On 02/05/18 23:02, Dave O'Reilly wrote: > This is a very emotive topic so I request level-headed consideration > of the context of these revelations,
Please review the long discussion that lead to RFC7258. (That's the one I pointed you at the other day in an off-list discussion.) You may be coming to this topic in an IETF context as a new one, but it is not a new topic here. Asking that we be "level headed" only gives an impression of not having done one's homework. Other than that: - In terms of discussion venues within the IETF - ISTM that there's little point in a document about what applications ought log that isn't discussed on the art-area list (as I pointed out in my original mail on this topic and also mentioned the other day). - Your discussion of PM totally misses the point. A lot of traffic is being stored, it doesn't matter if your preferred LEAs don't have access to that. The question instead is rather whether or not your proposed mechanism makes PM easier/"better" or not for any of whomever you consider bad actors doing PM. And then generalise from that to realise that your (or my) classification of good/bad actors is likely quite different from classifications that many other people may find sensible. (That is not the only question to ponder related to your proposed mechanism, but it is one question.) In summary: I don't consider that the objections I raised originally were answered, nor do recent mails make me any happier about this draft. And yes, I would engage in attempts to openly discuss LEA requirements (*not* mechanisms, requirements) and how those can or cannot be reconciled with today's equally real requirements for openness, security and privacy. I don't actually know of a good IETF venue for that discussion, but I'd certainly bet a beer it is not this list:-) S.
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
