[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
At Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:22:42 +1100,
Mark Andrews wrote:
It's is the only unique token on the blue sheets. This
assumes no shared email accounts which is a pretty reasonable
assumption in this case.
I'm not getting why this is important. It's not like we're using it
to key a hash table. As Ole observes, the blue sheets are used primarily
for counting attendance, and I hear, occasionally as proof that someone
actually present. In both of these cases, I think we can probably
tolerate this amount of ambiguity.
I think he means if the sheet is truly used for proof of presence and IPR
awareness then it's not good enough to allow name collisions. But I don't see
how blue sheets would hold any strength anyway for that purpose, because (1)
signing doesn't mean I was there the whole time, and (2) doesn't mean I had
stopped reading emails and was paying attention. And I was not aware that
signing them implies any such thing, either - is this announced when they're
I'm all for removing emails and making blue-sheet-signing go faster, fwiw.
IETF mailing list