Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
We can discourage people communicating with a party that are
under full control of USG, which is why using cloud services
should be discouraged, which is a technical issue.
An open standardization process means that everyone can participate,
including people who work for the government (directly or indirectly).
As long as a standard being developed is within the scope of
the process, yes.
Whether you like what someone is putting forward is a completely
different story but I hope you would at least look at the content before
judging it.
Developing protocols to promote antisocial activities is worse
than developing Ethernet/Wifi protocol in IETF.
So, I believe this attitude against people and companies who may have
had, or still have relationships with governments is counterproductive.
Protection from governments is not very productive, indeed, which
does not mean we shouldn't do it.
On your argument against cloud standardization in the IETF I have two
remarks, namely :
* Cloud services (with whatever definition you use) indeed presents
challenges for privacy and security.
* There is no standardization in the IETF on something like the "cloud".
On the other hand I have to say that almost every protocol we
standardize in the IETF could be used in a cloud service. For example,
many cloud services use HTTP. Should we stop working on HTTP?
For example, the following RFC:
6208 Cloud Data Management Interface (CDMI) Media Types
K. Sankar, A. Jones [ April 2011 ] (TXT = 23187) (Status:
INFORMATIONAL) (Stream: IETF, WG: NON WORKING GROUP)
is a product of IETF to promote cloud service.
Masataka Ohta