[Int-area] draft-andersdotter-intarea-update-to-rfc6302-00 comments

All- New member here but this draft attracted my (and other of my colleagues) attention. For reference, as a career I do investigations and intelligence tracking cybercrime (and election related tomfoolery). My comments are in the light of that.  My first comment is despite the concern of GDPR,

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

On 27/04/2018 21:15, Amelia Andersdotter wrote: > On 2018-04-27 04:00, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > i would have been slightly less annoyed had this not been the case. For > this reason: > >> This is not an area where anybody in authority gives a fig about what >> the IETF says. > > This is

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

And so what is the problem with how, where and when I am proposing the adoption of my document? daveor > On 27 Apr 2018, at 10:36, Amelia Andersdotter wrote: > > On 2018-04-27 11:30, Dave O'Reilly wrote: >>> This is not reflective of my experience. The details are

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

On 2018-04-27 11:30, Dave O'Reilly wrote: >> This is not reflective of my experience. The details are tedious, but >> RFC6302 in its current form, and even more so in the form proposed by >> Dave, contains language reflective of objections to the law in my >> jurisdiction as propagated by law

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

Re-, I don't parse well the comments from you, Amelia. For example, when you say: "The proposer of more mandatory logging recommendations appears" With all due respect, this is a pure fallacy. Dave's document DOES NOT propose anything new to be logged. He is relaying on existing RFCs.

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

Dave, Your affiliation has nothing to do with this discussion. We all are contributing as individuals. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Dave O'Reilly > Envoyé : vendredi 27 avril 2018 11:31 > À : Amelia Andersdotter >

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

On 2018-04-27 04:00, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 27/04/2018 09:09, Amelia Andersdotter wrote: >> On 2018-04-26 17:41, Dave O'Reilly wrote: >>> As I mentioned yesterday, I think you are misrepresenting the scope of the >>> ECJ judgement. >>> >>> >> what it boils down to is that the extensive,

Re: [Int-area] WG adoption call: Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies

> On 26 Apr 2018, at 22:09, Amelia Andersdotter wrote: > > On 2018-04-26 17:41, Dave O'Reilly wrote: >> As I mentioned yesterday, I think you are misrepresenting the scope of the >> ECJ judgement. >> >> > what it boils down to is that the extensive, long-term logging