On 2018-04-27 04:00, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > 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.
The proposer of more mandatory logging recommendations appears to be from my jurisdiction. Cf https://www.linkedin.com/in/dave-o-reilly-b373226/ One of his main supporters in this e-mailing thread also appears to be working for a company based in my jurisdiction. i would have been slightly less annoyed had this not been the case. For this reason: > This is not an area where anybody in authority gives a fig about what > the IETF says. This is not reflective of my experience. The details are tedious, but RFC6302 in its current form, and even more so in the form proposed by Dave, contains language reflective of objections to the law in my jurisdiction as propagated by law enforcement officials. The irony of that situation does not escape me, but neither does the gravity of the risk that the IETF would aggravate the problem. It sits poorly with me, but a different way of solving it is simply withdrawing RFC6302 all together. best, A > Brian > > ** > https://www.ag.gov.au/NationalSecurity/DataRetention/Pages/Frequentlyaskedquestions.aspx > -- 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
