On 22/04/2018 04:24, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hiya, > > I've read this draft and do not support adoption of a > draft with this scope.
I see that this draft started its life as a submission to the Independent Submissions editor: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-daveor-cgn-logging/ The IESG is probably correct about the overlap, but I think I agree with Stephen that the draft is scoped as if port logging is always OK. That's a possible scope for an Independent Submission to choose, but clearly getting IETF consensus on it is another question. However, WG adoption doesn't imply accepting the contents, only the topic. Actually it transforms the authors from independent actors into servants of the WG. So from a formal viewpoint Stephen is wrong: the WG can decide to completely change the scope and viewpoint of the draft, even if the authors disagree. I certainly think a discussion of the downsides is needed, and the cross-WG reviews that Stephen mentions. I do have another comment about adoption. This is an IPv4 technology. Do we really want to spent IETF cycles on it? I'd prefer that we adopt https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-george-ipv6-support-03 . Brian > > 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. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
