Hi Arturo,
At 03:00 27-06-2013, Arturo Servin wrote:
I read the draft and although I like the idea I have some concerns.
Thanks for taking the time to read the draft. I'll comment below.
Today it is possible to verify that somebody attended to an IETF
meeting. You have to register, pay and collect your badge. However, in
remote participation we do not have mechanisms to verify that somebody
attended to a session.
I am aware of a case where the person attending the IETF meeting is
not the one who's name is on the badge. I don't think that there was
any malice or that it is a problem as that person will not game the system.
Even, if we had a registration similar to the face to face meetings,
it would be difficult to verify that the people attended to a session
remotely (even if you correlated registry vs. jabber/webex logs it would
be difficult to know if it is really the person registred, somebody else
or even a bot). I guess that there would be many ways to game the system.
I do not wish to suggest having registration. The IETF does not
require registration to participate in working group discussions. I
agree that there can be many ways to game the system.
I will quote the second paragraph of the Introduction section of the draft:
"The IETF Trust considers any submission to the IETF intended by the
Contributor for publication as all or part of an Internet-Draft or
RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity
[RFC5378]. Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions
as well as written and electronic communications, made through a
Jabber room."
It would be a serious issue, in my opinion, if the IETF cannot
identify its contributors. There are people who currently contribute
through Jabber. It has never been considered as a problem.
As I said I like the idea and I think that we should try to make it
work. I do not know if all the locks and tools to protect the system
against some sort of abuse should be in the draft or not, but we should
address those (before or in parallel with adopting/working on the draft.)
I agree that you and I should try to make it work. One of the
problems of putting all the details in a document is that we lose the
flexibility to, for example, address some sort of abuse that we did
not specify clearly at the time the document was written. I would
not look for locks and tools to protect the system; I would look for
something else.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy