Subject: New Item for consideration - Read Acknologement Requirement...

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:54:06 -0800

Folks
The IETF is supposed to be an upright and ethical entity where every 
communication submitted to the IETF is archived, but some WG Managers and 
AD's as well as other IESG staffers do not respond to "READ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT" 
requests for email submitted to them and I think this is a serious issue.

What it seems to mean is that those people are unwilling to formally 
acknowledge that they are receiving communications from someone, and this is 
a violation of the ethical operations of any standards process IMHO.

It (their refusal to acknowledge the receipt of an Email) also provides them 
with a process for denying that a communication occurred and under an 
eDiscovery Order from a US Court this would be a serious issue since it 
document's what I refer to as the neglect and negligence under US Law to 
which the IETF WG's (and this one in particular) apparently asserts it is 
entitled to operate. The problem the IETF faces is that its processes are 
mostly all based on email communications so refusing to acknowledge receipt 
of an email seems a bit much from my perspective.

For that reasons I want to place a "READ ACKNOWLEDGMENT" requirement in the 
BCP78 and BCP79 Document such that:

"the WG Management and IETF Management are required to formally acknowledge 
through 'READ ACKNOWLEDGMENT' messages, that they in fact opened email".

If you folks feel that BCP78/79 isn't the right place for that then please 
do tell where that belongs in IETF documents.

When communicating with Lawyers this is very common and used all the time to 
document electronic service of materials like a FAX receipt when ECF 
(Electronic Court Filing) is done. As to why, the IETF is forcing people to 
use email to submit document's and communications to the IETF so they are 
entitled to a received receipt for that at the very least.

:-)

Todd Glassey

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

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:23:25 +0100

todd glassey wrote:
 
> IESG staffers do not respond to "READ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT" 

It only means that any "3798 to DS" move would run into
serious difficulties before the spam problem is solved.

> those people are unwilling to formally acknowledge that
> they are receiving communications from someone, and 
> this is a violation of the ethical operations of any
> standards process IMHO.

There's no "H" in "a modest proposal".  Nobody is forced
to implement RFC 3987, let alone forced to use it.  If
you have "official" business (appeal, proposed standards
action, etc.) and want it "on public record" just add a 
Cc: to a list with a public archive, or a Cc: iesg@ietf.

> the neglect and negligence under US Law to which the
> IETF WG's (and this one in particular) apparently
> asserts it is entitled to operate.

For "apparently asserts it is entitled to operate" I'm
tempted to check <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AWW>.  

> I want to place a "READ ACKNOWLEDGMENT" requirement
> in the BCP78 and BCP79 Document such that:
 
> "the WG Management and IETF Management are required
>  to formally acknowledge through 'READ ACKNOWLEDGMENT'
>  messages, that they in fact opened email".

I'd volunteer to post a "3798 to historic" before that
flies...  

> If you folks feel that BCP78/79 isn't the right place
> for that then please do tell where that belongs in
> IETF documents.

...it would belong in RFC 2026 or rather in Brian's 
"conflict" draft.  At one point in the appeal procedure
there is a required "attempt of peaceful settlement"
in the form of a mail to the IESG Chair.  But it's not
required that the IESG Chair replies or sends dubious
MDNs, it is also not required that the appellant knows
what an "MDN" is (and how to solicit it - unsolicited
MDNs are spam).

Not funny.  I recall the day when I added a Cc: Brian
because RFC 2026 told me that I'm supposed to try it.

 Frank