On 2/19/13 12:03 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 19/02/2013 05:39, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: >> Hi Joel, >> >> I think this is a good point. We had few discussions with Fred Baker as >> well on this aspect. RFC-2804 was written 13 years back, many things >>have >> changed since then. > >The IETF's policy has not changed since then. The arguments we went >through >in 1999/2000 have not changed since then. > >The policy is quite short, but to extract two key points: > >> The IETF has decided not to consider requirements for wiretapping as >> part of the process for creating and maintaining IETF standards. > >> - On the other hand, the IETF believes that mechanisms designed to >> facilitate or enable wiretapping, or methods of using other >> facilities for such purposes, should be openly described, > >An example of the latter is RFC 3924. You can describe a solution, but >the IETF will not standardise it. Its probably time for IETF to re-visit that decision, I say this in all humbleness. But, my goal is not to battle that. We want solution documents that operators can use it as basis when deploying IETF protocols, in this case for SP WIFI. May be as you and Melinda pointed out, documentation in some form on the LI architecture identifying all considerations is some thing that operators can live with Š Regards Sri _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
