Re: [arch-d] Comments on draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-03

["Martin Thomson" <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, May 9, 2019, at 21:09, S Moonesamy wrote:
> I'll illustrate the point as follows: we are talking with each other 
> as we both know where to have the discussion and with whom.  That is 
> not obvious to a person who has not participated in the development 
> of a protocol.  In essence, the document would have to stand on its 
> own if we are interested in document clarity.  There is a thread 
> about an erratum: 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yam/MtuLDdVBbG4U2Schf-xDEwsXAt0 
> which might illustrate that point.

Yeah, that's a good example.  Everyone agrees that the spec is sub-optimal, but we have an overwhelming agreement that fixing it isn't what happens next.

But the conversation happened, and that's not so bad.
 
> I am not keen on using telemetry (excluding the Mozilla case) as one 
> has to do a PIA.  There was a recent case about telemetry: 
> https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2018/11/07/data-protection-impact-assessment-op-microsoft-office

We might have to disagree on that point.  There are very interesting questions about who gets to decide what is OK to collect, and how we manage the concerns of those involved.  Steve Bellovin just gave a great talk on the failure of "notice and consent" to the IAB that I hope we'll be able to get in front of the community; that's clearly not the answer.  But we're veering well off into the weeds when we get there.
 
> There was a comment in that submission about interoperability.

Yes, there was.  Several.