Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> We can discourage people communicating with a party that are
>> under full control of USG, which is why using cloud services
>> should be discouraged, which is a technical issue.
>
> An open standardization process means that everyone can participate,
> including people who work for the government (directly or indirectly).
As long as a standard being developed is within the scope of
the process, yes.
> Whether you like what someone is putting forward is a completely
> different story but I hope you would at least look at the content before
> judging it.
Developing protocols to promote antisocial activities is worse
than developing Ethernet/Wifi protocol in IETF.
> So, I believe this attitude against people and companies who may have
> had, or still have relationships with governments is counterproductive.
Protection from governments is not very productive, indeed, which
does not mean we shouldn't do it.
> On your argument against cloud standardization in the IETF I have two
> remarks, namely :
>
> * Cloud services (with whatever definition you use) indeed presents
> challenges for privacy and security.
>
> * There is no standardization in the IETF on something like the "cloud".
> On the other hand I have to say that almost every protocol we
> standardize in the IETF could be used in a cloud service. For example,
> many cloud services use HTTP. Should we stop working on HTTP?
For example, the following RFC:
6208 Cloud Data Management Interface (CDMI) Media Types
K. Sankar, A. Jones [ April 2011 ] (TXT = 23187) (Status:
INFORMATIONAL) (Stream: IETF, WG: NON WORKING GROUP)
is a product of IETF to promote cloud service.
Masataka Ohta
