If privacy is so important to the IETF, why are we all posting to this list
using our real names?
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
can we call the IETF chair "Number One"?
________________________________________
From: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> on behalf of
ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com
<ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com>
Sent: Sunday, 5 April 2015 12:12:20 AM
To: Joe Touch
Cc: Paul Wouters; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: FTP Service Discontinuance Under Consideration; Input Requested
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.
I completely agree with all of this. The IETF has led the way in providing
fully open access to both its standards and standards-in-the-making, and
indeed, there are still plenty of other standards that are difficult
to access.
To me this is one of the IETF's core principles, and I don't think the
"privacy everywhere" priincple comes even close to trumping it.
Ned