IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: We've got lift-off

"Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@TORQUE.POTHOLE.COM> Fri, 04 May 2001 14:16 UTC

Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com ([192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA12966 for <run-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Fri, 4 May 2001 10:16:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 2000/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id GAA11883; Fri, 4 May 2001 06:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 5487 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Fri, 4 May 2001 06:49:38 -0700
Received: from torque.pothole.com ([38.138.52.132]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 2000/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id GAA11879 for <IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM>; Fri, 4 May 2001 06:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost by torque.pothole.com (8.9.3/1.1.29.3/11Jan01-1206AM) id JAA0000085156; Fri, 4 May 2001 09:45:50 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mts: smtp
Message-ID: <200105041345.JAA0000085156@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 09:45:50 -0400
Reply-To: IETF-RUN <IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM>
Sender: IETF-RUN <IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM>
From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@TORQUE.POTHOLE.COM>
Subject: Re: We've got lift-off
To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 May 2001 10:55:45 PDT." <10105011755.AA17205@Ludwig.sc.intel.com>

I'd like to agree that a pretty simple quick amendment is called for.
I'm a bit embarassed that I looked too much at the details rather than
the overall picture when I did my final review.

While it is true that such a revision would need to go through the
"entire approval loop" again, if the revised document is based on the
published RFC with changes confined to one or two section, I don't
think it would have much trouble...

Thanks,
Donald

From:  Sally Hambridge <sallyh@LUDWIG.SC.INTEL.COM>
Message-ID:   <10105011755.AA17205@Ludwig.sc.intel.com>
Date:          Tue, 1 May 2001 10:55:45 PDT
Reply-To:  IETF-RUN <IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM>
Sender:  IETF-RUN <IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM>
Comments:  To: tedgavin@newsguy.com
To:  IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
>>
>>
>Ted - check with April on the process for revisions - and if
>you want to add the confirmed opt-in stuff I think it would
>make the doc better, but I think it would have to go through
>the entire approval loop again
>
>As for spamcon, I can't think of anything special....
>
>Sally
>>
>Ted said:
>>Speaking of RFC-3098, how does everyone feel about making a quick
>>amendment and resubmitting? We've gotten some good feedback and
>>suggestions that would indicate that perhaps something is missing. In
>>the discussion, we neglected to include a mail-loop approval, which
>>essentially prevents the activity of an opt-in request until the
>>requestor actually does something (click on a link, reply to the
>>message, etc...). This shifts the responsibility from the user (having
>>to deal with unauthorized subscriptions) to the list owners (having to
>>verify each address prior to inclusion). It's a MAPS-endorsed
>>protection, and I think it warrants inclusion in some text from the
>>IETF.
>>
>>I'd be happy to make the changes and present it to the group and up
>>the chain for resubmission, but I'd like to see what Sally, April and
>>the group have to say about it.
>>
>>On another note, I've been asked to speak at SPAMCON regarding this
>>subject and Responsible Use, from the business perspective as well as
>>the policy perspective. Anyone have any points they'd like to see
>>included?
>>
>>Ted
>>
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email