On Jul 1, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Martin Rex wrote: > james woodyatt wrote: >> >> There is nothing about NAT or >> dynamic subscriber IP assignment that provides any mitigation >> whatsoever of the risks > > I'm more than a little concerned by the message that you're sending > here. European legislators have enacted a "E-Privacy Directive" > also dubbed "European Cookie Directive" in order to protect the > privacy of citizens, and you're suggesting here that the IETF > should actively subvert this legislation and similar ongoing > legislative initiatives in the US by assigning static IPv6 > addresses to home DSL subscribers so that cookies are completely > obviated and everyone can be trivially tracked based on his > static IP-Address. This means you want to make IPv6 addresses > and all communications with that address direct personally > identifiable information, something for which a "must informed > beforehand", let alone an "opt opt" is technically impossible?
The IETF has several times veered away from the deep water where internet standards cross paths with regulatory requirements. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2804 We are not legal experts we are not qualified to interpret the statutory requirements of various nation states, our own or others. We need to be clear on what is in vs out of scope for IETF work. Focus on what would be percieved to be in the best interests the users and the network. Nation states will do whatever they do and sovereign by definition can impose whatever mandate they find necessary on their network operations and citizens. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
