Hiya,

I've read this draft and do not support adoption of a
draft with this scope.

I do support consideration of how law enforcement
investigations can be carried out, but not without a
similar level of consideration of the real trade-offs
between assisting law enforcement and commercial or
other surveillance. At present, the draft is nowhere
near sufficient in this respect. (Despite saying that
"Clearly a balance needs to be struck between individual
right to privacy and law enforcement access to data
during criminal investigations" the draft is anything
but balanced in that respect.)

I don't think that this problem is a thing that'd be
reasonable to try fix after WG adoption, but needs to be
handled beforehand as it's a fundamental scope issue.

In other words, I believe this draft just has the wrong
scope, and if adopted would be likely quite controversial
before publication. In contrast, a draft that really does
consider the trade-offs related to logging could be quite
valuable and if it provided a balanced approach might even
not be controversial.

(FWIW, I might be willing to try help out a bit on a draft
that did have what I think is an appropriate scope, as I do
think more appropriate logging is a reasonable goal. But
before accepting that offer be aware that IMO sometimes
"more appropriate" ought mean only logging minimal data for
a very short period and then thoroughly scrubbing all of
that:-)

Separately, if a document on this topic is to be adopted
by any IETF WG, I think the adoption call ought be widely
circulated (esp to saag, and art-area lists) as this is a
topic that is likely to attract interest from various folks
in other areas, and it'd be much better to figure out early
and not late if others also see problems with this draft.

Cheers,
S.

PS: I'm not subscribed to the int-area list so please do
cc' me on any follow ups.



Attachment: 0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to