IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Mon, 16 June 2014 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC46D1A00B0 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.441
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] 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 LQlFqzK63Ri3 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C95661A00A8 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.141.9]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s5GFOw4f017552 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1402932318; x=1403018718; bh=+BqxW+KUd8j8qkeVpGuYaTpSy/WaWtK+OHs0wxd2Sao=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=3GnzKJVIawersT+IGGTGdFNaEfds5n7MkxrS7wykjDGkradIWN9D3Ym6ZAsPfeBr+ APyov9nm7ID30e7uvRFZUY6yWVa1AhbX4uii1RZusZXzVL31a3/ZRWbXmnKstVLlVZ NdMfWq+VBfZbmrb5D1lM9msQLfPR2pi8bWKfoQVY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1402932318; x=1403018718; i=@elandsys.com; bh=+BqxW+KUd8j8qkeVpGuYaTpSy/WaWtK+OHs0wxd2Sao=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=3eJJjE9IT7fA1QHIq33HLJn8lQUpCZW5oE7ItIuM6BK+3DQs5UDbwlQ8xoUJxuyA5 w0e0DiYND6fmREd+hXTP6zEa/Hm0UQKL+sDUJVknsAhZZG9iRiaAd6pSVl6SLDluhd Y1fkvPu/Wdzrs5Am8EI5EqGaZ/J/uBIwEHhN1+YM=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140616073720.0ab69b38@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:21:44 -0700
To: "SHEPPARD, SCOTT" <ss6667@att.com>, Alain Durand <adurand@juniper.net>, Igor Gashinsky <igor@yahoo-inc.com>, Donn Lee <donn@fb.com>, Scott Sheppard <Scott.Sheppard@att.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <8292A630AF4BC647B64BBD5097388209094628A5@GAALPA1MSGUSRAF.I TServices.sbc.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140616024123.0ba53310@elandnews.com> <8292A630AF4BC647B64BBD5097388209094628A5@GAALPA1MSGUSRAF.ITServices.sbc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/Xb7VzDoSqAxU_EhMW4ZHQzTZcAQ
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Logging Recommendations for Internet-Facing Servers
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:25:55 -0000

Hi Scott,
At 06:49 16-06-2014, SHEPPARD, SCOTT wrote:
>Can you be more specific in your concern?
>" there has been some  concerns about RFC 6302"
>
>I am willing to have a go but more focused guidance is needed here.

There was a thread at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/perpass/current/msg00212.html

My interpretation of the BCP is that it recommends saving information 
so that users can be tracked without taking into consideration the 
privacy implications.  The BCP states that "data-retention policies 
are out of scope for [the] document".  It can be argued that the IETF 
is recommending a best practice which is surveillance-friendly.

My suggestion would be to give some thought to the privacy 
implications, get some (public) discussion about the matter and 
decide about the next steps.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email