Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:10:12 -0400 (EDT)

Ole guessed
> My understanding is that the blue sheet serves mainly as a record of 
> "who was in the room" which I think is largely used to plan room 
> capacities for the next meeting.

the "blue sheets" are required as part of the basic openness  
process in a standards organization - there is a need to know 
"who is in the room" (see RFC 2418 section 3.1 for the actual
requirement)

the blue sheets become part of the formal record of the standards
process and can be retrieved if needed (e.g. in a lawsuit) but are not
generally made available 

as pointed out by Mark Andrews - email addresses can be useful in 
determining the actual identity of the person who scrawled their 
name on the sheet - so it is an advantage to retain them

I'm trying to understand how the blue sheets contribute in any
significant way to the spam problem - someone whould have to be 
surreptitiously copying  them or quickly writing down the email 
addresses - both could happen but do not seem to be all that 
likely there are far more efficient ways to grab email addresses

so, my question is "is this a problem that needs solving"?

Scott
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 19:11:54 -0500

I thought it was for the same reasons that Scott suggested, to tell
who was in the room and the emails served the purpose for handling
consensus calls on the list, and ensuring any 'nasty' IPR supprises as
well.

John 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Scott O. Bradner
>Sent: 04 April, 2008 03:10
>To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
>
>
>Ole guessed
>the blue sheets become part of the formal record of the 
>standards process and can be retrieved if needed (e.g. in a 
>lawsuit) but are not generally made available 
>
>as pointed out by Mark Andrews - email addresses can be useful 
>in determining the actual identity of the person who scrawled 
>their name on the sheet - so it is an advantage to retain them
>
>significant way to the spam problem - someone whould have to 
>be surreptitiously copying  them or quickly writing down the 
>email addresses - both could happen but do not seem to be all 
>that likely there are far more efficient ways to grab email addresses
>

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:14:52 -0400

> so, my question is "is this a problem that needs solving"?

I would say not.

If people want to harvest our email addresses, they are readily  
available from IETF mail archives, which have
the advantage of actually being machine readable.

I do not see that any change is required in the blue sheets.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:23:11 -0700

> I do not see that any change is required in the blue sheets.

I agree with you though I don't care one way or the other. It does  
seem worth mentioning that for people who believe that emails  
addresses are being harvested off the blue sheets, they could probably  
use an email address that they don't read.

Yours Truly, [email-masked]

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:44:47 -0700

At Thu,  3 Apr 2008 20:10:12 -0400 (EDT),
> so, my question is "is this a problem that needs solving"?

The only reason I've heard is that some claim that people don't
write their names on the blue sheets out of concern over spam.

This actually seems like something we could test pretty easily
by counting room entries and blue sheet entries and comparing
the totals...

-Ekr

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:46:05 -0400 (EDT)

that would test something but I'm not sure you could isolate the spam-fear
factor

Scott

-------------------

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:44:47 -0700
From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

-Ekr

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:52:31 -0700

the process you describe has happend in recent memory at more than
one IETF.  it started w/ folsk scanning the pages of the early bound
copies of IETFF proceedings.

--bill

-- 
--bill

Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 07:08:41 -0400 (EDT)

< it started w/ folsk scanning the pages of the early bound
< copies of IETFF proceedings.

the sheets are no longer included in the proceedings

> one IETF.  

at what scale?  100s of people? 10s?

Scott

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:57:50 -0700

> write their names on the blue sheets out of concern over spam.
This doesn't seem very reasonable to me... if you post on any public
list -- like this one -- your likelihood for harvest is far, far higher. 
Let's
face it, in 2008 trying to have "private" email addresses as a spam defense
strategy is oh so 1998.

          Mike

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:50:08 -0700

> the sheets are no longer included in the proceedings

	right - the point is that this has been a problem 
	for years.

> at what scale?  100s of people? 10s?

	since i don't tend to read other peoples email,
	i can only answer for myself.  

	perhaps a survey might be in order - or, consider
	that it is not a problem (for you) so its not a
	significant problem for anyone else.

> Scott

	that said, i see no real reason to collect the email
	address.  and signing the sheet is strictly voluntary...
	to date.

-- 
--bill

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 14:55:13 -0400 (EDT)

> and signing the sheet is strictly voluntary to date

well, there are no guards with guns watching but someone who
decides to not sign is not being honest about their participation

Scott

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:08:12 -0700

At Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:57:50 -0700,
> face it, in 2008 trying to have "private" email addresses as a spam defense

Oh, I agree.

My only argument here would be that if people actually do this in
significant numbers that accomodating them might be easier than
educating them.

-Ekr

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 15:14:08 -0400

> 	right - the point is that this has been a problem 

How is this a problem if the pages are no longer being included?

Do people seriously think (or fear) they are are getting scanned in
the room?

Or the Secretariat is scanning them and selling them to list brokers
to fund the cookies and soda?  :-)

It seems almost as if this is more of a perception problem than one
where there is an actual issue with e-mails going to spammers given
the current arrangement.

					- Ted

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 21:49:32 +0200

> Do people seriously think (or fear) they are are getting scanned in

Let me observe that an electronic blue sheet system can trivially hide  
one participant's information from all others, making the issue mostly  
moot. (I guess we'll have to keep the actual blue sheets for the two  
people that attend IETF sessions but don't bring a laptop.)
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 14:28:08 -0700

> How is this a problem if the pages are no longer being included?

	the sheets still circulate.  :)

> Do people seriously think (or fear) they are are getting scanned in

	i have emperical evidence of the fact.

> to fund the cookies and soda?  :-)

	that is beyond my paygrade.

> where there is an actual issue with e-mails going to spammers given

	perhaps so.  the question was raised, responses were given
	and judgement has occured.  some think it is a real issue, others
	think its a non-issue and a waste of time.  and perhaps both are
	right in their own narrow pov.  for me, the blue sheet issue 
	first drove me to sign & then not provide an email address. these days
	when I do attend an IETF, I don't sign at all. Of course i don't 
	say much, if anything, so as not to run afoul of the other legal
	strictures placed on IETF participants.

	Now Scott claims this is not honest. I will need to spend some
	time trying to understand why refusing to participate in all
	aspects of a strictly voluntary process is dishonest. 

-- 
--bill

---

From: Hadriel Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 02:02:35 -0400

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Bill Manning
>

Not that I don't believe you, but it baffles my mind as well, so I'm curious how you know it's from blue-sheets rather than IETF signup/registration or mailing lists or anything else?

>         aspects of a strictly voluntary process is dishonest.

Because you could still be eating the cookies. ;)

-hadriel

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:54:59 +0300 (EEST)

Has the purpose and the expectations of the blue sheets been 
established somewhere?

So far I've seen (or sen folks justifying) the following use cases:

1) gauging the number of people in the room (for room size allocations
    for the next meeting)
2) identifying later on whether someone sat in the audience (for IPR
    purposes, not clear to what benefit exactly)
3) identifying previously-unknown people who spoke up in the mike
    and said their name but you weren't sure if you got it right
    (for the minutes). (i.e. identifying who made a Contribution in
    IPR rules sense)
4) identifying a person like 3) who has never posted on the mailing
    list and contacting him/her about the comment (otherwise you
    wouldn't know the email address)
5) contacting participants later on about future activities in the
    area (e.g. BOF list creation).
6) WG chair giving extra advice that if you mark an "X" beside your
    email address, s/he will subscribe you to the mailing list.

1) does not require email addresses, and possibly not even blue 
sheets.  This seems like the typical reason given by the WG chairs for 
the blue sheets ("if you don't sign, we won't get a room next 
time.."). I'll observe that 2) appears to be useless because whether 
or not a name exists is no proof one way or the other.  The critical 
thing here is whether someone made a Contribution (in the IPR sense) 
at the meeting.  So, it's likely necessary to be able to identify 
everyone that speaks up in the mike, but whether or not the blue 
sheets is the right tool to do that is debatable.  3) and 4) seem like 
useful goals, but yet again, this seems an issue of identifying the 
person speaking up in the mike, not who sat in the room.  5) only 
seems necessary with BOFs etc that have not been managed properly (a 
mailing list needs to be set up in advance in any case; if persons are 
not signed up on appropriate lists, mass-mailing them (isn't that 
spamming?) doesn't seem to be a very useful excercise).  I don't know 
how useful 6) is in practise; anyone should be clueful enough to sign 
up on the mailing list herself.

Some more below,

> decides to not sign is not being honest about their participation

I've personally used somewhat looser definition.  I don't bother to 
sign those blue sheets that circulate in WG rooms where I just go (for 
the lack of better place) to read my email and get a bit of idea 
what's going on.  I don't intend to say anything on the mike, I have 
no interest in participating in that WG otherwise and I don't think I 
should be counted when it gets decided what room size is appropriate 
for the WG in the next IETF.  How exactly is it wrong not to sign the 
blue sheet in this case?

Another category is "after WG meeting X ends, go to the room used by 
WG meeting Y to see what's going on there".  At that point, blue 
sheets have already circulated and it seems too much of a bother to 
sign anything anymore.  In this case, you might even say something in 
the mike; whether your name exists on the blue sheet or not doesn't 
guarantee whether you were present or not, and I don't see it 
practical to change the procedures to be any stricter.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf