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 bringing this to my attention. As I am work, I will not respond any further from my work address. I will create an email alias for this discussion and distribute it. I do welcome the discussion. Peace Scott Sheppard LMTS AT&T ATS IPNSG 404 499 5539 desk 732 861 3383 cell [email protected] email Two messages Authentic power is service - Pope Francis Sillyness is Essential - The Three Stooges Both are important This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property Of the AT&T companies, are confidential, and are intended solely For the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is Addressed. If you are not the one of the named recipients or Otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this Message in error, please notify the sender at (732) 420-0965 and Delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other Use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying Of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. -----Original Message----- From: S Moonesamy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:59 PM To: Suresh Krishnan; Juan-Carlos Zúñiga Cc: [email protected]; Scott Sheppard Subject: RE: [Int-area] Logging Recommendations for Internet-Facing Servers 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. There is a compelling need for Law Enforcement >Agencies and Governments to know some information about traffic as >it relates to criminal and military acts (state sponsored cyber >espionage etc.,). It is up to the civil authorities to define what >is "acceptable reach" for the above agencies actions. It is up to us >as citizens to then hold the civil authorities accountable at least in the US. > >This is far beyond an IETF discussion. The following in an excerpt of a message posted by the IAB Chair to [email protected] in 2013: "1. The IETF is willing to respond to the pervasive surveillance attack? Overwhelming YES. Silence for NO. 2. Pervasive surveillance is an attack, and the IETF needs to adjust our threat model to consider it when developing standards track specifications. Very strong YES. Silence for NO." Some persons raised concerns about those hums. I would not ignore the concerns of those persons or argue that they have to agree to the excerpt quoted above. There was a four-weeks Last Call for RFC 7258. Several persons raised concerns about the document. I would not argue that they have to agree to RFC 7258. I would like to have your opinion about which points (see quoted message) are appropriate or inappropriate for INTAREA discussion. Regards, S. Moonesamy _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
