On Jul 1, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
james woodyatt wrote:
There is nothing about NAT or
dynamic subscriber IP assignment that provides any mitigation
whatsoever of the risks
I'm more than a little concerned by the message that you're sending
here. European legislators have enacted a "E-Privacy Directive"
also dubbed "European Cookie Directive" in order to protect the
privacy of citizens, and you're suggesting here that the IETF
should actively subvert this legislation and similar ongoing
legislative initiatives in the US by assigning static IPv6
addresses to home DSL subscribers so that cookies are completely
obviated and everyone can be trivially tracked based on his
static IP-Address. This means you want to make IPv6 addresses
and all communications with that address direct personally
identifiable information, something for which a "must informed
beforehand", let alone an "opt opt" is technically impossible?
The IETF has several times veered away from the deep water where internet
standards cross paths with regulatory requirements.
We are not legal experts we are not qualified to interpret the statutory
requirements of various nation states, our own or others. We need to be clear
on what is in vs out of scope for IETF work. Focus on what would be percieved
to be in the best interests the users and the network. Nation states will do
whatever they do and sovereign by definition can impose whatever mandate they
find necessary on their network operations and citizens.
Ietf mailing list