Hi Ted, Please see inline.
Cheers, Med De : Ted Lemon [mailto:[email protected]] Envoyé : lundi 23 avril 2018 17:55 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN Cc : Stephen Farrell; [email protected] Objet : Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies On Apr 23, 2018, at 1:32 AM, [email protected]<mailto:[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? [Med] I confirm that Dave's I-D does not define a new behavior. It has the merit to discuss issues related to source ports. I do agree this is a minor contribution, but I like it because it is comprehensive. 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. [Med] Please note that we did already have that discussion in the past. Stephen suggested at that time (2014) to have a document (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-privacy/Xy0SZvTH_iU9ktlGyp8SpJZNDdQ), but unless I'm mistaken there is not such document. Would you object to a new proposal that incorporated privacy issues as Stephen suggested in his first response on this topic? [Med] Having a document is always welcome to assess whether what we claim is an issue or not. I recommend reading existing RFCs and consider carefully the language used; some of them was motivated by privacy considerations.
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
