With the permission of Ted, I’m forwarding an off-line email that brings up an important point about the scope of the document, which is relevant for the decision about the adoption call by the WG.
Juan Carlos From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: May 1, 2018 11:43 AM To: Dave O'Reilly <[email protected]> Cc: Stephen Farrell <[email protected]>; Juan Carlos Zuniga <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies On May 1, 2018, at 10:00 AM, Dave O'Reilly <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Chairs (and Ted, in response to his mail): if you feel there are any objections that have not been adequately addressed, I would appreciate an opportunity to address them specifically. Again, Dave, that is not the conversation we are having here. The way that a document is adopted is not "we adopt it unless nobody objects." It is "we see if there is consensus to adopt it, and if it's in scope for the work we are chartered to do, and if both of these are true, and if there is energy in the working group to work on it, then we work on it." The problems you have are: 1. There are quite a few participants here who think this is not a good idea for the IETF to work on 2. It's not clear that the work is in scope for the working group anyway 3. For me at least, this is work that I can't get paid to do, and so I don't want to do it. So if I'm going to participate, I have to be convinced that there's a really serious problem here that is urgent enough that the working group must work on it or there will be some bad outcome. And you haven't made that case at all—it's pretty clear that there are some benefits to doing the work, but there are also some drawbacks, and figuring out the right balance will be a lot of work. Not doing the work is less work. So if you want the working group to work on this, you need to explain to us why it's worth it to us to spend our resources on this, rather than saying "no, let's not do this." "No, let's not do this" is the default, and it's my personal preference, since I'm pretty sure there are other, more valuable things I could do with the time I'd spend trying to get this document to do as little harm as possible. Unfortunately, it's pretty clear to me that if the working group adopts this document, I will have to do that work, so that's why I'm pushing back on adoption. If this seems like a pretty high bar to get over, that's because it is. The IETF should not work on a document just because some IETF participant thinks it's worth working on. The reason you want to do this in the IETF is that there's value to you in the IETF having published the document, and not some other organization, and not you personally. What's the value to the IETF in publishing this document?
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
