On Apr 23, 2018, at 1:32 AM, [email protected] wrote: > - **DOES NOT** define a new behavior: it relies on existing IETF RFCs. > - **DOES NOT** require logging another yet information: again, it relies on > the various schemes discussed in existing RFCs.
If it doesn't define new behavior, why do we need it? Also, some of the documents you cite predate the rather extensive and evolving discussions that the IETF has since had on the issue of privacy. Would you object to a new proposal that incorporated privacy issues as Stephen suggested in his first response on this topic?
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
