Re: Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-01.txt)

[Jan Zorz - Go6 <[e-mail]>]

On 19/02/2019 11:24, Enno Rey wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:08:20AM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Le 19/02/2019 ?? 10:40, Jan Zorz - Go6 a ??crit??:
>>>> On 19/02/2019 02:18, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>>>>> As just said in another list in Spanish, the reference to
>>>>> GERMAN-DP is wrong, in the sense that is not a law or
>>>>> anything similar. German folks can confirm. At least that has
>>>>> been said a few weeks ago by Germans in another list ...
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Interesting. Can any German speaking person on this list
>>>> confirm?
> 
> yes, I can confirm this (lack of legal authority or mandate). 
> Assuming the above reference to another list could point to a thing I
> sent I could copy+paste that if needed (avoiding cross-posting for
> the moment).

Thank you, Enno, appreciated.

> I think I can provide a statement on this (not being a lawyer though,
> but somewhat familiar with the space). From a legal perspective that
> document doesn't have a binding character. Reasons include: - the
> "Datenschutzbeauftragte" (data protection officers) don't have (much)
> legal authority by themselves, but mostly a consulting (e.g. to the
> parliament) role and some "supervisory" tasks. - the committee which
> issued the document ("Konferenz der Datenschutzbeauftragten") by
> itself isn't a legal or even (afaik) an institutional body. - the
> title explicitly says "Hinweise" => here to be best translated (I'd
> say) as "advise".
> 
> tl;dr: that document doesn't have legally binding character.

If that's the case, then a reference should be removed from the I-D.

<joke>
Or even better - we could say that despite all the rumors and FUD - even 
in Germany that's not legally binding and therefore operators can do 
whatever they want with their architecture :)
</joke>

Cheers, Jan