On 2018-04-25 03:22, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Apr 24, 2018, at 7:57 PM, Brian E Carpenter > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Clearly not, but operations people are much more likely to apply a "log >> everything we can store" approach than to be selective in advance. I >> think >> it's privacy law, not IETF BCPs, that will make them think more >> carefully. > > That would be an argument for not doing this work, then. >
It will also be very challenging for lots of smaller operations (I've interacted a lot with Swedish municipalities, some varities of Swedish NGOs) to know what good practises are, when something is *technically necessary* or just *convenient*, when they need to start considering privacy terms (basically one it's convenience rather than technology that's at play). I think these are things that would be helpful if the IETF weeds out. best regards, A >> http://www.waitrose.com/privacynotice is worth a read, I found. It makes >> IP addresses look very uninteresting. > > True. However, one can in principle configure the not to send this > sort of information. IP address and port are unavoidable. > -- Amelia Andersdotter Technical Consultant, Digital Programme ARTICLE19 www.article19.org PGP: 3D5D B6CA B852 B988 055A 6A6F FEF1 C294 B4E8 0B55 _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
