Hi,
On 1/6/14 11:45 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 01/06/2014 08:51 PM, John Curran wrote:
What happens when the IETF makes a decision that particular "public policy"
requirements
are _to be considered_ (perpass), or specifically _not to be considered_
(RFC 2804) in protocol
development?
I think that's a mis-characterisation. IMO both of those are cases
where there are sound technical reasons for the IETF to do, or not
do, work. Yes, those have impacts, but the public policy angle (if
that's the right term) is a side-effect and is not the reason for
the decision.
Why do we state that confidentiality is important to pursue in our
protocols? That is a political decision made by the community. We then
layer on top of that decision technical requirements. IMHO it's a very
important and good political decision. We struggle with such decisions
all the time. That there is a single root is both a technical AND a
political decision. ICANN wouldn't be quite the political focal point
if there were a reasonable technical approach that scaled to the size of
the Internet that allowed for multiple roots. As a community we know
this and have accepted it.
That pervasive surveillance can be used for good or bad reduces the
political element in as much as we're not saying any particular use is
good or bad. That as a matter of IETF policy we may view it on the
whole as a bad thing is itself a political decision because it is
fundamentally tied to confidentiality and privacy (which is even more a
political area than confidentiality).
Nothing is wrong with making political decisions from time to time, when
it's important to do so, in order to see to a growing Internet that
provides benefit to the broader society.
Eliot
ps: I'll have more to say about perpass later today.