IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF privacy policy - update

Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Mon, 05 July 2010 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
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 806133A676A for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Y7LX8ERfxQJm for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7013028C0E0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.75] (ppp-68-122-72-44.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.72.44]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o65IGIrR019070 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:16:23 -0700
Message-ID: <4C322170.9040903@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 11:16:16 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100608 Thunderbird/3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF privacy policy - update
References: <7022DEA1-7FC0-4D77-88CE-FA3788720B43@cdt.org>
In-Reply-To: <7022DEA1-7FC0-4D77-88CE-FA3788720B43@cdt.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Mon, 05 Jul 2010 11:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 18:16:25 -0000

On 7/5/2010 9:05 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> In discussing the policy with the IAOC and others, it seems clear that the RFC
> model is probably not the best model for maintaining and updating a document
> like this.


While I could imagine that you are correct, the answer isn't at all clear to me.

Presumably it should represent community consensus and should not change all 
that often.  And having an archival copy makes sense.  So I'm not understanding 
why it should not be published as an RFC.

Please clarify.

Thanks.

d/

ps. I, too, like the idea of having the policy.  I'm only asking about its form.

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email