On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > Wrt privacy in general... > > On 07/20/2013 02:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote: >> Any volunteers >> to get in front of the mic lines? > > I'd welcome that discussion. I'd love to see us have a > BCP61-like [1] RFC on the topic of privacy and I also > reckon that that'd help short-cut a number of IETF LCs > and IESG DISCUSSes. (For example the Forwarded HTTP > header and WebFinger both caused extensive discussions.) > > FWIW, my personal preference would be that such a BCP > would attempt to make our work be more privacy friendly > and by default though I'm not quite how how best to try > achieve that though. > > But, even if the outcome wasn't a BCP along the lines > I'd prefer, I think such a beast would still be worth > having if it meant we could avoid a whole lot of these > kinds of similar discussions on individual drafts. > > S. > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp61
I agree completely. Doesn't draft-iab-privacy-considerations do what you want? (And no matter what gets agreed to at a general level, we will still have these discussions about specifics.)
