com> <9C72FA78-C9C2-4719-9BFD-112ABEFA7117@cdt.org> <56522CF0-088B-4027-AF45-A6075A7EA666@muada.com> <51D591B3-1954-47A6-A40A-7DCE6DDD5CF0@cdt.org>
To: John Morris <jmorris-lists@cdt.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: IETF-Discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
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-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: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:42:23 -0000

On 7 jul 2010, at 16:32, John Morris wrote:

> And, if you indeed think that something is missing, perhaps you could suggest some language to address your concern, rather than just dismiss the entire effort.

I think it's completely legitimate to question whether efforts like this are worth the resources they soak up. The first time I went to an IETF meeting I was shocked by the amount of talk about the internals of the IETF itself that went on. We should really try to minimize this navel gazing and only indulge in it when clearly needed, something that hasn't been shown to be the case here.