Re-, I don't parse well the comments from you, Amelia.
For example, when you say: "The proposer of more mandatory logging recommendations appears" With all due respect, this is a pure fallacy. Dave's document DOES NOT propose anything new to be logged. He is relaying on existing RFCs. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Amelia > Andersdotter > Envoyé : vendredi 27 avril 2018 11:16 > À : Brian E Carpenter; Dave O'Reilly > Cc : [email protected] > Objet : Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in > Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies > > 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/Frequentlyaskedque > stions.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 _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
