Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 05 June 2014 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A591A028F; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QwraDVAUr0ja; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E50131A0262; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BE781B82A8; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 567D4190064; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (174.62.147.182) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (64.89.228.131) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:26:38 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <5390D2F8.6000801@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 17:26:37 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <1B87ABE4-1CA1-450D-BA96-3018DF39F08D@nominum.com>
References: <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF628724B2C@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <539016BE.3070008@gmx.net> <53906711.5070406@cs.tcd.ie> <5390D2F8.6000801@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
X-Originating-IP: [174.62.147.182]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-privacy/isvuT9P3Myno56JmBuHwsUu1q4Q
Cc: "ietf-privacy@ietf.org" <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>, int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers
X-BeenThere: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Privacy Discussion List <ietf-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 21:26:46 -0000

On Jun 5, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to call you on that. WG adoption is not approval. It's agreement
> to work on a topic. It is not OK to attempt a pocket veto on adoption
> because you don't like the existing content.

WG adoption is a pretty heavy action.   It states that the WG has consensus to work on the document, and weighs heavily in the consensus evaluation during WGLC.   If there are problems with the document, part of the adoption process should be the identification of those flaws and an agreement to address them.   So bringing up those flaws during the adoption process is crucial to the process.

It's also worth noting that the INTAREA working group is a special working group, with an extremely broad charter, which is moderated by the fact that in order for work to be done by the working group, the Internet Area ADs have to approve the work.

So needless to say I at least am watching keenly to see if Stephen's objections are being addressed, and likely won't approve the adoption of the work if they aren't.