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 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.
As intarea was the wg that produced RFC6302, any discussions regarding
issues you want to bring up regarding that document are perfectly
appropriate on this mailing list. Please go ahead and continue the
discussion.
Thanks
Suresh
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
