ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: OPES charter proposal again.

2001-07-04 21:43:08



On Wednesday, July 04, 2001 @5:06 PM Michael W. Condry wrote:
out of interest, did any other groups need to have
these restrictions?
At 11:03 PM 7/3/2001 -0700, James P. Salsman wrote:
I hope that the latest attempt at the OPES charter is resoundingly
rejected by the IESG.

If it is not, though, I would suggest these three special requirements
for an OPES working group:

This is a most unusual request.  In fact, I have no idea where you are 
coming from.  


1. The Security Considerations section could be required to be placed
at the front of all OPES drafts, following the legend, "This OPES
working group publication is required to have a Security Considerations
section that meets certain requirements [cite BCP].  Readers are
encouraged to confirm for themselves that the Security Considerations
section requirements have been met."


And why would this be?  It is recognized by OPES that security is a 
fundamental issue to be addressed.  Please read the current charter.

2. Another section, "Ethics Considerations," could follow immediatly
thereafter, and explore the ethical implications of the technology
being described, in terms of privacy, disclosure and other terms of
service requirments, and impacts upon common carrier feasability.


OPES services MUST be authorized by the party they are being provided 
for.  How can this not be ethical?

3. A third section, "Legal Considerations," could survey and cite the
laws that could be inadvertently violated by careless implementation
or use of the technology described, such as the U.S.'s Electronics
Communications Privacy Act.


This one is even more puzzling.  OPES services acting in behalf of clients
MUST be authorized by them.  Such a OPES service may in fact improve privacy

from those over aggressive cookie trackers.  

Cheers,
James

Michael W. Condry
Director,  Network Edge Technology

An area many seem to forget about in these diatribes is the Enterprise
(intranets).  These are wholly contained within an Administrative Domain
which
renders most if not all the issues raised above irrelevant.

Sorry for the harsh reply, but this proposal went over my piling on limit.

Gary


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>