I thought we had already agreed that if it makes sense to log IP address, it makes sense to log source port (ref: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area/current/msg06389.html)?
Recommendations that support that position would be a useful thing that the IETF could say, no? That’s basically what’s in my document. daveor > On 26 Apr 2018, at 16:03, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > On Apr 26, 2018, at 10:50 AM, Dave O'Reilly <r...@daveor.com> 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 Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
