On 2/19/13 11:18 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
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.
I don't view that as a battle.
We have a policy, if we want to change it we set out to change it. Until
then however, the present policy applies. we have evidence that it's
fairly broadly supported so you can imagine the IESG as custodians will
apply the policy as it stands.
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
