In your previous mail you wrote: Again, stop holding this doc to requirements that gave not been agereed by the IETF as a whole. => I clarified my objection to the nat-reveal document: I really want to get it with a privacy considerations section and I have no technical concerns about it (i.e., even I don't like the methods it describes I share the idea to not leave ISPs invent their own shaky methods).
Based on input from a directorate that is proposed in a doc that is still a draft. => it doesn't matter as soon as we can put a name on it (i.e., what matters is the result, there is no need to fix the process first when we can get it). The privacy considerations IAB doc is misguided IMO. We don't need a required section for every squeaky wheel. => perhaps but the idea is to enforce authors to not ignore the question. It worked well for security which at its time was far to be easy too. So IMHO it is the hard but right way, i.e., without this we can get documents with a real impact on privacy but no argument about it (and I am afraid you are contributing to prove this :-). Regards francis.dup...@fdupont.fr PS: I propose to use our energy to other things... _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
