Ted, At this stage, I don’t know if what Stephen said makes sense in the context of Dave’s I-D/RFC6302.
What sort of trade-offs can be added to Dave’s document? Do you have in mind something like: (1) - Warranting that logging may be misused for tracking users? - Logging information can be used for profiling users? - Not logging is also an option? Or (2): - To what extent logging source port numbers create new privacy breaches vs. only source IP address is logged? (2) is already discussed in Dave’s I-D. Cheers, Med De : Ted Lemon [mailto:[email protected]] Envoyé : mardi 24 avril 2018 14:12 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 24, 2018, at 1:58 AM, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: [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. I don't disagree that there is value in talking about requirements, but if the discussion is incomplete, the impression of the reader can be that, for example, there is no tradeoff in logging source ports, and it's just something everybody should do all the time for every connection. My goal in asking you about Stephen's suggestion was to know whether you would object to that scope of work as opposed to the more narrow scope that this document addresses. Whether or not work happens is always chancy, but if we set out with a smaller scope, we can be fairly sure that the additional work will not be done. As far as I'm concerned, if the larger scope of work isn't done, the document will cause more harm than good. My question to you is whether, if the scope were enlarged as Stephen has proposed, you would object to doing that work. I understand your skepticism about it being done, but that's not what I'm asking.
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
