Hi Joel,
On 2/19/13 11:31 AM, "joel jaeggli" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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. >> I agree with what you are saying. Personally, I don't agree with IETF's view on this, but that's a view against an established consensus and may not mean much. I'm just not sure we/Authors will be able to use this document to drive that change. AD's need o push IAB to re-validate those views, IMO. We are OK to publish this as informational and on a day there is a change, we can get a standards stamp on this. My personal opinion on LI: 1.) Operators have to comply to regulatory requirements; what ever may be the law of the land is. In China, there may be a law to archive every thing one writes for the next 100 years and the operators have to comply to that, else they are not in business. That may be the case in post-9-11 US too. 2.) If that operator is deploying protocols that we define here, we should ensure the LI models are understood and we have standardized solutions for supporting those models and for achieving vendor inter-operability. Its in our interest to have that for promoting the technology that we define here. 3.) All though RFC-2804 lists many points as why IETF should not work on LI, but the real intent is about "privacy rights" and none of the other points truly stand out. LI Requirements may be very local, but they can all be generalized and solutions can be developed here. In the worst case, "Capture every bit and byte that a subject types", how can this be any local requirement ? Regards Sri _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
