IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF chair's blog

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Tue, 26 February 2013 00:10 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 B061621E819C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:10:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.585
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 ij30V7xRW5sU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:10:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0286721E8191 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:10:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1UA87h-000PMT-Q3; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:10:22 +0000
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:10:21 +0800
Message-ID: <m2obf8c4uq.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
Subject: Re: IETF chair's blog
In-Reply-To: <512BF3A7.3020903@acm.org>
References: <1BBAE003-DEA4-462A-998D-863F6FF90A69@ietf.org> <51298B1E.60007@lacnic.net> <512A5A10.4090406@acm.org> <8A832DDC-1D5E-4C1B-87BB-36A384937480@lacnic.net> <512B0A2D.3050102@acm.org> <512B0B20.2000403@lacnic.net> <512B0C7E.5010900@250bpm.com> <512B0E64.2030101@acm.org> <96CB57D2-68EA-4AC5-92AD-90CEA37E2A93@lurchi.franken.de> <512B827F.4060406@acm.org> <m2r4k4c82l.wl%randy@psg.com> <512BF3A7.3020903@acm.org>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <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: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:10:32 -0000

>>> For me the most important point is that it is managed on IETF (or IETF's
>>> contractor) servers.
>> as no private data are involved, i am curious why?
> Because public does not mean unlimited availability.  Let's say that
> the IETF decides to use a collaboration tool hosted by a service run
> by an external company.  The data is public (although it can be stored
> in a proprietary format) so anybody can consult it.  But suddenly the
> service is bankrupted/become collateral damage when servers are
> seized/has its certificates expiring/etc...  Unless someone did some
> preventive data liberation, the data is no longer available, at least
> until whatever caused the problem is solved.

so your criteria acctually open and continual availability, and
availability of export.  i think these would apply well to ietf or
whatever services as well.

randy

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status