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