Re: [Int-area] Logging Recommendations for Internet-Facing Servers

["SHEPPARD, SCOTT" <[e-mail]>]

S. Moonesamy

I am not going to debate with you. "Pervasive surveillance is an attack". To me this is a debate : Resolved: Pervasive surveillance is an attack.

I will read and, if needed, comment where appropriate with interest RFC 7258 with a technical not political view.   

I thank you for bringing this to my attention. 

As I am work, I will not respond any further from my work address. I will create an email alias for this discussion and distribute it. I do welcome the discussion. 

Peace

Scott Sheppard
LMTS AT&T ATS
IPNSG 
404 499 5539 desk
732 861 3383 cell
[e-mail] email

Two messages
Authentic power is service - Pope Francis 
Sillyness is Essential - The Three Stooges
Both are important 

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property
Of the AT&T companies, are confidential, and are intended solely
For the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is 
Addressed. If you are not the one of the named recipients or 
Otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this
Message in error, please notify the sender at [phone] and 
Delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other
Use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying
Of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.




-----Original Message-----
From: S Moonesamy [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:59 PM
To: Suresh Krishnan; Juan-Carlos Zúñiga
Cc: [e-mail]; Scott Sheppard
Subject: RE: [Int-area] Logging Recommendations for Internet-Facing Servers

Hi Suresh, Juan-Carlos,
At 07:36 17-06-2014, SHEPPARD, SCOTT wrote:
>To close this for now.
>
>I see no compelling reason to change the BCP RFC 6302.
>
>Privacy is important. But equally so is the need to protect our 
>customers, ourselves and the population against cyber criminals and 
>they are legion. There is a compelling need for Law Enforcement 
>Agencies and Governments to know some information about traffic as 
>it relates to criminal and military acts (state sponsored cyber 
>espionage etc.,). It is up to the civil authorities to define what 
>is "acceptable reach" for the above agencies actions. It is up to us 
>as citizens to then hold the civil authorities accountable at least in the US.
>
>This is far beyond an IETF discussion.

The following in an excerpt of a message posted by the IAB Chair to 
[e-mail] in 2013:

  "1.  The IETF is willing to respond to the pervasive surveillance attack?

       Overwhelming YES.  Silence for NO.

   2. Pervasive surveillance is an attack, and the IETF needs to 
adjust our threat model
      to consider it when developing standards track specifications.

      Very strong YES.  Silence for NO."

Some persons raised concerns about those hums.  I would not ignore 
the concerns of those persons or argue that they have to agree to the 
excerpt quoted above.  There was a four-weeks Last Call for RFC 
7258.  Several persons raised concerns about the document.  I would 
not argue that they have to agree to RFC 7258.

I would like to have your opinion about which points (see quoted 
message) are appropriate or inappropriate for INTAREA discussion.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy