ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: FTP Service Discontinuance Under Consideration; Input Requested

2015-04-03 20:56:46


On 4/3/2015 5:52 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015, Joe Touch wrote:

So let's say that "network" is run by your government, and they don't
want to do that. You're OK with denying access?

You realise the irony that a large part of this mess is because of
recently discovered government behaviour? :P

On one hand, we have governments that want to track the content.

On the other, we have governments that won't allow content they can't track.

(sometimes they put their hands together)

I don't think that's appropriate. Our documents are not "only for those
who have non-monitored access".

I hope we are steadily moving moving towards a network that comes with
build-in privacy. I am not saying that the IETF needs to be the front
runner in that with their documents, although at some point in time
we should do what we preach.

I don't disagree with "built in" privacy.

I disagree with "forced" privacy and I don't think that any "rough
consensus" document should force that upon any of us (especially one
with zero requirements language).

The key question here is simple:

        - does the RFC Editor have a reason to warrant
        mandatory privacy?

        - should mandatory privacy apply to the whole site,
        or should there be some content it doesn't care is tracked?

IMO, access to I-Ds and RFCs ought to be available even with tracking.

Joe



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