On 27/04/2018 09:09, Amelia Andersdotter wrote:
> On 2018-04-26 17:41, Dave O'Reilly wrote:
>> As I mentioned yesterday, I think you are misrepresenting the scope of the
>> ECJ judgement.
>>
>>
> what it boils down to is that the extensive, long-term logging side of
> the argument lost (legally anyway). deal with it, instead of going
> around lobbying SDOs.
In Australia, deal with the fact the extensive, long-term logging side of
the argument won** (long term = 2 years). If you're selling products, that means
support logging and retention, with config options.
This is not an area where anybody in authority gives a fig about what
the IETF says.
Brian
**
https://www.ag.gov.au/NationalSecurity/DataRetention/Pages/Frequentlyaskedquestions.aspx
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
