On Apr 26, 2018, at 10:50 AM, Dave O'Reilly <[email protected]> wrote: > No, you’re absolutely right about that. However I do not think that this has > any bearing on the relevance of the recommendations in my document.
I think this is the crux of the disagreement. > In response to this point I refer back to one of my comments yesterday - the > argument you’re making seems to be that as long as repressive regimes exist > then privacy must trump all other considerations. The conclusion of this > argument would seem to be that unless and until we all live in a democratic > utopia then we can take no action to assist law enforcement. I do not except > this. There is middle ground where law enforcement in democratic countries > can be assisted without compromising the privacy of those who need it - I am > of the opinion that my document lives in that middle ground. Yes, but the question is not whether your document is useful in that context, but whether it is useful in the context that the IETF has to consider. Of course it makes sense to write a FIPS document or something that specifies what you are trying to specify. FIPS is specific to the U.S., and would not be applicable in other jurisdictions. The question is, is there something useful that the IETF can say about this without it becoming a basis for arguments for legitimacy in repressive contexts.
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
