IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Confidentiality notices on email messages

Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl> Fri, 15 July 2011 09:45 UTC

Return-Path: <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>
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 0C85221F862F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.58
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UCvuYBPgMMrj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from open.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C183821F85CA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1:226:b0ff:fee2:a770] ([IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1:226:b0ff:fee2:a770]) (authenticated bits=0) by open.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6F9j2Rn062208 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:45:03 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olaf@NLnetLabs.nl)
Subject: Re: Confidentiality notices on email messages
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4E1EEE0F.7090209@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:45:01 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9BE2752C-2665-48EA-8A5E-28AF17B9A107@NLnetLabs.nl>
References: <CAC4RtVBGgk74VMEty9u5Yq+DFy=oR5tOnbZ3R5x83Gyee6mRNw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP0PwYYmLxPSoPvUqYOO_y=Hdn9vBSTRC5ax4wnjzE1SD1+aLg@mail.gmail.com> <4E1EEE0F.7090209@dcrocker.net>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::53]); Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:45:04 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: IETF discussion list <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: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:45:23 -0000

On Jul 14, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> It's excellent that the issue was covered in the RFC.
> 
> My question is how the contents of that RFC can be binding on random IETF participants?

At the risk of answering a rhetorical question: It's being referred to in the NOTE WELL.

All of the work we do in the IETF is based on the premisses that somebody who participates in the IETF is exposed to the NOTE WELL. Personally, I think people are exposed ad nauseoum, whether a court would agree, I do not know.

--Olaf


________________________________________________________ 

Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email