On 10/12/2013 02:59, Eliot Lear wrote: > On 12/9/13 1:43 PM, Eric Burger wrote: >> So if the "operational realities" of the operator include a mandate to >> intercept, like with a law like CALEA in the United States, then >> pervasive monitoring is OK? >> > > This does not negate the existing RFCs that speak to that.
My understanding of the debate in Vancouver was that we intend to go one step beyond the RAVEN consensus (RFC 2804). Then, we agreed not to consider wiretapping requirements as part of the standards development process. This time, we agreed to treat pervasive surveillance as an attack, and therefore to try to make protocols resistant to it. Which is completely disjoint from whether operators deploy anti-surveillance measures; that is a matter of national law and not our department. Brian _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
