SM,
> In the wake of the revelations about surveillance there has been some
> concerns about RFC 6302. I would be grateful if the authors of RFC
> 6302 could review the comments at
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-privacy/current/msg00454.html
> and provide some feedback.
not one
Hi SM,
On 06/17/2014 02:58 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Suresh, Juan-Carlos,
At 07:36 17-06-2014, SHEPPARD, SCOTT wrote:
To close this for now.
I see no compelling reason to change the BCP RFC 6302.
Privacy is important. But equally so is the need to protect our
customers, ourselves and the popu
Hi Scott,
(with Chair hat on)
On 06/17/2014 10:36 AM, SHEPPARD, SCOTT wrote:
Folks
To close this for now.
I see no compelling reason to change the BCP RFC 6302.
Thanks for providing your opinion. I think opinions from operators are
extremely useful and helpful.
Privacy is important. But
S. Moonesamy
I am not going to debate with you. "Pervasive surveillance is an attack". To me
this is a debate : Resolved: Pervasive surveillance is an attack.
I will read and, if needed, comment where appropriate with interest RFC 7258
with a technical not political view.
I thank you for br
On 6/17/2014 11:58 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
...
Some persons raised concerns about those hums.
Hums aren't votes. It might represent those in attendance - but not
everyone attends meetings in general or plenaries in specific.
The key to understanding a BCP is its 2119-language. Because there
w
Hi Suresh, Juan-Carlos,
At 07:36 17-06-2014, SHEPPARD, SCOTT wrote:
To close this for now.
I see no compelling reason to change the BCP RFC 6302.
Privacy is important. But equally so is the need to protect our
customers, ourselves and the population against cyber criminals and
they are legion
Hello
Can you be more specific in your concern?
" there has been some concerns about RFC 6302"
I am willing to have a go but more focused guidance is needed here.
Peace
Scott Sheppard
LMTS AT&T ATS
IPNSG
404 499 5539 desk
732 861 3383 cell
ss6...@att.com email
Two messages
Authentic power
Folks
To close this for now.
I see no compelling reason to change the BCP RFC 6302.
Privacy is important. But equally so is the need to protect our customers,
ourselves and the population against cyber criminals and they are legion. There
is a compelling need for Law Enforcement Agencies an
Hi SM,
RFC6302 should be positioned in its context: i.e., how to meet regulatory
requirements in some countries when address sharing is in use. A discussion on
the background (with a concise discussion on solution flavors and some hints on
time duration to store log data) is available at:
http
