Subject: respect privacy please !

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 13:24:19 +0200

Hi,

I've already raised this some time ago, same as other people did, but I still see my name being published, w/o my consent, in the list of attendees.

This is not acceptable, we should have the option to choose if we want to have our name published or not when we do the registration.

I will also like to get some response about the time frame to get the IETF sites IPv6-enabled. If there is any problem for doing that, I already volunteered to host a mirror.

Regards,
Jordi

**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:34:35 -0400

Jordi,

This has been discussed several times before.  While I share 
your discomfort, IETF is not some "conference" you might be 
attending.  It is very difficult to claim that one has an open 
standards process when some participants are permitted attend 
meetings and, potentially, influence decisions while being 
hidden or anonymous. We do not discourage people from lurking 
quietly on mailing lists. But I think that, as soon as anyone 
more actively participates -- whether by posting to mailing 
lists or attending meetings (especially since the latter is a 
qualification for Nomcom membership that must be publicly 
verifiable) -- then I think desires for privacy have to yield to 
the importance of trust in the IETF community and its processes. 
As with IPR disclosures, if one can't accept the rules, the best 
option is to decide to not play.

Out of curiosity, would you feed better about this if the 
boilerplate you need to page through to register said, 
explicitly, "if you don't want your name to be made public as a 
registrant and participant, please don't register or attend" or 
"by registering, you consent..."?  I don't have any control over 
the text or decisions but assume that, if lots of people wanted 
such language to eliminate any misunderstandings about whether 
you had consented, the IESG and Secretariat would probably agree 
to add it.

At least the Secretariat no longer feels a need to publish email 
addresses with the list of registrants :-(

     best,
      john

p.s. Note that the above is purely a process and moral position. 
There is, I'm sure, a legal one that parallels it, but I'd 
rather not go there --and set off a wave of amateur lawyering-- 
if we can help it.

--On Friday, 21 May, 2004 13:24 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've already raised this some time ago, same as other people
> did, but I still see my name being published, w/o my consent,
> in the list of attendees.
>
> This is not acceptable, we should have the option to choose if
> we want to have our name published or not when we do the
> registration.
>
> I will also like to get some response about the time frame to
> get the IETF sites IPv6-enabled. If there is any problem for
> doing that, I already volunteered to host a mirror.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:34:35 -0400

Jordi,

     best,
      john

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 06:58:29 -0700

--On 21. mai 2004 13:24 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've already raised this some time ago, same as other people did, but I
> still see my name being published, w/o my consent, in the list of
> attendees.
>
> This is not acceptable, we should have the option to choose if we want to
> have our name published or not when we do the registration.

Jordi,

are you objecting to having your name published *at all*, or having your 
name published *before the meeting*?

The list of attendees (but not their contact info) is (according to the 
lawyers) a legal requirement for our way of doing business; it is part of 
the transparency requirement that it's possible to find out who was there.

                      Harald

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 00:05:00 +1000

> > in the list of attendees.

This could be solved by the IETF insisting that consent is required
before attendance. I, like John, do not believe it is acceptable for
the IETF meetings to be populated by anonymous attendees.

(The irony of your email address being public on this list is
not lost.)

cheers,
gja
-- 
Grenville Armitage
http://caia.swin.edu.au
I come from a LAN downunder.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 06:58:29 -0700

Jordi,

                      Harald

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 00:05:00 +1000

cheers,
gja

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 15:55:50 +0100

> the IETF meetings to be populated by anonymous attendees.

The issue is someone knowing where I am for a week, in advance.

Harald's suggestion of releasing the list post-event is an improvement...

> (The irony of your email address being public on this list is

Maybe I'm using an alias... I could be Jim Fleming :)

Tim

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 16:59:04 +0200

Hi John,

I actually (myself) have no problem to have my name published, my complain was somehow an indirect one ... because what is surprising is that when we had this type of discussion several times, no solution or decision is publicly provided. That's really annoying. We aren't here volunteering with our time and resources to provide our inputs and then being ignored, at least not most of us, I guess. So the openness of the process is already broken not taking decisions after the discussions :-(

Also is interesting that even when I typed it correctly, is now incorrectly mistyped in the attendee list, what just adds distrust to the process looking manual and prone to errors.

I also agree with the need of openness in the process, BUT the IETF has not any right to infringe the laws/regulations even if the openness is so important. Just imagine that a given country decides to block because something like this (not complying the local laws, that in this case are very common at least as I know in Europe), the www.ietf.org or even the mail exploders on that domain. It will be much worst !

Despite this, I think you provide a very good solution for this with your suggested boilerplate. Probably this is the minimum legal one that we should have. We like it or not, we live in a world with rules, that we must accept (or change). In part the problem is probably that there is not a clear legal situation for a non-legal organization ... but that's another history.

The other good example is the IPv6 issue. As I recall, I saw (and even participated) in that debate a couple of times. Today I see no objective reason for not doing that, but we don't have a decision on that. Is that good ? Is this what we expect for an open process ?

Regards,
Jordi

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 15:55:50 +0100

Tim

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 16:59:04 +0200

Hi John,

Regards,
Jordi

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 17:08:47 +0200

Hi Harald,

I'm not expert in legal stuff, but I think the European regulations (at least in Spain because I needed to learn this in order to host web sites with any kind of registration or list of people and comply with the law), there is no difference in publishing it before, during or after. Just can't be published w/o the consent of the participant.

>From a practical point of view, probably is good to do what John suggested, but alternatively also publishing only after the meetings will be a good protection for example to avoid a thief go to your home when you're in the IETF, as I recall somebody suggested was already happening in UK.

I don't think a legal requirement for our process can jump over the laws. Is like if we decide that we need to sacrifice one of us in every meeting to sign the minutes with human blood, while we know that killing some one is forbidden. Yes I know ... is a quite exaggerated example, but some times is the best way to show what is wrong ;-)

May be the 1st thing to do is to be really open in all the aspects, and that means clarifying our legal "situation", the terms under we take all the decisions, and so on.

Regards,
Jordi

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 17:08:47 +0200

Hi Harald,

Regards,
Jordi

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 17:19:14 +0200

> Maybe I'm using an alias... I could be Jim Fleming :)

Tim... Jim... the plot thickens!

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 17:32:08 +0200

On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 16:59, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

<SNIP privacy talk>

> The other good example is the IPv6 issue. As I recall, I saw (and even participated)
> in that debate a couple of times. Today I see no objective reason for not doing that,
> but we don't have a decision on that. Is that good ? Is this what we expect for an open process ?

I heared one reason that there is that the IETF servers don't have IPv6
(yet) is simply because their ISP/transit/upstream doesn't do it and
thus it makes it pretty impossible unfortunatly.
The software can cope with it without problem mind you.

For the web if you really want http://www.ietf.org.sixxs.org
et tada you are going through the proxy, thus one can read the website
and all of the related sites over IPv6 if you only have IPv6
connectivity, which is quite uncommon I guess, but could happen.

As for the rest of the services, namely SMTP, that needs connectivity.
It doesn't make much sense of setting up a 'external' mailer which
handles the mail over IPv6 and passes it over IPv4 to the real machines.
If you need that just make your own MX IPv4+IPv6 complaint, which I
think, certainly in the world of today is simply required.

Also remember that the roots haven't got any published, that is in the
'.' IPv6 DNS addresses thus running 100% IPv6 is unfortunatly not
possible yet due to these obstacles...

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:31:47 -0400

(Finally back after a prolonged sabbatical - last few months have been
too weird/hectic for me to do much of anything IETF-related)..

> The issue is someone knowing where I am for a week, in advance.

It's amazing how many people, even on security-related mailing lists, are
surprised when this aspect of Out-of-Office replies is pointed out to them..

> Harald's suggestion of releasing the list post-event is an improvement...

I tend to concur here - I think a "The following people attended" list published
after the fact, with optional suppression of contact info and/or affiliation, is
sufficient to address the "openness" issue.  Whether suppression should be
opt-in or opt-out is debatable - I wouldn't have a problem with my e-mail
address and affiliation being listed in that context (even though I do have
issues with it elsewhere), but I can sympathize with those who feel otherwise.

> Maybe I'm using an alias... I could be Jim Fleming :)

Waving my patent-pending kook-o-meter over your email and Jim's produces
different characteristic patterns... so I doubt it. ;)

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 17:19:14 +0200

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:31:47 -0400

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 16:38:56 +0100

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:33:14AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> However, before we say "that is a wonderful idea" (or not), 
> let's remember the substance of several of the "IETF 
> administration" notes and documents that have been circulated in 
> the last several months.  If I understand those materials and 
> ...

I appreciate the IETF's resource issues.

But just block web access to the registration list page until 8th August,
the data is still there, just noone can publicly see it?   That doesn't
take long to do (a few minutes).

If people are suspicious, publish a hash of the list or something.

> having _my_ name and payment status listed -- it provides an 
> easy way for me to check on whether I've registered and paid or 
> whether I let it fall through the cracks.  

Fair point, but you get an email confirmation?

Tim

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 17:32:08 +0200

<SNIP privacy talk>

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 16:38:56 +0100

Tim

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:46:59 -0400

> Tim... Jim... the plot thickens!

<conspiracy>And the ASCII representations of "Tim Chown" and "Jim 
Fleming" can *both* be written as 0s and 1s!
</conspiracy>

-- 
/================================================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]                         |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com                       |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.                      |
|================================================================|
|"What now, Brain?" "We should flee in terror. Yes, that would be|
|the wisest course."                                             |
\================================================================/

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:46:59 -0400

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 20:00:22 +0300 (EEST)

> The software can cope with it without problem mind you.

All the services IETF servers offer are purely client-server based.  
There is no significant technical advantage that I could see in making
them IPv6-enabled, because all such services are very usable with
IPv4.  On the other hand, doing so would just strengthen the illusion
that wide-scale migration of all IPv4 services to IPv4/IPv6 is an
important short-term goal.  

However, IPv6-enabling the IETF services may have _political_
justifications ("eating our own dogfood", etc.), which I'm not
commenting here.

See Keith Moore's excellent write-up:
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/opinions/ipv6/dubious-assumptions.html

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 20:00:22 +0300 (EEST)

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 22:31:46 +0200

> I'm not expert in legal stuff, but I think the European regulations (at least in Spain because I needed to learn this in order to host web sites with any kind of registration or list of people and…

I think you are right, however that does not mean that a 'to use this
service you must agree to having your information published'-rule is
incompatible with EU privacy legislation. I think Haralds proposed
fix is probably fine.

	MVH leifj

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 22:31:46 +0200

MVH leifj

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 10:24:14 +1000

> The issue is someone knowing where I am for a week, in advance.

If your threat model postulates someone knowing enough about you to check
for your IETF registration, then simply knowing when IETF meetings occur gives
them a pretty good start. Testing your email account for 'out of office'
replies gives them on-the-week confirmation. Just watching what you've
been saying on ietf mailing lists leading up to the next scheduled IETF
meeting can confirm their suspicions.

I.e. hiding IETF registrations is hardly likely to impact on the threat offered
to your personal security by anyone knowledgable enough about your behavior
to be checking the IETF's online registrations list in the first place.

But in any case, post-meeting release of the registration list would go
along way to satisfying the goal of knowing "who was there".

cheers,
gja

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 10:24:14 +1000

cheers,
gja

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 11:42:07 +0100

> meeting can confirm their suspicions.

Not everyone attends every IETF.   Not everyone uses email autoreplies.
 
> to be checking the IETF's online registrations list in the first place.

But there's no reason the list should be published in advance.
 
> along way to satisfying the goal of knowing "who was there".

The only issue seems to be people who want to check their *own* registration
status, and who didn't keep a record of their email confirmation.   There
are other ways to solve that.

Tim

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 11:42:07 +0100

Tim

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:33:14 -0400

--On Friday, 21 May, 2004 15:55 +0100 Tim Chown 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> This could be solved by the IETF insisting that consent is
>> required before attendance. I, like John, do not believe it
>> is acceptable for the IETF meetings to be populated by
>> anonymous attendees.
>

Hmm.  Being paranoid about folks who arrive or depart in black 
helicopters (despite being accused in the past of being one of 
that group), post-meeting feels too late to me.   But, other 
than whatever additional burdens it adds for the Secretariat, I 
can see almost no objection to keeping the list confidential 
until Sunday afternoon or early Monday of the meeting week.

However, before we say "that is a wonderful idea" (or not), 
let's remember the substance of several of the "IETF 
administration" notes and documents that have been circulated in 
the last several months.  If I understand those materials and 
discussions correctly, the Secretariat is stretched pretty thin, 
there are no spare dollars floating around, few if any of us are 
anxious to see increased meeting fees, and I gather that almost 
every request for something new involves a decision about what 
doesn't get done instead.  Even when there has been a perception 
of lots of resources, the Secretariat has, for as long as I can 
remember, been flat-out during the few days before and after an 
IETF meeting starts.  So "post Sunday afternoon" is possibly 
unworkable in practice unless it can be turned over to some 
automated process... and I don't know if the database structure 
lends itself to that without considerable work.

Moreover, I've several times noticed a significant advantage of 
having _my_ name and payment status listed -- it provides an 
easy way for me to check on whether I've registered and paid or 
whether I let it fall through the cracks.  So, for purely 
pragmatic reasons, I'd hate to see the advanced registration 
list taken down unless there is an easy and automated way for me 
to inquire as to whether or not I'm correctly registered. Or the 
_advanced_ registration list could be made opt-out until Sunday, 
and then posted with all names listed.  But either probably 
implies more Secretariat work, even if we don't care much about 
the security (authenticity) of the query in the former case.

So, how important is this, really?  For most of the regular 
attendees, someone wanting to know that you will be away for a 
week and when needs only to determine when an IETF meeting is 
being held.  That isn't 100% reliable, of course, but, because 
you can register (and even pay) and then not come (and I gather 
a significant number of people do so every time), neither is the 
current list.

Speaking for myself only, of course.

best,
    john

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 21:21:03 -0500

Dear Harald,

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: respect privacy please !

>
> I don't think a legal requirement for our process can jump over the
laws. Is like if we
> decide that we need to sacrifice one of us in every meeting to sign
the minutes with human
> blood, while we know that killing some one is forbidden.

Given the right choice of sacrificial victims, this could be a
spectacular introduction for the first experiment under
draft-klensin-process-july14-02.txt...

But let's not go there for now, OK?

Spencer

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:33:14 -0400

best,
    john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 10:31:54 -0400

Spencer,

I may be just misunderstanding your sense of humor, but it seems 
to me that any sort of formal experimental process is too 
heavyweight for this, or at least the core issue.  It seems to 
me that what we have is...

	* Jordi noticed a problem and pointed it out.
	
	* Harald indicated that the core issue had been noticed
	before and fixed, but the fix had apparently come
	unglued between the last meeting and this one... without
	anyone but Jordi noticing.
	
	* Some further discussion then suggested that "get
	explicit consent as a condition of registration" was
	probably better, and certainly no worse, than "notifying
	people about what will happen".

I assume that, by now, Harald has told the Secretariat to apply 
a fix.  I hope they aren't sitting on the request or, if they 
are, that we will rapidly see an explanation.

We've also had an almost-separate discussion as to whether it is 
necessary/ desirable to post names at the time of registration 
or whether it can be deferred until just before or just after 
the meeting.  And there has been discussion that having the 
information visible from registration time forward is of 
advantage to some people -- whether checking on one's own 
registrations, checking on organizational ones, or deciding to 
come or not based on the presence or absence of others on the 
list.   We don't appear to have consensus on the subject of 
desirability.  And, on the feasibility part of the question, it 
seems to me that one key question is about what is feasible 
given other priorities and limited resources.  I hope we hear 
from the secretariat and the IESG about that, but, at the 
moment, I'm waiting.

So what is there that seems to justify an experimental 
procedure?  This seems to me to fall much more into the "just do 
it" (or, indeed, "fix screwup") category for the matter of 
consent or notification and into the "no consensus" one for the 
matter of posting time.

     john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 10:31:54 -0400

Spencer,

	

     john

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 11:42:15 -0700

--On 22. mai 2004 10:31 -0400 John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Spencer,
>
> I may be just misunderstanding your sense of humor, but it seems to me
> that any sort of formal experimental process is too heavyweight for this,
> or at least the core issue.  It seems to me that what we have is...
>
> I assume that, by now, Harald has told the Secretariat to apply a fix.  I
> hope they aren't sitting on the request or, if they are, that we will
> rapidly see an explanation.

actually the fix request had gotten lost in the first round - it was never 
applied to the Seoul web pages, and nobody noticed.
Guess what.... it had been deleted along with a bunch of spam...... points 
out the importance of improving the secretariat's spamfiltering abilities, 
as per the announcement on Friday.

The fix has now been applied.

                   Harald

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 11:42:15 -0700

Harald

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 00:27:00 +0200

> important short-term goal.

While the importance of making any specific website or other service 
IPv6-capable is debatable, I certainly believe migrating these to 
dual-stack is an important goal. (I'm not saying short-term, as there 
is no specific deadline, but this doesn't mean waiting forever is a 
good idea.)

The reason for this is very simple: we sorely need operational 
experience. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and all that. The 
good part about making websites v6-capable is that people who use 
IPv6-capable browsers on IPv6-capable systems with IPv6 connectivity 
then get to see how well this works, without undue interference to IPv4 
reachability of the same website.

The idea that it would be possible to start using IPv6 for services 
that can't work well with IPv4 is a mistake, as breaking the 
chicken/egg cycle is much, much harder in this case. If it is 
completely impossible to deliver the service over IPv4 and living 
without it isn't an option, then IPv6 adoption will happen. But guess 
what: there is nothing you can do with IPv6 that you can't also do with 
IPv4. It just takes more effort.

What we need to do is show that providing connectivity using IPv6 is 
actually easier than doing the same using IPv4. This isn't entirely the 
case just yet, but we're getting there. And an important aspect of 
showing that something is easy is simply doing it.

Unfortunately, pretty much everyone seems to assume we'll be running 
dual stack until the cows come home, and obviously running dual stack 
is more work than just running IPv4. A bit more focus on the time when 
we get to remove IPv4 from 90% of the network would be in order.

> http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/opinions/ipv6/dubious-assumptions.html

Sorry, I'm not impressed. I'm not sure whose assumptions Keith tries to 
debunk here, but just replacing them with his isn't much of an 
improvement.

For completeness (not necessarily agreeing with everything, probably 
want to skip the IPv6 introduction): 
http://www.potaroo.net/papers/isoc/2003-01/Waiting.html

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 00:27:00 +0200

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 10:59:03 +1000

Tim Chown wrote:
	[..]
> But there's no reason the list should be published in advance.

Clearly that's a matter of opinion. My sole observation is that the
threat model postulated for yanking the pre-meeting publication seem
insufficiently analysed.

cheers,
gja

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 10:59:03 +1000

Tim Chown wrote:
	[..]

cheers,
gja