Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 23 April 2012 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@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 3D04721F863B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.562
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 2gsRB4gi9RV9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93DC21F85F9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo1 with SMTP id fo1so5138843vcb.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=L8wABqfZG7PMXCdi6W8CfrVeTv+SuLoFbwuIZ0iwFaE=; b=iRwKPqbzjhGftT4LqwJqNZxT5cEocYMYPVXOsvTGG45gPf78TakXau2fAjI6WSqa4G MlVpKPoD3JVQoBo+9Zm4PrnaYeSNQYHvFtbWLm8LKKyqH6AiKVbWXnKdcqJwyOA4I69J c3Fpe5M9nrdmm/fHBm6imflqTdbGMgpG2SIMUhQ0dHT4xzWDeIlV7uqDFfZ5aNZCFhaU ittuhEQSQtZ+W80C9bGKGua2aP5l5t00nfxEVs8FK1g6ox1tQ8jNwt1bdtdZu5YwuR6H wf/CBrbRUGE6ya0e1zcZOJDv/YhakgReF07MHPOdj6xQWglLIhyrMQb28GYRnYr1+6lz 02jg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.89.106 with SMTP id bn10mr13782295vdb.116.1335200078749; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.162.99 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F94FDDB.1050401@gmail.com>
References: <2AC114D8-E97B-47A0-B7E0-9EF016DCB09F@ietf.org> <4F94D01F.3070102@gondrom.org> <DDB8050A-7A04-4A0F-A364-0E3E511DCB43@vigilsec.com> <4F94E4AB.5080706@gondrom.org> <4F94FDDB.1050401@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:54:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMC7WoHqKir82eDwbnkKt8910rB5FDWWBsjagzUCMAaXmg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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 16:54:45 -0000

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> 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.

We included the attendees in the minutes for the RTCWEB interim, held
in January of this year:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2012/01/31/rtcweb/minutes/rtcweb.txt

We do not do it for the plenary meetings, because I believed (and I
believe others believed) that the attendee list and blue sheets
together took care of this requirement.  If these need to be
aggregated, then I would personally go back to the "lazy way" you
describe--a scan of the blue sheets included as part of the
proceedings associated with the plenary.  I see no reason for more
state than that.

regards,

Ted Hardie