How does this change suit you? https://github.com/alex-nicat/ietf-dprive-phase2-requirements/pull/9/commits/7662d32616c4b1bf8da43f782974cf9dcf9aeebc
s/ and to comply with locally relevant law enforcement or regulatory requirements/ and to comply with locally relevant legal requirements or should it change to “locally relevant requirements”? Jason From: dns-privacy <[email protected]> on behalf of Patrick McManus <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 12:20 PM To: DNS Privacy Working Group <[email protected]> Subject: [dns-privacy] draft-lmo-dprive-phase2-requirements-00.txt, wiretapping, and RFC 2804 I appreciate the authors kicking off the effort with this draft that proposes phase 2 requirements. On a couple of occasions the draft makes creates requirements wrt law enforcement compliance. e.g. "comply with locally relevant law enforcement [..] (high priority)".. While RFC 2804 says "The IETF has decided not to consider requirements for wiretapping as part of the process for creating and maintaining IETF standards.". There is clear guidance for avoiding this requirement in any document designed to create an expectation of privacy from end to end, before it is adopted by a WG. -Patrick
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
