Hi Brian, The issue discussed in this I-D applies each time you have to share an IPv4 address. This covers IPv4 service continuity mechanism with IPv6-only connectivity such as: NAT64, DS-Lite, MAP-E, MAP-T and lw4o6.
There is IMHO a value in socializing the IETF BCP and help servers/implementation fixing this. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Brian E > Carpenter > Envoyé : dimanche 22 avril 2018 07:31 > À : int-area@ietf.org > Cc : Stephen Farrell > Objet : Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in > Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies > > On 22/04/2018 04:24, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > > Hiya, > > > > I've read this draft and do not support adoption of a > > draft with this scope. > > I see that this draft started its life as a submission to > the Independent Submissions editor: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-daveor-cgn-logging/ > The IESG is probably correct about the overlap, but I think I agree > with Stephen that the draft is scoped as if port logging is always > OK. That's a possible scope for an Independent Submission to > choose, but clearly getting IETF consensus on it is another question. > > However, WG adoption doesn't imply accepting the contents, only > the topic. Actually it transforms the authors from independent actors > into servants of the WG. So from a formal viewpoint Stephen is wrong: > the WG can decide to completely change the scope and viewpoint of the > draft, even if the authors disagree. I certainly think a discussion > of the downsides is needed, and the cross-WG reviews that Stephen > mentions. > > I do have another comment about adoption. This is an IPv4 technology. > Do we really want to spent IETF cycles on it? I'd prefer that we > adopt https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-george-ipv6-support-03 . > > Brian > > > > > I do support consideration of how law enforcement > > investigations can be carried out, but not without a > > similar level of consideration of the real trade-offs > > between assisting law enforcement and commercial or > > other surveillance. At present, the draft is nowhere > > near sufficient in this respect. (Despite saying that > > "Clearly a balance needs to be struck between individual > > right to privacy and law enforcement access to data > > during criminal investigations" the draft is anything > > but balanced in that respect.) > > > > I don't think that this problem is a thing that'd be > > reasonable to try fix after WG adoption, but needs to be > > handled beforehand as it's a fundamental scope issue. > > > > In other words, I believe this draft just has the wrong > > scope, and if adopted would be likely quite controversial > > before publication. In contrast, a draft that really does > > consider the trade-offs related to logging could be quite > > valuable and if it provided a balanced approach might even > > not be controversial. > > > > (FWIW, I might be willing to try help out a bit on a draft > > that did have what I think is an appropriate scope, as I do > > think more appropriate logging is a reasonable goal. But > > before accepting that offer be aware that IMO sometimes > > "more appropriate" ought mean only logging minimal data for > > a very short period and then thoroughly scrubbing all of > > that:-) > > > > Separately, if a document on this topic is to be adopted > > by any IETF WG, I think the adoption call ought be widely > > circulated (esp to saag, and art-area lists) as this is a > > topic that is likely to attract interest from various folks > > in other areas, and it'd be much better to figure out early > > and not late if others also see problems with this draft. > > > > Cheers, > > S. > > > > PS: I'm not subscribed to the int-area list so please do > > cc' me on any follow ups. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Int-area mailing list > > Int-area@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
