Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 23 April 2012 06:59 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 304AC21F8498 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.556
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 xSz7Jj84PlG6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3006521F8495 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so7814621wgb.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4fBMkksE5wE3082iJ8+MXOQ458cEScuEFdatvHhiPa4=; b=rp2+79bTvtMy/79vYBcfMqe/MyoM2U4/Vf1AR/CYaVEJ6ipndSeexfl0kFtLuu37A6 oS03i4klbyNi+1AiMQ+eJuBxGRxL49fr+0oR/f40zPTHMeNG6Y/122tzZUmKmNuYf5Bc eai80Hpa8r/G2JkdnWQ2UHbLg50npovLjezuQKxTOLIxmgrFERFLeUSiiEm191B82a0o CwTGKYnWMzhZV+kkBd6RBYEg2Izy4NYehZs52Cmdx0FBcaDN9XjxiaAeNY832Me08R+E zzBkffl8bpSK55a83/Qz2Gi9BQKcLACcDnvV4dG6mYp+Ka4D1bCp2caPKXvGdq3J+lz2 c1FA==
Received: by 10.216.135.199 with SMTP id u49mr6875983wei.7.1335164383104; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.64] (host-2-102-216-233.as13285.net. [2.102.216.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ea6sm20742769wib.5.2012.04.22.23.59.41 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:59:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F94FDDB.1050401@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 07:59:39 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
Subject: Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets
References: <2AC114D8-E97B-47A0-B7E0-9EF016DCB09F@ietf.org> <4F94D01F.3070102@gondrom.org> <DDB8050A-7A04-4A0F-A364-0E3E511DCB43@vigilsec.com> <4F94E4AB.5080706@gondrom.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F94E4AB.5080706@gondrom.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 06:59:50 -0000

On 2012-04-23 06:12, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
> Hi Russ,
> 
> thank you for the information.
> In this case, my preference would be not to publish the blue sheets with
> the proceedings.
> 
> Reasoning:
> The blue sheet data can at some point be used to determine movement
> profiles of individual attendees at the meeting to a finer granularity
> than today and therefore can be an issue for privacy (even though I
> recognize that this is a public meeting). The fact that we "may reduce"
> the amount of subpoenas is a viable reason, still personal data should
> be handled as conservative as possible. Without a significant and
> measurable economic advantage by the publication, we should rather not
> publish this data with the proceedings.

Transparency with respect to IPR disclosures, or missing IPR disclosures,
seems to me more important than the privacy issue. I take Randy's point
that the information can be trawled for unwanted purposes, but IETF
participation always carries that risk.

Tim raised a valid point: more people might decline to sign. We already
have some of that, and I don't have a socially acceptable solution
to that.

Actually we already systematically break our rules in RFC 2418 (BCP 25):
   All working group sessions (including those held outside of the IETF
   meetings) shall be reported by making minutes available.  These
   minutes should include the agenda for the session, an account of the
   discussion including any decisions made, and a list of attendees.
It's only a "should" but when did you last see WG minutes with a list
of attendees? In the old days of hard copy proceedings, I seem to
remember the blue sheets being included sometimes as the lazy way
of satisfying this rule.

    Brian