Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal

Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com> Fri, 04 April 2008 00:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3260128C6A0; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
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 451AE28C709; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.457
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.457 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 l41mDHoUfQrf; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from romeo.rtfm.com (unknown [74.95.2.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D57128C237; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from romeo.rtfm.com (localhost.rtfm.com [127.0.0.1]) by romeo.rtfm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF5AC5081A; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:12:04 -0700
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com>
To: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>
Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
In-Reply-To: <200804032322.m33NMgbH052817@drugs.dv.isc.org>
References: <47F56545.4020603@isoc.org> <200804032322.m33NMgbH052817@drugs.dv.isc.org>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/21.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Message-Id: <20080404001204.AF5AC5081A@romeo.rtfm.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@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-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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

At Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:22:42 +1100,
Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> 
> > All,
> > 
> > We are considering changing the meeting Blue Sheet by eliminating the 
> > need to enter an email address to avoid spam concerns.
> > 
> > Is there any good reason to retain that info bit?
> > 
> > Ray
> > _______________________________________________
> > IETF mailing list
> > IETF@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 	It's is the only unique token on the blue sheets.  This
> 	assumes no shared email accounts which is a pretty reasonable
> 	assumption in this case.

I'm not getting why this is important. It's not like we're using it
to key a hash table. As Ole observes, the blue sheets are used primarily
for counting attendance, and I hear, occasionally as proof that someone was 
actually present. In both of these cases, I think we can probably
tolerate this amount of ambiguity.

-Ekr
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf