Re: We've got lift-off
"Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@TORQUE.POTHOLE.COM> Fri, 06 July 2001 12:52 UTC
Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA00010 for <run-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 08:52:31 -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 FAA17592; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 05:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 0059 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 05:38:24 -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 FAA17588 for <IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM>; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 05:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost by torque.pothole.com (8.9.3/1.1.29.3/11Jan01-1206AM) id IAA0000011627; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 08:35:19 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mts: smtp
Message-ID: <200107061235.IAA0000011627@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 08:35:19 -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 "Fri, 04 May 2001 09:45:50 EDT." <200105041345.JAA0000085156@torque.pothole.com>
So who is going to make this simple tweak and submit a new internet-draft? Donald From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@TORQUE.POTHOLE.COM> Message-ID: <200105041345.JAA0000085156@torque.pothole.com> Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 09:45:50 -0400 Reply-To: IETF-RUN <IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> Sender: IETF-RUN <IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM> To: IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.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 >>> >>>
- We've got lift-off Sally Hambridge
- Re: We've got lift-off Ted Gavin
- Re: We've got lift-off Walter Houser
- Re: We've got lift-off Sally Hambridge
- Re: We've got lift-off Ted Gavin
- Re: We've got lift-off Sally Hambridge
- Re: We've got lift-off Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: We've got lift-off Donald E. Eastlake 3rd