Re: Sergeant at arms: please deal with

Melinda Shore <> Wed, 23 October 2013 00:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D0A711E8164 for <>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.467
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.132, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fZtI1zGfRgDk for <>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::230]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B42C211E81E3 for <>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id ma3so115092pbc.7 for <>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jF9Py1PbwyGVvtyWNlv58bVEp+Aq5jkt1AuOhIyybdk=; b=HChnLp74LMsVzaKmujDqBf7evyScHRZmxH1jq4IT94HBV873Inm12D4csLr2tPByRL uTYoKnqx3BwOXe5z8R1+ldAGTVlaqp/B/1CwuQvE0JpZB/R3XLQ6Uh4qR89+8gqlXmAa gtjaFg1M58jm34t2KOZc5Wc2Ux+Y957KhN6PVS3U/HdbjHu1v5Kkka2eL1eqBY/vY+/7 oQzA+G26q+8J5t5AWo9NwNgLm4gD3AEpKT/H6DEdkzrkX1R+cVfW/Hv3L9mhgLOBgOgU kOuc8DuuMd8yXJeapZLNNUR1v++AAmA2r0K37Ep+QlmibTD/Mk0QXNZel/uFcV3eW3vB bE2A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id n8mr447541pbn.9.1382489131413; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spandex.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id wr10sm514934pbc.17.2013. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:45:27 -0800
From: Melinda Shore <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Sergeant at arms: please deal with
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "<>" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 00:45:32 -0000

On 10/22/13 2:01 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> We could take a decision on future anonymous postings, if required, I'm
> always pro-privacy, but I don't think this is applicable in IETF works,
> and this include exploders. Again this is my personal point of view.

Is this your personal point of view of what the IETF
has agreed to, or is this your personal point of view
of what the IETF policy ought to be?

We had that discussion of anonymity vs. pseudonymity several months
ago and I don't think that any specific policy came out of it.
Several areas of concern were identified, most notably that
there may be some IPR issues which are masked by not identifying
yourself sufficiently to be able to determine institutional
affiliation/employment.  That doesn't seem to apply here.  It
may be case that we need to establish more explicit policies
around pseudonymity in IETF participation.  I hope that's not
the case but I'd like to make sure that we aren't making a
stand for anonymity and privacy in theory while not making
one in practice.