hi Stephen, We'll address this problem briefly in the upcoming -ppa draft.
6325 would need a somewhat more detailed treatment on logging of user identifiers to be useful to the problem of reducing the usefulness of such logs for passive surveillance. This is kind of a minefield though, because I can't see a 6325-derived way to obfuscate logs that wouldn't also destroy their utility for debugging. There are also legal requirements in certain jurisdictions for log retention. The problem of distinguishing targeted investigation by a party with authorized access to the retained logs is a Layer 9 problem. Cheers, Brian Stephen Farrell wrote: > Hiya, > > Another of these. We had a brief thread [1] on rfc 6302, and > then Benoit/Brian told me it should really be about rfc 6325, > so I'm not clear what's what, and I don't think we have an > owner who's said they'd try do something here. I would guess > it could be valuable to consider whether the 6325 mechanisms > might be the basis on which to obsolete or update 6302 but > again, if nobody wants to grab it and do work, nothing will > happen. > > So, any takers for this one? > > Thanks, > S. > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/perpass/current/msg00212.html > _______________________________________________ > perpass mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
