On May 2, 2018, at 6:02 PM, Dave O'Reilly <[email protected]> wrote: > All of these points are addressed in the current version of the document. > It’s perhaps not put in a way that refers so directly to the regulatory > alternatives but they are discussed. Specifically, an entire section (Section > 3) contains a discussion of the reasons why ISP connection logging is > dismissed as a recommended solution to this problem. IPv6 as an ultimate > solution is also mentioned in the paragraph at the end of Section 1.
While this is true, there's nothing in the document that we haven't discussed on the mailing list. > Your terminology is not very clearly defined, so I’m presuming when you say > pervasive monitoring you mean the interception of the content of > communication. Is that fair? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7258 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7258> Look, I'm sorry to belabor the "lazy" point, but the question isn't "is there a problem." We agree that there is a problem. The question is, "should the IETF work on it."
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
